Pensacola Bible institute

[Alan]

6 hours ago, John Young said:

"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. 

Amen and amen

[Invicta]

On 9/24/2019 at 2:23 AM, John Young said:

Paul never did things that were "passable"

Not sure I understand what you mean by the above.

[SAB76]

21 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

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?)

No Nicolaitans,

I appreciate your response to at least part of my question. I agree 100% with TAKING CARE is part of rule. But, you also said in the beginning of your sentence that it is "more than laying down the law, and enforcing it"....Does this enforcing the law include the wife? If so, what does this mean? I will use a for instance to make the illustration easier - If you find your wife has started listening to music that is anti-christian, and after you have asked her to quit, she either says no, or continues behind your back - What would you do?

Also, with the current definition of John Young in the below post " "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."

I would still like someone to tell me that the father in Luke 15 was a poor ruler of his house.

19 hours ago, John Young said:

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".

Firstly this is OPINION.

Secondly, Christ and the church is a mystery (Eph. 5:32) - Marriage between one man and one woman is NOT a mystery, BUT a marriage that involves one man (Christ) to millions/ billions of saved men & women that make up ONE BODY is. So to use the reason that a bishop's marriage is to be like Christs in this respect makes zero common sense.

So as long as I call many women one body (Jane is my right arm, Mary is my left arm, Jill is my left leg, Donna is my right leg, and Alice is my torso), I can justify polygamy? Sounds silly doesn't it?

Now as to the two wives AND really deepen the mystery of Christ and the church....God the Father was married to Israel (Jer. 3:14) & (Isa. 54:5); then DIVORCED her (Jer. 3:8); and will REMARRY her (Hos. 2:14 - 23) ALL THE WHILE, God the Son is married to the church. So not only does God have a divorce, he also has TWO wives...a Jewish wife & a "Gentile" wife. You do believe that Christ is God, correct? So I ask, how can Christ be the Bishop of our souls if he has been divorced, remarried and have a second wife AT THE SAME 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?!!

2) I am assuming that your example of the OT Priest, is your argument to say that a bishop today (NT Priest) should not do the same things? I agree 100%, BUT.....Bishops alone are NOT "NT Priests"....EVERY SAVED PERSON is a priest....(Rev. 1:6) not just bishops. Your example applies to EVERYONE. AND...this has nothing to do with a man still being called to bishop AFTER some circumstance or some "outside sin" in his life. The sins on the inside of the heart are far worse than the outside ones.

"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 say again that the "office" of a bishop is not a position that is given to a man by the local church, to take away when it deems appropriate. It is a gift from God to men for the benefit of the church. (Eph. 4:11)

The "The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this..." is speaking about a wicked priest that refuses to repent, and the "cutting off" is DEATH...the priest is still a Levite, that can not change. I am not advocating that a man can do as he pleases without consequence (I thought I made that clear when I said he might have to bishop in prison before being executed for corporal punishable crimes in a previous post?)

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. 

So I want to make sure I clearly and completely understand this personal belief.

What do you mean by "lower caliber" men? I am having trouble with what that means. Are you saying that if the bishops lived cleaner, more righteous, more holy lives than the common people, that the common people would have an example to look up to, and that would make the church better?

 To whom it may interest,

I have made comments and asked questions in red. I am open to anyone's replies to better understand what seems to be a common position on this matter.

Thank you.

 

[No Nicolaitans]

7 hours ago, SAB76 said:

you also said in the beginning of your sentence that it is "more than laying down the law, and enforcing it"....Does this enforcing the law include the wife?

My reason for saying that was because I was under the impression that with your emphasis on the word "rule" (in all capital letters), you were looking at ruling as one who is an enforcer of rules and regulations. I never got an impression that you saw it as anything more than that.

7 hours ago, SAB76 said:

If you find your wife has started listening to music that is anti-christian, and after you have asked her to quit, she either says no, or continues behind your back - What would you do?

I would hope that if I found that my wife was doing things that I thought were wrong biblically, I would talk with her and explain why I disagree, and I would assure her that I still love her deeply. I would hope that I would do my best to love her as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. I would continue to care for her, provide for her, and enjoy my life with her. Most importantly, just as each of us do things wrong every day...but Christ is still there...waiting with open arms...I would hope that my prayers and loving guidance would influence her. If so, I would be waiting with open arms. If not, I would still do what I'm supposed to do...love my wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.

7 hours ago, SAB76 said:

I would still like someone to tell me that the father in Luke 15 was a poor ruler of his house.

I can't tell you; the Bible doesn't say whether he was or not. All we have is that one window into his and his son's lives. In that one window, he was a wise, kind, caring, and compassionate father.

 

EDITED TO ADD: Regarding my wife...I've told her that if she ever leaves me, I'm going with her. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by No Nicolaitans

[No Nicolaitans]

Okay then.

 

[No Nicolaitans]

Thank you salyan...for getting the humor of the last portion of my post.

I have actually said that (on several occasions) to my wife.    

With that said, I don't know why SAB76 hasn't responded to my response to his response of my response to his response.

To be honest, I wasn't comfortable sharing "what I would do" (to his inquiry) since I don't know hide-nor-hair of who he is. He hasn't responded. I realize that folks are busy and may not be able to respond in a timely fashion, but it's been several days now.

First, I hope he's okay. I hope that his lack of response isn't due to misfortune.

Secondly, if he is okay, then shame on him for not responding.Therefore, I have learned a lesson...if anyone (who isn't a long-standing member here) ever asks me such personal details, I will no longer answer them. Instead, I will point them to this post...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...if I can remember and find it. LOLOLOL!!!  

Edited September 28, 2019 by No Nicolaitans
crazy grammar and spelling!!!

[OLD fashioned preacher]

On 9/28/2019 at 1:39 PM, No Nicolaitans said:

With that said, I don't know why SAB76 hasn't responded to my response to his response of my response to his response.

 I realize that folks are busy and may not be able to respond in a timely fashion, but it's been several days now.

