Qualifications for Pastor

[DHK]

Then one day this pastor's seventeen year old son came to his father with a sin to confess. He had gotten a girl pregnant.

God's missionary's support was dropped you say. Who is the better off for that? ANother decision I am sure satan "hated".

In the situation I gave you the child never got involved in immorality of any kind, alcohol, drugs, etc. There was no "gross" sin that one could point to. It was simply an attitude of not being submissive.

 

[DHK]

A divorced man can't be an example of one who rules his family well, no matter which way you look at it. The child in the congregation, particularly the young people looking to marriage cannot look at their pastor and call him blameless in the area of marriage, the most sacred of God's institutions.

 

[steaver]

In the situation I gave you the child never got involved in immorality of any kind, alcohol, drugs, etc. There was no "gross" sin that one could point to. It was simply an attitude of not being submissive.

Understood.

But your pov is one that it would not matter what sin the child committed. If the child sins then the father is guilty of not ruling his house well.

At least that is what I am gathering from your post calling for "complete" obedience from the children in order to qualify a father for ruling his house well.

A divorced man can't be an example of one who rules his family well, no matter which way you look at it. The child in the congregation, particularly the young people looking to marriage cannot look at their pastor and call him blameless in the area of marriage, the most sacred of God's institutions.

The child certainly can see an example of a vow to marriage if the pastor has declared his commitment to never remarry and wait for his wife to repent. Nothing less than Jesus Christ would do for His own bride.

Now if the child has been indoctrinated from the pulpit that BOTH parties are always guilty then most certainly the child is going to look down their noses at the divorcee.

A Christian woman I know use to belong to a Brethern in Christ church right here in my community. Her husband ran around on her, beat her and then divorced her. Her wonderful church family shunned her at church and she soon left.

This is what happens when the "guilty" to BOTH is taught to the congregation and grace is a side note.

 

[DHK]

Understood.

But your pov is one that it would not matter what sin the child committed. If the child sins then the father is guilty of not ruling his house well.

At least that is what I am gathering from your post calling for "complete" obedience from the children in order to qualify a father for ruling his house well.

No, what happens when the children of pastors, missionaries, or those in positions of leadership do not act in submission to their parents. This is in a general over-all appearance to the rest of the congregation. It is unfortunate but true--the children of those in leadership are held to a higher standard than the rest of the congregation, as is the wife and the pastor. The entire family is held to a higher standard.
It is the "He/she is the pastor's kid and she can get away with that! I certainly wouldn't be able to." And the complaint goes to the parent, which then goes back to the pastor. The pastor and his family must be an example in all things. Paul said to Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
--Timothy's life had to be blameless before his congregation. When and if he got married the same would hold true for his family, for the qualification was written for his family.

The child certainly can see an example of a vow to marriage if the pastor has declared his commitment to never remarry and wait for his wife to repent. Nothing less than Jesus Christ would do for His own bride.

Now if the child has been indoctrinated from the pulpit that BOTH parties are always guilty then most certainly the child is going to look down their noses at the divorcee.

You are absolutely wrong. If a child knows anything more than the fact that the man has been divorced, then he has been listening to hearsay and gossip! What do you teach your children? What goes on in the private lives of married couples behind the doors of their homes? I hope not. I wouldn't want you as my pastor if you do. This is gossip, and it is a private marry as is almost all things between a married couple. The details of a married couple's marriage and/or divorce are not for the church to know. If they have confided in you, then that is confidential knowledge.
The only fact the church needs to know is that there is a divorced man standing in front of them. That fact has disqualified him from the ministry. He no longer is blameless in his marriage. End of story.

A Christian woman I know use to belong to a Brethern in Christ church right here in my community. Her husband ran around on her, beat her and then divorced her. Her wonderful church family shunned her at church and she soon left.

Extreme action. It wasn't needed. A person's service is often limited by their marital problems, but not severed completely. It is unfortunate that there was a lack of love.

