Qualifications for Pastor

I didn't 'interpret' his statement the way you do. Anyway, you are saying I'm lying when I tell you that I fully embraced the 'Baptist way of salvation' because (I suppose you are saying) if I once truly believed that, I couldn't possibly now believe that salvation includes baptism. I must have made my profession of faith 'with my fingers crossed' as a Baptist. Do I understand you right?

 

So how can you believe both at the same time. If you say that you understood salvation, and that baptism was not a part of it, and that you were actually saved at that time; how can you believe the opposite now and be a part of a gospel that doesn't save? It doesn't add up? You are telling us that you once believed the truth and now believe a lie. Or you were never saved in the first place. Which one is it?

 

I'm going to quote a friend of mine because I think he is quite accurate:

"The Protestant Gospel is one of Faith in the saving power of Jesus. It is one of complete surrender to God's will and power, with nothing else expected or required of the believer.

Does the words "quite accurate" mean "quite accurate"? If this reflects your thinking now, after years of reflection then this must be "quite accurate" in regard to your initial experience.

Saved people can be led into error. You claim you trusted in the truth expressed by the Baptist doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS, and you are now defending it as the basis of your salvation as a Baptist so either one of two things are true.

1. You initial experience was merely mental acknowledgement of the truth and you are still lost. - I Jn. 2:19

2. You were genuinely saved by what you acknowledge to be a Baptist gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone without works and so you have been led into error to embrace a Catholic Gospel of salvation through sacramentalism which repudiates the Baptist gospel of without sacramentalism.

However, one thing is for certain, the Catholic Gospel is POLAR OPPOSITE to the Baptist Gospel so if you were saved by the first you are now deceived into a false gospel that cannot save anyone as Paul demands there is not "another" true gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).

 

in my case, it was a Summer Sunday school class, entitled..."why i'm a baptist" that jumpstarted my journey that after 5 years lead me to the Orthodox Christian Church...

that Sunday school class left me with more questions than answers and soon, the question "What is the Church?", became one of the most important questions I or anyone can ask, AFTER "Who is Jesus Christ?"

for the Church is His (Jesus') Body (Ephesians 1:22-23) and "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)...this means to find the Church is to find the fullness of Life and Truth. All other doctrinal issues are downstream of this main issue of the Church...why? because Christ Himself promised to be with His Church until the end of the world and His Holy Spirit will remind His Church of ALL things and the gates of Hell will never prevail, thus the Church which is holy and cannot err in Her teachings and rites, being preserved by the Holy Spirit in all truth...again as Christ promised.

so after 5 years of bouncing around evangelical protestantism, about 8 months of Roman Catholic RCIA, then reading (some of) the Apostolic Church Fathers, Church Fathers, Desert Fathers and numerous other writers. Reading about the Ecumenical Councils and taking a 12 month long Orthodox Catechesis class...I became convinced, as well as the most objective person I had ever known...my wife...that the Orthodox Christian Church was the authentic New Testament Church.

and for the record...my family and I didn't join the Orthodox Church to be "saved"...it was for the reasons i listed above...St. Paul says that we each are to work out our own salvation with both fear and trembling...some choose to do so in the Baptist Church, RCC or any other protestant Church (and yes, we believe the RCC to be the first 'protestants')...only I chose the Orthodox Christian Church.

in XC
-

 

The Catholic church does not allow baptized members of other denominations to participate in the Catholic mass - they do not consider that those members are candidates for the New Covenant - in fact they deny that the New Covenant applies to those Christians that they do not admit to the Catholic Mass.

in Christ,

Bob

 

and Bob, as a former Independent Fundamental Baptist, if you...a SDA came into my Church on one of the few Sundays we actually took communion, YOU would be urged NOT to partake in the elements...

In XC
-

 

That is pretty funny!

