# Should Fallen Pastors/Elders be restored to Office After Repentance



## pepper

Should pastors/elders be restored to office once they repent of extreme sin such as adultery or theft?


----------



## OPC'n

I think so. I see King David as our example, but I think I'm in the minority, and I wouldn't die on that hill!


----------



## satz

Why shouldn't they be?

Proper repentence may be harder to prove if one has fallen from a position of high responsibility, but once repentence is proven, I am not sure it can be biblically proven that such a repentent sinner may not resume the work of ministry.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

In the OPC, the Book of Discipline allows for the restoration of an officer "only after the judicatory has assured itself that the restoration will not be attended by injury to the cause of the gospel."


----------



## Herald

Spurgeon wrote:



> The highest moral character must be sedulously maintained. Many are disqualified for office in the church who are well enough as simple members. I hold very stern opinions with regard to Christian men who have fallen into gross sin; I rejoice that may be truly converted, and may be with mingled hope and caution received into the church; but I question, gravely question whether a man who has grossly sinned should be very readily restored to the pulpit. As John Angell James remarks, "When a preacher of righteousness has stood in the way of sinners, he should never again open his lips in the great congregation until his repentance is as notorious as his sin." Let those who have been shorn by the sons of Ammon tarry at Jericho till their beards be grown; this has often been used as a taunt to beardless boys to whom it is evidently inapplicable, it is an accurate enough metaphor for dishonoured and characterless men, let their age be what it may. Alas! the beard of reputation once shorn is hard to grow again. Open immorality, in most cases, however deep the repentance, is a fatal sign that ministerial graces were never in the man's character.


----------



## OPC'n

Herald said:


> Spurgeon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The highest moral character must be sedulously maintained. Many are disqualified for office in the church who are well enough as simple members. I hold very stern opinions with regard to Christian men who have fallen into gross sin; I rejoice that may be truly converted, and may be with mingled hope and caution received into the church; but I question, gravely question whether a man who has grossly sinned should be very readily restored to the pulpit. As John Angell James remarks, "When a preacher of righteousness has stood in the way of sinners, he should never again open his lips in the great congregation until his repentance is as notorious as his sin." Let those who have been shorn by the sons of Ammon tarry at Jericho till their beards be grown; this has often been used as a taunt to beardless boys to whom it is evidently inapplicable, it is an accurate enough metaphor for dishonoured and characterless men, let their age be what it may. Alas! the beard of reputation once shorn is hard to grow again. Open immorality, in most cases, however deep the repentance, is a fatal sign that ministerial graces were never in the man's character.
Click to expand...


He very well could be right. David was the king not the priest.


----------



## tellville

satz said:


> Why shouldn't they be?
> 
> Proper repentence may be harder to prove if one has fallen from a position of high responsibility, but once repentence is proven, I am not sure it can be biblically proven that such a repentent sinner may not resume the work of ministry.



I think I agree with this.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Repentance being genuine, the question is the reputation of the ministry and the impeccable demand that we be 'above reproach'. Is a repentent adulterer 'above reproach'? He may be forgiven, he may be 'above condemnation' in the eyes of God, but is he 'above reproach' in the eyes of the watching world?


----------



## Pergamum

A repentant person may actually, in some cases, have a better witness to a hurting community and be a visible example of the grace of God.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I would say it is permissible and appropriate in _some_ circumstances. I like Spurgeon's remarks above.

If I made the rules, this fallen minister would have to be observed in the pew and in humble service over _a period of years_, before restoration to office was considered.


----------



## Jon 316

What do people think about the very quick 'restoration of Todd Bentley to public ministry? Rick Joiner has been releasing video interviews on his website at morningstar. 

I'm not sure if anyone here is aware of what has being going on. But already Joiner is taliking about the restoration of Todd to public ministry even though he is still 'working things through'. Not to mention the fact he divorced his wife after having an affair. etc etc

Joiner is condemming those who question Todd's immediate restoration, as being phariseeical etc etc

What I find distressing is the lack of 'discipline' and 'repentance' and the messages that this is sending to the body of Christ who are being decieved already.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I wonder if Peter had a hard time preaching after he had publicly denied Christ and swore an oath that he didn't know Him thereby breaking the 3rd commandment.


----------



## LawrenceU

If anyone puts credibility in Joiner they have deeper problems that need to be fixed.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I think as long as they can be help "beyond reproach" Paul ran around terrorizing and overseeing the death of church members, and look how far he made it. I would give it some time however. Five to ten years.


----------



## BobVigneault

With proper oversight and accountability - yes.

Moral failure uncovers a besetting weakness in a pastor that was active much longer than was made public. There must be certain safeguards and accountability procedures put into place. In other words, it CAN'T be business as usual.

Examples, the pastor can't counsel a woman without another woman present. He should have some form of online accountability. This is why it should be left up to the elders who are the over seers.

In our church we have an effective prison ministry. This results in men coming to Worship who are also on a sexual predator list. We let them know right from the start how wonderful it is to have them there but if they should get up and leave the sanctuary during worship, an elder or deacon will follow them. This is a consequence of their previous sin. Forgiveness is complete, as King David learned, but the consequences of our sins may follow us all of our lives, which David also learned.


----------



## Rich Koster

Jon 316 said:


> What do people think about the very quick 'restoration of Todd Bentley to public ministry? Rick Joiner has been releasing video interviews on his website at morningstar.
> 
> I'm not sure if anyone here is aware of what has being going on. But already Joiner is taliking about the restoration of Todd to public ministry even though he is still 'working things through'. Not to mention the fact he divorced his wife after having an affair. etc etc
> 
> Joiner is condemming those who question Todd's immediate restoration, as being phariseeical etc etc
> 
> What I find distressing is the lack of 'discipline' and 'repentance' and the messages that this is sending to the body of Christ who are being decieved already.



Bentley needs to repent of his _heresy_ and false practices as well as his sexual immorality, before being in ANY ministry In my humble opinion. Joyner is false prophet, why listen to him?


----------



## christiana

Preposterous responses here! There are consequences to moral failure and one who goes there is not to be in position of leadership again! How can he be an uplifting, persevering role model?
Even Moses and David lost their great desired goals after their failures.
God forgives, yes, but the consequences remain intact as long as we're on earth!
He must be blameless, not self-willed, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught! Titus1:7-9 We too would forgive him but reinstate him as a leader, never!!!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

christiana said:


> Preposterous responses here! There are consequences to moral failure and one who goes there is not to be in position of leadership again! How can he be an uplifting, persevering role model?
> Even Moses and David lost their great desired goals after their failures.
> God forgives, yes, but the consequences remain intact as long as we're on earth!
> He must be blameless, not self-willed, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught! Titus1:7-9 We too would forgive him but reinstate him as a leader, never!!!



So Peter should not have been reinstated?


----------



## christiana

Peter didnt have moral failure as I recall. His fall was a fulfillment of prophecy and used by Christ Himself for His purpose to expose our weakness and draw him close to Himself.
He does the same with us with our daily failures and sins but that doesnt include the moral failure of a minister of the gospel. He's forgiven but is not again in leadership.
(unless hes Jimmy Swaggert of course)


----------



## Blueridge Believer

christiana said:


> Peter didnt have moral failure as I recall. His fall was a fulfillment of prophecy and used by Christ Himself for His purpose to expose our weakness and draw him close to Himself.
> He does the same with us with our daily failures and sins but that doesnt include the moral failure of a minister of the gospel. He's forgiven but is not again in leadership.
> (unless hes Jimmy Swaggert of course)



Swearing an oath that you don't know Christ accompanied with cursing and blasphemy in public is a pretty big moral failure regardless of the circumstances. I just find it odd that people are ready to forgive this so quickly and not a sexual sin, particuarly when the one in question has wept 'bitterly' over it and shown fruit of repentance.


