# Could Haggard be restored???



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 13, 2006)

http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2006_11_01_archive.php#116319564180698428

I have no sympathy for Ted Haggard nor his charismatic doctrine but after reading this on the Calcedon blog I wondered if Chris Ortiz may be being a little unscriptural.
Does Gal 6:1 only apply to a certain type of sinner? Woud it be possible for Haggard, if he truly is a believer, to throw himself at the mercy of God as David did in Psalm 51?
I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
BTW, I have little sympathy for Rushdoony's reconstructionism either. In his world Haggard, as well as most others who have fallen into sexual sin would be executed.
Brother James


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2006)

While Chris' rhetoric may be overly blunt at times, I had no problem with what he wrote.

Granting that the church doesn't use the sword, and also entertaining the proposition that the State should outlaw sodomy (with the inevitable implication that santcions would be imposed), how then, shall Haggard be dealt?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 13, 2006)

Draught Horse said:


> While Chris' rhetoric may be overly blunt at times, I had no problem with what he wrote.
> 
> Granting that the church doesn't use the sword, and also entertaining the proposition that the State should outlaw sodomy (with the inevitable implication that santcions would be imposed), how then, shall Haggard be dealt?



That's what I'm asking brother. I don't believe the man could ever be restored to the ministry, but if true repentance is manifested, could he be restored to fellowship in the church? I mean, if David could be forgiven for murder and adultery is anyone beyond restoration?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Nov 13, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> That's what I'm asking brother. I don't believe the man could ever be restored to the ministry, but if true repentance is manifested, *could he be restored to fellowship in the church*? I mean, if David could be forgiven for murder and adultery is anyone beyond restoration?



I was not aware that he had been disfellowshipped/excommunicated.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 13, 2006)

tcalbrecht said:


> I was not aware that he had been disfellowshipped/excommunicated.




You have a point there. I know he has been removed from his position, but as to the rest I don't know.


----------



## satz (Nov 13, 2006)

> That's what I'm asking brother. I don't believe the man could ever be restored to the ministry, but if true repentance is manifested, could he be restored to fellowship in the church? I mean, if David could be forgiven for murder and adultery is anyone beyond restoration?



I really can't see why not. Wasn't the fornicator from 1 Corinthians eventually restored to fellowship? I would find it hard to see how there is any sin at all, no matter how hideous, that would result in someone being permanently barred from fellowship with the church, even after repentance.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> That's what I'm asking brother. I don't believe the man could ever be restored to the ministry, but if true repentance is manifested, could he be restored to fellowship in the church? I mean, if David could be forgiven for murder and adultery is anyone beyond restoration?



Fair enough, good questions. But...hold my thought for a while...I will get back to it later. You raise good points; I acknowledge that. I will get back to it later. Paul Manata had a good insight on that a long time ago in a thread far away. Be back later.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 13, 2006)

Matthew 12:31-32 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Restoration to the ministry, never!


----------



## caddy (Nov 13, 2006)

I absolutely agree

Those that have abused that high calling can find God's forgiveness, just as David did, but restoring them to that level of ministry again is absolutely out of the question. 




Scott Bushey said:


> Matthew 12:31-32 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
> 
> Restoration to the ministry, never!


----------



## satz (Nov 13, 2006)

> I absolutely agree
> 
> Those that have abused that high calling can find God's forgiveness, just as David did, but restoring them to that level of ministry again is absolutely out of the question.



I am certainly not a Haggard supporter in any way shape or form, but how would this be reconciled with David being restored to the ministry after repenting?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 13, 2006)

I don't believe David was a _minister_ per se. In those days, there were priests. David was a king. Today, we are all priests:

Revelation 1:5-6 5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father-- to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. 

Revelation 5:9-10 9 And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."


----------



## KenPierce (Nov 13, 2006)

There is a special seriousness to gross sexual sin (infidelity), and doubly so when the sin is against nature (homosexuality). 

I don't know Haggard, and I don't know his doctrine or his heart. 

But, it seems to me that, as gross as this sin was, it is no more gross than Peter's denial of Christ, with Christ standing a few yards off. 

And, Peter's restoration after repentance was total.

