PDA

View Full Version : Do you agree with this attitude



Arkady
May 9th 2008, 03:47 PM
I would like to present you a quote from p. 251 of the book "The gifts and Ministries of the Holy Spirit" that I found to be quite judgemental, albeit biblically supported. What is your opinion on this?


My wife and I witnessed a very interesting occurence in Puerto Rico. As we were preaching there, a missionary came by the church to visit. He stood during the service and, rather than preaching, gave his life's testimony. He said, "I was called to be a m issionary in India. While there, my wife fell in love with another man and left me. Now I am alone as I go out preaching the Word. I've come down here because I love you and I'm going to preach the Word to you. How glad I am to be with you"

The pastor of that church stopped him and said, "Sit back down. A man who can't control one little woman is surely not going to preach to my people. You can just go back to America" (Those people are called "natives", but they know how to operate their church)

The bible says that a deacon must be faithful in all things, the husband of one wife, ruling his children and his house well "For they that have used the office of a deacon well urchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in faith which is in Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 3:13) Deaconship is a good work. The Lord expects a deacon to be an example to the people of his church.

daughter
May 9th 2008, 04:07 PM
I don't know why, but I don't agree with it. Certainly at least one prophet had a ministry with Israel, and his wife Gomer was notorious.

Slug1
May 9th 2008, 04:16 PM
Ya know how many Christian's I've met that broke at least one scripture from the Bible.... MANY (including myself) and many of them walk with Jesus and get used by God to do great things as they live in repentance. That pastor was wrong IMO.

WtheWildthingsR
May 9th 2008, 04:22 PM
Arkady.... IMO that article is misusing scripture, this seems to fit the Church doctrine of one I went to years ago.

That man should have been prayed for and a hedge of protection set about him to deflect the fiery darts launched in his direction.

lbeaty1981
May 9th 2008, 08:17 PM
I wonder, was that man married before he became a Christian? If so, and if his wife was not a believer, scripture is quite clear in saying he was not at fault for not trying to keep the marriage together.

Brother Mark
May 9th 2008, 08:20 PM
It's possible the Apostle Paul was a divorce. Also, God is divorced from his bride, Israel.

9Marksfan
May 9th 2008, 09:31 PM
It's possible the Apostle Paul was a divorce.

Where do you get that idea from?!?


Also, God is divorced from his bride, Israel.

That's WAY controversial - he calls her His Bride shortly afterwards in Jeremiah, which confirms my view that "I had given her a certificate of divorce" means "I would have" - "I gave" would have been the correct grammatical tense, had it happened - God is saying He was entitled to - but stopped just short of doing so.

Brother Mark
May 9th 2008, 10:39 PM
Where do you get that idea from?!?

I have heard it said that the sect of pharisees he was a part of, required one to be married. Some have speculated that is part of the reason he wrote 1 Cor 7 the way he did.



That's WAY controversial - he calls her His Bride shortly afterwards in Jeremiah, which confirms my view that "I had given her a certificate of divorce" means "I would have" - "I gave" would have been the correct grammatical tense, had it happened - God is saying He was entitled to - but stopped just short of doing so.

I knew it was controversial. But I figured I'd throw it out there anyway. ;)

Jer 3:8
8 "And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.
NASB

Finally, the scripture in James, IMO, speaks more of bigamy or polygamy than it does of divorce.

Matt14
May 9th 2008, 10:58 PM
I would like to present you a quote from p. 251 of the book "The gifts and Ministries of the Holy Spirit" that I found to be quite judgemental, albeit biblically supported. What is your opinion on this?

He's confusing the difference between elders and deacons and a simple evangelist. The guy is a preacher, not an elder (bishop or pastor) of a congregation.

9Marksfan
May 9th 2008, 11:35 PM
I have heard it said that the sect of pharisees he was a part of, required one to be married. Some have speculated that is part of the reason he wrote 1 Cor 7 the way he did.

So when he said that he wished that all men were as he was, he wished that all married men were divorced?!?! :confused Sounds pretty contradictory to his teaching there and in Rom 7!


Finally, the scripture in James, IMO, speaks more of bigamy or polygamy than it does of divorce.

Which scripture would that be, then?

9Marksfan
May 9th 2008, 11:38 PM
He's confusing the difference between elders and deacons and a simple evangelist. The guy is a preacher, not an elder (bishop or pastor) of a congregation.

Good point - the pastor of that church really had a bad attitude - I'm guessing either his wife was a doormat or he made SURE she submitted to him - know what I'm saying?

Brother Mark
May 9th 2008, 11:41 PM
So when he said that he wished that all men were as he was, he wished that all married men were divorced?!?! :confused Sounds pretty contradictory to his teaching there and in Rom 7!

Come now Nigel, you know full well he was speaking of being single and not speaking of divorce. Maybe I can say that scripture should be taken to be that Paul wished all men to be chiefest of sinners since he was that too.


Which scripture would that be, then?

Oops. Did I say James? I meant timothy.

1 Tim 3:2-3
2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money.
NASB

The same for deacons, etc.

9Marksfan
May 11th 2008, 09:09 PM
Come now Nigel, you know full well he was speaking of being single and not speaking of divorce.

Exactly - which is why I don't think the "Paul may have been divorced" idea can work at all.


Maybe I can say that scripture should be taken to be that Paul wished all men to be chiefest of sinners since he was that too.

Well, Paul did say that he wished that all men would be just as he was - apart from his chains - so maybe he thought they should have the same self-deprecating mindset as he had.


Oops. Did I say James? I meant timothy.

1 Tim 3:2-3
2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money.
NASB

The same for deacons, etc.

I reckon it's both - if someone is remarried, in God's eyes they're a bigamist.

Brother Mark
May 11th 2008, 09:13 PM
Exactly - which is why I don't think the "Paul may have been divorced" idea can work at all.

It's a possibility from history. That passage does not nullify the possibility. Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin. Research out the requirements for being a member. ;)


I reckon it's both - if someone is remarried, in God's eyes they're a bigamist.I would have to disagree with you on that one partner. It takes two folks to keep a marriage going. When an unbeliever leaves, Paul taught that the believer was no longer in bondage, i.e. they were free from the marriage.

9Marksfan
May 11th 2008, 09:21 PM
It's a possibility from history. That passage does not nullify the possibility.

But the logical conclusion would be that Paul would wish not only that single folk remained single but that married folk would become divorced like him!


I would have to disagree with you on that one partner. It takes two folks to keep a marriage going. When an unbeliever leaves, Paul taught that the believer was no longer in bondage, i.e. they were free from the marriage.

I'm guessing you've read the remarriage threads as much as I have? That idea, although hugely popular in Protestant circles (and something I believed for 25 years), actually contradicts what Paul says elsewhere in that chapter and in Rom 7, where he clearly talks about marriage being binding for LIFE. "Bound" in that pasrt of 1 Cor 7 means "not bound to stay with the unbelieving partner regardless" - because God has called usa to peace and to try to keep that marriage going could be the source of a great deal of strife - but the believing spouse is NOT to instigate the divorce proceedings but rather allow the unbelieving spouse to do so - so that they will not be sinning - but there is nothing there (or elsewhere) to say that remarriage is ever permissible.

daughter
May 11th 2008, 09:24 PM
If Paul was divorced, it was because his wife wasn't a believer and left him. That is a possibility. I do know that pharisees were supposed to be married and have kids, or they weren't fulfilling their responsibilities.

If he was a highly religious pharisee he would have married someone of the same "faith" as him... imagine how a strictly orthodox Jewish lady would feel if her husband suddenly got born again and started trying to persuade everyone that Jesus was Messiah? Even today the woman would have instant grounds for a divorce. In which case it's not Paul's fault if his wife divorced him.

Athanasius
May 11th 2008, 09:25 PM
No, don't agree with that attitude. The church needs a good kick in the arse when it comes to divorce teaching.

Brother Mark
May 11th 2008, 09:28 PM
But the logical conclusion would be that Paul would wish not only that single folk remained single but that married folk would become divorced like him!

No it wouldn't Nigel. The passage makes it clear he was single when he wrote it and that he does not want folks to be divorced. It is simply bad exegesis to say he is wishing folks to be divorced and you are pushing that, illogically, in response to the idea he may have been divorced or widowed. Many scholars believe that he was either widowed or divorced. A few believe he had never been married. To try and push the point as you are doing, doesn't even fit and is unworthy of a debate tactic.


I'm guessing you've read the remarriage threads as much as I have? That idea, although hugely popular in Protestant circles (and something I believed for 25 years), actually contradicts what Paul says elsewhere in that chapter and in Rom 7, where he clearly talks about marriage being binding for LIFE. "Bound" in that pasrt of 1 Cor 7 means "not bound to stay with the unbelieving partner regardless" - because God has called usa to peace and to try to keep that marriage going could be the source of a great deal of strife - but the believing spouse is NOT to instigate the divorce proceedings but rather allow the unbelieving spouse to do so - so that they will not be sinning - but there is nothing there (or elsewhere) to say that remarriage is ever permissible.


