Five Primary Doctrines

[Tallen]

Hey guys this Copeland, Hagin relationship, is or isn't, you have stated your thoughts so let's it be... and move on.. Lets also remember this thread is should not be about personalities . Thanks Moderator

Reba, being new here I am asking for some room for explanation. This was a key point in the discussion and the character of the person that started the thread was called into the spot light. If in fact, it can be shown that Copeland had an intimate relationship with Hagin, isn't that an important distinction that should be made. It seems to me, that if one is denigrated and his character called into question by another, there should be room for a defense of the point in question. Otherwise, one or the other that brought the point up is going to be living in a deceived state of mind.

 

[reba]

Hey guys this Copeland, Hagin relationship, is or isn't, you have stated your thoughts so let's it be... and move on.. Lets also remember this thread is should not be about personalities . Thanks Moderator

Reba, being new here I am asking for some room for explanation. This was a key point in the discussion and the character of the person that started the thread was called into the spot light. If in fact, it can be shown that Copeland had an intimate relationship with Hagin, isn't that an important distinction that should be made. It seems to me, that if one is denigrated and his character called into question by another, there should be room for a defense of the point in question. Otherwise, one or the other that brought the point up is going to be living in a deceived state of mind.

One time because you are, new here and by the way Welcome,,, The thread is or was on the five doctrines not the persons .. Mods here work to keep threads on track....so they don't go to personalities... The remedy for the member is to start a new thread... Example some one starts a thread on Christmas all the good all the bad about Christmas, we would not want it to divert to Easter.

When threads will not stay on topic most often it show they have lived their life and need be put to rest .

If I have not explained well enough please PM me thank you and again welcome.

 

[Brother Mike]

Brother Mike, I never singled out Kenneth Copeland as money hungry. As a matter of fact, my thoughts were more on a few others but actually I was thinking of some who are being accused of doing this and I don't see it in them or their ministries.

NO, I understand you were not talking about about Brother Copeland. I just "Used" you because you made a comment. I knew what your were meaning. Brother Copeland is not money Hungry nor does He chase Money.

But at the same time he didn't go overboard in the teaching of "if you tithe 10%, the Lord will give back 10 or 100 times".
We do give to certain projects and to the general fund of this ministry. He teaches a pure message of Eph 2 "by grace, through faith, not works".

The bible says God multiplies our seed sown. So any money sown for the Kingdom sake is a great investment because it's always there and multiplied back when you need it. I am not sure about the 10% or 100% return though. If I sow 10, then God gives me 100 back according to how many times I confessed it or how much faith I had?

I believe in a 1000 percent return or even greater because it's based on the heart and what was sown. The Women that gave two mites Got her named mentioned in the Eternal Word of God by Jesus for all to read. How big of a return is that? She got Mentioned in the Word!!! Some seeds continue to produce. Some seeds are one time seeds. Nobody knows the Heart like God, so what you give, He responds back.

Take the guy that at offering time he thumbs through his wallet, looks around at what everyone else is dropping in then as a after thought drops a 50.00 bill in.

Does He get the same from God as someone that has things to pay and has no food but before Church takes a 5.00 bill out with thought about God and wanting to put the Kingdom first, seals it up and gives that. Having it ready?

Who's money is worth more, the 50.00 or the 5.00?

I don't give with afterthought, I give with forethought. God first, everything else later. There is no such thing as I can't afford to tithe. Surely you can come up with .10 cents. Something.

Pulling for Money:

Give and God will bless you, we need this amount for this, we pray over your seed and bla, bla, bla...................... How they know God will bless the giving? Why are they giving? I can promise, if your giving to get your bills paid, your going to be hurting. Those that pull for money are making people their source, and God is not their source.

So what I am saying is that because someone has decided that there is a list of "five primary doctrines" then we need to make sure that the people we say are WoF, believe in these five things. Can these five things represent all those of some other WoF beliefs. Obviously not!

That is because the person that Posted those doctrines is clueless and grabbed something someone else teaches with no thought or knowledge about it. They get their doctrine handed to them from the Internet where Ever the Google god takes them. I don't teach anything unless it's revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, I have checked all the scriptures and it's right according to my revelation that I personally have.

Here is one such website.