Restoration should not be a quick or light thing. But, how can we be true to the Scriptures, and yet rule out its possibility?

And, let us remember that, in theocratic Israel, the office of King was a spiritual office. There was no divide between sacred and secular (and we could argue whether there is now!).


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 13, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> Matthew 12:31-32 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
> 
> Restoration to the ministry, never!


 
Scott, what point are you trying to make by quoting this verse? Are you suggesting that Haggard committed the unforgivable sin?


----------



## Archlute (Nov 13, 2006)

Whatever the status of Haggard may be, Chris is clearly in the wrong in that article.

For starters, how he comes to decide that 1 Cor. 5 is more relevant here than Gal. 6 is an example of arbitrary sub-Bible college proof texting. He notes that Paul says the sexual sin involved is such that is "not even named among the Gentiles (appearantly to make the link with Haggard's situation) - but Paul is speaking about an incestuous relationship there (which Chris omits from his citation), not homosexuality. Also, Paul was rebuking them due to the pride that they had towards the offense, they were reveling in the sin, something that I see neither Haggard, nor his church, engaging in.

Second, Chris seems to be reveling himself in the sin of his hateful heart. He vocally emphasizes that he has absolutely zero compassion for Ted, his wife, the church, and only barely any for the children. I wonder how this fits in with the exhortations to compassion that we as Christians receive in passages such as Phil. 2:1, Col. 3:12, and the implications of 1 Cor. 13? What about those exhortations to be imatators of Christ, of He who was compassionate for our sakes beyond all measure?

Also, Rushdoony's exegesis of the term "paraptoma" Gal. 6:1 is an example of a selective word study. He claims that it only means a falling aside, a slip, lapse or weakness, and never a willful transgression, malicious act, or actions which show a contempt for godliness. This limited definition is disproved by the very first occurence of the term in the NT. In Matt. 6:14 the implications of this term is that one is forgiving trespasses committed against their person, and that if we are too stubborn to forgive trespasses made against our persons we should not expect that God will forgive our trespasses against Him. 

Likewise, if Christ was delivered over for our "paraptomata"/trespasses, sins, etc. in Rom. 4:25, how could we be assured of a full justification if that justification only included slip ups commited in weakness, and not also our willful rebellion and transgressions against godliness? I would like to think that Christ was delivered over for the sake of my most most actively heinous sins, and not just my "false steps" made in weakness. 

I'd say that Chris at Chalcedon needs our prayers just as much as Ted Haggard, because if I am reading the words of Christ rightly, it is the self-righteous and hardened Pharisee who is in a more precarious position in the long run than the woman caught in adultery.


----------



## satz (Nov 13, 2006)

KenPierce said:


> There is a special seriousness to gross sexual sin (infidelity), and doubly so when the sin is against nature (homosexuality).
> 
> I don't know Haggard, and I don't know his doctrine or his heart.
> 
> ...





In fact, Peter's restoration was _so_ total that he was the one who stood up amongst the disciples to condemn Judas and call for the choosing of a replacement.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 13, 2006)

I'm hoping all this public exposure is shocking him into a place where he genuinely repents. His chances of the Law & Gospel being correctly applied by two charismatics are slim, but God can do many things. Praying for him. As for restoration to the ministry...that's above my pay grade.


----------



## satz (Nov 13, 2006)

It is certainly not my intention to argue that Haggard should be restored to the ministry if he repents. Some might even say he shouldn't have been there in the first place. But I am just wondering at the 'one strike and you're out' mentality that many conservative people have towards pastors and serious sin. It may seem logical to us, but can it be supported biblically?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2006)

While I am all for forgiveness and stuff, isn't the evangelical church too quick to give it anyway? Enough with the theological hairsplitting by both sides. I got a way to put this into the concrete:

Do you really want a future Haggard doing one on one counsel alone with your 12 year old son? 

Sure, forgive him. But don't be naieve. I will forgive but fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 13, 2006)

satz said:


> It is certainly not my intention to argue that Haggard should be restored to the ministry if he repents. Some might even say he shouldn't have been there in the first place. But I am just wondering at the 'one strike and you're out' mentality that many conservative people have towards pastors and serious sin. It may seem logical to us, but can it be supported biblically?




