Titus 1:6-qualifications for clergy

Latterain said:

Well said sir! Jesus commands that we forgive our brother who sins against us 70 X's 7 and I believe that includes adultery!

I do, however, believe that a man who has been divorced may not be a pastor or deacon because they are not blameless and are held to a higher standard. Neither can they marry a woman who has been divorced.

(Again, I want to clafify that I have never been with anyone other than my husband of almost 33 years.)

Diane

 

latterrain77: This "leaving" does not release from the marriage bond.

Then please explain (per Dr. Bob - thank you!) Jesus' comment to the woman at the well:

“I have no husband,” she replied.

Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” (John 4:17-18)

It doesn't appear that Jesus agrees with you! He says she is "quite true" when she says she "has no husband." Yet she has "had" five husbands. Either you or Jesus is wrong! I'll take Jesus!

latterrain77:You said; ...“Is not bound” means is free to remarry as I understand the plain and straightforward words." Won't work. 1 Cor. 7: 27 won't allow it ("...Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.") Furthermore, Mark 10: 11, Matt. 19: 6, etc won't allow it either.

1 Cor 7:27 speaks of God's preferred way, but in no way claims it to be the only way. Mark 10:11 and Matt 19:6? Now we're going in circles! I have already given Jesus' very own words of the exception to His words here. Are you dense? You can't pretend that Matt 19:8-9 does not exist!

latterrain77: You said; " Another case where the Bible “permits” divorce is where an unequally yoked unbeliever (I used a make believe story to illustrate this earlier) leaves, or walks out on the marriage. Where does it say this in the Bible? Do you have a chapter and verse?

It preceeded my words: 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 Cor 7:15)

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

While this passage does not command, commend, condone, or even suggest divorce, it does recognize that divorce occurs and permits it only on restricted grounds. How can you ponder these passages and conclude otherwise?

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:8-9)

Now if "Moses permitted . . . divorce," where did Moses' authority come from? Yes, God hates divorce, but because God understands the difficulties levied by the curse after The Fall:

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)

God granted Moses the authority to permit divorce under restricted grounds and Jesus referred to it in Matt 19:8-9.

 

I'm not sure where you get the idea that those called to lead are called to a higher moral standard than Christians that aren't. Those of us called will face a greater judgement based on our teaching but morally all Christians are held to the same standards.

Also - how is a man whose wife commits adultery behind his back not blameless in the whole process? I have a friend who caught his wife w/ 3 different gentlemen. Even after this he tried to stay with her but she left. How is he in any way, shape, or form to blame for her adultery?

 

Qualifications for a pastor and deacon call for him to be in control of his household. If his wife was in adultery, your friend was not in control so therefore not blameless. Scripture says, if she leaves then let her leave but that still does not qualify a man for church leadership. 'The World' tells man that divorce is okay and man believes 'the world' because he WANTS to believe it. You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear. I find the Bible to be quite clear.

There is a list of qualifications for pastor's and deacons which are quite clear. There are many threads listing these qualifications. I take scripture to be quite clear.

Diane

 

That statement is absolutely ludicrous and without either scriptural or intellectual support.

What you have just said is that your husband is responsible for every sin you commit.

I also take scripture to be quite clear, although on the far side from the position you take.

With the stance you take Christ is unfit to lead His church. (Jeremiah 3:8, Revelation 19:7-10)

 

Prime example of a misuse of Scripture. Mark 10:11 and Matthew 10:8 neither say anything about remarriage being impossible because they are still married. Not one word in either text says anything about the marriage continuing.

And I will post my response again so you will see it. Don't miss it this time and don't pretend like I haven't answered it. Here it is:

Now clearly you are wrong. This was in direct response to your request on page 3 about these statements of Christ. The shorter (Mark 10) should be interpreted in light of the longer (Matt 19) in order to prevent making Christ a liar.

And he gives an exception for adultery. Christ did that ... not me. If you disagree witht eh exception for adultery, then you disagree with Christ.

But notice how you fail to take into account the teaching of God in other places. God clearly does recognize divorce becuase if he doesn't, Deut 22 and 24 make no sense at all.

