Titus 1:6-qualifications for clergy

Hi JohnWells. Thank you for your comments. You said; "If you do not accept the literal rendering or Greek meaning of the words in the debated verses, or Pastor Larry's last comment in this thread, then further discussion is futile."

In your last post you said you would answer my previous questions after you asked me about my theology. You said; "latterrain77, Before I respond to your response, are you involved with the Latter Rain movement/theology? "

Will you now answer my questions as you said you would? Thanks JohnWells. latterrain77

 

latterrain77,

I will state again . . . , I have ansered all possible distortions (I think) of the scriptures in question in the linked thread. Did you bother to read them? Laziness on your part does not constitute more work on my part!

 

Hi JohnWells. Sorry! But you have not answered the questions as I have yours. You explicitly said you would answer, but you have not, and now you are trying to avoid doing so. You said, and I quote; " latterrain77, Before I respond to your response, are you involved with the Latter Rain movement/theology?". There is nothing ambiguous about your statement.

You said; " I have answered all possible distortions (I think) of the scriptures in question in the linked thread. Did you bother to read them?" I have read them and responded to them. You have not answered anything yet.

You said; "Laziness on your part does not constitute more work on my part!" I suppose laziness is in the eye of the beholder. The only laziness I see is in a man who explicitly said he would do something - and then does not do it. If you were confident in your position, then it should be relatively easy for you to defend it as you said you would do - but have not/cannot. It hardly matters. Your non-answer is the best answer for your wrong position. Thanks JohnWells. latterrain77

 

It actually means "woman" in a number of the places where it is used in the NT. Get out your concordance and study it. It does not speak of "marriage" in that passage.

And this is exactly the point. The pastor is to be a man whose relationships with women is characterized by "one woman-ness." He is not to be a flirt, an adulterer, a womanizer, all things which a man with only one wife could be. A "one woman man" cannot be any of those things.

No it doesn't.

Then you need to do some studying. I have seen no major commentary (or minor one for that matter) say anything different. Virtually all commentators agree with me on this. For some easy reading see Homer Kent's commentary on teh pastorals. For some deeper stuff see George Knight's. You can read all kinds of things in between. The bottom line is that virtually no one holds the position you mention simply because of the implications of it. Virtually all agree with me that this is what Paul was talking about.

 

latterrain77: this newly saved man will recognize that his prior divorce locks him out from the office of bishop/pastor.

I already gave you some verses, which you seem to want to ignore, so . . . let . . . me . . . spell . . . it . . . out . . . for . . . you:

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:32) I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9)

Therefore, even though God hates and is against divorce, in the case of marital unfaithfulness it is acceptable.

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. (1 Corinthians 7:15)

Let’s say a man who is now an ordained minister was married to an unbeliever. He became a believer and she left and divorced him because of his life change. This divorce is also acceptable and there is no reason and no scripture that says this man, if he meets all the requirements of “blameless” that Pastor Larry eloquently pointed out, should be banned from the pulpit.

latterrain77:The phrase "husband of one wife" does not mean "one wife at a time." Even if it did (and it doesn't) a divorced man would still be disqualified from the pastor office as per 1 Tim. 3: verses 4 & 5 and otherwise.

He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) (1 Timothy 3:4-5)

“Husband of one wife” means, in context with the other examples of “blamelessness,” that he is a one-woman man and is not given to having straying eyes or thoughts of other women. After conversion, he may be the model husband and father for many years, and as "blameless" as any once-married man. Do you really see something in the passage you cited that a divorced man (especially if it was before he became a “new creation”) could not fulfill?

latterrain77: if a man is divorced he automatically and irreparably fails this test (unless he becomes reconciled and remarried to his wife whom he divorced). A single man CANNOT meet the standard by definition (verses 2, 4, 5 and otherwise).

See my first response.

latterrain77: He cannot be single (1 Tim. 3: verses 2, 4, 5, and otherwise). Nor can he be remarried to another woman while his first wife lives (1 Cor. 7: 39, 1 Cor. 7: 11, 1 Cor. 7: 27). They are BOUND as long as the other lives (1 Cor. 7: 39). Eph. 5: 31 makes it clear that a husband is bound to his WIFE (singular) not his "wives" (plural). Eph. 5: 31 says he leaves his mother and father to become one with his wife. It does NOT say that he leaves his first wife to cleave to his second wife.

See my first response

latterrain77: The conclusion of Mark 10: 11 is irrefutable which is; a divorced man who marries another is an adulterer. There is no other possible read of Mark 10: 11. Furthermore, a man who divorces his wife automatically causes her to become an adulteress (Matt. 5: 32) even though she may be wholly innocent! If you think Mark 10: 11 means something else, please provide your explanation.

See . . . my . . . first . . . response!

latterrain77:I think you confuse healthy attraction with lust. They are different. Thanks JohnWells. latterrain77

No, I think I know the difference. I think you confuse the power of regeneration by the Holy Spirit to make a born again believer “blameless.”

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love (Ephesians 1:4)

Making divorce a “second unpardonable sin” goes against the redeeming power of the blood of Jesus Christ. If the divorce was far enough in the past, and especially if it was prior to a man’s salvation, and he has demonstrated both the fruits that accompany salvation and the fruits that validate God’s calling him into the ministry, then who appointed you judge, latterrain77?

 

Hi Larry. Thank you for your comments. However, you are simply wrong. The word "wife" in 1 Tim. 3 means exactly what it says; a woman made so through holy matrimony with a man (husband). The word "wife" does not mean a man's relationship with a woman (or women as you say) without the benefit of holy matrimony. Such a relationship could not have children as 1 Tim. 3: 4 demands without the benefit of Holy matrimony.

The 1 Tim. 3 phrase "the husband of one wife" (v2) absolutely illustrates that the words "wife" and "husband" are to mean a literal marriage through holy matrimony. It cannot possibly mean merely a pastor (or man's) relationship with any woman (women) outside of marriage. Furthermore, the phrase "ONE wife" (as demanded by 1 Tim. 3) can only mean ONE singular wife through holy matrimony, not plural wives as is the case with divorce/remarriage.

Human beings are NOT permitted to separate what GOD has joined together in holy matrimony; divorce (Matt. 19: 6). Matt. 19: 6 is so clear, that one wonders how anyone could even entertain the idea of a divorced pastor heading a church. And this is but one reason why 1 Tim. 3 demands that a pastor be a non-divorced man, married to one wife only with children through her only (unless she has deceased).

A divorced pastor is an impossible idea according to 1 Cor. 7: 27. Furthermore, that same verse also makes remarriage after a divorce an impossibility.

According to the Bible, when a man leaves his father and mother, he cleaves to his WIFE and the two become one flesh (Matt. 19: 5). If they are ONE flesh then they are no longer two. By contrast, if a man left his father and mother and cleaved to a "woman" only, without the benefit of holy matrimony, then he would be fornicating! 1 Cor. 6: 16 also hints at this very mysterious thing. Holy matrimony alone is the thing that renders the man/woman relation HOLY (Heb. 13: 4). All other intimate male/female relations are defiled - no matter how lovely they may seem on the surface.

You say that Mark 10: 11 does not mean what it says. Here is what it says; " And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her" (Mark 10: 11). Please tell me what Mark 10: 11 means if it does not mean exactly what it says. Also, please tell me what Matt. 19: 5 means if it does not mean what it says. It says; "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19: 5). Thanks Larry. latterrain77

 

Hi JohnWells. Thank you for your comments. You said; " Therefore, even though God hates and is against divorce, in the case of marital unfaithfulness it is acceptable." So, are you saying that the only grounds for a divorce are if a wife cheats on her husband? Are you saying that a man may NOT be a pastor if he is divorced UNLESS his divorce resulted from his wife's fornication?

What if the fornicating wife says she sorry? Must her pastor husband forgive her or divorce her? If he divorces her, may he remarry another while she lives? If yes, then what are you going to do with 1 Cor. 7: 39 or Rom. 7:2? If a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, then by definition the husband is also bound during that same time frame. And what are you going to do with 1 Cor. 7: 27? It says; " Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife"

What if the man cheats on his wife? Can she divorce him according to your understanding of the Matt. 5: 32 verse you quoted? Or, must she forgive him and adhere to 1 Cor. 7: 27?