Some of the false doctrines of the Word of Faith movement

FAITH IS A "FORCE
POSITIVE CONFESSION - 'NAME IT, CLAIM IT, FRAME IT'
REVELATION KNOWLEDGE
CONTINUING REVELATION-THEREFORE NO NEED FOR QUALITY EXEGESIS OF THE SCRIPTURES.
JESUS NEEDED TO BE BORN AGAIN
JESUS WENT TO HELL
MEN ARE GODS
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/WordofFaith.htm

So what I am saying is that because someone has decided that there is a list of "five primary doctrines" then we need to make sure that the people we say are WoF, believe in these five things. Can these five things represent all those of some other WoF beliefs. Obviously not!

Well, it's like All Baptist believe that God picks and chooses who Goes to Hell. (Calvinism) They all don't hold that Doctrine, They don't all believe God loves dead soldiers. Some people here not old enough to get that figured out yet.

Also, You hear what you want to hear. Believers have to have more faith in faith than in God. They take a confused stance at something and miss other things that could save their life. Jesus said According to your faith it's done unto you. That statement can't be possible for someone that is confused. Jesus said it for a reason and we need to know what the reason was.

It's like saying I have faith in my faith when I pray for someone?

Jesus made the same statement. Father I know you always hear me. His faith was not only based on what He said, but His faith was also in his trust of the Father. He had faith in His faith that God hears him all the time.

Some not taught faith can get real confused about what some of these statements mean like, Force of faith. I don't use those types of statements or "Slain in the Spirit", "A landslide of souls saved today", "My prayer did not get past my hat." These are all statements from different denominations that have meaning but not scripture. I try to avoid them because of other confused people though that have not had any background in other denominations.

If someone in WOF teaches false doctrine, and others in WOF embrace this person or persons, then there is a problem that is more deep rooted than what we can see on the surface.

I Love Brother hinn. I hope he changes some things. Also if another minister comes and teaches on something I don't fully agree on, I am not putting him out or correcting him. The Lord is more than able to fix them, and the Lord knows their heart far better than I do.

Blessings.

Mike.

 

[Tallen]

One time because you are, new here and by the way Welcome,,, The thread is or was on the five doctrines not the persons .. Mods here work to keep threads on track....so they don't go to personalities... The remedy for the member is to start a new thread... Example some one starts a thread on Christmas all the good all the bad about Christmas, we would not want it to divert to Easter.

When threads will not stay on topic most often it show they have lived their life and need be put to rest .

If I have not explained well enough please PM me thank you and again welcome.

That is a fair explanation, thanks.

 

[Deborah13]

In case you didn't notice Deborah, I didn't put my words down for the qualification of a pastor..., it was the Apostle's words. The qualification is that one is to be the husband of one wife, not the husband of three wives.

I did see that yes.

I don't have a strong view on my question here, so I'm not arguing that you are incorrect but....I wonder how GOD see it.
Is Kenneth Copeland the husband of three wives?

Two of these wives (were) wives and were wives when he was still an unbeliever. Does God hold this against him now as a believer. When we become a believer we are not the same creature, we are made new, a creature of God. I used Paul as an example, did God see Paul as the old creature that was a murder of Christians, I don't think so. Did He hold this against him and not allow him to be a leader in His church?

I also look at the scripture of the "woman at the well". Jesus says that she is telling the truth when she says she doesn't have a husband.

John 4 YLT
16 Jesus saith to her, `Go, call thy husband, and come hither;'
17 the woman answered and said, `I have not a husband.' Jesus saith to her, `Well didst thou say -- A husband I have not;
18 for five husbands thou hast had, and, now, he whom thou hast is not thy husband; this hast thou said truly.'

Jesus is clearly saying that she is not married, that she has been married (past tense) and that the man that she now has is not her husband they are not married.

So my understanding of the passage you quote would have to be something like this in my understanding.
#1. literally not have more than one wife, present tense. Remember some of the Jews at least and maybe the Gentiles too had more than one wife (present tense). We see this in the OT and it was still legal.
#2. That they have one wife after their conversion, not allowed to be marrying and divorcing and marrying again. People in leadership position need to show that they are able to sustain a Godly marriage. However, sometimes we see very Godly man loose their marriage through the decisions of the spouse without any type of just cause being stated by the spouse. Should we rip their ministry away from them, Charles Stanley comes to mind?

