Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
IMHO, no.
I will not lay hands on a single bishop
or a single deacon.
I will not lay hands on a single bishop
or a single deacon.
-
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!
Husband of one Wife
- Thread starter OSAS
- Start date
Okay, Diane, let me be blunt. I married my wonderful wife after she divorced her husband who had sexually molested his own three daughters.
I had never been married before. I was actually not saved at the time (walked the aisle at 9, thought I was saved, don't remember anything except the pastor praying).
My mother was at first against it, (she was terminally ill) and she talked to me in the hospital and told me that the girls were sweet and it was not fair they did not have a decent father to show them how a husband is supposed to be. (Their father is in prison for first degree rape of the oldest who was 11 when we got married 15 years ago.) My mother said she felt God had sent me to give those children a real father.
I fell in love with the girls and their mother (especially) and married her and tried to raise the girls in a Christian home. I realized that I wasn't really saved and took care of that, allowing my girls to see me Baptised. Within a few months my youngest daughter said she wasn't really saved either and accepted the Lord.
I adopted all three because their father had his parental rights striken due to state law.
The girls still have problems (especilly the youngest two), the oldest is in church and married to a youth minister in another state.
Now, maybe I committed adultry, maybe my wife did. Bottom line is, I'm a sinner anyway. Jesus paid for this.
Now our church (a small SBC) has a rule that I cannot be a deacon or be ordained as a pastor.
It is my opinion that raising the three girls was an overriding issue to the alternative of not having a father to how them how a man is supposed to treat his daughters and his wife. (He abused my wife too.)
If the Lord calls me to preach, what am I to do? Assume that it is a false call?
I had never been married before. I was actually not saved at the time (walked the aisle at 9, thought I was saved, don't remember anything except the pastor praying).
My mother was at first against it, (she was terminally ill) and she talked to me in the hospital and told me that the girls were sweet and it was not fair they did not have a decent father to show them how a husband is supposed to be. (Their father is in prison for first degree rape of the oldest who was 11 when we got married 15 years ago.) My mother said she felt God had sent me to give those children a real father.
I fell in love with the girls and their mother (especially) and married her and tried to raise the girls in a Christian home. I realized that I wasn't really saved and took care of that, allowing my girls to see me Baptised. Within a few months my youngest daughter said she wasn't really saved either and accepted the Lord.
I adopted all three because their father had his parental rights striken due to state law.
The girls still have problems (especilly the youngest two), the oldest is in church and married to a youth minister in another state.
Now, maybe I committed adultry, maybe my wife did. Bottom line is, I'm a sinner anyway. Jesus paid for this.
Now our church (a small SBC) has a rule that I cannot be a deacon or be ordained as a pastor.
It is my opinion that raising the three girls was an overriding issue to the alternative of not having a father to how them how a man is supposed to treat his daughters and his wife. (He abused my wife too.)
If the Lord calls me to preach, what am I to do? Assume that it is a false call?
Bob Krajcik
New Member
Greetings:
Here is a link to an article I encourage you read, and copy for sharing with others.
http://www.bright.net/~bkrajcik/marriage.htm
First, I do not want to give encouragement to any that would approach the things of God looking for a way to accommodate and make the works of the flesh appear approved. Salvation is from sin, and not in sin.
There are times we do things and are not settled in our mind, but still we are convinced what we do is needed. Paul spoke of such times (2Cor 7:5).
2 Corinthians 7:5 For, when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears.
As with any subject presented in our Bible, our searching will not exhaust all to be learned. This article is hoped to be a help but it must be realized this is just a few words and there is certainly more that might be considered.
This is a subject I have given particular attention, and hope the results of my study will be helpful for some.
Here is a link to an article I encourage you read, and copy for sharing with others.
http://www.bright.net/~bkrajcik/marriage.htm
First, I do not want to give encouragement to any that would approach the things of God looking for a way to accommodate and make the works of the flesh appear approved. Salvation is from sin, and not in sin.
There are times we do things and are not settled in our mind, but still we are convinced what we do is needed. Paul spoke of such times (2Cor 7:5).
2 Corinthians 7:5 For, when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears.
As with any subject presented in our Bible, our searching will not exhaust all to be learned. This article is hoped to be a help but it must be realized this is just a few words and there is certainly more that might be considered.
This is a subject I have given particular attention, and hope the results of my study will be helpful for some.
Phillip
It would seem that you have answered the question yourself.
You state that: "It is my opinion that raising the three girls was an overriding issue to the alternative of not having a father".
However:
Why are you asking that we re-interpret scripture because you have had an experience?
It would seem that you have answered the question yourself.
You state that: "It is my opinion that raising the three girls was an overriding issue to the alternative of not having a father".
However:
Why are you asking that we re-interpret scripture because you have had an experience?
Boy, it's a good thing Jesus and Paul don't want to pastor your church. They would be plumb out of luck ...
This is what happens when we don't think critically about these issue. If they are true, then they must be true. The statement Ed makes cannot be true, becuase it isn't true for Jesus and Paul.
The "one woman man" is a statement about character, not about marital status. A man who is married to only one woman (never divorced) may not be a one woman man. He may be committing adultery, which is not adding a wife, and therefore not a violation of the "husband of one wife." Yet we would probably all agree that man is disqualified, at least for a time. A man whose wife dies and then remarries is not the "husband of one wife," but rather than husband of one wife at a time. Yet clearly that man would not be disqualified on that issue.
Plainly put, the statement is not a statement about marriage and divorce per se, or about polygamy. It is a statement about the man's character. Is he a womanizere? Is he a flirt? Is he too friendly with the ladies? If so, then he is not a "one woman man." He is disqualified.