Look it up and read it. Christ tells it what it refers to:

Matthew 19:9 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Now, why do you contradict Christ? He says the exception applies to immorality. I say it applies to immorality. You say it doesn't. Who is the one who agrees with Christ? You love to quote Scripture without its context. You cite Matt 19:8 without v. 9. You cite 1 Cor 7:27 without v. 28. Why? Because you can't handle those verses in your position.

I have given you my understanding of it. I taught my congregation very well on it and they all seemed to understand just fine. I think your preconceptions are confusing things. Of course, the limited nature of this forum is not helping either.

My "whole divorce doctrine" does not rest on the exception clause. I have dealt with Mark 10:11. I have dealt with every single biblical passage that addresses this.

The teaching in Matt 19 deals with the marriage relationship. I already explained why the woman is included. Please read it again and don't ask me to repeat myself. If you have questions about what I said, ask those. Don't ask me to repeat what I already said. It is in the post from Aug 19, 3:27pm.

I re-read it and you said they needed to get remarried to be righteous in God's eyes. But you said they were never divorced in God's eyes. So you have a contradiction. God recognizes the state's marriage but not their divorce?? Come on, now. Think before you say stuff.

My point is that God allowed divorce and showed that such divorce was an end to the marriage. You have not dealt extensively with those passages in this thread. You have virtually ignored them.

[/qb]Dead wrong. Go back and read. I have dealt with this issue several times from the first time you asked until now.

ARGGHHH!!! Listen ... or better yet just get out your Bible and read it: Adultery permits a biblical divorce and the marriage is over. The "innocent" party has not sinned in this divorce. This is exactly what Scripture says; it should not have to be repeated by me to make it clear.

You constantly continue to refuse to deal with the Scripture that are inconvenient for you. You simply cannot do that and claim to have a biblical position.

 

Hi JohnWells. You said; " Then please explain (per Dr. Bob - thank you!) Jesus' comment to the woman at the well:.... “I have no husband,” she replied.... Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” (John 4:17-18)" The woman had no other husbands because they all died. Death ends the marriage relationship. That is why the LORD said "you HAVE HAD" (past tense) five husbands. The LORD did not recognize those husbands any longer because they were dead. The man she was currently with was NOT her husband because she had not married him. Since she was unmarried, she was committing fornication with this man (porneia). It is impossible for a married person to commit fornication (porneia) which can ONLY occur PRIOR to marriage NOT after. Outside sexual relations during marriage is called adultery (molechia).

You said; " It doesn't appear that Jesus agrees with you!" It appears that he does (see above).

You said; " I'll take Jesus!" Good choice.

You said; "1 Cor 7:27 speaks of God's preferred way, but in no way claims it to be the only way." It is the ONLY way as per Mark 10: 11, Matt. 29: 6, 1 Cor. 7: 11, 1 Cor. 7:39 and elsewhere.

You said; " Are you dense?" Occasionally yes. Most of the time no.

You said; " You can't pretend that Matt 19:8-9 does not exist!" I don't. I've already dealt with it and I've asked you to explain the dilemma your position has concerning the word "fornication" (porneia) and "adultery" (molechia) contained within that verse. I noticed how you carefully avoided responding to that question which I put to you in my last post. Here it that question again immediately below:

You quoted Matt. 19: 9; " I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matt 19:9)" Then I said; By definition, a cheating partner in a marriage commits adultery ("moicheia") NOT fornication ("porneia"). Fornication "porneia" occurs when sexual relations occur PRIOR to marriage not after. Please explain this dilemma. Or, do you think it's possible that there might be another explanation to the verse? Please respond.

Furthermore, the "exception" clause cannot possibly exist in connection with your concept of so-called Biblical divorce. That is why you have avoided answering the direct question concerning the exception clause that I put to you in my last post. I will repeat the question again for you. Please answer it this time. Here is the question:

"Also, can a woman divorce her husband by operation of this clause? If yes, please cite the verse in Matt. 19 that says so." Please cite the Matthew chapter and verse that says a woman can divorce her husband.

You quoted Deut. 24: 1-4 and then you said; "While this passage does not command, commend, condone, or even suggest divorce, it does recognize that divorce occurs and permits it only on restricted grounds. How can you ponder these passages and conclude otherwise?" You are making the IDENTICAL argument that the religious rulers who confronted Christ made on this very subject. This is the specific verse that the LORD addressed and altered in Matt.19: 1-9, Mark 10: 2-12. Matt. 19: 8 is crystal clear that this Deut. 24: 1-4 precept, which you use as a proof text for divorce, was: "...from the beginning NOT SO" according to Jesus Himself (Matt. 19: 8). Accordingly, you are wrong.

You said; " Now if "Moses permitted . . . divorce," where did Moses' authority come from?" As Jesus said, GOD allowed (suffered) it in the OT era due to the hardness of heart (unsaved condition) of those who practiced it (Matt. 19: 7-8). The LORD flatly said divorce was never permissible for man (as the LORD said, "NOT SO"; not from the beginning of time, not now, and not in the future - Matt. 19: 8). Your divorce doctrine hangs on a Mosaic law that was clearly addressed, altered and set aside by Christ Himself. Do you follow Moses or Christ? There are many OT provisions that were rescinded, altered or set aside. This one was no exception.

You said; " God granted Moses the authority to permit divorce under restricted grounds and Jesus referred to it in Matt 19:8-9." Jesus referred to it and CHANGED IT. Jesus said divorce was NOT SO from the begining of time. "...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." (Matt. 19: 8). And so you see JohnWells - from the beginning of time DIVORCE was NOT SO. Matt. 19: 8 is exceedingly unambiguous. "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19: 6). "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." (Mark 10: 11).

I'm awaiting your reply to the "fornication" (porneia) and "adultery" (molechia) dilemma described in my last post and in this one (see above), as well as your providing the Chapter and verse in Matt. that proves your claim that a woman can divorce her husband under the "exception" clause. Thanks JohnWells. latterrain77

 

Hi Larry. You said; " And I will post my response again so you will see it. Don't miss it this time and don't pretend like I haven't answered it. Here it is:" . You have not answered it. The posts themselves are prima facie proof that you have not. I've asked you three times. Three times you have not answered. Here it is again. PLEASE provide your commentary to my comments on Mark 10: 11 immediately below.

"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." (Mark 10: 11)

Christ said EVERY MAN (whosoever) that remarries after divorce commits adultery (Mark 10: 11). If GOD "recognized" mans divorce (as you insist he does) then the LORD would not have referred to the remarriage in Mark 10:11 as "adultery." If GOD recognized mans divorce (as you insist GOD does) then Jesus would have referred to the Mark 10:11 remarriage as a marriage. But Jesus didn't! He did the opposite. He referred to the marriage in Mark 10: 11 as adultery. This means, without question, that EVERY MAN (whosoever) that is divorced, is STILL married in GOD's eyes even though a divorce had been obtained. Accordingly, GOD does not recognize divorce. Please comment.

You said; " And he gives an exception for adultery. Christ did that ... not me. If you disagree witht eh exception for adultery, then you disagree with Christ." And I have asked you REPEATEDLY to explain what this "exception" clause means and you have repeatedly NOT done so. Why? Immediately below is the that question again:

"...why don't you tell us what the "exception clause" means."

You said; " But notice how you fail to take into account the teaching of God in other places." Not at all.

You said; "God clearly does recognize divorce becuase if he doesn't, Deut 22 and 24 make no sense at all." Jesus (GOD) said that from the beginning of time DIVORCE was NOT SO! (Matt. 19: 8). Accordingly, GOD does NOT recognize divorce as you insist He does. "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." You are making the IDENTICAL argument that the religous rulers made which Jesus rejected (Matt. 19: 8, Matt. 19: 6, Mark 10: 11, etc).

You said; " Look it up and read it. Christ tells it what it refers to: " I have. I know what Christ says. I've asked you to tell us what You think He says. So far, your answers have been; "look it up and read it," and " You want me to do your homework so you don't have to??", and other such non-answers. Answer the questions.

You said; " Now, why do you contradict Christ?" I don't.

You said; "He says the exception applies to immorality. I say it applies to immorality." So what is this immorality (fornication) and by WHOM is it committed? Please explain.

You said; " My "whole divorce doctrine" does not rest on the exception clause. I have dealt with Mark 10:11. I have dealt with every single biblical passage that addresses this." You have not dealt with Mark 10: 11 at all. You have steadfastly avoided responding to my comments concerning it 3 times (see above where my comments of Mark 10: 11 and Mark 10: 11 itself are provided again for your comments).

You said; " I already explained why the woman is included. Please read it again and don't ask me to repeat myself." No you haven't AT ALL. I've asked you to provide CHAPTER and VERSE in Matt. 19 to support your claim that a woman can divorce her husband and you have not done so. What is the chapter and verse in Matthew that says a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause? PLEASE cite the chapter in Matt. (18 or 19?) and the VERSE in Matthew that says this (as you insist it does).

You said; " Come on, now. Think before you say stuff." You should. My prior answers to your questions were completely responsive. You just don't like the answers.

You said; " My point is that God allowed divorce and showed that such divorce was an end to the marriage.... I know that is your point. But you haven't proved it.

You said; You have not dealt extensively with those passages in this thread. You have virtually ignored them." I have answered MANY questions put to me. I have not ducked them like you do.

You said; "Dead wrong. Go back and read. I have dealt with this issue several times from the first time you asked until now." You are dead wrong. Go back and read. I explicitly asked you numerous times and you did NOT answer (see above).

You said; " ARGGHHH!!!" We finally agree!

You said; " Adultery permits a biblical divorce and the marriage is over. The "innocent" party has not sinned in this divorce." You are wrong (Matt. 5: 32). The innocent party is said to be AS guilty as the offending party! "But 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." (Matt. 5: 32) emphasis is mine

You said; " You constantly continue to refuse to deal with the Scripture that are inconvenient for you." You are wrong. That is precisely what you have been doing. Therefore, I await your answers to the questions and commentary that I have put to you 4 times now (above), and I also await your providing the Chapter and Verse in Matthew that says a woman can divorce her husband. Thanks Larry. latterrain77

 

Hi Diane. You said; "Well said sir!" Thank you Diane. I'm glad you see where I'm coming from. Divorce is a diabolical sin and at the root of much family grief and sorrow. In times past, divorce was very rare among Christians. Tragically, this is no longer true. How did the church go so astray on this subject? The Christian divorce rate now surpasses even that of the secular world. This regretable situation puts a fantastic pall on every Christian witness concerning the topic. Thank you again Diane. latterrain77

 

You're quite welcome, Latterain77. I've followed your posts on this and wish I could say it as well as you!


Diane
Wife of almost 33 years!

 

latterrain77: The woman had no other husbands because they all died. Death ends the marriage relationship. That is why the LORD said "you HAVE HAD" (past tense) five husbands. The LORD did not recognize those husbands any longer because they were dead.

You know, I’m really tiring of this debate because it’s going nowhere, but I really can’t just let a comment like this go unchallenged. Are you delusional? Show me in the text where it says her former husbands were all dead? You have made this up completely. This pretty well shows where you are coming from . . . everything fabricated in your head, because in many/most cases, what you claim the scriptures say just isn't so. As to the rest of your ramblings . . . same ole same ole!

 

Latterrain,

There is nothing else to say. I have given explicit answers to everything you have asked. Anyone who reads this can see that to be the case. I could answer your whole post simply by cutting and pasting from my previous posts. You are simply unwilling to deal with Scripture. If that should ever change with you, I will be glad to discuss this again. Until then, my answers stand as they are written.

 

Hi JohnWells. You said; "You know, I’m really tiring of this debate..." You are getting "tired" as your position is unraveling. Your inability to respond to the two very simple questions I've asked of you (now three times) is striking and transparent. Below, I have AGAIN provided those two questions for you. If you do not answer them this time, then it will be self evident that you CANNOT answer them and that your position is accordingly vacant.

Here is the question again; "Where does it say that a woman can divorce her husband in Matthew by virtue of the "exception" clause? Chapter and verse in Matthew please.

You said; "...because it’s going nowhere,..." I think it's going everywhere. I'm very pleased with the results. Please respond to my two questions.

You said; "... but I really can’t just let a comment like this go unchallenged." So go ahead and challenge it.

You said; " Show me in the text where it says her former husbands were all dead?" I already have. Re-read what I wrote. Furthermore, I will happily show even FURTHER proof to support my position (although I already did in my last post and elsewhere in a previous post) once you have answered the question above (now asked of your 3 times). You can't avoid answering this question any longer. You must answer it now. Please do. Once you have, then answer the OTHER question that I asked of you 3 times which you have also avoided entirely. Here is that question again:

You quoted Matt. 19: 9; " I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matt 19:9)" Then I said; By definition, a cheating partner in a marriage commits adultery ("moicheia") NOT fornication ("porneia"). Fornication "porneia" occurs when sexual relations occur PRIOR to marriage not after. Please explain this dilemma. Or, do you think it's possible that there might be another explanation to the verse? Please respond.

