Qualifications

Your quotes make a good case, that is a good case against Paul. Kick that fool out of his apostleship I say!:thumbsup:

 

"1. Paul was a missionary, not a pastor."

No, an apostle I believe. You even mention it yourself.

"2. God gave him a special dispensation, and set him aside to be an Apostle."

Did not know that, where was that "special dispensation" announced.

"3. He states that he did it out of ignorance. He believed he was doing the will of God."

And every sinner out there probably pleads ignorance but they are still guilty of their past life no matter the motivation.

"4. He did have a good reputation of "them from without." He was welcomed in every synagogue that he went to. His credentials went before him. At the time of his conversion it was "those within" that were concerned, until the Lord gave them reassurance, and then Barnabas took him and reassured them that he was called of God."

"I don't think that one can use Paul as an example here. The book of Acts is a book of transition, a book of history. And that was at the beginning of the Church Age."

Oh persecuting Christians gets a pass. Got it. :thumbsup:

"I don't think that one can use Paul as an example here. The book of Acts is a book of transition, a book of history. And that was at the beginning of the Church Age."

Okay, toss out the book of acts if you like but I'd rather keep it. By your logic we could get rid of those pesky gospels too as they were tranistion as well. Well since the Old Testament is a lot of history and not in the church age, might as well can it too. :thumbs:

What you need to find in the text is some indication that this good reputation requires the good report be from the beginning of life to fit the interpretation presented in the OP.:thumbs:

 

From what I see, the verse comes across as "the walk should match the talk" and the man's actions should be of the quality that even outsiders can have nothing to say against him. I just don't see anything regarding the man's former life before conversion.

Paul said many times for those that he wrote to be imitators of him. Paul also said that he was chief among sinners. There is nothing said about Paul being excused from the same criteria.

 

"I think I did that."

Assuming something is not showing fact. Where does the verse say that it speaks of an entire life and not a shorter period of time?

"You are just using Paul as an excuse to get out of the proper interpretation."

Not at all but you are certainly allowed to ASSUME as you wish.

"I don't buy your excuses."

What excuses?

"Why would Paul, who wrote the qualifications, excuse himself?"

Don't know, that is why I think he means other than what you assume.

"He tells us in other Scripture that the Lord forgave him because he did it out of ignorance."

Reference would be nice. Doubt it was due to ignorance in particular but rather grace as in all our cases.

"A drug addict cannot claim that they are taking drugs out of ignorance that it is harmful to their body and that they are rebelling against God and society."

Do not recall mentioning drug adicts.

 

Using the intrepretation presented in the op means that not only Paul was unquaified, but so was Peter, John, and James. Based on the mentioned standard then we would have NO pastor's in our world. God changes lives. A Pastor should be one of those changed lives and his reputation should a testamony of such.

Here are some other commentaries that do not add the life long requirement as referenced in the op.


Walvoord, John F., Zuck, Roy B. - The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures.
3:7. An overseer must also (15) have a good reputation with outsiders (cf. Col. 4:5; 1 Thes. 4:12). Paul’s thought here seems to be that church leaders, as representatives of the congregation, are constantly susceptible to the snares of the devil (cf. 2 Tim. 2:26). Satan likes nothing better than to disgrace God’s work and God’s people by trapping church leaders in sin before a watching world. It is important therefore that overseers achieve and maintain a good reputation before unbelievers.


Wiersbe, Warren W.: The Bible Exposition Commentary
A good testimony outside the church (v. 7). Does he pay his bills? Does he have a good reputation among unsaved people with whom he does business? (see Col. 4:5 and 1 Thes. 4:12)
No pastor ever feels that he is all he ought to be, and his people need to pray for him constantly. It is not easy to serve as a pastor/elder, but it is much easier if your character is all God wants it to be.



MacDonald, William, Farstad, Arthur - Believer's Bible Commentary : Old and New Testaments.
3:7 A bishop is a man who must have a good reputation in the community. Those who are outside refers to unsaved neighbors. Without this good testimony, he becomes subject to the accusations of men and the snare of the devil. The accusations may come from believers and unbelievers alike. The snare of the devil is the trap which Satan lays for those whose lives are not consistent with their profession. Once he has caught men in this trap, he holds them up to ridicule, scorn, and contempt.