You said; " Let’s say a man who is now an ordained minister was married to an unbeliever. He became a believer and she left and divorced him because of his life change. This divorce is also acceptable and there is no reason and no scripture that says this man, if he meets all the requirements of “blameless” that Pastor Larry eloquently pointed out, should be banned from the pulpit." Not so! Is he married to a wife? He may not seek to be divorced! Is he loosed from his wife? He may NOT seek a wife! (1 Cor. 7: 27). This teaches plainly that a man may NOT divorce his wife. Additionally, even if she divorces him, totally against his will, then he must NOT seek a wife in remarriage afterwards (1 Cor. 7: 27). Accordingly, both divorce and remarriage (should there be a divorce) for a pastor (or any man) is wrong as long as the original spouse lives (1 Cor. 7: 39). 1 Cor. 7: 27, Matt. 19: 5 (and others) are crystal clear.

You said; "...I think you confuse the power of regeneration by the Holy Spirit to make a born again believer “blameless.” Not at all. By your reasoning, ANY person who claims to be "rengenerated" could also claim to be "blameless." Thus, ANYONE making the claim could be a pastor; including the guy who was just ordained by the Epis church (he also claims to be rengerated). Accordingly, your idea won't work without MUCH confusion. The 1 Tim. 3 standard is provided to AVOID confusion concerning the office of the pastor (a bitter lesson now being learned by the Epis church).

You said; " Making divorce a “second unpardonable sin” goes against the redeeming power of the blood of Jesus Christ." Divorce is not an unpardonable sin. It is just as forgivable as any other sin. However, it IS a disqualifier for the office of Pastor - just as my inability to perform root canal disqualifies me from being a dentist. Thanks JohnWells. latterrain77

 

I am wrong when everyone agrees with me??? How does that work. Let's look at the word in 1 Tim 3 and see what it means.

John 4:9 Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)

Acts 16:1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek,

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

1 Corinthians 11:8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;

1 Corinthians 11:11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

Revelation 12:4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.

These are only some of the passages where the exact same form is used. This doesn't even include places where the root word is the same. That would multiply the evidence that "gune" or "gunaikos" does not always mean "wife." It sometimes means "woman."

Virtually no one agrees with you. The phrase is mias gunaikos andra. The word "mias" is one; the word "gunaikos" is women; the word "andra" is man.

First, divorce and remarriage does not mean plural wives. Divorce ends a marriage as is clearly seen in both the OT and NT teaching on divorce. Second, the passage refers to a man's attitude and actions towards women. He is to be a man characterized by integrity in his relationship with women, a man who is known for being faithful and loyal to one woman only.

The qualification for a pastor is "blameless." There are men who are divorced who are blameless. I am suggesting that they should pastor. I am merely asserting that Scripture, not your personal opinions, should be our guide.

Too bad you didn't read v. 28. It says "But if you marry, you have not sinned;" Clearly the two verses taken together show that a divorced person who remarries has not sinned.

No question here. I totally agree.

I said nothing of the sort. You put words in my mouth. I affirm all that the Scripture says about divorce and remarriage and I have a significant number of pages of material that will demonstrate this to be the case. Your beef here is with the wrong person.

I am not recommending divorce. I have often said that I cannot imagine a scenario when I would recommend or condone a divorce. Divorce is always the result of sinful choices and the best option is always repentance and forgiveness. When you try to accuse me of an unbiblical position on divorce, you are merely showing that you have no idea what I believe. However, this topic was confined to another issue, mainly the meaning of "mias gunaikos andra." Did you look at any of those works that I recommended yet? It will help you understand what the arguments are and why certian positions don't fit.

 

latterrain77: Divorce is not an unpardonable sin. It is just as forgivable as any other sin. However, it IS a disqualifier for the office of Pastor - just as my inability to perform root canal disqualifies me from being a dentist.

Since it is obvious that you are ignoring what Larry and I have proven by the scriptures themselves, and holding to your unsupportable position in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I leave you to your devices! Oh, go ahead and say something silly like I can't defend my argument. The problem is latterrain77, it's no fun debating with stubbornness. This is not my first encounter with you and the other one ended the same way. If you want to debate, I suggest you be more reasonable. Otherwise, how on earth can anyone reason with you?

 

Hi Larry. You said; " I am wrong when everyone agrees with me???" When everyone agrees with you, it should be a warning sign for you to RECHECK what you think (Luke 6: 26, Acts 17: 10-12). You are also incorrect to believe that everyone agrees with your doctrine on this subject.

You said; " Virtually no one agrees with you. The phrase is mias gunaikos andra. The word "mias" is one; the word "gunaikos" is women; the word "andra" is man." And in the context of 1 Tim. 3 the word "wife" as found in the text means absolutely a wife as through holy matrimony. It does NOT mean a woman as in "girlfriend" or "chick" or "babe" or "significant other." The words "husband & wife" in 1 Tim. 3: 2 irrefutably prove this to be so. It means husband and wife as in MARRIAGE! In addition, the fact that they have children together in v4 also shows that 1 Tim. 3 speaks absolutely about a married couple; husband and WIFE. Otherwise, their children in V4 would not be born through the marriage bed! An impossible idea.

You said; " First, divorce and remarriage does not mean plural wives. Divorce ends a marriage as is clearly seen in both the OT and NT teaching on divorce." You are absolutely wrong! The Bible is very clear that the DEATH of a spouse ends a marriage (1 Cor. 7: 39). Human beings are NOT permited the right to divorce (Matt. 19: 6, Mark 10: 9). The only reason divorce occurred in Old Testament times was due to the HARDNESS OF HEART (i.e. the unsaved state) of those who practiced it (Matt. 19: 8). But from the begining of time, divorce was NEVER SO! (Mark 10: 2-9).

You said; " The qualification for a pastor is "blameless."" This is true, along with a list of other qualifications INCLUDING being the husband of ONE wife; not two wives, or three wives, or four wives, or girlfriends, or significant others (1 Tim. 3: 2).

You said; " I am merely asserting that Scripture, not your personal opinions, should be our guide." I agree with you that the Bible, and not my or your personal opinions should be our guide. I'm confident that my opinion meets the Biblical guide (I'm sure you think the same of your opinion too).

You said; " Too bad you didn't read v. 28. It says "But if you marry, you have not sinned;" Clearly the two verses taken together show that a divorced person who remarries has not sinned." Too bad I have read v28! If you marry ONCE you have not sinned. If you marry another AFTER your spouse dies you have not sinned. If you marry another while the first spouse lives you HAVE sinned (Matt. 19: 9, Mark 10: 11, Mark 10: 12, Luke 16: 18). Jesus was clear; human beings are NOT permitted divorce (Matt. 19: 6, Mark 10: 9-11). In addition, they may NOT remarry if they should have errantly become divorced (1 Cor. 7: 27, Mark 10: 11). Let me guess Larry - have you or someone close to you been divorced at some time in your life? (you don't have to answer if it's too private - I'm just trying to figure out where your coming from).

You said; "I said nothing of the sort. You put words in my mouth. I affirm all that the Scripture says about divorce and remarriage and I have a significant number of pages of material that will demonstrate this to be the case. Your beef here is with the wrong person." My apologies if I put words in your mouth. I thought you were avoiding giving a commentary on Mark 10: 11 and Matt. 19: 5-6 (which you still have not done).

You said; " When you try to accuse me of an unbiblical position on divorce, you are merely showing that you have no idea what I believe." So tell us! Start by giving your commentary on Mark 10: 11 and Matt. 19: 5-6.

You said; " Did you look at any of those works that I recommended yet?" No, I have not yet. But I will, and I thank you for suggesting these resources. However, I'm familiar with the "it's okay to divorce/remarry" crowd. While I recognize your view is a majority these days, that does not mean it is correct or that it was always so. I suppose this majority view is one reason why there is MORE divorce among so-called Christian couples nowadays than there is in secular society's couples. This was not always the case. In times past, BEFORE the popularity of the "it's okay to divorce" crowd, divorce among Christian's was RARE indeed. Thank you Larry. latterrain77

 

Hi JohnWells. Thank you for your reply. You said; " Since it is obvious that you are ignoring what Larry and I have proven by the scriptures themselves, and holding to your unsupportable position in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary,..." Maybe you have deluded yourself into further believing your incorrect position, but you have not proven anything to me by your "interpretation" of the Bible in our dialogue.

