In 1 Timothy 2:15 (ESV), Paul writes: >“Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” This verse is puzzling. If salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). What is the most common or doctrinally sound interpretation of this passage within mainstream Christianity?

Was Phoebe a deacon? The NIV/NLT translators seem to think deacon: > **Romans 16:1 (NIV)** I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a **deacon** of the church in Cenchreae. Furthermore, when I read the qualifications for a deacon in 1 Timothy 3, I see that a deacon should clearly be a man: > **1 Timothy 3:8–12 (ESV)** Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. **Their wives** likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the **husband of one wife**, managing their children and their own households well. Most other translations call Phoebe a "servant" instead of "deacon", however the greek word for deacon in both passages is διάκονος . I'm not sure what to make of this.

For example, thanking God for food. > For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim 4:4–5,ESV)

The famous verse 1 Timothy 2:12 is widely referenced in discussions regarding women church leaders: > I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she > must be silent. My specific question is when Paul says "I do ..." why is this seen as instructional to the global church by those who hold that view, rather than him recounting what _he_ does? Is Paul viewed as inerrant when he _does_ give instruction?

These verses were used to teach conditionalism/ human souls are mortal. What is the “traditionalist” response to these verses. (1 Timothy 6:16): “who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.” (Ezekiel 18:20 ): “The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.”

I have a question about the Assumption of Mary and 1 Timothy 6:16, I understand that Mary both Body and Soul are in heaven, like Christ, meaning her flesh is immortal and cannot die anymore. But Paul said in 1 Timothy 6:16 that *Jesus alone* is immortal, So how can we answer this? How can the Assumption of Mary fit with what Paul wrote to Timothy here? Main Question: How can Mary have immortal body in heaven when Paul said only Jesus alone hath immortality (Talking about the flesh). > "...until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times > he shall shew, the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and > Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which > no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power > everlasting." 1 Timothy 6:15-16 K.J.V.

I'm an evangelical myself (Anglican) and I wonder how could we deal with this apparent contradiction. The question is whether there is a clash between the concept of predestination and 1 Timothy 2:4. Predestination, especially as articulated in certain interpretations of Calvinism, suggests that God has foreordained some people to salvation and others to damnation. In contrast, 1 Timothy 2:4 states, "God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth". ### Predestination Predestination, as understood in Calvinist theology, is the doctrine that God has chosen certain individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world. This choice is not based on any foreseen merit or action on the part of the individual but solely on God's sovereign will. This is often coupled with the doctrine of election, which holds that God's grace is extended to those He has chosen, and they will inevitably come to faith. ### 1 Timothy 2:4 1 Timothy 2:4 is often cited by those who argue against the Calvinist interpretation of predestination. The verse suggests a universal salvific will, indicating that God's desire is for all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. This seems to conflict with the idea that God has only predestined a select group for salvation.

1 Timothy 3:16 seems like a pretty straightforward knock-out punch for Trinitarianism. > "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was > manifest in the flesh[.]" (KJB) How do Biblical Unitarians, who hold Jesus is not God but also hold to a strong view of scripture, explain this verse?

>"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Here is another one. >"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:12-14). I asked my mom once about this and she explained that when the holy spirit descended, both men and women received it. And this gives us many different gifts such us prophesying, singing and preaching. I understood her but what I could not ask her was that, Corinthians and Timothy came after the holy spirit descended in Acts. In Africa you cannot keep on asking challenging questions to the elderly as it might be seen as disrespect. Someone help me here.

It seems that that [1Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:12-14&version=NASB) says that women shouldn't be pastors. But there are many denominations that allow this. >[1 Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:12-14&version=NASB)
> **12** But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a > man, but to remain quiet. > **13** For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. > **14** And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being > deceived, fell into transgression. This idea also seems supported by the [command that women should remain *silent* in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:34-35&version=NASB) . What is the biblical basis for allowing women to preach or be a pastor? Specifically, what is the biblical basis of the doctrine of [ordination of women](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Christianity) ? Also, how do the followers of this doctrine reconcile their beliefs with that of [1 Timothy](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:12-14&version=NASB) and [1 Corinthians 14:34-35](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:34-35&version=NASB) above?

I would like to hear some perspectives on the desire for riches based on some passages. Should one strive to be neither rich nor poor based on Proverbs 30:8? Proverbs 30:8 NIV: >Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Is it immoral to want to be rich based on some passages in 1 Timothy 6? 1 Timothy 6:6-10 NIV: >Of course, godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, so we cannot carry anything out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. Those who want to be rich, however, fall into temptation and become ensnared by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. By craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows. How would one define "rich" in the context of these verses? In other words, according to the Bible, how do you know when you are rich or want to become rich? Would simply wanting to have more than food and clothing be pursuing riches?

In "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture", Isaac Newton argued that 1 John 5:7 was a corruption of the early church and did not appear in the original Greek scriptures. He makes a similar claim regarding 1 Timothy 3:16. 1 John 5:7 is the strongest biblical reference to the trinity. Is there an objection to Newton's historical analysis of these verses? > 1 John 5:7 -- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. > > 1 Timothy 3:16 -- And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Timothy 2:5 says: > For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man > Christ Jesus; Does this mean that intercessions of the saints is not possible since Jesus Christ is the only meditator? I know Protestants cosnistently point to this verse to prove that intercession of the saints is biblical, but i want to know if this is true or not.

