divorce and pastorship

From wiz:

No. If you're specifically referring to Matthew 19:3-12, then the original address was to the Pharisees.

I think we could agree that they weren't Christians.

 

They weren't Joe Pagan off the street, either.

Would you let a former alcoholic become a pastor? Or even preach?
How about a former drug addict?
Maybe someone who served time in prison?
Are you going to hold their pasts over their heads when they are called by God for a ministry?
How about if any of them were happily married to ONE LIVING WIFE (as opposed to a dead wife, I guess)?

I hear "sin is sin" over and over again, but apparently "D" is in a class all by itself.

 

Apparently so Wiz. What I am hearing here is that the blood of Jesus is sufficient for every sin except divorce.

It seems like an issue of pride. You know? "I'm clean and qualified and you're not" type of thing.

 

I would rather hear a sermon from a born again, regenerated, washed in the blood former whatever who's been there and done that than, for example, someone preaching on the dangers of the "devil's brew" and had never touched a drop in his life.

If the man is truly called of God, who are we to determine his worthiness? If he says he's called, and he really isn't, God will take care of it.

 

Pardon my abruptness, and moderators, please feel free to delete this and reprimand me:

That's plain and simple stupid.

I don't need to swim in a tank of sharks to know sharks are dangerous. I don't need to taste garbage to know it doesn't taste good. And all I have to do is see the effects of the "devil's brew" to be able to preach the problems--and consequences--of it.

And come on back, Wiz--I answered your question and showed you they weren't Christians, and you come back with "they sure weren't pagans"???

Both you and RomOne need to understand: NO one here is going to deny them the opportunity to preach; it's the pastorship that's in question.

 

Since my short comments and pointed questions seem to start things up, let me throw this out there. Several times there have been comments such as, "Doesn't that only apply to Christians who get divorced?"

Hello, folks, EVERYONE in the world is subject to God's commands, believer or not, professing believer or not! Romans 3:19-20, 1:18-32, Acts 17:22-31, etc., etc, etc.

 

Of course they weren't Christians -- No one was a Christian at that time. DUH.
He was still talking to men of God, not heathens out in the village.

As for that "stupid" remark --
If you've never "been there and done that" you can only surmise by observation. The voice of experience is much more accurate and believable than someone who read about or heard about or saw it from afar.

If a man was divorced before he was married, and saved during his second marriage, who am I to judge if he's called by God? If God has called him to pastor, that's between him and God.
To deny someone their God called ministry simply because of how you view their past, IMO, is reprehensible.
You will answer for it.

 

GOD has given the following qualifications for the position we call elder or bishop or pastor. These are not man-made, these are GOD's own requirements.

1 Tim 3:2-7 A bishop then must be

-above reproach
-the husband of one wife
-temperate
-sober-minded
-good behavior
-hospitable
-able to teach
-not given to wine
-not violent
-not greedy for money
-but gentle
-not quarrelsome
-not covetous;
-one who rules his own house well
-having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);
-not a novice
-he must have a good testimony among those who are outside

And additional items from Titus 1--
-having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.
-not self-willed
-not quick-tempered
-not given to wine
-not violent
-not greedy for money,
-hospitable
-a lover of what is good
-sober-minded
-just
-holy
-self-controlled
-holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

These cannot be in conflict with God's calling. If a man says, "I am called by God to pastor," and that man does not meet in some measure, these qualifications, the man is not called, no matter what he thinks. On the basis of God's Word, which is the final judge of all things, I can certainly challenge his calling.

I can challenge the calling to the pastorate of any unqualified man, just like I can challenge the supposed calling of a woman who says she wants to pastor, even though she cannot possibly be a "one woman man," since "man" is "andra," a male. (sorry, haven't figured out how to "go Greek" in these posts yet!)

Based on the fallacious argument that "You can't question a man's calling," I could not question the calling of an Imam who wanted to remain Muslim and still pastor a Christian church, nor could I question an openly homosexual man. Admittedly, many of these qualifications are overlooked, especially the ones from Titus, so we end up with ignorant and uncalled men claiming a call and pastoring churches. However, two wrongs do not make a right.

 

We've reached the point of non-productive conversation.

If you feel you need to go out and get hooked on drugs so you can properly preach on the subject, then by all means, go do so. Otherwise, you're not properly qualified to preach on the evils of drug abuse.

Do you understand the absurdity of your point of view now?

Here's another proposition: A previously convicted pedophiliac has been saved and converted, and now believes he's been called to work with children. Wiz, according to your viewpoint, we should allow that individual unsupervised leeway to do so; correct?

Believe it or not, I see your side of the argument. I just disagree with it, because, like Major B points out, I see scripture. Scripture is my final authority, and I don't see any distinction made about whether the bishop was married and divorced before he was saved or after.