I don't know what his current work schedule is but, due to the nature of his job, he often works(ed) 12 hrs a day / 7 days a week for up to a month and a half or 2 months at a time with a week or two home between jobs.

[No Nicolaitans]

No one understands crazy work schedules more than I...I won't go into mine other than to say that I can only wish mine were that simple. LOL!

That's not meant to diminish his schedule, nor is it meant to lay aside your intervention on his behalf...we all are different, and how we respond...or what affects us may not affect others in the same way.

I can only speak for myself, but if I knew that I may not be able to respond for several days (or weeks) to something that I purposely asked of someone else, I would let that be known (out of respect for anyone responding to me) that I may not be able to respond in a timely manner. It's just good manners.

...but that's my view on it.

[No Nicolaitans]

On 9/25/2019 at 10:04 PM, SAB76 said:

Now as to the two wives AND really deepen the mystery of Christ and the church....God the Father was married to Israel (Jer. 3:14) & (Isa. 54:5); then DIVORCED her (Jer. 3:8); and will REMARRY her (Hos. 2:14 - 23) ALL THE WHILE, God the Son is married to the church. So not only does God have a divorce, he also has TWO wives...a Jewish wife & a "Gentile" wife. You do believe that Christ is God, correct? So I ask, how can Christ be the Bishop of our souls if he has been divorced, remarried and have a second wife AT THE SAME TIME?

According to the law, if the original husband divorced his wife, and she married another man...then her second husband divorced her (or if he died)...if the original husband married her again...it would be an abomination. 

Is the LORD a sinner? Would he commit an abomination?

I believe that you have your timeline of events out of order...

The LORD said that he gave Israel a bill of divorce in Jeremiah 3:8, but just moments later in Jeremiah 3:14...after pleading for them to return to him...then the LORD said, "for I am married to you."

Divorced but still married...hmmm...

Why is LORD in all capital letters? Because it is referring to the Father alone...not the Son, and not the Holy Spirit.

Are you a follower of "Oneness Theology"?

If the godhead is one (as you seem to be inferring), then why did Christ pray to the Father? He could have just prayed to himself if there is no distinction...

Why did Christ say that the Father would send another Comforter after he departed? He could have sent the Holy Spirit himself if there is no distinction. For that matter, why say that "he" would send the Holy Spirit at all if there is no distinction?

Who was/is married to Israel? Whose bride is the church? Are the answers different?

Christ doesn't have a "Gentile" bride. His bride is made up of both Jews and Gentiles...and he sees no difference between them...

The Father had/has a bride; Christ has a bride. The Father divorced Israel but is still married to "her". Christ has never been divorced, nor will he ever be divorced.

Yes...the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. They are one in their attributes and goals. However, they are three separate persons who carry out distinct functions and roles.

So...getting back to the first part of this post...

If the LORD divorced his wife, and the LORD said (in the law) that it's an abomination to remarry his wife, how can he marry her again?

[SAB76]

No Nicolaitans,

I apologize that my slackness in responding has offended you. It is true that I am at work, as OLD fashioned preacher suggested, but it is more like 13 - 14 hrs per day with a lot of driving being part of it, and I am also heavily involved in bible and German language studies afterward which keeps me busy till 11pm or later. Which leaves only about 5 hrs for sleep. Again I apologize that it has taken me so long to respond.

On 9/26/2019 at 5:10 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

My reason for saying that was because I was under the impression that with your emphasis on the word "rule" (in all capital letters), you were looking at ruling as one who is an enforcer of rules and regulations. I never got an impression that you saw it as anything more than that.

I would hope that if I found that my wife was doing things that I thought were wrong biblically, I would talk with her and explain why I disagree, and I would assure her that I still love her deeply. I would hope that I would do my best to love her as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. I would continue to care for her, provide for her, and enjoy my life with her. Most importantly, just as each of us do things wrong every day...but Christ is still there...waiting with open arms...I would hope that my prayers and loving guidance would influence her. If so, I would be waiting with open arms. If not, I would still do what I'm supposed to do...love my wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.

I can't tell you; the Bible doesn't say whether he was or not. All we have is that one window into his and his son's lives. In that one window, he was a wise, kind, caring, and compassionate father.

As to the above, you are correct in your impression up to a point. As I stated before, I do believe that rule is love and care, but I do not believe it is ONLY "...loving them, tending to their needs, protecting them, nurturing them, guiding them, etc..." Part of a king's rule is to keep a civil realm, and punish evil doers, in order to keep the peace in society. Part of being an employer, is to keep the employees from getting out of hand and doing as they please when they please. So sometimes he punishes in the form of withholding bonuses or other company approved means. And, even a pastor at times must enact steps to eject an unruly member from the local church. So what I am trying to say is that the word rule does carry some negative aspects to it. This is why, I believe the scripture says "his HOUSE" and not "his home",  "his wife or children" or "his family". If a man has set up rules and has communicated the punishment or reward for these rules in his house (which, by the way, could be more than just his address), and then carries out the enforcement of said rules, then that is what makes him a good ruler, not whether those that are supposed to be in subjection to those rules decide whether they want to. Again that is why the scripture said "If a MAN know not how to rule..." and not "father" or "husband", because some men called to bishop are not married.

But, IF a preacher & teacher is still convinced that 1 Tim 3:4-5 includes the wife in its context, then he has to preach the FULL definition of the word rule. Every aspect of the loving them, tending to their needs, protecting them, nurturing them, guiding them, and PUNISHING them. So I ask again, is this what is being suggested towards the wife?