I am not an expert with Hermeneutics or methods of Exegesis, yet I am in the process of learning such things. This particular verse is easier to understand in terms of a basic tenet of Hermeneutics, namely: **Context**. Yet, in a Reformed book called "*What's so Great about the Doctrines of Grace"*, we have Richard D. Phillip's assertion as follows: > "First are those that seem to teach that God wills the salvation of > all people. An example is 1 Timothy 2:3-4, where Paul says that God > "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the > truth." But who are these "all"? Going back to the start of the > chapter, we see that Paul means all kinds or classes of people. He > asks his readers to pray "for all people," such as "kings and all who > are in high positions" 1 Timothy 2:1-2)." Pg 59 **Q: According to Reformed Theology, what is the exegetical basis for the claim that 1 Timothy 2:4 means "all kinds of people"? Did Richard D. Phillips make a tenable case?**

**Q**: What is the Reformed Protestant Answer/interpretation to **1 Timothy 1:19** as it pertains to “**eternal security**”? We read in the immediate context: > “I put this charge before you, Timothy my child, in keeping with the > prophecies once spoken about you, in order that with such > encouragement you may fight the good fight. > > > ***To do this you must hold firmly to faith and a good conscience, which > some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck in regard to the > faith***. > > > Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I handed over to Satan > to be taught not to blaspheme.” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:18-20‬ ‭NET‬‬ Some commentators note that in verse 20 Paul is referring to **remedial discipline** in handing them over to Satan, yet they could also be those who profess to know God but by their deeds they deny Him(Titus 1:15-16). If they are true believers on the other hand, what does this mean for “Eternal Security”? **See also**: (Jeremiah 32:40, John 6:37-40, John 10:27-30, John 17:1-26, 1 Peter 1:3-5, Hebrews 6:9, Philippians 1:6, 1 Corinthians 1:4-9).

> [1 Timothy 1:3, KJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+timothy+1:3&version=KJV)
> As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into > Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other > doctrine > > [Titus 1:5, KJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+1:5&version=KJV)
> For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order > the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had > appointed thee These two verses seem to indicate a certain "hierarchy layer" between elders and apostles. Paul is clearly an apostle and he appoints Titus to ordain elders in every city of the island of Crete. On one hand, Titus was appointed by Paul, which means that Titus is in position of submission to Paul the Apostle. However, Titus has the power to ordain elders in cities of Crete, which means that those elders would be in position of submission to Titus. Thus, we have the following structure: elders -> Titus -> apostles. I wonder how those Christian groups that deny any such hierarchy levels in their governance—for example, Congregationalists—explain these verses.

I have a question regarding what the LDS Church view of 1 Timothy 3:2 and 3:12 was during the times when they supported polygamy. **Background information for my question:** One of the earliest formal statements about polygamy by the Mormon church was the 1943 revelation by the founder of the church, Joseph Smith . This revelation was codified in the 1870s in the church's Doctrine and Covenants section 132 . Paragraphs 61-63 of this section is quoted below. > 61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man > espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give > her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and > have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit > adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery > with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. > > 62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot > commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; > therefore is he justified. > > 63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, > shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be > destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the > earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which > was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for > their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls > of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be > glorified. The LDS Church did eventually stop promoting polygamy however. The final nail to its coffin seems to have been the Second Manifesto of 1904 by then President of the Church, Joseph Fielding Smith . Still the article "After the Manifesto: Mormon Polygamy 1890-1906 " makes claims that indicate support for polygamy high in the Church hierarchy as late as 1898. The article says on pp. 28-29: > Among the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency between 1890 > and 1898, at least 58 percent of the members took an active part in > post-Manifesto polygamy. If Matthias Cowley and Owen Woodruff are > included, the proportion is 70 percent. Historical records > indicate that only two men seem to have had qualms about the > continuation of polygamy during President Woodruff’s lifetime: Francis > M. Lyman and Lorenzo Snow. **Qualifications for bishops and deacons in 1 Timothy chapter 3:** 1 Timothy chapter 3 lists the qualifications expected from those assigned to the positions of deacons and bishops in the first century congregations. 1 Timothy 3:2 lists some of the qualifications for bishops: > A bishop then must be blameless, the **husband of one wife**, > vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to > teach; And 1 Timothy 3:12 includes similar requirements for deacons: > Let the deacons be the **husbands of one wife**, ruling their children > and their own houses well. **Questions:** Considering the paragraphs quoted from Doctrine and Covenants section 132, and the overall support for polygamy in the Church hierarchy until late 1800's, it seems that at that time a church member could be in good standing with more than one wife. This seems different from the expectations listed in 1 Timothy ch. 3. What would have been the LDS Church view of these requirements in 1 Timothy ch. 3 during the time they supported polygamy?

The Bible also teaches God is eternal. Psalm 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou are God." And in the New Testament, 1 Timothy 1:17, Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen" Yet Joseph Smith contradicts not only the Bible but his own words from his first article of faith. ""We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will now refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see...he was once a man like us... (Smith, Teaching of the Prophet, pp. 345,346.) So how does the Lds church reconcile/justify this "glaring" contradiction?

In 1 Timothy 5:21 we read: >I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. *1 Timothy 5:21 (NIV)* My understanding is that a Reformed Protestant would use the word "elect" to describe Christians predestined by God to be saved from their sin, and brought into His kingdom . I'm not aware of any biblical evidence that angels have gone through that process, so it seems odd for Paul to use that word here. **How would a Reformed Protestant understand Paul describing angels as elect?**

We see the exhortation of St. Paul at 1 Timothy 3: 1-3: > The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, **married only once**, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. That implies that there was a custom of remarriage among the early Christians, which St. Paul would not allow in the case of selection of bishops. As for the modern Catholic Church, it has been prohibiting remarriage among all the believers. My question therefore is : at what point of time in its history did the Catholic Church start prohibiting remarriage among all believers?