Husband of one Wife

[Scott J]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Manchester

I just cannnnnot believe that we have gotten to where we are.

Nor can I. We have once again reached a point where legalists want to write their commands between the lines of God's commands.

The title of the thread comes from the traditional interpretation of Scripture. But, we are told to re-interpret, "Husband of one Wife" to "Husband of any Wife".

No one has asked you to re-interpret anything. I have asked persistently that someone justify why they think this means a divorce in the past and to apply the scripture consistently if past behavior is in view.

To your credit, you have come closer than anyone. However, I believe your interpretation is wrong and sets up a standard that will exclude everyone but Jesus Himself.

I was always taught that we (Baptists) are God's people.

Being Baptist is not the same as being God's people. Adhering to the Word of God makes us God's people... nothing added, nothing omitted.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by manchester:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AVL1984:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by manchester:
I see. If somebody is divorced, does not repent of the divorce, THEN goes on to live in sin and flaunts his/her sinful lifestyle at church... people should just accept it because "divorce is not unforgiveable."

Manchester, where has anyone stated the above? </font>[/QUOTE]None had the courage, so I said it for them. </font>[/QUOTE]IOW's, you cannot make a valid argument against what we do stand for so you must resort to making up things and attributing them to us so that you can argue from the "high ground".

That is a dishonest tactic.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by RockRambler:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The survey conducted by Barna Research Group in Ventura, Calif., found that 29 percent of all adult Baptists have been through a divorce.

I've seen that statistic several times, but I think it is very skewed. How many of those 29% Baptists went through a divorce BEFORE they were saved, and how many went through a divorce AFTER they were saved.

Find that out, then it is a truer picture. </font>[/QUOTE]Not only that but many people, especially in the south, give "Baptist" as their default religion based on family history.

 

[manchester]

No one has asked you to re-interpret anything. I have asked persistently that someone justify why they think this means a divorce in the past and to apply the scripture consistently if past behavior is in view. To your credit, you have come closer than anyone. However, I believe your interpretation is wrong and sets up a standard that will exclude everyone but Jesus Himself.

That's not just wrong, it's absurd. Not everyone has divorced, or has even been married at all. There are countless people who have not been divorced and who have one wife. You want to force people to either condemn everyone or else accept all manner of sinful behavior and call it good. That's a false choice; there is plenty of middle ground.

 

[manchester]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by manchester:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AVL1984:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by manchester:
I see. If somebody is divorced, does not repent of the divorce, THEN goes on to live in sin and flaunts his/her sinful lifestyle at church... people should just accept it because "divorce is not unforgiveable."

Manchester, where has anyone stated the above? </font>[/QUOTE]None had the courage, so I said it for them. </font>[/QUOTE]IOW's, you cannot make a valid argument against what we do stand for so you must resort to making up things and attributing them to us so that you can argue from the "high ground".

That is a dishonest tactic. </font>[/QUOTE]Scott J, I believe it is a fair and accurate summation of what you have posted on this thread.

 

[El_Guero]

Pastor Larry,

I do appreciate your view, but having gone back to the commentaries & the greek NT, I still find that culturally: Timothy would not have ordained divorced men.

I wrote before that I would not break fellowship. Not too many years ago that statement would have been considered liberal.
In being considerate of others, we (I and others) were asked to re-interpret Scripture.

I and others have re-interpreted the Scriptures. I believe that we found that Paul wrote to Timothy that he should ordain as Pastors men that have not been divorced.

Everything that we know now indicates that there were not divorced Pastors in the NT era. Had there been divorced Pastors, there would be some evidence somewhere.

 

[Scott J]

No. Your own statement illustrates that it is nothing but your own pride and vanity- "so I said it for them." Who are you to put words in someone else's mouth?

Oh well, you presume to do it to God. I don't know why I am surprised you would attempt to do it to other Christians.

 

[El_Guero]

Manchester

While I do believe in middle ground... Having given up much ground, we are still told that we have not given up enough.

Not too many years ago, churches would have broken fellowship with us for considering to re-interpret Scripture to see if it "could" be interpreted in a new manner.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by El_Guero:


I and others have re-interpreted the Scriptures.

NO YOU WEREN'T.

You were asked to defend an interpretation that went beyond what the text says and to give a consistent interpretation.

 

[El_Guero]

Manchester

It is sad, that they do not understand the implications of what they ask us to do.

Should we give up the traditional reading of God's Word, they will then ask us to do what?

Ordain women pastors?

God bless you brother!

 

[dianetavegia]

Sorry ScottJ, you're the one who is ignoring scripture such as 'God Hates Divorce' and others by using word play to explain away 'husband of one wife' by claiming wife is not even mentioned when in the very next set of verses the criteria for a deacon's wife is put forth.

 

[El_Guero]

Scott,

I do not understand your NEED for me to agree with you.

I agree with the tradition of my faith group.

I re-read the text in Greek 5 or 6 times. I read 3 commentaries. And I read it in several English translations. I challenged what I believe so that I might be able to agree with you. I do not believe that God's Word implies what you want it to.

 

[El_Guero]

Diane,

I think if he really considered the implication of Christ being able to Divorce the "Body of Christ", he might better understand that God cannot ordain divorce.

