"What God put together and adulterous relationship

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Do you think a married pastor that ran off with a woman then married the woman is excluded from being a bishop/elder? Or all is clear?

Excluded.

Consider the qualifications laid out in the Scriptures, and how such a scenario fails nearly every standard:

1 Timothy 3,

Above reproach: FAILS

Most people will hold such a man in reproach, and consider his actions shameful

Husband of one wife: FAILS

If he "marries" the second woman in some figurative sense, it's polygamy. If he divorces, he's had more than one wife.

Sober-minded: FAILS

Perhaps he doesn't drink to intoxication, but the phrase also implies clear-headedness, thinking clearly.

Self-Controlled: FAILS

Clearly, he's given away his control over himself to the lusts of his flesh

Respectable: FAILS

No one but the wicked respects an adulterer

Hospitable: FAILS

How are you going to entertain people in your home and minister to them, when your marriage is falling apart and you've split the moral strength of your home in two?

Able to teach: FAILS

How can a man teach sinners and even saints on how to live a life of Godly righteousness when he himself clearly cannot?

Not a drunkard: DEPENDS

He may or may not imbibe alcohol to the point of drunkenness. If he does, he's again disqualified. If he doesn't, he already has everything else against him.

Not violent but gentle: DEPENDS

Perhaps he doesn't strike or hit or throw his hands around in violence, but the emotional and spiritual toil of his cheating is an emotionally and spiritually violent act of betrayal toward his family and the church

Not quarrelsome: FAILS

Him and his wife fought and argued and quarreled a long time, privately, secretly, before he ever went a-whoring, rest assured. Rome didn't fall in a day, as the saying goes, and neither does a marriage.

Not a lover of money: DEPENDS

His greed is indeterminate

Must manage his own household well: FAILS

Obviously.

With dignity, keeping his children submissive: FAILS

Loss of dignity, and his children will become rebellious and fight against him, without question. His relationship with them is permanently altered, perhaps even ruined.

Not a recent convert: DEPENDS

His level of emotional and spiritual maturity help defines his status as a convert, just as much as his personal time in the Body of Christ.

Well thought of by outsiders:

His poor example will likely, in fact, cause people to turn away from Christianity, as a sham religion full of immoral people.

Titus 1,

Above reproach: FAILS (see above)

The husband of one wife: FAILS (see above)

His children are believers: DEPENDS

There's a good chance his sin will cause his children to fall away.

Not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination: DEPENDS

If his children fall away, what will become of their behavior?

Must be above reproach: FAILS (see above)

He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered: FAILS

Anyone who thinks he can disobey God, disregard the Word, wreck his marriage, ruin his family, and etc. is likely arrogant, that is, too full of himself and his ability to get away with it. Especially if it's brazen. The word translated "arrogant" means self-willed, i.e. self-gratifying. As for quick-tempered, if his marriage is poor, and he decides to whore after another woman, the Greek here refers to someone who harbors resentment, with a long standing anger which generates a short fuse. That may describe such a man in an unhappy marriage.

Drunkard or violent or greedy for gain: DEPENDS (see above)

Hospitable: FAILS (see above)

A lover of good: FAILS

Clearly, he loves something else.

Self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined: FAILS

Obviously.

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it: FAILS

Without question. He isn't holding firm to the Word. He gave that up when he decided to whore after another woman.

So, with all this decidedly so, what about the man who has FAILED at the above, then repents and is transformed and renewed by the Holy Spirit?

Can he be restored to oversight? Or is that bridge burned forever?

I'm not sure a doctrine can be reached from the Scriptures either way, but I think we can be dogmatic about it, perhaps in a similar way in which a parole board has to determine if a prisoner has been sufficiently rehabilitated by his incarceration to be allowed an early release back into society. And as you know, some offenders are denied parole every time, until they die in prison.

Such may be the case for a bishop who commits adultery. No parole, no early release. He may die without oversight ever again. And that may be God's will of him. And if so, so be it.

The sin will follow him everywhere he goes, even if God has forgiven him. Let the ministry be not reproached or give offense in anything.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I would take exception to this interpretation of his words regarding the authority of his statements.

1 Corinthians 7:10 KJV
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

VS

1 Corinthians 7:12 KJV
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

I do not believe this is a difference of inspiration. For then we have a passage of Scripture that is literally just one man's opinion, and therefore not authoritative. But the teachings of the apostle Paul are in fact authoritative, and he wrote what he wrote by divine inspiration.

So what is he saying here?

The the first instance involves a restatement of a direct instruction or teaching from the Lord, and the second instance involves a statement of apostolic teaching. Both are inspired, and both are authoritative, but one is directly from the Lord (either a paraphrase of the Law, or a teaching actually declared by Christ during His ministry) and the other is directly from the apostle (who, being led by the Spirit and authorised by Christ as an apostle has the authority to establish "ordinances" or rules which are binding upon the church).

The alternative, that Paul was declaring he was just giving his human, uninspired opinion, breaks the chain of Scripture in that we now have "scripture" that quite honestly should not be considered Scripture. What else in the Bible is not Scripture? What else is just Paul's opinion and therefore uninspired and therefore non-binding?

"οὐκ ἐγὼ, ἀλλʼ ὁ Κύριος] The negation is absolute. Paul knew from the living voice of tradition what commands Christ had given concerning divorce, Matthew 5:31 f., Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18. Hence ὁ Κύριος, sc[1104] παραγγέλλει, for the authority of Christ lives on in His commands (against Baur, who infers from the present, which is to be supplied here, that Paul means the will of Christ made known to him by inspiration). It is otherwise in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. As regards the ἐγώ, again, Paul was conscious (1 Corinthians 7:40) that his individuality was under the influence of the Holy Spirit. He distinguishes, therefore, here and in 1 Corinthians 7:12; 1 Corinthians 7:25, not between his own and inspired commands, but between those which proceeded from his own (God-inspired) subjectivity and those which Christ Himself supplied by His objective word. " (Meyer's New Testament Commentary)

"The Lord Jesus, during his ministry on earth, delivered many precepts of his law in the hearing of his disciples. And those which he did not deliver in person, he promised to reveal to them by the Spirit, after his departure. Therefore there is a just foundation for distinguishing the commandments which the Lord delivered in person, from those which he revealed to the apostles by the Spirit, and which they made known to the world in their sermons and writings. This distinction is not only made by Paul; it is insinuated likewise by Peter and Jude, 2 Peter 3:3, Jdg 1:17, where the commandments of the apostles of the Lord and Saviour are mentioned, not as inferior in authority to the commandments of the Lord, (for they were all as really his commandments as those which he delivered in person,) but as different in the manner of their communication. And the apostle’s intention here was not, as many have imagined, to tell us in what things he was inspired, and in what not; but to show us what commandments the Lord delivered personally in his own lifetime, and what the Spirit inspired the apostles to deliver after his departure. This Paul could do with certainty; because, although he was not of the number of those who accompanied our Lord during his ministry, all the particulars of his life and doctrine were made known to him by revelation, as may be collected from 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Timothy 5:18; and from many allusions to the words and actions of Christ, found in the epistles which Paul wrote before any of the gospels were published; and from his mentioning one of Christ’s sayings, not recorded by any of the evangelists, Acts 20:35. Further, that the apostle’s intention, in distinguishing the Lord’s commandments from those he calls his own, was not to show what things he spake by inspiration, and what not, is evident, from his adding certain circumstances, which prove that, in delivering his own commandments, or judgment, he was really inspired. Thus, when he asserted that a widow was at liberty to marry a second time, by adding, (1 Corinthians 7:40,) she is happier if she so abide, after (that is, according to) my judgment; and I think, or, (as δοκω rather means,) I am certain that I also have the Spirit of God, he plainly asserted that he was inspired in giving that judgment or determination." (Benson's Commentary)

I disagree.

The commentaries you cite bring up 1 Corinthians 7:40.

The key terms there are: γνώμην gnomen and δοκῶ doko.

The first refers to a personal opinion or judgment, i.e. advice (See 2 Corinthians 8:10, vis a vis verse 8, where Paul differentiates his advice from a commandment).

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/1106.htm

The second means "to suppose", i.e. what seems to be according to one's own subjectivity.

The term is used similarly of the Gentiles, who think, i.e. suppose that their "much speaking" per the KJV, results in their gods hearing them (Matthew 6:7) or when the disciples thought they had seen a ghost/spirit on the waters, but it was actually the Lord (Mark 6:49), or when the disciples argued over who should be deemed greatest in the Kingdom of God (Luke 22:24).

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/1380.htm

In each case, there is always subjectivity and opinion.

