"Let Us Prey"-Hunter Lundy

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, she just became a Lesbian over night? Again, even when creating a hypothetical you need to consider real time situations. Did she just wake up one morning look at her husband and say "I wish you were female?" This District Board what are they using for a guide? Holy Ghost, gut feelings, this is their good buddy? Also District Board is not the end of the road. What about the church family? What was their involvement? Did they look at her as the Lesbian pastor's wife? Do they look at the pastor like he could never do wrong and when she ran off to become Ms Lesbian did they say "we always knew she was a Lesbian?" Would the Apostle who penned 1 Timothy 5 accept that Circus Sideshow? Then call it Christ? As time rolls on I believe we are accepting a more banged up Christianity then we care to admit.



Obviously Paul isn't dealing with ministry in these passages, because in 1st Timothy he makes it clear that the bishopric was to be married.

Pretty simple.

So all District investigations are "side shows"? I'm starting to think you might be one of those who embraces the teaching that "ultimately all divorce is the man's fault since he is the priest of the home" or something in that vein. Judas did not just wake up one day and betray Jesus, either. Believe it or not, men are betrayed by their spouses at times through no fault of their own. People give in to Satan's lies. I don't know why you can't tell me what you think should happen to a pastor who is truly innocent in such cases.

And to me, Paul is obviously speaking of polygamy in I Timothy. He is not making marriage a requirement for ministry.


He must presently be married to only one woman, i.e. he must not be a polygamist.

In my opinion, this is the most straightforward and obvious interpretation. It requires little supposition.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by CC1

Over the years we have had folks on AFF and its predecessor sites say that they did not read books by non Oneness authors. That they could not possibly learn anything from them as they were not walking in "truth".

Yes, I know who you are talking about. But I also know their arguments because I am in agreeance with some of those arguments. I have a massive library of books which line the walls of my home. Books written by everyone, from Hindus, to Atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Brother Bernard to Francis Schaeffer. Now, you must know that when you read any sort of material there is agenda bias? Whether it is Muslim, or Trinitarian? Presbyterian or Eastern Orthodox. When the Futurist minister says he will not read the writings of an individual because his eschatology is Preterism, I can understand his reasons. He honestly feels that he will gain nothing by reading the material because he feels whatever the book is about it will constantly touch on Preterism.

You constantly swing on OPs because you were raised with them, and feel that they are somewhat Neanderthals and you a Cro Magnon. You feel that you have left them in their antiquated barefoot world while you are playing your harp among the Time Lords. Well, there are people who won't read any Oneness material because they believe it is filled with error. Dr James White only reads material from different religions, because he debates them. If he didn't, he probably would be like some posters who bang their fist and say "I don't read any "fill in the blank" literature!!!

Hey, I was invited to Forum world by a phone call from Brother Jim Yohe and watched this whole party go every which way and loose. I found that in the American human experience people go off into groups. Whether it's motorcycles, or religious flavors. Again, I have never heard Louie Lamour quoted not once from a pulpit, but I have heard everything from Shakespeare, to Moses Maimonides quoted. Which would indicate that the brothers read more than a Bible.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yes, I know who you are talking about. But I also know their arguments because I am in agreeance with some of those arguments. I have a massive library of books which line the walls of my home. Books written by everyone, from Hindus, to Atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Brother Bernard to Francis Schaeffer. Now, you must know that when you read any sort of material there is agenda bias? Whether it is Muslim, or Trinitarian? Presbyterian or Eastern Orthodox. When the Futurist minister says he will not read the writings of an individual because his eschatology is Preterism, I can understand his reasons. He honestly feels that he will gain nothing by reading the material because he feels whatever the book is about it will constantly touch on Preterism.

You constantly swing on OPs because you were raised with them, and feel that they are somewhat Neanderthals and you a Cro Magnon. You feel that you have left them in their antiquated barefoot world while you are playing your harp among the Time Lords. Well, there are people who won't read any Oneness material because they believe it is filled with error. Dr James White only reads material from different religions, because he debates them. If he didn't, he probably would be like some posters who bang their fist and say "I don't read any "fill in the blank" literature!!!