----------



## christiana

You must have misunderstood! I definitely believe he should be 'forgiven'. I do not believe he should be in leadership again! He forfeited that and scriptural guidelines forbid such in leadership roles, do they not?

(even criminals are forgiven but they forfeit their right to vote)


----------



## Berean

christiana said:


> (even criminals are forgiven but they forfeit their right to vote)



There are even moves afoot to change that.


----------



## Tirian

This triggers the thought that we should pray earnestly for our elders & pastors that they would never fall into sin like this in the first place to the shame of the Gospel... Also we should thank God for those godly men He has given us that watch over us faithfully.
Matt


----------



## Scott1

Repentance involves:

1) confession
2) forsaking
3) seeking reconciliation/restitution

A leader who falls into great sin causes harm to many. A Christian leader many more.

There is always forgiveness for sin in God's Kingdom. But the consequences can take a long time to get through. God often uses them to chasten us and bring out more sin to deal with. There is no quick, easy way back.

Rather than focus on how quickly a forgiving God might fully restore the effects of the sin, it is better to pray God will give us grace not to presumptively sin.

A leader who has sinned ought beseech God's grace to repent of sin and believe, rather than focus on demanding forgiveness and restoration of privilege from others.




> Psalm 19:13
> 
> 13Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.


----------



## Clay7926

Gomarus said:


> I would say it is permissible and appropriate in _some_ circumstances. I like Spurgeon's remarks above.
> 
> If I made the rules, this fallen minister would have to be observed in the pew and in humble service over *a period of years, *before restoration to office was considered.



Bolded for emphasis. 

This is one of those issues that hits close to home. Shortly before I left my Oneness Pentecostal roots, the pastor of my former church resigned publically at a Wednesday night Bible study due to "sin." That was in April of 2004. The church's retired Senior Pastor ended up coming out of retirement so that the church would not be pastorless. 

In January 2005, without as much as a Congregational meeting or anything, the pastor who resigned due to "sin" was fully reinstated as pastor, without as much as a letter to the congregation or a congregational meeting. A number of folks left the church as a result of this. 

That was one of those moments that led me to realize that there were other problems afoot in this church, but I digress.

Looking at restoral from a Child Protective Services standpoint, we don't send kids back to homes with abusive or neglectful parents until Mommy and Daddy (a) admit what they did wrong, and (b) undergo some form of treatment to try to fix the problem (drug/alcohol treatment, sex abuse/offender treatment, etc). Only after that can we try to reunify the family. It's only when situations occur when the parents have either dragged their feet on treatment or if they refuse that we consider other options for children in care, such as Termination of Parental Rights, Adoption, or Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (affectionately known as APPLA). 

In a church setting, we're dealing with folks who have been adopted as children of God. If society at large is this protective of our natural children, how much more should we be protective of His children? I think it sets a bad precedent and example to believers and unbelievers if we're going to quickly restore someone to ministry without any repercussions.


----------



## christiana

Good thoughts here:

Should Fallen Pastors Be Restored?   --  John MacArthur


----------



## JonathanHunt

puritanpilgrim said:


> I think as long as they can be help "beyond reproach" Paul ran around terrorizing and overseeing the death of church members, and look how far he made it. I would give it some time however. Five to ten years.



Slight difference in that he did wicked things BEFORE he professed faith, and not afterward in the case of the 'restoration' of a 'fallen' minister.

Todd Bentley - no comment as this is a public forum. Facts is facts.


----------



## harvelljr

When I first read this post my immediate thoughts went to what Spurgeon wrote in his "Lectures to my Students." Since Brother Bill has beaten me to it, I will not post it again. 

But I notice two post that I did want to respond to. One argued that Paul killed Christians and even though he did this he went on to do great things for Christ. But this is not an adequate example for what is being discussed. What Paul did was done before or in a pre converted life, therefore this was forgiven by the Lord and also was not used against him by the church, but instead when they heard that he had come to the faith the had rest and gave God glory.

Also Peter's denial was a pre-converted life. I know many could argue that Peter was converted before his denial, but Jesus even told him that Satan would have him to sift him as wheat, but Jesus stated that he had prayed for him and that when he is converted to strengthen the bretheren.

Therefore both examples do not fit the question asked. I believe that the Pastoral epistles make it very plan what the qualifications are for a minister. He must have a good report of them that are without lest he fall into reproach and a snare of the devil 1 Tim 3:7. So I am with Spurgeon when I state that his calling should be questioned or it should be questioned whether God has called him and given him the grace to stand before the people. Peter makes it very clear in his epistle that the elders should feed the flock of God .........neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock 1 Peter 5:1,3.


----------



## satz

christiana said:


> Preposterous responses here! There are consequences to moral failure and one who goes there is not to be in position of leadership again! How can he be an uplifting, persevering role model?
> Even Moses and David lost their great desired goals after their failures.
> God forgives, yes, but the consequences remain intact as long as we're on earth!
> He must be blameless, not self-willed, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught! Titus1:7-9 We too would forgive him but reinstate him as a leader, never!!!



Moses and David faced consequences that never went away due to their sins, but that was God's choice to take away from them, not people continuing to sit in judgment on them after they had repented. Both continued in leadership positions.

As for being blameless, isn't the very concept of forgiveness that there is nothing more to blame a person for? How can you say someone is forgiven but still treat them as if their sin if following them around? God may chose to afflict them with long lasting consequences for their sin but it is not our place to do so, if repentance is clear. Even the previous verse, Titus 1:6 links blamelessness with being "husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." By the bible's definition blamelessness is about your current state of life, not what is in the past. Again, it goes completely against the very heart of christianity to say once you sin you can never be blameless again.

If those old and more experienced than me think restoring such a man is rarely a good idea, I can accept that. But I don't think the question can be answered simply by quoting Titus 1:6-7 and other places. I do not think that is what the bible is teaching (open to correction, though).


----------



## DonP

What are these? 

Matt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them,"Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear *fruits worthy of repentance,* NKJV

I don't think they are this. 

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4 And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him."
NKJV

I think it would be wise to have some time for observance of these fruits of repentance in a case of scandalous sin, though we may forgive upon saying he repents, for trusting with other matters he would need to show himself trustworthy as would an accountant who embezzled, we would not make him church treasurer the next week. 

If for no other reason that to support him from being tempted.


----------



## Herald

If I may, a different take on this topic. Since the problem of sexual temptation is an issue for men at large, we must conclude that it is a problem for ministers of the gospel. It is easy for us to have righteous indignation towards those ministers who commit immorality by deed. But what of those who are fighting the battle privately? Maybe it's a too-close for comfort relationship, bad reading material, or the anonymity of the internet. It could be past sins before becoming a Christian, or before entering the ministry. While it's good to know how to deal with a moral lapse once it happens, what should we be doing to keep it from happening? Pastors often feel trapped. How can they be transparent with their own temptations? Who is the pastor to the pastor? Elders should fill that role, but that's not the reality in every church.


----------



## DMcFadden

We need to separate the strands for a more adequate discussion:

* Pre vs. post conversion - can't a person guilty of murder as a non-Christian be allowed to hold office after he becomes a Christian and have been released from prison?

* Kind of offense - would a person guilty of vehicular manslaughter be forever banned from office? What about a misdemeanor? Would some crimes that are judged less severe in a court of law be more significant disqualifiers in the church than those that are punished more severely by the secular authorities (e.g., same sex actions are not illegal but a disqualifier in the church; serving time on a criminal count might be a badge of honor in the church if it resulted from civil disobedience to a godless law).

