Jump to content

SAB76

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SAB76

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Florida
  • Denomination
    Baptist
  • IFB?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

63 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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"."
  5. 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. 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. 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" 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.”
  6. 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.
  7. 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. 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.
  8. 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. 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.
  9. DaveW, Definitions in the English language are important. Pretty much all the errors that are being made on these subjects of bishop, and wife are due to the misinterpretation of the definitions. As to the greek you have mentioned... I thought that this was a KJV site. Are you suggesting that we need to interpret the English with greek word definitions? Did not the translators of 1611 already do this? So what is written in the English should be the English definition of the greek word it was translated from? Lastly.....I ask anyone to please tell me how to RULE a wife? I again ask you to tell me if the father in Luke 15 was a poor ruler of his household? Is the military poor rulers of their household? I say no....they both are great rulers, but not everyone is a great subject. A man should have rules set up in his house, and should enforce those rules with MERCY and GRACE sprinkled in, just like Christ. (This is what makes a man a great ruler, not whether his wife and/ or children go prodigal)
  10. SAB76

    Hello

    Hello, I have been asked to introduce myself properly. My name is Sean. I am a KJV bible believing independent Baptist. I graduated Pensacola Bible Institute (PBI) in '99. I came upon this site by accident searching for info on PBI. I was intrigued due to its statement that it believes the KJV to be the preserved word of God.
  11. I'm sorry Alan, but you really have some issues with putting words where there are none. As for me despising you.... Where did I say that? I am accusing you of being pharisaical, when you teach that a man is disqualified from the calling of being a bishop (AS DEFINED by Eph. 4:11 as a gift given to men, and AS DEFINED by the dictionary) for ANY sin, let alone something as inconsequential and petty as divorce. And yes I believe a man called to be a bishop can commit ANY sin (including but not limited to....rape, theft, lying, murder, gluttony, backbiting, sowing discord, child molestation, bitterness, emulation, wrath, and lastly....ANYTHING) and still be called to bishop. He just may have to do it behind prison walls before he is executed for corporal punishment offenses. But.....I never said you were more wicked, or more ungodly than Pilate. That was an illustration rather to say "If Pilate saw the truth, why cant you?" So if anything I was saying..."You are saved (I assume), have the Holy Spirit (I assume), and have the words of God preserved in the KJV, so why are you not seeing the truth in the scriptures?" Do not let the spirit of phariseism blind you as it did the Pharisees. We all have had it or have it at some point in our lives. We have all been guilty of looking down on others, and believing we are better than them, and that God can not use them. God's gifts and callings are without repentance. (Rom 11:29) There were no conditions when he made that statement. If God calls a man to bishop, then he is called to bishop no matter if his entire world falls apart around him....due to his own and/ or others (which he has zero control over) circumstances. If you still continue to hold to your interpretation of 1 Tim. 3....I again ask you or any other on this site to please tell me how to RULE a wife? If a man is a good, loving, Christ like husband who is in the ministry, and his wife decides she made a mistake and wants to go prodigal, and leaves and divorces her husband. What is he to do to keep her, so he does not lose his "office" as defined by some on this thread?
  12. Alan, Your replies to my post were at best....weak. Absolutely zero bible to prove my "error", just you saying "You, my friend are the one that is not following the words of Paul the apostle not me." Its like arguing with a child on the playground. Your rebuttal to my "semantics" as you put it, show you value your opinion and them that agree with you more than the words of God. And finally, your addition (putting "wife" in 1 Tim. 3:4....and by the way, still waiting on how a man is to RULE his wife?...this one actually has me concerned & worried on what you actually teach), and deliberate changing of what God says, (and I quote...."being married to ONE WIFE") puts you in the same position as Eve in Gen. 3. And the devil has you passing the poison you eat on to those you have influence on. Even as wicked and ungodly as Pilate was, he at least had enough sense to know the truth when he saw it. It was the Pharisees that rejected the truth, and didn't want the people to see it. So therefore....when you ask me to erase or change what have written....I say to you as he said to them "what I have written, I have written"
  13. Alan, You prove my point on this matter...You misquote and misinterpret the passage. It says the husband OF one wife, it does not say TO one wife, as you have stated above. Also you seem to have confused the word WIFE (which is a title, not a person) with the word WOMAN. These words do not carry the same definition. I'm really not sure how much plainer it could be. There are 3 problems that I have seen so far on this subject. 1) People have preconceived opinions or beliefs about this issue 2) there really seems to be an issue with definition of words, and 3) they seem to have a Phariseeical attitude to the subject. That God views divorce as a worse a sin than he did murder and adultery when he , not only allowed King David to live, but also retain his OFFICE of kingship. As to the other verse that I did not quote. I'm curious how you are connecting these to be the same thing when there is clearly a number of other attributes between the two? Where is the word WIFE found in these verses? And also, how does one RULE a wife? Do you consider women to be children that need discipline and punishment? This passage is in respect to the rules that he has established in his house to keep his CHILDREN in subjection. Again, the fact that WIFE is nowhere in this passage you quoted shows how you have a preconceived idea of what you THINK it is saying, and not what it is actually saying. Would you consider the military to have a good handle on ruling and disciplining its house? They tell you what, when, where, how long on every aspect of your life, and expect you to be in subjection. Yet do they not have men that go AWOL from time to time? So according to your thought process if ONE soldier goes AWOL then the military obviously doesn't rule their house well? Then according to this line of thinking the prodigal son's father was not one that did not rule his house well either? Because BOTH of his sons went prodigal...one just stayed at the house. As for the bishop issue.... I have shown clearly the definition of the word BISHOP. I again do not know how to make that any clearer. Paul was both an Apostle, and a bishop. He brought the gospel to the Gentiles, established local churches, preached and taught them and cared for them. The definition of a bishop being only allocated to ONE single local church is NOT true...its not even in the Webster's definition I quoted. Bishop is a God gifted overseer to the CHURCH (the body). It is not an OFFICE that is created by the local church. To prove that it is a gift that is given to a man and not a position granted him from a local church I ask one question. Was Judas Iscariot an apostle and a bishop? Acts 1:20....If the bishoprick given to Judas came from a local church...please name that church.
  14. yes, my mind is blown that these were your comments on my clarification of the "qualifications" of a bishop. Firstly, Paul was more than just an apostle. Do you really teach that a man can only hold ONE office in his lifetime? Let's see the definitions and see which applies to Paul? Apostle: A person deputed to execute some important business; but appropriately, a disciple of Christ commissioned to preach the gospel. Bishop: An overseer; a spiritual superintendent, ruler or director. If Paul was not a bishop, please explain the last part of 2 Cor. 11:28. Secondly, the post was mainly about the "qualifications" of the office. Thirdly, you err by making it an office of the "church", and that the pastor is subject to the church. It is an office that God gifted to the church, and the pastor is subject to Christ and him alone. God calls the pastors to oversee his church, not for the church to decide whether they like their overseer. If they dont like the overseer that God put in the office...find another pasture to feed in.
  15. 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach... You do err not knowing the scriptures, and you err by wresting them to teach what you want it to say. 1 Timothy 3 does not teach what you say it does. If it did, then Paul was not "qualified". Paul had no wife. But it does not say that a bishop is to be "A husband of one wife" it says he is to be "THE husband of one wife" which means that IF he is married, he is to be "the husband" (a title, not a person)...OF one wife (a title, not a person). You also misinterpret the phrase "of one wife". This is a prepositional phrase which tells how many wives the husband is allowed during his marriage. The scripture does NOT say "A husband TO one wife". You must remember that the bible was not written just for America (although, I'm almost certain we have a sect that teaches it's ok for bishops to have multiple wives at one time) It was written for everyone, even cultures that believe in having multiple wives (i.e. Africa, Arabian Nations, etc.) So it clearly teaches that a bishop, 1) IF he is married, is to be married to 2) ONE WIFE (remember...wife is a title not a person) during the length of that marriage, it does not teach that it lasts for his entire life. Please do not live in a fantasy world....there are YOUNG pastors out in this world with young children that need a wife to assist in the ministry and a mother to his children. Some have lost there previous wives to either death or some have lost them to going prodigal for the love of the world, and some of these women have abandoned not only their husbands but also their children. To say that God would "disqualify" these men due to circumstances beyond their control is laughable. God does not repent of his callings nor does he put men in shackles and chains, his yoke is EASY and his burden is LIGHT ....only self righteous Pharisees are the ones that like to disqualify others for not being like them, and impose grievous, heavy burdens on men...Matthew 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...