Qualifications for Pastor

That is an opinion. You cannot provide a scripture that says every divorce is the fault of both. I personally know men who are loyal even after their spouse has been granted a man's divorce decree.

You can find countless numbers of spouse run aways who would testify that they left for no cause of the one they married but because of their own selfish desires. I have heard the testimony of my brother's ex-wife personally. So your "both are always at fault" opinion does not hold true to real life testimonies.

I have given no excuse for divorce. Why would you say such a thing?

You have no authority to make that call. No scripture either to back it up. I have the personal testimony of my ex-sister in law.

or

Pick one and stick with it.

I have not defended the man who has divorced his wife. I defend the man who has not.

More opinion. More judging your brothers. No scripture to support it. I still have the personal testimony of my ex-sister in law.

It is your "belief". I still have not seen the scripture to back it up.

How does this scripture prove that BOTH partys are always at fault for a divorce? It doesn't.

Amen! I have not argued that it was.

You say you understand my argument and then you post rebuking me as though I am arguing in support of divorce.

You don't understand the issue I have been focused on. My issue has been that BOTH are not always to blame. I've said nothing about divorce being OK.

 

Does the baptist then believe that a pastor must be married with children?

 

Here is the flaw in your argument;

The subject is the act of divorce. Not the acts of imperfection within a marriage or anything that has led up to this act of divorce. Both parties will always fail. Both parties are called to forgive and repent over and over.

But when ONE party decides that they will do the act of divorce it is that one party's decision ALONE and it is that one party's act of disobedience ALONE. It matters not if the other party has been a lousy spouse. The very act of divorce is a sin of it's own. No one is held accountable for another person's sin.

Adam could not blame Eve for his own sin, though he tried. Eve tried to blame the serpent. Everybody is trying to point the finger at someone else. The one who disobeys with an act of divorce cannot blame the one who did not disobey with that very act of divorce, never. Each party is commanded to forgive and repent of their own sins CONTINUALLY.

You are trying to blame one person for another person's sin, just as Adam tried. It does not work that way. It does not matter if Eve was a bad wife and TEMPTED Adam to sin. Adam was not allowed to blame his wife for his own transgression. Nor was Eve allowed to blame the serpent.

If Adam would have divorced Eve rather than partake with Eve he would have been guilty of divorce, NOT Eve. Eve would only have been guilty of her own act of transgression. BOTH guilty of DIFFERENT sins.

Same goes for divorce. Both could be guilty if both sign for the divorce. Both cannot be held accountable if only one commits the sin of divorce.

If you will remember back it was not long ago when one had to prove in a court of law that they deserved a divorce. One had to show "blame" on the other.

Again the flaw is the opinion of "Man and wife allow it to be torn asunder. Both are at fault".

The scripture you quote says NOTHING of this "both" opinion.

The scripture is true, the only teaching you can place on this verse is that the man or woman who "puts asunder" (that would be "divorce") is the guilty one.

He is loyal to the scripture "let not man put asunder" and loyal to his wife in that he has not repayed her evil with evil by putting her "asunder" in return. Obviously he cannot love her as he would like while she is seperated from him. But, 1Cor 7 is not the issue here.

I did not give you any excuses. I told you of a testimony of one who gave no excuses but confessed that her husband had no blame in her leaving. At one time in this country, she would not have been granted a divorce.

Correct, nor opinions and should be expressed as such and not as "thus sayeth the Lord".

You have misread me somewhere. Never have I argued that "divorce is ok if". My only argument has been that "both" are not always guilty of the act of divorce.

I totally believe God's command. You will notice that there is no "both" are guilty assertation in any of these scriptures. This is our subject of contention.

I would not twist your words brother. There is no advantage in debating with those kind of tactics. We both know those who debate that way. I have a very high respect for your contributions to this board and your defending of the faith. I am blessed to have the opportunities to debate these issues with others like you who love the study and application of God's word. I highly respect your insights and expositions, but I am not a "yes man". I must be convinced by the pure word of the Word alone.

Through debate, I am able to gain insight to other's beliefs and to the scriptures they use to conclude their positions so I may examine my own positions as well. Always willing to learn and make adjustments if need be.

Now, you said you were speaking of marriage. Are you sure about that because I have been speaking about divorce and said this...

Which you directly replied to saying....

The subject is divorce, right?

Then you said....

So I was not twisting your words, right?

So I ask again, which way do you see it? Does God recognize divorce or not? Divorce is a law of the land.

Come on brother, is that what I have said? Our debate is over "blame". Not over whether or not divorce is "ok".

And I agree with you. But our debate is not about ALL sins committed by husband and wife, but rather it is about the sin of filing for a divorce.

You have two issues here that you need to clarify on;

1) Does God recognize divorce or not? If not, then why does the IFB or anyone else for that matter. Because if it is not recognized by God then no one is actually divorced and this whole issue disappears and the issue becomes one of infidelity alone.

2) Does God hold one accountable for another person's sin? If not, then why does the IFB or anyone else for that matter?

I believe where the IFB errors on this is they do not recognize that divorce is (A) sin in and of itself and is committed by (A) person. The IFB has divorce like as original sin whereas it is something imputed to BOTH through the act of ONE.

 

I would be interested to see how you analogue this with those who have been married to Christ and yet walk away from Him, even if just for a season.

This would go back to the question as to "does God recognize divorce?"

I would still like for you to choose one or the other on that topic or explain how both are true. Remember, "divorce" not "marriage". Does God recognize a person's divorce as valid or does God ignore this man-made law.

A christian can say "I am divorcing myself from God". And God will say "I don't recognize your decree, you belong to me forever, I have married myself to you". Two become one forever with the Lord, and until death do you part between a man and a woman.

This is the part you cannot show with scripture.

You can show God abhors divorce.

You can show divorce is a sin.

But you cannot show that both parties are guilty just because one chooses to seperate themselves.

Why don't you just admit that this is baptist tradition to take this position. I understand the reasoning behind this pov, but it just isn't supported by any of the text you presented.

 

Since God does not recognize divorce, then the divorce (or seperation) is not the core issue as the sin in and of itself, but rather is what leads one or another into sin.

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.


Jesus explained that the issue of sin arising from the manmade law of divorce is "adultery". Not actually the divorce itself, for He does not accept man's law on divorcing. But He does teach that the sin arising from your law, Pharisees, is the sin of adultery.

This is why Paul allowed seperation with celibacy only and does not mention any ok for a "divorce".

 

I believe the example would be one of "blameless".

Now we have to determine what that actually means apart from opinions.

 

This is a second point I would like to explore, but I don't have the time right now.

I would ask why God's children are found to be rebellious at times yet no one charges God with "not having His house in order".

Someone is forgetting about the "free-will" given to every human being. God does not "force" His children to comply with Him and even as Christ loves His children with perfection He still has some who disobey. Do we accuse Christ of not loving enough? Do we accuse Christ of not having His house in order?

Things to think about!

 

I understand the marriage example.

You need to read all the post up to this point for the debate has been about who is to be blamed for a divorce. Is it always both? If you believe it is then give the scripture that supports your belief. It may be that it is just a belief of opinion rather than what scripture actually states.

 

There was a preacher of an IFB here in my community. I wonderful beloved man who preached the word with compassion and conviction as most IFB preachers do.
He also preached the party line concerning this issue of "have rule over one's house with perfection". Years went by and his kids were beautiful examples for him. They were loving, kind, obedient, they served in the church and helped with all youth events. Good kids they were and they highly respected their parents and all in the church as well.
The congregation loved this pastor and his family. The church was well grounded and vibrate with growth. This pastor had been pastoring here for over twenty years, even since these children were just infants. They were indeed beloved family within this congregation.
Then one day this pastor's seventeen year old son came to his father with a sin to confess. He had gotten a girl pregnant. What do you think was the first thing to cross this pastors mind? That's right, what is everyone going to think of me?
The pastor had preached hard the "rule your house" or else doctrine over these many years. So he went to the board of elders to seek counsel as to whether he should resign. He also confessed this to the congregation as well.
After a few weeks of deliberation between the elders and the congregation they all agreed in one accord that this incident should not disqualify their beloved pastor. They believed he had done as much as he could possibly do to rule his house well and understood that ultimately children are going to make wrong choices.
Even though the congregation and the elders agreed that he should stay, this pastor could not bear the self hypocrisy that he would have to endure for the way he had preached the past twenty years on the IFB version of "ruling the house". So he resigned his post and has never pastored again.

True story.

A wonderful pastor has been removed from God's service. Who is the victor in this? God? The Congregation?

I believe satan "hated" every minute of it.

Jesus never took a rigid approach to His own word of instructions. Why have we? There was always understanding and Grace applied to each situation.

This is what happens to good pastors when the word is taken beyond it's pratical intent.

The Spirit teaches us what a well ruled household looks like and it is not one of Perfection but rather one of consistency of training up a child the way he should go which involves discipline. The very fact that it involves discipline is a good indication that there will be disobedience within that household at times. The IFB misconstrues this rule as to mean a child will not disobey his father's teachings. We can see what this kind of mentality leads to in the above story.

God's missionary's support was dropped you say. Who is the better off for that? ANother decision I am sure satan "hated".

 

Disciplining is part of "ruling one's house well". Disobedience WILL happen, children are sinners and need disciplined all throughout their lives especially when they are not yet adults.

What then would qualify as "not ruling one's house". It would be a pastor who is not disciplining. A pastor who is letting the children rule him! It has nothing to do with a child disobeying at times, this will happen. It has everything to do with how the man reacts. Does he ignore it? Or does he apply some discipline.

The pastor I told you about did nothing wrong except praech the word wrong on this point. It is the wrong preaching that ultimately brought him down. If he had preached this point with the understanding that children do disobey and the ruling of the house is a man who does not ignore it but takes action then he would not have felt ashamed and he would not have had to resign.

It is a sad story and it is sad to hear of this missionary as well. I don't know all the details of this missionary, maybe his child punched another child at school or something. If this is the standard the IFB wants to go by then they would probably honestly have to get rid of all their pastors who have children.