You said; "... I leave you to your devices!" Thanks be to GOD! For my devices are thankfully not the same as your devices JohnWells. I'll happily stay me; and you can stay you.

You said; " The problem is latterrain77, it's no fun debating with stubbornness." So stop being so stubborn!

You said; " This is not my first encounter with you and the other one ended the same way." Yes, that's true.

You said; " If you want to debate, I suggest you be more reasonable. Otherwise, how on earth can anyone reason with you?" I always try to be reasonable JohnWells. But I will not agree with someone who holds what I believe to be an unBiblical position. If my understanding is shown to be wrong, backed with true Biblical evidence, then I'm thrilled and thankful to discover it. However, that has not happened in this thread by you or anyone else. When my position was preached from the pulpit, DIVORCE among Christians was LOW. Now that your doctrine is preached from the pulpit, DIVORCE among Christians is HIGH.

In the end, it matters not much JohnWells. Ultimately, every man will hold to "truth" as he see's it. This topic is a hot one because it touches too close to home for the MANY divorced/remarried Christians now in the world and churches (a rarity in days past). Your doctrine on divorce/remarriage is the same one shared by a MASSIVE number of divorced/remarried Christians. It's no wonder that Christians have a higher divorce rate than even secular society. In times past, Pastors did NOT preach what you preach (nor were they divorced either). Somehow, Christian couples of the past mysteriously figured out a way to SAVE their marriages and familes. The pastors of that day were married ONCE only as demanded by 1 Tim. 3. As the doctrine you embrace has become popular, the HIGH divorce rate among Christians has become tragically popular too. Too bad! As it was in the days of Noah indeed (Matt. 24: 37-38). Thanks! latterrain77

 

Name a major (or minor for that matter) commentator of repute who agrees with you. Then go through and answer all the objections to that position that you will find in the commentaries. Go ahead. And when you have done this, you will have room to talk here.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the word "wife" is not in 1 Tim 3. It is the word "gunaikos" and it means woman as I have shown in numerous verses.

But a pastor is not required to have children. HE is required to be a good manager of those under him, whomeever they may be.

YOu miquote Scripture. Divorce was never intended from the beginning. It is due to the hardness of men's hearts, but if you study the Scriptures, you will find that divorce ends a marriage. You may not like that but you are not the authority. When you study the OT and NT Scriptures, you find that your position is wrong.

The "list of other qualifications" are characteristics of being "blameless." They are not in addition to blameless. They are what it means to be blameless. On the basis of your interpretation, you cannot forbid a man who has a girlfriend apart from his wife from being a pastor because he is the husband of one wife. He ijust has a girl on the side and the qualifications for pastor do not prohibit that in your view. It does in mine. Your view is weak in that atrea.

But your view does not, as I have and countless others have shown. Being convinced in your own mind apart from the reason and teaching of Scripture is a bad basis for authority.

YOu have added to SCripture. Scripture says nothing about "once" or "after." It says "If you remarry you have not sinned." By what authority do you add to SCripture??

Nope, no one in my family has been divorced. My parents have been married for 43 years, my grandparents were both married for over 50 years, my mother's side making it to 63 years before the death of my grandmother. The closest divorce is an uncle who was stupid and admits it. He told me two weeks again he should have never done what he did and he should have never remarried. Where I am coming from is the diligent study of the Scriptures, considering every single passage in Scripture relating to marriage and divorce from Gen 2 rigth on through, including the passages where God commands divorce, the passage where he forbids a man and woman who were divorced from remarrying (thus proving to you to divorce ends a marriage). I have read every major work on it and many minor works. I have spent hours hashing it out with other men in the context of exegesis and application. This is a position that has nothing to do with my personal life; it has everything to do with not adding to nor taking away from Scripture.

I have in many other places on this board. This thread was not about those two passages.

