"The Husband of One Wife?

[Reynolds]

Name one conservative theologian who says having two wives does not disqualify a man from the pastorate.

You have moved the goalposts. I can name you plenty that say a divorced and remarried man can be a pastor. They must not see him as married to two wives

 

[TCassidy]

I can name you plenty that say a divorced and remarried man can be a pastor.

So can I. If the first wife is dead or that the divorce was for adultery.

They must not see him as married to two wives

Not if he is divorced for biblical reason.

How many more times do I have to say this?

 

[TCassidy]

None - however - when a divorce is granted the woman is no longer the wife of the man.

Only if the divorce was for adultery.

Suppose a wife leaves her husband (Bill) - she then marries another man (Jim) - in essence she has now committed adultery with Jim.
So could Bill become a pastor since his ex wife has now committed adultery ?

Does he divorce her for adultery?

Would he be qualified to be an evangelist?

Yes. But I have a different understanding of what an evangelist is.

 

[rlvaughn]

The Westminster Confession was a major source for the Second London Baptist Confession (1677/1689), yet the London Confession (following the Independent Savoy Declaration of 1658, which the Baptist confession follows more closely than the Westminster) omitted the section on divorce. Whether this reflects a genuine disagreement with the Westminster Assembly, I cannot say. Parliament approved the Westminster Confession minus some sections, including the one on divorce. Did the Independents (and thus the Baptists) ignore the section because they disagreed or because they were unwilling to tread where Parliament had not gone? I am not aware of a definitive answer.

I said I was going to bow out, but you drew me back in, brother! This is an interesting question of why with, as you say, no definitive answer. It is interesting to notice that among the marriage proof-texts they give Malachi 2:15, which somewhat addresses the topic.

I might also hazard a guess that divorce was not a pressing issue with the 17 century English Baptists. Divorce (which required an act of Parliament) was expensive and a long-drawn-out affair (so to speak) and very few of those Baptists would have the means to seek a divorce even if they desired one.

I suspect you are right about this.

Looking for other early Baptist views on divorce, I find that the General Baptist Thomas Grantham addressed this in his Christianismus Primitivus (Book III, Chapter 6; 1678). I reserve the right to revise my statement after reading over it more carefully, but on first blush it looks like that Grantham asserts "That nothing but the pollution of the Marriage Bed can justifie a Divorce," with an appeal to Matthew 5.

 

[rsr]

That is my understanding as well. My copy was optically scanned, so the text is a bit of a mess, but it seems clear that Grantham says that the only valid reason for divorce is adultery.

 

[rsr]

As to Malachi: This seems to be an appeal to Israelite men not to abandon their aging wives to seek greener pastures. I wonder why the reference was not to the next verse:

"For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”

 

[Bro. James]

What if the marriage document is signed by unqualified persons? What about marriages which are annulled free of charge? Does teenage fornication constitute a marriage?

Some of us have more skeletons in our closets than others and do not even know it. We have a tendency to run with rumor, gossip and innuendo--toxins which permeate the flock.

Though our sins be as scarlet, He shall make them white as snow; having removed them as far as East is from West, to be remembered no more.

There is no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven.

Would it make any difference if pastors were unpaid and had a secular job?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Jerry W. Ramming]

I have never said that, and you know it! The point is now. Now, a man with two living wives is disqualified for the pastorate. You KNOW that is the point but you keep posting falsehoods about what I said. Shame on you! The Lord rebuke you!

My apologies. Apparently I'm not phrasing my questions in a manner that fit your particularly unique style of teaching.
My gratitude to the others on this forum for you in-depth and well thought out comments and answers... But at this point it's probably best that I sit back and think of a better way to phrase my question.
Please don't misinterpret this as my being thin skinned.... by no means....
But I am trying to make my daily walk with Christ better than the day before by growing in knowledge and not being sucked into "brawls" with those of ill temperament.
As they say, "I'm not where I need to be, but Thank my Lord and Savior I'm not where I use to be!"
"...temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach..."
Maybe I should have asked about these first...

 

[Salty]

Only if the divorce was for adultery.

Does he divorce her for adultery?.

NO - she divorced him before she even met her second husband.

 

[TCassidy]

NO - she divorced him before she even met her second husband.

Then there is no biblical divorce and they are still married.

 

[TCassidy]

What if the marriage document is signed by unqualified persons?

Marriage is not a piece of paper. It is a vow to each other (and before Almighty God) to love, honor, and cherish until death parts you.

What about marriages which are annulled free of charge?

Marriage is not a piece of paper, or a receipt for legal fees.

Does teenage fornication constitute a marriage?

No. Already dealt with in another post.

Would it make any difference if pastors were unpaid and had a secular job?

No.

 

[TCassidy]

Apparently I'm not phrasing my questions in a manner that fit your particularly unique style of teaching.

The best way would be to ask an honest question rather than asking a question that is a lie that supposes that I said something I did not say.

But at this point it's probably best that I sit back and think of a better way to phrase my question.

The better way to phrase a question is to do so honestly and not phrase your question around a lie that supposes that I said something I did not say.

Had you been one of my students and asked such a dishonest question you would have been kicked out of class and expelled from the seminary.

 

[Salty]

Marriage is not a piece of paper. It is a vow to each other (and before Almighty God) to love, honor, and cherish until death parts you. .

Suppose they were married by a JP - with no mention of God.

 

[TCassidy]

Suppose they were married by a JP - with no mention of God.

Could God still see it?

 

[Jerry W. Ramming]

The best way would be to ask an honest question rather than asking a question that is a lie that supposes that I said something I did not say.

The better way to phrase a question is to do so honestly and not phrase your question around a lie that supposes that I said something I did not say.

Had you been one of my students and asked such a dishonest question you would have been kicked out of class and expelled from the seminary.

Again my apologies, not so much for my inability to phrase a question that fit within the line of sight of your blinders, but at this point, also for not allowing you to drag me into your less than Christian like discussion tactics.
After looking at some of your past interaction with others on this board I'm reassured in the fact that your particularly hostile postings are probably more due to your inability to regulate to your medications rather than my ability to get you to answer a simple biblical question that goes against your personal views.
I wish you the best and will be praying for you.
And to give a a little piece of mind, I'll be signing off the website. I signed on because I saw some genuinely well thought out civil discussions, but you sir, don't particularly strike me as someone who can shake hands and start fresh.....
Probably a good thing I didn't ask about dogs going to Heaven, you'd probably have had an aneurysm.

 

[Salty]

And to give a a little piece of mind, I'll be signing off the website. I signed on because I saw some genuinely well thought out civil discussions, but you sir, don't particularly strike me as someone who can shake hands and start fresh.....
Probably a good thing I didn't ask about dogs going to Heaven, you'd probably have had an aneurysm.

Jerry,
I implore you to NOT sign off from this web site.
Please PM me - and I will mention some other things

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As the OP has been banned, this thread is closed.