2024-02-07
debate
@ErikWriter @William_E_Wolfe No, because Paul was an elder and he wasn't a husband. So it could idiomatically mean "faithful if married" but it cannot mean husband (and therefore cannot mean male). We have no statement "must not be a woman" nor do we even have male pronouns in 1 Tim 3:1-13 and Tit 1:5-9.
pastoral
Debate Points
counterargument
@ErikWriter @William_E_Wolfe No, because Paul was an elder and he wasn't a husband. So it could idiomatically mean "faithful if married" but it cannot mean husband (and therefore cannot mean male). We have no statement "must not be a woman" nor do we even have male pronouns in 1 Tim 3:1-13 and Tit 1
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more