This forum is not equipped for a post that long. It is seven single spaced pages of discussion. In a nutshell, Christ gives a valid divorce exception in which case a person is free to remarry. The shorter clauses should be viewed as condensations of the longer explanations since Christ's teachings do not contradict. Paul as well gives an exception to the divorce prohibition that is different than Christ's "only exception." He too permits remarriage in this case. So what we see is two "only" provisions for divorce and when we reconcile them, we see that Christ and Paul give examples of reasons in which a marriage has been dissolved and the person is free to remarry. That does not mean they should. It means they are not prohibited from remarriage. It is clear from teh OT that remarriage was not only permitted, it was expected. It is clear from Scripture that divorce does end a marriage. A person does not go in being married after the divorce. They are in fact prohibited from remarrying. I say again that divorce is never God's best and always the result of sin.

If you think I am a part of the "it's okay to divorce/remarry" crowd, then you haven't read a thing I have said on this topic. I do not think it is okay to divorce and remarry. Just yesterday I believe, in this very thread, I said divorce is always the result of sin and never the best option. I cannot imagine a case in which I would recommend divorce. I am totally opposed one hundred percent to it. But at the same time, I cannot deny the teaching of Scripture on this matter. Scripture quite clearly does allow for divorce and does allow for remarriage after divorce in some cases.

The increase in divorce is due to the hardness of men's hearts.

 

You have failed to live up to this promise. You have been shown to be wrong but you refuse to accept that. Larry and I have used "true biblical evidence." What have you used?

latterrain77: Nor can he be remarried to another woman while his first wife lives (1 Cor. 7: 39, 1 Cor. 7: 11, 1 Cor. 7: 27).

Now your 1 Cor. 7:11 and 7:39 would indeed make a great case for you if you did not conveniently leave out 7:15, which I have brought to your attention and you choose to ignore.

Just how much more scriptural references can Larry and I provide and you continue to ignore, all the while making your above preposterous claim?

 

Hi Larry. You said; " Name a major (or minor for that matter) commentator of repute who agrees with you." You seem to lean more on the commentaries of men to form your doctrines than you do the Bible. I base my doctrines on what the Bible says. In any event, B.W. Johnson, E.W. Rogers, and Robert J. Cameron come instantly to mind. In addition, nearly every pastor that I have known in times past saw things my way concerning 1 Tim. 3: 2 and marriage generally (or nearly so).

You said; " Hate to burst your bubble, but the word "wife" is not in 1 Tim 3. It is the word "gunaikos" and it means woman as I have shown in numerous verses." You are wrong again. 1 Tim. 3: 2 speaks of a husband and a wife: a MARRIED couple. It can mean nothing else. The word "gune" as used in 1 Tim. 3: 2 is the same word used in Luke 20: 28, Matt. 14: 3, Luke 1: 13, Mark 10: 29, Luke 1: 24, and many other verses. Each of these verses shows plainly that the word means WIFE as in marriage. Otherwise, Elizabeth the wife ("gune") of Zecherias gave birth to John the Baptist out of wedlock (Luke 1: 13, Luke 1: 24). A preposterous idea. In Luke 20: 28-36 it clearly shows that ONLY the DEATH of each husband made the wife ("gune") available for marriage to the successor husbands. The word wife in the context of 1 Tim. 3: 2 means exactly that: WIFE as in conjugal marital relationship (along with the word HUSBAND in the same verse).

You said; " But a pastor is not required to have children. HE is required to be a good manager of those under him, whomeever they may be." You are absolutely wrong again. A pastor IS required to have children that he rules well (1 Tim. 3: 4-5). If he can't rule his own children well, then he can't possibly rule those in the church well either - as 1 Tim. 3: 5 states. Being a good manager of those "under him" (as you say) in the church comes AFTER he has first proven that he rules his own house and children well. It is a qualification for the office to begin with. You are trying make the "second part" (the church of God) as if it were identical to the first part (the man's own house) when they are two seperate things. The former is a prerequiste to the latter.