As to the father in Luke 15. Any preacher, whether Baptist, Methodist, Charismatic,  Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc. and probably even Catholic, has preached this message in their life, and has likened the father to God the Father every time. So to say "I can't tell you" is ducking the question without ducking the question. It sounds like a politicians answer. According to some's definitions on here, since both sons went prodigal, this made the father a bad ruler of his house. For that matter, since God couldn't keep Israel from going prodigal, even though he gave them rules and punishment when they broke them, then that makes him a bad ruler? I'm not sure why this is so hard to see as to how stupid this teaching is. Yet I just heard a preacher the other day say, that if his children were to go prodigal, that he would have to step down from the "office". I know of a man that was denied access to a prison, where men needed to hear the gospel, because the pastor of the local church that sponsored the work, found out the man had been divorced. Do you think that pastor went down and took over the meeting? No, he just shut the door on the work. I guess those "wicked" prisoners didn't deserve God's forgiveness, and FORGETFULNESS, just like that divorced preacher didn't deserve the forgetfulness from the "brethren". I would caution any reading this to see what the children of Esau and Edom did in Obadiah 1 to the children of Israel when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem. They hindered their escape and Babylon was able to catch and slaughter many of God's people. Some on here are doing just as them, blocking and keeping Christians from escaping, and holding them back to allow the Devil to pierce them through with the darts of depression, defeat and despair. Who are we to judge any of God's children on whether he is "qualified" to be a bishop, and on such a petty, insignificant matter. And especially if it is something that he had no control over. The scripture says he is not to be a brawler as well. So if he EVER (kindergarten - this day) got into a fist fight then he is not qualified for the "office" of a bishop? Come on, really? This is not Christlike, this is Pharisaical. Christ accepts you in any condition, forgives, and forgets. Pharisees, reject those not like them, put down, burden, and keep men from coming to Christ.

10 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

According to the law, if the original husband divorced his wife, and she married another man...then her second husband divorced her (or if he died)...if the original husband married her again...it would be an abomination. 

Is the LORD a sinner? Would he commit an abomination?

I believe that you have your timeline of events out of order...

The LORD said that he gave Israel a bill of divorce in Jeremiah 3:8, but just moments later in Jeremiah 3:14...after pleading for them to return to him...then the LORD said, "for I am married to you."

Divorced but still married...hmmm...

You are absolutely, 100% correct on the facts of the Mosaic Law given to the JEWISH people in the OLD TESTAMENT. But, last I checked these were nailed to the cross, and that they had been taken away (Col.2:14).

But, regardless…you are still incorrect on your understanding of the law. Let’s read the scripture, and see what it says:

Deut. 24:

       1.       When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

       2.       And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

       3.       And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband  die, which took her to be his wife;

       4.       Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

        Ok, about this question you have asked about the law of Moses concerning a divorced wife and the first husband remarrying her. You are missing a key element from the description of the wife that married a latter husband when it comes to God the Father and Israel....Who is her latter husband? Who is she said to have married after God wrote the bill of divorcement? Now, you could guess or speculate, but where does it say that Israel has married so and so, and has a latter husband? He and Israel will be reconciled. So while there may be an argument to prove that he is the husband then of still "one" wife. The fact remains that 1) he was divorced, and while his reconciliation would, I ASSUME, put him back in the good graces of the brethren at the local church to reinstate him to the "office" that they control (that was sarcasm by the way), how does one justify him 2) not being able to rule his own house well, and because of the hardness of his heart, his wife departed to play the whore, and rebel with strange gods at every opportunity?

“The LORD said that he gave Israel a bill of divorce in Jeremiah 3:8, but just moments later in Jeremiah 3:14...after pleading for them to return to him...then the LORD said, "for I am married to you."

Divorced but still married...hmmm...”

I'm not sure what you’re saying here. I will need some clarification.

Are you saying that God is divorced, but still married? Or are you saying that God lied, and didn’t really give her a bill of divorcement, after he said he did? Surely this is not what you are suggesting?

If you are using verse 14 as your proof text for God still being married to her, I suggest you read the whole context…Verse 14 - When did he bring them to Zion? Verse 15 - Where are the pastors after his own heart? Verse 16 – When shall they say no more, The ark of the covenant?  Verse 17 – When will Jerusalem be called the throne of the LORD? Verse 18 – When will the house of Judah and the house of Israel walk together? Verse 19 – When shall they call him, My Father; and shalt not turn away from me.?  - You are quoting FUTURE passages, speaking of the millennium. None of these things have happened yet. He is prophesying about when he is remarried to her.

Why is LORD in all capital letters? Because it is referring to the Father alone...not the Son, and not the Holy Spirit.

Are you a follower of "Oneness Theology"?

If the godhead is one (as you seem to be inferring), then why did Christ pray to the Father? He could have just prayed to himself if there is no distinction...

Why did Christ say that the Father would send another Comforter after he departed? He could have sent the Holy Spirit himself if there is no distinction. For that matter, why say that "he" would send the Holy Spirit at all if there is no distinction?

Who was/is married to Israel? Whose bride is the church? Are the answers different?

Christ doesn't have a "Gentile" bride. His bride is made up of both Jews and Gentiles...and he sees no difference between them...

On this statement: While yes, I understand there is no distinction of Jew or Gentile IN the body of Christ. Outside the body, there are only 2 types of people:Jew and not Jew, or Gentile. And since the Bride of Christ is definitely not a Jewish wife (That is Israel), I called her a "Gentile" bride in quotation marks.

The Father had/has a bride; Christ has a bride. The Father divorced Israel but is still married to "her". Christ has never been divorced, nor will he ever be divorced.

Yes...the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. They are one in their attributes and goals. However, they are three separate persons who carry out distinct functions and roles.

I’m not sure what to say to this one. I don't believe I have never met a Baptist that doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ was not God, manifest in the flesh. My first knee jerk reaction to this statement takes me right to 1 Jn. 2:22; 1 Jn. 4:3; and 2 Jn. 1:7. I don’t want to misrepresent what you are actually saying, but surely you believe that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God? What has me confused and concerned, is the statements about them being “one in their attributes, and goals” and "three separate persons". The verse does not say “These three are one in attributes and goals” nor that they are "three separate persons"....it says “For there are three (there is no word "persons" here) that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (PERIOD, nothing about attributes or goals) And there are three (again, there is no word "persons" here) that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (This a reference to the witnesses of verse 6 that point to the fact that Christ is God manifest in the flesh)

Again I am not sure what you are suggesting, or what Oneness theology is, but I believe in God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit. 3 separate manifestations, separate in their functions, yet all three are the one and only God. I do not claim to understand it completely, as it is an impossible thing with us, and Paul calls it a mystery (1 Tim. 3:16) The only sense I can make of it is that even though we are 3 separate parts (Body, Soul, Spirit), they make up only one person.

