It's the Lord's Day; let's focus on other things and if folks still think this thread can go anywhere further, take it up on Monday.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife [...] one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1 Timothy 3
What is required of stable and learned Pastors of the word [...] is to apply the principle that Paul is aiming at to the context in which any Church finds itself.
Brother, I am not getting my notion of oikos from modern or ancient culture, but from the words Paul uses in his instructions. There are enough clues in the verses themselves to catch on to Paul's working definition of oikos.
Paul got his understanding of oikos from his culture. If he didn't, his use of the word would have been meaningless to his audience.
So, if Paul were to be transported through time to 21st century America, he would come to a church, be invited to some homes, learn a little bit about how the families operate and, maybe after a few weeks, someone would ask him what he thought about this or that oikos, Paul would look at him with a deeply puzzled expression and say, "Oikos? You mean Mr. Donaldson and his family? They are a nice family and everything, but I never would have thought of them as an oikos. That's crazy!"
No one here said that a natural family isn't an oikos. Rather, as we have noted many times, oikos is much larger than that.
Is it because the ancient understanding of oikos is much larger than the modern conception of household that it would be a somewhat paltry measure of a man to examine his household for evidence of his competence in governance?
I'm stating that you are unlearned in your handling of the text. Just so we're clear.We agree completely, on everything except for the actual principle in question. If I'm understanding you correctly, you see Paul aiming at a "not a novice" principle in regard to governance in general. I see Paul quite clearly aiming at a "not a novice" principle in regard to governance of family. Again, you and others can say I am being overly wooden, but please do not treat me as if I am being contemptably wooden or incorrigibly wooden; as if I am seeing something that I wish was in the text but isn't, or as if I am deliberately shutting my ears to irrefutable proofs against my interpretation from other parts of Scripture. I am not.
I'm stating that you are unlearned in your handling of the text. Just so we're clear.
Your handling of the grammatico-historical use of the word "oikos" is embarrassing. If you were a member of my Presbytery I would consider you unfit for ordination as you don't know how to handle the Greek and understand words in their historical context.
You seem to be incapable of exegeting what others are writing in plain English. I'll say this once as a warning to you, but you either acknowledge what others have stated or you will receive infraction and suspension if you refuse to note what has already been acknowledged.It's embarrassing to think that there is enough correlation between what Paul described as oikos and the households of today, that a presbytery examining a man's care of his wife and children are holding to Paul's requirement regarding the examination of a man's oikos?
You have misrepresented me as averring that a man's wife and children are not to be taken into consideration
My insistence that men be examined on the upright governance of their actual wives and dependents is my best to adhere to what I see as Paul's obvious expectation in these verses. You and others can call it overly wooden, but don't say I am shoehorning a modern conception of oikos where it doesn't belong. That has nothing to do with it.
Where have I done this?
One would have to be completely incapable of wisdom and knowledge to *exclude* how a man manages his wife and children when considering his fitness for the office. It goes without saying that a man's wife and children need to be considered. This thread wasn't started by the "equal and opposite" silliness of some Pastor arguing that we shouldn't examine such. You started a thread making the notion of "oikos" co-extensive with the idea that the only way to judge a man as meeting the qualification is to have a wife and children with which to judge him.The "you and others" portion and following was not said to imply you see no reason to ever examine a man's governance of his wife and children, but that you disagree with my reading that all men presenting themselves for office in the church must be examined on how they care for their own wives and dependents. Surely you see that?
This is not an appropriate analogy since Paul does not say that a minister must have a wife and children. He says he must be a one-woman man, and that his household must be in order. You still have not logically demonstrated that these qualifications entail the command to have a wife and children. You just keep asserting such as "the plain words of the Apostle Paul." Apparently, the words are either not all that plain, or they are that plain and you are the only man on Puritan Board who is intelligent and pious enough to understand and obey them.If Paul, for example, had said it is necessary that a man have type O blood in order to take up office in the church...
I think this absurd question underlines how you handle issues of wisdom so I'll close the thread at this point to memorialize how *not* to handle issues of the application of wisdom in the Scriptures.If Paul, for example, had said it is necessary that a man have type O blood in order to take up office in the church