Magnetic Poles
New Member
Why not? It is about pastors breaking the law and the attitude of "let's not turn them in".
-
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!
What if a pastor punches you?
- Thread starter Soulman
- Start date
Because hitting some one is not nearly in the same category as child molestation. Is that not obvious? TO even suggest that the fiance press charges was laughable at the outset. It should have never been taken seriously. The fact that some have makes me wonder what people are thinking. It makes no sense, judicially or theologically. My suspicion is that you know that.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
It makes absolute sense legally, but that is apparently something that you have no regard for. As a pastor, you should be even more respectful of the law.
I am very respectful of the law, which is why I believe it would be absolutely absurd to take this to legal action. In case you don't know, there are actual real criminals that our court system needs to deal with, not future fathers in law who daughter is taken advantage of by a man who has no self-control. This is a matter that clearly should be handled by the involved parties. To tie up our courts with this kind of nonsense makes no sense at all.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Again, you insist the young woman was "taken advantage of". Ever think she might have been a willing participant?
Fishnbread
New Member
1. The kids shouldent have had sex out of wedlock, but they did! 
2. they pastor should have not punched the boy, but he did!
3. I've found no scripture supporting the idea that a church has the right to do what they did givin the current situation, but they
did!
Confess and forsake your errors then, bring forth fruit and meat for your repentence, seems simple enough to me
Your servant
Fishnbread
2. they pastor should have not punched the boy, but he did!
3. I've found no scripture supporting the idea that a church has the right to do what they did givin the current situation, but they
did!
Confess and forsake your errors then, bring forth fruit and meat for your repentence, seems simple enough to me
Your servant
Fishnbread
Fundamentalist1611
New Member
This board needs to be called the Gossip Board or maybe the Liberal Board since that is what I mostly see. First off, the couple are both in sin. Second off, the Father has every right to be upset and angered at them, and it should be them and not just the boy. Scripturally, the father is held accountable for the daughter's virginity. However, he has the right in who he may want his daugher marrying or not marrying but it's her decision and not his in who she does marry. Not everything has to be brought up to a congregation but since this man does have a position of authority than that arguement is clearly there. What a local church does and chooses to do is completely their business. If you don't like it, then go find a group of believers in who you may agree with and fellowship which is clearly scriptural. The police should not be brought into this for it would cause a poor testimony of the church and christianity as a whole. In case you don't realize this: the media, press, newspapers work overtime in making christianity and fundamentalism look evil and ignorant while elevating secular humanism as the standard to achieve. As far those that posted they would call the police, it just seems sissy. You deserved to get hit in the face for commiting such a shameful sin, imagine rearing a daughter her whole life to save herself for her husband and this occurs, it's absolutely tragic.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Bringing the police in, or secular humanists are not what caused the situation. It is the pastor unable to control himself. Christians don't need scapegoats to blame if we are giving them cause to point.
I have a question. I have seen quite a few people say that if it was a one time thing let him repent etc. No one thinks he should step down as pastor. Lets' take a look at:
1Tim.1-4 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
Now! I am willing to go along with the assessment that he could repent and resume duties as a pastor but if we accept that then we must accept the rest of the verses for what they say.
I am not hijacking my own thread but I think you will get my point.
All of you that think a man should not be a pastor if he has been divorced must also conclude that this man should step down as he has brawled. He may now be the husband of one wife. If he is allowed to repent of the brawling incident and keep his job, he should also beable to repent of a first marriage and keep his job.
What say ye??
1Tim.1-4 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
Now! I am willing to go along with the assessment that he could repent and resume duties as a pastor but if we accept that then we must accept the rest of the verses for what they say.
I am not hijacking my own thread but I think you will get my point.
All of you that think a man should not be a pastor if he has been divorced must also conclude that this man should step down as he has brawled. He may now be the husband of one wife. If he is allowed to repent of the brawling incident and keep his job, he should also beable to repent of a first marriage and keep his job.
What say ye??
I think the subject of 1Tim 3:1 is instruction that if one desires to be a pastor he should “desire” a good, beautiful, virtuous, work or labor.
(1Ti 3:2) A bishop then (or but now then, likewise then) must (necessary as binding, needs, ought should) be blameless (unrebukeable, inculpable), the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
To me the scripture is instructing that a man that desires to be a pastor should desire a good work and after the decision he now then should be blameless, unrebukeable, and not guilty of the following things.
The key words I see are “desire”, “but then”, “should” which is different from absolutely has to be now and always.
Then comes blameless, unrebukeable, inculpable or not guilty, which I would think if the pastor repents on his own merit he would be blameless or unrebukeable and as for inculpable or not guilty the qualifying word translated “must” in the KJV when taken back in the Strong’s Concordance doesn’t define as absolute.
Frankly if a pastor had to be 100% not guilty of all the definitions of bad behavior, not being patient, never brawling or quarreling, never being inhospitable and never having his children be insubordinate and the rest of the things on the list I would be inclined to say there wouldn’t be any pastors at all.
Personally I don’t expect a pastor to be perfect nor would I be quick to draw the line that he couldn’t cross unless it was blatant immorality or an obvious lack of desire to do good or repent. As for punching out a fiancé under those circumstances I think I would be able to read the distress on the face of that human being and give him a hug.
(1Ti 3:2) A bishop then (or but now then, likewise then) must (necessary as binding, needs, ought should) be blameless (unrebukeable, inculpable), the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
To me the scripture is instructing that a man that desires to be a pastor should desire a good work and after the decision he now then should be blameless, unrebukeable, and not guilty of the following things.
The key words I see are “desire”, “but then”, “should” which is different from absolutely has to be now and always.
Then comes blameless, unrebukeable, inculpable or not guilty, which I would think if the pastor repents on his own merit he would be blameless or unrebukeable and as for inculpable or not guilty the qualifying word translated “must” in the KJV when taken back in the Strong’s Concordance doesn’t define as absolute.
Frankly if a pastor had to be 100% not guilty of all the definitions of bad behavior, not being patient, never brawling or quarreling, never being inhospitable and never having his children be insubordinate and the rest of the things on the list I would be inclined to say there wouldn’t be any pastors at all.
Personally I don’t expect a pastor to be perfect nor would I be quick to draw the line that he couldn’t cross unless it was blatant immorality or an obvious lack of desire to do good or repent. As for punching out a fiancé under those circumstances I think I would be able to read the distress on the face of that human being and give him a hug.
Amen Benjamin, I see the scriptures as guidelines and should be followed. However if a man slips up, God's character is that he be forgiven following repentance.
My last point was that if God forgives and the man be allowed to remain pastor that the same applies to a re-married pastor. There is no distinction within the qualifications stated.
My last point was that if God forgives and the man be allowed to remain pastor that the same applies to a re-married pastor. There is no distinction within the qualifications stated.
Wow ... You must not have read this thread. In my very first post I said:
How's that for clear?
The woman was taken advantage of, even if she was willing. Leaders have responsibilities, and in that relationship, the man was the leader and did not stand up for his fiancee's purity and holiness. He took advantage of her willingness to sin against God for his own pleasure.
Please read what I say before you make comments. That way, I don't have to repeat myself.
I agree, but with some caution. Brawling is clearly not the same as adultery. We should not dispute that there are levels of sin, all equally sinful, but not all equally serious.
You guys are forgetting something----we keep "hacking" and "haggling" back and forth about this young girl and her "fiance"----and how they ought to go ahead and get married----thats a bunch of bologna!!!!! He does not OWN her and she does not OWN him!!! Believe me---if it happened to my family-----to MY girl----I'd tell that fella to "take a hike" and keep walking and don't look back!!! Then---appropriate discipline will be taken for my girl---she doesn't get off "scott free" either!!! But the fiance---will be written off in the history book!!!!!!
Taking a swing at someone--and connecting with human tissue---namely flesh and bone around the nose and jaw---true---is a crime---true!!! Simple assault----and the fiance has a right to file charges if he wants----but he still ain't gonna marry my girl!!!!! By and by---the fiance will forget my girl----but he ain't never gonna forget what connected with his jaw!!!!! A one sided "Thrilla in Manilla!!!!"
