The Question: Whether or not an Ordained man may become disqualified?

 

Intro: There are some that contend that a man who has fallen from the qualifications for the office of Bishop and deacon may be reinstated to that office. Of course we agree that God can forgive all manner of sin and can reinstate a man to such an office WHEN he is able to meet the qualifications for that office. He had to meet those qualifications to be ordained in the first place and his fall removed him from that office, so it only follows that to be reinstated he must meet the same qualifications.  We do not believe that a man who is violating such qualifications can fill the office of Pastor or Deacon.

 

A. Does I Timothy 3:2 and the words “must be blameless” refer to only meeting these standards

     prior to ordination or do these words demand continuance within these guidelines in order to

     remain qualified for this office?

 

     1. The words “must be” represent two Greek words. The first is  “dei” which is the strongest Greek term for “absolute necessity” and is translated elsewhere as “it is necessary”. The second Greek term is “einei” which is a present infinitive and expresses continuous ongoing action that is never completed.

     2. The theological implications of these two words is clear. These two terms by Divine choice and inspiration NECESSARILY DEMANDS (dei) that such an office can only be obtained and held by such a person who CONTINUES (einei) to remain within the boundaries of these qualifications. The idea that this only refers to qualifications prior to ordination to this office is refuted by these terms. If that were the case  then, such an idea could have been expressed by using either the imperfect infinitive or a pluperfect tense verb, neither of which was used. Here is clear inspired PROOF that absolutely demands continuance in these qualifications to remain in that office.

     3. The term “blameless” by the majority of Greek scholars does not mean “sinless” nor “characteristically sinless”.  It is not a matter of sinless perfection but rather it is a matter being without OPEN and OBVIOUS reproaches that would disqualify that person from being an EXAMPLE to follow in these areas. The term means to be “blameless” in the sense of “characteristically above reproach” in the specified qualifications.

 

Conclusion: Hence, together these three words by divine inspiration ABSOLUTELY DEMAND that anyone who even “desires” this office MUST CONTINUE TO BE characteristically ABOVE OPEN AND OBVIOUS REPROACH in regard to all the qualifications listed.

   

B. The primary aim for such qualifications is to set before the congregation an EXAMPLE or

     ROLE MODEL for other church members to follow in these specified areas.

 

1 Timothy 4:12  Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in

     conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

 

2 Thessalonians 3:9  Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to

    follow us.

 

Titus 2:7  In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness,

       gravity, sincerity,

 

1 Peter 5:3  Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

 

     CONCLUSION: The qualifications are perfect nonsense unless they define what is and what is not an

                                    example to follow and who is and who is not to fill such an office.

 

 

C. If ordained men are subject to church discipline then Ordained men can be disqualified from

     holding the office of Bishop!

 

    1. Ordained men are subject to church discipline:

        a. Is the ordained man ABOVE the Law of God as President   Clinton claims to be?

        b.  If not, would not church discipline not only bar him  from all church priviledges but remove him from

             any leadership position or office?

        c. Would open and unrepentant violation of God’s Word by the one who is supposed to set the

             example be grounds to start the process of church discipline (2 Thes. 3:6)?

       d. Would sin of a PUBLIC  nature be grounds for immediate church discipline (I Cor. 5:1)

       e. Hymeaneus and Philetus were obviously Teachers (2 Tim. 2:17) if not ordained men that

           Paul delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh (I Tim. 1:20)  as in the case of the man in I

           Corinthians 5:1-5.

  

     2. If such an office requires PUBLIC CONFIRMATION of such qualifications before the

         assembly and before the presbytery in order to install him into that office, then, it would

         follow that PUBLIC CONFIRMATION of  failure in these qualifications would be sufficient to

         remove him from that office.

 

         a. If not, then why PUBLICLY qualifiy a man in the first place to fill that office?

         b. If not, wouldn’t that reduce to mockery such a PUBLIC confirmation of that standard?

         c. If not, then why impose a standard upon a man to  fill an office if that office does not require such a

             standard?

 

 

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED

 

A. Can a Divorced man hold the office of Pastor? 

    1. Can a divorced man be ordained in the first place? If not, then, AFTER having a divorce he

          is disqualified and should step down.

    2. Can a Polygamist be ordained in the first place? If not, then, AFTER he commits polygamy

         he is disqualified and should step down.