There is a difference in letter and spirit. An unbelieving spouse can say "You are to be my roommate and I will receive from you all the benefits of marriage but give you none in return". In spirit, they have already divorced or left that spouse. Romans 7 teaches that until death do us part. Clearly, God hates divorce. But one being divorced does not mean one has sinned. It takes two to make a marriage work, not just one. Being remarried does not make one have multiple wives. Although, I think a strong case can be made that if the divorce occurred for unbiblical grounds, then adultery is being committed.

9Marksfan
May 11th 2008, 09:28 PM
If Paul was divorced, it was because his wife wasn't a believer and left him. That is a possibility. I do know that pharisees were supposed to be married and have kids, or they weren't fulfilling their responsibilities.

If he was a highly religious pharisee he would have married someone of the same "faith" as him... imagine how a strictly orthodox Jewish lady would feel if her husband suddenly got born again and started trying to persuade everyone that Jesus was Messiah?

Don't you think we'd have been told about such an important aspect of Paul's life if it were true?


Even today the woman would have instant grounds for a divorce. In which case it's not Paul's fault if his wife divorced him.

Under the Torah?!?! Where?

Brother Mark
May 11th 2008, 09:29 PM
If Paul was divorced, it was because his wife wasn't a believer and left him. That is a possibility. I do know that pharisees were supposed to be married and have kids, or they weren't fulfilling their responsibilities.

If he was a highly religious pharisee he would have married someone of the same "faith" as him... imagine how a strictly orthodox Jewish lady would feel if her husband suddenly got born again and started trying to persuade everyone that Jesus was Messiah? Even today the woman would have instant grounds for a divorce. In which case it's not Paul's fault if his wife divorced him.

There are those that believe this is what happened to Paul. Some believe he was a widow. Many scholars believe he was most likely married at one time.

9Marksfan
May 11th 2008, 09:30 PM
No, don't agree with that attitude. The church needs a good kick in the arse when it comes to divorce teaching.

I agree that the pastor's attitude was bad - but where is the church going wrong when it comes to divorce teaching, in your view?

daughter
May 11th 2008, 09:32 PM
Don't you think we'd have been told about such an important aspect of Paul's life if it were true?



Under the Torah?!?! Where?
He didn't go on about his family background much, he was more focussed on Christ than himself. We would have been told if it were important to Paul's message. I'm not saying it's true, but that it's possible. (In fact, I think it likely, but it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Paul preached Christ, and Him crucified, he wasn't bothered about anything else.

As for whether his wife could have divorced him... well, if she'd wanted to, she could have called a council of elders, had him found guilty of blasphemy, and stoned to death.

Athanasius
May 11th 2008, 10:30 PM
I agree that the pastor's attitude was bad - but where is the church going wrong when it comes to divorce teaching, in your view?

I had a pastor who's wife left him; totally unrepentant, hard hard, wouldn't come back. Pastor tried, was willing to do anything and everything but his now ex-wife didn't want to have any part of him. Her heart was totally hard, there was nothing he could do.

Pastor is single for a few years and wants to remarry. Church says, 'If you remarry you aren't allowed to preach'. Now, was it his fault his wife left? Did he himself have a hard heart and not allow any reconciliation to occur (no, he was perfectly willing). And if that's the case, biblically you're allowed to divorce. I don't think he should have been forced down from preaching.

But where my trouble begins is a deacon having one wife. Now the two ways I see this is either one wife... Ever. Or one wife at one time. I'd explain more, but I'm late for work ;(

9Marksfan
May 11th 2008, 10:42 PM
I had a pastor who's wife left him; totally unrepentant, hard hard, wouldn't come back. Pastor tried, was willing to do anything and everything but his now ex-wife didn't want to have any part of him. Her heart was totally hard, there was nothing he could do.

Pastor is single for a few years and wants to remarry. Church says, 'If you remarry you aren't allowed to preach'. Now, was it his fault his wife left? Did he himself have a hard heart and not allow any reconciliation to occur (no, he was perfectly willing). And if that's the case, biblically you're allowed to divorce.

Strictly speaking it's that you're not to stop BEING divorced - not the same thing! And it doesn't say that you can remarry, no matter how hard that may be.


I don't think he should have been forced down from preaching.

Sorry, but I'm with the church on this one - the church clearly believes remariage is wrong and I commend them for that - presumably he knew that was their stance when he accepted the call?