This is what happens when the "guilty" to BOTH is taught to the congregation and grace is a side note.

No, that is what happens when there is a lack of love. There is a difference. There are consequences for sin. That is taught all the way through the Bible. You don't see. You are blind. You will not admit that there is fault on both parties in any divorce. And as long as that is your position we are at odds with each other and will not agree.

 

[steaver]

It is unfortunate but true--the children of those in leadership are held to a higher standard than the rest of the congregation, as is the wife and the pastor. The entire family is held to a higher standard.

I believe the unfortunate part is that the congregation is not taught well enough that the standard for pastor is the exact same standard for ALL Christians whether you hold or desire to hold a position or not.

It is the "He/she is the pastor's kid and she can get away with that! I certainly wouldn't be able to." And the complaint goes to the parent, which then goes back to the pastor. The pastor and his family must be an example in all things.

When this happens those who are doing the complaining need to be rubuked. All Christians must be an example in all things.

You are absolutely wrong. If a child knows anything more than the fact that the man has been divorced, then he has been listening to hearsay and gossip!

What part would be wrong?

Steaver:
The child certainly can see an example of a vow to marriage if the pastor has declared his commitment to never remarry and wait for his wife to repent. Nothing less than Jesus Christ would do for His own bride.

I don't see how I would be wrong or the child would be listening to heresy if the testimony came directly from the pastors mouth to his congregation.

The details of a married couple's marriage and/or divorce are not for the church to know.

You are generalizing and I would agree. But my example was specific to a simple testimony from the pastor as to his vow and committment to wait on his wife. No other details need be given unless he feels it beneficial to the congregation in some way. It would be a discernment on his part.

The only fact the church needs to know is that there is a divorced man standing in front of them. That fact has disqualified him from the ministry. He no longer is blameless in his marriage. End of story.

Well, that's the end of story for you and you have that right to this opinion. I will remind you though, you cannot prove the "both are to blame" view from the scripture.

Extreme action. It wasn't needed. A person's service is often limited by their marital problems, but not severed completely. It is unfortunate that there was a lack of love.

No, that is what happens when there is a lack of love. There is a difference. There are consequences for sin. That is taught all the way through the Bible.

What would you do to the woman? Your pov would have her guilty of sin. Would you put her out of the congregation until she repented?

The congregation was probably only doing as they had been told from the pulpit concerning those who are to be blamed in sin.

2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

You don't see. You are blind.

How can I be blind when you have not proved that a divorce is the fault of both parties? This is simply not taught in scripture. Just because both parties are imperfect does not place blame on both parties if ONE decides to file for a state divorce.

If this be true then if I commit adultery on my wife then she is to be blamed as well. How about if I beat my wife, she is to be blamed as well. How about if I don't divorce her but I abandon her, leaving her to survive on her own, is she also to blame? Of course not, the "both are to blame" opinion just doesn't measure up to the test of scripture nor to the test of common sense.

You will not admit that there is fault on both parties in any divorce.

You are right about that part. I will not admit to what is not founded either by scripture or by reason.

I don't expect to change your mind brother. But I won't call you blind either. In fact, I believe in your objective heart you can indeed see the folly in your argument. But there is no way you would ever go against the baptist tradition on condemning both parties for the actions of one.

I would be interested in knowing what you would do to this woman I spoke of. If she is to be blamed then church discipline is in order.

 

[DHK]

Understood.

But your pov is one that it would not matter what sin the child committed. If the child sins then the father is guilty of not ruling his house well.

At least that is what I am gathering from your post calling for "complete" obedience from the children in order to qualify a father for ruling his house well.

Quote me where I said that. I have consistently said: It was simply an attitude of not being submissive. And that results in a father not ruling his house well, or gives the appearance thereof.

The child certainly can see an example of a vow to marriage if the pastor has declared his commitment to never remarry and wait for his wife to repent. Nothing less than Jesus Christ would do for His own bride.

No he can't. He is divorced. The damage is already done. He can't go back and change the past. He has disqualified himself from the ministry. In your theology you put yourself in the place where you say there is room for Jesus to divorce the bride of Christ (for all of us to lose our salvation). I don't think so.

Now if the child has been indoctrinated from the pulpit that BOTH parties are always guilty then most certainly the child is going to look down their noses at the divorcee.

Both parties are always guilty, and thus a broken marriage is not what a child sees as the ideal for leadership. You don't set before a child that which is broken for a good example.

A Christian woman I know use to belong to a Brethern in Christ church right here in my community. Her husband ran around on her, beat her and then divorced her. Her wonderful church family shunned her at church and she soon left.

That was already noted. There was wrong done on the church's side. That is a rabbit trail and nothing to do with this conversation.

This is what happens when the "guilty" to BOTH is taught to the congregation and grace is a side note.

No it isn't. It is a false assumption on your part.

 

[DHK]

I believe the unfortunate part is that the congregation is not taught well enough that the standard for pastor is the exact same standard for ALL Christians whether you hold or desire to hold a position or not.

Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would not have written qualifications of a pastor if there were none. They are there because they are higher than the rest of the church members. Is that not obvious.

When this happens those who are doing the complaining need to be rubuked. All Christians must be an example in all things.

All Christians are not the same. There are mature Christians and immature Christians; new believers and believers who have been saved for 30 - 40 years. In a church you have all kinds of Christians. Mature believers may understand more easily. Children may not. Neither will new believers who are just coming to an understanding of their faith. Neither will it do good to rebuke them, as such.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

What part would be wrong?

Surely you jest?
For a divorced person, or divorced and remarried, just the bare facts are enough. Let me give you an example.
The Bible says:

Romans 16:19 ...yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
--this is a command.
I believe I was once that way to a certain degree.
Then when your President Clinton had the Lewinsky affair I learned things that I never wanted to hear. The media was inundated with "that which was evil." Children ought never to be exposed to Clinton and his exploits or anything of the kind.

Thus the question is: Where do you draw the line?
You draw the line at: All they need to know is whether or not the person is divorced. Period. They don't need to know why, what went on, what happened, the details, the gossip, were the neighbors involved, what about abuse, alcohol or drugs, the alimony, etc., etc., Why should they? It happens to be gossip.

I don't see how I would be wrong or the child would be listening to heresy if the testimony came directly from the pastors mouth to his congregation.

His testimony is: "I am divorced. I did not keep my family together. I am disqualified as a pastor." Then he is being honest.

You are generalizing and I would agree. But my example was specific to a simple testimony from the pastor as to his vow and committment to wait on his wife. No other details need be given unless he feels it beneficial to the congregation in some way. It would be a discernment on his part.

There is not much to give. He is divorced--end of story. That means disqualified. He is not the example that the church can hold up as blameless.

Well, that's the end of story for you and you have that right to this opinion. I will remind you though, you cannot prove the "both are to blame" view from the scripture.

One can demonstrate very easily that he was a man that did not rule his family well, whose wife was not in submission to him, whose wife was not faithful in all things, especially to him. Those are three more qualifications that he fails to meet--all from the issue of being divorced.

What would you do to the woman? Your pov would have her guilty of sin. Would you put her out of the congregation until she repented?

No, the aim is always reconciliation. Hopefully there would be reconciliation if the woman has not remarried.

The congregation was probably only doing as they had been told from the pulpit concerning those who are to be blamed in sin.

You assume too much.

2Th 3:14

And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

That has nothing to do with this situation. The goal is reconciliation.

How can I be blind when you have not proved that a divorce is the fault of both parties? This is simply not taught in scripture. Just because both parties are imperfect does not place blame on both parties if ONE decides to file for a state divorce.

Because your premise is that there is such a thing as a perfect husband and an imperfect wife. No such thing exists. You know it, and I know it. The difference is, you won't admit it. It takes two to tangle; it takes two to make a marriage work. There is no marriage where the onus is all on one person. That position is just ludicrous.

