Timothy and Titus

Title: Timothy and Titus
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Revival Churches > GRC Discussion	Go to subcategory：

Author	Content

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Australia
Register：29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Date Posted：18/09/2011 8:34 AMCopy HTML

All,

The same (misused) scripture verse seems to be coming up a lot lately to discredit those with formal scriptural, theological learning. The old Revivalist favourite 2 Timothy 3 : 7, "Ever learning and never able to come to the full knowledge of the truth" or the common to Revivalists shortened version of "full of head knowledge and no understanding."

I wonder if the (much quoted from in Rev talks) Pastoral Letters might be examined in context on the forum, expecially by those competent in the study of scripture. Far too many people from these groups seem to latch onto a verse here and a verse there heard in talks which pastors have used in proof texting a particular subject.

So, in the process of coming to 2 Timothy 3 : 7 lets begin in 1 Timothy. Because most single or two verse quotes come from leaders in talks a good place to begin would be to examine 1 Timothy 3 : 1 - Qualifications for Overseers - and Deacons. I use the ESV.

"The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer: he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober minded, self controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace , into the snare of the devil.

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but soberminded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife..." etc etc etc.

I am just detailing a few points and hope others might take up more for discussion.

In early church times would an Overseer be the same as today as in a diocesan Bishop or an Oversight of the full international body of a Revivalist group such as Longfield of RCI? Or would scripture be referring to the leader of small groups of early Church Christians like a Parish Minister/Priest or house group leader? Does
Overseer/Bishop of 1 Timothy differ from the positions of Bishop/Overseer as we know it today?

Personal qualities are listed along with one ability, that he must be "able to teach."
What did this entail then and what now? If the Apostles were selected by Jesus himself and taught by Him (the greatest teacher) they having learned scripture from early childhood and being well versed in them, what then should the requirement for teacher be today? Is there more needed than to purely have a gift or be used in the voice gifts of tongues, interpretation and prophesy as in Revivalist groups?

I was listening to a Revivalist pastor's talk on "Being Qualified" and according to the speaker all those who are "Spiritfilled" speaking in tongues are qualified. This man added the old favourite that "after all the Apostles were just simple men" omitting that their qualifications went far beyond anyone elses. What qualifications should we expect of those who aspire to a leadership position today.

"The husband of one wife." Is polygamy in mind here? Some commentaries say "faithful to one wife" while one says "not to be a flirt." Does it outlaw divorce for leaders? If not, they must be faithful to their present/current wife. A few bible versions say "married only once." If a divorce has occurred is it left to the discretion of those selecting to decide? Perhaps divorce was before conversion. Where then is the line drawn. A post of a few months back pointed out a thrice divorced four times married person in a Revivalist leadership position.
NIDNTT gives good information on the subject.

".....may become puffed up with conceit" Barton on ex pastor Frost commented on "the fellowship revolving around the pastor" and "feeling the loss of attention and adulation" strongly on his enforced resignation.

All the Revivalist groups pride themselves on strict adherence to scripture as in ie 1 Timothy 2 : 11 - 12 regarding women not teaching but in subjection, a subject taken very seriously by men of Revival. But what of men in oversight, Deacons etc, do they shape up as qualified leaders able to teach.

God Bless all

Epios

Rank：Noobmeister
Score：421
Posts：13
From：Australia
Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re：Timothy and Titus

Date Posted：18/09/2011 9:22 AMCopy HTML

Hi, Epi.

I briefly touched on 2 Timothy 3:7 in one of my responses recently. A quick reading of that passage is all it takes to identify that it was certain women (i.e. those who were being led astray by false teachers) who were 'always learning but never able to come to knowledge of the truth'. In other words, the passage read in context has nothing whatsoever to do with people studying theology in a formal sense! 

My own belief is that the senior leaders of the various Revivalist sects understand full well that they're basically 'pig-ignorant' when it comes to proper biblical theology. Consequently, these men don't want to risk being caught out by people going to the trouble of learning how to handle Scripture responsibly, hence they forbid them from doing so ('knowledge dispels fear', after all) ;)

In early church times would an Overseer be the same as today as in a diocesan Bishop or an Oversight of the full international body of a Revivalist group such as Longfield of RCI?  'Nope'. Or would scripture be referring to the leader of small groups of early Church Christians like a Parish Minister/Priest or house group leader? 'Yep'.  Does Overseer/Bishop of 1 Timothy differ from the positions of Bishop/Overseer as we know it today? If you're thinking along Catholic lines, then 'yep'. The 'modern' Episcopate is largely a third century development. 'Overseer/Bishop' is equivalent to 'Presbyter/Elder', and is always used in the plural by Paul. In other words, each individual congregation was led by several 'bishops'.

