Titus 1:6 meaning

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimthejanitor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jimthejanitor

Guest
What is the meaning of “blameless” and “having one wife”? During a discussion with some non-denominational friends, they said ‘one wife’ meant not being divorced. However, one gentleman who is an ‘elder’ in his church (and divorced) claimed it was meaning polygamy. I honestly don’t see the divorce or polygamy interpretation. A Baptist friend told me that ‘having one wife’ proves that priests should be married. I’m clueless.

“Blameless” went beyond what I thought during the discussion. The tone was, since nobody can be perfect, it must really mean someone who is trying hard to be the best they can be, and someone who can explain their actions if they are blamed.

Are you able to help me out? I meet with them soon.
Thanks,
Jim Howe
 
Verses 9 through 11 and 16 show why Paul is making the statement he is. His bishops need to be as far beyond reproach as possible, able to teach the truth and correct error (v. 9), because those who are rebellious and hypocritical teach falsehoods and upset families (v. 11). In verse 16, Paul clearly states that he’s trying to avoid hypocrites in the ministry. The “one wife” requirement thus tries to avoid divorced men (who have committed adultery, according to Christ, as in Mt 19:9, etc.) and polygamists, because they set poor examples for others.

As for your Baptist friends: Paul himself endorses celibacy in 1 Cor 7, especially verses 8 and 32. 1 Cor 7:32 is especially relevant because Paul points out that the celibate may devote all their time to the work of the Lord (which is why we have the discipline of celibacy in the first place!). You might also point out Mt 19:12, where Jesus specifically approves of people who have given up sexual relations for the sake of the Kingdom.

Hope that helps.
 
jimthejanitor said:
What is the meaning of “blameless” and “having one wife”? During a discussion with some non-denominational friends, they said ‘one wife’ meant not being divorced. However, one gentleman who is an ‘elder’ in his church (and divorced) claimed it was meaning polygamy. I honestly don’t see the divorce or polygamy interpretation. A Baptist friend told me that ‘having one wife’ proves that priests should be married. I’m clueless.

“Blameless” went beyond what I thought during the discussion. The tone was, since nobody can be perfect, it must really mean someone who is trying hard to be the best they can be, and someone who can explain their actions if they are blamed.

Are you able to help me out? I meet with them soon.
Thanks,
Jim Howe
Click to expand...
D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 6. Without crime. See the like qualifications, 1 Timothy iii. (Witham) — These words if taken in their strictest meaning, do not seem to have all the force St. Paul meant them to have. For it is not sufficient that a bishop be free from great crimes; he ought, moreover to lead such a life as to draw others by his example to the practice of virtue. (Calmet) — If we consult all antiquity we shall find, that if in the early infancy of the Church some who had been once married were ordained to the ministry, we shall find that after their ordination they abstained from the use of marriage. See St. Epiphanius, lib. iii. cont. hær. and lib. iii. hæres. 59.
 
My understanding is that in some of the Eastern Rites (under the Pope) where married priests are allowed, the man must be married prior to ordination. Once ordained he is not free to marry again should his wife die. Also, seem to recall hearing that only a celibate priest (never married) could be ordained a bishop.

Again, I’m going on memory of something I heard. Will do a little googling to see if I can verify.

Nita
 
Point well made GJ. Short & sweet.

Jim,

I would think that your baptist friend, being a bible alone people, would worry more about why his church does not have bishops or priests as scripture states, then he can move on to the next hurdle.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )
 
THANK YOU ALL FOR REPLYING!
to sum it up:
:in our catholic faith, if you are divorced and remarried you would be committing adultery and would not be able to be a decan etc. as per exactly what the bible says. however, if you received an annulment, you would be good to go. pretty much ‘state laws vs church laws’.

:for our protestants friends: since they incorrectly interpret the bible, they assume they are ok with a divorce…and life goes on.

:regarding; blameless/without crime; what is meant is they are looking for the “cream of the crop” so to speak. knowing no one is perfect, they still strive for the best.