If this be true then if I commit adultery on my wife then she is to be blamed as well. How about if I beat my wife, she is to be blamed as well. How about if I don't divorce her but I abandon her, leaving her to survive on her own, is she also to blame? Of course not, the "both are to blame" opinion just doesn't measure up to the test of scripture nor to the test of common sense.

Can a husband commit adultery, be forgiven, and the marriage be restored? Yes it can. Don't say it can't. Both parties make mistakes in their marriages, and sometimes very big ones. That doesn't rule out love and forgiveness and reconciliation. Neither does it rule out counseling.

You are right about that part. I will not admit to what is not founded either by scripture or by reason.

It is found in Scripture. Christ the perfect one died for us the imperfect. He is the perfect groom coming for us the imperfect bride. The picture of that is the marriage relationship. Husbands love your wives even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.

I don't expect to change your mind brother. But I won't call you blind either. In fact, I believe in your objective heart you can indeed see the folly in your argument. But there is no way you would ever go against the baptist tradition on condemning both parties for the actions of one.

First, I have mentioned to you before--there is no tradition involved here. I don't know where you get this idea. I come to my conclusions on my own from a study of the Scriptures. Other Baptists disagree with me also.

Second, I would never go against what I believe the Bible teaches.

 

[steaver]

Originally Posted by steaver
But your pov is one that it would not matter what sin the child committed. If the child sins then the father is guilty of not ruling his house well.

At least that is what I am gathering from your post calling for "complete" obedience from the children in order to qualify a father for ruling his house well.

DHK:
Quote me where I said that. I have consistently said: It was simply an attitude of not being submissive. And that results in a father not ruling his house well, or gives the appearance thereof.

DHK:
I know of a missionary whose support was dropped because "he did not have rule over his own house," because his children were not in complete obedience to him. Harsh, isn't it? But they believed they were following the word of God.

"Complete obedience" is "perfect", no sin whatsoever.

In your theology you put yourself in the place where you say there is room for Jesus to divorce the bride of Christ (for all of us to lose our salvation). I don't think so.

Actually, that would be your position since you recognize divorce and Jesus nor I do. Since I do not recognize divorce as a sin in and of itself and only a man-made decree that can lead to sin, I agree with Jesus when He says that a divorce can cause adultery and if either one remarries after a man-made divorce has been decreed then that one who does remarry is guilty of the sin of adultery.

Both parties are always guilty

This is our contention. This is your opinion. Divorce is man-made decree ordained by man alone. If Jesus does not recognize it than neither do I. Any sin would be the adultery committed by either one if one or the other should remarry.

Here it is...

Mat 5:32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Divorce is not the transgression but rather is a gateway to adultery. There is no "thou shall not get divorced" command in the scripture, for God does not recognize it as legit. Jesus here explains that those who think a man-made decree of divorce releases them from their vow of one woman and one man are greatly mistaken. They will still be guilty of adultery IF they marry another.

Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, would not have written qualifications of a pastor if there were none. They are there because they are higher than the rest of the church members. Is that not obvious.

2Pe 3:14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Rom 6:19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

2Cr 7:1Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

1Th 4:7For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

Hbr 12:14Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

 

[steaver]

DHK: Because your premise is that there is such a thing as a perfect husband and an imperfect wife. No such thing exists. You know it, and I know it. The difference is, you won't admit it. It takes two to tangle; it takes two to make a marriage work. There is no marriage where the onus is all on one person. That position is just ludicrous.

Steaver: Just because both parties are imperfect does not place blame on both parties if ONE decides to file for a state divorce.

No such premise by me.

No, the aim is always reconciliation. Hopefully there would be reconciliation if the woman has not remarried.

How could there ever be reconciliation seeing how she is not repenting of her husband divorcing her? She is still divorced and therefore in sin.

