Pensacola Bible institute

[DaveW]

I gotta say that I am distressed at the broad accusations made by SAB and directed at ANYONE who disagrees with his view.....

I find it offensive.

And juvenile.

[No Nicolaitans]

4 hours ago, SAB76 said:

and never goes back on what he has called anyone to do (Rom. 11:29)

That verse isn't talking about the "gifts and calling" of what God calls men to do...aka...spiritual gifts.

If you take it in its appropriate context, it's talking about God's promise to save his people Israel. He "called" certain men (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and gave them "gifts" (promises) that will one day be fulfilled. Those are the gifts and calling Paul is speaking of, and God will not repent of them.

4 hours ago, SAB76 said:

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?

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If all scripture is profitable for doctrine, that includes the old testament and when Christ was still on earth before his resurrection and ascension. The issue is that it must be rightly divided. Why did I quote Christ and what he said about divorce? Well...first, because of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Secondly, because while we aren't under the law, the law DOES show us how God views sin. No man could live up to the law, but God gave them the law to show them that they were sinners. So indeed...the words of Christ do apply. The law is a reproof of man's sin, it provides correction and instruction in righteousness. We may not be under the law, but we certainly can learn a lot from it. If God was opposed to "something" in the old testament, he's still opposed to it.

5 hours ago, SAB76 said:

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..."

What? Where did that come from? No sir...please read the verses again...

1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

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

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

It appears to me that all of the qualifications appear to apply to when the bishop is in office. Naturally, if a man desires to be a bishop, then he should also meet these qualifications beforehand.

5 hours ago, SAB76 said:

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?

If we can't use what Christ said when the law was still in effect, why did you say the following...

5 hours ago, SAB76 said:

Why do you think he said that "his yoke is easy, and that his burden is light"?

Wasn't he speaking to Israel? Weren't they still under the law?

5 hours ago, SAB76 said:

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.”

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. However, I still stand by what I said. I notice that you enlarged and made the font bold in one part, but you neglected to do so on what followed.

I remember as a child, I would have much rather my dad spanked me as a punishment, because when he would instead talk to me about what I had done wrong, it was more effective. That "hurt" me more than a spanking, because I realized that I not only had done something wrong...I not only understood why it was wrong...but I had disappointed my dad.

If you are married, and if your wife ever does anything that goes against God's word or what you (as the leader in your home) have tried to instill for your family...are you saying that you wouldn't even say anything to her about it? I ask because, if you do say something to her about it, you are trying to assert your will over her. You are trying to "bring her back in line". You may not be mean about it. You may not raise your voice. You may do it with love and compassion. However, if you try to assert your will over her, that is a form of punishment.

[Jim_Alaska]

As an administrator I would like to insert a word of caution regarding certain negative replies that have been made in this thread. The word of caution is simply that due to some replies that have been made, the moderators will be keeping a closer eye on this and other threads in an attempt to better moderate our message board  and keep posts inoffensive and more "Christ Like".

Please consider others when posting and try to do unto them as you would have done unto you, with Christian love and consideration.

Thanks folks.

[DaveW]

1 Timothy 3

 1  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

 2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; note

 3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; note

 4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

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

 6  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. note

 7  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

 

I have been rather surprised that people are talking about sin in relation to this passage.

Where does it talk about sin?

It doesn't.  It speaks of qualifications, not sin.

Maybe people should consider that rather than talking about this in terms of sin.

Sin?

Qualifications?

What is the difference between them?

Interesting study for those who can be bothered and are interested in the biblical truth rather than winning an argument.

[SAB76]

On 10/15/2019 at 7:07 AM, DaveW said:

1 Timothy 3

 1  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

 2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; note

 3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; note

 4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

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

 6  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. note

 7  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

 

I have been rather surprised that people are talking about sin in relation to this passage.

Where does it talk about sin?

It doesn't.  It speaks of qualifications, not sin.

Maybe people should consider that rather than talking about this in terms of sin.

Sin?

Qualifications?

What is the difference between them?

Interesting study for those who can be bothered and are interested in the biblical truth rather than winning an argument.

