Did the Apostle Peter have kids?????

[narnia59]

And for those of us who based our doctrine solely on scripture, that's what's amazing about the bible, when you give it that chance, it speak for itself.

You mean like this group? The same ones who flatly disagree with your interpretation?

Section 1: The Bible
We believe the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired, infallible, and authoritative Word of God (Matthew 5:18; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). In faith we hold the Bible to be inerrant in the original writings, God-breathed, and the complete and final authority for faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). While still using the individual writing styles of the human authors, the Holy Spirit perfectly guided them to ensure they wrote precisely what He wanted written, without error or omission (2 Peter 1:21).

GotQuestions.org Statement of Faith

If I've read one, I've read a hundred statements of faith that indicate the Bible is the sole and final authority for doctrine.

I've had many people make similar statements to yours -- the Bible speaks for itself, our beliefs are Biblical etc.

And they all disagree about many points. This is just another to add to the list; another verse in the same song. It is the thing that returned me to the Catholic church when I seriously began to look elsewhere and study the doctrines of other Christian groups.

If your particular group/denomination/church wishes to make marriage and fatherhood a requirement for elders, that is certainly their perogative.

If you wish to claim that is Biblical and your interpretation is the correct one and all others are wrong, well, you're just one of a multitude of voices singing the same song in perfect disharmony.

You might do a poll here though. It would be interesting. For those who believe the Bible is the sole authority for doctrine, how many believe in older to be an elder one must be married and have children? Single men and husbands who (or their wives) are infertile need not apply?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You mean like this group? The same ones who flatly disagree with your interpretation?

Section 1: The Bible
We believe the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired, infallible, and authoritative Word of God (Matthew 5:18; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). In faith we hold the Bible to be inerrant in the original writings, God-breathed, and the complete and final authority for faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). While still using the individual writing styles of the human authors, the Holy Spirit perfectly guided them to ensure they wrote precisely what He wanted written, without error or omission (2 Peter 1:21).

GotQuestions.org Statement of Faith

If I've read one, I've read a hundred statements of faith that indicate the Bible is the sole and final authority for doctrine.

I've had many people make similar statements to yours -- the Bible speaks for itself, our beliefs are Biblical etc.

And they all disagree about many points. This is just another to add to the list; another verse in the same song. It is the thing that returned me to the Catholic church when I seriously began to look elsewhere and study the doctrines of other Christian groups.

If your particular group/denomination/church wishes to make marriage and fatherhood a requirement for elders, that is certainly their perogative.

If you wish to claim that is Biblical and your interpretation is the correct one and all others are wrong, well, you're just one of a multitude of voices singing the same song in perfect disharmony.

You might do a poll here though. It would be interesting. For those who believe the Bible is the sole authority for doctrine, how many believe in older to be an elder one must be married and have children? Single men and husbands who (or their wives) are infertile need not apply?

I don't care about poll options. I don't care if 1000 people believe one thing or another, what's important is what God says. I am sorry that you have a problem with sole scripture. If you want to refute what I am saying then show me, in this particular context in 1 Timothy 3, it should not be taken literally. Otherwise, the only reason you are mad right now is because I won't believe in your traditional interpretation of this scripture. You can get angry about the way that others interpret scripture and say that it is disharmony but you know what, if you want to prove your point with us, you are going to have to go to scripture and show us. Because if someone is truly leaning on the word of God, and not their understanding, they will be open to whatever God have said.

Being a Bishop is a huge responsibility, they are given the command to shepherd God's sheep and God have said, those who meet the qualifications should be Bishops. A man who is single/married before/infertile/"young in the faith" need not apple---but hey guess what, that has nothing to do with their salvation, the job of Bishop is not for them, oh well, now continue to be a servant of God. The most important thing is to do as God have said.

The other thing I love about scripture is God's uncanny ability to repeat Himself.
Titus 1:5-9

5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.​

 

[narnia59]

I don't care about poll options. I don't care if 1000 people believe one thing or another, what's important is what God says. I am sorry that you have a problem with sole scripture. If you want to refute what I am saying then show me, in this particular context in 1 Timothy 3, it should not be taken literally. Otherwise, the only reason you are mad right now is because I won't believe in your traditional interpretation of this scripture. You can get angry about the way that others interpret scripture and say that it is disharmony but you know what, if you want to prove your point with us, you are going to have to go to scripture and show us. Because if someone is truly leaning on the word of God, and not their understanding, they will be open to whatever God have said.

Being a Bishop is a huge responsibility, they are given the command to shepherd God's sheep and God have said, those who meet the qualifications should be Bishops. A man who is single/married before/infertile/"young in the faith" need not apple---but hey guess what, that has nothing to do with their salvation, the job of Bishop is not for them, oh well, now continue to be a servant of God. The most important thing is to do as God have said.

The other thing I love about scripture is God's uncanny ability to repeat Himself.
Titus 1:5-9

5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
​

You are correct, I do have a problem with 'sola scriptura'. I believe it is quite unscriptural.