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Theos

your also seem to miss the definition of "god" as given in the bible. Jesus called them Theos. You can't dodge that at all. That means gods. yes the angels were judged called the sons of God......... However Psalm does not call them sons of God but Children of God. you know what Yodas_Prodigy. You have a choice. Stick to the exact Word, or hunt some garbage on the Internet that is stuck in some religion. Your choice. I suggest strongly you stick with the Word and have the Word change your theology. Triune God? Seriously Where is that at? Divine Council? Where? This seems close to a copy and past I had when I had this same conversation a few years ago. I believe you can do better than this and look for yourself.

Let me try the old concordance theologian approach, here is the definition of theos from Strong’s:

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity

a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
​

3) spoken of the only and true God

a) refers to the things of God
b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
​

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

a) God's representative or vice regent

1) of magistrates and judges
​

Because we are dealing with the Words of Jesus about other beings, definitions 2 and 3 are not needed. We are not discussing deities in general or divinities in general, so definition 1 is not used. That leaves us with definition 4.

Now the term vice regent is a rather general statement. It is some being who governs in God’s place. This may be a man or an angel or a son of God.

What you have postulated is incorrect regarding theos.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2316&t=KJV

We are now back to context. The gods mentioned in Psalm 82 and John 10 are created beings known as sons of God. In the OT, they are in Hebrew referred to as elohim. The NT Greek word is theos.

Your denial of the divine council or holy assembly as sons of God or angels packs no punch. You will not find anywhere else in scripture where elohim is used for humans with flesh (Samual was a spirit without flesh).

Let’s see what the Apostle Paul says about all of this, Verse 11 uses the word Theos:

Acts 14:11-15

New International Version (NIV)

11 When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15 “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them.

 

[Tallen]

John 4 YLT
16 Jesus saith to her, `Go, call thy husband, and come hither;'
17 the woman answered and said, `I have not a husband.' Jesus saith to her, `Well didst thou say -- A husband I have not;
18 for five husbands thou hast had, and, now, he whom thou hast is not thy husband; this hast thou said truly.'

Jesus is clearly saying that she is not married, that she has been married (past tense) and that the man that she now has is not her husband they are not married.

So my understanding of the passage you quote would have to be something like this in my understanding.
#1. literally not have more than one wife, present tense. Remember some of the Jews at least and maybe the Gentiles too had more than one wife (present tense). We see this in the OT and it was still legal.
#2. That they have one wife after their conversion, not allowed to be marrying and divorcing and marrying again. People in leadership position need to show that they are able to sustain a Godly marriage. However, sometimes we see very Godly man loose their marriage through the decisions of the spouse without any type of just cause being stated by the spouse. Should we rip their ministry away from them, Charles Stanley comes to mind?

Well D, let's look at little closer at what Jesus said,"for five husbands thou hast had". He counted five husbands and the man she was currently with wasn't a husband. The Greek in 1 Timothy is rather clear. It is talking about the husband of one wife, just has Messiah is talking about the wife of five husbands. If we apply the Messiah's reckoning, if someone has more than one, then they have had how many spouses they ever had been married to. He didn't tell the woman at the well, you were married five times, but specifically that she had had five husbands. If he were to say to the woman, I am requiring you to have had one husband to drink of the well, would he have overlooked the other four and pretended they never existed?

The elders of the church are to reflect the nature of YHWH, our faithful husband. And the husband of one wife reflects the faithfulness required to be that picture. Also, when giving advice on marriage, children and leadership..., I would much rather be hearing the advice of a successful husband, father and leader. It doesn't mean much to me to hear how a person failed at what they started out to accomplish and failed..., but the advice of someone that set out to accomplish a thing and did is much more valuable.

This is why Edited some guys are not qualified as a leaders, if he had been at the well Messiah would have told him he was the husband of three wives. And if he was with another woman who he had not married, not saying he is, but He would have told them that the current woman wasn't his wife.

Same principle in both cases.

 

[Deborah13]

If we apply the Messiah's reckoning, if someone has more than one, then they have had how many spouses they ever had been married to. He didn't tell the woman at the well, you were married five times, but specifically that she had had five husbands. If he were to say to the woman, I am requiring you to have had one husband to drink of the well, would he have overlooked the other four and pretended they never existed?