But where my trouble begins is a deacon having one wife. Now the two ways I see this is either one wife... Ever. Or one wife at one time. I'd explain more, but I'm late for work ;(

I think it has to be one wife ever - this concept is actually more in the NT than we realise. Did you know that Paul teaches that a widow who has had more than one husband before the second(last) one died should not be given priority for financial help?

Brother Mark
May 11th 2008, 10:47 PM
Strictly speaking it's that you're not to stop BEING divorced - not the same thing! And it doesn't say that you can remarry, no matter how hard that may be.

Yet, in that same passage Paul writes...

1 Cor 7:8-10

8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.
NASB

We must balance scripture with scripture.

So, did you look up the requirements for membership in the sanhedrin?

9Marksfan
May 11th 2008, 11:16 PM
No it wouldn't Nigel. The passage makes it clear he was single when he wrote it and that he does not want folks to be divorced. It is simply bad exegesis to say he is wishing folks to be divorced and you are pushing that, illogically, in response to the idea he may have been divorced or widowed. Many scholars believe that he was either widowed or divorced.

And do they all say that that must have taken place AFTER he wrote 1 Corinthians (when he was clearly single)?


A few believe he had never been married.

Only a few? I had understood it was the vast majority! Until this thread, I had never heard of the theory that he was possibly married.


To try and push the point as you are doing, doesn't even fit and is unworthy of a debate tactic.

Well, given the time in his life when 1 Corinthians was written and the fact that he was clearly single at the time, surely to suggest that "single" is synonymous with "widowed" or "divorced" surely isn't good exegesis either?


There is a difference in letter and spirit. An unbelieving spouse can say "You are to be my roommate and I will receive from you all the benefits of marriage but give you none in return". In spirit, they have already divorced or left that spouse. Romans 7 teaches that until death do us part. Clearly, God hates divorce. But one being divorced does not mean one has sinned.

Agreed - that was my point - I used "they" to mean "one" or "he/she" - there is possibly no sin in being divorced (unless the ground is really a gross failing on the party being divorced's part) but DIVORCING IMO IS sinful, because God hates divorce.


It takes two to make a marriage work, not just one.

Agreed, but what's your point? That if a mariage isn't working any more it's over, so a divorce is just formalising things and OK? Isn't that what the world says all the time?


Being remarried does not make one have multiple wives.

It does - because - in God's eyes - you are still married to the original spouse!


Although, I think a strong case can be made that if the divorce occurred for unbiblical grounds, then adultery is being committed.

Precisely - and ARE there any biblical grounds (I feel another thread coming on...!!!)?

Brother Mark
May 11th 2008, 11:22 PM
And do they all say that that must have taken place AFTER he wrote 1 Corinthians (when he was clearly single)?

Before.


Only a few? I had understood it was the vast majority! Until this thread, I had never heard of the theory that he was possibly married.

Many scholars think it likely he was married because of 3 reasons, he was a pharisee, most likely a member of the sanhedrin, and Jewish.


Well, given the time in his life when 1 Corinthians was written and the fact that he was clearly single at the time, surely to suggest that "single" is synonymous with "widowed" or "divorced" surely isn't good exegesis either?

He used the word "unmarried" and that covers a wide range of conditions.


Agreed - that was my point - I used "they" to mean "one" or "he/she" - there is possibly no sin in being divorced (unless the ground is really a gross failing on the party being divorced's part) but DIVORCING IMO IS sinful, because God hates divorce.

Jesus gave a reason for divorce. But even so, there can be an innocent party to divorce. Do both sin when divorce occurs? I don't think a good case can be made for that.


Agreed, but what's your point? That if a mariage isn't working any more it's over, so a divorce is just formalising things and OK? Isn't that what the world says all the time?

If a woman leaves or abandons her husband in spirit, or if a man does the same thing, I would say that the divorce is simply a formality.


It does - because - in God's eyes - you are still married to the original spouse!

Disagree.


Precisely - and ARE there any biblical grounds (I feel another thread coming on...!!!)?


Yes there are and Jesus gave them.

9Marksfan
May 12th 2008, 12:00 AM
Before.

See below!


Many scholars think it likely he was married because of 3 reasons, he was a pharisee, most likely a member of the sanhedrin, and Jewish.

But were ALL members of the Sanhedrin married?


He used the word "unmarried" and that covers a wide range of conditions.

Does it? If so, then isn't it reasonable to assume that he wished that everyone be single, divorced or widowed - ie single by whatever means?


Jesus gave a reason for divorce. But even so, there can be an innocent party to divorce. Do both sin when divorce occurs? I don't think a good case can be made for that.