You are incorrect about my being mad.

I am not really sure who "us" is I'm supposed to prove a point to. If you mean to those who hold to the Bible being the sole doctrine of faith, if you were all in agreement on these issues, then there would indeed be an "us" to prove a point to.

I provided you with the first site I got when I googled -- gotquestions.org that is a 'sola-scriptura' site, and they provided their reasons using Scripture as to why your interpretation is incorrect.

The second site I got is John MacArthur's view of why you are incorrect. Can't get much more 'sola-scriptura' than him.

He covers many incorrect interpretations (in his view), and yours is one of them.

d) That an elder can't be single
Some people say 1 Timothy 3:2 prohibits single men from serving as elders. But that position is refuted by the fact that Paul, who was an elder (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6), was himself single (1 Cor. 7:7-9).

The Call to Lead the Church--Elders (Part 3) - John MacArhtur


So, please explain what qualifies your interpretation to be correct over either of these? You are all 3 using the Bible as your sole authority. Which of you is 'leaning on your own understanding', and which is 'truly leaning on the word of God'?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You are correct, I do have a problem with 'sola scriptura'. I believe it is quite unscriptural.

You are incorrect about my being mad.

I am not really sure who "us" is I'm supposed to prove a point to. If you mean to those who hold to the Bible being the sole doctrine of faith, if you were all in agreement on these issues, then there would indeed be an "us" to prove a point to.

I provided you with the first site I got when I googled -- gotquestions.org that is a 'sola-scriptura' site, and they provided their reasons using Scripture as to why your interpretation is incorrect.

The second site I got is John MacArthur's view of why you are incorrect. Can't get much more 'sola-scriptura' than him.

He covers many incorrect interpretations (in his view), and yours is one of them.

d) That an elder can't be single
Some people say 1 Timothy 3:2 prohibits single men from serving as elders. But that position is refuted by the fact that Paul, who was an elder (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6), was himself single (1 Cor. 7:7-9).

The Call to Lead the Church--Elders (Part 3) - John MacArhtur


So, please explain what qualifies your interpretation to be correct over either of these? You are all 3 using the Bible as your sole authority. Which of you is 'leaning on your own understanding', and which is 'truly leaning on the word of God'?

You are doing it again. You are presenting other people's views instead of the bible. There are two scripture references that showcase the qualifications for elders--each saying that they must be "husband of one wife". If you don't like the interpretation, then show me a correct interpretation using the bible. If you cannot then I am not the person you need to speak to. I don't understand, why are people so angry with the interpretation of "husbands of one wife"? It's as if people don't want that to be true for some odd reason. If God wants elders to be husbands and have children, why are we fighting against it and going around scripture simply so that verse doesn't mean what it says? How then do we interpret the verse in 1 Tim 3:5 "for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God"?. The man having a wife and children will show if he can rule his own house well, if not, then he need not be trying to take care the church of God.

Bishops have a great responsibility and God have called certain men to it. Simply because others are not qualified does not mean they are not God's children, it just means that the responsibility was not to be laid on them.

 

[narnia59]

You are doing it again. You are presenting other people's views instead of the bible. There are two scripture references that showcase the qualifications for elders--each saying that they must be "husband of one wife". If you don't like the interpretation, then show me a correct interpretation using the bible. If you cannot then I am not the person you need to speak to. I don't understand, why are people so angry with the interpretation of "husbands of one wife"? It's as if people don't want that to be true for some odd reason. If God wants elders to be husbands and have children, why are we fighting against it and going around scripture simply so that verse doesn't mean what it says? How then do we interpret the verse in 1 Tim 3:5 "for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God"?. The man having a wife and children will show if he can rule his own house well, if not, then he need not be trying to take care the church of God.

Bishops have a great responsibility and God have called certain men to it. Simply because others are not qualified does not mean they are not God's children, it just means that the responsibility was not to be laid on them.

I find your accusation of using others views instead of the Bible to be red herring. Both views I presented were interpretations of what those Bible verses mean using the Bible, just as yours is an interpretation of what those Bible verses mean.

But, you do need to answer the question MacArthur raises. How is Paul an elder if he's not married?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I find your accusation of using others views instead of the Bible to be red herring. Both views I presented were interpretations of what those Bible verses mean using the Bible, just as yours is an interpretation of what those Bible verses mean.

But, you do need to answer the question MacArthur raises. How is Paul an elder if he's not married?

I didn't read MacArthur's link because I am going to bible study in about 5 minutes, but if I am not mistaken, Paul was not an elder.


Edit, I went to the link and found the part where he claimed that Paul was an elder:
Read 1 Timothy 4:14 and then Read 2 Timothy 1:6, at no time does 1 Timothy 4:14 tell us that Paul was among the elders who laid their hands on Timothy...and at no time does Paul tell us that he was an elder. We know that the Apostles had the gift of "laying hands", they showed that in Acts. But having the gift of laying hands is not one of the qualifications for being a elder in 1 Tim 3.