As for why Paul would give us an opinion not fully binding on the church, here is my take:

Keep in mind in 1 Corinthians 7, he is dealing with marriage, and he was very careful to not abrogate what he would later write in the letter (and elsewhere): that the head of every wife is the husband. He wanted to be very careful about interfering with another man's headship over his own wife. So, he very carefully distinguished between what he knew was clear in the Law, and what Christ had taught, and what he thought was best if or whenever a situation in the church arose regarding marriage that wasn't covered by the Law or in the teachings of Christ.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I disagree.

The commentaries you cite bring up 1 Corinthians 7:40.

The key terms there are: γνώμην gnomen and δοκῶ doko.

The first refers to a personal opinion or judgment, i.e. advice (See 2 Corinthians 8:10, vis a vis verse 8, where Paul differentiates his advice from a commandment).

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/1106.htm

The second means "to suppose", i.e. what seems to be according to one's own subjectivity.

The term is used similarly of the Gentiles, who think, i.e. suppose that their "much speaking" per the KJV, results in their gods hearing them (Matthew 6:7) or when the disciples thought they had seen a ghost/spirit on the waters, but it was actually the Lord (Mark 6:49), or when the disciples argued over who should be deemed greatest in the Kingdom of God (Luke 22:24).

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/1380.htm

In each case, there is always subjectivity and opinion.

As for why Paul would give us an opinion not fully binding on the church, here is my take:

Keep in mind in 1 Corinthians 7, he is dealing with marriage, and he was very careful to not abrogate what he would later write in the letter (and elsewhere): that the head of every wife is the husband. He wanted to be very careful about interfering with another man's headship over his own wife. So, he very carefully distinguished between what he knew was clear in the Law, and what Christ had taught, and what he thought was best if or whenever a situation in the church arose regarding marriage that wasn't covered by the Law or in the teachings of Christ.

Paul's personal opinions, as recorded in Scripture, giving direction to the church, are inspired by God, and are the voice of God speaking to His sheep. After giving his opinion, he states "and I think I also have the Holy Ghost", meaning his opinion is, in his estimation, inspired by God.

Cambridge Bible commentary notes:
and I think also that I have the Spirit of God] Not that there was any doubt in the Apostle’s mind on this point. The word used implies full persuasion that in the advice he had given he was speaking under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Bengel:
1 Corinthians 7:40. Μακαριωτέρα, happier) 1 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Corinthians 7:28; 1 Corinthians 7:34-35; Luke 23:29.—δοκῶ, I think) The Corinthians thought more of themselves than was right, and less of Paul. Paul with delicate pleasantry, ἀστέιως, gives them back their own expression.—κᾀγὼ) I also, no less certainly, than any of you [who may think he has the Spirit].—Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, the Spirit of GOD) whose counsels are spiritual, divine.

Barnes':
And I think also that I have the Spirit of God - Macknight and others suppose that this phrase implies entire certainty; and that Paul means to affirm that in this he was clear that he was under the influence of inspiration. He appeals for the use of the term (δωκῶ dōkō) to Mark 10:32; Luke 8:18; 1 Corinthians 4:9; 1 Corinthians 8:2; 1 Corinthians 11:16; Hebrews 4:1, etc. But the word does not usually express absolute certainty. It implies a doubt; though there may be a strong persuasion or conviction; or the best judgment which the mind can form in the case; see Matthew 6:7; Matthew 26:53; Mark 6:49; Luke 8:18; Luke 10:36; Luke 12:51; Luke 13:24; Luke 22:24; Acts 17:18; Acts 25:27; 1 Corinthians 16:12, 1 Corinthians 16:22, etc. It implies here a belief that Paul was under the influence of the infallible Spirit, and that his advice was such as accorded with the will of God. Perhaps he alludes to the fact that the teachers at Corinth deemed themselves to be under the influence of inspiration, and Paul said that he judged also of himself that he was divinely guided and directed in what he said - "Calvin." And as Paul in this could not be mistaken; as his impression that he was under the influence of that Spirit was, in fact, a claim to divine inspiration, so this advice should be regarded as of divine authority, and as binding on all. This interpretation is further demanded by the circumstances of the case. It was necessary that he should assert divine authority to counteract the teaching of the false instructors in Corinth; and that he should interpose that authority in prescribing rules for the government of the church there in view of the special temptations to which they were exposed.

JFB:
I think also—"I also think"; just as you Corinthians and your teachers think much of your opinions, so I also give my opinion by inspiration; so in 1Co 7:25, "my judgment" or opinion. Think does not imply doubt, but often a matter of well-grounded assurance (Joh 5:39).