I have often attended Southern Baptist and community Baptist churches on Sunday - and always have taken part in communion service with them - even though I make it very clear that I am not a member of their "denomination" but am a Seventh-day Adventist Christian instead. In fact one of the first Southern Baptist churches I attended on several occassions had me teach a Sunday "training" class and a Sunday School class.

however the personal preference of your prior congregation - to the contrary is "noted"

As Baptists often repeat - the priesthood of all believers does not allow them to make the rules of one local congregation - the rules for all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

yes, as a former IFB, i thought it was quite comical myself...that my good friend who was a Methodist couldn't partake in communion...when theologically communion in regard to Baptist thought is nothing more than a memorial anyway...lol

In XC
-

 

There are many characteristics of true New Testament Churches but the Great Commission provides the defining characteristics that separate it from all would be pretenders.

1. The gospel
2. Immersion of beleivers in the Triune God
3. Reproduction after its own kind

The true gospel eliminates 80% including Rome and the Orthodox as well as all sacramental, justification by works denominations as potential candidates.

Immersion of professed repentant believers of that gospel eliminate all pedobaptist, regeneration in water, sprinkling, pouring denominations as potential candidates.

Reproduction of like faith and order in organic succession eliminate the rest.

The true churches of Christ were the persecuted "heretics" who left a trail of blood shed by Roman and Reformed Roman Catholic inclusive of the Orthodox church.

 

It is quite simple isn't it?
If he is divorced his vows are broken aren't they?
I don't believe in a marriage where the fault lies entirely on one spouse, thus the fault lies on the husband as well, and therefore he is not above reproach or not blameless.
It takes two to tangle, as they say.

 

"to work out your own salvation"?
If you have always believed this then how can you be saved?
No Baptist believes this, not in the realm of salvation.
A person's salvation or justification is a one-time event. It is not a process. If you believe it is a process then you are not saved. You probably never were.

 

If in God's eyes they are still married, then why are they not married. Why are they divorced? Therein is the sin. Isn't that obvious. You can't have it both ways. Either they are married or they are not? Which one? If they are not married, they are divorced, and God does not permit that in the Word of God. What therefore God has joined together let not man put asunder. Which part of that statement do you not understand.

No marriage is perfect. No spouse is perfect. But a vow is a vow, and not to be broken by either party. If either party breaks the vow then the vow has been broken by both by default. "Let no man (or woman) put asunder." The man is no longer blameless in his marriage before God. How can he stand before God as an example before his congregation and say that he has ruled his house well? He has not. His wife was not submissive, subject to his authority, and he did not have rule over his own household. The divorce caused a scandal in the community which disqualifies him as pastor.

Has his spouse died? If no, then he is not blameless. It is a scandalous situation and he is part of the problem. I have never known a marriage where only one person is at fault. Did he love his wife even as Christ loved the church?

I don't know what you are speaking of.
Husbands love your wives even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.
Let the wife reverence the husband.
--Was this done? Why not?
Was there any vows broken? yes. Thus the disqualification.

If a man is divorced he is not blameless any longer, a requirement of a bishop or pastor. That is what God's Word says, not me. It has nothing to do with the state. Read Matthew chapter 19.

It takes two to tangle. Have you ever heard of a one sided argument? I don't think so. That is why I am not buying your story. There was a reason for the "up and left" story. I haven't heard the other story yet.

I take God's Word: Husbands love your wives even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. I guarantee if any man loved his wife that much the wife would never leave.

Divorce without a reason? That is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for. He said: "But for the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed it, but from the beginning it was not so.
So what was the fault (the reason)? "the hardness of her heart" like the Pharisees? Yes, fault has everything to do with it. That is why Jesus condemned the Pharisees. "From the beginning it was not so."

The difference is: My wife has never even considered separation or divorce, and she won't. She is faithful through thick and thin even to the point of being a missionaries wife to some of the most horrid places on earth. I think that qualifies as "to death do us part."

God says there is no reason, no fault for divorce. You don't get married and wake up the next morning and say I have made a mistake. It is forever. It is until death do us part. There is no excuses for divorce. My mother died a year and a half ago--after being married 61 years. They never thought of being divorced. "Til death do us part." There is no "fault clause" in marriage. It is a vow before God and man that cannot be broken.