But now, Christ was all man as well as all God. This is why Jesus said to the Pharisees in Jn 8:58 "

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am

". I AM, is the name God gave to Moses to tell the children of Israel if they asked who sent him, and then the scripture calls Christ, "The mighty God, the everlasting Father" in Isa.

9:6. So while he was God, there was also the spirit of man, and physical body that he received from being born through Mary, that was separate and in subjection to God the Father, which was in heaven, at the same time Christ was on earth, working, eating, resting, sleeping, using the bathroom, etc. all the while being himself, God. Thus he spoke of God the Father as a separate person, prayed to God the Father, and cried at the end of his earthly life as a man rejected by God the Father..."My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Again I do not claim to know every aspect or be able to comprehend the whole thing or the distinctions of how he was able to make those disconnects from his flesh and being all God. All I know is what the scripture says, and I just believe it, knowing one day, I'll understand it.

So...getting back to the first part of this post...

If the LORD divorced his wife, and the LORD said (in the law) that it's an abomination to remarry his wife, how can he marry her again?

 

[No Nicolaitans]

7 hours ago, SAB76 said:

No Nicolaitans,

I apologize that my slackness in responding has offended you. It is true that I am at work, as OLD fashioned preacher suggested, but it is more like 13 - 14 hrs per day with a lot of driving being part of it, and I am also heavily involved in bible and German language studies afterward which keeps me busy till 11pm or later. Which leaves only about 5 hrs for sleep. Again I apologize that it has taken me so long to respond.

I understand. I hope you will be able to slow down at some point. I have worked like this for over 20 years. It takes a heavy toll on a person...at least, it has done so to me. I sometimes just stay at work and sleep two or three hours on an inflatable mattress, because I would get even less sleep if I went home and drove back to work. Please slow down if (and when) you can.

7 hours ago, SAB76 said:

This is why, I believe the scripture says "his HOUSE" and not "his home",  "his wife or children" or "his family". If a man has set up rules and has communicated the punishment or reward for these rules in his house (which, by the way, could be more than just his address), and then carries out the enforcement of said rules, then that is what makes him a good ruler, not whether those that are supposed to be in subjection to those rules decide whether they want to. Again that is why the scripture said "If a MAN know not how to rule..." and not "father" or "husband", because some men called to bishop are not married.

But, IF a preacher & teacher is still convinced that 1 Tim 3:4-5 includes the wife in its context, then he has to preach the FULL definition of the word rule. Every aspect of the loving them, tending to their needs, protecting them, nurturing them, guiding them, and PUNISHING them. So I ask again, is this what is being suggested towards the wife?

I'm afraid that this is one area that we will probably never agree on. I recall from somewhere else on this forum, that you don't believe in looking at the Greek or Hebrew definitions. I do. I see that at times, by looking up Greek/Hebrew definitions, it will clarify definitions even more. I also see it as another avenue in which to "study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

In the Greek, "house" and "home" have basically the same meaning; however, "house" is more in-depth and includes those who live in the "house"...which includes the wife.

I feel we are running in circles. We both believe the same definition regarding "rule"...the different aspects of it. Yes, I would say that punishment applies to the wife as well; however, how one deals with a wife is far different than how one deals with all of the other examples you gave. Yes, there have been times; in which, I've had to "enforce rules" with my wife. I certainly won't go into details. During those times, it wasn't pleasurable for her nor me. However, I continued to love, provide, and care for her. One can enforce rules without being a tyrant and a bully. One can enforce rules without the attitude of "it's my way or the highway".

8 hours ago, SAB76 said:

As to the father in Luke 15. Any preacher, whether Baptist, Methodist, Charismatic,  Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc. and probably even Catholic, has preached this message in their life, and has likened the father to God the Father every time. So to say "I can't tell you" is ducking the question without ducking the question. It sounds like a politicians answer. According to some's definitions on here, since both sons went prodigal, this made the father a bad ruler of his house.

How is that a political answer? It's the truth. Can you tell us any more about the father than what is revealed in the story? The only indication that I see of him being a good ruler before the incident was that the younger son recalled how well the father's servants were taken care of. We have nothing after the story. So no, I'm not ducking the question nor giving a political answer...I'm answering as honestly as I can.

Both sons did not go prodigal. Only the younger son did...

prodigal

adjective

1. spending money or resources freely and recklessly; wastefully extravagant.

2. having or giving something on a lavish scale.

 

noun

a person who spends money in a recklessly extravagant way.

Both sons got their inheritance at the same time, but only the younger son went prodigal. The older son didn't go prodigal; however, during that one moment, the older son showed anger, jealousy, and rebellion toward his father. Despite this, the father...rather than punishing him, he spoke to him in love and compassion; which at times, is a much more effective method to "enforce" others with.

8 hours ago, SAB76 said:

Who are we to judge any of God's children on whether he is "qualified" to be a bishop

Well, we can judge by what God's word says about it.

8 hours ago, SAB76 said:

The scripture says he is not to be a brawler as well. So if he EVER (kindergarten - this day) got into a fist fight then he is not qualified for the "office" of a bishop? Come on, really?

We're talking about a man who is in the position of a bishop not being a brawler...not what he did as a child.

8 hours ago, SAB76 said:

Ok, about this question you have asked about the law of Moses concerning a divorced wife and the first husband remarrying her. You are missing a key element from the description of the wife that married a latter husband when it comes to God the Father and Israel....Who is her latter husband? Who is she said to have married after God wrote the bill of divorcement?

