Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By 1Timothy115 in Devotionals
         11
      Psalms 119:1-8                                         Sep. 5 - Oct. 2, 2019
      1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
      2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
      3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
      4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
      7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
      8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
      The following verse stood out to me...
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      At first glance it seemed to me this person’s soul is poured out with intense desire to have God’s direction in keeping His Word.
      I made a small wood fire in our backyard for my granddaughter, Julia, since she would be staying overnight with us. My wife and Julia stayed outside at the fire for about half an hour. Then, I found myself alone to watch the fire die out on a particularly lovely evening. So I took my verse from above and began to repeat it for memorization. As I repeated the verse, I tried to contemplate the words and apply them to what I was seeing around me. 
      The moon and stars were out now peering through the scattered clouds above.
      [Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.]
      Thought 1         
      The moon has stayed his course since the day God created him, also the stars, obeying the statutes directed by God from the first day they were created. Can you imagine God’s direction to the Moon and stars, “moon you will have a path through the sky above the earth, stars you will occupy the firmament above the moon and be clearly visible in the cloudless night sky.”
      Then, the trees, grass, even the air we breathe obey the statues God gave them from the beginning. None of these creations have souls, none have hearts, none have intelligence, but they all observe God’s statutes, His instructions for their limited time on earth.
      Thought 2
      What if we were like the moon, stars, trees, grass, or the other creations which have no soul? We would be directed to keep God’s statutes without choosing to keep them. This is not the image of God, there would be no dominion over other creatures, or over the earth. We would not be capable of experiencing the joy and peace of learning the love of God
      Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
      Thought 3 (October 2, 2019)
      Is the psalmist pleading God to force God’s statutes to become the man’s ways? No, he is speaking of his own failure in keeping God’s statutes and his desire to keep them, very much like Paul in Romans 7:14-25.
      God doesn’t work through force to turn men from their ways that they would desire His statutes or desire God Himself. Men must reject (repent) put aside his own ways and voluntarily seek God and His statutes.

Are Pastoral Disqualifications Permanent?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Not everyone believes there are any "exceptions" given in scripture. As I said before, it is a matter of qualifications not a slam on anyone. A blind man isn't qualified to drive, a double amputee isn't qualified to compete in a foot race. It matters not at all how long ago they were disabled or whether their disability was their own fault or the fault of someone else. The fact remains that they are disabled regardless of the reason and can't do everything someone not suffering from that disability can do. Does that somehow make them "second class" citizens? No, of course not, there are other areas where their disability is not critical and there they can compete on a level field with others.

When a person has been married, and then that one flesh relationship joined together by God is put asunder by man contrary to Gods will it causes a spiritual traumatic injury and a resulting public and private disability of a sort that means there are a few things they can't do. David was a man after Gods own heart and was beloved of God yet God refused to allow him to fulfill his hearts desire to build the temple to the Lord because he was a "man of war" and had "shed blood". Was God slamming David or was he somehow not fully forgiven for his various sins? No, he had the "sure mercies of David" and was fully forgiven, he just wasn't qualified to do that particular job for the Lord because of the life he had led. Likewise Moses, certainly one of a half dozen or so men closest to God in all the scriptures was disqualified from leading the people across jordan and entering into the promise land because he had violated one of Gods pictures of Christ and smote the rock the second time when he was told by God to only speak to the rock on that occasion. As a consequence he disqualified himself and died without entering into the promise land even though at the time of his death "his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.". In other words he would have been fully capable of leading them across Jordan and doubtless would have done so but for the fact he was disqualified from that role. David and Moses were both close enough to God that they did not attempt to rebel against his will and accepted that they could not do theses things even though in both cases it was a strong desire of their hearts and they were in a position where they could easily have proceeded in the flesh had they wished. I can truly say one of the things that grieves me most is when I see someone that has a heart for God and a desire to do something good for God and the ability to do it well, yet they simply are not qualified for the job because of past actions. It grieves me that metaphorically speaking sometimes David can't build the temple and sometimes Moses can't enter the promise land but sometimes that is just the way it is sad though it be. I have also seen the other side of the coin where the metaphoric David or Moses desires to do the particular thing for God so strongly that they simply will not listen to his will and proceed to do it anyway in the flesh. That is even sadder. I really think in such cases where a man has a heart to pastor and the ability to do it but yet is biblically disqualified the best thing he can do is follow the example of Moses and David. Moses helped Joshua as much as he could, and prayed for him, David encouraged Solomon and charged him in the building of the temple as well as gathered together a large percentage of the materials Solomon would need for the temples construction. I think God blesses the obedience to his word in such cases and I believe God often shows the individual the promise land metaphorically speaking and gives their heart joy and peace in what he does allow them to do because they don't fret about what they can't do or enter into a state of biblical denial and do it anyway. :twocents:
.

Well put together post. It's a fact often overlooked that sexual sins carry heavy consequences because God views such as very serious. True enough, we can be forgiven but that doesn't mean the consequences go away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


How does what you are saying here apply to the question at hand?

Who decides, or how is it decided, who is responsible for a divorce? How does that apply to the question at hand?

Can a man who is married to a divorcee, a widow, his cousin, a 17 year old, a woman 40 years older than he, a woman of another denomination....biblically be a pastor? Why or why not?


It doesn't, its his way of striking out at what he disagree with someone, he has done that several times. Some people just can stop from striking out when they disagree with someone, they have to start saying things such as he did.

Yet I'm not the least bit surprised, for today there are many, and I mean many churches that accepts things yesterday years churches would not accept, simply because the Bible does not allow it,

The qualifications for being pastor of New Testament Church are very strict.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Jesus declared that God hates divorce. That's a very strong statement and clearly indicates God does indeed see something wrong with divorce.

Even when commenting upon divorce which was allowed by Moses, Jesus made it clear that such was only allowed because of the hardness of the peoples hearts (not a good thing) and that such was not from the beginning.

Again, Jesus said God hates divorce, and there is no indication that hatred of divorce does not apply to certain divorces.

The main issue with regards to pastoral qualifications in this area seems to come down to the interpretation of what it means that a pastor must be the husband of one wife, since divorce itself isn't specifically mentioned in the list of qualifications. Along with this, as has been brought up in this thread, there seems to also be differences in interpretation as to what is meant by a man/pastor having his house in order and how that does or does not apply to who he marries.


Absolutely God hates divorce, and Jesus made that clear. But He also made it clear that when a divorce happens, both parties are not always to blame - otherwise there would be no exception laid down in the Scripture for divorce.

Assigning blame where God doesn’t is creating a law, standard, or regulation that is outside of the Scriptures. That is pharisaical.


I certainly believe God intends for a marriage to last until death. But, please show me the scripture where Jesus said, "God hates divorce." I would just like to see where He said that...I can't seem to locate it but, its late and I'm tired.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I certainly believe God intends for a marriage to last until death. But, please show me the scripture where Jesus said, "God hates divorce." I would just like to see where He said that...I can't seem to locate it but, its late and I'm tired.


Malachi 2:14-16 in th OT deal with it and in verse 16 it specifically says that God hates it. As far as what Christ says about it scripture says in Matthew 19 that the pharisees were trying to tempt him on the subject. Presumably because his position was known and they thought they could get him in trouble. His response was the "one flesh" and "what God has joined together let not man put asunder" statements in verse six. A very similar statement to the one found in Malachi. The pharisees were not happy with that response so they asked if that was the case why Moses permitted it at all, to which Christ responded that it was due to the hardness of their hearts that moses "suffered" it, "but from the beginning it was not so". In other words divorce was something that man came up with as an "out" and that it was not of God period. This was far enough outside of the accepted beliefs of the day that divorce was permissible in Gods sight that it even made his disciples a little uncomfortable as can be seen in verse ten. It is both a little funny and a little sad that even his disciples(some of which we know from scripture were already married like Peter) thought maybe it wasn't such a good idea to get married at all if it wasn't ok to get out of it at a later date should they so choose. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is somewhat vague and I apologize for that in advance. But, what I've heard in the past but unsure on complete details, please let me know if you understand what I'm talking about, is this:

The divorcement the Scriptures are speaking of in regards to what Moses suffered to the people is a bill of divorcement for the eloped period (one year where the couple were together but not officially married). If the man found out the women had done something he was unaware of (fornication) and was not a virgin he could give her a bill of divorcement. Fornication I thought was sexual activity outside the marriage whereas adultery is within the marriage. If this is true, then once a couple is married (officially, not the eloped period) there is no reason (except death) that releases you from that bond.

With that said, if you knowingly marry someone that is divorced...you knowingly put yourself into sin and are committing adultery. If a Pastor knowingly does that, I can't imagine he is blameless. If you stole something when you were 10 years old, you are blameless as you are not continuing in that sin. That is my take on it. But, what if the "ex-husband" of the Pastors wife dies? She is now released from the committment but her and the Pastor have been knowingly and willingly living in sin for however long. Since he was saved throughout that entire time, knows the scriptures, knows he was living in sin (adultery)...is he considered blameless? I would tend to lean toward no.

Edited by DennisD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is somewhat vague and I apologize for that in advance. But, what I've heard in the past but unsure on complete details, please let me know if you understand what I'm talking about, is this:

The divorcement the Scriptures are speaking of in regards to what Moses suffered to the people is a bill of divorcement for the eloped period (one year where the couple were together but not officially married). If the man found out the women had done something he was unaware of (fornication) and was not a virgin he could give her a bill of divorcement. Fornication I thought was sexual activity outside the marriage whereas adultery is within the marriage. If this is true, then once a couple is married (officially, not the eloped period) there is no reason (except death) that releases you from that bond.


Fornication is defined in the dictionary as being any sexual sin, whether it’s done by a married person or not. Adultery is more specific, and fornication is broader.

I'm not actually arguing against you, I'm trying to see your biblical position for this.

It has been asked if a man marries a divorcee, is he qualified to be a pastor or not. What are the biblical grounds for saying yes or no?


Sure thing brother, I didn’t think you were. :) Because this is a very unpopular position on this board, I hope you can understand my hesitation to go much further. I try to be cut-and-dry and black-and-white about everything I can, but in the area of divorce God did make at least one exception, and we’ve already seen it to be fornication and possibly abandonment.

I think there are a lot of assumptions made when it comes to the qualifications of a bishop and deacon. The first assumption made is that the husband of two wives means for the man’s whole life, as opposed to polygamy. If the Bible clearly said that a divorced man could not pastor or be a deacon, then there’d be no question about it – but it doesn’t. That’s the first assumption.

If “a husband of two wives” means EVER and not polygamy – then the first huge problem I have with that is if a divorced man gets saved he’s banned from even being a deacon because of something he did before he was saved. The response to this is that it doesn’t count before Calvary – but there’s nothing to back this up. If “a husband of two wives” means EVER, then it in fact means EVER and includes life before salvation.

There’s plenty of other cases too. What if a man gets saved and starts living for the Lord (happens all the time) and his wife refuses to (nothing new) and then she gets fed up and leaves him six months into his new life in Christ. Twenty years down the road he can’t be a deacon because of this ASSUMPTION that “the husband of two wives” means a person’s entire life and not polygamy.

The next assumption, which is what this whole thread is about, is that when a man is disqualified it’s permanent. The Bible doesn’t say one way or another. If a guy is known for being a brawler (disqualifier), who doesn’t know how to treat people (inhospitable - disqualifier), and is a lousy Bible teacher (“apt to teach”) does that mean he is forever banned from being a pastor? I honestly don’t think so, if ten years later the Lord has really changed the man (it happens all the time) and those things are no longer an issue then he should be qualified.

I believe the qualifications of bishops and deacons have to do with that man at that moment. Is he qualified NOW – not is he qualified twenty years ago. Is his house in order NOW? His family may have gone through something terrible with a rebellious teenager ten years ago, but once the situation has been resolved, and time has passed, and it’s clear that it’s no longer an issue, I don’t think it should be held over his head for time and eternity.

It doesn't, its his way of striking out at what he disagree with someone, he has done that several times. Some people just can stop from striking out when they disagree with someone, they have to start saying things such as he did.


Striking out? I disagreed and stated an unpopular opinion in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Please don’t accuse me of something I didn’t do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Fornication is defined in the dictionary as being any sexual sin, whether it’s done by a married person or not. Adultery is more specific, and fornication is broader.



Sure thing brother, I didn’t think you were. :) Because this is a very unpopular position on this board, I hope you can understand my hesitation to go much further. I try to be cut-and-dry and black-and-white about everything I can, but in the area of divorce God did make at least one exception, and we’ve already seen it to be fornication and possibly abandonment.

I think there are a lot of assumptions made when it comes to the qualifications of a bishop and deacon. The first assumption made is that the husband of two wives means for the man’s whole life, as opposed to polygamy. If the Bible clearly said that a divorced man could not pastor or be a deacon, then there’d be no question about it – but it doesn’t. That’s the first assumption.

If “a husband of two wives” means EVER and not polygamy – then the first huge problem I have with that is if a divorced man gets saved he’s banned from even being a deacon because of something he did before he was saved. The response to this is that it doesn’t count before Calvary – but there’s nothing to back this up. If “a husband of two wives” means EVER, then it in fact means EVER and includes life before salvation.

There’s plenty of other cases too. What if a man gets saved and starts living for the Lord (happens all the time) and his wife refuses to (nothing new) and then she gets fed up and leaves him six months into his new life in Christ. Twenty years down the road he can’t be a deacon because of this ASSUMPTION that “the husband of two wives” means a person’s entire life and not polygamy.

The next assumption, which is what this whole thread is about, is that when a man is disqualified it’s permanent. The Bible doesn’t say one way or another. If a guy is known for being a brawler (disqualifier), who doesn’t know how to treat people (inhospitable - disqualifier), and is a lousy Bible teacher (“apt to teach”) does that mean he is forever banned from being a pastor? I honestly don’t think so, if ten years later the Lord has really changed the man (it happens all the time) and those things are no longer an issue then he should be qualified.

I believe the qualifications of bishops and deacons have to do with that man at that moment. Is he qualified NOW – not is he qualified twenty years ago. Is his house in order NOW? His family may have gone through something terrible with a rebellious teenager ten years ago, but once the situation has been resolved, and time has passed, and it’s clear that it’s no longer an issue, I don’t think it should be held over his head for time and eternity.



Striking out? I disagreed and stated an unpopular opinion in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Please don’t accuse me of something I didn’t do.


Suggestion, Why not say you just disagree, them explain why, them leave statements such as this off."...for a man to say a person is disqualified would seem, well, pharisaical." Click on and it will teak you to that post, and your striking out because you disagree.

There was no need for you to call me, "pharisaical."

Sad to say many men and women do things that put them in a position that God cannot use them for certain positions, such as pastor, deacon, and even Sunday school teachers.

I know of a few men, some are now dead, that were in the position of being married to a divorce woman that served the Lord quite well as a preacher, but not a pastor. I commend them for happily serving the Lord as a preacher and recognizing that they cannot hold the position of pastor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Fornication is defined in the dictionary as being any sexual sin, whether it’s done by a married person or not. Adultery is more specific, and fornication is broader.



Sure thing brother, I didn’t think you were. :) Because this is a very unpopular position on this board, I hope you can understand my hesitation to go much further. I try to be cut-and-dry and black-and-white about everything I can, but in the area of divorce God did make at least one exception, and we’ve already seen it to be fornication and possibly abandonment.

I think there are a lot of assumptions made when it comes to the qualifications of a bishop and deacon. The first assumption made is that the husband of two wives means for the man’s whole life, as opposed to polygamy. If the Bible clearly said that a divorced man could not pastor or be a deacon, then there’d be no question about it – but it doesn’t. That’s the first assumption.

If “a husband of two wives” means EVER and not polygamy – then the first huge problem I have with that is if a divorced man gets saved he’s banned from even being a deacon because of something he did before he was saved. The response to this is that it doesn’t count before Calvary – but there’s nothing to back this up. If “a husband of two wives” means EVER, then it in fact means EVER and includes life before salvation.

There’s plenty of other cases too. What if a man gets saved and starts living for the Lord (happens all the time) and his wife refuses to (nothing new) and then she gets fed up and leaves him six months into his new life in Christ. Twenty years down the road he can’t be a deacon because of this ASSUMPTION that “the husband of two wives” means a person’s entire life and not polygamy.

The next assumption, which is what this whole thread is about, is that when a man is disqualified it’s permanent. The Bible doesn’t say one way or another. If a guy is known for being a brawler (disqualifier), who doesn’t know how to treat people (inhospitable - disqualifier), and is a lousy Bible teacher (“apt to teach”) does that mean he is forever banned from being a pastor? I honestly don’t think so, if ten years later the Lord has really changed the man (it happens all the time) and those things are no longer an issue then he should be qualified.

I believe the qualifications of bishops and deacons have to do with that man at that moment. Is he qualified NOW – not is he qualified twenty years ago. Is his house in order NOW? His family may have gone through something terrible with a rebellious teenager ten years ago, but once the situation has been resolved, and time has passed, and it’s clear that it’s no longer an issue, I don’t think it should be held over his head for time and eternity.



Striking out? I disagreed and stated an unpopular opinion in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Please don’t accuse me of something I didn’t do.


Well put RIck! I'm in agreement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Suggestion, Why not say you just disagree, them explain why, them leave statements such as this off."...for a man to say a person is disqualified would seem, well, pharisaical." Click on and it will teak you to that post, and your striking out because you disagree.

There was no need for you to call me, "pharisaical."

Sad to say many men and women do things that put them in a position that God cannot use them for certain positions, such as pastor, deacon, and even Sunday school teachers.

I know of a few men, some are now dead, that were in the position of being married to a divorce woman that served the Lord quite well as a preacher, but not a pastor. I commend them for happily serving the Lord as a preacher and recognizing that they cannot hold the position of pastor.


I certainly didn't mean to offend you, and I even stated that as such. I still don't want to, I'm sorry if I did. By conscience, I have to stand by my statement though. If a person or organization creates a law, requirement, or standard that God doesn't have, it is pharisaical. You and I both would agree that that word "Pharasee" is abused to no end by people who try to make everything a-okay; things that there is no Scriptural basis for saying are acceptable. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about things that God clearly states are in fact acceptable, and then men say they are not.

I'll explain a little further. There are some things that are genuinely pharisaical if they're laid down on people. Saying that a man is sinning by eating bacon is pharisaical according to Acts. Saying that a man is required to be circumcised is pharisaical according to the Pauline epistles (you'll have to forgive me if I don't know exactly where the proof text is on that awkward subject :)). Requiring that a man refrain from marriage (i.e. Roman Catholic Church) to be in the ministry is pharisaical according to Colossians. Saying a man MUST do something that God clearly states that he DOESN'T have to do, is pharisaical. It’s laying down a tradition or commandment of men, not something of God.

What I'm saying is that if God makes an allowance for divorce in the Bible, for us to say that in every case divorce is a sin - in spite of God's clearly stated exception - is pharisaical. I don’t think we should assign blame where God doesn’t. So if God doesn’t assign blame to a divorced man because it was biblical in his situation, then I don’t think we should assign blame and tell him he can’t be a deacon or pastor forever.

I don't think you are a Pharisee, and I'm sorry if you got that impression. I don't anyone here is, but that doesn't mean that at times we don't start thinking like one. To be honest, I'll take a Pharisee any day over a Sadducee - which is what the body of Christ struggles with more today than anything. Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

May I ask, where did I say man was to reframe from marriage as do the Catholics?

Of course once he has divorced, he is not to remarry, nor is a woman to remarry after she is divorced. and the man or woman that marries someone that is divorce causes them to commit adultery.

Mt 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.

Mr 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Mr 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

1Co 7:10 ¶ And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Yet when there is divorce in the marriage they are not blameless nor of a good report, nor of good behavior.

1Ti 3:1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.


With the reply you gave me, all that stuff about bacon, it sounds if you think I'm saying that man nor his wife cannot be a good Christian, that I think he is a 2nd rate Christan, I never said that, never! I only said that he was not qualified to be a pastor of a New Testament Church.

He can be a preacher, he just can't be a pastor, again, he meets not the qualifications. Remember once again, these qualifications are not to be a good Christian, but to be a pastor of Jesus' New Testament Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I try to be cut-and-dry and black-and-white about everything I can, but in the area of divorce God did make at least one exception, and we’ve already seen it to be fornication and possibly abandonment.


The "exception" isn't really one at all. In three of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke God says that to divorce and re-marry is "adultery" in his eyes. In only the book of Matthew, written to Jewish believers, is the "saving for the cause of fornication" clause mentioned. That is because as Dennis D alluded to, the Jews considered the betrothal period to be a time of where the couple was married but had not come together physically yet. Thus when the angel appeared to Joseph after mary was found with child during the betrothal period he said "fear not to take unto thee mary thy wife". We don't have that custom and "betrothal" is not a binding contract today as it was in the Jewish world then. If Jesus had meant it was ok to divorce because a spouse had committed adultery he would have used that word. Instead he used the word translated "fornication" which is different from the one for adultery. The greek word translated "fornication" is the same one the english word "pornography" comes from. It is an extremely broad word that literally could cover just about anything from improper relations before marriage to immodest manner of dress, to lustful looks. If you think the Matthew reference to "save for the cause of fornication" is a biblical reason to divorce as we define divorce today your not only mistaken your inconsistent by limiting it to adultery when the word is not the word for adultery in either the English or the Greek. If you stuck to the literal definition of "porneiva" as a legitimate reason for divorce as we know it the slightest form of unfaithfulness would be considered an acceptable reason to divorce. In short you could never claim anyone was biblically wrong to divorce if they claimed that as a reason. Technically a a wife could divorce her husband for an improper look at another woman, a husband could divorce his wife for dressing provocatively, etc. That "exception" would be so broad that it would make the prohibition meaningless in the first place.

As far as the "abandonment" by an unbeliever issue Paul mentions it does not give the "abandoned" permission to re-marry, it only states that if such a situation happens and the unbeliever leaves them they should allow the unbeliever to do so and states they are not under "bondage" in such situations and that they are called to peace. I think the issue there was that some people had converted and that their spouses absolutely detested Christianity and left them, but the new believers were afraid that they were guilty of something if they "allowed" such a thing to happen because they knew Gods views on divorce. Apparently some of the church had written Paul about this kind of situation. Paul replied and reassured them that if they had done what they could and were not the ones initiating the divorce it wasn't their fault and they should have no guilt. In light of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and the Lords direct command they should remain unmarried if being reconciled isn't an option for one reason or another. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what can be gleaned from the scriptures below (bold)...it does mean never divorced?

In particular...
1 Timothy 3:1-7
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

So if an engaged person breaks up with a girl because she dressed immodestly then that girl can never get married again or she'll be guilty of adultery, even if she’s a virgin? I hope you understand if I don't agree with your interpretation, Seth. That was a really good post though and I appreciate it.

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."

I do agree that fornication is broader than just "adultery": fornication is sexual sin, but I don't think it's as broad as you put it. All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. God's will is always reconciliation, but the allowance is there and I don't think a Jewish custom changes the word of God, especially in light of implications it would mean for an engaged person. God wants folks to reconcile, but if there is a case of habitual unrepentant fornication divorce is acceptable. Besides, if divorce was always a sin for both parties, God would have never spoken of Himself divorcing Israel, spiritually or not, for the cause of adultery (which is specific to married, non-engaged people) multiple times in the Old Testament.

As far as the abandonment thing, if God says a person isn't under bondage then there's no reason to assume that they can't get married again just like a widowed person can.

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Betrothal, that's the word I was looking for! Thanks.

Eloped... :blink: what an idiot I am.


I must say that I disagree with that comment, 100%! Your just like all other godly people, human. Some maybe more so than others, and I suppose there be a few that will not admit it. th_tiphat.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

They can, when and if their divorce spouse dies, yet not until.

Ro 7:2 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.
Ro 7:3 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.

The verse says that the divorce woman while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress, and will be called that as long as her husband shall live.

So how can someone proclaim its a one time adultery for a divorce person to marry, that disagrees with the Bible.

We are to accepting of the ways of this world, and this world has gobbled up divorcing taking it to a new level. Yet I hear that since more are now shacking up, instead of getting married, that the divorce rate is down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

They can, when and if their divorce spouse dies, yet not until.

Ro 7:2 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.
Ro 7:3 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.

The verse says that the divorce woman while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress, and will be called that as long as her husband shall live.

So how can someone proclaim its a one time adultery for a divorce person to marry, that disagrees with the Bible.

We are to accepting of the ways of this world, and this world has gobbled up divorcing taking it to a new level. Yet I hear that since more are now shacking up, instead of getting married, that the divorce rate is down.


I wouldn't use Romans 7 in the context you have. Because it speaks specifically to the Mosaic law given to Moses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

This "husband of two wives" thing is crazy. I know of a Christian man who wanted to be a pastor but was told by a pastor that he would have to leave his saved wife whom he married not too long after being saved and go back to his unsaved wife he was married to while he was unsaved. If not then he was disqualified because he had "two living wives".

The passage is clearly about polygamy.

The gifts and callings of God are without repentance. If God calls a man to the pastorate then he is a pastor no matter what and this can't be taken away. He may place himself in a difficult position to be a pastor through certain behavior though. If a group of people don't care if the man was divorced and they want him as their pastor then he should be their pastor no matter what some IFB pharisee says.

The "qualifications" which Paul spoke of were qualifications before society NOT God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



I wouldn't use Romans 7 in the context you have. Because it speaks specifically to the Mosaic law given to Moses.




Amazing, simply amazing, throw out Romans, or that is part of Romans at least, and its New Testament Teachings by the Apostle Paul. I love picking and choosing what to accept, them you can go the direction you desire.

By the way, the Romans teachings does agree with other New Testament teachings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This "husband of two wives" thing is crazy. I know of a Christian man who wanted to be a pastor but was told by a pastor that he would have to leave his saved wife whom he married not too long after being saved and go back to his unsaved wife he was married to while he was unsaved. If not then he was disqualified because he had "two living wives".

The passage is clearly about polygamy.

The gifts and callings of God are without repentance. If God calls a man to the pastorate then he is a pastor no matter what and this can't be taken away. He may place himself in a difficult position to be a pastor through certain behavior though. If a group of people don't care if the man was divorced and they want him as their pastor then he should be their pastor no matter what some IFB pharisee says.

The "qualifications" which Paul spoke of were qualifications before society NOT God.


No, they're the qualifications for a New Testament pastor, whither you agree or disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 39 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...