Divorced Pastors...or Pastor's married to divorcees.

Because the Bible sets the standard. It is not what we think is important. God calls men to these positions. Since this man is not disqualified, then he should have the position.

This has nothing to do with the subject. Homosexuality is addressed in scripture. This issue is not.

And I am sure those congregations which deny the position to these men, even though they meet the biblical qualifications, also have other extra-biblical, pharisaical rules, like "no guitars," or "dresses only" for women, or some such, by which they judge and condemn others.

And again: the Bible speaks to the Woman ordination issue (forbidding it). It does not speak to men being divorced in the past, being ordained.

 

I'm sorry, who's adding to "the actual words of God"?

Which is all well and good , but then you proceed to "morph" those three words into:

Seems like a lot more/different words than those you just got done telling us were the "actual words of God".

Sola scriptura indeed:thumbs:

 

LOL.Saying you "must be" a "Husband of ONE wife", means exactly the same thing as "you must not have more than one wife."

Same thing.

 

Dr. Bob said the Bible word is woman.

Where are you getting wife?

 

Gunaikos can mean woman OR wife.

 

Cool. It can't really mean "one woman" since that might exclude divorced/remarried aspirants (a burgeoning group in our contemporary society).

So what it really means now is "one woman (at a time)"

I get it.:thumbs:

 

Sure it can mean "one woman." That would not exclude people who were divorced. Only polygamists.

No need to add "at a time." "One woman" all by itself, precludes polygamy, but not a past divorce.

 

Right. As long as his marriages don't overlap, it's all good.

I believe they call it serial monogamy:thumbs:

 

If a man cannot hold together a marriage why would a church think he could lead them?

Dr.Bob is correct in that the phrase is "a one woman man". It is intended to show that the man should be solely devoted to his mate, not casting his eyes or affections on other women.

 

I like the info on this page:

http://www.invitationtochrist.org/pastors_and_divorce.htm

 

C

Why is the entire responsibility to hold the marriage together placed on the man. What about in a case where the pastors wife has an affair, abandons him and insists on a divorce?

 

Good question. You can't pin all the responsibility on one person.

Although, I would guess that the undoing of most marriages are not entirely the responsibility of one person, either.

 

Again you did not read what I had written. I never said any divorced man was forbidden to preach.

Is this type of reading a habit that you have in everything you read?

Like I said when you take the Bible as a whole in context, Paul is not just talking about polygamy. There are those who seek the office for the office and change the qualification to suit their personal needs, but that my friend ain't scripture.

 

I disagree. Nowhere in the surrounding verses is divorce mentioned. You cannot just "make up" a context, in order to support your sorry tradition of men.

THAT my friend, isn't scripture. Paul was not incompetent. If he wanted to prohibit divorced pastors, he would have. He did not; he prohibited polygamist pastors. And no amount of eisegetical gymnastics by legalistic churches will change that.

 

I don't think anyone said it all rested on the man did they? Again, the issue is blamelessness. Is a man whose wife left him unquestionably blameless? I think most reasonable people would wonder, and that is the point. If you wonder about a man, then he is probably not blameless.

Furthermore, most men would be in no condition to shepherd people's souls if their wife left them.

Again, let's quit focusing on the blame game and ask the question of the text: Is this man blameless?

 

What about Dr. Charles Stanley?

 

I do not know Dr. Stanley but from what I understand, he did not seek the divorce and he has not married again. He offered to resign his position but his congregation asked him not to but to just take a sabbatical if even for a season. I can respect that.
No where in all the post do I say qualifications say divorce in fact they do not even mention polygamy just the husband of one wife. If you want to say a one woman man then that is fine to but a man who has divorced and remarried another is not a one woman man.
I am not adding anything to the scripture but some are when they want to add one woman man "at a time" or husband of one wife "at a time. When you add this to the scripture even though it is not written that way then you can exclude divorced and remarried to another and say it only means polygamy. But that is not what scripture says. I have given several scriptures that say what God's plan is and one must include the whole scripture and not just the parts the world agrees with.