* What role does the reputation to outsiders have in the equation? Would a serial child m*****er be treated the same as a man who sinned by a one-time inappropriate relationship with a close friend and co-worker?

* How do you factor in the issue of repentance? Paul lists qualifications for ministry that include being a "one woman man." Exegetically, I am of the opinion that he is establishing a high standard of fidelity as a benchmark of the leader, not (necessarily) whether the man has been divorced or widowed. My mentor in ministry had affairs with more than triple digit women, including a 10 yr. affair with his wife's best friend. He NEVER divorced her and they still live together!!! In my mind he is NOT qualified for ministry while a person who was married and divorced as an 18 year old might be. Paul seems to be saying that we are called to be "one women" kind of men, not adult****s, p**n addicts, or men who make coarse jokes. Rather than letting my mentor off the hook because he is still married, I believe that one may be disqualified for misbehavior even if they have never left their spouse or divorced.

* Practical and psychological issues - I would NEVER hire a child molester (no matter HOW professedly repentant) to watch young children. My mentor example in the last bullet was a man who said he was "sorry." However, common sense would lead me to avoid putting an alcoholic struggling with drink in a "bar ministry," a repeat embezzler around church money, etc.


----------



## nasa30

Herald said:


> Spurgeon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The highest moral character must be sedulously maintained. Many are disqualified for office in the church who are well enough as simple members. I hold very stern opinions with regard to Christian men who have fallen into gross sin; I rejoice that may be truly converted, and may be with mingled hope and caution received into the church; but I question, gravely question whether a man who has grossly sinned should be very readily restored to the pulpit. As John Angell James remarks, "When a preacher of righteousness has stood in the way of sinners, he should never again open his lips in the great congregation until his repentance is as notorious as his sin." Let those who have been shorn by the sons of Ammon tarry at Jericho till their beards be grown; this has often been used as a taunt to beardless boys to whom it is evidently inapplicable, it is an accurate enough metaphor for dishonoured and characterless men, let their age be what it may. Alas! the beard of reputation once shorn is hard to grow again. Open immorality, in most cases, however deep the repentance, is a fatal sign that ministerial graces were never in the man's character.
Click to expand...


Wise words! "Until his repentance is as notorious as his sin"


----------



## Blueridge Believer

harvelljr said:


> When I first read this post my immediate thoughts went to what Spurgeon wrote in his "Lectures to my Students." Since Brother Bill has beaten me to it, I will not post it again.
> 
> But I notice two post that I did want to respond to. One argued that Paul killed Christians and even though he did this he went on to do great things for Christ. But this is not an adequate example for what is being discussed. What Paul did was done before or in a pre converted life, therefore this was forgiven by the Lord and also was not used against him by the church, but instead when they heard that he had come to the faith the had rest and gave God glory.
> 
> Also Peter's denial was a pre-converted life. I know many could argue that Peter was converted before his denial, but Jesus even told him that Satan would have him to sift him as wheat, but Jesus stated that he had prayed for him and that when he is converted to strengthen the bretheren.
> 
> Therefore both examples do not fit the question asked. I believe that the Pastoral epistles make it very plan what the qualifications are for a minister. He must have a good report of them that are without lest he fall into reproach and a snare of the devil 1 Tim 3:7. So I am with Spurgeon when I state that his calling should be questioned or it should be questioned whether God has called him and given him the grace to stand before the people. Peter makes it very clear in his epistle that the elders should feed the flock of God .........neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock 1 Peter 5:1,3.



Are you trying to say that Peter was not regenerate before his denial of Christ? The same Peter who made the great confession of faith and whom the Father revealed the Son?


----------



## DonP

Herald said:


> If I may, a different take on this topic. Since the problem of sexual temptation is an issue for men at large, we must conclude that it is a problem for ministers of the gospel. It is easy for us to have righteous indignation towards those ministers who commit immorality by deed. But what of those who are fighting the battle privately? Maybe it's a too-close for comfort relationship, bad reading material, or the anonymity of the internet. It could be past sins before becoming a Christian, or before entering the ministry. While it's good to know how to deal with a moral lapse once it happens, what should we be doing to keep it from happening? Pastors often feel trapped. How can they be transparent with their own temptations? Who is the pastor to the pastor? Elders should fill that role, but that's not the reality in every church.



Then we need to stop ordaining elders just so we can serve communion and start praying for God to raise up true elders who will rule the people with justice. 
Not just good ole boys who will go along with the pastors agenda, or are easy to get along with, but men sound in the faith and word who wil challenge the Pastor for his own good. 

Prov 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. 
NKJV


----------



## Herald

PeaceMaker said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I may, a different take on this topic. Since the problem of sexual temptation is an issue for men at large, we must conclude that it is a problem for ministers of the gospel. It is easy for us to have righteous indignation towards those ministers who commit immorality by deed. But what of those who are fighting the battle privately? Maybe it's a too-close for comfort relationship, bad reading material, or the anonymity of the internet. It could be past sins before becoming a Christian, or before entering the ministry. While it's good to know how to deal with a moral lapse once it happens, what should we be doing to keep it from happening? Pastors often feel trapped. How can they be transparent with their own temptations? Who is the pastor to the pastor? Elders should fill that role, but that's not the reality in every church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we need to stop ordaining elders just so we can serve communion and start praying for God to raise up true elders who will rule the people with justice.
> Not just good ole boys who will go along with the pastors agenda, or are easy to get along with, but men sound in the faith and word who wil challenge the Pastor for his own good.
> 
> Prov 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
> But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
> NKJV
Click to expand...


Don, elders are often times not consulted by pastors who are struggling with sin issues. The fault on this goes both ways; the pastor who resists going to his elders, and the elders who are not actively seeking the welfare of the pastor. Your suggestion of seeking "true elders" isn't helpful. There are many godly pastors and elders who fail in this one area. They need help, not necessarily replacement.


----------



## lynnie

"_Looking at restoral from a Child Protective Services standpoint, we don't send kids back to homes with abusive or neglectful parents until Mommy and Daddy (a) admit what they did wrong, and (b) undergo some form of treatment to try to fix the problem (drug/alcohol treatment, sex abuse/offender treatment, etc). Only after that can we try to reunify the family. It's only when situations occur when the parents have either dragged their feet on treatment or if they refuse that we consider other options for children in care, such as Termination of Parental Rights, Adoption, or Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (affectionately known as APPLA). 

In a church setting, we're dealing with folks who have been adopted as children of God. If society at large is this protective of our natural children, how much more should we be protective of His children? I think it sets a bad precedent and example to believers and unbelievers if we're going to quickly restore someone to ministry without any repercussions. _"

Well said.

If we really believe the gospel, and in the power of God to sanctify, then repentance and change are available to the most notorious sinner. So the potential exists for anybody to truly repent and truly change.

But yes- until there is serious counseling and deep grief and deep repentance, of course the person should not go back.

I would think one sign of such deep repentance is that the person finally grasps their own depravity and sinful heart and finally faces up to the damage they did. And they would be so scared of possibly doing the same thing again under temptation, and dishonoring God again, that they would not even want to go back to public ministry. If they want to, you wonder if they "get it" or if it is just ambition.

I've also noticed that no matter what people say positively about a guy, its the wife who gut level trusts him or doesn't trust him. The wife ought to be a major voice in the decision.


----------



## DonP

Herald said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don, elders are often times not consulted by pastors who are struggling with sin issues. The fault on this goes both ways; the pastor who resists going to his elders, and the elders who are not actively seeking the welfare of the pastor. Your suggestion of seeking "true elders" isn't helpful. There are many godly pastors and elders who fail in this one area. They need help, not necessarily replacement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not consulted??
> 
> Should it not be a shepherds job to check into the affairs of the sheep, not wait until they ask for help?
> 
> I think it is the elders job to care for his minister and ask him how he is doing.
> For the sake of protecting the sheep as well.
> 
> But I do not mean one is not a fit elder if he is weak in his duties but I would say many today are installed for wrong reasons and the are completely unfit for their job.
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

PeaceMaker said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don, elders are often times not consulted by pastors who are struggling with sin issues. The fault on this goes both ways; the pastor who resists going to his elders, and the elders who are not actively seeking the welfare of the pastor. Your suggestion of seeking "true elders" isn't helpful. There are many godly pastors and elders who fail in this one area. They need help, not necessarily replacement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not consulted??
> 
> Should it not be a shepherds job to check into the affairs of the sheep, not wait until they ask for help?
> 
> I think it is the elders job to care for his minister and ask him how he is doing.
> For the sake of protecting the sheep as well.
> 
> But I do not mean one is not a fit elder if he is weak in his duties but I would say many today are installed for wrong reasons and the are completely unfit for their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don, are you not even attempting to follow what I am saying?
> 
> Pastors struggle with temptation, just like any other man struggles with temptation. There is pressure on some pastors not to share their own personal struggles out of fear or shame. Although there should be a close relationship between pastors and elders, pastors are sometimes resistant to share certain things with their elders. I know of pastors who have become accountable to other pastors; ministers who are in other churches, and even other denominations.
> 
> Elders _should _be concerned with the welfare of their pastor. Many elders _are _concerned, and display their concern appropriately. But just because an elder is approachable doesn't mean a pastor who is struggling with sin will share his struggles with that elder. This invisible wall often times leaves the pastor to deal with his struggles alone. Elders have the same problem. As spiritual leaders of the church they may be ashamed to share their own private struggles.
> 
> Christians should be aware of this reality and pray diligently for their pastor and elders. Pray that God would keep them from sin. Pray that they have godly men they can confide in to help keep them from falling.
Click to expand...


----------



## christiana

After reading the article by John MacArthur and totally agreeing with it I am most disheartened by the posting here and see it as indicative of the downgrade, encroaching liberalism, extreme tolerance and such amongst those whom I would have hoped would support the strongest of boundaries and expectations of the clergy! Sad indicators of the times and culture of which many have succumbed rather than to resist and be faithful shepherds of their flocks! John MacArthur said it best!


----------



## Herald

christiana said:


> After reading the article by John MacArthur and totally agreeing with it I am most disheartened by the posting here and see it as indicative of the downgrade, encroaching liberalism, extreme tolerance and such amongst those whom I would have hoped would support the strongest of boundaries and expectations of the clergy! Sad indicators of the times and culture of which many have succumbed rather than to resist and be faithful shepherds of their flocks! John MacArthur said it best!



Christiana, while I take a more conservative view, in line with Spurgeon and MacArthur, it is not an area that scripture speaks to in black and white terms. Nowhere does scripture preclude a man who has fallen into gross sin from being restored to ministry. I am personally resistant to the idea, but I cannot patrol the conscience of a brother who is convinced otherwise. Their position may disappoint you, but I urge you to be careful with the critical language.


----------



## DonP

1 Cor 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. NKJV

1 John 2:3Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. NKJV

1 John 5: 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. NKJV

1 John 3:9-10
9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 
10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God,
NKJV


----------



## christiana

Thanks for your warning. It is well taken. Though scripture doesnt speak to 'fallen brother' per se, it does most specifically speaks to the qualities of an elder. Those are current, consistent, unwavering and not iffy or conditional. I'm sorry if I come across as offensive but not for taking a stand for scriptural truth. Everyone has an opinion these days on what is right or wrong but not all are based on God's words to us. When we all seek what He has to say perhaps there will be more hearts united to fear His name.


----------



## DonP

1 Tim 3:2-7
2 A bishop then must be *blameless*, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 *one who rules his own house well,* having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. NKJV

BLAME, BLAMELESS
anenkletos NT:410 signifies "that which cannot be called to account" (from a, negative, n, euphonic, and enkaleo, "to call in"), i. e., with nothing laid to one's charge (as the result of public investigation), in 1 Cor 1:8, RV, "unreproveable," KJV, "blameless"; in Col 1:22, KJV and RV, "unreproveable"; in 1 Tim 3:10 and Titus 1:6-7, KJV and RV, "blameless." It implies not merely acquittal, *but the absence of even a charge or accusation against a person. This is to be the case with elders.*
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

I don't know why it is acceptable to accept such sinful and worldly lives today when we read of our fathers who would not have tolerated such in members.

Not a judgment on this case, just general comments regarding the other comments on this thread.


----------



## Herald

PeaceMaker said:


> 1 Tim 3:2-7
> 2 A bishop then must be *blameless*, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 *one who rules his own house well,* having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. NKJV
> 
> BLAME, BLAMELESS
> anenkletos NT:410 signifies "that which cannot be called to account" (from a, negative, n, euphonic, and enkaleo, "to call in"), i. e., with nothing laid to one's charge (as the result of public investigation), in 1 Cor 1:8, RV, "unreproveable," KJV, "blameless"; in Col 1:22, KJV and RV, "unreproveable"; in 1 Tim 3:10 and Titus 1:6-7, KJV and RV, "blameless." It implies not merely acquittal, *but the absence of even a charge or accusation against a person. This is to be the case with elders.*
> (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
> 
> I don't know why it is acceptable to accept such sinful and worldly lives today when we read of our fathers who would not have tolerated such in members.
> 
> Not a judgment on this case, just general comments regarding the other comments on this thread.





> John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her


.


----------



## Herald

Herald said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Tim 3:2-7
> 2 A bishop then must be *blameless*, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 *one who rules his own house well,* having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. NKJV
> 
> BLAME, BLAMELESS
> anenkletos NT:410 signifies "that which cannot be called to account" (from a, negative, n, euphonic, and enkaleo, "to call in"), i. e., with nothing laid to one's charge (as the result of public investigation), in 1 Cor 1:8, RV, "unreproveable," KJV, "blameless"; in Col 1:22, KJV and RV, "unreproveable"; in 1 Tim 3:10 and Titus 1:6-7, KJV and RV, "blameless." It implies not merely acquittal, *but the absence of even a charge or accusation against a person. This is to be the case with elders.*
> (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)
> 
> I don't know why it is acceptable to accept such sinful and worldly lives today when we read of our fathers who would not have tolerated such in members.
> 
> Not a judgment on this case, just general comments regarding the other comments on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Click to expand...


----------



## DonP

Herald said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is a difference between committing a sin and practicing sin, or continuing in sin, yes?
> 
> Are these vrs contradictory to yours above or is there a place for both?
> 
> Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, NKJV
> 
> 2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. NKJV
> 
> 1 Tim 5:20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. NKJV
> 
> Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. NKJV
Click to expand...


----------



## satz

christiana said:


> After reading the article by John MacArthur and totally agreeing with it I am most disheartened by the posting here and see it as indicative of the downgrade, encroaching liberalism, extreme tolerance and such amongst those whom I would have hoped would support the strongest of boundaries and expectations of the clergy! Sad indicators of the times and culture of which many have succumbed rather than to resist and be faithful shepherds of their flocks! John MacArthur said it best!



You still haven't addressed the fact that David, Moses and Peter remained in leadership positions after their sins. 