   3. Can an “unscripturally” divorced man be ordained in the first place?  If not, then after an

        unscriptural divorce he is disqualified and should step down.

      a. A man cannot be UNSCRIPTURALLY divorced and scripturally married at one and the same time.

      b. Hence, at the minimum it requires a scripturally  married man.

 

B. Can DIVORCE ever be the example of what God intends for marriage? If not, then no divorcee

     should EVER try to fill an office that is designed by God to set forth THE EXAMPLE of

     marriage.

 

C. Some argue that such qualifications are intended to be the example for all church members

     to follow BUT since no man is perfect and since all violate these qualifications to SOME

     DEGREE (spiritually if not outwardly) then, violation of such does not invalidate a man from

     such an office since all violate them anyway. This is particularly true if they respond properly

     by repentance.

 

     1. It is true that all members violate these qualifications to SOME DEGREE at all times.

         However, it is not true that all members violate these qualifications to the SAME DEGREE.

       

       a. For example, anyone who looks upon a woman to lust after her as committed adultery

            with her already IN HIS HEART but that does not mean they have committed adultery

            WITH THEIR BODY. Sin in your heart is HIDDEN to men and does not include anyone

           else. Whereas sin with your body is known at least to one other person and involves

           one other person. Hence, literal adultery is worse than merely heart adultery because others are

           involved and the sin is compounded.

 

       b. The qualifications for ordination deal with what is OPEN and OBVIOUS before men and do not deal

           with the hidden failures of the heart and mind.

 

       c. If these qualifications dealt with the hidden sins of the heart, then, no one could ever qualify in the

           first place and to demand such a standard would be stupidity.

 

   2. It is true that repentance is the proper response to any violation of God’s Law or standard. It is also

        true that God forgives those that repent. However, in regard to an office with qualifications that are

       designed to set forth an OPEN and OBVIOUS EXAMPLE to follow, such repentance must also

       RESTORE the good example to remain qualified.

 

      a. A divorced man may be forgiven his sin, but, in order to be ordained or to be restored to the office of

          bishop, his repentance must include resititution to the former wife so that his marriage will once

          again measure up to the intended EXAMPLE demanded by the qualifications.

 

     b. How can DIVORCE ever qualify as THE EXAMPLE to follow by anyone?

 

3. It is true that all men violate these qualifications in SOME DEGREE but if it is this IMPOSSIBLE

     DEGREE that God had in mind when setting forth these qualifications, then, why bother setting forth

    such as a qualifiction since no man can possibly measure up AT ANY TIME.

 

   a. If the office of Bishop is to set forth THE EXAMPLE of what members should be and follow, then, why

        would God demand the IMPOSSIBLE example to qualify? Such an argument denies that any man

        other than Christ can be a possible example to follow. If this is true, then why does Paul repeatedly tell

        young preaches to be such an “example”????

 

  b. It should also be obvious that men greatly differ in their OUTWARD EXAMPLE  before men due to

       immaturity, disobedience, or lack of training and instruction.

 

  c. What qualifications would separate those members who are immature, disobedient, and uninstructed

      from those who have been discipled in these areas to the point they serve as EXAMPLES to follow.

 

  d. The qualifications listed in Timothy and Titus provide a possible standard to separate unqualified

      examples from qualified examples to fill the offices of Bishop and Deacon

 

 

D. Is it a Valid or Invalid comparison to compare the position of King in the Old Testament to the

     office of Bishop of Pastor in reqards  to qualifications and nature of office?

 

         1. The position of King was not obtained through  meeting moral qualifications  but could be

              obtained simply by being born into the right family – Not so with the office of Pastor.

 

        2. The Position of King was a civil position with civil authority and power  to physically enforce

              moral standards. Not so with the office of  Pastor.

 

        3. Polygomy, adultery, murder, etc. did not remove a man from the position of king (David)

            but such would be sufficient to place a Pastor  under church discipline and thus remove him

            from office.

 

        4. Every political position of power in government can be used for God to SHEPERD those in

             submission to that office toward good or bad. However, just because Bill Clinton holds such an

             office in the land does not mean he is qualified to Pastor a “church” of God.

 

        5. Comparing King David to the office of Bishop is an INVALID and unscriptural comparison in

              regards to the qualifications and nature of the office.

