• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A pastor’s qualifications:

Where do you stand on the qualifications in 1Timothy 3:1-ff?

  • I see these qualifications as God’s Word and to be followed to the letter.

    Votes: 19 82.6%
  • I see these qualifications as important, but other qualifications are equally important.

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • I see these qualifications as old fashioned and needing to be ignored.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I reject these qualifications as error and am waiting for an updated Bible.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
Status
Not open for further replies.
And some would lower the bar so far it is down in the muck and mire and able to admit any adulterer, fornicator, child molester, or malignant narcissist into vocational ministry.

Now THAT is unfortunate. :(

Murderers and child molestors usually never see the light of day in public ever again. But that's not to say God wouldn't use them in prison. Paul was a murderer, youse knows?
 

stilllearning

Active Member
If Paul meant Divorce was an automatic disqualifier - they why did he not used the word "divorce"

This is a great question; that can literally be asked a million times about the “WORDS” that were used in Scripture. e.g. Why did Mark write.... “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” in Mark 16:16?!?

The answer has to do with the FACT, that although Paul penned these words in 1Timothy, “Paul did not choose the words he penned”, God did.

God, in His unmeasurable wisdom, chose not to use the word divorce. You can find examples like this thousands and thousands of times in Scripture. But DIVORCE is what God’s(Spirit filled), Church has ALWAYS seen this as talking about!
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
This is a great question; that can literally be asked a million times about the “WORDS” that were used in Scripture. e.g. Why did Mark write.... “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” in Mark 16:16?!?!
Interesting passage to choose - as there is some controversy about the latter verses in Mark actually being in the originals.

The answer has to do with the FACT, that although Paul penned these words in 1Timothy, “Paul did not choose the words he penned”, God did.
Fully agree - so why did God NOT inspire Paul to use the word Divorce?

God, in His unmeasurable wisdom, chose not to use the word divorce.
Could be he did not intend for Divorce to be an automatically disqualifier.

But DIVORCE is what God’s(Spirit filled), Church has ALWAYS seen this as talking about!

Using that theory - then you would believe slavery would be acceptable in the present day as the Bible appears to accept slavery.
 

stilllearning

Active Member
Hello again Salty

You said.........
Interesting passage to choose - as there is some controversy about the latter verses in Mark actually being in the originals.

Just because some people choose to CAST DOUBT upon God’s Word, means nothing to me.
God’s Word, is God’s Word!
------------------------
Next you said........
Fully agree - so why did God NOT inspire Paul to use the word Divorce?

Because....
“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (Romans 11:33)

I have considered the possibility that the LORD, with the aim of “counting the cost”(Luke 14:28), intentionally leaves “openings” in His Word(like Mark 16:16), for those who truly don’t want to OBEY HIM, to have an “out”!
------------------------
Then you said.......
Could be he did not intend for Divorce to be an automatically disqualifier.

This is STRETCHING the argument too far. God said... “the husband of one wife”!
For 2000 years, believers have known what God meant by this statement.
Who are we, in these days when Spiritual darkness is overtaking the world, like has never been seen before, to say... “We have better light to see what God actually meant!”
------------------------
Finally you said..........
Using that theory - then you would believe slavery would be acceptable in the present day as the Bible appears to accept slavery.

You can “lower the bar” if you want to and bring in the subject of slavery; But people who are born again and are following God’s instructions, will do the RIGHT THING, more times than not.

The THEORY(as you call it), that I am siting, is that for thousands of years, believers(with God’s Holy Spirit in them), have come to this passage and fully understood what it was saying(“the Spirit bearing them witness”).

This question of slavery has been(and can be), covered by another thread. But God-fearing believers have ALWAYS respected other human beings(regardless of their color), even if they happened to be slave owners.
 

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally Posted by Don View Post
And I continue to go back to my question that no one has answered: When you preach/teach this subject, how do you reconcile wife of one husband in 1Tim 5 with husband of one wife in 1 Tim 3?
Just curious, Don, and maybe you can point me back to an original post that I might've overlooked that had the question fully fleshed out, but why do you think the two instances need to be "reconciled?"