I'm just not sure if you see our side of the argument, and simply disagree with it.

 

And, Don's point about the Pedophile is not at all extended, drawn out, or exaggerated. It happens all too often, and not just among Catholics. I am a nouthetic counselor, and I see the long term results of such things all too often.

 

I think that wizofoz has put a perfectly valid point up from the bible here that does not seem to be adequatley addressed here. If you want to use the term "One Living Wife" Then its not unreasonable to quote that term word for word from scripture. I think it is appropriatley pointed out that Husband of one wife can be seen in a number of lights.

We see things where we want to use scriptur to prove our respective point. Yet it can only be scripture that states exactly the point we are making, Not things that can be interpreted differently.

 

You still don't see the difference in the marriage covenant and the importance of keeping a vow, vs. the sin against another man, including thyself.

I know there is much said before I had this chance to reply. Those sins you mentioned can all be made right, the only way a broken vow of holy matrimony can be made right is to renew those marriage vows to that same spouse. Big difference, huh?

In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky

 

Apparently so Wiz. What I am hearing here is that the blood of Jesus is sufficient for every sin except divorce.

It seems like an issue of pride. You know? "I'm clean and qualified and you're not" type of thing. </font>[/QUOTE]I've seen this accusation made several times, but I have yet to see anyone guilty of such. It's not that the sin of divorce isn't forgiven, but that the consequences are undeniable. If the man were truly called of God, I believe he would put everything else aside until he set his family back in order by making those vows right, that IS what the rest of the qualifications hinge on concerning a married man.

A man and a wife constitute a family, so a divorce is always OUT OF ORDER!


In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky

 

"Ubangy"
"What's a Ubangy?"

"You banga yer head, you bruisa yer brain!"

I believe the Lord made His point quite clear and "respective", Brother Ben, maybe you ought to lay off the HM for awhile a give the Lord a chance to heal those bruises!

If the Lord meant "husband of one wife" at a time, then He would have said that.

O.K., O.K., so some of yall believe the pastor can be divorced and remarried and still be qualified, (God doesn't!). Let me interject something that I want everyone who believes this to answer: The man has married a wife, they have children, he divorces that wife for her committing adultry. Now he re-marries and has more children by the second wife, he gets saved. Now, how is it he can have two families including the first wife , being married to the second, and have his house in order? He cannot deny that the first wife is the mother of the children of the first marriage, so how is it he can omit her from the family and have his present house in order?

C'mon, now! Let's use a little rational thinking here, quit all the hogwash, (that's what comes off the hog when you wash him!), and explain this. Isn't this the case in many of the so-called double-married pastor's lives?


In His Holy Service,

Brother Ricky

Post Script: If I don't treat my wife with the respect and honour she deserves, (included in the marriage vows), I could be disqualified tomorrow!

 

Amen.

I understand the absurdity of your statement.

Grasping at straws now, are we? More absurdity.

How about these scriptures? (From an earlier post)

Jeremiah 31:34
"...Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Hebrews 8:12
"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."

Hebrews 10:17
"And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."

I see a distinction between who you are before and after you are saved. Your past is gone; forgotten by God. How many times do I need to say it?

Oh, I've tried to see it. But I can't get past the condemnation of someone for what they did before they were saved.
You say "sin is sin". You say "divorce is sin".
The Bible says God will "remember no more" our sins and iniquities.
So, after salvation, the past sins are forgotten.
I have repeated this over and over. I'm through.

 

No. What I see is your apparent inability to answer those points.

It's not condemnation for past sins, Wiz; it's biblical standing up and taking responsibility for what we've done. You want to let a pedophiliac who's been saved work with kids, then by all means, that's your choice. You want to let a murderer who's been saved play with knives or firearms, that's your choice. Perhaps they have completely and utterly turned from their prior ways; that's known as "repentence." However, why would you want to place them in a position that appealed to their old flesh? Why would you want to place them in a position of temptation like that?

Why would you want to place a man who's been through past marital strife in a position where he's going to have to deal with marital strife--either his own, or, as the pastor, the marital strife of others?

I will never, ever, deny anyone the chance to preach the Word of God.

And I'm through, too. Neither side is convincing the other of anything, so it's time to shake the dust off.

 

I would suppose if we were to remove I Timothy 3 and Titus from the Bible this subject would be satisfied on the part of those who feel a man isn't responsible for his actions before salvation, but then we also would have to tear out:

Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.


**7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.**

Anymore anyone would like to see removed?

Just tear them out of your Bible, or at least twist them with your logic to nullify the true meaning. NOT!!!!

In His Holy Service!

Brother Ricky