The idea that after a man sins he is forever blameworthy (i.e. not blameless) is completely contrary to the message of forgiveness in the bible. If God says he will remember their sins no more (Heb 8:12), why should we continue to hold it against them? Paul said repentence can clear a man from the stain of sin (2 Cor 7:11). I don't get where we are getting the idea that you cannot clear yourself from the stain of past sin and thus be blameless again.

If we look at Titus 1:6, it helps us explain the how the bible uses the word "blameless": "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly."

Blamelessness is having a your family properly managed, i.e. children not acccused of being unruly etc etc. It speaks of man's present situation - not the fact that he has never committed any griveous sin, ever. 

I am happy to admit that there may be practical reasons for not letting a person who has committed certain types of grevious sin back into the ministry. But I (currently) see no warrant for saying that the issue is settled just by quoting the word "blameless" from the pastoral epistles, without looking at what Paul actually meant.


----------



## Edward

BobVigneault said:


> With proper oversight and accountability - yes.
> 
> Moral failure uncovers a besetting weakness in a pastor that was active much longer than was made public. There must be certain safeguards and accountability procedures put into place. In other words, it CAN'T be business as usual.
> 
> If I made the rules, this fallen minister would have to be observed in the pew and in humble service over _a period of years_, before restoration to office was considered.



I generally agree, but would add one more stipulation - it probably shouldn't be the same call, but the new call should be issued by a body completely familiar with the history of the matter. 

In addition, as Rome has discovered, there are some defects that aren't curable - those men should never hold a position in ministry again.


----------



## DonP

satz said:


> You still haven't addressed the fact that David, Moses and Peter remained in leadership positions after their sins.
> 
> The idea that after a man sins he is forever blameworthy (i.e. not blameless) is completely contrary to the message of forgiveness in the bible. If God says he will remember their sins no more (Heb 8:12), why should we continue to hold it against them? Paul said repentence can clear a man from the stain of sin (2 Cor 7:11). I don't get where we are getting the idea that you cannot clear yourself from the stain of past sin and thus be blameless again.



Forgiveness has nothing to do with consequences. You have to keep in mind a man can be forgiven and the penal aspect of his sin remembered no more, which is only figurative, it is paid for so will not be accounted. 

But as David was forgiven yet he had consequences. He should have been put to death, but God took his son instead. 
He was not allowed to accomplish the greatest desire of his heart, build the temple. 

So people thought forgiven so not just get to go back to the same work, or ministry or level of trust they once had. 
They, like David, may lose it forever. 

If one had committed a sexual crime and was caught by the law, he would never be allowed to teach sunday school or work with kids in our church due to their insurance and legal issues. 
He is still forgiven. 
An accountant who embezzles may be forgiven by God and his congregation but they will not temp him with handling the church money again. 

So an elder who abuses his office may not be allowed back again. and for him to leave the denomination to go elsewhere where he is not known without exposing his past would be as wrong as it would be for the accountant or the sexual criminal.


----------



## satz

PeaceMaker said:


> Forgiveness has nothing to do with consequences. You have to keep in mind a man can be forgiven and the penal aspect of his sin remembered no more, which is only figurative, it is paid for so will not be accounted.
> 
> But as David was forgiven yet he had consequences. He should have been put to death, but God took his son instead.
> He was not allowed to accomplish the greatest desire of his heart, build the temple.
> 
> So people thought forgiven so not just get to go back to the same work, or ministry or level of trust they once had.
> They, like David, may lose it forever.
> 
> If one had committed a sexual crime and was caught by the law, he would never be allowed to teach sunday school or work with kids in our church due to their insurance and legal issues.
> He is still forgiven.
> An accountant who embezzles may be forgiven by God and his congregation but they will not temp him with handling the church money again.
> 
> So an elder who abuses his office may not be allowed back again. and for him to leave the denomination to go elsewhere where he is not known without exposing his past would be as wrong as it would be for the accountant or the sexual criminal.



I never denied sin may have consequences, sometimes ones that last a lifetime. 

However, what you have described in David's life was God's sovereign acts. Those around David did not get together and tell him he was no longer fit to be their leader. 

God may, in his providence prevent a pastor who fell into sin from re-entering the ministry. That pastor should also not feel entitled to be accepted back.

What I am saying is that you cannot show, from the bible that God has declared that a pastor who sins greviously is permanently and absolutely barred from office.


----------



## Pergamum

christiana said:


> After reading the article by John MacArthur and totally agreeing with it I am most disheartened by the posting here and see it as indicative of the downgrade, encroaching liberalism, extreme tolerance and such amongst those whom I would have hoped would support the strongest of boundaries and expectations of the clergy! Sad indicators of the times and culture of which many have succumbed rather than to resist and be faithful shepherds of their flocks! John MacArthur said it best!



Being Biblical means being neither more lax than Scripture nor more strict than Scripture.

Showing grace to repentant sinners does not indicate "encroaching liberalism."


----------



## Mayflower

Jon 316 said:


> What do people think about the very quick 'restoration of Todd Bentley to public ministry? Rick Joiner has been releasing video interviews on his website at morningstar.




It is clear that Todd Bentley is living in unrepented adultry, so it's not a matter of having a restoration. he even says that his ex-wife and he has now a better relationship in their communcation than in their marriage, so for me it's clear as long as the spounse lives and he marrias another women, what a damengd to his children, his wife of his first marriage!!!!!!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

christiana said:


> After reading the article by John MacArthur and totally agreeing with it I am most disheartened by the posting here and see it as indicative of the downgrade, encroaching liberalism, extreme tolerance and such amongst those whom I would have hoped would support the strongest of boundaries and expectations of the clergy! Sad indicators of the times and culture of which many have succumbed rather than to resist and be faithful shepherds of their flocks! John MacArthur said it best!



Big Mac is not an end-all to the issue. While for the most part he is right in this piece but not entirely. John holds to several anti-biblical doctrines such as dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture as well as total abstinance and is not reformed. We must weigh everything by the Word of God and not on the speculations of any one theologian, especially those in the Dispensational camp.


----------



## toddpedlar

Jon 316 said:


> What do people think about the very quick 'restoration of Todd Bentley to public ministry? Rick Joiner has been releasing video interviews on his website at morningstar.



For many of us the question is not his restoration but whe the man had any legitimate public ministry to begin with...


----------



## Herald

PeaceMaker said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is a difference between committing a sin and practicing sin, or continuing in sin, yes?
> 
> Are these vrs contradictory to yours above or is there a place for both?
> 
> Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, NKJV
> 
> 2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. NKJV
> 
> 1 Tim 5:20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. NKJV
> 
> Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. NKJV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don, my point is that pastors and elders are not without flaws. They are not perfect. We err when we hold our spiritual leaders up to a level that they cannot possible obtain. They need godly men they can confide in; whether they be in the local fellowship or outside. I am not trying to lower the standard set forth in scripture as to the qualifications of pastors and elders. I am simply acknowledging that they are men, and suffer the same frailties that all men face. Their own piety notwithstanding, they need help in their journey.
Click to expand...


----------



## Puritan Sailor

It seems to me thus far, that many of you have forgotten who calls a man to ministry, God does that. God graciously gifts him for that service to the church and he is thereby obligated to use his gifts for the benefit of the body, as providence allows. If an officer falls, is deposed, and then repents of his sin and makes proper restitution so far as is possible, what would keep him from continuing to use his gifts? If the church recognizes his repentence, restores him to full fellowship, he must serve with his gifts as any other member of the body. And if they still see he is gifted by God for ordained ministry of some kind, then there should be no objection to calling him to serve in that capacity. 