Hey, I was invited to Forum world by a phone call from Brother Jim Yohe and watched this whole party go every which way and loose. I found that in the American human experience people go off into groups. Whether it's motorcycles, or religious flavors. Again, I have never heard Louie Lamour quoted not once from a pulpit, but I have heard everything from Shakespeare, to Moses Maimonides quoted. Which would indicate that the brothers read more than a Bible.

I never said the majority of OP's feel that way as clearly they don't. However there are some who do.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

So all District investigations are "side shows"? I'm starting to think you might be one of those who embraces the teaching that "ultimately all divorce is the man's fault since he is the priest of the home" or something in that vein.

The Circus Sideshow appears where in my paragraph? Did I say that the District Board was a Sideshow? Is the minister the pastor over his own home? Didn't the Apostle say that? We are talking about ministers correct? James 3:1 states be ye not many teachers, but Paul says if someone wants to be a teacher he has chosen a good work, but he then outlines what those teachers needed to do. Not everything was an instruction to what it needed to be a minister. But James does warn against everyone running off to be one, and goes on to say that they will be judged with more strictness. More strictness, therefore a higher standard. So if Mr Innocent Hypothetical? Right? Has wife jump up from breakfast and exclaim "guess what! I'm a Lesbian!!!" You mean no one ever knew? Especially Mr Preacher?

Originally Posted by Originalist

Judas did not just wake up one day and betray Jesus, either.

Exactly my point, and we see what he was doing throughout the Gospel accounts. Therefore the Pastor's Lesbian wife showed signs "hypothetically" from day one? District Board saw it, MeeMaw saw it, PeePaw saw it, Deacons saw it, even visitors saw it? Maybe the whole town was talking about it???

Hey, poor guy, my heart goes out for him seriously, but what was he doing?
I know we live in the culture of throw away marriages, friendships, church splitting like cancer cells in lab rats. But why? We are supposed to be the Church for crying out loud. We are supposed to stay together, not look to break apart. I want to be your fiend forever, even if we disagree in some areas, but having a disagreement should mean divorcement? Lesbian Pastor's wife didn't have that happen overnight, does she still love the man she had children with? Does she still want to live for God? Bro, look at all the variables? Hypothetically this becomes the can O worms. So, with all this going on this preacher still wants to hang on to a pulpit? Bro, sometimes we make this all too much about me myself and I. Sometimes we need to regroup and get ourselves together. A brother isn't going to lose his salvation if he stood down. He might regain more than he will ever lose, if he did stand down. But we are speaking hypothetically.

Originally Posted by Originalist

Believe it or not, men are betrayed by their spouses at times through no fault of their own. People give in to Satan's lies. I don't know why you can't tell me what you think should happen to a pastor who is truly innocent in such cases.

I'm sorry, but I thought I did. I don't believe anyone is without issue in a break up. There are always two side, really three, because it is her side, his side, and the utter truth. We are still talking about preachers correct? You are supposed to be preaching to me my children and my wife, but meanwhile your wife ran off with another woman? Bro, not only me but I'm telling you the people around the place are saying that that is the church with the pastor and the Lesbian wife. Again, did this Lesbian wife want to live for God, did she love her husband, did she ever love her husband? Do they have children? How old are these people. Make believe stories not work because they have huge what ifs, and total flip flops which can be placed at every turn. I come up with something about the hypothetical Lesbian pastor's wife, and you checkmate it. Still in real time there has to be much more. To make a decision all you have is the couple, the Bible, and prayer.

Originally Posted by Originalist

And to me, Paul is obviously speaking of polygamy in I Timothy. He is not making marriage a requirement for ministry.


He must presently be married to only one woman, i.e. he must not be a polygamist.

In my opinion, this is the most straightforward and obvious interpretation. It requires little supposition.

But you didn't deal with my question concerning the widow. Was Paul saying that the women could also have multiple husbands? Like the story of Draupadi's polyandry and the Pandava brothers in the Hindu epic Mahabharata? India is far east, and Israel is the Middle East. So, if the One wife meant polygamy, then the one husband means polyandry?