If you believe that I am wrong, then please give me a lesson on this passage, and its true biblical meaning. If I am mistaken about my view of the scripture, please show me where I am wrong. If you would give your commentary on this passage I will be glad to consider it, and if it is biblicaly sound, I will concede and begin teaching it as Church age doctrine.

So far I am being corrected by multiple individuals, have had very few of my questions answered and, still do not have a clear and concise understanding of what the standard group belief is. I hear opinions, and get rebuked when I do not agree with them. I get brought back to Old Testament Mosaic law, and get rebuked when I do not agree with putting a saved believer of today under those laws. I ask questions, and get no answers. If it is not Pharisaical to judge other men in the ministry on their personal lives, then show me the scriptures that say so. If it is not Pharisaical to believe that there are some men that are of "lesser degree" than other men, then show me where Paul preached this. If it is not Pharisaical to stop these men of lower degree from preaching and teaching the word of God to the lost and saved, then please show me.

So I am asking for you and any one else to please give me an exhaustive commentary on 1 Tim 3:2, and show me why my interpretation of "husband of one wife" is incorrect.

I am particularly interested in the following:

1) What is the actual biblical meaning of "husband of one wife"?

2) Are there any exceptions for a man that divorced and married another woman?

3) If there are no exceptions, and he is disqualified what is he allowed to do in the church, mission field, etc.?

4) When do the other remaining qualifications go into effect? At birth? At seminary? At the desire?

5) And depending on when the other qualifications start, why is the one about marriage a one and done no matter when it happened in his life?

6) And lastly, where does it say that a bishop's marriage is to be an example or carbon copy of Christ's to the church? I read where every man is to love his wife as Christ does the church, and to treat her as he would his own flesh, but I am just not seeing where it says "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"."

 

[DaveW]

I didn't say you were wrong, I simply suggested a line of study for anyone who cared.

It is always better for us to study for ourselves rather than accept what someone says.

Does the passage speak of sin or qualifications, and what impact does that have on the subject?

[SAB76]

On 10/12/2019 at 3:04 AM, John Young said:

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.

John,

It was your own words that claimed there were men of lower degree defiling the church, and that that lower degree was due to some personal part of their life (divorce). It wasn't because they were preaching falsehoods on the foundational doctrines, or because they were teaching another way of salvation contrary to Paul's gospel, or teaching others to believe in perverted versions of the bible. It was because they didn't live up to the misinterpreted meaning of "of one wife". It was OK that God called a murderer to free his people, or an adulterer and a murderer to be king over his people, and a brawler and striker to preach the gospel of the circumcision, and a murderer and an abetter to murder to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, but that "sin" of divorce is just too much for God to forgive & forget to call that man to preach and teach his word.

You used the terminology of higher & lower degree...And while you may claim they are forgiven...you believe and teach that their "sin" is not forgotten. And I will keep stating what I have since the start. This is Pharisaical.

Edited October 17, 2019 by SAB76
spelling corrections

[SAB76]

8 minutes ago, DaveW said:

I didn't say you were wrong, I simply suggested a line of study for anyone who cared.

It is always better for us to study for ourselves rather than accept what someone says.

Does the passage speak of sin or qualifications, and what impact does that have on the subject?

Ok, I must have misunderstood your post that claimed I was being offensive and juvenile with my accusations into meaning that I was wrong.

As far as the sin issue that is being addressed, It was brought to my attention that Matt. 5 & 19 and I suppose the same cross references in Mark & Luke teach that a Christian today in the church age is committing the sin of adultery when they put away their wife and marry another. With it being taught that he is married to 2 women at the same time in God's eyes. So therefore the bishop must be blameless of this sin, by being married to only one woman in his life. This seems to be the standard teaching from a lot that believe in married only once in a lifetime. And it must have been a concern or a common teaching even back in Paul's day, and so he had to preach an entire chapter on it in 1 Cor. 7, and then towards the end of it assure the people that if you marry after being loosed it was NOT a sin.

[DaveW]

Woah there big boy......The only place I remember John saying anything to do with "low calibre" is:

On 9/25/2019 at 12:52 PM, John Young said:

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. 

