Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Pastoral Qualifications


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


What the congregation thinks doesn't matter. It only matters what the Word says. There are many churches with women pastors and the congregations love them, believe they are great pastors and qualified to be pastors, but they base this not upon Scripture.



John, The thing is, because someone has done wrong, and others happen to see good come out of it, it does not mean God accepted it.

Pastorj, You acting like a child with the questions you ask. Your questions means nothing, but the Bible is everything. That is, your questions in not the guide, the Bible is.

The Bible is clear, the man that is married to a divorce woman, that has a living husband, is living in adultery, and her husband in a partner in the sin of adultery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Pastorj, You acting like a child with the questions you ask. Your questions means nothing, but the Bible is everything. That is, your questions in not the guide, the Bible is.

The Bible is clear, the man that is married to a divorce woman, that has a living husband, is living in adultery, and her husband in a partner in the sin of adultery.



Jerry,

I generally disagree with PastorJ's comments on this thread but I think he is right on this one: " A Pastor who is married to a divorced woman committed adultery (1 time, not living daily in it)." Scripturally once a divorced person has remarried, though that act is wrong, it is not a case of living in continued adultery.

Some scriptural support.


"Jeremiah 3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?...."

And another that gives an indication in that direction: "John 4:17-18 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

Jesus said this woman had had "five husbands" and was currently living with someone not her husband. Now I suppose that this last verse isn't an airtight "proof", it is faintly possible that this woman had been widowed five times, but that seems pretty unlikely particularly in light of the fact that she was living in immorality with someone she was not married to when Jesus met her. It seems much more likely she had been divorced from some or all of her "five husbands"that Christ mentions. The fact that he says " thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband" seems to show he recognized the first five as a state of marriage rather than a state of continued adultery. Since the act of marrying a divorced person is an act he equaled with adultery, it seems that marrying a divorced person must be a one time act of adultery rather than a continued state particularly in light of Jeremiah 3:1.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist




John, The thing is, because someone has done wrong, and others happen to see good come out of it, it does not mean God accepted it.


Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but that's what I was trying to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Let's look at the qualifications
1Ti 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1. The first qualification is that you have to be a man. This eliminates women from the pastorate.
2. The second qualification is that you have to have a desire for the position. I believe this is a God given desire.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3. Blameless - the word means (Above Reproach). Some have said that the idea is that nothing can stick to you. It does not mean sinless.
4. Husband of one wife - Various opinions here, but I do not believe in divorce for any reason (Not going to argue this one) and therefore I believe if the man has been divorced he is disqualified
5. Vigilant - The word has the idea of watching circumspectly. This is an ability that not everyone has.
6. Sober - This is not dealing with alcohol, it is dealing with thinking clearly or someone with common sense.
7. Good Behavior - Just what it sounds like. The pastor must behave
8. Hospitable – Open hearted and generous
9. Apt to Teach – Ability to teach

1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
10. Not given to wine – Not only no alcohol, but to not be around people who are.
11. Not a striker – Vengeance is the Lord’s
12. Not greedy – Money should not be an issue for a Pastor
13. Patient – To deal with things appropriately
14. Not a brawler – Peaceable, not a fighter
15. Not covetous – Not desirous of other peoples belongings

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

16. Rules his house well – Children are in subjection (Bible times – Age 12)

1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
17. Not a novice – New Christian or new to the ministry: The word novice means beginner.

1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
18. Have a good report with unsaved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Now that I have given the qualifications, let's move to the question at hand.

Notice, there are no qualifications listed directly regarding the wife of the pastor, other than the implied dealing with the house. These verses state that the Pastor must have his house in order. A wife who is not in submission disqualifies that man from the pastorate.

Jerry## has said that a man who marries a divorced woman is disqualifed because he is an adulterer. I will agree that the Scriptures are clear that the man has committed the sin of adultery. A 1 time sin. Does this disqualify him from the ministry either for a short time, or permanently? I will answer this in a moment. Scripture also states: Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

God is clear in this passage that if you have looked on a woman to lust after her, you have committed adultery in God's eyes. The ten commandments are clear that if we steal, we are a thief. So the question is, at what point does an individual become disqualified?

Look at the qualifications again: He must be blameless and of a good report. If a man steals something he is at that point disqualified from the pastorate. But for how long. The answer is as long as that sin is a reproach in his life or as long as he does not have a good report. Yes there are consequences, but God forgives and no longer holds people accountable. Over time, the man will prove that he is no longer a thief and the reproach will go away and his good report will return. He is once again qualified to be a pastor. The same is true for the sin of adultery. A man who commits this sin as a young man could very well be qualified for the ministry when he is in his 40's.

If these two sins had permanent disqualification, then not too many men would ever be qualified to pastor as I doubt there are very many men on this earch that has never lusted after a woman and therefore committed adultery.


As stated, I would not vote for an individual who was married to a divorced woman, but if you are going to say they are disqualified, explain your position from Scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


What the congregation thinks doesn't matter. It only matters what the Word says. There are many churches with women pastors and the congregations love them, believe they are great pastors and qualified to be pastors, but they base this not upon Scripture.


Yes it does matter what they think just like it matters what the unsaved think. This is what the whole "qualifications" passage is about. If a congregation is being edified and are being led to serve the Lord than who cares if the pastor is divorced. And with women's lib and the majority of divorces being initiated by women for the least little thing you better expect to see more divorced pastors in the pulpit.

As far as women pastors? It may get in such bad shape in America with the men it may come to this. Deborah led the children of Israel because no men could be found to do the job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member




John, The thing is, because someone has done wrong, and others happen to see good come out of it, it does not mean God accepted it.




You folks don't seem to grasp the issue. If a congregation has a pastor that is divorced and that congregation is being led to serve the Lord than it is up to that congregation to decide whether to keep him or not. It doesn't matter what we think. And I guarantee God is more pleased with that then with some Pharisical pastor (with only "one living wife") who leads the sheep no place but to the offering plate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Now that I have given the qualifications, let's move to the question at hand.

Notice, there are no qualifications listed directly regarding the wife of the pastor, other than the implied dealing with the house. These verses state that the Pastor must have his house in order. A wife who is not in submission disqualifies that man from the pastorate.

Jerry## has said that a man who marries a divorced woman is disqualifed because he is an adulterer. I will agree that the Scriptures are clear that the man has committed the sin of adultery. A 1 time sin. Does this disqualify him from the ministry either for a short time, or permanently? I will answer this in a moment. Scripture also states: Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

God is clear in this passage that if you have looked on a woman to lust after her, you have committed adultery in God's eyes. The ten commandments are clear that if we steal, we are a thief. So the question is, at what point does an individual become disqualified?

Look at the qualifications again: He must be blameless and of a good report. If a man steals something he is at that point disqualified from the pastorate. But for how long. The answer is as long as that sin is a reproach in his life or as long as he does not have a good report. Yes there are consequences, but God forgives and no longer holds people accountable. Over time, the man will prove that he is no longer a thief and the reproach will go away and his good report will return. He is once again qualified to be a pastor. The same is true for the sin of adultery. A man who commits this sin as a young man could very well be qualified for the ministry when he is in his 40's.

If these two sins had permanent disqualification, then not too many men would ever be qualified to pastor as I doubt there are very many men on this earch that has never lusted after a woman and therefore committed adultery.


As stated, I would not vote for an individual who was married to a divorced woman, but if you are going to say they are disqualified, explain your position from Scripture.


I think I know where we differ, I did very much appreciate your post breaking down the qualifications though...thanks.

