Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Are Pastoral Disqualifications Permanent?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Absolutely God hates divorce, and Jesus made that clear. But He also made it clear that when a divorce happens, both parties are not always to blame - otherwise there would be no exception laid down in the Scripture for divorce.

Assigning blame where God doesn’t is creating a law, standard, or regulation that is outside of the Scriptures. That is pharisaical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Absolutely God hates divorce, and Jesus made that clear. But He also made it clear that when a divorce happens, both parties are not always to blame - otherwise there would be no exception laid down in the Scripture for divorce.

Assigning blame where God doesn’t is creating a law, standard, or regulation that is outside of the Scriptures. That is pharisaical.

How does what you are saying here apply to the question at hand?

Who decides, or how is it decided, who is responsible for a divorce? How does that apply to the question at hand?

Can a man who is married to a divorcee, a widow, his cousin, a 17 year old, a woman 40 years older than he, a woman of another denomination....biblically be a pastor? Why or why not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All I'm saying John is that if God makes allowances so should we. The common thinking among Baptists is that divorce automatically disqualifies a man from being a deacon let alone a pastor, now and forever. I think that line of thinking is unbiblical, heartless, and lacks discernment. Not trying to offend anyone here who thinks that way, I'm just being honest. If a man is divorced biblically, he shouldn't be treated like a second-class Christian who did something wrong - because he didn't. After all, God doesn't think so, so why should we?

I think more often than not a man that has been divorced will probably be disqualified from being in the ministry. The line of thinking that I'm trying to challenge here is that it automatically disqualifies him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All I'm saying John is that if God makes allowances so should we. The common thinking among Baptists is that divorce automatically disqualifies a man from being a deacon let alone a pastor, now and forever. I think that line of thinking is unbiblical, heartless, and lacks discernment. Not trying to offend anyone here who thinks that way, I'm just being honest. If a man is divorced biblically, he shouldn't be treated like a second-class Christian who did something wrong - because he didn't. After all, God doesn't think so, so why should we?

I think more often than not a man that has been divorced will probably be disqualified from being in the ministry. The line of thinking that I'm trying to challenge here is that it automatically disqualifies him.

I'm not actually arguing against you, I'm trying to see your biblical position for this.

It has been asked if a man marries a divorcee, is he qualified to be a pastor or not. What are the biblical grounds for saying yes or no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Absolutely God hates divorce, and Jesus made that clear. But He also made it clear that when a divorce happens, both parties are not always to blame - otherwise there would be no exception laid down in the Scripture for divorce.


Not everyone believes there are any "exceptions" given in scripture. As I said before, it is a matter of qualifications not a slam on anyone. A blind man isn't qualified to drive, a double amputee isn't qualified to compete in a foot race. It matters not at all how long ago they were disabled or whether their disability was their own fault or the fault of someone else. The fact remains that they are disabled regardless of the reason and can't do everything someone not suffering from that disability can do. Does that somehow make them "second class" citizens? No, of course not, there are other areas where their disability is not critical and there they can compete on a level field with others.