1 Tim states that an elder must be above reproach; once reproach is established, the elder is disqualified from services in that office.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 13, 2006)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Scott, what point are you trying to make by quoting this verse? Are you suggesting that Haggard committed the unforgivable sin?



Jeff,
Not at all; I am using it to show that the character of this sin is not the 'unforgivable sin'. Though time will be the ultimate litmus test, he has not rejected counsel and is apparently repentant.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 13, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> Jeff,
> Not at all; I am using it to show that the character of this sin is not the 'unforgivable sin'. Though time will be the ultimate litmus test, he has not rejected counsel and is apparently repentant.


 
Gotcha! I thought your post was attempting to make 1 point, but it was actually supposed to be 2 points! The internet as a medium!


----------



## satz (Nov 13, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> 1 Tim states that an elder must be above reproach; once reproach is established, the elder is disqualified from services in that office.



But can true repentance ever remove the reproach? If the answer is no, how that square with the examples of David and Peter? As you said, David was not a minister or pastor in the New Testament sense, but he was a spiritual leader of the Israel, wasn't he?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 13, 2006)

satz said:


> But can true repentance ever remove the reproach? If the answer is no, how that square with the examples of David and Peter? As you said, David was not a minister or pastor in the New Testament sense, but he was a spiritual leader of the Israel, wasn't he?



Repentance will never remove the reproach to the point that the minister is not disqualified from the actual office. David was King; there is a difference.


----------



## satz (Nov 13, 2006)

Hi Scott, 

Thanks for your answers. I am not trying to be troublesome, just to understand this issue that has been bugging me for a while. That said,



> Repentance will never remove the reproach to the point that the minister is not disqualified from the actual office.



Could you point me to which verses prove this proposition? Also, what would you say about Peter's case?


----------



## Blue Tick (Nov 13, 2006)

I'm sure Papa Chuck would let him into the ministry. Just ask David Hocking 

Haggard should never be allowed in the pulpit!


----------



## beej6 (Nov 13, 2006)

I recall that in Mr. Haggard's letter to his former congregation, he stated specifically that he will never lead the ministry at New Life again. Which begged the question to me as to whether he would lead a ministry at another church


----------



## Ivan (Nov 13, 2006)

The church is the only army that shoots its wounded.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 13, 2006)

I'm afraid Haggard shot himself on this one.


----------



## Theoretical (Nov 13, 2006)

Ivan said:


> The church is the only army that shoots its wounded.



That is so depressingly true.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2006)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> I'm afraid Haggard shot himself on this one.



Ditto and Amen. I can forgive but I am not stupid. And Bushey's "above reproach" argument hasn't been answered either.


----------



## Ivan (Nov 13, 2006)

Draught Horse said:


> Ditto and Amen. I can forgive but I am not stupid. And Bushey's "above reproach" argument hasn't been answered either.



Frankly, I didn't know much, really nothing, about Haggard before this mess. I believe at this point for me to speculate as to what should or should not be done is none of my business. I pray that he repents and if he does, I know God will forgive him. I am content to leave it there.


----------



## satz (Nov 13, 2006)

Draught Horse said:


> Ditto and Amen. I can forgive but I am not stupid. And Bushey's "above reproach" argument hasn't been answered either.



Prehaps then, you could show from the bible that 'above reproach' means never ever having committed gross public sins before and that a reproach incurred by a pastor cannot be removed though sincere and godly repentance.


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Nov 14, 2006)

I do not mean to be disrespectful, and the Lord knows that I am a terrible awful sinner. I have committed so many stupid and senseless sins and have rebelled against my Savior. Ted Haggard and I both law breakers, regardless of if we have broken one law or many. In the same way, the restoring work of Jesus Christ can cover those sins.

I am not in the position to judge, but I cannot believe that the question of wheter or not Haggard should be forgiven and restored in the church. To me, it sounds like a self-righteous question. Yes Haggard committed gross sin, but when he repents and acknolwedges it, we accept him back in as a brother. He has acknowledged and repented of his sin. So we should in turn accept him as a brother. It is absolutely incredible to think that someone could be so proud as to disqualify him from the grace of God because he committed sin. I would hope anyone who would do that would not want to same standard applied to themselves...

