Jump to content
Online Baptist

Pensacola Bible institute


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

1. I never said definitions were unimportant. I implied that definitions need to be correct. 2. The Greek supports the definition of the word. Just like any dictionary gives definitions. 3.

I feel that your definition of "rule" denotes only the negative aspects of a ruler. Not all who rule are bad, evil, unfair, or serve their own self-interests... Romans 13:3, Hebrews 13:7, 17

SAB76, I've answered you biblically. I've answered the questions that you proposed in your last post. In fact, my answer(s) are in the post that immediately precede your latest post. I no lo

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I was a member of the church that ran New England Baptist College. I have a good friend who graduated from Ambassador and have been on the campus of Crown a number of times.

No offense, but do you have any idea was legalism is? It is not simply having standards.

I also find it interesting that you post these on a thread about a heretical school.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
I don't mean to be rude' date=' but have you ever attended any of those colleges?[/quote']
New England Baptist College is a ministry of Central Baptist Church. My wife and I both graduated from the academy. My mom and my wife both taught there, with my mom still currently teaching. Pastor Townsley (Founder of the Church and College) and Pastor Brown of NEBC ordained me, and I attended the college in its early years when it was just an institute. After I finished college I was asked work the church, but the Lord called me elsewhere. I live about 15 minutes away and still attended different meetings there, so I can say I know what I am talking about. Also I was roommates for 2 years with Pastor Townley's brother. I know both the family and church very well.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I also find it interesting that you post these on a thread about a heretical school.


By the way, I posted about these schools because I was reading the first page or two and saw reference to the three schools we've been talking about and wanted to make a brief comment based on my experience. I am not tryin to start an argument by any means...just share my experience.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 years later...
  • Members

Why would anyone say the gap theory is heresy? For one, where does Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 fit in?? Lucifer shows up in the garden, already fallen, in the creation account in genesis. Thus an obvious gap between verse 1 and verse 2. 

How about the word DARKNESS in Gen. 1:2? Look at how that word is used throughout the whole bible. Sin and judgement are closely connected with the word DARKNESS. 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
1 hour ago, David01 said:

Why would anyone say the gap theory is heresy? For one, where does Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 fit in?? Lucifer shows up in the garden, already fallen, in the creation account in genesis. Thus an obvious gap between verse 1 and verse 2. 

How about the word DARKNESS in Gen. 1:2? Look at how that word is used throughout the whole bible. Sin and judgement are closely connected with the word DARKNESS. 

David

Thanks for joining. Please feel free to start a new thread to discuss this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 5 months later...
  • Members
On 11/20/2006 at 6:52 AM, Pastorj said:

Peter Ruckman is a pastor who is disqualified from the ministry because he is on his 3rd or 4th wife. He violates the qualifications of 1 Timothy. He teaches heretical teachings concerning the KJV. He believes that the KJV is superior to its original text (double inspiration).

My recommendation is to find somewhere else to go that teaches the truth. Here are some options: Crown, Ambassador, New England Baptist College to name a couple.

1 Timothy 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach...

You do err not knowing the scriptures, and you err by wresting them to teach what you want it to say.

1 Timothy 3 does not teach what you say it does. If it did, then Paul was not "qualified". Paul had no wife. But it does not say that a bishop is to be "A husband of one wife" it says he is to be "THE husband of one wife" which means that IF he is married, he is to be "the husband" (a title, not a person)...OF one wife (a title, not a person). You also misinterpret the phrase "of one wife". This is a prepositional phrase which tells how many wives the husband is allowed during his marriage. The scripture does NOT say "A husband TO one wife". You must remember that the bible was not written just for America (although, 🤔 I'm almost certain we have a sect that teaches it's ok for bishops to have multiple wives at one time) It was written for everyone, even cultures that believe in having multiple wives (i.e. Africa, Arabian Nations, etc.) 

So it clearly teaches that a bishop, 1) IF he is married, is to be married to 2) ONE WIFE (remember...wife is a title not a person) during the length of that marriage, it does not teach that it lasts for his entire life.

Please do not live in a fantasy world....there are YOUNG pastors out in this world with young children that need a wife to assist in the ministry and a mother to his children. Some have lost there previous wives to either death or some have lost them to going prodigal for the love of the world, and some of these women have abandoned not only their husbands but also their children. To say that God would "disqualify" these men due to circumstances beyond their control is laughable. God does not repent of his callings nor does he put men in shackles and chains, his yoke is EASY and his burden is LIGHT ....only self righteous Pharisees are the ones that like to disqualify others for not being like them, and impose grievous, heavy burdens on men...Matthew 23:4  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 minutes ago, SAB76 said:

then Paul was not "qualified"

Paul was never a bishop. He was an Apostle, which has different qualifications and requirements.

Also being a Bishop of a church is not a position that God calls to a lifetime position. The office is subject to the church as it is a church office and not a post they can claim by virtue of their calling of God. Additionally a person can fulfill the callings of God without having to be the Bishop of a church.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
44 minutes ago, John Young said:

Paul was never a bishop. He was an Apostle, which has different qualifications and requirements.

Also being a Bishop of a church is not a position that God calls to a lifetime position. The office is subject to the church as it is a church office and not a post they can claim by virtue of their calling of God. Additionally a person can fulfill the callings of God without having to be the Bishop of a church.

🤯 yes, my mind is blown that these were your comments on my clarification of the "qualifications" of a bishop. 

Firstly, Paul was more than just an apostle. Do you really teach that a man can only hold ONE office in his lifetime?

Let's see the definitions and see which applies to Paul? 

Apostle: A person deputed to execute some important business; but appropriately, a disciple of Christ commissioned to preach the gospel.

Bishop: An overseer; a spiritual superintendent, ruler or director.

If Paul was not a bishop, please explain the last part of 2 Cor. 11:28.

Secondly, the post was mainly about the "qualifications" of the office.

Thirdly, you err by making it an office of the "church", and that the pastor is subject to the church. It is an office that God gifted to the church, and the pastor is subject to Christ and him alone. God calls the pastors to oversee his church, not for the church to decide whether they like their overseer. If they dont like the overseer that God put in the office...find another pasture to feed in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, SAB76 said:

you err by making it an office of the "church", and that the pastor is subject to the church. It is an office that God gifted to the church, and the pastor is subject to Christ and him alone.

Every church member is subject to the church, including the office of bishop (1 Corinthians 12).The church is Christ's body and for a member to act as if it is greater than the body that it is a part of, by virtue of the office that they hold within it, that would be the error.

Romans 12:3-5 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

4 hours ago, SAB76 said:

If Paul was not a bishop, please explain the last part of 2 Cor. 11:28.

2 Corinthians 11:28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

A bishop is over one church Apostles shepherded all of the churches and the guided the elders in doctrine. In particular Paul was commissioned oversight of the gentile churches.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. Acts 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. Acts 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 2 Timothy 1:11 whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:7-9 but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, John Young said:

Every church member is subject to the church, including the office of bishop (1 Corinthians 12).The church is Christ's body and for a member to act as if it is greater than the body that it is a part of, by virtue of the office that they hold within it, that would be the error.

Romans 12:3-5 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. 4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

2 Corinthians 11:28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

A bishop is over one church Apostles shepherded all of the churches and the guided the elders in doctrine. In particular Paul was commissioned oversight of the gentile churches.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. Acts 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. Acts 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 2 Timothy 1:11 whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:7-9 but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Not sure I quite agree with you.  Peter wae an elder and I understand that elders are bishops.

  • 1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

John,

Thank you for your fine interpretation of the office of the bishop,  the qualifications of a bishop, or pastor, or elder, of the local church and the responsibility of Paul the Apostle.

Excellent exposition and giving the proper scriptural interpretation of 2 Corinthians 11:28

Also, it is a shame in our day and age where the office of the pastor, or bishop, or elder, is not considered a HOLY office and the man who assumes that office should be BLAMELESS in all aspects of the word; including only being married to ONE WIFE (NOT ONE WIFE AT A TIME NEITHER),

The scriptures, not quoted by SAB76, that explains very plainly why the bishop should only have one wife (not one wife at a time but only one wife), is clearly brought out by the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) If a man is the pastor of the church and cannot rule one wife well than he does not have the ability, or calling from God as according to the scriptures, to take care of the church of God.

Alan

Edited by Alan
put the word 'well' in its proper place in 1Tim. 3:4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Invicta said:

Not sure I quite agree with you.  Peter wae an elder and I understand that elders are bishops.

  • 1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Never said that Peter wasn't a bishop of a church. Just that Paul wasn't. As far as we know Peter meets the qualifications (in the strictest sense of them) and in my opinion, I believe he was the pastor of the church in Babylon. Paul on the other and was a missionary Apostle and started many churches but was never ordained a Bishop/pastor/elder of any of them. When they organized he always set a bishop over them that met the strictest sense of the qualifications. Paul never did things that were "passable" but that were beyond reproach so that t the church could not be blamed in any way because of his leadership. 2 Corinthians 6:3 Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
14 hours ago, Alan said:

...only being married to ONE WIFE (NOT ONE WIFE AT A TIME NEITHER),

Alan, 

You prove my point on this matter...You misquote and misinterpret the passage.

It says the husband OF one wife, it does not say TO one wife, as you have stated above. Also you seem to have confused the word WIFE (which is a title, not a person) with the word WOMAN. These words do not carry the same definition. I'm really not sure how much plainer it could be.

There are 3 problems that I have seen so far on this subject. 1) People have preconceived  opinions or beliefs about this issue 2) there really seems to be an issue with definition of words, and 3) they seem to have a Phariseeical attitude to the subject. That God views divorce as a worse a sin than he did murder and adultery when he , not only allowed King David to live, but also retain his OFFICE of kingship. 

15 hours ago, Alan said:

The scriptures, not quoted by SAB76, that explains very plainly why the bishop should only have one wife (not one wife at a time but only one wife), is clearly brought out by the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, "One that ruleth his own house well, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) If a man is the pastor of the church and cannot rule one wife well than he does not have the ability, or calling from God as according to the scriptures, to take care of the church of God.

Alan

As to the other verse that I did not quote. I'm curious how you are connecting these to be the same thing when there is clearly a number of other attributes between the two? Where is the word WIFE found in these verses? And also, how does one RULE a wife? Do you consider women to be children that need discipline and punishment?

This passage is in respect to the rules that he has established in his house to keep his CHILDREN in subjection. Again, the fact that WIFE is nowhere in this passage you quoted shows how you have a preconceived idea of what you THINK it is saying, and not what it is actually saying.

Would you consider the military to have a good handle on ruling and disciplining its house? They tell you what, when, where, how long on every aspect of your life, and expect you to be in subjection. Yet do they not have men that go AWOL from time to time? So according to your thought process if ONE soldier goes AWOL then the military obviously doesn't rule their house well? Then according to this line of thinking the prodigal son's father was not one that did not rule his house well either? Because BOTH of his sons went prodigal...one just stayed at the house.

As for the bishop issue....

I have shown clearly the definition of the word BISHOP. I again do not know how to make that any clearer. Paul was both an Apostle, and a bishop. He brought the gospel to the Gentiles, established local churches, preached and taught them and cared for them. The definition of a bishop being only allocated to ONE single local church is NOT true...its not even in the Webster's definition I quoted. Bishop is a God gifted overseer to the CHURCH (the body). It is not an OFFICE that is created by the local church.

To prove that it is a gift that is given to a man and not a position granted him from a local church I ask one question. Was Judas Iscariot an apostle and a bishop? Acts 1:20....If the bishoprick given to Judas came from a local church...please name that church.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 9/24/2019 at 10:50 AM, SAB76 said:

Alan, 

You prove my point on this matter...You misquote and misinterpret the passage. I edited 1 Timothy 3:4 to place the word "well" in its proper place. The interpretation stays the same.

It says the husband OF one wife, it does not say TO one wife, as you have stated above. Also you seem to have confused the word WIFE (which is a title, not a person) with the word WOMAN. These words do not carry the same definition. I'm really not sure how much plainer it could be. You are playing semantics with the word "to" and "of" which do not support your conclusion.

There are 3 problems that I have seen so far on this subject. 1) People have preconceived  opinions or beliefs about this issue 2) there really seems to be an issue with definition of words, and 3) they seem to have a Phariseeical attitude to the subject. That God views divorce as a worse a sin than he did murder and adultery when he , not only allowed King David to live, but also retain his OFFICE of kingship. (1) No, to believe that the pastor should only be the husband "of" one wife is not a preconceived opinion or belief (2) Yes, the of word "of' can clearly mean "of" one wife.  (2) You, incorrectly, assume anyone who has a different interpretation from yours is a a Pharisee. That is a mistake in judgment my friend. (3) The office of a King is far different from the office of a Pastor. You are misusing the scriptures.

As to the other verse that I did not quote. I'm curious how you are connecting these to be the same thing when there is clearly a number of other attributes between the two? Where is the word WIFE found in these verses? And also, how does one RULE a wife? Do you consider women to be children that need discipline and punishment? It is very clear why I used 1 Timothy 3:4 & 5 as it explains, very clearly why a divorced man does not have the inherent character, nor ability, to govern a local congregation. The word "wife" does not need to be included in 1 Timothy3:4 &5 in order to understand the clear meaning. You, my friend are adding your own interpretation to the scriptures.

This passage is in respect to the rules that he has established in his house to keep his CHILDREN in subjection. Again, the fact that WIFE is nowhere in this passage you quoted shows how you have a preconceived idea of what you THINK it is saying, and not what it is actually saying. You, my friend are the one that is not following the words of Paul the apostle not me.

Would you consider the military to have a good handle on ruling and disciplining its house? They tell you what, when, where, how long on every aspect of your life, and expect you to be in subjection. Yet do they not have men that go AWOL from time to time? So according to your thought process if ONE soldier goes AWOL then the military obviously doesn't rule their house well? Then according to this line of thinking the prodigal son's father was not one that did not rule his house well either? Because BOTH of his sons went prodigal...one just stayed at the house. Your reasoning concerning the military has no bearing to this issue. And, again, you are trying to justify your unbleief of a divorced man being a pastor with non-biblical reasoning and your own forced interpretation.

As for the bishop issue....

I have shown clearly the definition of the word BISHOP. I again do not know how to make that any clearer. Paul was both an Apostle, and a bishop. He brought the gospel to the Gentiles, established local churches, preached and taught them and cared for them. The definition of a bishop being only allocated to ONE single local church is NOT true...its not even in the Webster's definition I quoted. Bishop is a God gifted overseer to the CHURCH (the body). It is not an OFFICE that is created by the local church.

To prove that it is a gift that is given to a man and not a position granted him from a local church I ask one question. Was Judas Iscariot an apostle and a bishop? Acts 1:20....If the bishoprick given to Judas came from a local church...please name that church.

Brethren,

My reply to SAB76 is written in red.

No matter how a person uses "to" or "of" or uses the word "wife", 1 Timothy 3:4-5 is very clear that a divorced man cannot be the pastor, or bishop, or elder, of a church because if he cannot take care of his own house well than he cannot take care of the church.

As a personal note. Throughout my years in the ministry I have noticed that many men, who will not accept being denied being a pastor due to being divorced, will try every reasoning, every excuse,  in order to force the interpretation that SAB76 is presenting and will ignore the clear words of 1 Timothy 2:4 & 5," "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) If a man is the pastor of the church and cannot rule one wife well than he does not have the ability, or calling from God as according to the scriptures, to take care of the church of God.

Alan

Edited by Alan
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, SAB76 said:

Alan, 

 they seem to have a Phariseeical attitude to the subject.