 

[DHK]

Actually, that would be your position since you recognize divorce and Jesus nor I do. Since I do not recognize divorce as a sin in and of itself and only a man-made decree that can lead to sin, I agree with Jesus when He says that a divorce can cause adultery and if either one remarries after a man-made divorce has been decreed then that one who does remarry is guilty of the sin of adultery.

Your premise in this paragraph:
"You recognize divorce and Jesus nor I (Steaver) do not." Steaver does not recognize divorce as sin, therefore:
1. Remarriage is not sin, for there was no divorce.
2. Reconciliation is needless because there was no divorce in the first place. (must all be imagination).
3. Jesus didn't know what he was talking about when he condemned it.
4. Paul didn't know what he was talking about when he condemned it.

See the Scripture:
Matthew 19:7-8 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
--Jesus recognized that there was a legal writing of divorcement present in the first century among the Jews. Would he lie about such a document, or deny that it existed since he referred to it?

Romans 7:1-3 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
--Paul uses the marriage relationship as an illustration. But what he says about it is truth. The only thing that can separate a man and wife is death; not divorce, but death. There is a document of divorce that Jesus referred to, but the woman is bound to her husband under the law (as she is today) until her husband dies. If she divorces she breaks the law (and vice-versa). Sin is a transgression of the law. If either one remarries they commit adultery. Only if the other spouse dies are they allowed to remarry.
--Yes the Scripture does talk about divorce.
Jesus speaks about it; Paul speaks about it.

This is our contention. This is your opinion. Divorce is man-made decree ordained by man alone. If Jesus does not recognize it than neither do I. Any sin would be the adultery committed by either one if one or the other should remarry.

Jesus recognized "a writing of divorce" in his own time. He did not condone it, but he recognized that it existed. Yes it was recognized by Jesus. Read your Bible--Matthew 19.

Mark 10:11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
--"to put away" means to divorce. Joseph was going to put away Mary until the angel intervened.

Here it is...

Mat 5:32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

You probably don't understand this verse in the same way that I do. The Bible does not contradict itself. There is no exception clause. Mark 10:11,12 is quite clear about divorce and remarriage. The result is adultery--no exception clause; Mat.5:32 notwithstanding.

Divorce is not the transgression but rather is a gateway to adultery.

Yes, one sin leads to another sin.

There is no "thou shall not get divorced" command in the scripture, for God does not recognize it as legit. Jesus here explains that those who think a man-made decree of divorce releases them from their vow of one woman and one man are greatly mistaken. They will still be guilty of adultery IF they marry another.

Read Mat.19. Jesus recognized divorce. Why not believe him? I do.



http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Pe&c=3&t=KJV#14

 

[steaver]

Your premise in this paragraph:
"You recognize divorce and Jesus nor I (Steaver) do not." Steaver does not recognize divorce as sin, therefore:
1. Remarriage is not sin, for there was no divorce.
2. Reconciliation is needless because there was no divorce in the first place. (must all be imagination).
3. Jesus didn't know what he was talking about when he condemned it.
4. Paul didn't know what he was talking about when he condemned it.

1. Remarriage is adultery and therefore it is sin.
2. Rconciliation is necessary if two have become seperated and desire to be "together" with someone.
3. Jesus knew exactly what man's divorce law would lead to-adultery.
4. Paul knew exactly what he was saying when he said two could seperate but were not to remarry-commit adultery.

See the Scripture:
--Jesus recognized that there was a legal writing of divorcement present in the first century among the Jews. Would he lie about such a document, or deny that it existed since he referred to it?

"Legal" according to Moses, but not given by God. Jesus had to explain many wrong traditions developed by the Jews.

--Paul uses the marriage relationship as an illustration. But what he says about it is truth. The only thing that can separate a man and wife is death; not divorce, but death. There is a document of divorce that Jesus referred to, but the woman is bound to her husband under the law (as she is today) until her husband dies. If she divorces she breaks the law (and vice-versa). Sin is a transgression of the law. If either one remarries they commit adultery. Only if the other spouse dies are they allowed to remarry.
--Yes the Scripture does talk about divorce.
Jesus speaks about it; Paul speaks about it.