Are they at odds?

The requirement of a pastor to be the "husband of one wife" is, in essence, to show a type and shadow of Christ as the husband of the bride church. It shows a devotion to a single spouse that is unwavering.

Likewise, stating the "wife of one husband" requirement on the widows shows similar devotion; devotion that likely extends into other avenues of that person's life. Paul does go on to clarify that it is often the younger widows who will turn back to sin and seek remarriage. These older widows can be seen as providers of an example to the younger.
Original post was #9.

My point being, that some try to justify that "husband of one wife" by saying one wife at a time; however, is that same standard applied to the additional verse later in 1 Timothy?

I agree with your view of the marriage.
 

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As I said in a recent post, who is it who is the best counselor for an alcoholic? One who has struggled with that same sin but has overcome. How about a porn addict? The best person to counsel them is not the lily white man who has never seen even a Victoria's Secret catalogue and who doesn't struggle with this sin but a man who has traveled this same road and overcome.

I don't go to the women friends who have lousy marriages or those who have never struggled with marriage but instead those who I know have traveled through the same struggles I do and I ask them "How did you learn to serve your husband as you do?" That is the one who can truly help me.
How about an alternative to this? How about the man who went through the marriage struggle, but didn't get divorced? Would they be as qualified as the divorced man?

Let's not forget we're talking about the pastor here. Anyone can preach, and counsel others on the problems you've identified here. But in order to be the best pastor possible, and able to minister to all their flock, do they need to be divorced, a recovered alcoholic, a recovered porn addict, etc., etc.?

I would absolutely go to someone who has been divorced and yet shows that he/she has learned from their mistakes and have now had a successful marriage for many years. Heck, I'd rather have marriage advice from them over someone who has been married to the same person for years and is miserable.
When you qualify it with "...and is miserable" -- agreed. But I personally would rather have marriage advice from someone who has been through the trials and tribulations, and overcome them, and has (continues to have?) only one successful marriage.

I know I'm coming across as somewhat pharisaical on this subject. But I've tried to teach my kids that scripture says lying, murder, etc. are wrong. I have problems explaining to them why scripture says "husband of one wife," and then working to explain that "one wife" doesn't mean "only" one wife. I've yet to come across an explanation that doesn't sound like I'm trying to make exceptions.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
DHK, you quoted Mark 10, let's look at Matthew 5...
"And it was said, That whoever may put away his wife, let him give to her a writing of divorce;
but I -- I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.(vss 31,32)
(KJV) 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.

The Greek word is porneia. Out of all the translations that I compared Young's translation is the only one that translated it as "whoredom." It is a poor translation in this verse. The word porneia, accurately translated "fornication" means sex before marriage. That is its primary meaning. It can have a broader meaning, but that is its primary meaning, just as adultery is sex after marriage.

The meaning of the verse is this: Matthew was writing to primarily an audience with a Jewish background. Once a couple was "betrothed" (think engaged) in the public's eyes they were as good as married. So it was with Joseph and Mary. That is why Joseph though of "putting away" or divorcing Mary--because he discovered that she was with child and had committed "fornication." They were not married yet, but in the account they were already referred to as husband and wife. That is how binding the agreement was. Once Jesus was married their marriage was solemnized.
The meaning of the verse applies to the betrothal period. If a woman is unfaithful or commits fornication during that engagement period then the man is not bound to marry her. It is not an excuse to divorce even in our society.
.....and Matthew 19...

"He saith to them -- `Moses for your stiffness of heart did suffer you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it hath not been so. `And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery."(vss 8,9)
The same explanation is given above.
Note that he does not condone divorce. It was given because of the hardness of Israel's hearts. It is not for today. From the beginning it was not so.
He is very specific here and does not contradict himself as you suppose:
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Then I posted what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7.
There is not one mention of divorce in 1Corinthians 7. Where does it say divorce?
Look, I am not upholding divorce. Divorce is horrible, is a sin in God's sight. But as sinners, it's no different than stealing a loaf of bread. Sin is sin. And sin unforgiven is punished by eternal death in the lake of fire.
Forgiven, yes; but there are consequences to some sins more than there are to others.
Paul was a murderer, was covetous, was a persecutor, was a very vile man. The things he did could never be repaired. Yet he was forgiven.

I know I'll never change your minds, but thank you and Brother Tony for the civil debate.
Paul didn't become a pastor, per se. He was used of God to right an instructional manual for pastors to come.
Remember also that the Book of Acts was a time of transition for the church. For example, they started meeting in the Temple, then in the synagogues, and from there wherever they could--often in homes.
As time passed so did the gifts of the Spirit--the gift of speaking in tongues for example eventually faded out of existence. This was a history of a church in transition. And Paul's ministry must be looked at that way as well.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is a lame argument and one I have heard for years. It is contrary to all Biblical teaching.
It is the same argument that goes like:
If I become a drug addict I can better witness to the drug addicts.
If I become a drunk I can better witness to the drunks.

Paul put a stop to such thinking in Romans 6.
Shall we sin (or condone it) that grace may abound?
God forbid!

Instead of promoting righteous, Godly, Spirit-filled living, you are actually promoting a wicked life-style, and then saying you would rather go to those who have had their lives full of it rather than one who has lived by the Book???


HUH? Who said that one would choose to sin to become a "better witness"?? I would say that a person like that is NOT a good person to counsel or be any kind of a witness! But one who WAS a sinner, was saved by grace and had their lives changed has an incredible testimony and a life experience that God can and will use to help others. We are speaking of two different types of people.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I think I agree with DHK on this one. Even when a person is forgiven of their sins, it does not mean they are free of the consequences of their sins. Sure, God no longer holds them accountable of those sins, but no where in the Bible does it say that forgiveness of our sins equals freedom from the consequences of our sins.

The consequence of sin is eternal death unless that sin is covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. Pardon or forgiveness removes the penalty for sin, justification removes the guilt of sin.

Now it is true that sin may have earthly consequences, whether by a believer or nonbeliever, that cannot be reversed. God is not going to grow a man a new pair of legs whether he is a believer or an unbeliever. However, the sins that a man [woman] commits before they are regenerated, converted, forgiven, and justified are gone forever, cast into the depths of the sea. And that is what the Bible says!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
1.
God hates divorce; he hates remarriage even more. It is living in a continual state of adultery Jesus said. He didn't recognize divorce then; I don't believe He recognizes it now. The Bible hasn't changed.
Neither have the qualifications of the pastor.

Can you prove that by Scripture?
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Lot of folks on this Forum need to get their Bibles and contemplate these Scripture:

2Corinthians 5:17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Galatians 6:15. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.


Some seem to be interpreting the requirement that a pastor be blameless to mean that they have never sinned. Again that is not according to Scripture.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
What about Apt or Able to Teach? I have seen a number of 'Pastors' who are not apt or able to teach.

Ever heard that expression "Mommy called, Daddy sent". that may be one of the problems with the churches today, any pastors are not called by God.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Brother OR, I used 2 Cor. 5:17, 1 Cor. 7 and they stated it wasn't directed to being a pastor. I also posted 1 Cor. 6:9-11...

The Apostle Paul states it much better than I could:

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I believe Paul is speaking to all the Saints, the "true believers" and that includes pastors, elders, deacons; and that includes the Scripture you posted, which is exactly what Paul states above.

I must say that I have never really understood all that God is telling us in 1 Corinthians 7 but there is no reason to limit His Word to any specific class. In my opinion what God through Paul gives as requirements for a deacon, pastor, elder, properly interpreted, present a reasonable standard for all believers. I would also note that God calls pastors, elders, deacons, out of the body of believers, not from unbelievers.

Furthermore, I see a lot of Pharisaism in some remarks about the statement A bishop then must be blameless, [1Timothy 3:2] as if the pastor, bishop, elder, deacon must be without sin from birth.