As a pastor----I wouldn't punch----but I'm a daddy, too---and daddy just might!!!!
Taking a swing at someone--and connecting with human tissue---namely flesh and bone around the nose and jaw---true---is a crime---true!!! Simple assault----and the fiance has a right to file charges if he wants----but he still ain't gonna marry my girl!!!!! By and by---the fiance will forget my girl----but he ain't never gonna forget what connected with his jaw!!!!! A one sided "Thrilla in Manilla!!!!"
As a pastor----I wouldn't punch----but I'm a daddy, too---and daddy just might!!!!
That could certainly be a deterrent to that behavior if the couple knew what your response was going to be going in to the relationship, but could Blackbird be forgetting some too.Originally posted by blackbird:
You guys are forgetting something----we keep "hacking" and "haggling" back and forth about this young girl and her "fiance"----and how they ought to go ahead and get married----thats a bunch of bologna!!!!! He does not OWN her and she does not OWN him!!! Believe me---if it happened to my family-----to MY girl----I'd tell that fella to "take a hike" and keep walking and don't look back!!! Then---appropriate discipline will be taken for my girl---she doesn't get off "scott free" either!!! But the fiance---will be written off in the history book!!!!!!
Taking a swing at someone--and connecting with human tissue---namely flesh and bone around the nose and jaw---true---is a crime---true!!! Simple assault----and the fiance has a right to file charges if he wants----but he still ain't gonna marry my girl!!!!! By and by---the fiance will forget my girl----but he ain't never gonna forget what connected with his jaw!!!!! A one sided "Thrilla in Manilla!!!!"
As a pastor----I wouldn't punch----but I'm a daddy, too---and daddy just might!!!!
Your daughter is liable to have chosen the guy because he’s just like Blackbird, you could be looking at your self right in the eyes and he might be just as determined to get back to the one he loves as you are to give him the boot.
D
dianetavegia
Guest
And THEN you think you're going to find some fine, upstanding young man to marry this 'deflowered' girl without any qualms? If it were YOUR girl, Bro. David, I think you'd think a bit longer than you are here. The damage is done! The couple is in love! A baby might even be on the way. Let them marry and forgive their sin.
Pastor Larry, unless we were in that bed, we don't know.... the young woman may have been the one to push for relations. Maybe HER weakness was stronger than his and as with Adam and Eve....
Archeryaddict
New Member
Maybe this Pastor needs to preach a sermon on self control to his daughter and her fiancee while standing in front of a mirror
Pastors are human too and are as capable of loosing their temper and flying off the handle as easily as any other person on this planet especially under these circumstances however that does not excuse him from his actions. Being a Pastor he has a lot of people looking at the way he lives his life as a christian I think he is accountable to his congregation for his not so wise actions aganst his soon to be son in law and should apologize not only to the fiancee but his congregation as well.
thank God we are under Gods grace and not Levitical Law the pastor could have had them both stoned to death for a sin such as adultry
Pastors are human too and are as capable of loosing their temper and flying off the handle as easily as any other person on this planet especially under these circumstances however that does not excuse him from his actions. Being a Pastor he has a lot of people looking at the way he lives his life as a christian I think he is accountable to his congregation for his not so wise actions aganst his soon to be son in law and should apologize not only to the fiancee but his congregation as well.
thank God we are under Gods grace and not Levitical Law the pastor could have had them both stoned to death for a sin such as adultry
She may have been more willing and eager than he was. But he is still the leader. If he can't lead when she wants to do wrong, this marriage is off to a bad start before it begins. Men are the head. They are responsible for things that are not their fault. They are responsible to lead their wives to be godly, not to blame them for their sins. The guy is responsible. Period.
"responsible to lead their wives to be godly"
Right on
IF they are married
Right on
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Interesting position to not hold a person accountable for their actions because of their gender. It seems I recall God holding both Adam and Eve accountable for their actions in the Genesis account of original sin.