Is that what you are saying? Because the scripture doesn't say

He must presently be married to only one woman, i.e. he must not be a polygamist.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by CC1

I never said the majority of OP's feel that way as clearly they don't. However there are some who do.

I understand totally.

But if I didn't know you from posting over the years, I would think your statements were true concerning these warped people you call OPs.

I mean seriously, your avatar is Neo Phariseeism by Washmudt, your quote is Ethel Goss saying that they never held any sort of separation of outer dress. I mean not for anything but if a young UPCer was to log on to this site you aren't standing here with open arms.

Hey, I can surely feel the love!

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The Circus Sideshow appears where in my paragraph? Did I say that the District Board was a Sideshow? Is the minister the pastor over his own home? Didn't the Apostle say that? We are talking about ministers correct? James 3:1 states be ye not many teachers, but Paul says if someone wants to be a teacher he has chosen a good work, but he then outlines what those teachers needed to do. Not everything was an instruction to what it needed to be a minister. But James does warn against everyone running off to be one, and goes on to say that they will be judged with more strictness. More strictness, therefore a higher standard. So if Mr Innocent Hypothetical? Right? Has wife jump up from breakfast and exclaim "guess what! I'm a Lesbian!!!" You mean no one ever knew? Especially Mr Preacher?





Exactly my point, and we see what he was doing throughout the Gospel accounts. Therefore the Pastor's Lesbian wife showed signs "hypothetically" from day one? District Board saw it, MeeMaw saw it, PeePaw saw it, Deacons saw it, even visitors saw it? Maybe the whole town was talking about it???

Hey, poor guy, my heart goes out for him seriously, but what was he doing?
I know we live in the culture of throw away marriages, friendships, church splitting like cancer cells in lab rats. But why? We are supposed to be the Church for crying out loud. We are supposed to stay together, not look to break apart. I want to be your fiend forever, even if we disagree in some areas, but having a disagreement should mean divorcement? Lesbian Pastor's wife didn't have that happen overnight, does she still love the man she had children with? Does she still want to live for God? Bro, look at all the variables? Hypothetically this becomes the can O worms. So, with all this going on this preacher still wants to hang on to a pulpit? Bro, sometimes we make this all too much about me myself and I. Sometimes we need to regroup and get ourselves together. A brother isn't going to lose his salvation if he stood down. He might regain more than he will ever lose, if he did stand down. But we are speaking hypothetically.



I'm sorry, but I thought I did. I don't believe anyone is without issue in a break up. There are always two side, really three, because it is her side, his side, and the utter truth. We are still talking about preachers correct? You are supposed to be preaching to me my children and my wife, but meanwhile your wife ran off with another woman? Bro, not only me but I'm telling you the people around the place are saying that that is the church with the pastor and the Lesbian wife. Again, did this Lesbian wife want to live for God, did she love her husband, did she ever love her husband? Do they have children? How old are these people. Make believe stories not work because they have huge what ifs, and total flip flops which can be placed at every turn. I come up with something about the hypothetical Lesbian pastor's wife, and you checkmate it. Still in real time there has to be much more. To make a decision all you have is the couple, the Bible, and prayer.




But you didn't deal with my question concerning the widow. Was Paul saying that the women could also have multiple husbands? Like the story of Draupadi's polyandry and the Pandava brothers in the Hindu epic Mahabharata? India is far east, and Israel is the Middle East. So, if the One wife meant polygamy, then the one husband means polyandry?

Is that what you are saying? Because the scripture doesn't say

He must presently be married to only one woman, i.e. he must not be a polygamist.

Your multiple husbands theory won't work because we are talking about pastoral qualifications. Women are not called to pastor IMO.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Your multiple husbands theory won't work because we are talking about pastoral qualifications. Women are not called to pastor IMO.

I totally understand, but you still can't claim the phrase means multiple wives in one and not multiple wives in another. 1 Timothy 5:9 says individual husband as 1 Timothy 3:2, and 1 Timothy 3:12 say individual wife. It is speaking of fidelity. Again, to place a polygamous meaning to one is to place a polyandry meaning to the other. Whether you are talking about ministry or the widowed elder women.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Good question, does anyone have the answer?

I guess not?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There is a burden of proof on both sides. Whoever makes a claim should prove it.

