Featured A pastor’s qualifications:

It is a lame argument and one I have heard for years. It is contrary to all Biblical teaching.
It is the same argument that goes like:
If I become a drug addict I can better witness to the drug addicts.
If I become a drunk I can better witness to the drunks.

Paul put a stop to such thinking in Romans 6.
Shall we sin (or condone it) that grace may abound?
God forbid!

Instead of promoting righteous, Godly, Spirit-filled living, you are actually promoting a wicked life-style, and then saying you would rather go to those who have had their lives full of it rather than one who has lived by the Book???

 

While useful information could be gathered from both types of men listed above, the truth is a person who has been divorced three times is more likely to see divorce as a reasonable option. It should not be, except for the biblical reasons. If you really want to get right down to it, we have so many divorces because the world has taught people that divorce is easy, so just get married and if it doesn't work, just get divorced. But, then again, the world has been against the will of God for a long time.

One of the listed qualification is "blameless." How can a thrice divorced man be considered blameless? Just as the old saying goes, "it takes two to tango," it takes two to make a marriage work or not work. One of the biggest divides I'm seeing in this thread is that some people seem to think that God forgiving you of your sin means all consequence of your sin is likewise wiped away, and the Bible itself proves that is not the case.

Take a deeper look at the qualifications: (These are just my thoughts on the qualifications)

We discussed at length blameless and the husband of one wife. But we've seemed to skip over the others:
Vigilant - watchful over the flock, desiring to stop worldly influence in whatever way he can
Sober - of a sound mind, focused, disciplined
Of Good Behavior - You don't want a pastor who is out carousing during the week and then in the pulpit on Sunday
Given to Hospitality - willing to help anyone who needs help, open and inviting to visitors and members alike
Apt to Teach - well-studied, deeply entrenched in the word and capable of sharing the scriptures in a meaningful way for those seeking to learn

Not given to wine - much debate over this one. A person can drink wine and not be "given to wine," though many baptists hold to a position that no believer should ever drink anything alcoholic ever. I'd say that many words have been bandied about over this topic.
no striker - I've always seen this one similar to not being a brawler. There is a difference in using corporal punishment (spanking) without being a striker or brawler.
not greedy of filthy lucre - a pastor should not seek income from surreptitious sources.
patient - willing to wait on the Lord for guidance, tolerant of the needs of his flock
not a brawler - not a fighter. See "no striker."
not covetous - Similar to the commandments, not coveting neighbors goods or wife. We're instructed in the word that we can be covetous of one thing..."Covet earnestly the best gifts," and even then there is a more excellent way.

One that ruleth well his own house - a pastor should have his household in order, otherwise what example does he provide the church?
having his children in subjection with all gravity - so long as his children live under his roof, a pastor ought to have control over them and they ought to be well-behaved.

I've always taken this to mean that a pastor ought to be well-studied and well-learned in the word and willing to follow the guidance of the spirit, but it should also be seasoned and tempered with age and knowledge. A person just saved, regardless how he might meet the other qualifications, is eliminated from contention for a pastorship by this qualification alone.

A good report is necessary for being a pastor. What profit is a pastor if the community speaks ill of him? How many people will venture into the church he serves if the community lists him under a bad report? A man's Christian deeds and action will lead to a good report. If the community reports ill of a man, there is often a reason, beyond simple jealousy, for the community to look at the man as such. If the man is giving them reason to discredit them, then he stands in danger of falling into reproach.

 

In 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, Paul is speaking to them after they were saved. No one being lost, can meet those requirements. No sinner is blameless...it's after being saved that these take hold of them....

 

Let us delve deeper into 1 Timothy 3...


1 Stedfast [is] the word: If any one the oversight doth long for, a right work he desireth;

Sinners can't obtain this...



2 it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,

Sinners can't be blameless neither overseer of a church...


3 not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money,


Sinners can do this, but have a fallen nature that causes them to fall short. If he's been a drunk, wife beater, crooked in the way he obtained his money, is a rebelrouser, has been contentious, and greedy, that excludes him, too. He's not blameless....


4 his own house leading well, having children in subjection with all gravity,

Something else a sinner can do, but his fallen nature hinders him...

5 (and if any one his own house [how] to lead hath not known, how an assembly of God shall he take care of?)

Sinners can't take care of the house of God....

6 not a new convert, lest having been puffed up he may fall to a judgment of the devil;

Sinners can't be a new convert, either...and he's already felled in judgement, lest Christ saves him....

7 and it behoveth him also to have a good testimony from those without, that he may not fall into reproach and a snare of the devil.


Sinners already have a good testimony with the lost. Birds of a feather.....and sinners can't fall into the reproach and snare of the devil either....they're there at that time, being lost....none of this, and I mean NONE OF THIS, takes effect until after salvation...

 

So being saved means you never sin again? Being saved means you never backslide?

No one is arguing that a lost man should be made pastor of a church. Those of us one side of the argument, such as myself, and I believe DHK, give his statements, are trying to point out that, while the sin is forgiven, the effect of the sin on our lives does not necessarily go away. We are still effected by our sin, even after forgiveness. Have a child out of wedlock while in your sin, then find God's grace unto salvation, that child is still born out of wedlock. While in your sin, drive drunk and hit another car, killing the other driver, then be saved in jail...the other driver is still dead because of your action. While you have been forgiven by God, the sin still occurred. You just won't be judged for it by God.

 

You Brothers are missing my point(s). You are holding sinners to the standards laid out in God's holy writ. They can't meet those standards laid out. The only reason why we can is do this...

...or ye did die, and your life hath been hid with the Christ in God;(Col. 3:3)

..with Christ I have been crucified, and live no more do I, and Christ doth live in me; and that which I now live in the flesh -- in the faith I live of the Son of God, who did love me and did give himself for me;(Gal. 2:20)

Christ does for us what we can't do...live up to the standards laid out in the bible.

Why must a pastor not be a novice/new convert? They have to have had time to study, grow in grace, knowledge, and truth. And furthermore, people have time to examine their walk with God, and see if he has truly been saved.

 

Your thinking here is completely wrong.
Look at Cornelius, a devout man and well liked among the Jews, but a Roman centurion. He wasn't saved, but he held respect among the unsaved and the Jews. He probably was respected by Christians as well. He had a good testimony in the community. That is what is being looked for in a leader.

Even in the rich young ruler who came running to Jesus wanting to know how to have eternal life--he was successful and respected on all accounts. He wasn't a rude person. He was devout. He got to the place where he was because people respected him, and because he respected the people that he dealt with on a daily basis.

The above two examples pale in comparison to Samson and yet Samson was one of God's elect, but never fit for the pastorate or anything close to it.
There are many unsaved people that have "good reputations," even among the saved.

The tragic thing here is that many Christians do not have a good testimony among the unsaved community and think that just because they are saved they can do anything they want.
No, they can't. They have to suffer the consequences of their past sins. That past may have disqualified them from the pastorate, or related positions, depending on the position and what that past holds.
Your history follows you whether you like it or not.
You have a resume. And some of the things in that resume you can never change. God sees it. Others know about it. It is like a chain around your leg that you will forever drag around with you. Mistakes of the past will hinder a person forever.
The person that was a drunk driver will never, ever gain his legs back.
But he will remember the episode forever. One cannot change the past.

 

Yet look at Saul of Tarsus. He consented to Stephen's murder and he couldn't change that after the fact. He was persecuting the church and was on the road to Damascus, ready to put christians in prison. Yet he penned over half the NT...

Let's back up to 1 Timothy 1...
"and I give thanks to him who enabled me -- Christ Jesus our Lord -- that he did reckon me stedfast, having put [me] to the ministration, who before was speaking evil, and persecuting, and insulting, but I found kindness, because, being ignorant, I did [it] in unbelief,"(vss 12,13)

Paul was considered to have been unmarried...or no record of marriage is recorded. So...even he couldn't have been a pastor either...

 

I don't recall Paul ever mentioning a desire to be a pastor, i.e. linked to a single church. He was always an evangelist, traveling around the area.

Yes, Paul persecuting the churches and consenting to Stephen's death was done in ignorance, but the effects of those actions lingered even after Paul was saved. None of the disciples wanted anything to do with him at first, because they feared his old life. He was forgiven of those sins, but it took Paul living his life before the disciples and being witnessed of by Barnabas to aid in changing their minds.

 

Agreed. But if it's true he went unmarried, then by the strictest usage of 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, he wouldn't have met those qualifications.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!! That's what I'm driving at. That's why one can't be a novice/new convert. The qualifications laid out in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 aren't laid out to the lost, but the saved. Paul was covetous, a murderer, wasn't blameless, had a bad report...people, even Ananias was scared of him. Yet in all of this, God used him in the ministry...

 

Right. And like I said, I don't think Paul ever tried to say he met the qualifications. Paul was merely the conduit through which God supplied the qualifications.

Right. Who has tried to say that the qualifications apply to the lost?

 

1. [FONT=&quot]Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.[/FONT]
--How many pastors have that work?

2. His ministry above was more of a missionary/ambassador.
3. He was specifically chosen to do a specific work for which God specifically had for him. It is doubtful that there was no one as qualified as he was at that time. He was one of the most educated people of his time. And thus the Lord enabled him to write 13 books of the NT.
4. Concerning marriage, to be a member of the Sanhedrin (which he was), marriage was a requirement. We assume that he was widowed. It is only through direct revelation from God that he could have offered the words that he did in chapters like 1Cor.7, but rather it seems like Paul is offering advice (which was inspired of the Holy Spirit) borne out of his own experiences.
5. As far as the pastorate was concerned Paul didn't do the work of a pastor per se. He trained others to do that work. Once a pastor was in place he left and let the pastor carry on. He established over 100 churches in three missionary journeys.
6. Note his policy on baptism:
[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.[/FONT]
--Baptizing wasn't important to Paul personally. That was the work of the pastor. The work given to Paul was specific to preaching the gospel, not the operation of the church. The operation of the church was for pastors, and he gave them specific divine revelation in the books to Timothy and Titus. These pastors, as all pastors, were to be blameless and the husbands of one wife, or "one-wife husbands."

Jesus put it this way:
[FONT=&quot]Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.[/FONT]

God hates divorce; he hates remarriage even more. It is living in a continual state of adultery Jesus said. He didn't recognize divorce then; I don't believe He recognizes it now. The Bible hasn't changed.
Neither have the qualifications of the pastor.

 

The bible is written to the saved, not the lost. 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 was written to them after they were saved. No sinner can be blameless. That's why they are a new creation in Christ Jesus. If God holds them accountable for their previous marriage(s), then there's never benn any justification...

 

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife....does this apply to a sinner? No. No sinner is blameless...sinner meaning lost, btw.

Paul couldn't have been a pastor in many baptist churches. He was unmarried, if historical records are true. That 'null and voids' him right there...

 

God hates divorce, agreed. But there's biblical ways of doing it. A man who catches his wife cheating, has every right to divorce her. She broke that covenant, not him. He is free to remarry, but only in the Lord...

And Paul was saved the same as others, via grace through faith. He was a chosen vessel, but his conversion was the same as mine or yours...

 

Some folks want to set a bar of righteousness for ministry that none of the Apostles could reach.

That's unfortunate. Interesting thread here. Seems like a fairly civil conversation.

 

DHK, you quoted Mark 10, let's look at Matthew 5...
"And it was said, That whoever may put away his wife, let him give to her a writing of divorce;
but I -- I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.(vss 31,32)

.....and Matthew 19...



"He saith to them -- `Moses for your stiffness of heart did suffer you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it hath not been so. `And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery."(vss 8,9)

Then I posted what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7.


Look, I am not upholding divorce. Divorce is horrible, is a sin in God's sight. But as sinners, it's no different than stealing a loaf of bread. Sin is sin. And sin unforgiven is punished by eternal death in the lake of fire.

Paul was a murderer, was covetous, was a persecutor, was a very vile man. The things he did could never be repaired. Yet he was forgiven.

I know I'll never change your minds, but thank you and Brother Tony for the civil debate.

 

To borrow a word from Brother KYR....'Zactly....

Aye...that it has...