When a person has been married, and then that one flesh relationship joined together by God is put asunder by man contrary to Gods will it causes a spiritual traumatic injury and a resulting public and private disability of a sort that means there are a few things they can't do. David was a man after Gods own heart and was beloved of God yet God refused to allow him to fulfill his hearts desire to build the temple to the Lord because he was a "man of war" and had "shed blood". Was God slamming David or was he somehow not fully forgiven for his various sins? No, he had the "sure mercies of David" and was fully forgiven, he just wasn't qualified to do that particular job for the Lord because of the life he had led. Likewise Moses, certainly one of a half dozen or so men closest to God in all the scriptures was disqualified from leading the people across jordan and entering into the promise land because he had violated one of Gods pictures of Christ and smote the rock the second time when he was told by God to only speak to the rock on that occasion. As a consequence he disqualified himself and died without entering into the promise land even though at the time of his death "his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.". In other words he would have been fully capable of leading them across Jordan and doubtless would have done so but for the fact he was disqualified from that role. David and Moses were both close enough to God that they did not attempt to rebel against his will and accepted that they could not do these things even though in both cases it was a strong desire of their hearts and they were in a position where they could easily have proceeded in the flesh had they wished. I can truly say one of the things that grieves me most is when I see someone that has a heart for God and a desire to do something good for God and the ability to do it well, yet they simply are not qualified for the job because of past actions. It grieves me that metaphorically speaking sometimes David can't build the temple and sometimes Moses can't enter the promise land but sometimes that is just the way it is sad though it be. I have also seen the other side of the coin where the metaphoric David or Moses desires to do the particular thing for God so strongly that they simply will not listen to his will and proceed to do it anyway in the flesh. That is even sadder. I really think in such cases where a man has a heart to pastor and the ability to do it but yet is biblically disqualified the best thing he can do is follow the example of Moses and David. Moses helped Joshua as much as he could and prayed for him, David encouraged Solomon and charged him in the building of the temple as well as gathered together a large percentage of the materials Solomon would need for the temples construction. I think God blesses the obedience to his word in such cases and I believe God often shows the individual the promise land metaphorically speaking and gives their heart joy and peace in what he does allow them to do because they don't fret about what they can't do or enter into a state of biblical denial and do it anyway. :twocents:
. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Not everyone believes there are any "exceptions" given in scripture. As I said before, it is a matter of qualifications not a slam on anyone. A blind man isn't qualified to drive, a double amputee isn't qualified to compete in a foot race. It matters not at all how long ago they were disabled or whether their disability was their own fault or the fault of someone else. The fact remains that they are disabled regardless of the reason and can't do everything someone not suffering from that disability can do. Does that somehow make them "second class" citizens? No, of course not, there are other areas where their disability is not critical and there they can compete on a level field with others.

When a person has been married, and then that one flesh relationship joined together by God is put asunder by man contrary to Gods will it causes a spiritual traumatic injury and a resulting public and private disability of a sort that means there are a few things they can't do. David was a man after Gods own heart and was beloved of God yet God refused to allow him to fulfill his hearts desire to build the temple to the Lord because he was a "man of war" and had "shed blood". Was God slamming David or was he somehow not fully forgiven for his various sins? No, he had the "sure mercies of David" and was fully forgiven, he just wasn't qualified to do that particular job for the Lord because of the life he had led. Likewise Moses, certainly one of a half dozen or so men closest to God in all the scriptures was disqualified from leading the people across jordan and entering into the promise land because he had violated one of Gods pictures of Christ and smote the rock the second time when he was told by God to only speak to the rock on that occasion. As a consequence he disqualified himself and died without entering into the promise land even though at the time of his death "his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.". In other words he would have been fully capable of leading them across Jordan and doubtless would have done so but for the fact he was disqualified from that role. David and Moses were both close enough to God that they did not attempt to rebel against his will and accepted that they could not do theses things even though in both cases it was a strong desire of their hearts and they were in a position where they could easily have proceeded in the flesh had they wished. I can truly say one of the things that grieves me most is when I see someone that has a heart for God and a desire to do something good for God and the ability to do it well, yet they simply are not qualified for the job because of past actions. It grieves me that metaphorically speaking sometimes David can't build the temple and sometimes Moses can't enter the promise land but sometimes that is just the way it is sad though it be. I have also seen the other side of the coin where the metaphoric David or Moses desires to do the particular thing for God so strongly that they simply will not listen to his will and proceed to do it anyway in the flesh. That is even sadder. I really think in such cases where a man has a heart to pastor and the ability to do it but yet is biblically disqualified the best thing he can do is follow the example of Moses and David. Moses helped Joshua as much as he could, and prayed for him, David encouraged Solomon and charged him in the building of the temple as well as gathered together a large percentage of the materials Solomon would need for the temples construction. I think God blesses the obedience to his word in such cases and I believe God often shows the individual the promise land metaphorically speaking and gives their heart joy and peace in what he does allow them to do because they don't fret about what they can't do or enter into a state of biblical denial and do it anyway. :twocents:
.

Well put together post. It's a fact often overlooked that sexual sins carry heavy consequences because God views such as very serious. True enough, we can be forgiven but that doesn't mean the consequences go away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


How does what you are saying here apply to the question at hand?

Who decides, or how is it decided, who is responsible for a divorce? How does that apply to the question at hand?

Can a man who is married to a divorcee, a widow, his cousin, a 17 year old, a woman 40 years older than he, a woman of another denomination....biblically be a pastor? Why or why not?


It doesn't, its his way of striking out at what he disagree with someone, he has done that several times. Some people just can stop from striking out when they disagree with someone, they have to start saying things such as he did.

Yet I'm not the least bit surprised, for today there are many, and I mean many churches that accepts things yesterday years churches would not accept, simply because the Bible does not allow it,

The qualifications for being pastor of New Testament Church are very strict.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Jesus declared that God hates divorce. That's a very strong statement and clearly indicates God does indeed see something wrong with divorce.

Even when commenting upon divorce which was allowed by Moses, Jesus made it clear that such was only allowed because of the hardness of the peoples hearts (not a good thing) and that such was not from the beginning.

Again, Jesus said God hates divorce, and there is no indication that hatred of divorce does not apply to certain divorces.

The main issue with regards to pastoral qualifications in this area seems to come down to the interpretation of what it means that a pastor must be the husband of one wife, since divorce itself isn't specifically mentioned in the list of qualifications. Along with this, as has been brought up in this thread, there seems to also be differences in interpretation as to what is meant by a man/pastor having his house in order and how that does or does not apply to who he marries.


Absolutely God hates divorce, and Jesus made that clear. But He also made it clear that when a divorce happens, both parties are not always to blame - otherwise there would be no exception laid down in the Scripture for divorce.

Assigning blame where God doesn’t is creating a law, standard, or regulation that is outside of the Scriptures. That is pharisaical.


I certainly believe God intends for a marriage to last until death. But, please show me the scripture where Jesus said, "God hates divorce." I would just like to see where He said that...I can't seem to locate it but, its late and I'm tired.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I certainly believe God intends for a marriage to last until death. But, please show me the scripture where Jesus said, "God hates divorce." I would just like to see where He said that...I can't seem to locate it but, its late and I'm tired.


Malachi 2:14-16 in th OT deal with it and in verse 16 it specifically says that God hates it. As far as what Christ says about it scripture says in Matthew 19 that the pharisees were trying to tempt him on the subject. Presumably because his position was known and they thought they could get him in trouble. His response was the "one flesh" and "what God has joined together let not man put asunder" statements in verse six. A very similar statement to the one found in Malachi. The pharisees were not happy with that response so they asked if that was the case why Moses permitted it at all, to which Christ responded that it was due to the hardness of their hearts that moses "suffered" it, "but from the beginning it was not so". In other words divorce was something that man came up with as an "out" and that it was not of God period. This was far enough outside of the accepted beliefs of the day that divorce was permissible in Gods sight that it even made his disciples a little uncomfortable as can be seen in verse ten. It is both a little funny and a little sad that even his disciples(some of which we know from scripture were already married like Peter) thought maybe it wasn't such a good idea to get married at all if it wasn't ok to get out of it at a later date should they so choose. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is somewhat vague and I apologize for that in advance. But, what I've heard in the past but unsure on complete details, please let me know if you understand what I'm talking about, is this:

The divorcement the Scriptures are speaking of in regards to what Moses suffered to the people is a bill of divorcement for the eloped period (one year where the couple were together but not officially married). If the man found out the women had done something he was unaware of (fornication) and was not a virgin he could give her a bill of divorcement. Fornication I thought was sexual activity outside the marriage whereas adultery is within the marriage. If this is true, then once a couple is married (officially, not the eloped period) there is no reason (except death) that releases you from that bond.

With that said, if you knowingly marry someone that is divorced...you knowingly put yourself into sin and are committing adultery. If a Pastor knowingly does that, I can't imagine he is blameless. If you stole something when you were 10 years old, you are blameless as you are not continuing in that sin. That is my take on it. But, what if the "ex-husband" of the Pastors wife dies? She is now released from the committment but her and the Pastor have been knowingly and willingly living in sin for however long. Since he was saved throughout that entire time, knows the scriptures, knows he was living in sin (adultery)...is he considered blameless? I would tend to lean toward no.

Edited by DennisD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is somewhat vague and I apologize for that in advance. But, what I've heard in the past but unsure on complete details, please let me know if you understand what I'm talking about, is this:

The divorcement the Scriptures are speaking of in regards to what Moses suffered to the people is a bill of divorcement for the eloped period (one year where the couple were together but not officially married). If the man found out the women had done something he was unaware of (fornication) and was not a virgin he could give her a bill of divorcement. Fornication I thought was sexual activity outside the marriage whereas adultery is within the marriage. If this is true, then once a couple is married (officially, not the eloped period) there is no reason (except death) that releases you from that bond.


Fornication is defined in the dictionary as being any sexual sin, whether it’s done by a married person or not. Adultery is more specific, and fornication is broader.

I'm not actually arguing against you, I'm trying to see your biblical position for this.

It has been asked if a man marries a divorcee, is he qualified to be a pastor or not. What are the biblical grounds for saying yes or no?


Sure thing brother, I didn’t think you were. :) Because this is a very unpopular position on this board, I hope you can understand my hesitation to go much further. I try to be cut-and-dry and black-and-white about everything I can, but in the area of divorce God did make at least one exception, and we’ve already seen it to be fornication and possibly abandonment.

I think there are a lot of assumptions made when it comes to the qualifications of a bishop and deacon. The first assumption made is that the husband of two wives means for the man’s whole life, as opposed to polygamy. If the Bible clearly said that a divorced man could not pastor or be a deacon, then there’d be no question about it – but it doesn’t. That’s the first assumption.

If “a husband of two wives” means EVER and not polygamy – then the first huge problem I have with that is if a divorced man gets saved he’s banned from even being a deacon because of something he did before he was saved. The response to this is that it doesn’t count before Calvary – but there’s nothing to back this up. If “a husband of two wives” means EVER, then it in fact means EVER and includes life before salvation.

There’s plenty of other cases too. What if a man gets saved and starts living for the Lord (happens all the time) and his wife refuses to (nothing new) and then she gets fed up and leaves him six months into his new life in Christ. Twenty years down the road he can’t be a deacon because of this ASSUMPTION that “the husband of two wives” means a person’s entire life and not polygamy.

The next assumption, which is what this whole thread is about, is that when a man is disqualified it’s permanent. The Bible doesn’t say one way or another. If a guy is known for being a brawler (disqualifier), who doesn’t know how to treat people (inhospitable - disqualifier), and is a lousy Bible teacher (“apt to teach”) does that mean he is forever banned from being a pastor? I honestly don’t think so, if ten years later the Lord has really changed the man (it happens all the time) and those things are no longer an issue then he should be qualified.

I believe the qualifications of bishops and deacons have to do with that man at that moment. Is he qualified NOW – not is he qualified twenty years ago. Is his house in order NOW? His family may have gone through something terrible with a rebellious teenager ten years ago, but once the situation has been resolved, and time has passed, and it’s clear that it’s no longer an issue, I don’t think it should be held over his head for time and eternity.

It doesn't, its his way of striking out at what he disagree with someone, he has done that several times. Some people just can stop from striking out when they disagree with someone, they have to start saying things such as he did.


Striking out? I disagreed and stated an unpopular opinion in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Please don’t accuse me of something I didn’t do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Fornication is defined in the dictionary as being any sexual sin, whether it’s done by a married person or not. Adultery is more specific, and fornication is broader.



Sure thing brother, I didn’t think you were. :) Because this is a very unpopular position on this board, I hope you can understand my hesitation to go much further. I try to be cut-and-dry and black-and-white about everything I can, but in the area of divorce God did make at least one exception, and we’ve already seen it to be fornication and possibly abandonment.

I think there are a lot of assumptions made when it comes to the qualifications of a bishop and deacon. The first assumption made is that the husband of two wives means for the man’s whole life, as opposed to polygamy. If the Bible clearly said that a divorced man could not pastor or be a deacon, then there’d be no question about it – but it doesn’t. That’s the first assumption.

If “a husband of two wives” means EVER and not polygamy – then the first huge problem I have with that is if a divorced man gets saved he’s banned from even being a deacon because of something he did before he was saved. The response to this is that it doesn’t count before Calvary – but there’s nothing to back this up. If “a husband of two wives” means EVER, then it in fact means EVER and includes life before salvation.

There’s plenty of other cases too. What if a man gets saved and starts living for the Lord (happens all the time) and his wife refuses to (nothing new) and then she gets fed up and leaves him six months into his new life in Christ. Twenty years down the road he can’t be a deacon because of this ASSUMPTION that “the husband of two wives” means a person’s entire life and not polygamy.

The next assumption, which is what this whole thread is about, is that when a man is disqualified it’s permanent. The Bible doesn’t say one way or another. If a guy is known for being a brawler (disqualifier), who doesn’t know how to treat people (inhospitable - disqualifier), and is a lousy Bible teacher (“apt to teach”) does that mean he is forever banned from being a pastor? I honestly don’t think so, if ten years later the Lord has really changed the man (it happens all the time) and those things are no longer an issue then he should be qualified.

I believe the qualifications of bishops and deacons have to do with that man at that moment. Is he qualified NOW – not is he qualified twenty years ago. Is his house in order NOW? His family may have gone through something terrible with a rebellious teenager ten years ago, but once the situation has been resolved, and time has passed, and it’s clear that it’s no longer an issue, I don’t think it should be held over his head for time and eternity.



Striking out? I disagreed and stated an unpopular opinion in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Please don’t accuse me of something I didn’t do.


Suggestion, Why not say you just disagree, them explain why, them leave statements such as this off."...for a man to say a person is disqualified would seem, well, pharisaical." Click on and it will teak you to that post, and your striking out because you disagree.

There was no need for you to call me, "pharisaical."

Sad to say many men and women do things that put them in a position that God cannot use them for certain positions, such as pastor, deacon, and even Sunday school teachers.

I know of a few men, some are now dead, that were in the position of being married to a divorce woman that served the Lord quite well as a preacher, but not a pastor. I commend them for happily serving the Lord as a preacher and recognizing that they cannot hold the position of pastor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites




Fornication is defined in the dictionary as being any sexual sin, whether it’s done by a married person or not. Adultery is more specific, and fornication is broader.



Sure thing brother, I didn’t think you were. :) Because this is a very unpopular position on this board, I hope you can understand my hesitation to go much further. I try to be cut-and-dry and black-and-white about everything I can, but in the area of divorce God did make at least one exception, and we’ve already seen it to be fornication and possibly abandonment.

I think there are a lot of assumptions made when it comes to the qualifications of a bishop and deacon. The first assumption made is that the husband of two wives means for the man’s whole life, as opposed to polygamy. If the Bible clearly said that a divorced man could not pastor or be a deacon, then there’d be no question about it – but it doesn’t. That’s the first assumption.

If “a husband of two wives” means EVER and not polygamy – then the first huge problem I have with that is if a divorced man gets saved he’s banned from even being a deacon because of something he did before he was saved. The response to this is that it doesn’t count before Calvary – but there’s nothing to back this up. If “a husband of two wives” means EVER, then it in fact means EVER and includes life before salvation.

There’s plenty of other cases too. What if a man gets saved and starts living for the Lord (happens all the time) and his wife refuses to (nothing new) and then she gets fed up and leaves him six months into his new life in Christ. Twenty years down the road he can’t be a deacon because of this ASSUMPTION that “the husband of two wives” means a person’s entire life and not polygamy.

