16 Dr. Willingham,

I am still looking, however, for your comment on the husband of one wife. Did I miss it somewhere.

Regarding “husband of one wife” and “keeping his children under control”, these are conditions that are principle based. They are “IF” statements. So it would be interpreted as IF one is married, that one is to be faithful to their one-flesh spouse (so that the person is not to be a polygamist) and IF the person has children, that one is to keep his children under control.

The principle that underlies the qualifications for an overseer is faithfulness in sexual matters so that the church is overseen by those who will live by a high standard. The principle is also faithfulness and ability in managing those under our care. IF one has children, we would look to how their children are cared for and managed.

If we can see that the clauses are principle based, then we can understand that the principle does not keep out unmarried men nor does it keep out married men without children and lastly it does not keep out women. All of these groups are able to be faithful managers of their territory of influence. The principle however does rule out polygamists since the ideal of one man and one woman is broken with polygamy and the principle also rules out those who are unfaithful in the area of sexual purity no matter what the marital status is. The fact that this passage is looked on as a principle whenever single men are concerned and whenever married men who do not have children are concerned proves that we must also keep it at the level of principle when women are concerned. If the women are faithful spouses IF they are married and if they are faithful managers in their sphere of influence, and they are faithful in the other issues mentioned, then they also are qualify to be what they are allowed to desire in 1 Timothy 3:1.

As far as what I believe about the fall of man, I have listed the view along with diagrams on this post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/

It is because there was one man who violated God’s law in a rebellious and treacherous way that we needed another sinless man to provide for the payment for our sin and to provide the way to live our lives through his holiness. There is the first Adam and the last Adam (the Lord from Heaven).

As far as the “can” issue, I believe that God is necessary for our salvation and he warns us that now is the day of salvation (2 Cor 6:2) and that we must not harden our hearts against his voice. Isaiah 55:6 says that we are to “Seek the LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near.” Those who believe that they can reject God all their lives and then choose Him at the moment before their death have forgotten that there is no salvation without God’s call because it is His work. We cannot save ourselves.

I am at the stage of research for my next DVD project which will be a balanced view of the Sovereignty of God. I would be honored to have you test my work as I prepare it because I do believe that the God’s Word does not contradict itself and a correct view of the Sovereignty of God will not ignore any of the hard passages of scripture. It just seems like God has called me and placed me in the very midst of the hard passages of scripture – the very ones that others choose to ignore. So while I won’t answer more here, I certainly will be working on what God has given me in this next difficult area of theology. Thanks for your encouragement!