Oh and I think I forgot to mention (forgive me if I did) that last weekend while witnessing, a guy who joins us sometimes tells me my voice sounds like Keith Green. I never knew who he was referring to. He ended up giving me a CD he bought with Keith Green's (a musician apparently) greatest hits and a DVD documentary about him. Apparently he's a former hippie who got saved and started singing for Christ in the 70's. He and his family ended up using a good portion of their money from playing shows to buy or rent up a whole neighborhood nearly for those who had nowhere to live or were down and out. It became a kind of outreach center where they did Bible devotions and had cookouts and stuff. He died in a plane crash in the 80's. His music has been a blessing to me in the past week for sure. Here's a link to one of his songs...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0nUizWjaFMAlso, have you ever wondered about Titus 1:6...?
"An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient."While there is a whole debate around the first part of the verse, my focus is on the second part. there is a debate about whether or not this is saying that to be qualified to be an Elder, a man's children must be saved first. My pastor (John watson) taught a short series on leadership a while back and I was encouraged by the support he gave on a particular view of this verse. Before that Sunday night, I taught a survey of Titus in the college ministry I was part of and spoke briefly on this verse. I just looked at it logically and didn't put nearly the study that my pastor and those he cites have. I asked him for his sermon notes and I wanted to pass them on to you...
"Children who Believe" in Titus 1:6
Pastors who have a high view of God’s Word take seriously the elder qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.
Unfortunately, not all of these qualifications are easy to understand.
For example, in Titus 1:6b, the apostle Paul writes that elders must have tekna pista, which means either "children who believe" (NASB) or "faithful children" (NKJV), depending on how it is translated.
The disagreement concerns the adjective pistos and whether it should be rendered "believing" or "faithful."
In the end, the bottom line is this:
Is the requirement of Titus 1:6b that the children possess saving faith ("believing") or that they are obedient to their father ("faithful")?
· View 1— Meaning: believing, trusting; Translation: "children who believe [in Christ]"
· View 2— Meaning: faithful, trustworthy; Translation: "children who are faithful [to their father]"
When the adjective pistos is used in the New Testament to describe people rather than God, it means "believing" 12 times and "faithful" 36 times, so both possibilities are well attested.
In addition, we find that Paul uses pistos in both ways in the Pastoral Epistles: it clearly means "believing" in 1 Timothy 6:2 and "faithful" in 2 Timothy 2:2.
Therefore, either nuance of meaning is a distinct possibility in Titus 1:6.
For this reason, we must look to the context to determine which nuance is more likely Paul’s intended meaning.
In doing so, I would like to suggest five reasons why pistos should be translated "faithful" or "obedient" in Titus 1:6 rather than "believing" or "who believe."
First, the qualifying phrase "not accused of dissipation or rebellion" in Titus 1:6 emphasizes behavior and seems to explain or expand on what it means for children to be pistos (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 289).
In fact, there seems to be something of a pattern in Titus in which Paul states a generic, positive attribute, which is then followed by two or more specific, negative attributes which further explain the positive attribute by stating what it is not (Banker, A Semantic and Structural Analysis of Titus, 36).
This pattern can be seen in Titus 1:13-14 and Titus 2:3.
In Titus 1:13-14, Paul refers to being "sound in faith" (the one generic, positive attribute), which he further explains as "not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men" (the two specific, negative attributes).
In Titus 2:3, he refers to being "reverent in their behavior" (the one, generic positive attribute), which he further explains with the words "not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine" (the two specific, negative attributes).
If Titus 1:6 follows this same pattern, the idea would be that an elder must have "children who are pistos" (the one, generic positive attribute) in that they are "not accused of dissipation or rebellion" (the two specific, negative attributes).
Because the terms "dissipation" (wild living) and "rebellion" (disobedience) are more logically opposite of what it means to be "faithful" than what it means to be "believing," it would seem that "faithful" is the better translation (Barrick, "Titus 1:6").
Second, the parallel requirement in 1 Timothy 3:4 refers to an elder "keeping his children under control with all dignity."
As George Knight states, "In both cases the overseer is evaluated on the basis of his control of his children and their conduct" (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 290):
· Titus 1:6b: "having children who are faithful, not accused of dissipation or rebellion"
· 1 Timothy 3:4: "He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity"
In other words, the emphasis in both passages is on the behavior of the children, not on whether or not they possess saving faith.
Third, if pistos means "believing" in Titus 1:6, it is difficult to explain the absence of this qualification ("having children who believe") from Paul’s list in 1 Timothy 3:1-7.
Was this a requirement in Crete but not in Ephesus?
