Could Haggard be restored???

[Blueridge Believer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Haggard should never be allowed in the pulpit!

 

[beej6]

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]

The church is the only army that shoots its wounded.

 

[Arch2k]

I'm afraid Haggard shot himself on this one.

 

[Theoretical]

The church is the only army that shoots its wounded.

That is so depressingly true.

 

[RamistThomist]

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.