I think our understanding this scripture "at the well" is the same "have had" being past tense.

Now in 1 Timothy we see "be the husband of one wife" the word here "be" in the Gk is (present tense, imperative) Must be, now the husband of one wife and this is a command (imperative). What if this man were a widower and had remarried, would he be disqualified, too. I think not.

Now here in Titus Paul says in a description as to the same...leaders in the church.
Titus 1:5-9
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that the things lacking thou mayest arrange, and mayest set down in every city elders, as I did appoint to thee;
6 if any one is blameless, of one wife a husband, having children stedfast, not under accusation of riotous living or insubordinate --
7 for it behoveth the overseer to be blameless, as God's steward, not self-pleased, nor irascible, not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 but a lover of strangers, a lover of good men, sober-minded, righteous, kind, self-controlled,
9 holding -- according to the teaching -- to the stedfast word, that he may be able also to exhort in the sound teaching, and the gainsayers to convict;

Here he give much more detail as to how these men should be living, now in the present. Certainly in their past lives as unbelievers they could not have fulfilled all these requirements for none of them would have been considered righteous.

Paul, had the same problem when he became a leader. No one was sure that God had sent him as a leader in the church, because of his past. Peter and James, had to assure them that he had been called by God.
So I learn from this that we are to look at the new creature that God has changed. Do they now present themselves as the description in Titus. If not, then they are not a good representative of Christ in the Church.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

whom thou hast is not thy husband; this hast thou said truly.'

I find this quite interesting.
Jesus never told her to stop being with the man she was not married to.
Why not?

 

[Brother Mike]

Re: Theos

Let me try the old concordance theologian approach, here is the definition of theos from Strong’s:

a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

OH MY GOSH!!! The third person of what???? OK, I guess you just don't get it. I understand, as there is nothing to be done for you until you get ears to hear. I seriously tried to help you, but your not in learning mode. Once again you did what I asked you not to do. You went to some web site and posted this from James Strongs concordance.

This is Strongs you say!!!!

There is one slight problem here. [Comment removed by Sparrowhawke]

James Strong was thought to not even be Christian because He denied the Trinity Doctrine as rubbish.

That is not Strongs work that is some morons work!!! Something you goggled and I asked you not to do that.

This is what James Strongs Wrote.................... sigh..... You quoted Thayer............ [Comment removed by Sparrowhawke]

You tell me it's Strongs but you quoted Thayer written by Joseph Henry. [Comment removed by Sparrowhawke]

theos
theh'-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].

New American Standard
theos; of unc. or.; God, a god: - divinely (1), God (1267), god (6), God’s (27), God-fearing (1), godly (2), godly *(1), gods (8), Lord (1).

Thayer is a Greek concordance Written by Joseph Henry Who Graduated from Harvard and studied in Ma........... James Strong attended school at Drew in NJ They are not even the same states.

Andover is a Methodist so the Concordance was written with Methodist doctrine to help make things more clear. Are you methodist??? Or a bible student..... [Comment removed by Sparrowhawke]

Then you quote me the NIV............................ The most accurate bible on the planet. Oh my..... You post me a Methodist Greek understanding, call it strong's work, then quote the NIV who some of the writers did not believe in God or Trinity and hence removed as many references as possible.

So, You believe in Trinity, you don't, Your confused on who wrote what and to prove a point you use a bible that did not even believe in God, or Trinity.

You did this to prove something to me to be concrete and solid??? I am suppose to do what with this? [Comment removed by Sparrowhawke]

You have not done as I asked. Please give me one reason I should still listen to you and take you seriously. I will listen. It better be a good reason.

Pull it together Brother...........

Blessings.

Mike.

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Re: Theos

Mike, I do get it. Rather than drag this out any further, it is better that we leave this lie for now. You accuse me of not thinking. You once called me a liar. You do not know me nor know my capabilities. I have given sound responses to your objections. No offense, I kept it simple as I could because I do not read the words of a learned man when I read your posts, rather those of one who is more interested in defending WoF than the truth of YHWH's word. Your condescending words and tone show that you are unwilling to deal with the truth before you.

BTW, I am familiar with Thayer. I am also casual friends with DTS Greek Professor Dan Wallace. I own and use his book for Greek discussions.. I have studied Dr. Mounce's book also.

TYFYT's

 

[Deborah13]

Originally Posted by Deborah13


whom thou hast is not thy husband; this hast thou said truly.'




I find this quite interesting.
Jesus never told her to stop being with the man she was not married to.
Why not?

Well, I don't know. But we don't know that we are privy to the whole conversation.
But we do know that if she received Him as the Messiah and believed in faith, that when the Holy Spirit was given, the laws of God were written on her heart and she would know.

 

[Sparkey]

Jesus never told her to stop being with the man she was not married to.

My thought is that our Lord was teaching something to her. He was delivering a promise. That promise flows from the Worship of God and Jesus said that those who do so (in truth) will get what was promised, that out from their bellies would flow living water.

So she spoke and Jesus, as was often the case, got right back to the subject at hand. We don't think that the basic need to deny oneself and to pick up our cross daily is not required simply because Jesus did not include that instruction in every sermon or admonishment. Neither here may we think that Jesus condones fornication. Sufficient for him to notice, pretty sure the woman may have already heard his now famous, "Go and sin no more," admonishment.

The woman at the well directly asked Jesus, "Are you greater than our father, Jacob?"

She stated (after he spoke of her five husbands), "I can see that you are a prophet..."
Jesus went on to declare (in answer to her direct question), "I am that one, the Messiah."

He spoke of what she truly wanted, and may have implied that her search for satisfaction in the arms of her lovers was a vain attempt but that she should ask of him, that she may be truly satisfied. This is the very same thing that we are offered today. A response to our need. That our lands may drink; our thirsts be quenched.

 

[Brother Mike]

BTW, I am familiar with Thayer. I am also casual friends with DTS Greek Professor Dan Wallace. I own and use his book for Greek discussions.. I have studied Dr. Mounce's book also.

Well, bless God. I may seem really, really rough, even nasty at times, but I am treating you as someone trusted with the Word of God. I don't expect you to be all over the place to prove something. Methodist is fine, but it's a world apart from the NIV. Excellence, Brother!!! Scripture only. My Pastor Quotes Many Methodist Pastors. There were some great ones through the years.

Eddited for rudeness

Some here I don't mind debating with because I know where they come from and they are consistent. Be consistent. Others are not worth the time, they are to new, and young in the word but think they know everything. Be solid................ We don't have to agree, but I can respect you if I understand what you see could possibly make sense.

Thayer's Greek is good, It brings some things out the others don't. All of them get definitions not from the actual Greek or Hebrew but the way they believe the bible used the term. A lot of bible words don't even have a history but what the Bible says and how the Bible used them. It's not easy.

Thayer wrote that with the Methodist Doctrine infused into it. That is good if your methodist, but you have the added Doctrine, like the Trinity. James strong thought the Trinity was nonsense and did not see it in the Greek word. Who is right? That is the issue. If you show me you know that, then all good. I don't feel like your just grabbing things to prove something. Blessings....

I find this quite interesting.
Jesus never told her to stop being with the man she was not married to.
Why not?

What point would it have helped? It's not as if she was going to stop seeing the man. He did make it clear though to her that 5 were actual husbands and He considered the one she with not legit or being called a Husband. In those times you were not suppose to just shack up (Remember the women about to get stoned?) So it might have been enough to turn her the other way. He did not come to condemn the World or judge works of the flesh such as sin. He came to save the World.

Mike.

 

[eddif]

whom thou hast is not thy husband; this hast thou said truly.'

I find this quite interesting.
Jesus never told her to stop being with the man she was not married to.
Why not?

Ezra 10:3
2 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

So it was foreign wives that were the problem?

Solomon had a problem with foreign wives leading him astray.
So in the NT the type of wife is still defined.
I Timothy 3:11
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

Since I have not had a real bad beating today, I might ask: Is it one (1) wife or is it one (type) of wife?

Now if I just knew Hebrew and Greek.... LOL Or maybe if I knew traditions?

I think I was really looking for a lite moment in all this. After all in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.

eddif

 

[Deborah13]

Since I have not had a real bad beating today, I might ask: Is it one (1) wife or is it one (type) of wife?

Now if I just knew Hebrew and Greek.... LOL Or maybe if I knew traditions?