So again, my question: What Biblical authority does a man have for re entering ministry after adultery?

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

I think we are getting offices and ministries confused here. I think that Adultery likely is disqualifying from the "office" of bishop and deacon. Although, adultery nor any sin will disqualify from the ministry. The moment someone truly repents I believe in forgiveness and restoration.

Does God make us turn around and earn his grace if we fall again? I think not. The offices are set in place for church government and who wants someone leading their church with a shoddy resume. BTW, I think that is true for president. If a candidate can't take care of his home do you want him running our country?

Back to the church, Of course there is all kinds of scripture for restoration to the ministry. Maybe not as a deacon or bishop, but that doesn't mean that someone can't again stand behind a pulpit and preach the gospel. The Holy Ghost should tells us that we should never let our failures stop us from serving God. I have heard of many pastors to try and discourage young aspiring ministry from a pulpit ministry, but if God is in something it doesn't really matter what our opinion is.

I respect the high standards some hold on here for ministers, but be careful how you judge other people's failures.

Galations 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

I am not above moral failure, but if I continue in the Spirit, God's grace is sufficient. I love my wife and children, but I must be careful of the situations that I put myself into.

We live in a culture where men and women are too comfortable side by side. People need to develop boundaries with their spouses and be accountable before something happens. Flesh is going to always be present so we must always govern ourselves against the occasions. BTW, Jesus said if a man even looks upon a woman to lust after her he hath committed adultery already. How many can be honest to say you haven't been perfect in some way here.

As for these televangelists, I don't even believe they have been saved especially not called. But, in the real church where people have fallen, we should pray for the Lord to restore them. In time I hope they again can stand behind a pulpit, but first things first they must be saved. P.S. If I fell in adultery, I would be looking more for restoration with my family than with a pulpit. If a man is only about the pulpit then he has become a hireling.

[good samaritan]

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife

one-g3391. μία mia; irregular feminine of 1520; one or first:— a (certain), +agree, first, one, x other.
AV (79)- one 62, first 8, a certain 4, a 3, the other 1, agree +g4160 +g1106 1;
only one, someone

To say this verse is referring to polygamy is possible, but it is the most loose way to interpret it. I would rather take the high road. One means one and if you have been divorced and remarried that makes two. If I am a voting member I couldn't vote for a minister who has a 2nd living wife. I know there are many out there and that is between them, their congregation and the Lord. I have scripture to stand on in forming my belief, but if some interpret it as polygamy then that is them.

As far as Paul being married, I don't believe that. I have kicked the thought around, but to me it is to tarnish the image of Paul's rep. If he was separated from his wife, as EB says, "there is always two sides". He then wouldn't be blameless. No matter what scholars say about the Pharisees marital requirements. The Bible only says:

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself.

I don't think that Paul was meaning I would that all men were divorced or separated. I think he was saying that I would that all men are single and continuing in chastity.

In Paul's letter to Timothy concerning the bishops, it would seem that he was not making marriage a requirement, but requirements of marriage. If he was speaking of the necessity of marriage he would have disqualified his self. Most men likely would have been married by the time they would be considered for the offices in the Church. That being the general rule. How many men are looking for a mate by the time they are reaching adulthood? Most of all of them.

I think Paul was being clear that if they desired the offices of deacon or bishop there marriage status should be blameless (only one wife for one life). Of course if you have committed yourself to God by abstinence then that would not disqualify you from Church offices. If anything it would be better for you. The thing is that Paul had very few partakers for such a commitment and that is true today. I honestly only know of one person in my life that has made such a commitment. He is not very popular on here, but it is Lee Stoneking. I know of single Christians, but all that I know of are still open to marriage. Some of them are very aged, but they say if the right one comes along, lol.

Paul was addressing the multitude of men. If you want to be a bishop or deacon only one wife fellows. I don't think it should have to be said if you opt for a life of chastity then your disqualified from church offices. That makes no sense. I understand that a person could argue that there is experience gained from living the family life. I agree, but Paul himself said that marriage causes us to care for the things of the world. Would it make sense for him punish their sacrifices for the kingdom of God. It wouldn't make sense to me. IMO