What kind of kooky reasoning is that? It doesn't make sense.
First, he is responsible for his wife and his marriage to keep it together. If he doesn't the "fault" lies with him. He is the head of his house, even as Adam was the head of his family and was at fault for Eve eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. To Adam the sin was imputed.
Second, God allowed divorce. It is not his perfect will. Man still sins when he divorces. There is not any one-party sin. Both parties sin.
Third, he is not responsible for his wife's sin; but he is responsible for his own sin in the divorce. No man is perfect. He is partly responsible in the break up of this marriage also. This fact cannot be denied. And that is what you are trying to do.
Fourth, you say he is not in sin. You ought to know better. All men are in sin. I have never seen a perfect husband. He was at fault; he played part of the role in that break-up somehow. You may not know how. But he did.

Did he love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it?

 

Steaver, you know just as well as I, that there are many things that God abhors; things that are wrong in the sight of God but right in the sight of man. What is hard about that concept. That is what happened in the days of the Judges, and God judged them for it.

Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Because man does "right in his own eyes" does that make it right in God's eyes? That seems to be the position that you are taking.

God does not condone evil of any kind, neither does he condone divorce.

Habakkuk 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

God does not condone or countenance divorce. He does not recognize it.
It is sin. Therefore a divorced man is not blameless and cannot hold the office of a bishop or pastor.

 

Odd, isn't it, how all these lily-white preachers unwittingly marry women who turn out to be such Jezebels.

 

I understand your argument. I don't recognize it, accept it, and I don't believe that God does either. My last post should have been plain enough and forceful enough to point that out to you.

True. That is like saying God does not recognize the RCC absolution of sin by the RCC priest. But the priest forgives the sins of his parishoner anyway. They are forgiven in the eyes of man. So what! They are still not forgiven are they? It is all hogwash. Sins can only be forgiven through the blood of Jesus Christ, and we both know that. That is just an illustration.
So, as you said, "God does not recognize divorce," end of argument!

If they are divorced they have not been loyal to their vow. They are divorced. They are not together. Their vows are broken. What God has joined together they have allowed to be put asunder. That is not being loyal to their vows. That is part of the vow--the Biblical vow. Even if they consider themselves married, but in reality are divorced, they are still divorced. Avoid the hypocrisy. They are divorced. Their vows were made before God and man.
Just a couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of marrying two young people. It was before God and man. In other words, not only were there people present physically, there was also paper work to be finished and submitted to the government by law. It is an institution by God and by law.

It is sin in the sight of God. And Jesus told the Pharisees the same.
You advocate that one should copy the Pharisees. I can't believe that you don't want to see the obvious teaching of Jesus.

No man is blameless in the break up of his marriage--no man!

And why did they run away? Because their spouse loved them too much??
There is always another side to the story.

God recognizes the laws of the land. Check Romans 13. Last time I looked it is still in the Bible.

I follow the teaching of the Bible. What do you follow. God does not accept divorce. He would not allow Joseph to divorce Mary. Example after example is so evident in Scripture.

Yes, and therefore against the will of God.

Not if they are divorced. They must accept their lot in life, and their divorce has disqualified them from the pastorate no matter how unfair that seems to be.

But they are not still married. If they were still married they would still be together. Define marriage. Define what a happy marriage is. Define "ruling over one's household."

Nevertheless they were part of the problem else it would not have happened. It takes two to marry and two to divorce. It takes two to argue. Marriage is for two; and if it breaks up both are responsible.

True enough.

It is for life. There is no such thing as one party that had no fault. I don't believe that, not for a minute.

Yes I can.
What God has joined together let no man put asunder.
How much more Biblical proof do you need.
Divorce is not countenanced by God anywhere in the Bible.
What you are advocating is extra-Biblical if not anti-Biblical. It is against the will of God for a man to be divorced. That is taught from Genesis to Revelation--all the way through Scripture.