Thanks JohnWells. latterrain77

 

Hi Larry. You said; "Latterrain, There is nothing else to say. I have given explicit answers to everything you have asked." You have not.

You said; "Anyone who reads this can see that to be the case. Anyone who reads this will OBVIOUSLY see that you have NOT provided the chapter and verse in Matthew that shows where a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the "exception clause" - despite my repeated attempts to get you to do so. Readers will also see that you NEVER responded to my comments concerning Mark 10: 11 despite my strenuous efforts to get you to do so. The readers will also see all the other questions that I put to you REPEATEDLY that you repeatedly would not - or could not - answer.

You said; "I could answer your whole post simply by cutting and pasting from my previous posts. You are simply unwilling to deal with Scripture." You are positively wrong and this is so clear from our dialogue that "cut and paste" is not even necessary. Just a casual read will show that you simply would not - could not - answer the questions, and that it was YOU who was unwilling to deal with the Bible while I answered EVERY question. Your complete inability to provide a mere chapter and verse in Matthew to show that a woman can divorce her husband by virtue of the exception clause (as you insist she can) is a case in point.

You said; "If that should ever change with you, I will be glad to discuss this again. Until then, my answers stand as they are written." As you wish. Thank you Larry. latterrain77

 

I said I was dropping out of this but since you have finally made an attempt to address Scripture, I will respond with a cut and paste from my own work.

Here is the dilemma for you: You say that porneia only occurs before marriage. Yet Chrsit said that it occurs in a husband wife relationship. Who are we to believe? Yet again, you have directly contradicted Christ in your effort to maintain a position. If Chrsit says that porneia can occur in a marital relationship, then it can occur no matter what you say. You need to align your view with Christ.

You have never reconciled how this clear exception clause given by Jesus does not contradict your favorite passage in Mark 10. I have given the reason why contrary to your many objections. I have told you how the passages fit together and in so doing, told you what I believe it means in Mark 10:11. Quit make these ridiculous accusations that I haven't addressed Scripture and read my posts.

 

And I have also provided explanations of the "exception" statement by Jesus at least three times, and yet in his latest reply to me, latterrain77 (I wish you'd give us a name) demands that I answer it yet again. I wonder how well and how thoroughly he is reading other's responses. All of his "demands" against me have been met/addressed multiple times over.

 

latterrain77: You are getting "tired" as your position is unraveling. Your inability to respond to the two very simple questions . . .(snip)

No, I'm getting tired of answering your questions over and over again as anyone with can see in reading this thread. Don't make your inability to process information objectively into a manifested inability of mine!

 

How do you interpret this verse latterrain? What is Jesus communicating there? </font>[/QUOTE]Just so latterrain doesn't miss it - I'd still like to know.

 

Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. KJV

The verse Titus 1:6 is not all that complicated, people. True, aner, mia, gune have been translated with a little freedom, but even if you back it up to the basics (man of one woman), it stills equates the same.

IMO (take it for what it is worth), divaorce disqualifies a man from the office of pastor. No, I have never been divorced, so it is easy for me to say it. But, I do know a man whose wife divorced him (she was in adultery, and wanted out), and he has refused the offer of pastor for this same reason (in fact, I know more than one). I must agree with Diane on this...for a divorce to happen, the man was not ruling his house well. Yes, it takes two to make, or break, a marriage, and it can be her fault, but how many churches call a pastor and do not automatically assume that they are getting two for the price of one (his wife)?

A single pastor can be a dangerous thing. No matter who he is, or what he believes, he is still a man, and he is still residing in this fallen world in his sinful flesh. A married man can fall into the same snare, but he at least has a partner who has become "one flesh". Satan will use every device that he can find to pull down any man called by God, and is not above using sex or "affairs of the heart" to accomplish this.

What about word "blameless"?

anegklētos
Thayer Definition:
1) that cannot be called into to account, unreproveable, unaccused, blameless

To what do you (any and/or all) have to say about this? I think the marriage arguement has gotten loopy enough already...

In Christ,
Trotter