I think we differ in the respect that you believe a Pastor marrying a divorced woman is only a one time sin of adultery. I would contest it is a continuous and willing sin of adultery. If you steal something when you are little it's a one time thing, if you slip and lust after another woman in your heart you've just committed adultery but it was a one time thing...probably repented and asked forgiveness. But, if you are CONTINUALLY in a relationship with a woman who is divorced, this is not a one time thing...this is continuous and to me the Pastor would NOT be blameless.

Can a man who has made a mistake and lusted after a woman which means he committed adultery in his heart still be a Pastor? I believe so, because it was a one time sin and as long as he repents (guess you really won't know since we can't read minds or hearts) but I think you get my point. But, I have a hard time believing that is the same as being married to a divorced woman...you are committing adultery every day basically (willingly and knowingly I might add).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



You folks don't seem to grasp the issue. If a congregation has a pastor that is divorced and that congregation is being led to serve the Lord than it is up to that congregation to decide whether to keep him or not. It doesn't matter what we think. And I guarantee God is more pleased with that then with some Pharisical pastor (with only "one living wife") who leads the sheep no place but to the offering plate.


It's not that they don't grasp the issue, same could be said of you I suppose but we are looking at it in two different ways. I would be reluctant to guarantee anything that God is thinking or more pleased with and would actually venture to guess God is displeased with both. But, I wouldn't guarantee it.

It's true, it doesn't matter what we think only what the Bible says. If many are in agreement that the Bible does state a Pastor should not be divorced then God has a specific reason for not allowing that and we should follow it. No matter if we think a divorced person would make a good Pastor or not...if God commands it, that settles it and we should know there is a good reason for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Yes it does matter what they think just like it matters what the unsaved think. This is what the whole "qualifications" passage is about. If a congregation is being edified and are being led to serve the Lord than who cares if the pastor is divorced. And with women's lib and the majority of divorces being initiated by women for the least little thing you better expect to see more divorced pastors in the pulpit.

As far as women pastors? It may get in such bad shape in America with the men it may come to this. Deborah led the children of Israel because no men could be found to do the job.

Where in the pastoral qualifications does it say a man must have the approval of a congregation to be qualified to be a pastor?

Where in the pastoral qualifications does it insinuate that God ever accepts for any reason women pastors?

NOTE: Deborah was not a pastor and has no application whatsoever to who can or can't be a pastor according to the Word of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



You folks don't seem to grasp the issue. If a congregation has a pastor that is divorced and that congregation is being led to serve the Lord than it is up to that congregation to decide whether to keep him or not. It doesn't matter what we think. And I guarantee God is more pleased with that then with some Pharisical pastor (with only "one living wife") who leads the sheep no place but to the offering plate.

Scripture says God's desire is for us to obey His Word. An unqualified person acting as pastor of a congregation that thinks they are great and are claiming to be edified, is not acting within the will of God and is not pleasing God with their disobedience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



I think I know where we differ, I did very much appreciate your post breaking down the qualifications though...thanks.

I think we differ in the respect that you believe a Pastor marrying a divorced woman is only a one time sin of adultery. I would contest it is a continuous and willing sin of adultery. If you steal something when you are little it's a one time thing, if you slip and lust after another woman in your heart you've just committed adultery but it was a one time thing...probably repented and asked forgiveness. But, if you are CONTINUALLY in a relationship with a woman who is divorced, this is not a one time thing...this is continuous and to me the Pastor would NOT be blameless.

Can a man who has made a mistake and lusted after a woman which means he committed adultery in his heart still be a Pastor? I believe so, because it was a one time sin and as long as he repents (guess you really won't know since we can't read minds or hearts) but I think you get my point. But, I have a hard time believing that is the same as being married to a divorced woman...you are committing adultery every day basically (willingly and knowingly I might add).

The man who marries a divorced woman could be said to have committed adultery with her when this occurs. However, from that point onward they are husband and wife. There is no condoning of wrongly married couples getting a divorce (sin), nor of wrongly married couples being considered to be in perpetual sin whether it's because one was divorced, was not saved, etc.

Like all sin, if it is confessed God is faithful to forgive. From that point forward that sin is gone as far as the east from the west. God can and does bless marriages of those who married wrongly. If their wrongful marriage was a perpetual sin in the eyes of God then He would not bless their marriage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


The man who marries a divorced woman could be said to have committed adultery with her when this occurs. However, from that point onward they are husband and wife. There is no condoning of wrongly married couples getting a divorce (sin), nor of wrongly married couples being considered to be in perpetual sin whether it's because one was divorced, was not saved, etc.

Like all sin, if it is confessed God is faithful to forgive. From that point forward that sin is gone as far as the east from the west. God can and does bless marriages of those who married wrongly. If their wrongful marriage was a perpetual sin in the eyes of God then He would not bless their marriage.


Hmm, I suppose I have a hard time understanding this. God will forgive, surely but if God still considers the divorced wife married to the other person woudn't the Pastor have to repent and separate with his wife? Or does he ask for forgiveness everyday he is living with her because it's just a new day of adultery isn't it?

It's as if I would lie one day and ask God to forgive me, then I lie the next day and ask God to forgive me then I lie the next day and ask God to forgive me....but really I should have repented and stopped lying (or made a concerted effort to never do it again if I could). Of course, maybe 6 months down the road I lie again and we go through the process again. But, if I continue to do it everyday it seems that is not the right way go go about repenting of our sins and asking forgiveness. Do you see where I am coming from? Am I wrong on this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist



Hmm, I suppose I have a hard time understanding this. God will forgive, surely but if God still considers the divorced wife married to the other person woudn't the Pastor have to repent and separate with his wife? Or does he ask for forgiveness everyday he is living with her because it's just a new day of adultery isn't it?

It's as if I would lie one day and ask God to forgive me, then I lie the next day and ask God to forgive me then I lie the next day and ask God to forgive me....but really I should have repented and stopped lying (or made a concerted effort to never do it again if I could). Of course, maybe 6 months down the road I lie again and we go through the process again. But, if I continue to do it everyday it seems that is not the right way go go about repenting of our sins and asking forgiveness. Do you see where I am coming from? Am I wrong on this?

A new marriage has taken place. Though the marriage was entered into wrongly (in sin), whether due to one being divorced, one being unsaved, etc., there is now a new marriage. This couple is married and from that point forward are responsbile to live as a married couple in accord with the Word. Once the sin of their original coupling has been confessed before God, they receive forgiveness and are now accountable to how they deal with their marriage in accord with the Word of God.

A wrongly married couple could not erase the sin of having married a divorced woman by committing more sin by divorcing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


A new marriage has taken place. Though the marriage was entered into wrongly (in sin), whether due to one being divorced, one being unsaved, etc., there is now a new marriage. This couple is married and from that point forward are responsbile to live as a married couple in accord with the Word. Once the sin of their original coupling has been confessed before God, they receive forgiveness and are now accountable to how they deal with their marriage in accord with the Word of God.

A wrongly married couple could not erase the sin of having married a divorced woman by committing more sin by divorcing.


Ok, I understand what you are saying. But, does God even consider that second marriage a marriage? If not, then it wouldn't be a divorce in God's eyes...only on paper in this world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ok, I understand what you are saying. But, does God even consider that second marriage a marriage? If not, then it wouldn't be a divorce in God's eyes...only on paper in this world.


God does recognize separate marriages as being legitimate marriages. A person that is remarried doesn't have to divorce his current spouse and try to hook back up again with his first one. Jesus said...

John 4:18, "For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

This woman was shacking up with a man, and Christ recognized that it wasn't a marriage. He went further to recognize that the woman in the past had five separate marriages as well.

You already know where I stand on some divorce being biblical, but this helps to show that even if a remarriage was unbiblical it isn't a case of perpetual sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist




Jerry,

I generally disagree with PastorJ's comments on this thread but I think he is right on this one: " A Pastor who is married to a divorced woman committed adultery (1 time, not living daily in it)." Scripturally once a divorced person has remarried, though that act is wrong, it is not a case of living in continued adultery.

Some scriptural support.


"Jeremiah 3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted?...."

And another that gives an indication in that direction: "John 4:17-18 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

Jesus said this woman had had "five husbands" and was currently living with someone not her husband. Now I suppose that this last verse isn't an airtight "proof", it is faintly possible that this woman had been widowed five times, but that seems pretty unlikely particularly in light of the fact that she was living in immorality with someone she was not married to when Jesus met her. It seems much more likely she had been divorced from some or all of her "five husbands"that Christ mentions. The fact that he says " thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband" seems to show he recognized the first five as a state of marriage rather than a state of continued adultery. Since the act of marrying a divorced person is an act he equaled with adultery, it seems that marrying a divorced person must be a one time act of adultery rather than a continued state particularly in light of Jeremiah 3:1.


Ro 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Ro 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Its very clear form the Holy Scriptures, that the woman that has divorce, who has remarried, that as long as her 1st husband shall live, she shall be called an adulteress.

So that means you two disagree with the Bible by saying it just a one time thing.

Oh, the man she is married to is aiding her in being an adulteress, so no, he is not qualified to be a pastor of a New Testament Church, or at least on that's head is Jesus Christ.

I say that because anyone can start a church and they are free to use what ever rules they want. But of course they would not be following Christ. We have many such churches in this world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Brother Jerry,

Would you counsel a remarried woman to divorce her current spouse?

Would you counsel her to try and hook up with her original spouse, even if he was remarried as well?

Please don't brush these questions aside, they're very serious and very real applicable questions based on what you just said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Chevy,
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Sorry, Pastorj, but lust is not specificially listed as a disqualification for the pastorate. Neither is adultery. Yes, both are sin, but neither is listed as a disqualification, according to 1 Timothy 3. And that's the Scripture you're basing your argument upon.

However, I think we all agree that a pastor caught in adultery should leave the pastorate, and any good report he may have had would be destroyed. He may have even been ruling his own house well, just not his own life. But you like to say "show me the Scripture," and I'm asking you for your scriptural proof that lust and adultery specifically disqualify a man from the pastorate, and you can't do it. Because there is none.

Same goes for pastor's wife being under subjection - not in Scripture. You say there are no qualifications specifically mentioned for pastors' wives - only for deacons' wives - and I agree. 1 Timothy 3 says nothing about a pastor's wife, which you have clearly and correctly stated.

But you also claim Scripture says a pastor's wife must be under her husband's subjection, and I've asked you to produce that Scripture. You can't, because it's not there. If "ruling his own house well" applies to family, why are children singled out? Scripture does say that all wives are to be submissive to their husbands, but nothing specifically says a pastor's wife must be.

The point I'm trying to make is that you trumpet that Scripture gives qualifications for deacons' wives but not for pastors' wives, except for subjection. I'm pointing out that Scripture doesn't say anything about your subjection claim. Therefore you're adding something to 1 Timothy 3 that's not there.

You have a tendency to say "show me the specific Scripture" when you disagree with someone, but when someone turns the tables on you, you do the same thing you accuse them of doing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Chevy,

We aren't in disagreement on the adultery piece. If you read my post I make it clear that the sin of adultery in itself does not disqualify a man. It causes him to be disqualified because he is no longer blameless.

As to the subjection. Again, I said in my breakdown of the qualifications that the pastor must rule his own house well, having his children under subjection. The wife is under his leadership in the house and therefore part of the this qualification. That is about it for the qualifications of a wife. The reason for this, is she is a help meet to her husband, not part of the leadership. On the other hand, a Deacon's wife is very involved in ministering to people and therefore has Scriptural qualifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...