I was just trying to see how much you relied upon using Old Testament law to justify things.

8 hours ago, SAB76 said:

Are you saying that God is divorced, but still married?

No, I'm saying that God said that. I don't understand it, but that's what it says.

8 hours ago, SAB76 said:

If you are using verse 14 as your proof text for God still being married to her, I suggest you read the whole context…Verse 14 - When did he bring them to Zion? Verse 15 - Where are the pastors after his own heart? Verse 16 – When shall they say no more, The ark of the covenant?  Verse 17 – When will Jerusalem be called the throne of the LORD? Verse 18 – When will the house of Judah and the house of Israel walk together? Verse 19 – When shall they call him, My Father; and shalt not turn away from me.?  - You are quoting FUTURE passages, speaking of the millennium. None of these things have happened yet. He is prophesying about when he is remarried to her.

(14:a)  Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you:

I am - present tense

(14:b)  and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

I will - future tense

15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

I will - future tense

16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

all future tense

17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

I won't keep underlining things; they're all future

18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.

future

So, the context is all future...except for the one part that you're trying to force into the future.

8 hours ago, SAB76 said:

I’m not sure what to say to this one. I don't believe I have never met a Baptist that doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ was not God, manifest in the flesh. My first knee jerk reaction to this statement takes me right to 1 Jn. 2:22; 1 Jn. 4:3; and 2 Jn. 1:7. I don’t want to misrepresent what you are actually saying, but surely you believe that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God? What has me confused and concerned, is the statements about them being “one in their attributes, and goals” and "three separate persons". The verse does not say “These three are one in attributes and goals” nor that they are "three separate persons"....it says “For there are three (there is no word "persons" here) that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (PERIOD, nothing about attributes or goals) And there are three (again, there is no word "persons" here) that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (This a reference to the witnesses of verse 6 that point to the fact that Christ is God manifest in the flesh)

Of course I believe that. All three members of the godhead are God, and they are one. Yet, they are also three distinct individuals (or persons). The word "prodigal" isn't in the Bible, but you used the word prodigal to describe the son who left his father's house and lived by wasteful and extravagant spending. I think most people have the wrong understanding in what prodigal means, but the word prodigal does explain the way the younger son lived. So, there was nothing wrong with you describing him as prodigal.

At the same time, while those verses that you quoted don't mention the word person, each member of the godhead exhibits the traits that define what a person consists of. There is more to being a "person" than being a human being.

Which brings me to Oneness Theology. Since you're unaware of what it is, Oneness theology basically teaches that there is no Trinity; there is only Jesus Christ...no Father, and no Holy Spirit. However, there are some off-shoots of it, that will agree that there is a Father and Holy Spirit; however, they are just different manifestations of Jesus Christ.

 

 

[SAB76]

15 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I'm afraid that this is one area that we will probably never agree on. I recall from somewhere else on this forum, that you don't believe in looking at the Greek or Hebrew definitions. I do. I see that at times, by looking up Greek/Hebrew definitions, it will clarify definitions even more. I also see it as another avenue in which to "study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

In the Greek, "house" and "home" have basically the same meaning; however, "house" is more in-depth and includes those who live in the "house"...which includes the wife.

I feel we are running in circles. We both believe the same definition regarding "rule"...the different aspects of it. Yes, I would say that punishment applies to the wife as well; however, how one deals with a wife is far different than how one deals with all of the other examples you gave. Yes, there have been times; in which, I've had to "enforce rules" with my wife. I certainly won't go into details. During those times, it wasn't pleasurable for her nor me. However, I continued to love, provide, and care for her. One can enforce rules without being a tyrant and a bully. One can enforce rules without the attitude of "it's my way or the highway".

Yes, we agree to disagree. And yes, I do not believe in going back to the Greek or Hebrew in order to clear up the plain English.  

And I disagree with you on “punishing” a wife in any fashion or form. 

How is that a political answer? It's the truth. Can you tell us any more about the father than what is revealed in the story? The only indication that I see of him being a good ruler before the incident was that the younger son recalled how well the father's servants were taken care of. We have nothing after the story. So no, I'm not ducking the question nor giving a political answer...I'm answering as honestly as I can.

I think you are missing the main point of what I am asking then...It has been said on this thread, with others saying AMEN, and I quote “ "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." The point is...IF a wife or a child leaves the “house” or is unruly, then it is the husbands/ fathers fault because of his hard heart, and I quote... “regardless of fault.” So, if this is what is taught by some on here, then they HAVE to also preach that the father of Luke 15 was hard hearted, and that is why the son left, and why the other son rebelled.  

Now, again there is not one preacher that preaches this passage and even eludes to this fact.  

So, it is OK, when one preaches about the prodigal son and the father, to ignore the hardness of his heart that drove his children to rebel against him, and just preach the longsuffering, grace, forgiveness, and mercy of the father? And lastly, if this is true, then this teaching HAS to apply to God the Father, not only with the children of Israel, but also with us when we rebel against his word, and sin. It was ultimately God’s hard heart that drove us away. 

Now, I understand that this was not your quote, but no one has called this quote wrong, except me. And I will continue to say it. This ridiculous teaching is putting good men, who are being looked down upon by pharisaical, holier than thous, and willingly getting out or being forced out what God called them to do.  

I stand with David in the cave of Adullam, “And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him..." 

So, for any reading this post that have had a divorce, trouble on the homefront, or ANY other thing that some on this thread here teach are unforgivable & unforgettable sins, and try to hinder you from what God called you to do, by convincing you that you are not worthy anymore to preach and teach. I say run to Christ to the cave of Adullam, he will not cast you out, he will not shackle you....He will take you just as you are, and will free you from the distress, debt, and discontent that has you weighted down by these false teaching Pharisees. He is known for taking your pain and turning it into passion, taking your mess and turning it into a masterpiece. There is nothing that God can't do, including forgiving and FORGETTING any sin...including divorce. 

Both sons did not go prodigal. Only the younger son did...

prodigal

adjective

1. spending money or resources freely and recklessly; wastefully extravagant.

2. having or giving something on a lavish scale.

 

noun

a person who spends money in a recklessly extravagant way.

Both sons got their inheritance at the same time, but only the younger son went prodigal. The older son didn't go prodigal; however, during that one moment, the older son showed anger, jealousy, and rebellion toward his father. Despite this, the father...rather than punishing him, he spoke to him in love and compassion; which at times, is a much more effective method to "enforce" others with.

I agree and concede with your correcting me on my definition of prodigal.  

Yet my thought, which I did not openly say, and I apologize for not clarifying, was that the elder brother may not have physically left the fathers house, but he most certainly did in his heart. Notice, he says that his brother devoured his living with harlots? Where was that in the story? It never said that he spent a dime on prostitutes. What it reveals is what was in the elder brother's heart...that is what he would have done if he would have been out there. So, in a sense the elder brother left the fathers house in his heart, and this is just as sinful as the very act. For God looks on the heart.  

See, some think because that they don’t go out and drink, smoke, cuss, steal, cheat on their wives, or run with people of “lower caliber” that they are not sinning and going prodigal. But, God looks at a man's heart and what is on the inside of it...the bitterness, the anger, the strife, contention, wrath, emulation, the evil wicked thoughts, the lust, the sowing discord, the lying and unruly tongue, and on and on the list goes. The prodigal son was prodigal long before he left the fathers house, just like the elder brother. A man does not become a sinner because he sins, he sins because he is a sinner. 

Well, we can judge by what God's word says about it.

We're talking about a man who is in the position of a bishop not being a brawler...not what he did as a child.

So then, with this statement....the teaching is, as long as the man has had the divorce before his acceptance from the local church of a pastorate, then he is able to be qualified?  

I was just trying to see how much you relied upon using Old Testament law to justify things.

No, I'm saying that God said that. I don't understand it, but that's what it says.

We will once again have to agree to disagree.  

(14:a)  Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you:

I am - present tense

(14:b)  and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

I will - future tense

15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

I will - future tense

16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

all future tense

17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

I won't keep underlining things; they're all future

18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.

future

So, the context is all future...except for the one part that you're trying to force into the future.

We will once again have to agree to disagree. My view, and perhaps I am wrong, is the present to the future split occurs at the semicolon of verse 14. He goes from addressing children to addressing his wife. Guess we will find out in Glory. 

Of course I believe that. All three members of the godhead are God, and they are one. Yet, they are also three distinct individuals (or persons). The word "prodigal" isn't in the Bible, but you used the word prodigal to describe the son who left his father's house and lived by wasteful and extravagant spending. I think most people have the wrong understanding in what prodigal means, but the word prodigal does explain the way the younger son lived. So, there was nothing wrong with you describing him as prodigal.

At the same time, while those verses that you quoted don't mention the word person, each member of the godhead exhibits the traits that define what a person consists of. There is more to being a "person" than being a human being.

Which brings me to Oneness Theology. Since you're unaware of what it is, Oneness theology basically teaches that there is no Trinity; there is only Jesus Christ...no Father, and no Holy Spirit. However, there are some off-shoots of it, that will agree that there is a Father and Holy Spirit; however, they are just different manifestations of Jesus Christ.

If that is its teaching, then I am most definitely not a Oneness believer.  

My belief on the trinity is as such:  

I believe in God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit. 3 separate manifestations of the same person, and all three parts are the one and only God. Able to separate each part individually, yet at the same time not be separate. Omnipresent. Just as we are here on this earth presently, yet also seated with him in heavenly places at the same time. (Eph. 2:6) I do not claim to understand it completely.    

The only sense I can make of it is that even though we are 3 separate parts (Body, Soul, Spirit), they make up only one person, yet because we are IN Christ, we are at this very moment with him seated in heaven........So, at least for me, the ability to comprehend the trinity is very limited.   

But now, Jesus Christ was something altogether different. He was the only begotten of God. God was his Father, and Mary was the man side of him’s mother. Yet she was not the God side of him’s mother. Mary was never, ever, EVER the mother of God. (Hopefully I was clear on that)  

He was all man as well as all God. This is why Jesus said to the Pharisees in Jn 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am". I AM, is the name God gave to Moses to tell the children of Israel if they asked who sent him, and then the scripture calls Christ, "The mighty God, the everlasting Father" in Isa. 9:6.  

So while Christ is God, there was also the spirit of man, and physical body that he received from being born through Mary, that was separate and in subjection to God the Father, which was in heaven, at the same time Christ was on earth, working, eating, resting, sleeping, using the bathroom, etc. all the while being himself, God. Paul calls it a mystery (1 Tim. 3:16). This is why he spoke to God the Father as a separate person, prayed to God the Father, and cried at the end of his earthly life as a man rejected by God the Father..."My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Again I do not claim to know every aspect or be able to comprehend the whole thing or the distinctions of how he was able to make those disconnects from his flesh and being all God. All I know is what the scripture says, and I just believe it, knowing one day, I'll understand it. 

 

No Nicolaitans,

I will be continuing my studies after work this week and it will more than likely be some time before I am back on.

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by SAB76
Clarified a sentence.

[No Nicolaitans]

31 minutes ago, SAB76 said:

No Nicolaitans,

I will be continuing my studies after work this week and it will more than likely be some time before I am back on.

 

Okay. Thank you.

36 minutes ago, SAB76 said:

Yes, we agree to disagree. And yes, I do not believe in going back to the Greek or Hebrew in order to clear up the plain English.

I understand. However, I hope that you do take into account that the meanings of some English words have changed over time. If you don't want to look at Greek or Hebrew definitions, here's one source that is interesting (and enjoyable) to look over. Robert Cawdrey's  "A Table Alphabeticall". It is considered the earliest dictionary...and...it's from the 1600s. It was actually produced a few years before the King James was. Though it's words aren't very large in number, it does give definitions that may have changed over time...especially what some words meant in the 1600s compared to what they mean today.

https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/work/etexts/caw1604w_removed.htm

32 minutes ago, SAB76 said:

And I disagree with you on “punishing” a wife in any fashion or form.

I didn't say that I punished my wife. I said that I had to enforce rules. 

44 minutes ago, SAB76 said:

I think you are missing the main point of what I am asking then...It has been said on this thread, with others saying AMEN, and I quote “ "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."

I can't answer for that. You'll need to ask for further clarification from the one who posted it. 

I will say this though...in my understanding from situations that I'm aware of, the leading cause for why the wife left the husband was due to the husband no longer showing his wife proper love and affection. It wasn't money issues, it wasn't physical abuse, or anything else...it was for a lack of love. I guess God knew what he was talking about when he commanded husbands to love their wives...

I'm not saying that is the only cause for why wives leave, but it is a major cause.

1 hour ago, SAB76 said:

So then, with this statement....the teaching is, as long as the man has had the divorce before his acceptance from the local church of a pastorate, then he is able to be qualified?

God allowed divorce for the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts, but in the beginning, it wasn't so.

Now, I'm not claiming that I'm right. I believe I am, but I'm always willing to be wrong. So...this is my view on it...

Christ explicitly said in Matthew 19:7-9...

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

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.

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.

So, according to God, if a man divorces his wife for any reason (other than fornication) and marries another woman, he commits adultery. So, in God's eyes, the husband is bound to his first wife unless the wife committed fornication. Later, Paul addressed the issue in 1 Corinthians 7:15 and added that if an unbelieving spouse departs, the believer isn't under bondage.

Therefore, in my understanding, those are the only two biblical reasons for divorce. 

So, the question arises, can a man pastor who has divorced for biblical reasons? Well, it certainly depends on who you ask. If you ask me, I would say, "No. He shouldn't pastor. Nor should he be a deacon." 

Yes, God will forgive any sin. Yes, God can still use a man or woman (who is divorced) in mighty ways.

However, the qualifications for pastors and deacons are also explicit. They are to be the husband of one wife. If a man is divorced and remarries, he has two wives in God's eyes. The sin may be forgiven, but that doesn't negate the truth that he has two wives.

What if he is divorced for one of the two biblical reasons? I would point to the qualifications...the husband of one wife. I know that you don't care for Greek; however, the word "one" in Greek...aside from meaning "one"...also carries the connotation of "first". 

Now, I've said what I believe about it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong...but I really don't care to go around and around about it any longer. 

Take care, and don't work yourself to death.

[SAB76]

On 10/7/2019 at 1:04 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

Now, I've said what I believe about it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong...but I really don't care to go around and around about it any longer.

This is fine, because I feel the same way. We and everyone that has contributed to this thread since I spoke up are going round and round.

I feel I have stated my view of the scripture as it reads, as opposed to all others giving me the “meaning” of the scripture as they teach it. And while it has been enlightening to learn how the IFB brethren view themselves, and others of “lower caliber”(John Young), it is also extremely disheartening to learn that there is such Pharisieism among the group that is supposed to be the closest to the sound doctrines of the bible.

With that said I will respond to this post, but understand if there is no reply.

I honestly thought that I would have gotten some support on this subject here, and that there wouldn’t have been the immense Phariseical push back that I have received. Do any of you actually pray “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”? And if you say you don’t, I implore to reread what is being said in your posts, because that is exactly what is being said…You are teaching that the bishop is to be “better”(married to one wife is better than being married more than once, because he is a man of “higher caliber”) than other men in order to be a bishop. As I said in my introduction, I came across this site seeking info on PBI. And when I saw the negative things being said about Dr. Ruckman, and the false teaching, that he or anyone was “disqualified” from what God called him to do because of a misinterpretation of the words OF and WIFE, I wanted to give my 2 cents as it were, and then the rebuttals started pouring in.

I have tried my best to show God is forgiving and forgetting of all sin, and never goes back on what he has called anyone to do (Rom. 11:29), and that anyone can get back up after being in a pit (of either his or someone else’s doing) (Jer. 38:6) and continue preaching and teaching others the word of God, continue preaching to the masses in an attempt to see souls saved, go and stand on a foreign field and preach and teach others blinded by the god of this world, and go out and preach to the lost, and rebuke, correct, instruct and exhort the church with a humble attitude, knowing that no one is perfect, and everyone needs time and patience to grow into what God wants to make them, not what “the church” expects them to be.

Again, I never thought that a teaching of forgiveness and exhortation to those that are or have been through a difficult and troubling time would be met with such a confrontational and perhaps a slight rebuking spirit. As I am being told that I am teaching false doctrine by encouraging others to free themselves from the shackles of false hindrance and guilt, realize that just because the Devil was able to score a home run on destroying their marriage, that our great Captain still wants them on the pitcher’s mound, and to get back out there, brush off the dust of doubt and depression, pick the book back up, and keep pitching the word of God out to the lost and to the Christian, correctly and rightly divided. Can’t you see the simplicity in this? If you were the coach of Roger Clemens, and his wife left him, and took his kids while he was employed by you, you wouldn’t demote him to ball boy, or any other “lower office” on the ball field. You hired him to pitch. So why would you think that God wouldn’t do the same? He called the man to preach…he didn’t call his wife or his children. If the wife and kids stay, thank the Lord. If the wife and kids leave, thank the Lord. (1 Thess. 5:18) It does not change what God called you to do.

 

On 10/7/2019 at 1:04 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

I will say this though...in my understanding from situations that I'm aware of, the leading cause for why the wife left the husband was due to the husband no longer showing his wife proper love and affection. It wasn't money issues, it wasn't physical abuse, or anything else...it was for a lack of love. I guess God knew what he was talking about when he commanded husbands to love their wives...