 

E. The Priesthood has many such qualifications for ordination and yet Aaron retained his office even after committing idolatry (spiritual adultery). Therefore, divorced and unscripturally divorced men should be forgiven and allowed to retain their office if they are repentant.

 

    1. However, Aaron would NOT have retained that office if he had CONTINUED in that state of sin. His

        repentance REVERSED his OUTWARD STATE to one that meets the qualifications of his office.

 

   2. To some extent ALL commit “spiritual adultery” but the qualifications for the office of Bishop deal only

       with those areas where it is POSSIBLE to be an  EXAMPLE before men. The “spiritual” argument

      deals with an area where it is IMPOSSIBLE as it requires PERECTION before God in the human

       heart, mind and will.

 

F. Are the gifts and calling of God for such an office without conditions in regard to this office?

 

     1. The text upon which this argument is based is plucked out of a context of SALVATION and deals with

          the gifts of repentance and faith and the irresistible CALL of the Holy Spirit – Rom. 11:29. However,

          the question of ordination and Pastor is confined to the realm of SERVICE.

 

     2. When texts dealing with SALVATION are mixed with contexts of SERVICE it only results in heresy.

 

     3. The gifts and calling of SALVATION is without repentance but the calling to the OFFICE of Pastor is

         QUALIFIED by BEING the proper PUBLIC example to follow in doctrine and deportment.

 

     4. Every child of God is also “called” to service (Eph. 4:1) and gifted for service (I Cor. 12:7,11) but that

         does not mean that the Pastor of a church will place such a person in a LEADERSHIP position as an

          EXAMPLE to follow. If their doctrine is false, if they are too immature, undisciplined or worthy of

          church discipline, no sane Pastor or church would place them in such a position of SERVICE until

          they measured up to those minimum standards.

 

    5. Service in God’s house in positions of leadership require MORE than a mere “call” or gifted “ability”

         or “knowledge.”

 

    G. Since the term “pastor”and “sheperd” are used of men in the Old Testament (Cyrus) whose

         character and example is below the standards of Timothy and Titus, therefore, men who

         have fallen below such a standard are not necessarily to be rejected from that office,

         particularly if they are repentant.

 

     1. The terms “pastor” and “shepherd” do have a non-technical application in scripture. Many

         have a gift of “shepherding” others but are not called to the office of Pastor. Indeed, many

         members will shepherd other members to a limited degree. The husband and father of a

         house will “shepherd” or “pastor” his family in this non-technical sense.

 

    2. Those in public positions of political authority act as “pastors” and “shepherds” over the

         people they rule. However, just because Bill Clinton holds such a public office and just

         because he “shepherds” the USA in this non-technical sense does not mean he is qualified

         to fill the OFFICE of  pastor in one of the Lord’s Churches.

 

   3. Cyrus was a lost man but in the position of power and leadership over God’s people who were in

       captivity under his rule. He acted as a “shepherd” or “pastor” in the sense of carrying out God’s

       revealed will and making it known to God’s people. In this limited sense he was God’s shepherd.

       History reveals that Cyrus commonly honored the gods of those he captured. He was a superstitious

       man who wanted all the gods on his side.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

1. The ordained man is subject to church discipline  and thus is subject to removal from any

     church office or position.

 

2. Installation into the office of Pastor and deacon is determined by meeting the qualifications

     set forth  in I Tim. 3 and Titus 1

 

3. Men who violate these standards for that office are to be removed as they are no longer

     “examples” to follow.

 

4. Restoration to that office requires restoration to the EXAMPLE called for by those

    qualifications.  If there is no restoration to the EXAMPLE there can be no restoration to the

    office.

 

5. The standard for qualification to this office is that he “must be blameless.” The context shows that this is not ABSOLUTE BLAMELESS before God as no man can meet that standard. The context shows that this refers to being above OPEN and OBVIOUS reproach before men. He is to be without JUST blame that would deny him to be a fit example to follow in such designated areas of life. If he becomes unfit by OPEN and OBVIOUS reproach before men, then he should step down from that office for the sake of the testimony of Christ before men and for the sake of the church’s testimony before men. He should never attempt to reenter that office until that reproach has been removed by PUBLIC repentance and restoration of the right example before men. His repentance should be as WELL KNOWN as his failure and his restoration to the right example should be more well known than his fall.