And yet you accuse him of saying:

 

18 minutes ago, SAB76 said:

John,

It was your own words that claimed there were men of lower degree defiling the church, and that that lower degree was due to some personal part of their life (divorce). It wasn't because they were preaching falsehoods on the foundational doctrines, or because they were teaching another way of salvation contrary to Paul's gospel, or teaching others to believe in perverted versions of the bible. It was because they didn't live up to the misinterpreted meaning of "of one wife". It was OK that God called a murder to free his people, or an adulterer and a murder to be king over his people, and a brawler and striker to preach the gospel of the circumcision, and a murderer and abetter to murder to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, but that "sin" of divorce is just too much for God to forgive & forget to call that man to preach and teach his word.

You used the terminology of higher & lower degree...And while you may claim they are forgiven...you believe and teach that their "sin" is not forgotten. And I will keep stating what I have since the start. This is Pharisaical.

You need to be careful with your accusations, for that is not what John said, nor even what he implied. In fact, almost exactly the opposite. He didn't say they were defiling the church, and he didn't restrict the reason to only divorce - in fact he didn't even designate divorce specifically.

And yet you go on a rant about all the other problems with churches today saying that John was ignoring those and suggesting it was ALL ABOUT DIVORCE.

In fact, John's statement includes, not excludes all of these things, because it is a general statement.

This is very close to a false accusation.

 

[SAB76]

On 9/25/2019 at 12:52 AM, 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". 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. 

Wanted to include the whole quote so that I do not misquote or misinterpret.

As you can see the context, the entire topic of the first 2 paragraphs is about DIVORCE. So if it was a general statement on the last paragraph, then I am not seeing it stated as such, and was only left to assume it was a statement referring back to it's preceding paragraphs degrading men that have been divorced. Perhaps, Mr Young can clarify, as I have asked him to do in a previous post.

[Jim_Alaska]

OK, no mincing words. This reply is aimed at SAB76. The moderators have been fielding complaints from other members about your offensive manner in this thread. Divorce or some other doctrine is not the subject of this particular reply. Offensive language is the subject. Calling other Christians "Pharisaical" is offensive and not Christ like. I gave a warning back a few replies about this sort of thing. Once again you have chosen to ignore a moderator's warning in your reply that was worded in the following manner: "And I will keep stating what I have since the start. This is Pharisaical."

If you had read the board rules posted by the owner of this board you would have seen the following:

8. We will not allow the following
a) Bashing of other message boards. 
b) Bashing of your pastor or church. ** Online Baptist is a place for fellowship, disagreements you may have with others should not be handled here.
c) Members that come just to argue doctrine instead of fellowship.

This is your last warning; if you can participate in discussions civilly and fellowship in a Christian manner, you are welcome here. If you choose to continue as you have, your time here will have come to an end.

[John Young]

10 hours ago, SAB76 said:

Wanted to include the whole quote so that I do not misquote or misinterpret.

As you can see the context, the entire topic of the first 2 paragraphs is about DIVORCE. So if it was a general statement on the last paragraph, then I am not seeing it stated as such, and was only left to assume it was a statement referring back to it's preceding paragraphs degrading men that have been divorced. Perhaps, Mr Young can clarify, as I have asked him to do in a previous post.

Sentences within a paragraph carry on the same thought. New Paragraphs carry on a related but new thought. 1st paragraph is about Bishops being a reflection of Christ and that their infidelity or loyalty towards Christ and how that carries over to their own wives. Second is about the "Abandonment" argument being a sign of a hard heart and a reason many lack power. The third is my general opinion that GENERAL disregard for the qualification (not just divorce) is the reason our churches lack the power of God.

The qualifications for the OFFICE are there for a reason and all I am saying is that churches should strive to get and hold men to the Highest standard of those qualifications that they can for the sanctity of the OFFICE and not make excuses for getting minimally and questionably qualified men for the OFFICE. To make this about us "not forgiving men" or about "how well" God used men in other capacities who were not qualified for this office, is wrong, and are false arguments.

Edited October 17, 2019 by John Young

[Alan]

12 minutes ago, John Young said:

The qualifications for the OFFICE are there for a reason and all I am saying is that churches should strive to get and hold men to the Highest standard of those qualifications that they can for the sanctity of the OFFICE and not make excuses for getting minimally and questionably qualified men for the OFFICE. To make this about us "not forgiving men" or about "how well" God used men in other capacities who were not qualified for this office, is a false argument.

