Everyone plant one, unless you have been divorced

"Not ruling his household well" Is not a phrase left open to anything under the sun. Else we should investigate the intimate practices in the house as well. This phrase is defined by the post statment: "Having his children in subjection" and there is nothing to be added to that. Anything added to that is out of context and not defined in scripture by God.

 

But does that mean "have you ever"? For a time back in 1978 I ruled my household very poorly. Does that disqualify me now in 2007? My youngest daughter disobeyed a direct order from me and went somewhere she was forbidden to go, and then lied to me about going there. That was back in 2004. Am I disqualified because that day she was not in subjection?

 

Past and repented failures are not a disqualifying factor. And to disqualify one based on that it is not a consequence it is a judgment. There is a difference. Niether should we be adding to that scripture to include anything not clearly defined by it. Again it is not a catch all phrase to subject the candidate to personal pet peeves to the exclusion of every other aspect of the home life.

 

So do you believe that all divorced people like all homosexuals should be cast out of all SBC churches? Why not?

 

Your question is bizarre and way off topic. Start another thread if you like.

peace to youraying:

 

When Paul says nearly the same words concerning deacons, he says, (3 v.12) "Deacons must be husbands of one wife, and good managers of children and their own households."

Paul separated this statement concerning family life into two distinct but related qualifications for Deacons. It is very safe, therefore, to interpret the qualifications for Overseers in the same light.

peace to youraying:

 

I am not sure what paraphrase you use but the article "and" is not found multiple times in the original languages. However to use the word "and" between children and household does not seperate the duties but is redundant.

To use "ruleth his household well" as a catch all phrase sets up the concern for every intimate detail of the household. Paul never intended for that to happen so he defined it.

 

RE: Planting churches

People need to understand that God handles divorces no differently than lying, stealing, cursing, etc. To Him, a sin is a sin. It doesn't matter if you were married ten times in your sinner days, if God forgives you, your saved not matter what men or women say. Some of the churches I have been to wouldn't take someone in if they had divorced/remarried, regardless if their spouse cheated/left. They have even turned some away and told them they didn't want them. God will judge them the way they judge them. I also do not see anything wrong with MEN preaching if they have divorced. I know that some will probably climb up my back for using that statement, but scripture is scripture.

The first chapter of Titus and the third chapter of 1 Timothy lays out the requirements for Bishops and Deacons and says "The husband of one wife". If a man has been divorced/remarried ten times, when God saves him, he only has the one wife he is married to. These scriptures are telling us that to be an Bishop or Deacon, you could only have one wife to hold this position, whereas under the Old Law, men could have as many wives as they could afford to keep. In otherwords, if they had more than one wife at the same time, it is a sin according to the workings of the Grace Covenant. So I see no need in disallowing someone from planting a church that has been married more than once. That is going behind one's conversion and judging them, if you ask me. May God bless you all is my humble prayer!!

 

I'm glad the Lord has me busy enough to not spend countless hours on the BB to argue so much non-sense.

 

The SBC is good at making up the rules as they go along. They love those extrabiblical citations that nobody can seem to find. Isn't it amazing that that the head of the IMB claims to speak in tongues?

What I find rather interesting is that the IMB and NAMB have different requirements. IMB also has different requirements for those in the U.S. than for those in other countries.

 

I usually use the New American Standard. It would not be considered a "paraphrase" by any stretch. My Greek bible does have the "and", which is "kai" in the Greek (not a definite article), in v.12.

I think your "definition" or application of "ruleth his household well", is too narrow when it is considered in the context it was written.

Just so you know, I don't interpretate it so broad as to include every intimate detail of the household.

peace to youraying:

 

I did not say the and wasnt there. It isnt there multiple times.

The problem is that if we do not include every detail of the house then it must be defined. Paul did this very thing. I choose not to add to his writng on this subject.

 

And I choose to consider everything he wrote about the subject, leaving nothing out. (now, that is redundant).

I don't remember saying it was there multiple times, either. I'll go back and check, just in case I misspoke.

I checked, you were correct. I quoted, "Deacons must be husbands of one wife, and good managers of children and their own households."

The "and" between "one wife" and "good managers" is not in the Greek. The NASV has the "and" in italics. "Deacons must be husbands of one wife, and good managers of children and their own households."

And so, I stand corrected.

peace to youraying:

 

No. That is unbiblical and would land you in jail.

It begins with choosing the right wife, I suppose, making sure she is as devoted to serving God as you are.

If you have done that, and sometime after marriage trouble begins, then your number one priority is to be focused on saving your marriage and your family. By doing so, you will be honoring God and the importance God has placed on marriage.

peace to youraying: