Featured A pastor’s qualifications:

Acts 3:19 reform ye, therefore, and turn back, for your sins being blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,

All of our sins are blotted out...

 

What if a g@y man was saved, and in that time prior had been "married"? Then he marries a woman, raises his kids in accordance to 1 Timothy 3 & Titus 1. Would this exclude him from the ministry, seeing God has forgiven him of ALL of his sins?

 

Nope. Sinners can't measure up to the standards laid out in the bible, period. It is once they have forgiveness of sins...ALL OF THEM, BTW...that the bible takes effect in their lives. Romans 8:7 is a good starting point, imo...

 

convicted - you've yet to answer the scenarios presented you. I don't argue that we're, as you put it, unshackled from our past sins. But the consequences of those sins still remain. Anyone we hurt during our sins is still hurt. Anyone we killed in our sins is still dead.

We are forgiven of those sins, but the consequence of those sins is not removed. David was described as a man after God's own heart, yet he was plagued by the consequences of his sin.

 

And yet he still remained king...

 

--blameless
--sober
--vigilant
--apt to teach
--no wine
--not a striker
--leading his house well

What if a man and his wife can't have kids? That excludes me right there.

 

The ability to have children is a God-given ability.
Divorce is not at all sanctioned by the Lord, but clearly condemned.
"What God hath joined together let no man pull asunder."

Even in an unsaved world marriage is widely looked upon as a God-given institution. The same vows, or roughly the same vows, are often used.
Look at the definition of marriage under Webster's dictionary.
It is a union of man and wife before God and man.
God recognizes the marriages in the Catholic churches, and in the Hindu religion, etc. But He doesn't recognize divorce. If he doesn't recognize divorce, there is a consequence for it.

 

Yet, we're forgiven. In this forgiveness, there's justification, sanctification, repentance, et al..

I agree that divorce is wrong...never stayed anything less. But God forgives that sin too, and it's never brought back unto them.

The sooner "phariseeism" is eradicated, the better...

 

I agree, to the extent that a person is no longer held accountable for that sin. But I get the impression that, to use a scenario, you believe if a murderer is imprisoned for 25 years, and three years into his sentence he is saved by God's grace, then that murderer should be set free.

The point is, God will no longer hold a person accountable for sins committed prior to salvation. You say that David remained King. Sure, but his house was utterly torn apart by strife, his son raised open rebellion against him, and his desire to build a house for God was denied him because of his previous life episodes of violence. He still faced the consequences of his sins, even if he was not accountable for them in matters of salvation and eternal life.

 

What about a murderer, Brother Tony? God saves them, too, yet they have consequences where they have hurt people they can never heal. See one Saul of Tarsus, who was consenting to Stephen's stoning/murder...yet he preached and penned a bunch of the NT books...by your guy's standards, he should have just sat in an assembly...

 

There is nothing about "phariseeeism" here.
It is about who is qualified, and those qualifications are very specifically laid out for us both in Titus and in 1Tim.3.
If you are so liberal in these qualifications, would you recommend a gay or lesbian? Where does the flaunting of God's standards stop?

As to Tony's objection, a murderer would likely have a prison record, that is a criminal record. How many churches will hire one with a criminal record, how about a serial rapist who has been saved and forgiven?
Where do you draw the line? A pedophile? etc.
The Lord has already drawn the line.

 

--Samson...pretty ruthless
--Moses...killed an Egyptian
--David...had Uriah killed after sleeping with Bathsheba
--Jacob's sons who sold Joseph into slavery
--Jacob...lied to Isaac and stole Esau's blessing


All of these are with God..

Moses, who spoke "face-to-face" with God, rebelled when he smote the rock twice in Numbers 20. Didn't enter into promise land. Yet, he wrote first five OT books...

David, eventhough in all he did, he was STILL "a man after God's own heart"...

Jacob stole, and yet was the patriach of the 12 tribes of Israel...being given that name by God..

 

Those two instances were directed to churches coming out of Judaism. Under Judaism, they had plural wives and concubines. Paul was stating that to be a Pastor...Bishop..Elder, you can only have one wife...

 

There were no NT churches in the OT. Your examples do not apply.
For example, applying your logic we each could accumulate one thousand wives as Solomon did. David had quite a few himself, and he was the one that was a man after God's own heart. Obviously what was done in the OT, does not apply in the NT.
These men were not applying to be pastors.

To be a pastor one must be qualified according to Titus and 1Tim.3. End of argument.

 

I used them to show God's mercy. They were used by God to fulfill His eternal purpose....bringing sheep into the sheepfold...

 

In your view, single man can't be pastors?

 

Shame on you Convicted! :laugh:

In the Pastoral epistles two letters were written to Timothy. Timothy was born of a mother that was a Jew, but his father was a Greek. Because of the mixed marriage, Timothy wasn't even circumcised. Paul took Timothy and had him circumcised, so he could be more useful in the ministry.

Titus was a Gentile. He wasn't a Jew.
[FONT=&quot]Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:[/FONT]

Your interpretation is wrong.
The phrase means "a one-wife-husband."
It is not speaking of polygamy which wasn't the problem. Divorce was the problem. It was very prevalent in that day. Jesus had plainly stated that if you divorced and married another that you were living in a state of adultery.

[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]

This had nothing to do with churches coming out of anything.
They were pastoral epistles written to pastors about "order in the churches."
Order in the local churches involved qualifications of both deacons and pastors which are clearly laid out for us.

 

It is possible but not advisable. If I were on a pulpit committee I would not recommend it. It is difficult for a single man to counsel women.