(this is not aimed at any particular person)


----------



## Blue Tick (Nov 14, 2006)

Founded on the Rock said:


> I do not mean to be disrespectful, and the Lord knows that I am a terrible awful sinner. I have committed so many stupid and senseless sins and have rebelled against my Savior. Ted Haggard and I both law breakers, regardless of if we have broken one law or many. In the same way, the restoring work of Jesus Christ can cover those sins.
> 
> I am not in the position to judge, but I cannot believe that the question of wheter or not Haggard should be forgiven and restored in the church. To me, it sounds like a self-righteous question. Yes Haggard committed gross sin, but when he repents and acknolwedges it, we accept him back in as a brother. He has acknowledged and repented of his sin. So we should in turn accept him as a brother. It is absolutely incredible to think that someone could be so proud as to disqualify him from the grace of God because he committed sin. I would hope anyone who would do that would not want to same standard applied to themselves...
> 
> (this is not aimed at any particular person)




I think the real question is, should he be in ministry? 

Yes, he can be forgiven and receive God's grace and mercy but he should not be allowed in a position of leadership.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 14, 2006)

Define 'reproach' according to 1 Tim and there you will have your answer. Paul uses the term 'disqualified' for a reason, no?

1 Corinthians 9:26-27 26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27 but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.

<96b> avdo,kimoj (adokimos)
Meaning: not standing the test, rejected
Origin: from 1 (as a neg. pref.) and 1384
Usage: depraved(1), disqualified(1), fail the test(m)(2), rejected(1), unapproved(1),worthless(2).

Notes: (1) Lit., bruise (a) Rom 8:13


----------



## satz (Nov 14, 2006)

Scott, I'am sorry but you've completely lost me. Are we talking about 3:2 or 3:7 ? And how does 1 Tim 3 define 'reproach' internally?

To prove that to be reproached is to be disqualified doesn't mean anything as that still begs the question if one can be re-qualified again after that.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 14, 2006)

1 Timothy 3:1-7 NAS 1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, *the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.* 

An elder must be, in the least, above these types of reproachs..........


----------



## satz (Nov 14, 2006)

Scott, I agree with that (obviously so, since the verse says so) what I don't see is that if the elder falls down on one of those at one time, he is permanently disqualifed from holding office again. Where does the verse say that?

I think the tenor of the new testament is that when one repents of a sin, the practical forgiveness should be absolute. There will off course contiune to be practical effects of the sin that repentance will not remove, but where does the bible teach that christians can accumulate a 'black mark' against themselves (held by the church no less) that can never be removed?


----------



## alwaysreforming (Nov 14, 2006)

Haggard simply does not meet the qualifications given in 1 Tim 3:2-7 AT ALL!

I'm surprised there is so much controversy about whether or not he should be
restored to the ministry. Being restored to Christ is one thing, being a shepherd over Christ's flock is quite another. ANYONE can be restored to fellowship after sin and repentance, but not anyone can take the role of an elder, even Christians who have not committed such gross sin.

"It behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be BLAMELESS, of one wife a husband, VIGILANT, SOBER, DECENT, a friend of strangers, apt to teach, 
1Ti 3:3 not given to WINE (OR METH), not a striker, not given to FILTHY LUCRE, but gentle, not contentious, not a LOVER OF MONEY, 
1Ti 3:4 his own house LEADING WELL, having children in subjection with all gravity, 
1Ti 3:5 (and if any one his own house how to lead hath not known, how an assembly of God shall he take care of?) 
1Ti 3:6 not a new convert, lest having been puffed up he may fall to a judgment of the devil; 
1Ti 3:7 and it behoveth him also to have A GOOD REPUTATION WITH OUTSIDERS, that he may not fall into reproach and a snare of the devil."


It says he must have a good reputation with outsiders.
Haggard has a DEPLORABLE reputation now, and he has inflicted GREAT HARM on the cause of Christ in America and possibly beyond.
This was not some willy nilly sin of temptation beyond what one could bear, but a THREE YEAR premeditated, planned, ongoing lifestyle of deception, adultery, deceiving his congregation, using the churches money for evil ends, etc.