As Andreas Kostenberger writes, "In the larger context of the teaching of the Pastoral Epistles, it would be unusual if the author had two separate standards, a more lenient one in 1 Tim. 3:4 (obedient) and a more stringent one in Titus 1:6 (believing)" (Kostenberger, "Children of Elders: What are the Requirements?").
At least one commentator has responded to this by stating that Christianity was established more firmly in Ephesus at the time than in Crete, and therefore Paul did not think it necessary to include this requirement in 1 Timothy 3 (White, "The Epistle to Titus," 187).
Fourth, the translation "faithful" seems to be more consistent with the context, for every other qualification in Titus 1:5-9 involves an issue of the elder’s personal responsibility before God.
According to this passage, an elder has a responsibility to be a one-woman man, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, and self controlled.
But is he responsible before God to make sure his children are regenerate?
Put another way, it makes good sense that an elder is to be "above reproach" in these other areas of life, but how exactly is he to be above reproach in the area of making sure his children possess saving faith?
As Justin Taylor writes, "Requiring that his children have genuine saving faith is to require personal responsibility for the salvation of another, something I don’t see taught in Scripture" (Taylor, "Unbelief in an Elder’s Children").
First Timothy 3:4-5 indicates that the father’s faithfulness in the home is a testing ground for how faithful he will be in managing the flock at large.
Two fathers could be equally faithful in their parenting, and yet one might have a son who believes and the other a son who does not.
In this case, the second father would be disqualified even though he was no less faithful and capable than the first father.
According to Bill Barrick, parents do not have the ability to save their children or to guarantee their salvation.
There is, it is true, a certain amount of accountability in how a child is raised (cf. Prov 22:6).
However, nowhere does Scripture indicate that a father can determine the faith of his child.
Each person is individually and personally responsible for his or her acceptance or rejection of the Gospel.
Parents are not the Holy Spirit.
Godly, obedient, consistently faithful pastors leading their homes with the highest spiritual wisdom, character, and deeds can experience a child who does no believe in the Gospel.
Sometimes a child will not believe until much later in life.
Is that man to be excluded from eldership because of that? (Barrick, "Titus 1:6")
At the same time, it has been argued in response that God will be sure to save the children of those men He desires to serve as elders in the church.
If so, it seems that this would be the lone requirement in the lists of Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 which reflects God’s sovereign choice of a given man rather than that man’s character and ministry qualifications.
This only serves to strengthen the argument that the meaning "faithful" is more consistent with the context.
Fifth, according to Barrick, when the adjective pistos is used to modify a noun (as it does in Titus 1:6), it always carries the meaning "faithful" or "trustworthy/credible."
In contrast, when the adjective is independent and functions as a substantive, it means "believing one" or "believer" (Barrick, "Titus 1:6").
Therefore, the meaning "faithful" in Titus 1:6 would be more consistent with the use of the word elsewhere in the New Testament.
Against this view, it has been argued that every time pistos is translated "faithful" in the New Testament, it refers to believers who are faithful, and never unbelievers.
Therefore, it is said, pistos must refer to children who believe regardless of the precise way it is translated.
In response, the fact that pistos is not used elsewhere in the New Testament in reference to unbelievers does not mean that the adjective cannot be used in reference to unbelievers (which is what this argument needs to show in order to be compelling).
To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing inherent in the word itself that precludes it from being used to describe an unbeliever.
Used in this way, it would describe an unbeliever who, though unregenerate, is faithful and obedient to the one in authority over him (e.g., the soldiers described in Matthew 8:9).
The view that pistos means "believing" raises some practical difficulties as well.
For example, if a man has a two-year-old daughter who has not repented of her sins and believed in Christ, is that man unqualified to serve as an elder?
Most interpreters who say that pistos means "believing" in Titus 1:6 would answer No, but on what basis?
If pistos means "believing," wouldn’t a child who has not exercised saving faith disqualify the father (since "believing" does mean "believing")?
Some would respond by saying that only an unbelieving child who has reached the age of accountability would disqualify the father.
Aside from the fact that Titus 1:6 says nothing about such an age, what exactly is that age?
Many believers give testimony to having believed at a very young age—even as young as five—so is five the age of accountability?
If not, why wouldn’t it be, since children seem capable of believing at such an early age?
In addition, it seems possible that identifying an age as the cutoff might establish something of a high-pressured countdown for an elder whose unbelieving child is approaching that age (i.e., "If my child doesn’t profess Christ by this March, I’ll need to step down from serving as an elder!").
These difficulties are only compounded by the fact that so many children profess faith but do not truly possess it.
It is often difficult to know for certain whether or not a child—especially one raised in a Christian home—is truly regenerate.
In many cases, elders would be deemed qualified because their children seem to be saved even though they are not regenerate.
On the other hand, it is much easier to observe whether or not a child is obedient to his or her father.