LOL, clever....

 

[Tallen]

Now here in Titus Paul says in a description as to the same...leaders in the church. Titus 1:5-9 5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that the things lacking thou mayest arrange, and mayest set down in every city elders, as I did appoint to thee; 6 if any one is blameless, of one wife a husband, having children stedfast, not under accusation of riotous living or insubordinate -- 7 for it behoveth the overseer to be blameless, as God's steward, not self-pleased, nor irascible, not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 but a lover of strangers, a lover of good men, sober-minded, righteous, kind, self-controlled, 9 holding -- according to the teaching -- to the stedfast word, that he may be able also to exhort in the sound teaching, and the gainsayers to convict;

Deborah, the idea of pointing to the woman at the well was to show how Messiah reckoned marriage. He counted all of the womans marriages as husbands. He did not say that they all didn't count and the man she was currently with was "her new man". He counted them all, five husbands and a current man that is not a husband. This is how He looked at it.

Now as far as the Greek in 1 Timothy, the word "be" einai, is the verb for "blameless" anepileptos, and literally is suggesting that the elder should be one who is not currently arrested. He should stand legally blameless.

The next part of the sentence, mias gunikos andpa, is translated literally as one woman man. In other words, it isn't talking about him currently having one wife, but is talking about him being a man that is a one woman man. Not one woman at a time, but this is his character, a one woman man. Note that one woman is in the genitive, meaning that the man is or has been the faithful or in possession of one woman. This does not imply that he is a one woman at a time man, but a man has demonstrated himself to be a one woman man. It's clear if you look, you can't get around this phrase in the Greek, one woman man or one wife man.

Now back to the reckoning of Messiah, he saw the character of the woman at the well as a five husband woman. He reckoned her past husbands as husbands and her morality was that she was not a one man woman. He explicitly tells her that she is the wife of five husbands, not condemning her of her five husbands and whatever the circumstances that she had them. Now the Apostle isn't changing the reckoning of Messiah, and teaching something contrary to Him..., he is showing that eldership is an important role and the distinguishing traits to know who is qualified is someone that is/has been /and will be a one woman man. This is a moral character, an inward trait, something that is a conviction of the man who should be appointed as an elder..., he is a one woman man.

Blessings.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Since I have not had a real bad beating today, I might ask: Is it one (1) wife or is it one (type) of wife?

After more reading, I see the women Jesus saved from adultery was Jewish.
He said to her, "now sin no more".
It was against Jewish law.
The samaritan women was not under such law.
Jesus gave her the Holy Spirit to guide her in right and wrong.

 

[Tallen]

Since I have not had a real bad beating today, I might ask: Is it one (1) wife or is it one (type) of wife?

The Greek in 1 Timothy reads "one woman man" speaking of the character of the man. It is in this case a moral conviction of the man. The Apostle is not condemning anyone for having more than one wife, especially woman who he said elsewhere can marry if they are widows. But in the case of the elder, he is laying out the qualifications of such a person, he is telling us what qualifies a person and what to look for in the one that is going to fill this role as leader. In other words, the Apostle is showing us what kind of a person to look for when we are looking for an elder to place over the local assembly of believers. It is a person that is blameless (not in legal trouble), a one woman man, sober (not one that clowns around but acts respectfully), self controlled, having good behavior, etc. These are moral characteristic, and reflect the kind of persons that we should consider as a leaders, our leaders. The Apostle, all the way through this, is speaking of morality of a person.


This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-6, KJV)

 

[Deborah13]

But in the case of the elder, he is laying out the qualifications of such a person, he is telling us what qualifies a person and what to look for in the one that is going to fill this role as leader. In other words, the Apostle is showing us what kind of a person to look for when we are looking for an elder to place over the local assembly of believers. It is a person that is blameless (not in legal trouble), a one woman man, sober (not one that clowns around but acts respectfully), self controlled, having good behavior, etc. These are moral characteristic, and reflect the kind of persons that we should consider as a leaders, our leaders. The Apostle, all the way through this, is speaking of morality of a person.

So by these standards someone like Paul could not be chosen by the church today to be a leader because of his past behaviors?

And the woman at the well, the church would correct in saying that she was still married to her first husband in God's eyes and the rest were not husbands, she was just shacking up with the other 4 husbands?