Moss, C. Michael: 1, 2 Timothy & Titus
3:7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
Finally Paul concludes by turning to the “reputation” of the elder “with outsiders.” Outsiders may work side by side with a prospective overseer. His demeanor and lifestyle can easily be read by them. His reputation with the world affects the influence of the church for good in the world. One who lacks this favorable testimony from those outside the church “will fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.”



McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary: The Epistles 1 and 2 Timothy/Titus/Philemon
“Them which are without” means those who are outside the church. In other words, if a man has a bad reputation on the outside—if he doesn’t pay his bills, is untrustworthy, or is a liar—he immediately is not a candidate to be an officer in the church. If he is such a man he is really a candidate of the Devil—he would better represent the Devil than he would represent the cause of Christ.



Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Hrsg.): The Pulpit Commentary: 1 Timothy.
Ver. 7.—Good testimony from for a good report of, A.V. that for which, A.V. Good testimony (μαρτυρίαν καλήν, see ch. 5:10). So it is said of Timothy himself that ἐμαρτυρεῖτο, “he was well reported of by the brethren” (Acts 16:2). In accordance with this rule, letters testimonial are required of all persons to be ordained. Note the importance of character in a clergyman (comp. 2 Cor. 6:3). Them that are without (τῶν ἔξωθεν); used in Matt. 23:27; Luke 11:39; 1 Pet. 3:3; Rev. 11:2, etc., of that which is outside or external literally, as the outside of the cup, the outer ornament of the body, the outside of the sepulchre, the outer court of the temple. It is synonymous with the more common form, ἔξω. (For the phrase. “they that are without” (οἱ ἔξω, ), as applied to those who are not members of the Church, see Mark 4:11; John 9:34, 35; 1 Cor. 5:12, 13; Col. 4:5; 4:12.) The opposite is ἔσω, ἔσωθεν, (1 Cor. 5:12; Matt. 23:25, etc.). So exoteric and esoteric, of doctrines intended respectively for the outside world or the inner circle of disciples. Reproach (ὀνειδισμόν); the reproaches and revilings cast upon him by unbelievers (Rom. 15:3; Heb. 10:33; 11:26; 13:13). The verb ὀνειδίζειν, has the same sense (ch. 4:10; Matt. 5:11; Mark 15:32; Luke 6:22; 1 Pet. 4:14), and so in classical Greek. This reproach is further described as the snare of the devil (comp. ch. 6:9; 2 Tim. 2:26), because it is through these revilings that the devil seeks to impair the power of his ministry and frighten him from the exercise of it. The genitive τοῦ διαβόλου, depends only upon παγίδα, not upon ὀνειδισμόν, The καὶ, does not indicate that there are two separate things into which he falls, but adds, as a description of the ὀνειδμός, that it is “a snare of the devil.” The idea in 1 Pet. 5:8 is analogous. There it is by affictions that the devil seeks to devour the disciple who is weak in faith. Those afffictions might well be described as παγίδα τον͂ διαβόλου, “a snare of the devil,” set for weak souls.

 

Based on your assumptions every Pastor should immediately resign.

 

"I find it odd how are newer commentators do not hold as high a standard of holiness as those of a century or so ago. It would be interesting to through the entire list and see if preachers were honest with themselves, how many would step down from the pulpit if they knew the qualification didn't fit."

Or maybe the older men were applying an improper standard in their thinking, it still has not been established from the text that this is a life long standard nor has it been established that the old guys were right and the new guys are wrong. Let us establish what the text says. How does the grammar used relate, what does it tell us?

I would guess the men would definitely step down if they thought they were unqualified just as many men do today.

 

Let's not read too much into the text.
Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders (ESV)
And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (NASB)

First, I see no mention here as to pre-conversion life. Second, None of the qualifications are thus, so why is this one different? Third, how could it be so before conversion? Our filthy rag righteousness would not permit it to be so.

Now, I have scanned these and other commentaries and I believe you're lifting things out of context.

"Who are without the church; that is, of those who are not Christians. This includes, of course, all classes of those who are not Christians—heathens, infidels, Jews, moral men, and scoffers. The idea is, that he must have a fair reputation with them for integrity of character. " (Barnes)

"This appears to be very difficult, that a religious man should have, as witnesses of his integrity, infidels themselves, who are furiously mad to tell lies against us. But the apostle means, that, so far as relates to external behavior, even unbelievers themselves shall be constrained to acknowledge him to be a good man; for, although they groundlessly slander all the children of God, yet they cannot pronounce him to be a wicked man, who leads a good and inoffensive life amongst them." (Calvin)

Gill nor JFB mention anything of pre-conversion, just pre-eldership. I don't think Clarke says this either, though his wording is odd (As usual).

And let us remember the words of A.T. Robertson regarding these qualifications: "There are, of course, two sides to this matter."

That's just a brief scan of what's on the computer I'm using at the moment.

 

By the way, should this qualification be taken literally and universally? Are there any "exceptions" or qualifiers, if you will?

 

You are assuming "former life" to be pre-conversion. I think that to be beyond the bounds of the text. I believe it to be his post-conversion pre-eldership life, as the text seems to indicate and the commentators seem to agree. To assume that an elder's life such defined is only pre-conversion ignores Paul's admonition not to appoint a novice to the eldership (cf 1 Tim 3:6). Same is true of Gill and JFB. A natural reading of them does not produce the meaning you have. Seems more eisegetical, if you will.

I was wondering when the slippery slope would come up. Okay, so let's assume pre-conversion sins are in mind here. We would have to apply it universally, would we not? If so, a man before his conversion must not have been a new convert (v. 6). Hmmm....bit of a strain there, isn't it?
A man must have been able to teach prior to conversion (v.2). Hmmm....
And I suppose the deacons in v. 9 would have to have held the doctrines of the faith in their lost state? The present tense of these character qualities speaks volumes.

Not one single commentary on my shelves refer to these as encompassing pre-conversion sins.

Clarke may be right that God would not call a pedophile who got saved to the ministry. Of course, hopefully they'd be doing prison ministry, but that's another story.

By the by, care to take the bait...I mean, a crack...at this?

 

The Bible declares that the man of God must be skillful in teaching. If he is not, then he has no business in the pulpit. I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for, but there you have it. You don't have to be Spurgeon or Begg or Lloyd-Jones to be skillful at teaching. Then again, maybe the "one note banjo' to whom you refer is just fine. He's apt to teach...but his lesson never changes :tongue3:

If rightly interpreted and applied, no. That goes to my point, though. Far too many interpret these and apply these incorrectly. More to come.....

Here's where subjectivity gets a lot of pastor search committees or watching eyes in trouble. They set this preconceived notion (often, foreign to the Word of God) as to what the minister's family should be. Any slight deviation and the minister is an albatross. That said, I can remember preaching a revival at a church where the pastor's 5 and 3 year old used the sanctuary as their playground. Ripping hymnals, dancing on the piano benches. Does this guy have his children in grave subjection? Hardly. Neither did another man who hosted me for revival meetings. His children (now adult) would not speak to him because he spent more time at the flower committee meetings than he did at home nurturing his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. But I digress.

Perhaps there is some subjectivity involved cultrurally or contextually. Maybe that's why there has been a disagreement as to the meaning of the andra monos gunaikis (man of one woman, husband of one wife).

Okay, I'll let the cat out of the bag. We often take these standards prima facie without thinking of, as AT Robertson put it, the other side of the coin or other side of the story.

I can name a preacher who has a very bad reputation with the general population. People in his city speak daily of how they detest this man and deem him unfit to be a man of God. I can think of another man in a small town who is very poorly thought of and is ridiculed by the public. They, too, say he is unfit to be a man of God. So I ask you: given this, are these men disqualified because of the opinion of those outside the family of the faith?