You said; " YOu miquote Scripture. Divorce was never intended from the beginning. It is due to the hardness of men's hearts,.." You misquote me! For that is precisely what I wrote in my last post. I said, and I quote: " Human beings are NOT permited the right to divorce (Matt. 19: 6, Mark 10: 9). The only reason divorce occurred in Old Testament times was due to the HARDNESS OF HEART (i.e. the unsaved state) of those who practiced it (Matt. 19: 8). But from the begining of time, divorce was NEVER SO! (Mark 10: 2-9)."" . I'm glad I reminded you of that verse Larry since you NEVER mentioned it in any of your prior posts on this thread until now. Your late!

You said; " The "list of other qualifications" are characteristics of being "blameless." They are not in addition to blameless." And one of those qualifications is for the pastor to be the husband of ONE wife (1 Tim. 3: 2). You can't be a "husband" of a woman UNLESS she is your wife! If she is NOT your wife, then you CANNOT be her husband by definition. Since 1 Tim. 3: 2 says HUSBAND and it say's WIFE then it can ONLY mean "husband and wife" in MARRIAGE. Furthermore, you can't righteously have children with a woman unless she is your wife through holy matrimony (1 Tim. 3: 4-5). Otherwise, the children described in 1 Tim. 3: 4 would NOT be born under marriage - which is an impossible scenario for a man in the office of pastor (as well as any other man).

You said; " YOu have added to SCripture." Not at all.

You said; "...Scripture says nothing about "once" or "after." It says "If you remarry you have not sinned."" You may remarry IF you are free to do so. If your first spouse lives you are NOT free to do so and may NOT remarry another - that would make you an adulterer according to Mark 10: 11. The Bible is crystal clear that the wife remains married to her husband as long as the husband lives (Romans 7: 2-3, 1 Cor. 7: 39). By definition, this means that the husband ALSO remains married to her during that same time frame. Even if they divorce, they are still considered Biblically married while one or the other lives. Accordingly, ONLY the death of a spouse can legitimately break the marriage relationship (Luke: 20: 28-36 also illustrates the point) and THEN she or he is free to remarry another. Romans 7: 2-3 and 1 Cor. 7: 39 are so clear that your inability to see it is bewildering. Jesus highlighted this VERY truth when he said of marriage; "let NOT man put asunder" (Matt. 19: 6). Only GOD can end the marriage relationship by operation of the death a spouse.

You said; "By what authority do you add to SCripture?? . I have not added to Scripture. But the authority that you are thinking about when you ask me such a question is the same authority that has you so deluded.

You said; " The increase in divorce is due to the hardness of men's hearts." Men have always had "hard hearts" throughout time (Matt. 15: 19). The radical increase in divorce among Christian couples in our modern time is a result of bad counsel they have received concerning divorce. Unlike prior generations of Christians, they no longer hear what the Bible actually teaches about the subject. latterrain77

 

Hi JohnWells. You said; " You have failed to live up to this promise. You have been shown to be wrong but you refuse to accept that. Larry and I have used "true biblical evidence." What have you used?" Hardly. No one on this thread has shown me anything other than how right my position is. My argument is based upon straight Biblical evidence. I have used the Bible and MANY Biblical references to support my view. You just can't see it. Fair Enough.

You said; " Just how much more scriptural references can Larry and I provide and you continue to ignore, all the while making your above preposterous claim?" Sorry, but I have provided FAR more Biblical references than you and Larry combined. I have provided approximately 32 different Biblical verses to support my position on this thread. You have provided approximatley 9. Larry has provided approximately 10. The better question is, just how many more Scriptural references need I supply to YOU before you recognize how preposterous your claim is? Never mind. You will NEVER see it. It's impossible. I won't try to change your mind. latterrain77

 

Whatever ...

I have given you the Scripture, I have shown you tht einconsistency in your own arguments, I have answered every single question. I even pointed out the obvious seemingly undeniable fact that Paul did not write the word "wife" but you manage even to deny that. You should study a little bit of Greek and realize that Paul did not write "wife." Let me show yet another problem: YOu say that a man must have children whom he rules well. You have just disqualified every man whose children have moved out of his house. Once a man's children have left and started their own family, you must insist that he resign his church since he no longer has ruling authority over them. Yet again, your position is shown to be wrong.