Brother, carefully read what you just wrote. Can you see how you write that the "divorce" is "no good" in the eyes of God for the two are still one until death?

Divorce is man's law. Not God's law. Therefore divorcing is NOT transgressing God's law. It would be like a Christian saying "I have divorced Christ". It cannot be done on God's level of justice. God does not allow it and man cannot override God's law with any write of paper.

The ONLY sin that transgresses God's law is IF adultery through remarriage takes place.

"The only thing that can separate a man and wife is death; not divorce, but death."

Amen, this is my argument all day long.

"the woman is bound to her husband under the law (as she is today) until her husband dies."

Amen, bound by God's law, this is my argument all day long.

"If she divorces she breaks the law (and vice-versa). Sin is a transgression of the law."

This is incorrect. Divorce is man's law, not God's. Divorce is a seperation. Seperation is not a sin in and of itself, Paul allowed it. What is not allowed is adultery which would result from remarriage to another. If two who are seperated desire to be "together" with someone they are to be reconciled again to their lawful (God's law) spouse. Otherwise, if they marry soemone different, they commit adultery-sin.

If either one remarries they commit adultery. Only if the other spouse dies are they allowed to remarry.

Amen, as I have been arguing all day long.

Jesus recognized "a writing of divorce" in his own time. He did not condone it, but he recognized that it existed. Yes it was recognized by Jesus. Read your Bible--Matthew 19.

Yes, what He did not "recognize" was it's "legitamacy" before God. In other words, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. In God's eyes the two are still bound until death do you part-God's law. Man's law does not trump God's law.

You trying to have this two ways. You post, and correctly so, that the two are bound until death-divorce decrees do not change this. And then you want a divorce decree to matter to God as though it has caused the two to not be married anymore.

The only thing a divorce decree can do is lead one into the sin of adultery. There is no law of divorce in God's law. Only a law of marriage which CANNOT be broken by a divorce decree. The only transgression of God's law is adultery becaiuse marriage can ONLY be broken by death-not by any divorce.

Jesus pointed out that divorce is no good because it will lead to the sin of adultery. (He knew the hearts of men and their reasons for wanting a divorce).

Here is the point I am making and you are not grasping...

Divorce is a bogus. It is a worthless man-made law and document in the eyes of God. So what is God looking at then? Adultery. Jesus made this perfectly clear when He spoke of divorce.

Mat 5:32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

This is demonstrated in our relationship with Christ. We are married to Christ, we cannot get a divorce because their is no such thing in God's law. We can commit adultery against Christ, but the marriage cannot be broken until one dies, of course this marriage is spiritual and having eternal life in an Eternal God would make that an impossibility. Praise Him!

 

[DHK]

Divorce is not a sin in and of itself

This is a ludicrous position to take since Christ himself condemned.

It is the same position as saying:
Gay marriages are not a sin in and of themselves
You can say that because God doesn't recognize them as marriage (as he doesn't recognize divorce. Steaver, he recognizes both as sin. Sin is sin.
Whether the sin is a gay marriage or the sin is divorce, sin is sin; it is a transgression of the law. God recognizes the laws of man such as speeding. Check Romans 13. It is sin. Divorce is sin. Jesus called it sin. You can't continue to play this game of semantics. Divorce is sin. The Bible says "Call not evil good." This is what you are doing.

 

[steaver]

This is a ludicrous position to take since Christ himself condemned.

It is the same position as saying:
Gay marriages are not a sin in and of themselves
You can say that because God doesn't recognize them as marriage (as he doesn't recognize divorce. Steaver, he recognizes both as sin. Sin is sin.
Whether the sin is a gay marriage or the sin is divorce, sin is sin; it is a transgression of the law. God recognizes the laws of man such as speeding. Check Romans 13. It is sin. Divorce is sin. Jesus called it sin. You can't continue to play this game of semantics. Divorce is sin. The Bible says "Call not evil good." This is what you are doing.

I don't believe it is merely a matter of semantics. I am a stickler for sola-scripture in it's strickest sense. I will not go beyond what is exactly written and when I do give an opinion I confess it as such and do not claim "thus sayeth the Lord" on the matter if the Lord was not "thus specific".

It is the same position as saying:
Gay marriages are not a sin in and of themselves

Correct you are. God did not marry the two and God does not see a marriage, neither do I. Their sin is fornification and most certainly unbelief.

it is a transgression of the law.

Fornication and unbelief are transgressions of the law. If I say they have sinned against God by marrying each other then I have given legitamacy to their marriage by acknowleging they are married. I would rather tell them that God has not married them and therefore they are not married no matter what any man-made law might say or what they might think. I would tell them that their unbelief and their fornication is what God condemns and is where their sin is manifested.

The Bible says "Call not evil good." This is what you are doing

I never called divorce good, In fact here is my quote:

Jesus pointed out that divorce is no good because it will lead to the sin of adultery. (He knew the hearts of men and their reasons for wanting a divorce).

Let me ask you a question,

Moses gave the Jews an option for divorce. Was God's servant committing sin by decreeing they could divorce by giving a written letter?

Let me ask you another question,

If my wife and I seperate for an undetermined amount of time, is this seperation a sin?

 

[DHK]

Let me ask you a question,

Moses gave the Jews an option for divorce. Was God's servant committing sin by decreeing they could divorce by giving a written letter?

It was not in God's perfect will as it was not in God's perfect will to have many wives. God was not pleased with it.

Let me ask you another question,

If my wife and I seperate for an undetermined amount of time, is this seperation a sin?

That depends on 1Cor.7:5 and your application of it to your own personal lives. Yes it could be sin, but it doesn't have to be.

However, divorce is sin. It is condemned in the Bible not because it leads to adultery, but because it in and of itself is a sin. Period. It is condemned. There is no way to get around that. There is no place in the Bible where divorce is condoned.

 

[steaver]

It was not in God's perfect will as it was not in God's perfect will to have many wives. God was not pleased with it.

.

Moses was Israel's pastor and they understood from Moses that divorce was allowed under certain circumstances. It appears that even though it was not God's "perfect" will, Moses understood grace and mercy had to prevail.

That depends on 1Cor.7:5 and your application of it to your own personal lives. Yes it could be sin, but it doesn't have to be.

Then it is possible for a pastor to be seperated and still be blameless?

...as it was not in God's perfect will to have many wives. God was not pleased with it.

This is another topic but since you brought it up, why is it not recorded anywhere in the OT scriptures that God did not condone multiple wives? All of David's wives are told us, but it never says God was displeased with David's multiple marriages. I always wondered why.

 

[DHK]

Moses was Israel's pastor and they understood from Moses that divorce was allowed under certain circumstances. It appears that even though it was not God's "perfect" will, Moses understood grace and mercy had to prevail.

Grace and mercy is not described as "the hardness of your heart."
Stephen described Israel as:
Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
--not grace and mercy, but a nation that had "hardness of heart," as Jesus said.

Then it is possible for a pastor to be seperated and still be blameless?

No, this argument is ludicrous. Divorce is not even mentioned here. Separation is not divorce. If I go away for three weeks or longer I will be away or separated from my wife for a period of time. We both must agree to that. What on earth does that have to do with divorce.

Even then that is not what the verse is really speaking about it. It is speaking of a deliberate separation of each other from intimacy for one reason and one reason only:

1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
--The purpose here is for prayer and fasting.
This has nothing to do with divorce which is carnal, ugly, and entirely against the will of God. If prayer and fasting were the purpose of the separation, I guarantee you there would have been no divorce.