The next assumption, which is what this whole thread is about, is that when a man is disqualified it’s permanent. The Bible doesn’t say one way or another. If a guy is known for being a brawler (disqualifier), who doesn’t know how to treat people (inhospitable - disqualifier), and is a lousy Bible teacher (“apt to teach”) does that mean he is forever banned from being a pastor? I honestly don’t think so, if ten years later the Lord has really changed the man (it happens all the time) and those things are no longer an issue then he should be qualified.

I believe the qualifications of bishops and deacons have to do with that man at that moment. Is he qualified NOW – not is he qualified twenty years ago. Is his house in order NOW? His family may have gone through something terrible with a rebellious teenager ten years ago, but once the situation has been resolved, and time has passed, and it’s clear that it’s no longer an issue, I don’t think it should be held over his head for time and eternity.



Striking out? I disagreed and stated an unpopular opinion in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Please don’t accuse me of something I didn’t do.


Well put RIck! I'm in agreement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Suggestion, Why not say you just disagree, them explain why, them leave statements such as this off."...for a man to say a person is disqualified would seem, well, pharisaical." Click on and it will teak you to that post, and your striking out because you disagree.

There was no need for you to call me, "pharisaical."

Sad to say many men and women do things that put them in a position that God cannot use them for certain positions, such as pastor, deacon, and even Sunday school teachers.

I know of a few men, some are now dead, that were in the position of being married to a divorce woman that served the Lord quite well as a preacher, but not a pastor. I commend them for happily serving the Lord as a preacher and recognizing that they cannot hold the position of pastor.


I certainly didn't mean to offend you, and I even stated that as such. I still don't want to, I'm sorry if I did. By conscience, I have to stand by my statement though. If a person or organization creates a law, requirement, or standard that God doesn't have, it is pharisaical. You and I both would agree that that word "Pharasee" is abused to no end by people who try to make everything a-okay; things that there is no Scriptural basis for saying are acceptable. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about things that God clearly states are in fact acceptable, and then men say they are not.

I'll explain a little further. There are some things that are genuinely pharisaical if they're laid down on people. Saying that a man is sinning by eating bacon is pharisaical according to Acts. Saying that a man is required to be circumcised is pharisaical according to the Pauline epistles (you'll have to forgive me if I don't know exactly where the proof text is on that awkward subject :)). Requiring that a man refrain from marriage (i.e. Roman Catholic Church) to be in the ministry is pharisaical according to Colossians. Saying a man MUST do something that God clearly states that he DOESN'T have to do, is pharisaical. It’s laying down a tradition or commandment of men, not something of God.

What I'm saying is that if God makes an allowance for divorce in the Bible, for us to say that in every case divorce is a sin - in spite of God's clearly stated exception - is pharisaical. I don’t think we should assign blame where God doesn’t. So if God doesn’t assign blame to a divorced man because it was biblical in his situation, then I don’t think we should assign blame and tell him he can’t be a deacon or pastor forever.

I don't think you are a Pharisee, and I'm sorry if you got that impression. I don't anyone here is, but that doesn't mean that at times we don't start thinking like one. To be honest, I'll take a Pharisee any day over a Sadducee - which is what the body of Christ struggles with more today than anything. Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

May I ask, where did I say man was to reframe from marriage as do the Catholics?

Of course once he has divorced, he is not to remarry, nor is a woman to remarry after she is divorced. and the man or woman that marries someone that is divorce causes them to commit adultery.

Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mr 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Mr 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

1Co 7:10 ¶ And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Yet when there is divorce in the marriage they are not blameless nor of a good report, nor of good behavior.

1Ti 3:1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
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;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
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?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
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.


With the reply you gave me, all that stuff about bacon, it sounds if you think I'm saying that man nor his wife cannot be a good Christian, that I think he is a 2nd rate Christan, I never said that, never! I only said that he was not qualified to be a pastor of a New Testament Church.

He can be a preacher, he just can't be a pastor, again, he meets not the qualifications. Remember once again, these qualifications are not to be a good Christian, but to be a pastor of Jesus' New Testament Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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



×
×
  • Create New...