John,

Your meaning was clear the first time your made it. SAB76 miss-used your clear meaning. Your second meaning is also very clear and worth repeating.

Alan

[SAB76]

Jim_Alaska,

Thank you for pointing out me as the offending poster. I wasn’t sure whom you were speaking of. Going forward I will refrain from using the terms Pharisaical, Phariseism, or any other such terms.

I apologize for my rude and contemptible speech.

To all,

I will attempt to change my approach, and hopefully have a better discussion on this subject of divorce and or a second marriage being a sin, as well as the effects it has on the qualifications of the office of a bishop. I have listed a few questions below, and am seeking the teachings of all that care to answer them. If you feel that some are connected, then please feel free to combine them. Reading other posts on this same subject, I understand that not everyone’s teaching will be 100% the exact same. But please be exhaustive as much as possible to teach me why you see the answers in the light you present it in.

1) When does the accountability of the bishop for ALL of the qualifications go into effect?

• ·         Please list beside each trait at what point in his life does he become disqualified for not being:

1)      blameless (Example) – The moment he broke any law (God’s or man’s).

2)      the husband of one wife

3)      vigilant

4)      sober

5)      of good behaviour

6)      given to hospitality

7)      apt to teach

8 )      Not given to wine

9)      no striker

10)   not greedy of filthy lucre

11)   but patient

12)   not a brawler

13)   not covetous

14)   One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity

15)   Not a novice

16)   have a good report of them which are without

2) What is the meaning of "husband of one wife"?

• As I see it there are 2 interpretations 1) A man married to one woman his entire life. 2) A man having only one wife while married (i.e. Anti-polygamy). Are there more interpretations and why is the one chosen the correct interpretation?

3) Are there any exceptions (i.e. Death, Desertion, Adultery) for a man that divorced and married another woman to still meet the qualifications?

4) If there are no exceptions, and he is disqualified, what fields of ministry or offices is he allowed to partake in, and what is he allowed to do in said ministries or offices, and what scriptures are used to qualify him for use in those ministries or offices?

5) Was Judas Iscariot a bishop, and which local church gave him his bishoprick? (Acts 1:20)

6) Please clarify the way Christ loving the church means that a man’s marriage is to be a carbon copy or an earthly representation of Christ being married to one church.

• To me there are very distinct differences between the church and a physical wife. The church does not die, wives do. The church is a city, wives are human beings. The church is spotless, pure, and a virgin, wives are not. A man’s wife has power over her husband’s body; how does that apply to the church having power over Christ’s body?
• I am just not seeing this being what Paul was saying, but rather that he (the husband) is to love (Feel tender affection for somebody) his wife (the woman to whom a man is married) just as Christ does the church and GIVE (To present or deliver something that he or she owns to another person) himself (his body) for her. I also believe this is why Paul made his statements in Eph. 5:28-29 & 1 Cor 7:4-5.
• If I am wrong, please show me where my interpretation is off course.

7) Does Matt 5:31-32 and Matt 19:9 apply to the born again believer in the church age? If the answer is yes, please also explain how Matt 5:22-30 applies to the believer today.

8) What is the meaning of 1 Cor 7:27-28?

9) What did Paul mean when he said “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any”? (1Cor 6:12) “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.”? (1 Cor 10:23) And does this scripture also cross reference to Gal. 5:13?

Edited October 18, 2019 by SAB76

[No Nicolaitans]

I'm on my phone and can't answer in-depth...sorry.

The qualifications apply to a MAN...not a child, adolescent, or teenager (in my opinion). That does away with "at any time".

The qualifications also are the traits that he is publicly known by...this goes beyond what the man is now...it covers years. Why? Because of how he is known by those not only in the church...but how he is known by those who are "without". It takes a long time for a man to establish his reputation...especially by those who are "without".

I know pastors who are popular in my community, but they don't meet the qualifications that God has ordained. Numerous church splits have resulted from these men...hard feelings and bitterness are the results. Many have adopted false doctrine...but they chalk it up to being persecuted...when neither they (nor the churches that elected them) held them to biblical qualifications.