Husband of one wife

Adultery means a sex act committed with a person who is not your wife.You must be married before you can commit adultery unless you are laying with another mans wife or a woman laying with a married man.That being said to do it right both parties should go into marriage as virgins.You cannot work your way around it if you are a man and you have been with more than one woman you are not a one woman man.One is single,not two,or three,or a couple,a few or many,it is one.I am not objecting to the criteria.I am just trying to get it fully clarified with all of the hypocricy taken out.
I see fallen pastors restored because thier wives were gracious enough to forgive them.They still are no longer one woman men.The still are not faultless. They are not running thier own lives well how can they counsel others.I can see it now ,I go to my pastor and say I am really tempted to commit adultery.He says well I don't recommend it I did it once and really got in trouble but over time everything turned out alright.Kinda like a tobacco chewin preacher tellin folks they should'nt smoke if you know what I mean.
All of the rules apply all of the time not just when we choose.

 

Now you’re confusing getting caught with being qualified.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. Dealing with the list of qualifications. If you can find another that covers this sin then please cite it from the Bible.

Premarital sexual activity may have everything to do with this requirement whether anyone knows about it or it is hidden in one's heart.

Surely you don't believe that an unmarried man who has uncontrolled sexual fantasies is qualified to be a pastor or deacon do you? But if it doesn't fit under the "one woman man" requirement... please point to where it does fit.

There is nothing in the text or context to establish this. It is pure eisogesis. You are inserting your opinion between the lines of this scripture. It doesn't mention a covenant. It doesn't mention divorce. It doesn't even literally mention marriage. It says "one woman man".

You have tried to act as if you have the stricter reading. I am showing that you don't.

You have narrowed it to a man not having violated a marriage covenant but expanded the timeframe without warrant to the man's whole life.

I have allowed the text to be as broad as it is to include any violation of God's plan for proper man-woman relations and allowed the context to limit the timeframe to the current but proven character of the man.

No, you’re wrong. I never said this and there is no compelling logic from anything that I did say. This is your misconstruing my arguments;[/quote][/qb] I think you quoted the wrong portion but I am not misconstruing anything. The way you have limited the "one woman man" qualification to breaking a marriage covenant requires us to look elsewhere in the requirements to disqualify a man guilty of secret sexual sins... but it doesn't fit anywhere else. You have no scriptural basis for even asking the man if he has a problem with his thought life.

I grasp your points- and point out the mammoth holes in them. It isn't craziness at all. My arguments are both scriptural and practical.

We live in a society innudated with sex... much like the 1st century church. It is imperative that we know whether a man has proper attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors concerning sexuality and his responsibility towards women.

Also like the first century church, Christians now have sinful pasts. Divorce is common as it was then. If divorce or the man's whole life were in view in this passage it would have been specified. The intentional non-specificity of the passage is an important clue that divorce was not the consideration- current character and behavior were.

 

Precisely!

I submit that if absolute fidelity to your one and only wife or even to the "marriage covenant" thoughout one's whole life is the standard then no normal man is qualified.

I (with hesitation) challenge anyone here who never did anything before or after marriage that would be considered "unfaithful" to your spouse or the marriage covenant to step forward for praise... or else condemnation for lying.

 

An obvious obfuscation since you didn't really say anything about the points--you just talked about everything else. Your implication that I am picking and choosing where and when to apply the rules is all wrongheaded. In fact, you are putting your own spin on the whole matter and there is no use in pursuing it further.

 

Precisely!

I submit that if absolute fidelity to your one and only wife or even to the "marriage covenant" thoughout one's whole life is the standard then no normal man is qualified.

I (with hesitation) challenge anyone here who never did anything before or after marriage that would be considered "unfaithful" to your spouse or the marriage covenant to step forward for praise... or else condemnation for lying. </font>[/QUOTE]Absolute foolishness! I suppose you think breathing air on someone else's property is stealing too. When we extrapolate a Biblical standard to an extreme so that it becomes trivia and inanity, then we do disrespect and harm to the Biblical standard. I understand what you’re trying to do but the contrapositive of your position is: “Let us sin that grace may abound.” Extrapolating (using your technique) your position to infinity results in saying, “Well, since everyone is guilty and we can’t keep the rule anyway, let’s have fun!”

To put it bluntly, you are talking nonsense and have no Biblical basis, other than your own homespun rationale, for this argument.

 

Now you’re confusing getting caught with being qualified.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. Dealing with the list of qualifications. If you can find another that covers this sin then please cite it from the Bible.

Premarital sexual activity may have everything to do with this requirement whether anyone knows about it or it is hidden in one's heart.

Surely you don't believe that an unmarried man who has uncontrolled sexual fantasies is qualified to be a pastor or deacon do you? But if it doesn't fit under the "one woman man" requirement... please point to where it does fit.

There is nothing in the text or context to establish this. It is pure eisogesis. You are inserting your opinion between the lines of this scripture. It doesn't mention a covenant. It doesn't mention divorce. It doesn't even literally mention marriage. It says "one woman man".
</font>[/QUOTE]Read my other posts. You’re beginning to sound like a scratched record like a scratched record like a scratched record like a scratched record………… [/qb][/quote]
You have tried to act as if you have the stricter reading. I am showing that you don't.
[/qb][/quote]A boast that you haven’t supported! [/qb][/quote]
You have narrowed it to a man not having violated a marriage covenant but expanded the timeframe without warrant to the man's whole life. [/qb][/quote]No, I haven’t. You are too loose with your words and assumptions for accuracy. For example, suppose you tell me what the time frame is. How long is the present? Can a man who was divorced yesterday become a pastor today? [/qb][/quote]
I have allowed the text to be as broad as it is to include any violation of God's plan for proper man-woman relations and allowed the context to limit the timeframe to the current but proven character of the man.

No, you’re wrong. I never said this and there is no compelling logic from anything that I did say. This is your misconstruing my arguments;[/quote][/qb] I think you quoted the wrong portion but I am not misconstruing anything. The way you have limited the "one woman man" qualification to breaking a marriage covenant requires us to look elsewhere in the requirements to disqualify a man guilty of secret sexual sins... but it doesn't fit anywhere else. You have no scriptural basis for even asking the man if he has a problem with his thought life.

I grasp your points- and point out the mammoth holes in them. It isn't craziness at all. My arguments are both scriptural and practical.
[/qb][/quote]I don’t know what you did above but it is absolutely a mishmash of confusion. The posting of who said what is royally messed up. Firstly, I have never limited the requirements as a whole to divorce but I have contended that divorce is a disqualifier. However, the church cannot judge a man’s thought life since it cannot know it. You have never exegetically tied thought life, etc. into this “one woman man” phrase. All you have presented is your own homespun philosophy of what it means. It just doesn’t cut it with me. As for punching mammoth holes……….well, you can believe whatever you wish. I will say that your arguments are neither Scriptural nor practical since you cannot support your definition of “one woman man” with Scripture and you cannot give me a practical way of judging thought life. [/qb][/quote]
We live in a society innudated with sex... much like the 1st century church. It is imperative that we know whether a man has proper attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors concerning sexuality and his responsibility towards women. [/qb][/quote]Perhaps you would like to explain how and when God commanded us to judge attitudes and thoughts. We can only judge observable behaviors. Please explain exactly how God expects us to judge the qualifications from thoughts and attitudes. Divorce is an knowable condition whereas thoughts are unknowable. [/qb][/quote]

Also like the first century church, Christians now have sinful pasts. Divorce is common as it was then. If divorce or the man's whole life were in view in this passage it would have been specified. The intentional non-specificity of the passage is an important clue that divorce was not the consideration- current character and behavior were. [/QB][/QUOTE]You have never explained or addressed my question of why God prevent certain people (e.g. Moses) from specific things because of their sinful, although forgiven, past. Doesn’t this pretty much destroy your specious reasoning? You are wimping out of the argument by repeating the same old tripe and ignoring any questions or points that I raise. Now, I look forward in your next post to see the answer to this question.