This stems from a misunderstanding of the passage. The character qualification for pastor is one thing: Blameless. The list is a list of things that are examples of that. It is not complete. A man may be disqualified for something not in that list (like murder), because he is no longer blameless. Usually a divorced person is disqualified at least for a time because he is not blameless. If he ever regains his blamelessness (and he may not), then he is eligible to be a pastor. If he doesn't (and he probably won't if he is at fault, i.e., the cheater) then he is not qualified.
Phillip, what a wonderful testimony! You were called to be the father of these young girls.
It probably depends on the church if you could pastor or be a deacon.
Not everyone is called to be a pastor or deacon. There are many other offices in the church in which a person can be just as effective. Perhaps more effective than the pastor or deacons.
May God Bless You and Your Family!
It probably depends on the church if you could pastor or be a deacon.
Not everyone is called to be a pastor or deacon. There are many other offices in the church in which a person can be just as effective. Perhaps more effective than the pastor or deacons.
May God Bless You and Your Family!
I'm not asking for reinterpretation, I am simply using my case as an example (and I have not been called to preach--not yet at least), so, my point is, what do most Baptist churches believe about having a wife that was once divorced, but the man has not been.
I'm just curious---not trying to change scripture or push the issue. I just want to know how most of you feel and if there is scripture to back it up. That's all.
Plain ol' Ralph
New Member
Do yall, or don't yall, believe in the "First mention principle"? (Where it is first mentioned, that same interpretation rules over the latter as to determine its true meaning)??
If so, then Deuteronomy 24 determines that any man who has been previously married, then divorced, as well as any woman who has been previously divorced, should not "remarry" due to the adultery committed by the second vow, but then again, evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse....
If so, then Deuteronomy 24 determines that any man who has been previously married, then divorced, as well as any woman who has been previously divorced, should not "remarry" due to the adultery committed by the second vow, but then again, evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse....
Phillip,
I think it would be fair to indicate that Ralph and most conservative scholars would hold that the Church's traditional view would interpret this verse in light of Scripture.
It would seem that most conservative scholars have held that this would exclude divorced men from the Church offices.
However, you seem to think that there might be an exception.
You stated: "I have not been called to preach--not yet at least"
The only exception that I am aware of in Scripture would be Hosea 1: 2 "because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD."
If God calls a second exception ... I would revisit your request to re-interpret Scripture at that time.
I think it would be fair to indicate that Ralph and most conservative scholars would hold that the Church's traditional view would interpret this verse in light of Scripture.
It would seem that most conservative scholars have held that this would exclude divorced men from the Church offices.
However, you seem to think that there might be an exception.
You stated: "I have not been called to preach--not yet at least"
The only exception that I am aware of in Scripture would be Hosea 1: 2 "because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD."
If God calls a second exception ... I would revisit your request to re-interpret Scripture at that time.
Lacy Evans
New Member
HUH?
It says she "May" remarry.
It says not to remarry the same woman again if she remarries.
It doesn't even imply anything that you said.
Also, Jesus said "From the beginning" (Before Moses) it was not so. Fornication has always been a Godly cause for divorce, from the beginning. This "writ of divorce" in Deut was written later "because of the hardness of their hearts." Notice it is more liberal than the New Testament. Christ does not permit a man to divorce his wife because "she find
He takes it back to the beginning. Before the hardening of hearts and restores the original truth. "Saving for the cause of fornication"
Then Paul reveals other biblical reasons. The bottom line is divorce effectively ends the marriage, just like death. (As a matter of fact, in the OT a cheating wife was stoned to death. I wonder if the no-divorcers would ordain a deacon who had his wife stoned.)
The woman at the well was correct in saying "I have NO HUSBAND. Christ agreed.
Lacy
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Phillip, you are eligible under the circumstances you outlined. According to your testimony you have only one wife, and that is the requirement.
No, that is bad hermeneutics and leads to bad theology. It is nonsense.
In addition, the Deut 24 passages assumes remarriage and forbids it in only one case: to the original spouse after an intervening marriage.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
More correctly:
I is intersting that some would not
consider a single man (never married),
while others would conisider a divorced man.
I think those who would do both are a very
small minority.
Agree that "first mention" is worthless . . and often foolish. Not good hermeneutic.
If an elder can only have "one wife" and that means one, period - then what if his wife dies? He may never remarry?
Even if his first wife is dead, his new spouse would be his "second" wife.
Hence this text is NOT talking about one wife as in must be married, must not be divorced, etc. It is dealing with polygamy.
ONE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR ME!!
If an elder can only have "one wife" and that means one, period - then what if his wife dies? He may never remarry?
Even if his first wife is dead, his new spouse would be his "second" wife.
Hence this text is NOT talking about one wife as in must be married, must not be divorced, etc. It is dealing with polygamy.
ONE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR ME!!
Dr. Bob,
I admit that sounds good. But, I do not find the implication that this does NOT exlude divorce in the studies I have done on this verse.
Let me be clear:
I do read Scripture with the understanding that the likes of Paul KNEW the OT.
In the Torah, a priest could NOT marry a divorced woman ... NOT even considered. The High Priest MUST marry a virgin.
In light of Paul's culture, it is not reasonable to think that Paul would ever consider a divorced man, or a man married to a divorced woman as Pastor.
I admit that sounds good. But, I do not find the implication that this does NOT exlude divorce in the studies I have done on this verse.
Let me be clear:
I do read Scripture with the understanding that the likes of Paul KNEW the OT.
In the Torah, a priest could NOT marry a divorced woman ... NOT even considered. The High Priest MUST marry a virgin.
In light of Paul's culture, it is not reasonable to think that Paul would ever consider a divorced man, or a man married to a divorced woman as Pastor.