It says he must be blameless: this goes without saying in his case...
He must be sober: meth amphetimines
He must be decent: he could hardly be more INDECENT

If you look at the other qualifications, he probably barely meets any of those as well. How could he not be a "lover of money" when he was probably making a fortune off of his "celebrity" as Mr. SuperChristian and recieving tithes off of a wealthy 14,000 member church?

No one can be given such a great trust, in such a high profile capacity, and sin so grievously, and then expect to be restored to a position of such great honor and trust.
For him to even apire to such would show a severe lack of repentance.

We need to be wise, people! There needs to be some common sense and Biblical judgment on the part of God's people that putting such a man in ministry would be unseemly and a WRONG THING TO DO!

Sure we need to be graceful, and merciful, and forgiving. Sure we should pray for him, and his wife and kids, and his congregation.
But to put him in a place where he shepherds other people's souls, and recieves great honor, and great income from the flock's sacrifices....... NEVER!

This was not a sin from ignorance. He was a Bible preacher and teacher for years! This is like if our president were to secretly take millions of $$$ from the govt., sell secrets to Al Quaida for 3 years, and undermine our country in front of the whole world, and then we ask,
"Hey, he feels really bad about what he did. Do you think he should ever be president again?"

President???? How about barely a citizen!


----------



## KenPierce (Nov 14, 2006)

Christopher,

You are undoubtedly right, when one looks at the complex of sin in Mr. Haggard's life, especially its ongoing, reckless, and public nature.

I think, too, we don't want to lose sight of the fact that homosexuality is a sin against nature, and that makes it especially heinous ,singled out by Paul in his litany of man's rebellion against God.

Yet, Ortiz's post was just nasty. Paul says that it is shameful even to speak of what the disobedient do in secret. Ortiz did not seem to think it too shameful to evoke a lot of powerful and gross mental images.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 14, 2006)

What if it were and Elder in your church who you knew was having extreme marital difficulties due to his wife's depression. His wife wouldn't sleep in the same room with him for years but he hung in there just the same. Finally, after 17 years he snapped. He started having an adulterous relationship on the side which went on for about 2 years. He fell in love with the woman and left his wife intending to divorce her and marry the other woman. He had taken his wife to marraige counseling on at least 3 occasions before this happened.
After he left(his wife had asked him to leave) his wife decided she loved him and wanted him back. She went to the doctor, got on medication and made a 180 degree turnaround. Meanwhile this brother was miserable living with the other woman. He came to his pastor one day in tearfilled repentance asking forgiveness, went back to his wife and over a year later they are happier than they have ever been in years. He calls me from time to time still crying over the whole mess and how it came about. His wife got over it a lot easier than he did. His big hang up is that he let his wife's depression and sexual problems be used as an excuse to sin against God.
I only ask this because this happened in my church. What do we do with this brother now? He is now closer to God and more spritual than he has ever been. He really can't seem to forgive himself for what he did.
Can he be restored to Eldership?


----------



## CDM (Nov 14, 2006)

alwaysreforming said:


> Haggard simply does not meet the qualifications given in 1 Tim 3:2-7 AT ALL!
> 
> I'm surprised there is so much controversy about whether or not he should be
> restored to the ministry. Being restored to Christ is one thing, being a shepherd over Christ's flock is quite another. ANYONE can be restored to fellowship after sin and repentance, but not anyone can take the role of an elder, even Christians who have not committed such gross sin.
> ...



 

See this link. They have been sounding the alarm on Ol' Haggard for many years before this latest evidence of the fraud that is Ted Haggard. From my perusal of the site, they have documented evidence of most, if not all of the qualifications of elder he fails.

It makes me sick that anyone would even entertain the idea that this man be a shepherd of God's people again.  Nevermind this false prophet never should have been in the first place.


----------



## CDM (Nov 14, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> What if it were and Elder in your church who you knew was having extreme marital difficulties due to his wife's depression. His wife wouldn't sleep in the same room with him for years but he hung in there just the same. Finally, after 17 years he snapped. He started having an adulterous relationship on the side which went on for about 2 years. He fell in love with the woman and left his wife intending to divorce her and marry the other woman. He had taken his wife to marraige counseling on at least 3 occasions before this happened.
> After he left(his wife had asked him to leave) his wife decided she loved him and wanted him back. She went to the doctor, got on medication and made a 180 degree turnaround. Meanwhile this brother was miserable living with the other woman. He came to his pastor one day in tearfilled repentance asking forgiveness, went back to his wife and over a year later they are happier than they have ever been in years. He calls me from time to time still crying over the whole mess and how it came about. His wife got over it a lot easier than he did. His big hang up is that he let his wife's depression and sexual problems be used as an excuse to sin against God.
> I only ask this because this happened in my church. What do we do with this brother now? He is now closer to God and more spritual than he has ever been. He really can't seem to forgive himself for what he did.
> Can he be restored to Eldership?



The pertinent question here would be: Is he the husband of 1 wife?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 14, 2006)

mangum said:


> The pertinent question here would be: Is he the husband of 1 wife?




As far as I know he's only married to one woman.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Nov 14, 2006)

To Blueridge:

Why does this man need to be an elder? > would be my question

Why doesn't he just be a great Christian, and a great employee, and a great witness to outsiders, and a great church member, and a great husband? Perhaps he could be satisfied with this, as its a great goal in itself. Why must he aspire to rulership over the flock?

Certainly there are godly men available in the church who may not have had such an unfortunate set of circumstances befall them. And especially with him "not being able to forgive himself"..... that doesn't put him in the greatest position to assist others with their own healing, and their own spiritual restoration.

That also removes all of the sticky untangling of the past events that must take place if he wanted to be considered for eldership.... just let someone with a less cumbersome background provide the church's leadership... In my humble opinion.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 14, 2006)

satz said:


> Scott, I agree with that (obviously so, since the verse says so) what I don't see is that if the elder falls down on one of those at one time, he is permanently disqualifed from holding office again. Where does the verse say that?
> 
> I think the tenor of the new testament is that when one repents of a sin, the practical forgiveness should be absolute. There will off course contiune to be practical effects of the sin that repentance will not remove, but where does the bible teach that christians can accumulate a 'black mark' against themselves (held by the church no less) that can never be removed?



"Above reproach" refers to present past and future. For instance, would these past sins effect the council of this man? How could he council anyone on sexual sins or lying (to name a few)? God lifts up and God brings to ruin........The plans of a man are many, but God directs (or determines) the path.


----------



## gwine (Nov 14, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> "Above reproach" refers to present past and future. For instance, would these past sins effect the council of this man? How could he council anyone on sexual sins or lying (to name a few)? God lifts up and God brings to ruin........The plans of a man are many, but God directs (or determines) the path.



Then by this standard someone who was not married and fathered a child before his conversion should never be allowed to become a pastor, correct?


----------



## Archlute (Nov 14, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> "Above reproach" refers to present past and future. For instance, would these past sins effect the council of this man? How could he council anyone on sexual sins or lying (to name a few)? God lifts up and God brings to ruin........The plans of a man are many, but God directs (or determines) the path.




Actually, the phrase translated "must be" is the combination of a present verb with a present tense substantival infinitive acting as its subject. All factors being considered about this construction, it is saying nothing other than when a man is being examined for his fitness as an elder, that he currently have a life considered above reproach. 

It does not bar a man who has had a wicked past who having been changed by the grace of Christ, and who having shown a pattern of godly living since that time, so desires the office of overseer. Nor does it have anything to say about that man's future living, which may or may not remain sound. It is a simple statement of observation about a man's current character and standing.

There is nothing in this passage that would permenantly prohibit Ted Haggard's session (or whatever they have) from reinstating him as a minister in the future after a time of serious public and personal repentance, followed by accountability in this area along with discipline and discipling by the elders. We can debate the merits and wisdom of such a decision, but the right of the church to make that decision is in no way hindered by Paul's instructions here.

I am not taking sides here, just wanting to make sure that we allow Scripture to speak for itself on this point without imposing extrabiblical limits where they have not been imposed.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 14, 2006)

gwine said:


> Then by this standard someone who was not married and fathered a child before his conversion should never be allowed to become a pastor, correct?



When I mention the past, I refer to things that have occurred while the man was a believer. For instance, a unbiblical divorce would create reproach and disqualify the man from the position.


----------

