a wife

[wretched]

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 0:10 PM, swathdiver said:

One cannot pastor a New Testament Church unless they are the husband of one wife and have children.  Wretched's statement is not of God.

Bishop qualifications:

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.

All present tense.

None are written in the past tense. None are intended by God to be thought of as lifelong quals long before a man is even saved. Had they been, God would have worded them differently. He didn't, He worded them in present tense only. IOW: a man wants the office of bishop, he must currently possess these qualifications.

One marriage? Never divorced? Never widowed? Nope it doesn't say anything like that.

If one wife means never divorced, it would say that. Divorce is commonly mentioned throughout the Bible so think for a minute and wonder why it is worded "husband of one wife". Nowhere else in the Bible is divorce referred to like this (ie. husband of two wives, three wives, etc.). Now in OT Soloman's case it is loosely mentioned like this and he was not "divorced" (get the coorelation?).  It was common practice in those days and even today in some cultures to have multiple wives.

To believe this lie (and I believe it is a lie and not just a common misinterpretation) then you would have to concede that all quals are past tense just like the wife one transcending their lost and saved lives. IE, the man could have never punched anyone, including childhood; could have never drank wine; could have never wanted something that belongs to someone else, etc...

Apostles were elders of churches. They planted all of the churches in the NT and lead them while training others to lead. There is no mention of wives and marriages and children with them. If they had families, they left all that in the dust of the present world to pick up their cross and follow Him.

Matter of fact, I doubt seriously that God even means that a bishop "must" be married and have children. It makes much more sense in light of the actual examples of church elders in the NT that they do not have to be. God lists it IMO because most men at the age above novice (30 years old +) were typically married with kids. 30 being the age our Lord began His earthly ministry. IOW: if you are married, it is to be to only one woman and if you have kids, they must be in subjection.

Novice the key qualification in Jordan's case. Scripturally that is the only thing that DQ's him based on his personal testimony that I know of.

Think about it.

[swathdiver]

3 hours ago, wretched said:

Think about it.

I did, you're still wrong and a heretick.

[wretched]

6 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

I did, you're still wrong and a heretick.

hmmm, wretched heretick. It does have a ring to it

[HappyChristian]

swath, don't start the name-calling again. Period. Non-negotiable.

[John81]

11 hours ago, swathdiver said:

I did, you're still wrong and a heretick.

I'm not seeing the name-calling here.

Saying someone is "wrong" isn't name-calling. Neither is saying someone is a heretick.

Heretic - a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

A person could argue as to whether or not either "wrong" or "heretick" are accurate assessments but it's hard to say either are name-calling.

Personally, I prefer a more detailed reasoning as to how and why a person is "wrong" or a "heretick" (or that one is right or traditional) than a simple declaration that they are one or the other. Simply declaring "thou art a heretick" or "thy doctrine is sound" doesn't prove a position.

We should also consider that IFB churches have various independent positions on a variety of topics so that what might be considered a heretical position in one IFB church would not be such in another. This gives rise to the question of whether we should declare someone outside our own church to be a heretick.

[HappyChristian]

Well, John, I don't mean to be snotty in my response, but it doesn't actually matter if you see it as name-calling or not. Simple fact of the matter is that it is name-calling. When one's response to someone who disagrees with one's claim that something is a mandate from God - without dovetailing scripture to, as you put it "prove a position," - is to label that someone a heretic, that's, well, name-calling. And it isn't going to start up again. As I said before, it's not negotiable. 

[Jordan Kurecki]

This is still something heavy on my heart. Please be in prayer for me.

[Jordan Kurecki]

Update, yesterday I official began courting a most wonderful godly young lady that I met here at Baptist Bible Translators Institute/

the Lord is good.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

14 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Update, yesterday I official began courting a most wonderful godly young lady that I met here at Baptist Bible Translators Institute/

the Lord is good.

Amen!!!!!!!