 

If you are referring to me then you misjudge what I am saying.I'm saying that going by your standards if we are to be the husband of one wife cling to her only and any violation of that is a disqualifier for several reasons.If a pastor commits adultery then he is given over to his lust and not taking into view all who will be harmed by his actions when he is found out.This is just as disqualifying as divorce because he is no longer a one woman man.He has broken the marriage covenant by not remaining faithful to his wife as he promised in his wedding vows.He is not running his household either well or honestly and he has proven he can't be trusted.Now he can be forgiven and he can be restored to fellowship but there will always be that small doubt in the back of his mind and anyone elses who finds out about the adultery whether it will or will not happen again and indeed it may not.However even without a divorce he is still and adulterer which makes him a covenant breaker.I'm not stretching anything out I'm just telling it like it is.

I know there are different views on this subject from a man should not be polygamous to a widowed man may not remarry and everything in between.I personally think this scripture is referring to polygomy but I could be wrong.I think the reference is a little sketchy.But I think if you are going to use a stricter criteria(no divorce)then you need to go all the way.I just don't think you can have it all six ways.

 

Now that's interesting from someone who would like to play the victim and claim that others are distorting your arguments.

Yes... and that's why I object to your extrapolation of the pastor/deacon qualifications. You have extrapolated to the extreme but only in one narrow vein. You then howl protest when someone takes a parallel vein to the extreme to demonstrate the error of your interpretation.

Now Paidagogos... where have I ever... ever said any such thing?

In fact, I think the requirements for being a pastor/deacon should be extremely strict and thorough in accordance with the texts... I simply don't see "no divorcees" in that text nor in any other relating to church leaders. Most of the men filling Baptist pulpits are probably not qualified on the "one woman man" standard alone due to the adultery they commit in their hearts.

Tact and grace have not been a problem for you to date so there is no need for you to warn me that you are putting it "bluntly".

But, to put it bluntly to you, you have simply adopted a legalistic position and entrenched yourself. You refuse to recognize the inconsistency of your interpretation. You refuse to see that you are adding to the text when you force in the concepts of the violation of the marriage covenant or divorce.

I do not espouse the idea that we should hold the man to a lifelong standard of absolutely being a "one woman man". But this notion directly parallels your notion that if a man is divorced he is permanently disqualified.

You say, premarital sex, lustful thoughts, et al. are not mentioned in the passage... I say, neither is divorce. "One woman man" may apply to the current demonstrated character of the man or it may apply to the man's whole life. But there is no basis in the text to pick out one thing, divorce/violation of the marriage covenant, and say those things are permanent marks while anything else is forgiveable.

If you can't see your inconsistency on this then the beam is in your eye... so you can leave my mote alone.

[ November 30, 2005, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

BTW, if you think pre-marital impurity didn't matter to the marriage covenant then you need to revisit what both Jesus and Moses said.

One of the reasons the Jews were allowed to divorce is if they found that the woman was not pure.

Jesus said for "the cause of fornication"... He didn't say "if they committed fornication while married to you" though that isn't excluded either.

 

No but it certainly reveals something about you that you need to persistently insult those who disagree with you.

Read your own words for the answer:

"prevent certain people"? Yes. Certain people. Not everyone. You have not established an overriding independent standard. God does sometimes deny things to people but....

.... Who gets to say who those denials go against? God. And He simply didn't say that divorcees could never be qualified to be a pastor or deacon in the qualifications that He laid out for those positions.

So the fact that God can deny people is undeniable... as is the fact that the qualifications do not include "no divorcees allowed".

 

No but it certainly reveals something about you that you need to persistently insult those who disagree with you.
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, exactly what does it reveal about me? Be specific. Are you psychoanalyzing me? What do you know about my character or walk with the Lord from a few posts?

Please compare my words with your words above. Notice that I never questioned or insinuated against your character at all. Everything was directed against your arguments, statements or behavior. When you make statement or take a position on this board, your posts and words are fair game in open season. One may disagree, criticize, or even ridicule these but it is absolutely gauche and unethical to question a person’s self or character. There is a fine surgical line between critiquing one’s statements or behavior and judging the person. Methinks you have crossed that line. You said, “it certainly reveals something about you….” This is an innuendo against my person, not my ideas or statements. You are saying that something is wrong with me personally.

Hypocrisy is whenever one condemns another for the thing he allows himself. You have accused me through of insulting you when I attack your arguments and statements but you attack my person. This is hypocrisy. I will judge your words and actions since they are observable and you publicize them for public scrutiny but I cannot judge your character or motives.

By posting you open your beliefs, arguments, and ideas to sarcasm, ridicule, refutation, and criticism. If you cannot handle the rough and tumble competition of spirited debate, then you ought not enter the forum. If heated debate is to hot for you not to take offense, then you always have the option of getting out of the kitchen.

 

Scott J challenged:
Now Paidagogos... where have I ever... ever said any such thing? </font>[/QUOTE]Scott, I choose this snippet just to illustrate how you utterly miss, ignore, or misconstrue my posts. Read my post again. I never said that you said any such thing! I simply took your technique of extrapolating (look up in the dictionary) my arguments into nonsense and turned your technique around upon your argument to demonstrate how nonsensical it was. Yet, you challenge me as if I had attributed these words to you—I did not. No, the statement is complete foolishness but it shows how your extrapolation of my arguments results in silliness too. You somehow managed to miss my whole point and twist it into a challenge. I am getting frustrated with your posts because you either don’t understand, or ignore, or deliberately misconstrue my arguments. I’m wasting my time. I cannot debate irrationality and your posts are not rational answers to my posts. I quit………I give up……..I’m frustrated trying reason with you. Adios

 

So, can a man divorce his wife for fornication that she committed before they were married? Is this what you're saying? Have you never heard of forgiveness? This is a strange Pharisaical doctrine. It seems that you were arguing a few days ago that a pastor who was forgiven ought not be disqualified because he was divorced before salvation. Strange……………

 

Scott J piously chided:
Tact and grace have not been a problem for you to date so there is no need for you to warn me that you are putting it "bluntly".

But, to put it bluntly to you, you have simply adopted a legalistic position and entrenched yourself. You refuse to recognize the inconsistency of your interpretation. You refuse to see that you are adding to the text when you force in the concepts of the violation of the marriage covenant or divorce.

[snip]
If you can't see your inconsistency on this then the beam is in your eye... so you can leave my mote alone. </font>[/QUOTE]Now, now……you’re not coming off prettily here! While chiding me for sarcasm and bluntness, you do the same toward me. Your charm and grace impresses me. I don’t think I have stepped over the line of acceptable decorum for a debate forum. However, you imply that I have although you are doing the same to me. Hypothetically, if I should be wrong then Scripture commands us not to give evil for evil. What have you done by chiding me for you are presently doing? There’s a word for this kind of thing if you can recall. Scottie, old boy, you have painted yourself into a logical corner. Be careful not to step on the wet paint now.

 

Yes, it could be reasonably construed as polygamy if you look only look at this one passage in isolation from your theological view of marriage and divorce. I do think polygamy disqualifies here but it goes further. However, once you bring the theological aspect of marriage and divorce into the picture, the understanding of this verse is strongly influenced by your view of divorce and remarriage. This is exactly what I’ve been saying over and over which people persistently ignore.

This is the theological aspect of exegesis. According to the strictest view of divorce (I am not defending—simply stating for illustration), a divorced man still has a living wife. The temporal human civil (i.e. legal/economic requirements) relationship has been severed but they are still bound in the eyes of God. Divorce does not nullify the marriage covenant; so the divorced and remarried man is living under two spiritual covenants with two wives—polygamy.

On the other hand, I do not believe that you are compelled to “go all the way.” How can you judge thought life, etc.?

Bill, you are arguing some points that I accept. For example, if a pastor commits adultery, he is disqualified from the ministry. He has broken his marriage covenant. He is not become the husband of another woman through the sex act but he has not “forsaken all others” as the marriage vow states. I can see this as implicit in the “one woman man” concept. Although he can be forgiven and restored to fellowship, he is no longer qualified for ministry as a pastor.

 

[snip]
Read your own words for the answer:

"prevent certain people"? Yes. Certain people. Not everyone. You have not established an overriding independent standard. God does sometimes deny things to people but....

.... Who gets to say who those denials go against? God. And He simply didn't say that divorcees could never be qualified to be a pastor or deacon in the qualifications that He laid out for those positions.

So the fact that God can deny people is undeniable... as is the fact that the qualifications do not include "no divorcees allowed". </font>[/QUOTE]How do you know this? Previously you argued that the pastorate could not be denied a divorced man because the past divorce was forgiven. If God can deny this ministry to some people (you agreed), how can you reason that He cannot deny the pastorate to a divorced man because he is forgiven? How do you know?

 

Not really. I am not talking about how one financially treats women, for instance. That would be covered in "reputation among outsiders." A "one-woman man" clearly has a sexual undertone to it. It can at least be applied as meaning "If you are married, be a one woman man" or "faithful to your wife." The application depends on the status of the man. A single man is not to be a flirt (which a single man or married man can be), doesn't engage in capricious relationships of any kind with the opposite sex. This creates no more of a hermeneutical problem than does the admonishment regarding children in 1 Tim 3:4 for the single man.

 

Brother James, I feel it necessary to admonish you publically for a cheap shot below the belt towards Paidogos. Emotive personal attacks are not going to be tolerated. I would have edited it, but the damage has been done and it appears in a quoted response.

Everyone: Final warning - keep the gloves up or this thread will be closed and this topic will never be allowed to be discussed again.

 

No offence was intended to be sure. In my zeal to expose blatant false doctrine that persecutes the saints I may have stepped over the line. My apologies.

 

mmmmm...maybe.

No, that would make it a perfect infinitive, not present (Cf. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 295). Aorist infinitives have little to no aspect of time, but present infinitives denote continual action. A rather literal translation of the text would be "An overseer must continue to be...." If Paul meant that the elder must never have been divorced, how can one not continue to have never been divorced? That would be a ridiculous statement for Paul to make, violating semantic principles. You cannot continually never have done something. I can't keep on not being born in Texas. You can't continue not being born a man. I can't continue to not have had steak yesterday.

Yes, you are

Hmm..Present indicative, Aorist indicative, Perfect indicative, just to name those. The latter would give your argument more force, the aorist less so, and present even less still.

Now, now....let's be a gentleman

Darn it. Stupid Bible college and seminary professors. They made me take all those Greek and Hebrew classes for nothing And they didn't just make me do it, they made everyone do it

That's my opinion, too

Agreed.

I can't decide which fallacy this is: either Post hoc ergo proctor hoc, or more likely "sweeping generalization" fallacy. You did not provide any textual support for your assertion, and your logic breaks down trying to eisegete the principle.

I don't believe it's correct to say that a Non causa pro causa connection exists, but I would agree that one should have a proper theology of both. It is posisble that one could have a faulty theology of marriage/divorce and still have an accurate interpretation of this passage. A blind hen gets some corn And the opposite is true: a good understanding of marriage/divorce obviously leads people to misinterpreting this passage.

Most importantly you didn't address my most pressing question: