Husband of one wife

Paidogogos

You said

"Yes, anytime one applies the man is disqualified until he repents and purges the sin from his life. The catch is that the other qualifications are in the present whereas divorce remains—once divorced, always divorced."

and

"Why should salvation be the dividing line?"

First, you are adding to scripture when you say a man must "purge his sins from his life". The text doesn't say that. You also imply that divorce is the one sin that can't be purged from a man's life. (even though divorce is not mentioned in the text)

So, even if the sin of divorce is nailed to the cross with Christ, it still disqualifies? So, even if the sin of divorce is removed from us as far as the east is from the west, it still disqualifies? So, even if a man is a "new creation in Christ", that divorce that belonged to the old man clings to him, along with the righteousness of our Lord, so as to disqualify for service?

All the rest can be purged? But divorce cannot be purged?

What if a man kills someone during a drunken brawl? (he was pugnacious and addicted to strong drink). Once a murderer, always a murderer. He can never change the fact that he killed someone, can he? Surely he must also be disqualified, isn't he?

peace to you

 

For the record, William Heth has changed his position. He no longer agrees with Wenham, and published his new position (The majority position, that divorce is permissible in at least 2 circumstances) in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Spring 2002. Link is listed below.
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/publications/sbjt/2002Spring.php </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I know but he probably does still hold to the pastoral disqualification under dicsussion.

 

Well Tom, you have covered just about every anemic excuse and rationalization for a divorced pastor or deacon that I’ve heard. Congratulations on your synopsis. I won’t even try flogging these dead horses. It is all so appealing, soothing, mild and humanly reasonable that I along with about six billion other human beings want to believe it. The problem is that is doesn’t match the Scriptures. This is not God’s requirement for his minister (i.e. pastor) who should ideally picture in his marriage the relationship between Christ and His church. Why don’t you chew on this idea for a while? (Chew on the idea, not me.)

 

paidagogos

Your argument that marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and the church, and therefore must be protected from any reproach that could be seen in a divorced pastor or deacon is a far better argument than saying that divorce cannot be purged, even if prior to salvation.

I still maintain, however, that salvation brings new life and these qualifications refer to a man after salvation.

peace to you

 

We're not even connecting. You're speaking Japanese and I'm speaking Walla Walla. Obviously you don't understand my differentiating between forgiveness and qualification. Therefore, I won't bother to answer your question in that language that you don't speak.

 

I have never said that divorce cannot be forgiven or purged. I did say that it disqualifies which is an entirely different matter. I have consistently misquoted despite my repeated denials. It is strange that folks try to force my words to say what the words don't mean. Can't folks let a man say what he means?

 

Paidagogos

I understand what you are saying. I just think you are wrong. The qualifications are directed to believers (i.e. not a novice) and must apply to a man's life after he is saved, otherwise we are all disqualified.

Since the text doesn't separate one qualification, i.e. "one woman man", from the rest and say "this one applies even prior to salvation," and you do...then you are holding people to a higher (?) standard than God's Word does.

peace to you

 

BTW

You said a man must purge his sins, but the "catch" was that divorce "remains". "Once divorced, always divorced". Maybe I am misunderstanding Walla Walla, but that sounds like you are saying the sin of divorce cannot be purged. Of course, my Walla Walla isn't what it used to be.

peace to you

 

For the record, William Heth has changed his position. He no longer agrees with Wenham, and published his new position (The majority position, that divorce is permissible in at least 2 circumstances) in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Spring 2002. Link is listed below.
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/publications/sbjt/2002Spring.php </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I know but he probably does still hold to the pastoral disqualification under dicsussion. </font>[/QUOTE]That may be true or may not be. I haven't read the article word for word in a while. I'll go back when I get some time this weekend...IF I get some time

 

First of all, your tenor came across as more than a little condescending, boorish, and mocking. I'm going to give you the opportunity to confirm or deny that and take you at your word.
Second, I find it interesting that not once did you respond to the Scriptural argument I made, nor question the veracity of it or the historical exegesis of the church, and that's for a pretty obvious reason . Your characterization of my exegesis as "anemic excusing and rationalization" sounds good and macho but falls short of any constructive dialogue or critique. T

hird, while I do believe marriage is a picture of the covenant (Since the church is the bride, etc.), I nowhere find in Scripture where that picture is applied to the officers of the church directly for qualifications. This is eisegesis in its most blatent form. If you have Scriptural evidence of where the Bible equates the elder/deacon's marital status as directly imaging the God-His people/Christ-the Church, please post. Remember: it will have to be cross-covenental, cross-testamental for your hypothesis to be correct, and must be pointedly applicable to the elder/deacon. I do see where Paul instructs how wives and husbands should behave based upon the picture of Christ wedding his church, but to take from that a meaning about divorced pastors, elders, or deacons is an eisegetical leap of olympic proportions.

 

(Putting on his moderator's hat)

I think it helpful to realize that we all have presuppositions that go far beyond the 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 qualifications for elder/deacon. Those presuppositions will center around our understanding of whether or not all divorce is sinful, whether or not there are legitimate grounds for divorce, etc. There are four majority views based on the sinfulness of divorce and/or remarriage, and each will have their views (hopefully) informed by thoughtful exegesis of God's Word. A lot of side battles can occur because we are discussing the presuppositions and not the issue at hand. I suppose that is normal. However, please remember: everyone has a presuppositional exegesis. I think too many people assume that there is no other possible presupposition that can be brought to the table. Whether it's more or less correct than the one you bring is another discussion. But let's at least remember that there are other interpretations and save ourselves from wasting time by saying things like "I can't believe you don't hold my opinion" and "this presupposition is the only one." The presuppostions are varied. Debate them, but don't question their existence. Bible believers hold to all four. Carry on.

 

So many words, so little meaning

This has got to be a hyperbole or an irrational statement.

An overseerer is a man who is given authority by the church as a manager or leader over the church as a whole. Other men and women serve in a lesser capacity as managers of various ministries offered by the church. Others are employed by the Church to manage the day to day operations of the church. Others are volunteers in projects vital to the church.

Before a man serves as deacon he must be tested (3:10), like wise those wishing to become members in a church should be tested as to their faith in Christ. Regardless of what function one serves in the church, all are responsible to the head manager Jesus Christ and the church they attend.

Paul wrote to Timothy giving instructions concerning church conduct, with emphasis on those overseeing the church. The main purpose of his letters was to instruct "how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God" (1 Tim. 3:14-15).

"People" - an organized aggregate of persons who are responsible for a prevailing order.

All people in the church, not just deacons.

"Covenant" - binding agreement or relationship between two parties.

If Christ is the bridegroom and the church is the bride, there is no binding relationship between the two, no covenant.

If Christ is the husband and the church is his wife then you have a covenant and a permanent relationship.

 

IOW's, you have no real answer of substance to the plain, direct, liteal intepretation of the text. You have to add words and concepts to the passage that God never inspired to make your case.

The text says what it says in spite of the fact that you don't like it.

I doubt that. Legalism and operating under some self-contrived "higher standard" and the feelings of superiority some get from being holier than thou are very much appealing to the flesh.

Your condescending remarks indicate that you are getting a good deal of pleasure "putting us in our places."

Actually, your problem is that it does match the scriptures in question precisely. These scriptures don't mention divorce and, like noted before, all of the others deal with a man's character. The grammar of the sentence lends further support to the "present" behavior of the man.

You have added to the scriptures words that simply aren't there in order to promote a human opinion.

Why don't you show where God said that rather than you?

Why don't you demonstrate that the marriage of a divorced man cannot picture the relationship between Christ and the Church?

You once again have supplied thus saith Paidagogos where you have found thus saith the Lord insufficient to sustain your argument. Further, for all your pompous words, you still haven't made any kind of case for why your intepretation is consistent. You never addressed with substance why a divorcee isn't a "one woman man" while those who have considered or had more than one woman are.

God could have said divorce. There is a greek word for it if that's what He had in mind. He didn't and for some reason... you can't stand for it.

 

This is off the OP, but I've seen too many pastors with terribly disobedient kids. Does anyone know a church that has dismissed a pastor because of his kids' or wife's behavior? Is there justification in the qualification passage for doing so?

 

Paul could have said "not divorced". Instead, he emphasized the word "one" (indicating monogamy) by positioning it first in all three cases.

That Mark at one time was rejected by Paul and later wrote one of the Gospels and was received by Paul may indicate that qualifications for a pastor, as has already been mentioned, are standards of one's relatively current obedience and conduct.

Divorce may indicate a past inability to rule one's house well, and under these grounds a church may want to use caution or simply see if anyone else is more suitable.

IMO, the passage strongly supports dismissing a pastor who gets divorced. Obviously he either is not ruling his house well or he and/or his wife is not faithful in all things

 

This first question is for Tom or Scott (or anyone who holds this opinion). As I was reading through this interesting thread, I noticed this statement:

Which got me to thinking, "How could we know an unmarried man is a 'one woman man', or IOWs, in what sense is an umarried man a 'one woman man'?" Then I read Tom's statement:

So I'd like someone to expound on what he/she means by this.