Static: i agree with you. my southern baptist friend was once a catholic. all his life really. after have 11 children he decided there were too many rules in the Catholic Religion and became a Southern Baptist Minister. no formal training…i’ve had him over for dinner a number of times and i have to say the scales over his eyes are many!
again, thank you all for replying!!!
Jim
 
Static said:
Point well made GJ. Short & sweet.

Jim,

I would think that your baptist friend, being a bible alone people, would worry more about why his church does not have bishops or priests as scripture states, then he can move on to the next hurdle.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )
Click to expand...
Precisely. Having one wife meant that widowed bishops could not re-marry. Protestants insert their own agenda into the text because they have abolished the priesthood and celibacy is foreign to their man-made systems, contrary to numerous other passages of the bible that recommend this discipline.
 
Protestants insert their own agenda into the text because they have abolished the priesthood and celibacy is foreign to their man-made systems, contrary to numerous other passages of the bible that recommend this discipline.

On that point, I wonder how they would digest Rev 14:4 ?

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )
 
i agree with you. my southern baptist friend was once a catholic. all his life really. after have 11 children he decided there were too many rules in the Catholic Religion and became a Southern Baptist Minister. no formal training…i’ve had him over for dinner a number of times and i have to say the scales over his eyes are many!

Hey Jim,
Code: 
There is no money in being a catholic. I'm guessing your friend is pretty well off unless he hasn't got Romans & Galatians down to a tee yet. About everyone I come in contact with use to be catholic at one point in their life. To me, they still are, just temporarily in a fallen state. Good luck with your dialogue. Your hands are full. People who leave the church not knowing anything about it all of a sudden know everything about it in just a short 3 mos. after they leave. If any of them had believed in the Real Presence, they would of never left no matter what obstacles stood in their way. If you need help with anything don't hesitate about asking, there are many knowledgeable folks who know their faith & will be glad to lend a helping hand. Then there are ones like me that you have to deal with every once and a while too.
I wonder if your friend knows who the founder of his church is ?

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )
 
Static; they are not well off, but he has never been one for a lot of things anyway. they have a small farm and all the kids are home schooled. though, the kids do a lot of farm work as part of their schooling. they are actually a great family.

as for who their founder is, i know when i went into ‘crisis’ mode several months ago trying to decide what church to belong to, i did research on the SB (Southern Baptist). while all other religions were created by men, or a man, the SB’s were a break off in about 1845 ish. seems they believed in slavery and other baptists at the time wanted it gone. so, the broke off and started the SB.

sadly, when i was in his church, they needed some computer work done. i got my son involved and he and his wife are now baptized in the SB church. while i’m glad to see my sons family worshiping together, it is very hard to watch and listen to the lies. i was at their baptism. my friend came to me after wards and apologized for anything he had said that my have offended me. meaning, my catholic beliefs. he does tend to go on and while not saying “Catholics”, puts down the religion with little phrases and jabs. i know he is speaking about Catholics.

after he apologized to me, i told him i wasn’t offended and we both understand that we have different understandings of the bible. while i understand his is infaliable, i was not offended. all i got was a stare.

i’m glad i posted on this site. i deal with many non-denominational and protestants, all of whom have the wrong idea of the catholic church. i attend a weekly ‘bible study’ with a group from a non denominational church. it’s not a real bible study, it comes from Focus on the Family called Project Truth. it attempts to show us how we are caught up in worldly things vs the bible. for example, “everyone is a winner” theme. i have sent them some great articles from Ignatius.com(i think that is the site) on that. the person who organized the meetings knows i am catholic and has learned a lot from me. i’m not sure others know i’m catholic. while Project Truth is “non denominational”, the attitudes of the folks attending is squewd by their wrong interruption of the bible. before i speak up, i want to be sure i know what i’m talking about.
i think i should probably send a separate email to you or is it ok to continue on the forum this dialog?
either way, i am blessed and happy i signed up in this site. i think i will pass it along to the others at our meeting this week. 😃
 
Hey Jim,
Code: 
  I'm about ready to crash and I mean hit the floor type of crash, so I won't be able to touch on all that you said, but anyway, the founder of the baptist church is John Smyth in the year 1607, not Jesus Christ. Unless his tomb is empty and he has been resurrected I would ask why they are following a mere man as opposed to the Church that Christ established for us. The funny thing is that they hold fast to sola scriptura & mostly use the KJV. The KJV didn't come about until 1611, 4 years later. I wonder what bible they used &  why did they give it up so fast for the KJV  ? Anyone who baptizes their children, as long as it is the right formula ( words & water )  have been baptized into the Catholic Church whether it was done at the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, whatever, doesn't matter.
I haven’t looked but, there might be a prayer list you can put this family on & I will pray for them as well as your family in hope that they will genuinely seek the Truth and come back home soon
Code: 
Watch out for non-catholic bible studies. There might be one on here you can check on, don't know. Try to stick with catholic studies if at all possible. Stay on this forum, you will learn a lot more than dumb 'ol me. Sorry to be so rushed. I am going to try and shut down now. Didn't realize the time.
May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )
 
I think the one wife actually means not remarried after being widowed, as no Catholics would be allowed to remarry after divorce, though the Eastern Orthodox Church who allow divorce (‘only’ 3 marriages though) don’t allow people remarried after divorce to be ordained (though divorced people can be ordained bishop- in fact the Patriarch of Moscow is divorced)
 
My experience has been that “non-denominational” means anti-Catholic.
 
Kepha1, would this be on another forum? anyway, i would agree with you for the most part. my experiences though have been the southern baptists are the biggest anti catholics and REALLY go out of their way to put us down. the non denominationals that i know are at least open to learning about catholics. i do have to admit, we must put some of the blame on ourselves…the catholics who aren’t really catholics and/or rather than defend the faith make up incorrect answers.
my friends i work with who are non denominational weren’t really anti catholic, the believed it was incorrect in its teaching therefore, catholics weren’t saved, so their mission is/was to save these lost soles. these friends were full of love and comfort for the catholics, as opposed to how we’ve been treated by southern baptists. turns out, most of what info they had come from catholics who didn’t understand their faith, or didn’t want to defend their faith. while they still refuse to see that sola scriptura is NOT biblical they do see that sola fide is maybe worth talking about. they just haven’t made the jump from saying that ;yes, if you are saved you must do good works, to finishing that off by saying; if you don’t do good work you won’t be saved. they completely accept my argument against sola fide, but i’m guessing their long tradition is holding them back.

i’ve even proven that in James MacDonald’s book ‘God wrote a book’ he incorrectly depicts the catholic church. i took it a step further to point out that is he the devil in sheeps clothing? they prefer to believe he made the statements out of ignorance. of course than i get into the whole ignorance thing. i believe our issues are 2 fold: 1) too many catholics don’t know, or are unwilling to believe. rather than research they make up answers that sound right and might be based partly on ‘myth’. 2) the ‘myths’ (untruths) about the catholic faith were never dealt with quickly enough or with force enough to show them we know our stuff. an easy example is “mary worship”. so easy to debunk, but it still exists. rather than the history channel putting together something about “what catholics really believe” why don’t we put it together and sell it to them to air.???
 
Static said:
Protestants insert their own agenda into the text because they have abolished the priesthood and celibacy is foreign to their man-made systems, contrary to numerous other passages of the bible that recommend this discipline.( 1 Tim 1:15 )
Click to expand...
AMEN. :clapping: Celibacy is foreign in my former evangelical world. As a single mom, I needed to find a Church where I would be encouraged in my celibacy, not ostracized for it. Why do you think they don’t believe Mary was “ever Virgin?” They can’t comprehend a life of celibacy.

I even had divorced and remarried ministers. I still think it would be interesting to hear from their former wives. :cool:
 
graceandglory said:
AMEN. :clapping: Celibacy is foreign in my former evangelical world. As a single mom, I needed to find a Church where I would be encouraged in my celibacy, not ostracized for it. Why do you think they don’t believe Mary was “ever Virgin?” They can’t comprehend a life of celibacy.

I even had divorced and remarried ministers. I still think it would be interesting to hear from their former wives. :cool:
Click to expand...
you never met my mom…a french candian catholic, she would have had you married off…:whacky:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top