Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Pastoral Qualifications


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Wow that is terrible. That poor man! He should definately report her to the police since he's house is not in order he should step down from the pulpit. NO divorce and when she dies he may be eligible to step back into a pastoral role. I believe that's what the bible teaches, however compassionately, that man needs a big hug and lots of help, I will be praying for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not a hypothetical situation.

A man (pastor) and woman are married, have 2 teenage children. Family appears solidly Christian, attend a good evangelical church 3 times a week. They are not IFB. The wife seriously thinks about and actively contemplates lesbianism, even after Godly counseling. She then joins a cult and begins (and maintains) a lifestyle of lying and deceit. The wife tries to murder the husband 3 times, and greatly endangers one of the children's life by having her get on the roof of a burning house. She 'hates' her son, and affirms she has considered killing him.

Understanding all of that, at what point, if any, should the man take legal and/or civil action? If he seeks and obtains a divorce, can he never or ever be a pastor again?

Thanks. (Just for the record, my wife and I are happily married, and she can not have children, except God intervene.)

If this situation leads to a divorce and he remarries, he has not sinned according to 1 Corinthians 7:27,28. As to pastoring again, why not? After all he is loosed from the first wife and married to another.... ergo, the husband of one wife.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


You are missing the context. This isn't speaking to what you are saying.

Not missing a thing, John Verse 27 asks art thou loosed from a wife? It can be speaking of nothing except divorce. For it also asks art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed.

Loosed can mean nothing but divorce. It cannot mean widowed. It would make no sense to say Are you married? seek not to be a widow.

Are you loosed (divorced)? seek not a wife. But, if you marry you have not sinned. Verse 28 starts with the word 'but' to understand why the word 'but' is used, one must go to the previous verse.

Remarriage is not sin according to 1 Corinthians 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Not missing a thing, John Verse 27 asks art thou loosed from a wife? It can be speaking of nothing except divorce. For it also asks art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed.

Loosed can mean nothing but divorce. It cannot mean widowed. It would make no sense to say Are you married? seek not to be a widow.

Are you loosed (divorced)? seek not a wife. But, if you marry you have not sinned. Verse 28 starts with the word 'but' to understand why the word 'but' is used, one must go to the previous verse.

Remarriage is not sin according to 1 Corinthians 7


Loosed in the context can mean either divorced or widowed, but your reading a meaning into the scriptures that isn't there. Verses 25-40 of 1st Corinthians 7 should be taken as a whole, you can't take one verse out and fairly interpret it in a manner that would contradict the rest of the passage and multiple other scriptures as well. The part your quoting, verse 27 and the first part of 28, are building upon verse 26 where Paul is saying there are benefits to being unmarried. He is not saying it is not sin for a divorced person to remarry while their spouse is still alive(see verse 39), he is saying it is not a sin for a unmarried(but not divorced) individual to marry. In other words celibacy is not required of believers.

Until the past 50 years or it wasn't even seriously questioned that divorce and remarriage was wrong and a disqualification to pastor. With the prevalence of divorce these days though something "had" to be done to bring the bible in line with modern "realities" I suppose. IFB's might not yet have reached the point of arguing like the Anglicans or some other groups if homosexual pastors are permissible or not, but we have some things that we also "wink" at for cultural reasons while unchangeable God does not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry Seth,

Seek not to be loosed does not mean, nor can it mean widowed.

Nice try though.



Never said that "seek not to be loosed" was talking about being widowed. Obviously that part is saying don't get a divorce. However you can be "loosed" by the death of a spouse as well. Therefore "art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." could apply either to a divorced or widowed individual.

The point stands that your interpretation of verse 27 and part of 28 of 1st Corinthians 7 can be shown to be faulty when scripture is compared with scripture.

"1st Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."

"Romans 7:2-3 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."

"Mark 10:10-12 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Never said that "seek not to be loosed" was talking about being widowed. Obviously that part is saying don't get a divorce. However you can be "loosed" by the death of a spouse as well. Therefore "art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." could apply either to a divorced or widowed individual.

The point stands that your interpretation of verse 27 and part of 28 of 1st Corinthians 7 can be shown to be faulty when scripture is compared with scripture.

"1st Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."

"Romans 7:2-3 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."

"Mark 10:10-12 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

That's right Seth. This is what I was speaking of with regards to taking it all in context. As you said in a previous post, those two verses in discussion must be taken in the context they are presented, as you did, and then they must be compared with the rest of Scripture on the subject, which you are addressing here. Well done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hello all. I am new to this forum. I read through the majority of this thread, but not every post, so if I repeat something that has already been mentioned, please forgive me.

I grew up hearing that divorced men could not be pastors. My pastor would not even allow a divorced man to teach Sunday school. While searching for a church home after we relocated, I refused to go to church where the pastor was divorced.

However, I know of two current pastors who have been divorced and remarried and have thriving ministries. People are being saved and their congregations are growing. Salvation is the principle facet to our belief, correct? This has caused me to reexamine what I was taught and see what the Bible actually says.

There are several qualifications for pastor given in I Timothy and Titus. The one common feature is that all are in the present tense. This indicates that God is concerned with how a man is living his life in the here and now. By no means do I condone divorce, please do not think I do. However, if a man that has been divorced in the past is disqualified from being a pastor, then the same principle should apply if they used to drink. If this standard is to be held, then a man who has ever gotten into a fight cannot pastor. To identify one sin from the past without recognizing all sins is a double standard and hypocritical in my opinion. I believe it is an error to single out one sin from a man’s past and ignore the rest.

I read several posts where someone said that even though the sin is forgiven there are consequences for their sin. The only consequence for sin I read in the Bible is death. Sure there are civil consequences for wrong doing (murder, theft, etc…) However, God says the wages of sin is death. Since Jesus died and paid the penalty for that sin, how can man still hold someone guilty? Acts 13:39 states that we are justified from all sins. Justified means declared “Not Guilty”. Therefore, when a divorced and remarried man comes to God in repentance and seeks forgiveness, God removes that sin and remembers it no more. Why does man continue to bring it up?

Thanks for bearing with me.

Edited by chapabel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...