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!
If only people would apply this here and in every other passage and take Scripture at exactly what it says, then we wouldn't be having these debates.“The structure of the Koini Greek language would have allowed Paul to be very specific”.
I respect that. Again, I have hold no bitterness toward you at all. I like vigorous debate. It's a healthy way to ensure that your ideas can stand scrutiny.Originally posted by thjplgvp:
Brother Scott,
I have to be consistent that is why I said (per my understanding). I am no way suggesting that I could not be wrong only that I have to be consistent in my approach to this topic.
Yes and no. Personal conduct isn't always subjective. Making conduct measures as objective as possible is an intelligent thing to do. OTOH, consistency is still at issue. The notion seems to be that since divorce is "objective" that makes it an easy call that you don't have to use judgment with. The problem is that virtually anything else can be considered "subjective" and forgiven or else excused.The mans personal conduct is subjective per the viewer and in situations like this I believe I have to be objective in my decision making process.
But what is more conservative than observing the text and going no further? How is it conservative to add "divorce" to the list when God didn't?As I said in another post I would rather err on the side of conservativism.
You didn't come off as offensive.I am not claiming infallability here but I have to be consistent to my own conscience.
Advice I would certainly respect. It is those who are dogmatic that I think have gone much, much too far.But were I the pastor and this man came and asked my opinion then you have my answer/advice before you.
Originally posted by thjplgvp:
Scott,
While I was typing you were posting.
![]()
"2) A romance with someone before your wife cannot be undone. A sexual relationship with a woman besides your wife cannot be undone... nor any other variation of not being a "one woman man". So if you are going to disqualify divorcees though the text doesn't mention divorce... then at least be consistent and disqualify anyone else who hasn't always been a "one woman man"."
First of all intercourse or romance do not equal marriage this is a myth that has been fostered way to long. Marriage is a legal binding document attested to by witnesses.
"but God clearly indicates in other places that He hates divorce and that the law only allowed it for the hardness of men's hearts."
The Law did not allow divorce it governed divorce Deut 24:1-4. The Jews had begun to practice the social values of the Egyptians in particular therefore God laid down rules to govern how the people would do handle divorce. Historical study on the topic shows that they were making a mockery of marriage.
When one understands the process of divorce he truly understand why Jesus said for the hardness of your hearts and why God says he hates divorce. The process was designed by God to reconcile the marriage and those who refused showed themselves to be very hard hearted indeed.
"No more so than the consequences of pretty much any other sin... that is assuming that the divorced party was not scripturally justified meaning that it isn't sin at all for them.
Funny thing there. The Bible gives two exceptions for divorce and there are those who would say these "non-sins" disqualify someone while simultaneously arguing that other real sins under the qualification list can be repented of and leave the man qualified. Very inconsistent reasoning."
You miss the point my friend it is not about forgiveness it is about position. How many convicted bank robber do you see as presidents of banks? How many drop outs do you see running schools? By your reasoning (I am not being facetious here) man should be allowed into heaven on his own merits because repentance and forgiveness have been attained. We know that God required particular qualifications for the position of Lamb of God, and only he could fulfill his particulars. Consequently ‘one wife’ means first and if it is not first then they are disqualified from the position but not the ministry.
mia mee'-ah
irregular feminine of 1520; one or first:--a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.
The rendering is pretty clear though I found two who disagreed and three who conveniently bypassed the topic proving it has been a difficult topic for a long time.
Clark, Burkitt, Jameson-Fausset-Brown, People New Testament Commentary and Wesley all hold that divorce disqualifies one from the office of overseer. Virtually all commentaries hold that remarriage because of death is fine. My personal belief is that as long as the husband is married to his first wife (she may have been divorced) he is free to be the overseer of the church.
But you can't become a former divorcee (unless you remarry and don't tell anyone you were ever divorced). Why? Because there's a checkbox on missions applications forms that says:Originally posted by Scott J:
If you can be a former murderer because it is repented of and in your past then by the exact same means you can become a former divorcer.