Originally posted by Biblicist:
Your soteriology and ecclessiology are a jumbled mess.
Funny. I was thinking the same about you.
Either way, I can say that what I believe about both is derived from a literal interpretation of the texts involved.
We are not talking about salvation, forgiveness, or reconciliation. We are talking about qualifications for specific offices in the church that Paul outlined to Timothy under inspiration.
I have been discussing that issue and exactly what the Bible says, and does not say, about it.
The qualification is "one woman man". It does not mention divorce so if you are going to extend the meaning to a person's long abandoned past then you need to do so consistently. If a divorcee who has lived faithfully with his current wife for 10 years is not a "one woman man" then certainly someone who just didn't legitimize their sexual exploits with a legal marriage isn't a "one woman man" either.
Just be consistent. You all seem to want to make this text say what you want it to say- no more, no less. I want to accept this text for what it says- no more, no less.
Saying that Willie's view disqualifies every man alive is an attempt to make his position sound ridiculous so it can be rejected.
I didn't say that was his position. I said that he was being inconsistent. If he, or you, consistently followed the reasoning he is using to interpret these passages then you would have to conclude that anyone who had ever been less than a "one woman man" in any sense is disqualified. That covers just about all men.
Saying that divorced men, men that do not rule their houses well, men that are not given to wine, etc. should not be deacons does not make the office of deacon unattainable for every man alive as you claim.
I didn't say that... should I now accuse
you of a straw man?
I am however saying that very few men would qualify as a lifelong "one woman man". To be this, one would have to have never done anything before or after marriage that would be considered less than perfect fidelity.
What it does do, however, is allow the church to be above reproach from unbelievers and give dignity to the office.
Can you cite where God said that was His purpose? Even if you can, you have yet to prove that a divorcee who was well known to be a model husband to his current wife of 10 years would bring reproach from unbelievers... maybe from extra-biblical legalists but I doubt from unbelievers... even to include people directly involved in the divorce. If a life is genuinely changed then God gets glory.
God would not have given us qualifications if they were not to be met.
Absolutely true. God gave qualifications and intends for them to be met.
He simply didn't say "no divorce"... nor did He say to consider someone's distant past. These are additions by men operating from their own bias.
Pastors and deacons do have additional qualifications OTHER than being saved so that they can be an example to others in the church.
Please show where I ever argued that they didn't.
I will also repeat my thought again that making a divorced person a deacon in your church TAKES THEIR WORD against their spouse that the divorce was biblical.
And? You are also taking an undivorced man at his word that he doesn't fantasize about other men's wives.
However, the divorce is a fact whether biblical or not. If the man
was at fault and has properly repented then it is not a sin that should be held against him 10 years later after establishing that he is now a "one woman man."
Do any of you take the effort to contact the spouse and find out their side of the story?
I seriously doubt it.
There is no reason to. You have not proven your point but now want to jump to possible implications.
The scriptures do not say that a man divorced under any circumstances cannot serve as a deacon or pastor. You have yet to prove that it does.
The only thing you posted (assuming you are right concerning a biblical mandate to never remarry) either means nothing concerning this debate or else it means that a remarried couple are in a perpetual state of adultery. And even with this, you have failed to deal with men that had pre-marital relationships that would be considered cheating if done while married.
All I am asking is that you post an interpretation that you are willing to follow consistently. "One woman man" is either a character trait of a man presently or it is lifelong. Which do you believe?
I would be glad to see a third option that can be applied consistently but none of you have provided one.