You say a person may remarry "if he is free to do so." Scripture very clearly gives "Freedom" to do so in the case of adultery and desertion. I merely pointed that out, and you have decided it means something else. You added "once" or "after" to the text, something that is not there. If you doubt me, look it up.

In the end, you will not change my mind apart from the proper use of Scriptures. You say you listed 32. I haven't counted but should that be the case, it won't matter because Scripture misused or misinterpreted is not a proper use of Scripture. Should there come a day when you wrestle through all the passages on divorce and remarriage, and the passages on the qualifications of elders, then perhaps we will have a better basis on which to discuss this. For now, there is no real base for us to discuss it on.

 

Dr. Bob, can you give me more info on this? This is something that's new to me and I would like to hear more.

Thanks,

matt

 

Hi Larry. You said; "Let me show yet another problem: YOu say that a man must have children whom he rules well. You have just disqualified every man whose children have moved out of his house. Once a man's children have left and started their own family, you must insist that he resign his church since he no longer has ruling authority over them. Yet again, your position is shown to be wrong." How you misunderstand what it means to be a dad. A dad's job as parent does NOT end when his children grow up and move out of the family home. In fact, it is only then in it's prime. A good dad sees his kids through; from conception, to birth, to toddler, to adolescence, young adulthood, marriage, grandchildren, etc. The job of "dad" does not end when the child leaves high school or moves out of the family real estate as you seem to suggest. A dad's "house" is his FAMILY UNIT not his "3 bedrooms and a white picket fence."

When a child marries, he leaves his mom and dad and becomes ONE flesh with his wife "gune" (Matt. 19: 5). Leaving his father & mother and cleaving to his wife does not mean that his relationship with dad ends. It only means that their relationship grows!

The new bride becomes PART of the dad's family unit (daughter-in-law). The new groom becomes a part of the dad's family unit (son-in-law). The dad never loses "authority" over his children. A dad is a dad until the very end. A child must always honor the mother & father (Exo. 20: 12, Deut. 5: 16) - from the womb to the tomb. This is so true, that it is LITERALLY one of the Ten Commandments (the fifth).

Furthermore, in the sad and sorrowful situation when a dad and his children become estranged, it does not necessarily mean that he did not rule those children well or that he no longer has authority over them (although appearances may suggest otherwise). The Prodigal Son is a fantastic picture of this very thing. The prodigal son's dad did a wonderful job ruling his children (both sons). That rule did NOT end when the prodigal left home to sojourn the world - it only just began! (Luke 15: 11-32). Jacob maintained authority over his sons right up until his death (Gen. 49, particularly v33). David maintained authority over Solomon right on up until his death (1 Kings 2). Noah maintained authority over his sons, though they were married (Gen. 6, 7, 8). And so on.

You said; " I haven't counted but should that be the case, it won't matter because Scripture misused or misinterpreted is not a proper use of Scripture." The only ones who misused Scripture were others, not me. But I'll still count the ones you mentioned anyway.

You said; " Should there come a day when you wrestle through all the passages on divorce and remarriage, and the passages on the qualifications of elders, then perhaps we will have a better basis on which to discuss this..." I have done so already. Nevertheless, I'm delighted to do so over and over again. It is a gift for any of us to have the Bible to return to as a means of seperating the wheat from the chaff. The Bereans did this and were counted righteous for doing so (Acts 17: 10-12). I will also look at the information that you previously suggested for which I have already thanked you and now thank you again.

You said; "For now, there is no real base for us to discuss it on."" Fair Enough. Thank you Larry. latterrain77

 

This is absolutely unbelievable. You have to be kidding me. When a man and woman get married, they leave their parents and form a new family. You cannot be serious with this line. It seems absolutely inconceivable that this is being said in this discussion.

here you said it right. I never said that the relationship ended. But the father is no longer responsible. They are adults, they are on their own, they have their own family. I have never said (and do not believe) that honor ends. But the father no longer rules those who are not in his house, over whom he is not responsible.

Witness the misuse yet again fo the above Scriptures.

Then how are you not familiar with the biblical teaching that divorce ends a marriage? You seem to think that only death ends a marriage. That is clearly not so. Divorce, for whatever reason, ends a marriage.