On 9/23/2019 at 8:55 AM, SAB76 said:

....only self righteous Pharisees are the ones that like to disqualify others for not being like them, and impose grievous, heavy burdens on men...Matthew 23:4  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

 

SAB76,

Our discussion, and relationship, and  friendship, would improve dramatically if you would stop calling us "Pharisaical," or other words to the same effect.

Also, it would help our mutual relationship if you would either delete, or stikethrough, the sentences that already have "Pharisaical" connotations.

Thank you.

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Alan,

Your replies to my post were at best....weak. Absolutely zero bible to prove my "error",  just you saying "You, my friend are the one that is not following the words of Paul the apostle not me." Its like arguing with a child on the playground. Your rebuttal to my "semantics" as you put it, show you value your opinion and them that agree with you more than the words of God. And finally, your addition (putting "wife" in 1 Tim. 3:4....and by the way, still waiting on how a man is to RULE his wife?...this one actually has me concerned & worried on what you actually teach), and deliberate changing of what God says, (and I quote...."being married to ONE WIFE") puts you in the same position as Eve in Gen. 3. And the devil has you passing the poison you eat on to those you have influence on.

Even as wicked and ungodly as Pilate was, he at least had enough sense to know the truth when he saw it. It was the Pharisees that rejected the truth, and didn't want the people to see it.

So therefore....when you ask me to erase or change what have written....I say to you as he said to them "what I have written, I have written"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, SAB76 said:

Even as wicked and ungodly as Pilate was, he at least had enough sense to know the truth when he saw it. It was the Pharisees that rejected the truth, and didn't want the people to see it.

So therefore....when you ask me to erase or change what have written....I say to you as he said to them "what I have written, I have written"

So, since you consider me more wicked, and ungodly, than Pilate and in your eyes I am a Pharisee. And, you despise me, I will heed the admonition of Solomon, "Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words." Proverbs 23:9

Edited by Alan
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It seems to me that much is being made of certain definitions, but those definitions for not appear to be true.

For instance, the greek word from which is translated the word "wife" has a primary meaning of "woman", and a secondary of "specifically a wife", which makes the word a descriptive rather than a "title".

Secondly, a bishop is absolutely required to rule his house well, the reference to children being an addendum to that, but a wife is absolutely a part of that household.

Finally, the rules on divorce must be considered, as Biblically not all divorce is the same.

One thing is certain about divorce though:

Matt 19:8

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 

Hey friend, why don't you pop across to the intro section and introduce yourself properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

I'm sorry Alan, but you really have some issues with putting words where there are none. 

As for me despising you.... Where did I say that?

I am accusing you of being pharisaical, when you teach that a man is disqualified from the calling of being a bishop (AS DEFINED by Eph. 4:11 as a gift given to men, and AS DEFINED by the dictionary) for ANY sin, let alone something as inconsequential and petty as divorce. And yes I believe a man called to be a bishop can commit ANY sin (including but not limited to....rape, theft, lying, murder, gluttony, backbiting, sowing discord, child molestation, bitterness, emulation, wrath, and lastly....ANYTHING) and still be called to bishop. He just may have to do it behind prison walls before he is executed for corporal punishment offenses.

But.....I never said you were more wicked, or more ungodly than Pilate. That was an illustration rather to say "If Pilate saw the truth, why cant you?" So if anything I was saying..."You are saved (I assume), have the Holy Spirit (I assume), and have the words of God preserved in the KJV, so why are you not seeing the truth in the scriptures?" Do not let the spirit of phariseism blind you as it did the Pharisees. We all have had it or have it at some point in our lives. We have all been guilty of looking down on others, and believing we are better than them, and that God can not use them. God's gifts and callings are without repentance. (Rom 11:29) There were no conditions when he made that statement. If God calls a man to bishop, then he is called to bishop no matter if his entire world falls apart around him....due to his own and/ or others (which he has zero control over) circumstances.

If you still continue to hold to your interpretation of 1 Tim. 3....I again ask you or any other on this site to please tell me how to RULE a wife? If a man is a good, loving, Christ like husband who is in the ministry, and his wife decides she made a mistake and wants to go prodigal, and leaves and divorces her husband. What is he to do to keep her, so he does not lose his "office" as defined by some on this thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
1 hour ago, DaveW said:

It seems to me that much is being made of certain definitions, but those definitions for not appear to be true. 

For instance, the greek word from which is translated the word "wife" has a primary meaning of "woman", and a secondary of "specifically a wife", which makes the word a descriptive rather than a "title".

Secondly, a bishop is absolutely required to rule his house well, the reference to children being an addendum to that, but a wife is absolutely a part of that household.

Finally, the rules on divorce must be considered, as Biblically not all divorce is the same.

One thing is certain about divorce though:

Matt 19:8

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 

Hey friend, why don't you pop across to the intro section and introduce yourself properly.

DaveW,

Definitions in the English language are important. Pretty much all the errors that are being made on these subjects of bishop, and wife are due to the misinterpretation of the definitions. 

As to the greek you have mentioned... I thought that this was a KJV site. Are you suggesting that we need to interpret the English with greek word definitions? Did not the translators of 1611 already do this? So what is written in the English should be the English definition of the greek word it was translated from?

Lastly.....I ask anyone to please tell me how to RULE a wife? I again ask you to tell me if the father in Luke 15 was a poor ruler of his household? Is the military poor rulers of their household? I say no....they both are great rulers, but not everyone is a great subject. A man should have rules set up in his house, and should enforce those rules with MERCY and GRACE sprinkled in, just like Christ. (This is what makes a man a great ruler, not whether his wife and/ or children go prodigal)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

1. I never said definitions were unimportant. I implied that definitions need to be correct.

2. The Greek supports the definition of the word. Just like any dictionary gives definitions.

3. Your proposed definition of wife, given with no reference as to its origin, does not align with the official definitions.

To be honest, I am not interested in becoming further involved in this discussion, but as you say, definitions are important, but it is also important that they are correct definitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
47 minutes ago, SAB76 said:

I ask anyone to please tell me how to RULE a wife?

I feel that your definition of "rule" denotes only the negative aspects of a ruler.

Not all who rule are bad, evil, unfair, or serve their own self-interests...

Romans 13:3, Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24

God himself has commanded that the wife be in subjection to her own husband.

If you want to know how a husband is to rule over his wife the correct, loving, and godly way, perhaps this will help?

Ephesians 5:22-33

To "rule" involves more than laying down the law and enforcing it. It involves taking care of those under you, loving them, tending to their needs, protecting them, nurturing them, guiding them, and much more. So yes indeed...if a husband can't rule his own house well (wife included), how can he take care of the church of God?

See...God even says what he meant by "rule" in the same verse...

(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The reason the Bishop cannot have two wives is because Christ does not have two wives. Nor does he have "one church at a time". He hated it when the Priest of the OT made excuses for their infidelity, so what makes us NT priest think we are any better or that he now thinks it is okay?!! 

"Abandonment" is also not an excuse as the Hardness of the man's heart toward his wife is why most wives "abandon" their husbands and disqualifies regardless of fault. It is a disqualifier from the office but not from service. If a man can not accept that, then it reveals his hard heart and desire to hold on to power of some-sort. A humble Bishop who has been disqualified has sorrow that he no longer is a symbol and example of Chris's marital relationship and will step down in hopes a better qualified example can fill that role. In particular so that the spirit and power of the office and the Lord's church be not hindered as shown by the rebellious priest in Malachi 2.

I personally believe one of the big reasons the modern church is struggling today, and lacks power is because Bishops and churches (even in the IFB types) refuse to disqualify pastors but instead make excuses for their sin and why they are minumily qualified and keep ordaining men of lower and lower caliber in stead of seeking men who are at the strictest example of the qualifications. 

Ephesians 5:31-33 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Malachi 2 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. 3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it. 4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. 5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name. 6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. 7 For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12 The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts. 13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.

14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

17 Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 29 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...