Gay Pastors?

I said, "if" you are wrong. If I cannot tell someone that what they did is or could be sin, then by all means - ticket me out.

If I came to this board telling people that I was living with a woman, or that I was beating my wife, etc. you'd tell me I was a fornicator or etc. I told you that was blasphemous. I would love to see what the moderators do with the stance you took. Quite hyporitcal if you are right.

I stand by what I said.

 

I have nothing else to say to you except you will not be here long. People that come to this board with posts like yours are a dime a dozen. I will let you argue with someone else.

 

Whoa! Did you really imply that Saturn's statement "To God, sin is sin" is blasphemous? That's exactly what scripture says, so it can't qualify as blasphemous in any remote sense.

Many would include divorce for the scripturally permissible reasons of adultery and abandonment wualify as being a husband of one wife, since the marriage covenant to the prior wife has been severed, in the same way that a death of a spouse severs the covenant. I believe that to be a reasonable application.

 

If that is scripture, then I withdraw my statement completely.
However, is that the verse - or is that his interpretation of multiple verses?

Maybe you're missing my point.
He was trying to, as far as I understood his post - say that all sins are equal. He stated his view, and attached God's name to it. Am I wrong here?

Remember, I did say "if" his view is wrong.

(And by my understanding, it is.)

 

Since I believe that being the husband of one wife is mandatory in being a pastor, I would say no.

 

Theoretically, a man can be gay and be the husband of one wife..

Practically, that's not likely.

 

True......

 

I can understand why you believe that. Scripture saying a one of a Pastor's qualifications is the husband of one wife can be read that way. In practical terms, it is probably a very good idea to have a pastor who is married for many reasons, the top one being if he cannot take care of a family, how could he take care of a church?

I think it would be a great study (since I know nothing of Hebrew or Greek) to look at those verses closer, and find out for sure, does it mean he must be married, or does it mean he must have only been married once with no divorce, (except death of a wife), or does it mean the most liberal view I have ever heard, he is only married to one wife at a time.

Excellent point you make.

 

It means one wife, exactly. Polygamy would be two wives, even 'serial polygamy.'

Why does it mean exactly one wife, and not what was common in his culture - polygamy.. i.e., "being the husband of ONLY one wife?"

Because of:
1Ti 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

If we're looking at culture, now.
The norm was for MEN to be polygamous, not women.
Why does he give the same requirement to women? So that they weren't polygamous either? No. Because it means, exactly one.

:type:

 

Actually, this scripture that you quoted from James supports my belief.

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

If you're not a homosexual, don't support abortion, don't commit adultery but lie to your neighbor, it's the same thing as doing all these things. A sin is a sin and is abominable to God.

 

That depends how you look at it, Alatide.

Is it a question of degree, or equivalency? i.e., if you break any law, then the law is broken and your wages are hellfire.

If I had only that verse to go by, I'd take the stand you did.

But, how do you interpret all the other verses? Scripture doesn't contradict. I'd like to see your explination of those.


"Co 5:10 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.
1Co 5:11 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. "

If all sins are equal, then we must say this same thing over even a "white lie." We must shun them.

 

I'm probably in the minority in my view, but as you (and Paul) stated, if they can't rule and manage their own family, how can they rule and manage God's? This is something a single man cannot do, and the reason why I think Paul stressed that point. My denomination (SBC) sees nothing wrong with a single man being a pastor, but on this we disagree. If "one woman kind of man" was Paul's intent, the reference to a family would have been moot.

 

All sins are equal in that even the smallest condemns a person to Hell. However, not all sins are equal in consequence and restitution. It's easier to repent of the sin of paying your car loan late, but it's hard to repent of the sin of killing someone. Yet both condemn you to Hell.

Frankly, though, when it comes to a pastor, do you want a pastor who thinks it's okay to lie, even little ones?

 

That's not what I said, John.

The point is, that we don't have the right to "shun"/excommunicate them for it.
We must rebuke, of course.

 

I do disagree...I see this as referring to polygamous...

This is descriptive here, rather than prescriptive.

Just MHO.

But back to the OP...no, a homosexual cannot be a minister.

 

I don't understand the question.

 

If you've got a member of your congregation who is an unrepentant and chronic liar, whose actions are causeing strife amongst the congregation, certainly, I think it's permissible for the church to shun that person.