That was my point - the divorcing party is sinning - there CAN be an innocent party, but there is usually fault on both sides.


If a woman leaves or abandons her husband in spirit, or if a man does the same thing, I would say that the divorce is simply a formality.

Seems to be adopting the world's attitude - what God has joined together, LET NOT MAN SEPARATE.


Disagree.

Why then does Jesus equate remarriage with adultery?


Yes there are and Jesus gave them.

Well Jesus only gave one - and Paul allegedly gave the other - and if we are going to be consistently biblical, I thiunk it's arguable that there are actually no grounds a Christian can use - Paul said that if an unbelieving spouse wnats to divorce you, don't stand in their way. And Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 and 19 makes most sense and harmonises best with Mark and Luke if we see the porneia as being sexual immorality during betrothal (what Joseph was thinking of when he discovered Mary was pregnant - and why this was evidence of his being "a just man").

9Marksfan
May 12th 2008, 12:02 AM
Yet, in that same passage Paul writes...

1 Cor 7:8-10

8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.
NASB

We must balance scripture with scripture.

But "unmarried" means just that - it doesn't include "divorced".


So, did you look up the requirements for membership in the sanhedrin?

Gotta website?

Athanasius
May 12th 2008, 01:42 AM
Well I'll have to look into the Greek. But for now I'll [foolishly, only because I've done no investigation] advance the position that the text indicates one wife, as in one at one time, as opposed to one for all time. I think if we take it to mean one at all time we open the door to some rather nasty theoglical implications.

I believe the phrase address fidelity in marriage.

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 01:50 AM
But were ALL members of the Sanhedrin married?

As far as I know, it was a requirement.


Does it? If so, then isn't it reasonable to assume that he wished that everyone be single, divorced or widowed - ie single by whatever means?

Been there, done that. Silly argument.


That was my point - the divorcing party is sinning - there CAN be an innocent party, but there is usually fault on both sides.

Well of course, there is almost always sin on both sides. However, there is often a party that sins with divorce.


Seems to be adopting the world's attitude - what God has joined together, LET NOT MAN SEPARATE.

No man should separate. As for the worlds attitude, that is again a silly argument. When a women or man leaves a spouse in every way but the letter, the deed is already done. It's simply legalism to insist that the marriage is still intact when no covenant is being kept.


Why then does Jesus equate remarriage with adultery?

He equates it with that when adultery is not the reason for divorce.



Well Jesus only gave one - and Paul allegedly gave the other - and if we are going to be consistently biblical, I thiunk it's arguable that there are actually no grounds a Christian can use - Paul said that if an unbelieving spouse wnats to divorce you, don't stand in their way. And Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 and 19 makes most sense and harmonises best with Mark and Luke if we see the porneia as being sexual immorality during betrothal (what Joseph was thinking of when he discovered Mary was pregnant - and why this was evidence of his being "a just man").


What was evidence of him being a "just" man was his desire to put here away privately. It was the private part more than the putting away part that was just. Though he was justified in putting her away if she had sinned. While arguable, I don't think it holds up that divorce is only for those betrothed. Of course, we could always go back to stoning.

9Marksfan
May 12th 2008, 08:30 AM
Well I'll have to look into the Greek. But for now I'll [foolishly, only because I've done no investigation] advance the position that the text indicates one wife, as in one at one time, as opposed to one for all time. I think if we take it to mean one at all time we open the door to some rather nasty theoglical implications.

How so? That remarried folk are banned from becoming elders or deacons? What's the problem?

brakelite
May 12th 2008, 11:46 AM
I knew it was controversial. But I figured I'd throw it out there anyway. ;)

Jer 3:8
8 "And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.
NASB


Have you noticed that when Jesus cleansed the temple He referred to it as "My Fathers house"?
Later, after rebuking the leaders of the nation for their hypocricy and their determination to kill Him, Jesus said your house is left unto you desolate. Somewhere along the line the temple ceased to be God's house and became the peoples' house. Sounds to me like at the very least a separation.
And the branch being cut off as Paul describes sounds to me like a divorce. But remarriage is always an option.
As to the pastor's call, 'twas a bad one.

daughter
May 12th 2008, 11:51 AM
That is a very good point about "your house is left to you desolate."

Does anyone else start crying when they read that passage?

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 11:54 AM
That's interesting Brakelite. Never put those passages together like that before. :hmm:

Athanasius
May 12th 2008, 12:54 PM
How so? That remarried folk are banned from becoming elders or deacons? What's the problem?