Second, for paidagogos or anyone else familiar with the book Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. What are the four different views? Is this book in the format in which four people each presents his different view, and then the other three critique it? Or just one man presenting the four views?

Finally, thanks paidagogos for the book references and TomVols for the link to SBJOT. Those looks like interesting materials.

 

For the record, William Heth has changed his position. He no longer agrees with Wenham, and published his new position (The majority position, that divorce is permissible in at least 2 circumstances) in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Spring 2002. Link is listed below.
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/publications/sbjt/2002Spring.php </font>[/QUOTE]You are exactly right. I read the Jesus and Divorce book along with a half dozen or so other books, including John Murray, Jay Adams, et. al on divorce about a year ago. Somehow, I missed a synaptic connection and recommended the wrong book. I ought to have posted The Divorce Myth by J. Carl Laney. This little volume argues for no divorce period. Laney changed his position too. He went from permissible divorce under certain circumstances to no divorce. Although I have some disagreements with Laney, I'd like to hear someone intelligibly address Laney's arguments.

 

Views range from no divorce to divorce for adultery or abandonment to divorce for almost any reason or no reason at all. Book consists of chapters written by four men from four views with critiques. Also, I recommend reading The Divorce Myth by Carl Laney, Divorce, an older work, by John Murray and Divorce and Remarriage by Jay Adams. These are concise and more up-to-date little books on divorce. There's a lot of other contemporary stuff out there that's not worth the reading. However, there are a few good, useful journal articles about various aspects of the debate. If you want a good headache with accompanying eyestrain, read John Milton or one of the other Puritans.

 

First of all, your tenor came across as more than a little condescending, boorish, and mocking. I'm going to give you the opportunity to confirm or deny that and take you at your word.
Second, I find it interesting that not once did you respond to the Scriptural argument I made, nor question the veracity of it or the historical exegesis of the church, and that's for a pretty obvious reason . Your characterization of my exegesis as "anemic excusing and rationalization" sounds good and macho but falls short of any constructive dialogue or critique.
Third, while I do believe marriage is a picture of the covenant (Since the church is the bride, etc.), I nowhere find in Scripture where that picture is applied to the officers of the church directly for qualifications. This is eisegesis in its most blatent form. If you have Scriptural evidence of where the Bible equates the elder/deacon's marital status as directly imaging the God-His people/Christ-the Church, please post. Remember: it will have to be cross-covenental, cross-testamental for your hypothesis to be correct, and must be pointedly applicable to the elder/deacon. I do see where Paul instructs how wives and husbands should behave based upon the picture of Christ wedding his church, but to take from that a meaning about divorced pastors, elders, or deacons is an eisegetical leap of olympic proportions. </font>[/QUOTE]Point #1 Guilty as charged. I am sick of ploughing this same ground and I shot for cheap points by ridiculing your argument. Yes, these arguments are pretty weak, IMHO. Perhaps I will try to answer one or two of them in a small way when I have time. These points are primarily from a historical-cultural without due consideration to theolgoical implications.
Point #2 This is the most frustrating aspect of it all. There's no exegetical meat to sink one's teeth into. It's all presuppositional reasoning based on a historical-cultural interpretation. IHMO, the theological aspect is the deciding factor.
Point #3 The argument is theological, not primarily historical-cultural. Furthermore, the semantics are dictated in a theological context of OT covenant ideas rooted in the very character of God. It is not eisegesis anymore than your historical-cultural interpretation is eisegesis. Good hermeneutics include the historical-cultural, linguistic, context and theological components in varying degrees. In this case, IMHO, the theological position is the heavy.

Yes, Tom, you’re right in the points you made but they are cheap points (i.e. mean nothing to the validity of the argument). What you have challenged me to do is write between 40 to 100 pages with support for my argument. I can’t do that here. The best we can do is present a point, delimit it and debate it. However, I do not have the time to make and support the points on this thread.

I tried to reply to some posts last week and the board would not upload my post. I’ll try reposting and let you address some of my points there.

 

Yes--this is a definite possibility.</font>[/QUOTE]Then Jesus lies when he permits divorce in cases of adultery. No thanks, I'll stick to what Jesus says. </font>[/QUOTE]Show me a Scripture where Jesus says divorce is permissible in the case of adultery. He said "uncleanness" (porneia), not "adultery" (moichao). If he intended adultery, I think He would have used the word for adultery. I do believe He knew the difference between the two words-don't you?

BTW, Johnv, why don't you be fair in quoting me and quote the next paragraph following your snippet of my post. If you quoted me fully, then you would have shown my answer to your little smarmy remark.