As I quoted in the OPC BCO above, the only restriction or objection is whether his reinstatement will injure the cause of the gospel, as judged by the judicatory. Granted, that is a loaded clause, with broad implications, and it is a process that certainly requires a lot of time, but at least the fathers and brothers in the OPC (and I'm sure in other Reformed denominations) understood that the Scriptures do not teach an infallible NO to reinstatment of fallen officers. 

We've already seen the example of Peter. He was a commissioned preacher of the gospel by Christ himself, and he comitted apostacy. If that is not injurious to the cause of the gospel, I don't know what is. But God in his grace used his fall and restoration to promote the gospel of grace. We must at least be open to that possibility that God can use great sinners to become great leaders.


----------



## kevin.carroll

christiana said:


> Peter didnt have moral failure as I recall. His fall was a fulfillment of prophecy and used by Christ Himself for His purpose to expose our weakness and draw him close to Himself.
> He does the same with us with our daily failures and sins but that doesnt include the moral failure of a minister of the gospel. He's forgiven but is not again in leadership.
> (unless hes Jimmy Swaggert of course)



I'm not sure you understand the nature of Peter's sin, nor of the interplay between divine decree and personal responsibility. I do appreciate your zeal for the pastoral office, however.

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 11:11:10 EST-----

As I read through the rest of the posts, it appears that a dichotomy between baptists and presbyterians have appeared. According to most Presbyterians polity, a minister may be restored, if the Court judges that his restoration would not be injurious to the Church.

This discussion reminds me of a debate I was having with a Baptist friend over whether or not those who had been divorced could serve. He said no. I said, "So you can murder your wife and be a minister, but you can't divorce her and be one?" The discussion kind of whithered after that. Hehheheh.


----------



## christiana

The bottom line is that though he is now forgiven, he no longer meets these qualifications and must not attempt to lead by example or to be a role model; he isnt!

Biblical Qualifications for Elders
He does not meet these criteria, at all after failing to be an overcomer and restraining himself from blatant sin. Forgiven, yes; reinstated, no.
How much more lenient is it going to become before Christ returns? Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus! Is there no accountability? No consequences?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

christiana said:


> The bottom line is that though he is now forgiven, he no longer meets these qualifications and must not attempt to lead by example or to be a role model; he isnt!



All men, regardless of their status, are role models and called to lead by example (see Titus 2). We don't attempt to be one, you are one. You can be a good one or a bad one, officer or not. In the case of a fallen minister, he becomes a role model for how a man must humbly submit to Christ, receive correction, and repent of his sins, relying upon the prayers, accountability, and encouragment of the church. 



> Biblical Qualifications for Elders
> He does not meet these criteria, at all after failing to be an overcomer and restraining himself from blatant sin. Forgiven, yes; reinstated, no.
> How much more lenient is it going to become before Christ returns? Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus! Is there no accountability? No consequences?



The criteria for officers are not perfection. If he has fallen before, that doesn't mean that he can't become an "overcomer" later, after learning the hard way, and being brought back by the grace of Christ. The qualifications can reflect his character development later on. 

And isn't it exagerating a bit to say that reinstating and officer means there is no accountability or consequences? Having your sin publicaly condemned by the church, your office publically stripped from you for that sin, and suspension from the priviledges of church membership are not consequences or accountability? Having the church publically discuss and decide whether your reinstatment will injure the gospel is not consequences or accountability? 

I don't know who you are talking about, but no one here is advocating simply reinstating an officer without any consideration to his repentence or public consequences to the gospel.


----------



## toddpedlar

I fear by your criteria, Christiana, every pastor and elder in office is unBiblically there. Every one has failed to overcome perfectly. None shall ever overcome perfectly this side of glory. You should pay attention to the statements others are making... not a SINGLE one is arguing that instantaneous reinstatement of elders after an "I'm sorry, I repent" statement escapes their lips. Let's listen to each other, please?


----------



## DMcFadden

kevin.carroll said:


> christiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peter didnt have moral failure as I recall. His fall was a fulfillment of prophecy and used by Christ Himself for His purpose to expose our weakness and draw him close to Himself.
> He does the same with us with our daily failures and sins but that doesnt include the moral failure of a minister of the gospel. He's forgiven but is not again in leadership.
> (unless hes Jimmy Swaggert of course)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you understand the nature of Peter's sin, nor of the interplay between divine decree and personal responsibility. I do appreciate your zeal for the pastoral office, however.
> 
> -----Added 4/23/2009 at 11:11:10 EST-----
> 
> As I read through the rest of the posts, it appears that a *dichotomy between baptists and presbyterians have appeared. *According to most Presbyterians polity, a minister may be restored, if the Court judges that his restoration would not be injurious to the Church.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of a debate I was having with a Baptist friend over whether or not those who had been divorced could serve. He said no. I said, "So you can murder your wife and be a minister, but you can't divorce her and be one?" The discussion kind of whithered after that. Hehheheh.
Click to expand...


Hmmm. I am one Baptist who believes that the larger church needs to be involved in cases of appropriate restoration. It is not a matter of forgiveness, public ministry is not a right but a privilege. Sometimes the consequences of a particular action render it unwise for someone to continue in public ministry -- whether it is illegal or not. Other times, even an illegal act should not be a bar to continued ministry. The biblical standard is "above reproach" not sinless nor well closeted.

My objection is to using simplistic legalisms (e.g., no divorce) OR sloppy agape permissiveness which are contrary to the proper exegesis of 1 Timothy 3 in place of discernment. Some repentant murderers may legitimately serve in public ministry (e.g., Paul), some may not. The same applies to most of the other sins you can imagine (e.g., gossip, gluttony, materialism, womanizing even though there is no divorce, pugnaciousness, etc.). Rather than automatically excluding someone from office because of a sin in their past (while excusing others who are chronic offenders in other areas such as schismatics), we ought to be BIBLICAL in our standards for office and SERIOUS (i.e., neither legalistic nor antinomian) in our discipline of office holders.


----------



## DonP

Herald said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is a difference between committing a sin and practicing sin, or continuing in sin, yes?
> 
> Are these vrs contradictory to yours above or is there a place for both?
> 
> Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, NKJV
> 
> 2 Tim 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. NKJV
> 
> 1 Tim 5:20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. NKJV
> 
> Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. NKJV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don, my point is that pastors and elders are not without flaws. They are not perfect. We err when we hold our spiritual leaders up to a level that they cannot possible obtain. They need godly men they can confide in; whether they be in the local fellowship or outside. I am not trying to lower the standard set forth in scripture as to the qualifications of pastors and elders. I am simply acknowledging that they are men, and suffer the same frailties that all men face. Their own piety notwithstanding, they need help in their journey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. And that help should be received from their elders, and presbytery to whom they are accountable. How sad if they won't. But they can not cannot continue in known sin as a lifestyle and stay in ministry. They are not above a member, and *yes they are held to a higher standard. *But not a perfect standard.
> And as mentioned, forgiveness is not equated with reinstatement. They may or may not be reinstated and are not to run from the denomination to avoid the consequences. That is all I am saying. We all need to seek to be in accord with 1 John members and elders alike. And we need to be encouraging and admonishing one another for their good not because we are hurt or angry or to get even but from a concern for the holiness of God and His good name and love for our neighbor and concern for his soul.
> Even if we are ill thought of or misjudged.
Click to expand...