Well because... We'd have to apply the same standard to every part of that text. The deacon must have always been above reproach, always been 'temperate', always been 'prudent', always been respectable, hospitable... But of course that's ridiculous, we're talking about the deacon 'at that time'. So I'm not buying the 'husband of one wife ever' interpretation. I've decided it's a statement against polygamy.

9Marksfan
May 12th 2008, 01:45 PM
Well because... We'd have to apply the same standard to every part of that text. The deacon must have always been above reproach, always been 'temperate', always been 'prudent', always been respectable, hospitable... But of course that's ridiculous, we're talking about the deacon 'at that time'. So I'm not buying the 'husband of one wife ever' interpretation. I've decided it's a statement against polygamy.

No - Peter was a "fellow elder" (1 Pet 5:1) and he wasn't always temperate, prudent and above reproach - but after a period of growth in grace where it's clear that the general tenor of a man's life is above reproach, temperate, prudent, etc, then he's on the way to being qualified to be an elder or deacon.

But it's different when one remarries, because that amounts to a continuous state of adultery - when Jesus speaks of the one who marries another as being one who "commits" adultery, it's not a single act - the tense is an ongoing course of activity - which is why Jesus' words are so solemn and serious and why the reaction they drew in Matt 19 was "It is better not to marry then".

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 01:52 PM
So I'm not buying the 'husband of one wife ever' interpretation. I've decided it's a statement against polygamy.

The intent of the passage seems to be that an elder should be the husband of one wife. Not more, not less. :)

An unmarried man should not be an elder, nor a man with no children (1 Tim. 3:4-5).

-

9Marksfan
May 12th 2008, 01:53 PM
The intent of the passage seems to be that an elder should be the husband of one wife. Not more, not less. :)

An unmarried man should not be an elder, nor a man with no children (1 Tim. 3:4-5).

-

Not sure we can be THAT prescriptive - so a married man with one child is disqualified until the second one comes along?

It also teaches clearly that a woman cannot be an elder.....

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 02:06 PM
Not sure we can be THAT prescriptive - so a married man with one child is disqualified until the second one comes along?

To me, it's just a common sense reading. When you meet a person on the street, and you ask them the question, "Do you have children?" If they have only one, will they say, "No." Of course not. The meaning of the "children" statement is one or more. The language would be very unwieldy if Paul had to say, "one who rules his own house well, having his child or children in submission with all reverence." It's just common sense here that children means one or more. We use that meaning all the time in common speech.


It also teaches clearly that a woman cannot be an elder.....

Exactly. A woman cannot, according to scriptures.

-

EarlyCall
Jan 7th 2012, 01:27 PM
I would like to present you a quote from p. 251 of the book "The gifts and Ministries of the Holy Spirit" that I found to be quite judgemental, albeit biblically supported. What is your opinion on this?

As I did not witness the event, I can only go by what I read, and so based upon that and from the beginning, I'll comment accordingly with my opinion for what it's worth.

Standing up during the service and speaking without permission is rude. It simply is. It would be rude in a meeting at work, at a dinner when someone else has the floor, at a wedding... I could go on, but it is rude at church as well. For those that think the missionary may have been prompted by God to interrupt, perhaps, but God is not rude either. While certainly possible, I find it unlikely. Paul addressed this in his writings.

That said, I find what the pastor said to the missionary to be both terribly rude and insensitive, even very hurtful and lacking in any understanding. I would point out too that I highly doubt the pastor had sufficient knowledge to make such a judgment on the man.

Finally, no man can control a woman in this regard without the rest of us calling it slavery - at the very least abuse. No man can prevent a woman from leaving him without physically doing so. And had he done so, what would this pastor have called that? What methods and to what extreme would have been required by the missionary to keep his wife from leaving him? And the pastor would have found that acceptable?

Since the missionary stated he had come to preach to the people, perhaps the pastor felt threatened and as though the missionary was now trying to invade "his territory".

Oh, and one more thing I guess I'd like to add here. In what regard was anything the pastor said to the missionary said out of love or in a loving manner? And why didn't he simply ask the missionary to sit down and then later speak to him in private rather than as he did in front of the entire congregation?

EarlyCall
Jan 7th 2012, 01:44 PM
No - Peter was a "fellow elder" (1 Pet 5:1) and he wasn't always temperate, prudent and above reproach - but after a period of growth in grace where it's clear that the general tenor of a man's life is above reproach, temperate, prudent, etc, then he's on the way to being qualified to be an elder or deacon.

But it's different when one remarries, because that amounts to a continuous state of adultery - when Jesus speaks of the one who marries another as being one who "commits" adultery, it's not a single act - the tense is an ongoing course of activity - which is why Jesus' words are so solemn and serious and why the reaction they drew in Matt 19 was "It is better not to marry then".

Hopefully without intent to derail the thread, and you may be quite correct in your intentions concerning the topic at hand, but I do need to ask...

If one remarries without Biblical justification, can they somehow enter the kingdom of God when they die? If they are in a continual state of adultery, I do not see how that is possible. It gets terribly complex at this point really if you declare that OSAS is not so (and while I do not adhere to it, I hope no one will go there). The point then becomes that someone remarrying without Biblical justification, if in a continual state of adultery, must either spend all waking moments asking for forgiveness, hoping they are doing so when they die so that they do not die in a state of sin, or they have committed the unforgivable sin of which Jesus spoke. Now if this isn't the sin Jesus spoke of being unforgivable, then it must be a second unforgivable sin and Jesus got it wrong when He said there was only one. Or am I missing a third possibility? I honestly do not see another alternative here in this situation.

I am not trying to be argumentative but truly trying to get a handle on this as it seems to leave many folk without hope as you present it here.

Watchman
Jan 7th 2012, 02:19 PM
If one remarries without Biblical justification, can they somehow enter the kingdom of God when they die? If they are in a continual state of adultery, I do not see how that is possible. It gets terribly complex at this point really if you declare that OSAS is not so (and while I do not adhere to it, I hope no one will go there). The point then becomes that someone remarrying without Biblical justification, if in a continual state of adultery, must either spend all waking moments asking for forgiveness, hoping they are doing so when they die so that they do not die in a state of sin, or they have committed the unforgivable sin of which Jesus spoke. Now if this isn't the sin Jesus spoke of being unforgivable, then it must be a second unforgivable sin and Jesus got it wrong when He said there was only one. Or am I missing a third possibility? I honestly do not see another alternative here in this situation.
I do not believe in degrees of sin. Adultery is no different than lying, cheating, stealing, gluttony, etc. When a couple divorces, their marriage is over. They are not, in fact, unmarried in the view of mankind, yet married in God's sight. When a couple marries and one, or both, have been previously divorced, they are not in a continual state of adultery. They may have sinned at a point in time, but this is not a continual state. Adultery is just as forgiveable as murder, lying, or anything else that falls short of the glory of our Father. I have intentionally not supported these statements with scripture because the post would have been longer than anyone would care to read; however, I'm more than happy to discuss and scripturally support each point, if needed.

One final thing: it is unscriptural, unloving, and really stupid for that pastor to say a man must control his wife. I'd hate to sit under any of his teachings!

blessings,

Watchman :)

Indueseason
Jan 7th 2012, 02:21 PM
Wow! This thread is old! Its a resurrection of the thread!! :rofl:

blessings to you :hug:

shepherdsword
Jan 7th 2012, 02:28 PM
It would be interesting to determine the current status of the judgmental pastor's marriage. The odds are,knowing God,that pastor's wife has left him by now as well.

"with whatsoever measure you met,it will be measured to you again"

EarlyCall
Jan 7th 2012, 03:47 PM
I do not believe in degrees of sin. Adultery is no different than lying, cheating, stealing, gluttony, etc. When a couple divorces, their marriage is over. They are not, in fact, unmarried in the view of mankind, yet married in God's sight. When a couple marries and one, or both, have been previously divorced, they are not in a continual state of adultery. They may have sinned at a point in time, but this is not a continual state. Adultery is just as forgiveable as murder, lying, or anything else that falls short of the glory of our Father. I have intentionally not supported these statements with scripture because the post would have been longer than anyone would care to read; however, I'm more than happy to discuss and scripturally support each point, if needed.

One final thing: it is unscriptural, unloving, and really stupid for that pastor to say a man must control his wife. I'd hate to sit under any of his teachings!

blessings,

Watchman :)

I appreciate your thoughtful response. And while my tendency is to agree with you, and it is my preference, I must recognize that I have only my opinion which does not constitute knowledge of fact, which leaves me to only wonder. But I hope you are correct. Still, to the one I quoted and asked, I hope they can logically explain how this too cannot be considered an unforgivable sin. I repeat myself here, but it must surely be so if one is in a continual sate of sin. As well, logically then it would seem the only recourse would be to divorce yet again, but if divorce is wrong, how then does committing one sin to correct another sin become justified in the eyes of God? Unless one is willing to claim that divorce in this instance would not be a sin, but where is that found in scripture? Does one lie to uncover another lie and it is justified in the eyes of God? Does one steal to recover the goods of another theft and God justifies this?

I hope what I have said makes sense. Again, than you for your response. It was well said.

Watchman
Jan 7th 2012, 03:52 PM
http://www.accuratereloading.com/forums/homer.gif Well, for a second time, I've posted in an old thread. Oh well, maybe we'll have some new conversation... http://www.accuratereloading.com/forums/homer.gif

blessings,

Watchman http://www.accuratereloading.com/forums/homer.gif :D

Diggindeeper
Jan 7th 2012, 04:48 PM
Its fine to bring up old threads and old topics, if they are still worthy of consideration, thought and farther discussion. And this thread is.....

Watchman
Jan 7th 2012, 05:19 PM
I appreciate your thoughtful response. And while my tendency is to agree with you, and it is my preference, I must recognize that I have only my opinion which does not constitute knowledge of fact, which leaves me to only wonder. But I hope you are correct. Still, to the one I quoted and asked, I hope they can logically explain how this too cannot be considered an unforgivable sin. I repeat myself here, but it must surely be so if one is in a continual sate of sin. As well, logically then it would seem the only recourse would be to divorce yet again, but if divorce is wrong, how then does committing one sin to correct another sin become justified in the eyes of God? Unless one is willing to claim that divorce in this instance would not be a sin, but where is that found in scripture? Does one lie to uncover another lie and it is justified in the eyes of God? Does one steal to recover the goods of another theft and God justifies this?

Study of this topic is ongoing for me, even though I am confident in my present understanding. There is always room in my heart for more, or deeper, truth. I met a brother online several years ago who has written an excellent ebook that examines all sides of marriage, divorce, remarriage in light of the scriptures. It is entitled, But if You Do Marry (http://oneinjesus.info/files/2007/03/but-if-you-do-marry.pdf) and is well written & easy to read.

blessings,

Watchman :)

Jemand
Jan 8th 2012, 08:02 PM
Where do you get that idea from?!?



That's WAY controversial - he calls her His Bride shortly afterwards in Jeremiah, which confirms my view that "I had given her a certificate of divorce" means "I would have" - "I gave" would have been the correct grammatical tense, had it happened - God is saying He was entitled to - but stopped just short of doing so.

Jeremiah 3:8 She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce; yet her false sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the harlot. (RSV)

Jeremiah 3:8. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce; yet her false sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. (NRSV)

Jeremiah 3:8 “And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.” (NASB, 1995)

First, please notice that the NASB reads very differently than the RSV and the NRSV regarding who saw the adulteries. The reason for this difference is that the RSV and the NRSV translate here from the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Dead Sea Scrolls rather than from the Masoretic text, which in this place appears to be corrupted.

Secondly, and more to the point of 9Marksfan, the English construction “I had given” is in the past perfect tense signifying action that took place before a specific time in the past. It does not signify action that did not take place. God is saying that He had sent Israel away with a decree of divorce, but that Judah failed to learn from this what she should have learned.

Please see the commentaries on the ancient Hebrew text of Jeremiah by J. A. Thomas in The New International Commentary on the Old Testament series (1980), William McKane in The International Critical Commentary series (1986), and Leslie C. Allen in The Old Testament Library series (2008). Please also note that on page 53, Allen mistaken writes, “The reading of MT and LXX suffered assimilation to the first verb in v. 7.” This is true of the MT (Masoretic Text); it is NOT true of the LXX (Septuagint) text. This is a good example of how very important it is to consult more than one commentary for help in understanding a Biblical text.

Jemand
Jan 8th 2012, 08:39 PM
I would like to present you a quote from p. 251 of the book "The gifts and Ministries of the Holy Spirit" that I found to be quite judgemental, albeit biblically supported. What is your opinion on this?

The Bible says in Ephesians 5:25,

25. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, (NASB, 1995)

The Bible does not say anywhere,

Husbands, control your wives, just as Christ also controlled the church.

From the very earliest days of the church, we find members of the bride of Christ abandoning Him—and this abandonment is not the fault of Christ. If a Missionary’s wife abandons her husband for a fault in her rather than in him, he is not to be blamed and not to be prevented from all missionary service or from preaching in a church that he may visit that is pastored by another man.

In the case of the pastoral ministry, however, one might argue (as many do) that a divorced man is not qualified—not because he has sinned (which he has not), but because a pastor is to be “above reproach.”

1 Tim. 3:2. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3. not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. (NASB, 1995)

Being a divorced man, regardless of the cause of it, is frowned upon my many—and hence the cause of reproach.