Personal qualities are listed along with one ability, that he must be "able to teach." Absolutely. What did this entail then and what now? It entailed then, what it entails now: the capacity to responsibly and authentically open up Scripture in ways that prepares believers to apply Christ's teachings to their daily lives. If the Apostles were selected by Jesus himself and taught by Him (the greatest teacher) they having learned scripture from early childhood and being well versed in them, what then should the requirement for teacher be today? I think you already know the answer to this question ;) Is there more needed than to purely have a gift or be used in the voice gifts of tongues, interpretation and prophesy as in Revivalist groups? Clearly 'tongues', interpretation of 'tongues' and prophesy have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Teaching is just as much a spiritual gift as is 'tongues'. However, the person who get's 'tongues' wrong doesn't face a 'stricter judgment', only those who get teaching wrong do. This fact gives some indication about their relative worth, eh?

I was listening to a Revivalist pastor's talk on "Being Qualified" and according to the speaker all those who are "Spiritfilled" speaking in tongues are qualified. Was that the Adelaide RF-based 'talk' that took pot-shots at me? :) This man added the old favourite that "after all the Apostles were just simple men"  omitting that their qualifications went far beyond anyone elses. Indeed. But there is quite a world of difference between the adjectives 'simple' and 'ignorant'. Paul, for example, was a formally trained theologian. And John was anything but a theological lightweight. Both men were 'simple'; neither man was 'ignorant'. Now compare these two to every Revivalist pastor you know. What qualifications should we expect of those who aspire to a leadership position today? In addition to those qualifications expressly outlined in the Pastorals, I believe it perfectly reasonable for a congregation to expect that the men and women who lead them know more about the Bible and it's contexts and teachings than do they, and that, at the very least, they can read and interpret Scripture as it was originally written (i.e. in Hebrew and Greek).

Such is probably enough from me, for now.

Blessings,

email: didaktikon@gmail.com

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Australia
Register：29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Re：Timothy and Titus

Date Posted：18/09/2011 1:19 PMCopy HTML

"Was that the Adelaide RF-based 'talk' that took pot-shots at me"

Hi Ian,

Yes, that was it;  both versions of the same talk.

I'd previously listened to the Junia presentation and the other speakers, but not the Adelaide RF talk.  Recently I replayed Junia and followed with the RF speaker and, my goodness, what a difference.  I'd almost forgotten just how sad some of those Rev talks were.   All that useless tomfoolery as fillers in talks was painful to listen to.

I'm so pleased now with the good old sermons fully based on the readings and with no long frilly diversions.

Regards

Epi

Epios
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Australia Register：29/05/2010 5:54 PM	Date Posted：18/09/2011 8:34 AMCopy HTML All, The same (misused) scripture verse seems to be coming up a lot lately to discredit those with formal scriptural, theological learning. The old Revivalist favourite 2 Timothy 3 : 7, "Ever learning and never able to come to the full knowledge of the truth" or the common to Revivalists shortened version of "full of head knowledge and no understanding." I wonder if the (much quoted from in Rev talks) Pastoral Letters might be examined in context on the forum, expecially by those competent in the study of scripture. Far too many people from these groups seem to latch onto a verse here and a verse there heard in talks which pastors have used in proof texting a particular subject. So, in the process of coming to 2 Timothy 3 : 7 lets begin in 1 Timothy. Because most single or two verse quotes come from leaders in talks a good place to begin would be to examine 1 Timothy 3 : 1 - Qualifications for Overseers - and Deacons. I use the ESV. "The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer: he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober minded, self controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace , into the snare of the devil. Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but soberminded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife..." etc etc etc. I am just detailing a few points and hope others might take up more for discussion. In early church times would an Overseer be the same as today as in a diocesan Bishop or an Oversight of the full international body of a Revivalist group such as Longfield of RCI? Or would scripture be referring to the leader of small groups of early Church Christians like a Parish Minister/Priest or house group leader? Does Overseer/Bishop of 1 Timothy differ from the positions of Bishop/Overseer as we know it today? Personal qualities are listed along with one ability, that he must be "able to teach." What did this entail then and what now? If the Apostles were selected by Jesus himself and taught by Him (the greatest teacher) they having learned scripture from early childhood and being well versed in them, what then should the requirement for teacher be today? Is there more needed than to purely have a gift or be used in the voice gifts of tongues, interpretation and prophesy as in Revivalist groups? I was listening to a Revivalist pastor's talk on "Being Qualified" and according to the speaker all those who are "Spiritfilled" speaking in tongues are qualified. This man added the old favourite that "after all the Apostles were just simple men" omitting that their qualifications went far beyond anyone elses. What qualifications should we expect of those who aspire to a leadership position today. "The husband of one wife." Is polygamy in mind here? Some commentaries say "faithful to one wife" while one says "not to be a flirt." Does it outlaw divorce for leaders? If not, they must be faithful to their present/current wife. A few bible versions say "married only once." If a divorce has occurred is it left to the discretion of those selecting to decide? Perhaps divorce was before conversion. Where then is the line drawn. A post of a few months back pointed out a thrice divorced four times married person in a Revivalist leadership position. NIDNTT gives good information on the subject. ".....may become puffed up with conceit" Barton on ex pastor Frost commented on "the fellowship revolving around the pastor" and "feeling the loss of attention and adulation" strongly on his enforced resignation. All the Revivalist groups pride themselves on strict adherence to scripture as in ie 1 Timothy 2 : 11 - 12 regarding women not teaching but in subjection, a subject taken very seriously by men of Revival. But what of men in oversight, Deacons etc, do they shape up as qualified leaders able to teach. God Bless all Epios
Didaktikon	Share to: #1
Rank：Noobmeister Score：421 Posts：13 From：Australia Register：29/08/2007 7:54 AM	Re：Timothy and Titus Date Posted：18/09/2011 9:22 AMCopy HTML Hi, Epi. I briefly touched on 2 Timothy 3:7 in one of my responses recently. A quick reading of that passage is all it takes to identify that it was certain women (i.e. those who were being led astray by false teachers) who were 'always learning but never able to come to knowledge of the truth'. In other words, the passage read in context has nothing whatsoever to do with people studying theology in a formal sense! My own belief is that the senior leaders of the various Revivalist sects understand full well that they're basically 'pig-ignorant' when it comes to proper biblical theology. Consequently, these men don't want to risk being caught out by people going to the trouble of learning how to handle Scripture responsibly, hence they forbid them from doing so ('knowledge dispels fear', after all) ;) In early church times would an Overseer be the same as today as in a diocesan Bishop or an Oversight of the full international body of a Revivalist group such as Longfield of RCI? 'Nope'. Or would scripture be referring to the leader of small groups of early Church Christians like a Parish Minister/Priest or house group leader? 'Yep'. Does Overseer/Bishop of 1 Timothy differ from the positions of Bishop/Overseer as we know it today? If you're thinking along Catholic lines, then 'yep'. The 'modern' Episcopate is largely a third century development. 'Overseer/Bishop' is equivalent to 'Presbyter/Elder', and is always used in the plural by Paul. In other words, each individual congregation was led by several 'bishops'. Personal qualities are listed along with one ability, that he must be "able to teach." Absolutely. What did this entail then and what now? It entailed then, what it entails now: the capacity to responsibly and authentically open up Scripture in ways that prepares believers to apply Christ's teachings to their daily lives. If the Apostles were selected by Jesus himself and taught by Him (the greatest teacher) they having learned scripture from early childhood and being well versed in them, what then should the requirement for teacher be today? I think you already know the answer to this question ;) Is there more needed than to purely have a gift or be used in the voice gifts of tongues, interpretation and prophesy as in Revivalist groups? Clearly 'tongues', interpretation of 'tongues' and prophesy have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Teaching is just as much a spiritual gift as is 'tongues'. However, the person who get's 'tongues' wrong doesn't face a 'stricter judgment', only those who get teaching wrong do. This fact gives some indication about their relative worth, eh? I was listening to a Revivalist pastor's talk on "Being Qualified" and according to the speaker all those who are "Spiritfilled" speaking in tongues are qualified. Was that the Adelaide RF-based 'talk' that took pot-shots at me? :) This man added the old favourite that "after all the Apostles were just simple men" omitting that their qualifications went far beyond anyone elses. Indeed. But there is quite a world of difference between the adjectives 'simple' and 'ignorant'. Paul, for example, was a formally trained theologian. And John was anything but a theological lightweight. Both men were 'simple'; neither man was 'ignorant'. Now compare these two to every Revivalist pastor you know. What qualifications should we expect of those who aspire to a leadership position today? In addition to those qualifications expressly outlined in the Pastorals, I believe it perfectly reasonable for a congregation to expect that the men and women who lead them know more about the Bible and it's contexts and teachings than do they, and that, at the very least, they can read and interpret Scripture as it was originally written (i.e. in Hebrew and Greek). Such is probably enough from me, for now. Blessings, email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Epios	Share to: #2
Rank： Score：0 Posts：0 From：Australia Register：29/05/2010 5:54 PM	Re：Timothy and Titus Date Posted：18/09/2011 1:19 PMCopy HTML "Was that the Adelaide RF-based 'talk' that took pot-shots at me" Hi Ian, Yes, that was it; both versions of the same talk. I'd previously listened to the Junia presentation and the other speakers, but not the Adelaide RF talk. Recently I replayed Junia and followed with the RF speaker and, my goodness, what a difference. I'd almost forgotten just how sad some of those Rev talks were. All that useless tomfoolery as fillers in talks was painful to listen to. I'm so pleased now with the good old sermons fully based on the readings and with no long frilly diversions. Regards Epi