This is another topic but since you brought it up, why is it not recorded anywhere in the OT scriptures that God did not condone multiple wives? All of David's wives are told us, but it never says God was displeased with David's multiple marriages. I always wondered why.

God never outwardly condemned it; but was never displeased it. Looked at those that did have multiple wives. From Elkanah to Isaac to Abraham to David to Solomon, etc. everywhere you look, they all had marital problems if they had more than one wife. It was never God's will; he only permitted them. God permits some things that he does not condone.

 

[steaver]

Grace and mercy is not described as "the hardness of your heart."
Stephen described Israel as:
Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
--not grace and mercy, but a nation that had "hardness of heart," as Jesus said.

.

I wasn't refering to Moses giving grace and mercy to the hard hearted, but rather giving grace and mercy to those women who had hard hearted men who were treating them like dirt. You have to remember Jesus was speaking to a different society than the one we live in this country today. Woman were generally treated as property. I don't even think that a woman was allowed to "put away" her husband. Moses gave the permission to the men because of their "hard hearts" towards their wives. It was mercy directed towards the wives of abusive husbands.

I don't think your pov has any place for mercy. For it would not matter to you if the husband literally tortured the wife day and night. For even she was quiet as a church mouse and full of submission you would still say "she should have known better than to marry this man in the first place".

There are many testimonies of people marrying a person who by all known witnesses was a "perfect" catch, just to have that person turn into a Mr. or Mrs. Hide shortly after the vow is spoken.

Your pov has no room for discernment and mercy. It is a "all guilty, no mercy" pov.

No, this argument is ludicrous. Divorce is not even mentioned here. Separation is not divorce. If I go away for three weeks or longer I will be away or separated from my wife for a period of time. We both must agree to that. What on earth does that have to do with divorce.

Even then that is not what the verse is really speaking about it. It is speaking of a deliberate separation of each other from intimacy for one reason and one reason only:

1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
--The purpose here is for prayer and fasting.
This has nothing to do with divorce which is carnal, ugly, and entirely against the will of God. If prayer and fasting were the purpose of the separation, I guarantee you there would have been no divorce.

My mistake. I did not check your reference, I thought you were pointing to verse 10 and beyond. You are right, verse 5 has nothing to with divorce or the kind of seperation we have been speaking of. You knida fooled me on that one because verse 5 has nothing to do with my question as per the topic we have been on.

So then, speaking of one seperating because he or she has been at odds and one says they need some time apart;

If my wife and I seperate for an undetermined amount of time, is this seperation a sin?

God never outwardly condemned it; but was never displeased it. Looked at those that did have multiple wives. From Elkanah to Isaac to Abraham to David to Solomon, etc. everywhere you look, they all had marital problems if they had more than one wife. It was never God's will; he only permitted them. God permits some things that he does not condone.

Hey, it only takes one wife to have marital problems. :tongue3: (Yes ladies, or just one husband :love2: )

 

[DHK]

If my wife and I seperate for an undetermined amount of time, is this seperation a sin?

This is a red herring.
Missionaries, evangelists, married students, etc. all out of necessity, spend time away from their spouse. What has this got to do with the topic? I would say nothing.

 

[steaver]

This is a red herring.
Missionaries, evangelists, married students, etc. all out of necessity, spend time away from their spouse. What has this got to do with the topic? I would say nothing.

No, this is on topic. You know we are not discussing spending time apart out of a necessity.

Let me give you an example;

A husband cheats on his wife and she leaves him, moves out of their home and into an apartment, but does not file for a divorce. This our society calls "seperated" not "divorced".

Is this "seperation" a sin?

 

[DHK]

No, this is on topic. You know we are not discussing spending time apart out of a necessity.

Let me give you an example;

A husband cheats on his wife and she leaves him, moves out of their home and into an apartment, but does not file for a divorce. This our society calls "seperated" not "divorced".

Is this "seperation" a sin?

"What God has joined together let no man put asunder.