Titus 1:6 'Faithful Children'
- Thread starter KMK
- Start date
- Status
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
It would seem that way from reading the various translations available:
6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.(NIV)
6namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. (NASB)
6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. (ESV)
It's an interesting thought though. I've never actually heard it applied to any candidates for the ministry.
edit:
Would that mean *all* of his children must be believers, or only some?
6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.(NIV)
6namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. (NASB)
6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. (ESV)
It's an interesting thought though. I've never actually heard it applied to any candidates for the ministry.
edit:
Would that mean *all* of his children must be believers, or only some?
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
And would he have to resign if one of his children apostasized?
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
Boy, isn't that the truth .. but wait .. then I wouldn't have my two grandchildren .. I don't want to give them up.
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
Wouldn't it depend on age.
How faithful or how much rioting would it have to be to bar him?
I have always understood this implied while living with him.
What if they are out on their own?
What if they are dead?
Seems it is about his ruling his own household well. Also having a good report in town?
What if a man gets a misdemeanor and has criminal record would that bar him from eldership?
Hope I have not strayed tooo far from the intent here
How faithful or how much rioting would it have to be to bar him?
I have always understood this implied while living with him.
What if they are out on their own?
What if they are dead?
Seems it is about his ruling his own household well. Also having a good report in town?
What if a man gets a misdemeanor and has criminal record would that bar him from eldership?
Hope I have not strayed tooo far from the intent here
Calvin characteristically observes a balance and leaves it somewhat unanswered in his commentaries:
Note how his emphasis, which I think is right, is on how the pastor maintains his family in "chaste and honorable discipline" and that his children are "educated in the sound doctrine of godliness, and in the fear of the Lord", etc.
The focus is on the outward actions of the children while they are under authority of the father. I would not think that it means that adult children who later rebel would disqualify a minister, nor would an obedient, well trained, but not yet converted child.
Note how his emphasis, which I think is right, is on how the pastor maintains his family in "chaste and honorable discipline" and that his children are "educated in the sound doctrine of godliness, and in the fear of the Lord", etc.
The focus is on the outward actions of the children while they are under authority of the father. I would not think that it means that adult children who later rebel would disqualify a minister, nor would an obedient, well trained, but not yet converted child.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
The best way in which to take this passage, in line with Paul's discussion of children in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, is that the neuter accusative plural adjective "pista" when applied to these children is speaking of their obedience. That is certainly part of the range of meaning of that term, a term which does not exclusively refer to belief by any account, and one which falls in line well with the rest of the verse.
The ESV does a particularly horrible job of translating Titus 1:6 by its insertion of "and" in between "believing" and "not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination". There is no conjunction like that in the Greek of the passage. That would require a "kai" or even a "de", but it's just not there. By inserting it, the ESV makes it look like these are two seperate clauses, when in reality the latter part is of one cloth with the former.
The Holman Standard (or even Tyndale, the Geneva, and other earlier versions) get it right by making it one connected idea in which the latter is an elucidation of the former: "having faithful children not accused of wildness or rebellion".
This is a matter of the father's management of the home, and not of his control over their salvation, which you all (being good Calvinists) should be able to affirm, knowing that the time of regeneration can in no way be manipulated by parents, but is solely up to God.
The fixation upon this passage as requiring believing children has been a mainstay of some in the CREC (and dare I say it, even some in the PCA), and is influenced by some unhelpful theology. I don't have it on hand, but if I remember correctly this matter is well discussed in either George Knight's commentary on the Pastoral Epistles in the NIGCT series, or in an essay put out by Alan Strange in the Mid-America Reformed Seminary Journal, where he specifically goes after the use of this passage by Doug Wilson and others holding to a "covenant succession" position. If you look into it, you may even find that it is discussed in both!
The ESV does a particularly horrible job of translating Titus 1:6 by its insertion of "and" in between "believing" and "not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination". There is no conjunction like that in the Greek of the passage. That would require a "kai" or even a "de", but it's just not there. By inserting it, the ESV makes it look like these are two seperate clauses, when in reality the latter part is of one cloth with the former.
The Holman Standard (or even Tyndale, the Geneva, and other earlier versions) get it right by making it one connected idea in which the latter is an elucidation of the former: "having faithful children not accused of wildness or rebellion".
This is a matter of the father's management of the home, and not of his control over their salvation, which you all (being good Calvinists) should be able to affirm, knowing that the time of regeneration can in no way be manipulated by parents, but is solely up to God.
The fixation upon this passage as requiring believing children has been a mainstay of some in the CREC (and dare I say it, even some in the PCA), and is influenced by some unhelpful theology. I don't have it on hand, but if I remember correctly this matter is well discussed in either George Knight's commentary on the Pastoral Epistles in the NIGCT series, or in an essay put out by Alan Strange in the Mid-America Reformed Seminary Journal, where he specifically goes after the use of this passage by Doug Wilson and others holding to a "covenant succession" position. If you look into it, you may even find that it is discussed in both!
I have always taken that passage to mean that we are to look for those men who are faithful in the taking care of their little garden. Those men who are faithful with a little can be trusted with much. If a man will not be faithful in loving his wife, disciplining, discipling and evangelizing his family, he will not be faithful in the church. A fruitful man in the home will be one in the church.
While I would agree that a man has no control over the salvation of his children, but I think that is precisely the point. God is telling us what to look for. He is saying that the man He chooses will be fruitful in his home, look for it.
This may be a little off topic, but I think that today we tend to emphasize education over biblical qualifications. While I do believe that men should be educated I am not sure that we are not cutting God out of the equation.
While I would agree that a man has no control over the salvation of his children, but I think that is precisely the point. God is telling us what to look for. He is saying that the man He chooses will be fruitful in his home, look for it.
This may be a little off topic, but I think that today we tend to emphasize education over biblical qualifications. While I do believe that men should be educated I am not sure that we are not cutting God out of the equation.
Rich Barcellos
Puritan Board Freshman
I found myself miffed at Doug Wilson's treatment of Titus 1:6 in "The Pastor's Kid" published several years ago. DW discusses the translational issues - "having faithful children" v. "having children who believe" - and claims that "it doesn't really change anything." He asks these pertinent questions: "Faithful to what? Faithful to whom?" He then says, "When the translation "faithful children" is urged, it is generally with the thought that a child could be faithful and obedient in external matters, but still be unregenerate." Concerning the use of pistos, he claims that "we never see this dichotomy between true heart condition and external conformity introduced ..." I offer the following comments, which deal with the issues above in order, as an argument for "the other position."
First, the translation "having children who believe" is misleading for several reasons. It leads the reader to believe that two verbal ideas are contained in the text, when in fact, there is only one. There is one participle - "having" - and two nouns pista (faithful) and tekna (children). The noun tekna (children) is the direct object of the participle "having." The noun pista (faithful) functions as an adjectival modifier of "children." If pista were in the participial form, we would naturally translate it "believing." However, it is not in the participial form. There is only one other NT usage of pista in the form used here by Paul (see Acts 13:34 where Luke uses the accusative plural of pistos) and in that instance it would clearly make no sense to translate it "believing."
Second, Would DW claim that all elders children must be regenerate children? This seems to be the conclusion to his statement quoted above which reads: "..., but still be unregenerate." If this be the case, then are we to assume that all fetal children of elders are regenerate or that no man can be an elder until all his children are regenerate? By the way, the text, granting the translation "having children who believe," would not speak of regeneration by the Spirit, but belief in the gospel.
Third, the contrast in Titus 1:6 is between "faithful children" and those "accused of dissipation or insubordination." Paul's contrast is not between believing and unbelieving children. DW's interpretation would read: "having Christian children not accused of being non-Christian children." Certainly, Paul had many easier ways to communicate that idea if he wanted. Instead, Paul's contrast is between children who are faithful to their vocation as children of elders and those who are clearly not. DW might respond: "How can a child of an elder be faithful to his father if he does not believe the gospel?" One might reply: "How can a child of an elder be faithful to his father if he sins at all?" His father would surely teach him never to sin. However, the son would sin. Would this constitute dissipation or insubordination? Do dissipation and insubordination refer to minor infractions or a way of life indicative of excess and riot? I think the latter.
In conclusion, careful exegetical observations and the analogy of Scripture seems to preclude DW's interpretation of this text. The parallel passage in 1 Timothy 3:4 does not demand what DW says Titus 1:6 demands. Assuming DW's interpretation, we would have one standard in Ephesus and another on Crete. How could this be? Both 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6 refer to a man's ability in his domestic oversight and demand that his children be in submission to his rule as a general pattern of life, and that, while under his roof.
First, the translation "having children who believe" is misleading for several reasons. It leads the reader to believe that two verbal ideas are contained in the text, when in fact, there is only one. There is one participle - "having" - and two nouns pista (faithful) and tekna (children). The noun tekna (children) is the direct object of the participle "having." The noun pista (faithful) functions as an adjectival modifier of "children." If pista were in the participial form, we would naturally translate it "believing." However, it is not in the participial form. There is only one other NT usage of pista in the form used here by Paul (see Acts 13:34 where Luke uses the accusative plural of pistos) and in that instance it would clearly make no sense to translate it "believing."
Second, Would DW claim that all elders children must be regenerate children? This seems to be the conclusion to his statement quoted above which reads: "..., but still be unregenerate." If this be the case, then are we to assume that all fetal children of elders are regenerate or that no man can be an elder until all his children are regenerate? By the way, the text, granting the translation "having children who believe," would not speak of regeneration by the Spirit, but belief in the gospel.
Third, the contrast in Titus 1:6 is between "faithful children" and those "accused of dissipation or insubordination." Paul's contrast is not between believing and unbelieving children. DW's interpretation would read: "having Christian children not accused of being non-Christian children." Certainly, Paul had many easier ways to communicate that idea if he wanted. Instead, Paul's contrast is between children who are faithful to their vocation as children of elders and those who are clearly not. DW might respond: "How can a child of an elder be faithful to his father if he does not believe the gospel?" One might reply: "How can a child of an elder be faithful to his father if he sins at all?" His father would surely teach him never to sin. However, the son would sin. Would this constitute dissipation or insubordination? Do dissipation and insubordination refer to minor infractions or a way of life indicative of excess and riot? I think the latter.
In conclusion, careful exegetical observations and the analogy of Scripture seems to preclude DW's interpretation of this text. The parallel passage in 1 Timothy 3:4 does not demand what DW says Titus 1:6 demands. Assuming DW's interpretation, we would have one standard in Ephesus and another on Crete. How could this be? Both 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6 refer to a man's ability in his domestic oversight and demand that his children be in submission to his rule as a general pattern of life, and that, while under his roof.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
I always find it strange that reformed believers, who will concede to the decree of God in all other matters, including salvation, would always devolve into a complaint that a man "has no control" over whether his children are believers or he is divorced because his unfaithful wife walked away from him. Seems that we're willing to accept God's will in some matters, but when it comes to one of position and prestige, we revert to rank synergists. "It's just not fair for God to require a man's children believe for him to hold office." My eye. It is the decree of God.
It would be helpful if you used the quote function so we could know exactly to whom you are referring. Or are you accusing everyone who disagrees with you a 'rank synergist'?
- Status