----------



## christiana

Peter's sin wasnt lust but pride, the same sin that gets all of us in trouble when we deny our Lord in multitudinous ways! Christ allowed this to give a great example that shows us up front with without Him we can do nothing. I have nothing adademic to bring to this 'discussion', only a great love for truth and the accurate presentation and upholding of how God said it to us!
In looking back it appears to me there is much leniency, rationalization and defense expressed. I certainly would hope that you pray daily to be protected from like sin and cling to Him who alone allows us to learn hard lessons at times and more clearly see what Peter saw about His Lord!
How much I know and understand about Peter's denial is not the purpose of the OP or the rest of this thread. No amount of diverting can reduce the damage done to so many young people when seeing a revered pastor commit such sin, especially then to witness his being restored to his same position! What does this tell those in the world who are watching?


----------



## a mere housewife

Dear Christiana, I have been thinking about this because I think you raise worthy objections. I was thinking that there is a testimony to the world, and to the church, to consider of God's efficacious grace, as well: His grace is so strong He not only saves, but uses sinners to bring about His gracious purpose for the earth. That is a beautiful and hopeful testimony at least to me, and I think one reason why God allowed us to see some of his ministers in Scripture fall into sins. 

I believe, and I think most commenting here would agree, that a minister who has fallen into sin of such a nature that he can't restore confidence (in the church or 'those that are without') in his ability to perform ministerial functions without needing to be babysat, and without leading them and himself into grave sin, should not be restored to office. If the measures of common prudence are not enough for a man as he goes about normal duties of his calling, then I do not believe he is *gifted* or *qualified* to fulfil that particular role -- nothing to do with forgiveness. I think that is probably the kind of consequence that is 'natural' to some kinds of sins.


----------



## EricP

*Fallen leaders*

To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, perhaps a few random thoughts on the passing scene. Clearly, falling and fallen men restored by God is a recurring theme in Scripture--even the Israelites were eventually restored by God each time they shot themselves in the foot with a calf or some other idol; Peter and Paul had their difficulties; David and Solomon theirs. Only one Man got it right. In so many ways, God is far more forgiving and loving than we are--we draw lines in the sand that He has the temerity to cross all the time. And yet, isn't it sad that, like the frog in the cold water, we have all gotten used to hearing and seeing things that would have caused our grandparents to blush--hundreds of years ago it was lawn bowling on the Sabbath and playing cards, today if those were our ONLY problems we'd all feel blessed! Our hearts, skins, eyes, and ears have gotten thick and hardened to many sad things going on around us, to the point that in a few years it may be difficult to find many pastors who HAVEN'T been divorced, had an affair at some point, or whatever. And yet, preachers preach to fallen men and women, and the ultimate voice is God's , expressed through the Scriptures as voiced by a bunch of cracked pots in pastoral clothing. Since God can make a donkey talk and bones walk, we shouldn't perhaps be surprised that He can even take a repentant fallen sinner and make him an effective religious leader to a fallen and dying generation. I hope and pray some day to be one!!


----------



## harvelljr

I was asked by James Farley:

"Are you trying to say that Peter was not regenerate before his denial of Christ? The same Peter who made the great confession of faith and whom the Father revealed the Son?"


Ah, but did I not say that some would disagree with my statement. When was Peter converted, show me from the scripture if though knowest? I have to go by what Jesus stated and not what men have. The example you gave was Peter's great confession, but if I remember correctly it is just 6 scriptures later and the same day and Christ is rebukinmg the spirit of Satan that is working through Peter. 

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, *Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. *
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 
Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. 
Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, *Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. *


I believe that there is a dispute within the Reformed Church whether Solomon was ever converted or not. Am I correct on this?

But back to what I was stating: Jesus tells Peter that when he is converted to strengthen the bretheren. I will ask this of thee: If Peter and the apostles were converted prior to Pentecost [this is when they received the Spirit] then why would they have to wait to receive the Spirit if they already have the Spirit for only those born of the Spirit are actually born again?

Today there is an error in the church that is rooted in the second century heresy of Montanism. Montanus taught that there was a second outpouring of the Spirit and that in the church there are have' s and have not's. Those who are born again and have the Spirit and those who are born again and do not have the Spirit. This is the charasmatic doctrine and heresy of today. This places us back into a pre-pentecostal position.

Reformed Theology teaches that now when one is born again they recieve the Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Ephesians 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 

Now my question is when did Peter receive the Spirit? Before Pentecost or at Pentecost?


As for those picking on Christina I will say this:

Even though I do not care to read John MacArthur's statement concerning these matters and this being because MacArthur is riding a high fence between Dispensationalism and reformed and he accuses Reformed people who hold to A-mill as being not truly Reformed, even though it is he that distorts the very word of God by seperating God's purpose of combining Jew and gentile into one body, I will say that Christina should not be treated so harshly. What are we discussing: The forgiving of someones sins before God, in Christ. Certainly God forgives all manner of sin that his children commit and were it not for his restraining hand we would commit even blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but God keeps us and preserves us to his heavenly kingdom.

But what we should be defending is God's honor and God's glory. If a man is a Pastor, Elder, Bishop, ever what you want to call it, if he is truly repentant then he would not be willing to step into the pulit again because he would see the reproach that he brought upon the very one who gave his life that we might be saved. Certainly we all bring reproach upon Christ at times, but an elder is to be the example, the one who leads, again he must have a good report among those outside the faith. In other words they may not like his Christianity, but they will respect his stance or see that he stands firm on what he believes. 

Tit 1:7 *For a bishop must be blameless*, *as the steward of God; not selfwilled*, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 

self willed means to be self pleasing


Tit 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 
Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 


How is he to convince anybody if he himself lives as the world?




EricP stated:

"Our hearts, skins, eyes, and ears have gotten thick and hardened to many sad things going on around us, to the point that in a few years it may be difficult to find many pastors who HAVEN'T been divorced, had an affair at some point, or whatever."

I do agree. I am no longer a Pastor because my Reformed got in the way of the Arminianism in the Senior Pastor and a few of his cohorts. I was asked to leave. But to show that they had no discernment in doctrine I was called a few weeks ago by the Senior Pastor because he wanted me to come and preach for them. Needless to say I did not call him back. He left a message on my machine. [Not because I am bitter or do not love them, but Reformed will not mix with their dispnesational, Arminian, charsmatic, humanistic doctrines].


----------



## py3ak

Lee, look again at the verses you quoted, specifically v.17. Christ pronounced Peter blessed because of the revelation the Father had given him. That is hardly consistent with a condition of unregeneracy.

"Converted" means "turned again": it is a good word to use after a lapse.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

harvelljr said:


> I was asked by James Farley:
> 
> "Are you trying to say that Peter was not regenerate before his denial of Christ? The same Peter who made the great confession of faith and whom the Father revealed the Son?"
> 
> 
> Ah, but did I not say that some would disagree with my statement. When was Peter converted, show me from the scripture if though knowest? I have to go by what Jesus stated and not what men have. The example you gave was Peter's great confession, but if I remember correctly it is just 6 scriptures later and the same day and Christ is rebukinmg the spirit of Satan that is working through Peter.
> 
> Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, *Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. *
> Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
> Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
> Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
> Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
> Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
> Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
> Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, *Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. *
> 
> 
> I believe that there is a dispute within the Reformed Church whether Solomon was ever converted or not. Am I correct on this?
> 
> But back to what I was stating: Jesus tells Peter that when he is converted to strengthen the bretheren. I will ask this of thee: If Peter and the apostles were converted prior to Pentecost [this is when they received the Spirit] then why would they have to wait to receive the Spirit if they already have the Spirit for only those born of the Spirit are actually born again?
> 
> Today there is an error in the church that is rooted in the second century heresy of Montanism. Montanus taught that there was a second outpouring of the Spirit and that in the church there are have' s and have not's. Those who are born again and have the Spirit and those who are born again and do not have the Spirit. This is the charasmatic doctrine and heresy of today. This places us back into a pre-pentecostal position.
> 
> Reformed Theology teaches that now when one is born again they recieve the Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Ephesians 1:13-14 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
> 
> Now my question is when did Peter receive the Spirit? Before Pentecost or at Pentecost?
> 
> 
> As for those picking on Christina I will say this:
> 
> Even though I do not care to read John MacArthur's statement concerning these matters and this being because MacArthur is riding a high fence between Dispensationalism and reformed and he accuses Reformed people who hold to A-mill as being not truly Reformed, even though it is he that distorts the very word of God by seperating God's purpose of combining Jew and gentile into one body, I will say that Christina should not be treated so harshly. What are we discussing: The forgiving of someones sins before God, in Christ. Certainly God forgives all manner of sin that his children commit and were it not for his restraining hand we would commit even blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but God keeps us and preserves us to his heavenly kingdom.
> 
> But what we should be defending is God's honor and God's glory. If a man is a Pastor, Elder, Bishop, ever what you want to call it, if he is truly repentant then he would not be willing to step into the pulit again because he would see the reproach that he brought upon the very one who gave his life that we might be saved. Certainly we all bring reproach upon Christ at times, but an elder is to be the example, the one who leads, again he must have a good report among those outside the faith. In other words they may not like his Christianity, but they will respect his stance or see that he stands firm on what he believes.
> 
> Tit 1:7 *For a bishop must be blameless*, *as the steward of God; not selfwilled*, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
> 
> self willed means to be self pleasing
> 
> 
> Tit 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
> Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
> 
> 
> How is he to convince anybody if he himself lives as the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EricP stated:
> 
> "Our hearts, skins, eyes, and ears have gotten thick and hardened to many sad things going on around us, to the point that in a few years it may be difficult to find many pastors who HAVEN'T been divorced, had an affair at some point, or whatever."
> 
> I do agree. I am no longer a Pastor because my Reformed got in the way of the Arminianism in the Senior Pastor and a few of his cohorts. I was asked to leave. But to show that they had no discernment in doctrine I was called a few weeks ago by the Senior Pastor because he wanted me to come and preach for them. Needless to say I did not call him back. He left a message on my machine. [Not because I am bitter or do not love them, but Reformed will not mix with their dispnesational, Arminian, charsmatic, humanistic doctrines].



I believe that all of the apostles were saved except Judas before Peter's denial according to Jesus Christ Himself in John 17:

Jhn 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 
Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 
Jhn 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 
Jhn 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 
Jhn 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. 
Jhn 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 
Jhn 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. 
Jhn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. 
Jhn 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 

_none of them are lost but the son of perdition_


----------



## DonP

The unusual issues around the holy Spirit in the early NT are usually attributed to a transition time. 
Also Penetecost could be understood as a special work of the Spirit in ordaining or setting these men apart as apostles and for the work of the ministry to which they were called. 
It does not have to imply the did not have the Spirit previously. 

Also consider Christ served Communion to them. I do not think He would have done this, having all knowledge, if He knew they were unregenerate. 

One may ask at what point was Saul Regenerated? On the way or after he was healed by Annanias and received the Spirit??

Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight *and be filled with the Holy Spirit.*" 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. NKJV

Again I see the special filling as commission for apostleship, not regeneration. I think the moment any of us saw Christ we would Convert immediately. 
Or die.


----------



## harvelljr

I appreciate the responses and will cease from this point on to post. My post was edited because I gave a testimony of what God had done in my life. If someone is to edit what God specifically commands you to publish abroad, then what is the point of discussing. I cannot but relate in my life what God has done for me. My testimony of what I have overcome will be known in heaven for eternity, how much more should it not be proclaimed among Christians now. I am glad Paul did not hold to this policy, but specifically proclaimed that Alexander the coppersmith had done him much evil.

No hard feelings, but I do not agree with anyone editing another's testimony unless that testimony does not give glory to God.

God bless,

I am out. It has been nice chatting with thee.


----------



## DonP

I think there is a collapsing of the distinction between forgiveness and consequences in the church today. 

Just because God forgives a man it does not make all go away as if it never happened in our realm on earth. 

We do not "forget" as God does. 

1st we do not know if the man is converted or not. We can not see who are elect. 

So we do not know if he is forgiven with God. 

2nd God lets us endure the consequences of our sins and even just mistakes sometimes. 

So the church can forgive them man if he repent, and if he shows fruits fitting of repentance. But will all of the members forgive him? Say his family? the family of the other party if they were in that church or another?
People are sinful and may not forgive. It may take time. 

So obviously there will be time before any consideration of what responsibilities he will have back and it should not be a given that he will one day be able to return to the ministry.

To forgive does not mean no consequences. 
If a man gets a woman pregnant who is not his wife and she has a child, he can be forgiven but his life will be forever changed in many ways, not the least of would be the financial responsibility of the child, possibly the mother. 
Because of the visibility of the child and public scandal he may never be allowed to take a pulpit again though God could forgive him and the people do. 

Scriptures supporting this posted in my previous post.

Because God's people are sinful is not an excuse to say we forgive to the extent it is as if it never happened. That is for God's domain.


----------



## akennethjr

Preachers are quick to forgive
and the last to be forgiven.
How sad that they are last 
to be restored and forgiven.
I believe in restoration.


----------



## kevin.carroll

For what it's worth, all of the qualifications in Timothy and Titus are in the Greek present tense, suggesting that they describe the candidate right now. The effect of injurious sins on one's ability to preach the gospel should be judged by the courts of the Church.

I for one praise God that he does, in fact, restore men with a past to gospel ministry. If not, the Church would not have had Augustine.

In our presbytery we had to do deal with this very issue recently (though the sin was p0rnography and not physical adultery). We suspended the man from the pulpit and Sacraments for a year. He submitted to that and after a year we did restore him to the Table. We felt, however, that he had not manifested the proper fruits of repentance and left the suspension of office in place. We also warned him that, for aggravating circumstances that I will not share, he was danger of facing charges and beind deposed. At our urging he has petitioned the presbytery to demit the ministry.

Every step of the way our goal has been his restoration. I can envision a time when he may yet be restored to ministry, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.


----------



## pepper

It has been most interesting to read the various post on this issue. I believe I have learned alot


----------



## chbrooking

Herald said:


> Pastors struggle with temptation, just like any other man struggles with temptation. *There is pressure on some pastors not to share their own personal struggles out of fear or shame.*



And no wonder, given the attitude of many on this thread. You hard line no-restoration folks are robbing your pastors of your support. You are making him pretend to be something that none of us are -- a recipe for disaster. And then when, having kept from him the tools that might have prevented his fall, he falls, you refuse to own up to your own guilt in the matter.

James 5:16 is out of the question, then, for a minister.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

just to note, if this Pastor was living in Puritan New England he would have been promptly executed, hence this discussion wouldn't be warranted. But also where the Civil Order is not explicitly Christian or even pagan, adulterers, murderers etc once truly repentent are allowed somewhat depending upon their maturity and diligence. Paul is a prime example. Here is a guy that was a murderer that became the greatest of the Apostles.

But if a Pastor falls into sin, as opposed to an adultering sinner converting to the gospel is too unique, I would say for the weakness of certain brethren the pastor should be forbidden to preach in a particular congregation or congregations. The pastor should also be forthright with his former short coming with any new congregation so as to kill any potential gossip that might rear its ugly hear.


----------



## akennethjr

I may have already said this but
Lester Roloff said that "The preacher is the first to forgive 
and the last to be forgiven." 
Sad but true
This may not be an exact quote


----------

