Recently, the trend seems to be for societies and organisations to accept more responsibility for actions done by long-gone leaders and functionaries. But most agree with the Biblical principle of Ezekiel 18:20 that: “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.” How does justice square the demands of redress and the innocence of the only people left who can meet them? We know that many still pay the price for sins previous generations never paid for. But whether it is well-served by a long memory is more contentious. (Tony Hoss is minister at Centerview Church of Christ, Elizabethton.J ustice requires a good memory, one that is both accurate and not self-servingly selective. The command is about the men who serve as Elders and not their children. When we make the qualification about the children we do harm to the scriptures and the intent of the command. Regardless of the actions of his children the Elder has still fulfilled the requirement of having believing children. Because a child has become unfaithful after leaving the home does not take away the fulfilled responsibility of the Elder. If he has, and he meets all other requirements he then is qualified to serve as an Elder. ![]() ![]() Properly understood, an Elder is one who trained his children in such a way that they became believers while living in the home. The intent of the question seems to be, “Is an Elder disqualified if his children become unfaithful after leaving the home?” The obvious answer is no. However Paul qualifies his statement in 1 Timothy when he said, “One that ruleth well his own house …” It seems evident that Paul concludes an Elder must have believing children in his own house, children who in subjection with all gravity. In Titus, Paul simply teaches that an Elder is to have believing children. Paul said, “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly” (Titus 1:6 KJV) See also (1 Tim. The apostle Paul helps to discover the answer to the second part of the question. While parents are to direct their children towards God, the obedience is the child’s responsibility. Paul said, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4 KJV). ![]() So we see that a parent is not responsible for their children’s personal relationship with God after they leave the home.” We must however understand that parents are responsible to teach their children concerning the will of God. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Therefore, whether they are in the home or not, children who are of an accountable age are responsible for their own sins. We read in Ezekiel 18:20 KJV, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The answer to the first part of this question is simple. Are parents responsible for their children’s personal relationship with God after they leave the home? If they are, then what impact does this have on Elders and the requirement of their qualifications?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |