Mark And Avoid Or Spit Out The Bones?

[swathdiver]

None of us are doctrinally perfect and neither are some of the preachers we like to listen to.  All of us sin and most repent for it, but what about preachers who are unrepentant in their sin?

 

If they're right on this but wrong on that do we eat the meat and spit out the bones or mark and avoid?  If our favorite pastor/preacher is for example divorced and still pastoring a church do we continue to listen to and have fellowship with him?  Should we avoid or discount everything he's taught us?

 

 

What do the scriptures say about these situations?

 

 

 

 

[wlane]

I am not convinced/persuaded biblically that divorce excludes one from the ministry of preaching; so this is not a good example for me.
I will say though that there are some pastors and teachers that I do swallow the meat, chew the fat, and spit out the bones with: namely, Hutson, Ruckman, Hoffman, and even Scofield.

[ASongOfDegrees]

 "Swallow the meat, chew the fat and spit out the bones".

 

Wow, what a way to put it when talking about any pastor or teacher.

[ASongOfDegrees]

None of us are doctrinally perfect and neither are some of the preachers we like to listen to.  All of us sin and most repent for it, but what about preachers who are unrepentant in their sin?

 

If they're right on this but wrong on that do we eat the meat and spit out the bones or mark and avoid?  If our favorite pastor/preacher is for example divorced and still pastoring a church do we continue to listen to and have fellowship with him?  Should we avoid or discount everything he's taught us?

 

 

What do the scriptures say about these situations?

You gotta follow your conscience. As it been said by others in the forum there have been divorced pastors and teachers whom they've been blessed by. I would imagine a divorced man would find a certain kinship with a divorced pastor or teacher. But if you can't follow him because of divorce/remarriage then don't. 

 

Also, I'm not sure why you called it unrepentant sin. Would you expect the pastor or teacher do get divorced from his new wife and remarry the old one? How is he to repent from this sin? This is why I said in another post that what's done is done when it comes to this issue of divorce and remarriage.

 

Paul ask the question how a man could run a church when he couldn't control his family. The implication is that he couldn't yet there have been divorced/remarried pastors and pastors with rebellious children who have successfully run churches where souls are saved and saints edified. There are exceptions to the rule with King David being an example.

 

King David was supposed to die for his sins according to God's law but because of his love for God the Lord spared him and he went on being king. This tells me that God at times will make exceptions even to his own rules if the person has a contrite heart and loves God (the only thing there's not an exception to is every man's responsibility to believe the gospel).

 

If a man is pastoring a successful church where sinners are being saved, saints edified and the Savior exalted I'm not the one who's gonna step in and say he shouldn't be a pastor because of a failed marriage or rebellious kid.

[wlane]

bad choice of words, but you get the gist

[Ukulelemike]

While I don't want to divert this to a divorce issue, (though its kind of heading that way), I will say that not all divorce is wrong, and I am still not convinced that "Pastor of one wife" means, "never been divorced", because to take it in a very strict view like that, it would HAVE to disqualify anyone who's never been married to be a pastor.  

 

That being said, I think, as was said in the first post, aint none of us perfect in the flesh. I can do a certain amount of eating the meat/spitting out the bones, because truth is truth, but I would not align myself with certain teachers, even if they are very correct in some areas, and yet clearly in gross error in others, or showing a poor, unchristian-like spirit. And remember, even JW's are right in many areas, but their areas of error are so great, I could not align myself with them, or even eat the meat and spit out the bones.

 

For instance, I watched a series of videos from an SDA preacher named Walter Vieth-they were on creation vs evolution, and they were very good, very biblical. And they were fine while he stayed in this subject, but when he moved into SDA specifics, like Sabbath-keeping and such, he had to be rejected. And despite the good he had, I would not recommend him to another, lest they fall to his errors.

 

 And it always irritates me the types who believe they have it all figured out, that there is no room for discussion in certain areas, no chance that they might be wrong. Even in areas where I am 100% certain I am correct in my doctrine, it never stops me from being willing, at least to a point, to hear and discuss other views because if I AM correct, I will remain correct, but if I am incorrect, I want to be persuaded because my first duty is to God, not man, not fellowship, not friends. So I have had extended conversations on areas like eternal security, salvation by grace through faith, sabbath-keeping, and such like, and in my study and defence of my position, I have always been both vindicated and my position upheld firmly in my heart.

[prophet1]

While I don't want to divert this to a divorce issue, (though its kind of heading that way), I will say that not all divorce is wrong, and I am still not convinced that "Pastor of one wife" means, "never been divorced", because to take it in a very strict view like that, it would HAVE to disqualify anyone who's never been married to be a pastor. That being said, I think, as was said in the first post, aint none of us perfect in the flesh. I can do a certain amount of eating the meat/spitting out the bones, because truth is truth, but I would not align myself with certain teachers, even if they are very correct in some areas, and yet clearly in gross error in others, or showing a poor, unchristian-like spirit. And remember, even JW's are right in many areas, but their areas of error are so great, I could not align myself with them, or even eat the meat and spit out the bones. For instance, I watched a series of videos from an SDA preacher named Walter Vieth-they were on creation vs evolution, and they were very good, very biblical. And they were fine while he stayed in this subject, but when he moved into SDA specifics, like Sabbath-keeping and such, he had to be rejected. And despite the good he had, I would not recommend him to another, lest they fall to his errors. And it always irritates me the types who believe they have it all figured out, that there is no room for discussion in certain areas, no chance that they might be wrong. Even in areas where I am 100% certain I am correct in my doctrine, it never stops me from being willing, at least to a point, to hear and discuss other views because if I AM correct, I will remain correct, but if I am incorrect, I want to be persuaded because my first duty is to God, not man, not fellowship, not friends. So I have had extended conversations on areas like eternal security, salvation by grace through faith, sabbath-keeping, and such like, and in my study and defence of my position, I have always been both vindicated and my position upheld firmly in my heart.

No one, who has never been married, can be a bishop...God's rules, deal with it. 1Ti 3:2 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sOBer, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1Ti 3:4-5 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?) "Must" means "must" There are plenty of Gifts, and Calling for single men, just no Offices. Anishinaabe

[JimsHelpmeet]

Would that mean a widower would have to step down? If that's the case, then my church would lose a very faithful deacon. 

[TheSword]

No one, who has never been married, can be a bishop...God's rules, deal with it. 1Ti 3:2 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sOBer, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1Ti 3:4-5 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?) "Must" means "must" There are plenty of Gifts, and Calling for single men, just no Offices. Anishinaabe

 

By that same reasoning he must also have 2 or more children as well. Those children must never have been accused on wrongdoing. Widowers would be disqualified as would someone who's children have died. There aren't many real preachers in America if this is the case. Further, there's no proof Timothy himself was ever married. Paul certainly wasn't, though he was an apostle and not a pastor/elder/bishop.

[Ukulelemike]

I believe the simple reading of this, is a man with one wife-not married to two women at once. Whenever the Bible deals with divorce, it makes it very clear in the context-here we don't see that. To assume that a man who is divorced and remarried now has two wives is to ignore Jesus' own words to the woman of Samaria, when he said, "Thou hast HAD five husbands", Not, Thou HAST five husbands.

[AVBibleBeliever]

I believe the simple reading of this, is a man with one wife-not married to two women at once. Whenever the Bible deals with divorce, it makes it very clear in the context-here we don't see that. To assume that a man who is divorced and remarried now has two wives is to ignore Jesus' own words to the woman of Samaria, when he said, "Thou hast HAD five husbands", Not, Thou HAST five husbands.

Jesus did say that divorce was ok if sexual immorality took place.  Mt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

 

What of a man who was married before he was saved, his wife runs off with another man, he remains faithful to her hoping for her to come back, she gets a deadly disease while off with others, and the man decides to divorce her?

 

Could he not after he got saved remarry and it not be considered he is married to two wives?

[prophet1]

By that same reasoning he must also have 2 or more children as well. Those children must never have been accused on wrongdoing. Widowers would be disqualified as would someone who's children have died. There aren't many real preachers in America if this is the case. Further, there's no proof Timothy himself was ever married. Paul certainly wasn't, though he was an apostle and not a pastor/elder/bishop.

Then there should be no bishops or deacons.

God's rules, deal with it.

Anishinaabe

[DaveW]

None of us are doctrinally perfect and neither are some of the preachers we like to listen to. All of us sin and most repent for it, but what about preachers who are unrepentant in their sin?

If they're right on this but wrong on that do we eat the meat and spit out the bones or mark and avoid? If our favorite pastor/preacher is for example divorced and still pastoring a church do we continue to listen to and have fellowship with him? Should we avoid or discount everything he's taught us?


What do the scriptures say about these situations?

Well, there's been a lot of bones being gnawed on here lately............

[John81]

It almost seems of late as if every thread has to turn into a bone gnawing session.

[beameup]

I had an encounter where a KJVO pastor's wife was spreading a false rumor declaring that "so-and-so" is a heretic and has "abandoned the King James".  I happen to know a lot of this person and you would instantly recognize their name. 

 He is a very famous Bible expert - specializing in escatology and current technology and science (as it applies to the Bible).  So, I called their headquarters and inquired of this "rumor" and found it baseless.  I then confronted the pastor's wife

and she replied that she was only doing her jOB in "marking" those who are deviating from the truth.  She stubbornly refused to accept that she was slandering a well-known and respected Bible teacher and scientist.

 

I have since looked into this particular verse and found that it does not encourage slandering other Christians.  I conclude that this type of slandering is all too often associated with these "-ites". 

They even seem to have their own "radio spokesman" that digs for any kind of "dirt" that he can possibly find and even "make it up" if none is found (as was this case).

 

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark skopeō them which cause divisions and offences

contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.  Romans 16:17