These kinds of practical considerations, of course, are secondary to the exegetical ones discussed above, but they are worthy of our consideration.
Overall, then, it seems to me that Paul’s intention in Titus 1:6 is to communicate not that an elder’s children must be saved for him to serve as an elder, but rather that his children must be faithful and obedient to their father, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
Indeed, as Barrick notes, a believing child is far better dispositioned to be obedient and submissive to the authority of his parents than an unbelieving child—and in this way the two views may end up overlapping to a great extent—but saving faith per se is no more in view in Titus 1:6 than it is in 1 Timothy 3:4 (Barrick, "Titus 1:6").
Titus 1:6
Q: I am working through the Titus 1:6 issue (children who believe or faithful children). What support is there in this passage or elsewhere in Scripture for one view over the other? Do you have any good sources you could recommend for my own research/study?
A: One of the issues in this verse is whether it applies to only those children still under the authority of the home or whether it equally applies to those adult children who are outside the home. You'll note that John MacArthur (see the note on Titus 1:6 in the MacArthur Study Bible) distinguishes Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:4 by indicating that the former looks at older children while the latter focuses on young children in the home. It would seem preferable to see both passages identifying the same requisite rather than two different qualifications. If both are significant enough to include in the list of qualifications for elders, why is only one each listed in the two lists? The term translated "dissipation" in Titus 1:6 (NASB) certainly does appear to refer to older offspring, but that may be all that either passage intends. One could argue that "faithful" is a better translation because it is more logically the opposite of what is involved in "dissipation" than "believing" would be.The wording of Titus 1:6 is unique in that it uses the verb echo ("have" or "possess") in a phrase that is literally "children having faithfulness" or "children having faith." To the English Christian ear the latter translation sounds most familiar, so one is tempted to go with the sense that the children are to be "believers." However, the phraseology could equally well mean "keeping faith" or "staying loyal" or "maintaining obedience." The key exegetical issue is the meaning of pistos. Does it mean "believing," "faithful," or "obedient"? From the lexicons it is quite clear that the latter two are frequent occurrences in the Pauline epistles. Just look at the 17 uses of this adjective in the pastoral epistles alone: "faithful" (1 Tim 1:12; 3:11; 2 Tim 2:2, 13; Titus 1:6 [although some argue for "believing"]), "credible/trustworthy" (1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Titus 1:9; 3:8), and "believing" (1 Tim 4:3, 10, 12 [which could equally be "faithful"]; 5:16; 6:2 [2x--but, the second time could be "faithful"]). In my mind, however, the parallelism of 1 Timothy 3:4 is the strongest argument for "faithful" or "loyal" as the meaning of pistos in Titus 1:6.The careful exegete must note, also, that when pistos modifies a noun like "children" (as in Titus 1:6) it is always "faithful" or "trustworthy/credible." When it is independent (an adjective employed as a substantive) it means "believing one" or "believer." Note this detail in 1 Timothy 4:3, 10, 12. Translating pistos as "faithful (to parents)" does not indicate whether the child is a believer. Obviously, a believing child is far better dispositioned to be obedient and submissive to parental authority than an unbelieving child, but salvation is no more in view than it is in 1 Timothy 3:4.Let's take another approach in attempting to understand Titus 1:6. Theologically (by which I mean the totality of the teachings of Scripture), parents do not have the ability to save their children or to guarantee their salvation. There is, it is true, a certain amount of accountability in how a child is raised (cf. Prov 22:6). However, nowhere does Scripture indicate that a father can determine the faith of his child. Each person is individually and personally responsible for his or her acceptance or rejection of the Gospel. Parents are not the Holy Spirit. Godly, obedient, consistently faithful pastors leading their homes with the highest spiritual wisdom, character, and deeds can experience a child who does not believe in the Gospel. Sometimes a child will not believe until much later in life. Is that man to be excluded from pastoring because of that? What about the pastor whose children make professions of faith and live their lives in submission to their parents in a model home, but one of those children later in life throws it away and becomes a profligate prodigal? Do we then strip that individual's father of his eldership and pastorate in his fortieth year of faithful and consistent service in the Word of God? If we insist that Titus 1:6 specifies that an elder or pastor must have believing children to be in office or to retain his office, we will end up throwing a godly elder out of office. And what would be the real reason?--because he is not God and cannot guarantee the salvation of every one of his children.Unfortunately, very few exegetical commentaries deal with the intricacies of Titus 1:6. Most just give their opinion without offering any technical support. The commentary with the fullest treatment of this verse is John MacArthur, Jr., Titus, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996). A commentary I would highly recommend on just about every verse except Titus 1:6 is Homer A. Kent, The Pastoral Epistles (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969; Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1982). This volume is one every pastor should have on his shelf.