I'm not saying that is the only cause for why wives leave, but it is a major cause.

I would like to take an objective view to this.

In 1970 divorces, in America, skyrocketed, and have steadily risen since. So what happened? According to the view on this thread, men on a national scale, seemingly over night at the turn of the decade became hard hearted.

Or, did a Governor, named Reagan, sign a “no fault” divorce bill into effect that every state afterward adopted and have made divorces as easy as changing clothes. Did a man open a flood gate for rebellious spouses (MEN and WOMEN) and give them an easy way out of a promise and vow they made? And, according to the scriptures you quote in Matthew, if it is the men that are hard hearted, aren't they the ones supposed to be putting away wives? So, why is it that wives file for over 80% of all divorces?

These are hard objective facts. There is so much more to the issue of divorce than just blaming most fault on the "unloving" "hard hearted" men. In the cases I have seen, my subjective view, it is mostly the men that were doing their best to be good husbands, love their wives and provide for their them and the children, and it was the mostly the men that were willing to work on improving the marriage when issues arose, and it was mostly the women that chose the easy way (No Fault) out of the marriage, taking with them nice fat child support and alimony checks in order to be able to live very comfortably without being in subjection to a man. Yes, some men are dogs, abusive, and downright horrible and dishonorable, but it has been my experience that they are the minority.

 

On 10/7/2019 at 1:04 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

God allowed divorce for the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts, but in the beginning, it wasn't so.

Now, I'm not claiming that I'm right. I believe I am, but I'm always willing to be wrong. So...this is my view on it...

Christ explicitly said in Matthew 19:7-9...

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

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.

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.

So, according to God, if a man divorces his wife for any reason (other than fornication) and marries another woman, he commits adultery. So, in God's eyes, the husband is bound to his first wife unless the wife committed fornication. Later, Paul addressed the issue in 1 Corinthians 7:15 and added that if an unbelieving spouse departs, the believer isn't under bondage.

Therefore, in my understanding, those are the only two biblical reasons for divorce. 

So, the question arises, can a man pastor who has divorced for biblical reasons? Well, it certainly depends on who you ask. If you ask me, I would say, "No. He shouldn't pastor. Nor should he be a deacon." 

Yes, God will forgive any sin. Yes, God can still use a man or woman (who is divorced) in mighty ways.

However, the qualifications for pastors and deacons are also explicit. They are to be the husband of one wife. If a man is divorced and remarries, he has two wives in God's eyes. The sin may be forgiven, but that doesn't negate the truth that he has two wives.

First, it seems I am seeing a very common thing amongst all on this thread. It seems that most if not all keep going back to the Old Testament law or during the time of Christ when the law was still in effect in order to prove your doctrine. I am really curious why this is? Are we not in the New Testament, and no longer UNDER the burden of the laws and ordinances? Christ nailed these to his cross, why are you pulling them off and putting men under it? Why do you think he said that "his yoke is easy, and that his burden is light"?

Second, besides the fact the question being brought up is about Mosaic Law, as stated above, I would point you to the first 4 words of verses 8 & 9 of the scriptures you are quoting in Matthew. Who is Christ talking to? Where is the church located in these passages? If the church is not there at this time, why do you keep bringing her back to a passage spoken by a Jewish Messiah to Jewish people receiving instruction for a Jewish kingdom? I say again we are not under Jewish, Mosaic Law, nor should we be looking for instruction for an earthly kingdom.

Third, if a second marriage is a sin, and you are married to two women, how exactly does God forgive something that you are willfully doing every second of your life? Do you have to ask for forgiveness for being married to this adulteress woman every night, and she must ask forgiveness for being married to an hard hearted adulteress man every night? And if remarriage is a sin, please enlighten me on 1 Cor. 7:27-28, where it clearly says it is NOT a sin, and I find no conditions or reasons for the spouse being loosed to change it into a sin.

And lastly, I would like to point out the double standard of your doctrine. When I brought up about the bishop not being a brawler ever in his lifetime….You said and I quote “We're talking about a man who is in the position of a bishop not being a brawler...not what he did as a child.” Yet, of your own admission, the application of the word “in” only applies to every qualification except the one about his marriage. So your own teaching has double standards, when it fits your choosing. They either ALL apply while "in" office, or they ALL apply for his entire lifetime. Which is it? There is no time restraint conditions when he lists the qualifications, AND to point out the biggest hole in your argument, there is the fact that the man is NOT "in" the office as you stated...Paul says "If a man DESIRES the office..." he is to be blameless in all areas of the list. So, if the qualifications apply to his entire life, then he must be blameless his entire life. I'm sure we can agree this is impossible, therefore it must apply at his "desire" which means that he could have been a brawler, he could have been not apt to teach, he could have been not of good behavior, and he could have been married to two women at the same time. Therefore, I teach it is not a man TO one WOMAN, but that he is to have ONE WIFE while he is a HUSBAND, or as it states ..."the husband OF one wife"

 

On 10/7/2019 at 1:04 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

I didn't say that I punished my wife. I said that I had to enforce rules.

And finally, I NEVER said you punished your wife. Another example of words being put where they are not.

You said, and I quote “I feel we are running in circles. We both believe the same definition regarding "rule"...the different aspects of it. Yes, I would say that punishment applies to the wife as well; however, how one deals with a wife is far different than how one deals with all of the other examples you gave. Yes, there have been times; in which, I've had to "enforce rules" with my wife.”

I said, and I quote “And I disagree with you on “punishing” a wife in any fashion or form.”

[John Young]

17 minutes ago, SAB76 said:

it is also extremely disheartening to learn that there is such Pharisieism....Phariseical push back that I have received...

Wow. It is not Pharisaical to give God our best and to be Qualified. To say that it is Pharisaical to hold men to the NT qualifications of a church office is certainly not right. No one ever said they could not serve or be very valuable to God. Nor that "we are better than they" or that they have no forgiveness. Only that they should not hold on to an office to which they are not qualified.