Scripture tells us that we all should be, will be blameless:

1Corinthians 1:8. Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

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

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Jesus Christ states differently.
Here is what I said with your reply above:

"God recognizes the marriages in the Catholic churches, and in the Hindu religion, etc. But He doesn't recognize divorce. If he doesn't recognize divorce, there is a consequence for it."

How does God not recognize marriage from other religions, such as Islam, Hinduism and even Roman Catholicism. If you have one married couple from each religion, each having children from their respective marriages, and these couples get saved, then what? You don't recognize their marriages under their unsaved or even pagan religions? Do you marry them again. Have them divorce each other first so you can remarry them under a "Christian" umbrella? Is that what you think when you say: "Jesus states differently."
Where does Jesus come even close to stating anything as absurd as that?
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Here is what I said with your reply above:

"God recognizes the marriages in the Catholic churches, and in the Hindu religion, etc. But He doesn't recognize divorce. If he doesn't recognize divorce, there is a consequence for it."

How does God not recognize marriage from other religions, such as Islam, Hinduism and even Roman Catholicism. If you have one married couple from each religion, each having children from their respective marriages, and these couples get saved, then what? You don't recognize their marriages under their unsaved or even pagan religions? Do you marry them again. Have them divorce each other first so you can remarry them under a "Christian" umbrella? Is that what you think when you say: "Jesus states differently."
Where does Jesus come even close to stating anything as absurd as that?

I was referring to the "he doesn't recognize divorce," statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Can you prove that by Scripture?
Can I prove what I said by Scripture? I wouldn't post it if I couldn't. Here is what I said:
1.
God hates divorce; he hates remarriage even more. It is living in a continual state of adultery Jesus said. He didn't recognize divorce then; I don't believe He recognizes it now. The Bible hasn't changed.
Neither have the qualifications of the pastor.
First God hates divorce:
[FONT=&quot]Malachi 2:13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.[/FONT]
--The Lord hates divorce.

Those that divorce and remarry live in a continual state of adultery.
[FONT=&quot]Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.[/FONT]

The requirement in 1Ti 3:2,12; Tit 1:6, that the 'bishop' and 'deacon' shall he the 'husband of one wife,' is probably to be understood as a prohibition of divorce and other sins against the chastity of marriage (cf. Heb 13:4), made necessary by the low standard of the age. Of course, no greater laxity is allowed to the layman, any more than he is allowed to he 'a brawler or striker'; but sins of this type are mentioned as peculiarly inconsistent with the ministry. Other views of the passage are that it forhids polygamy (a prohibition which could hardly be necessary in Christian circles) or a second marriage. But there was no feeling against the re-marriage of men (see above, § 6), and St. Paul himself saw in a second marriage nothing per se inconsistent with the Christian ideal (1Ti 5:14), so that it is hard to see on what grounds the supposed prohibition could.
(Hastings Bible Encyclopedia).
Note that the remarriage Paul is speaking of is in the context of widows whose spouses had already died.

Marriage is a sacred institution not to be trifled with. We are the Bride and Christ the Bridegroom. That in itself is a sacred picture of a sacred institution. The bride is not a divorced bride but a chaste virgin. Look what the Scriptures say here:
In NT, Christ is the bridegroom (Mr 2:19; Joh 3:29), the Church His bride. His love is emphasized, as in OT (Eph 5:25), and His bride too must be holy and without blemish (Eph 5:27; 2Co 11:2). In OT the stress is laid on the ingratitude and misery of sin as 'adultery,' in NT on the need of positive holiness and purity. Re 19:7 develops the figure, the dazzling white of the bride's array being contrasted with the harlot's scarlet. In Re 21:2,9 she is further identified with the New Jerusalem, two OT figures being combined, as in 2Es 7:26. For the coming of her Bridegroom she is now waiting (Re 22:17, cf. Mt 25:1), and the final joy is represented under the symbol of the marriage feast (Mt 22:2; Re 19:9).
(Hastings Bible Encyclopedia)
Again divorce shatters this picture. God hates divorce, and remarriage even more.
It disqualifies one from the ministry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top