Again, I do not break fellowship with those that disagree with what I see as a clear reading of the text. However, I realize doing so could cause some churches to break fellowship with me.

I do not think that Scott, et al, understand that. I do not think that they know that there are believers that might not fellowship with me, because I have conversed with him.

 

[Pastor Larry]

but having gone back to the commentaries & the greek NT, I still find that culturally: Timothy would not have ordained divorced men.

Timothy said nothing of the kind, and Paul said nothign of the kind. You can read this into Scripture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I think if he really considered the implication of Christ being able to Divorce the "Body of Christ", he might better understand that God cannot ordain divorce.

Two problems:
1) God divorced OT Israel.
2) God commanded divorce in Ezra when the people had intermarried.

So that pretty much blows that whole line of reasoning.

With respect to "God hates divorce," that is probably not what the text says. The Hebrew vowel points which are added later probably lead to a reading of "If one hates so as to divorce ..." If you don't know Hebrew, that can be a pretty intimidating argument. The Net Bible (http://www.bible.org/netbible/) footnote on this verse talks about the issue. Suffice it to say that while God does hate divorce, and intended marriage to be one man and one woman for life, Mal 2:15 is probably not the best verse to argument that from.

Secondly, it has no real point here anyway. To say that God hates divorce is true. The say that disqualifies a divorced man from being a pastor is a complete non sequitur. It would be better to focus on the character issues. It is doubtful whether a man who is blameless can be divorced, especially if it is his fault. But the issue is blameless.

For those such as Diane and El Guero, who believe this is a statement about marriage, is a man who cheats on his wife but is still married to her qualified to be a pastor? If not, on what basis? He is still the husband of one wife.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Sorry ScottJ, you're the one who is ignoring scripture such as 'God Hates Divorce'

Diane, I am not ignoring that. I don't doubt that God hates divorce. But I also put it in perspective. God hates all sin. Does any sin disqualify a man from serving? Why not? Many other sins aren't addressed directly in the qualifications... but neither is divorce.

and others by using word play to explain away 'husband of one wife' by claiming wife is not even mentioned when in the very next set of verses the criteria for a deacon's wife is put forth.

It isn't mentioned specifically. It is included in the term "one woman man" but that encompasses more than just marriage and/or divorce.

I am arguing for a more expansive interpretation of the term in the present but against the idea that the text prohibits someone who has a past divorce or other sexual sins that have been repented of.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Scott,

I do not understand your NEED for me to agree with you.

I don't NEED you to agree with me. I DESIRE that you do realizing you might not... and also DESIRE that you not misconstrue and misrepresent what I have said and what I believe.

This is a debate. We argue our positions as best we can. You don't have to agree with me but don't expect me to let you off the hook when I see weaknesses in your position.

I agree with the tradition of my faith group.

I agree with what God actually said... and see no reason at all to let the tradition of any group change the direct implications.

I challenged what I believe so that I might be able to agree with you. I do not believe that God's Word implies what you want it to.

That's your prerogative. It is my prerogative to simply accept that God said what He meant to say... and He didn't say that divorce disqualified a man unless you say the standard applies to a lifetime and not the present.

If that is your view then I simply point out that to be consistent you have to apply all of the standards to a lifetime and not limit this one particular standard to divorce. "One woman man" implies more than just "no divorce" in any accurate interpretation.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by El_Guero:

I do not think that Scott, et al, understand that. I do not think that they know that there are believers that might not fellowship with me, because I have conversed with him.

You ought to fear God rather than man.

 

[just-want-peace]

Consistency!!!!!

This word scares some so bad that they run down multiple rabbit trails to avoid confronting this specific issue.

They quote irrelavent scripture, write tomes on the sin itself, voice their disapproval of the sin, attack others and mis-quote/put words into their mouths, but never, NEVER, directly confront the consistency issue!

Back on page 5 of this thread, I posed a hypothetical situation that was intended to force the consistency issue.

As it turns out, MargoWriter, & dianetavegia answered the question & both were consistent.

While I totally disagree with both, at least they were consistent in the application of the qualifications. IMHO their view totally disqualifies ANY mortal man!

Everyone else has attempted to skew the aim so as to make us who don't believe divorce is "the un-pardonable sin", appear to be trying to OK divorce. In other words, since they refuse to answer the "consistency" problem, they try to redefine our views so they can then condemn the messenger and ignore the question.

Eleven pages, and virtually no answers to the question! Amazing the lengths some will go to avoid a challenge to cherished beliefs; especially when they cannot be defended logically.

 

[manchester]

Originally posted by manchester:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by manchester:
Matthew 19:9 "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (KJV)

Who of you here disagrees with Jesus, and says that such a person does not commit adultery? Be honest. </font>[/QUOTE]Can anybody who believes you can divorce in God's eyes (except for fornication/porneia), and the divorce is a sin but then you repent and it's all over... can you please explain what Jesus meant?

Why does Jesus call it "adultery" for you to marry a "put away" (legally divorced) woman? Why does Jesus call it "adultery" for you to put away your wife and marry another? If God recognizes these legal "divorces," then what was Jesus saying? I'm still waiting....