 

[narnia59]

I didn't read MacArthur's link because I am going to bible study in about 5 minutes, but if I am not mistaken, Paul was not an elder.

MacArthur cites that in 1 Timothy 4:14, Paul tells Timothy "Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you."

He then points out that Paul refers to this same 'gift' given Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:6 "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands."

Only elders could ordain, and it is quite obvious Paul was one of the elders who lay hands on Timothy.

However, in my brief course through the internet, I found this 'opinion' which may sum it up best:

If the qualifications for leadership in your church are written in such a way that they disqualify Jesus – your qualifications are WRONG!

Have a blessed Bible study.

 

[narnia59]

I didn't read MacArthur's link because I am going to bible study in about 5 minutes, but if I am not mistaken, Paul was not an elder.


Edit, I went to the link and found the part where he claimed that Paul was an elder:
Read 1 Timothy 4:14 and then Read 2 Timothy 1:6, at no time does 1 Timothy 4:14 tell us that Paul was among the elders who laid their hands on Timothy...and at no time does Paul tell us that he was an elder. We know that the Apostles had the gift of "laying hands", they showed that in Acts. But having the gift of laying hands is not one of the qualifications for being a elder in 1 Tim 3.

So let me get this straight -- Paul had the authority to appoint and ordain elders, but was not qualified to be one?

And you believe the Bible lays out instructions for church leadership that would disqualify Paul, and Christ from being church leaders?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Before I read any other post (I have not read anything since I last post), I wanted to apologize for something I said...in my haste, I said something false about scripture. I said that 2 Timothy 1:6, that Paul might have been talking about another time, but as I went to bible study and had 30 minutes to read and ask questions, I went back and read 1 Timothy 1 and I saw this verse 18:
[

This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare.​

This verse helps links 1 Timothy 4:14 in saying

Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on the hands of the eldership.​

And in 2 Tim 1:6 Paul says

Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.​

Now some might say, there, that links Paul as an elder, but it does not. I think it is certain that Paul was among the elders who laid hands on Timothy, but Paul never said he was an elder. Not only did he not meet the qualifications but in
2 Timothy 1:11 he says

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know who I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.​

 

[daydreamergurl15]

So let me get this straight -- Paul had the authority to appoint and ordain elders, but was not qualified to be one?

And you believe the Bible lays out instructions for church leadership that would disqualify Paul, and Christ from being church leaders?

Paul was an apostle, he was a church leader. Christ is the cornerstone of our faith, everything is built on Him. He is God! How God have asked the church to run is how God have asked. Paul not being an elder doesn't mean he was not a church leader, it just meant that he wasn't a "Bishop". He was qualified to appoint elders because He knew the qualifications that God have asked. The Apostles were given their specific commands to govern the church and they did that. Paul was appointed "a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." Christ said in Acts 9:15-16

But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake.​

Paul did exactly what he was called to do...

And if people look at the role of Bishop as something meaning, leadership and power, that's said. Being a bishop is serving the Lord and doing as God have called you to do. It does not make you higher than or greater than another person, it is a role that God have called certain man to fill.

Jesus' purpose on earth was to die for the sins of the world. He is known as the Shepherd and he extended that right to Peter when he told him to "Tend My Sheep". And the Holy Spirit through Paul wrote for us the qualifications of those who were to be elders. We no longer have Apostles and Christ is sitting right next to the Father, these are the qualifications that were being asked so they could be elders in each congregation. To say that "Jesus would not meet the qualifications" is ridiculous, Jesus was not a sinner, therefore He wouldn't need the forgiveness of God. If He was among the candidates, then He would have to repent of His sins making Him NOT qualified to be the Messiah.
***I specifically wanted to say that I don't mean that Christ was not qualified to be an Shepherd when He was on earth, I mean that if Christ meet the qualifications to be an elder under the new testament (remember the new covenant didn't come to be until His death), then who was the sinless One that died for us? An elder are not always sinless, they too needed/need the forgiveness of God.

If you think about it, there were other things that Jesus did not fit the description of like
Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

1 Timothy 3:13 is important

For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.​

 

[Bryan G]

Did the Apostle Peter have kids?????

No, he was a virgin till death and he didn't have any brothers or sisters either that's blasphemy

You don't know God's word, Peter was married.
Mark 1:30 Now Simon's mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Jesus about her.
You can't have a mother-in-law unless you get married...

 

[prodromos]

You don't know God's word, Peter was married.
Mark 1:30 Now Simon's mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Jesus about her.
You can't have a mother-in-law unless you get married...

6 year old thread resurrected because you don't recognise irony?

 

[Mark51]

I do not know of any references that indicate/state that Peter fathered children. However, it seems that he was indeed married.-Mark 1:29-31; 1 Corinthians 9:5.