Intro: There are some that contend that a man who has fallen from the qualifications for the office of Bishop and/or 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.

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.

“The Bishop must be without reproach...it implies not only that the man is of good report, but that he deserves it” - J.H. Benard, The Pastoral Epistles, p. 52

“He must be a blameless male. The adjective anepilempton is derived from lambano, to take hold of, epi, upon and the alpha privative which negates the quality. Hence, the word means ‘not to be taken hold upon’ or ‘irreproachable.’ This means a great deal more than just not a criminal. His conduct should be of such a nature that no handle is given to anyone by which to injure his reputation.” - Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Pastoral Epistles, p. 121

“’without reproach’ is a general character qualification stating that he must give no just cause for blame. The word is literally ‘not to be laid hold of,’ hence not justly open to censure or criticism” - D. Edmond Hiebert, First Timothy, p. 64

“The word used in the original literally means ‘not to be laid hold of,’ hence irreprehensible or unassailable. Enemies may bring all manner of accusations, but these charges are proved to be empty whenever fair methods of investigation are applied. With the church and in accordance with the rules of justice, this man not only has a good reputation but deserves it.” - William Hendriksen, I-II Timothy-Titus, pp. 120-121

Conclusion: The candidate who is to qualify for the office of Bishop MUST CONTINUE TO BE above reproach in all these areas. This is a man that not only has a good reputation in all of these areas but deserves it.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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 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 the office requires that if a man is married he must be a scripturally

married man.

1. First, this objection ignores the meaning of the word “blameless” as well as the purpose behind

these qualifications. Absolute perfection is nowhere literally stated or implied. What is intended

and what is supported by other scriptures is the attainment of a POSSIBLE EXAMPLE to follow.

2. Second, if misconstrued to mean “perfection” then, it is true that all members violate that

standard 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. Anyone who would argue that literal adultery is EQUAL in all aspects to heart

adultery certainly does not need to be in the ministry.

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. How do we know this? Simple! The qualifying

judges are MEN who cannot see the heart.

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

first place nor could any presbytery be called in to qualify a man.

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.

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 restitution 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 no man is ABSOLUTELY BLAMELESS and that all men violate perfection in SOME

DEGREE. However, if PERFECTION is what God has in mind, then why appoint imperfect humans as

the final court of determination? What Church or Presbytery is capable of determining whether or not a

man is qualified in the first place? Since none measure up to ABSOLUTE PERFECTION then what is

the qualification on the sliding scale of imperfection that would qualify one while disqualifying another

and who determines that standard?

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. 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

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. Polygamy, 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 SHEPHERD 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.

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.

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.”

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.

1. There are other capacities in which such a person may serve the Lord. (Bible teacher, preaching a

nursing homes, home bible studies, etc.)

2. A person who will not step down when unqualified needs to examine himself to see whether or not

he is submissive to authority and can follow.

3. Knowledge of the Bible coupled with a profane example is a disgrace to the ministry and to the

cause of Christ.