Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

Would "YOU" want a pastor who had fell morally?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Re: Scars do not prohibit ministry.. Porpoise Driven Neptune
He Came To Me wrote:
Yes the cost is high. Yes there are scars from such an event. Yes there is a price to pay. Their ministry may be different, .


I agree. Their ministry will be different. It will be different from the ministry of a pastor or a bishop that they had before.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 969
2/25/06 7:15 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post OTCP...there was no personal attack... He Came To Me
You constantly bring this issue up and it is NOT a sin issue. It may be an unwise decision to place a man who committed adultery in the office of pastor or bishop. You can argue that. But you cannot make a case it is sin. So your defense of accusing someone preaching against sin as committing the sin is not justified. Fine preach against sin, but this is not a sin issue. Your opinion and the reasons you bring them constantly on the board are just as fair game as a man who committed adultery, has been forgiven and returned to a pulpit. Just don't jerk your belt at the wrong time in the wrong place. Very Happy Friendly Face
Posts: 120
2/25/06 7:15 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Not trying to hijack, but what if outcast
a pastor's wife commits adultery? Should that pastor have to resign? Should his wife have to go through the restoration process? SHould he be allowed to continue to pastor while she did go through some type of restoration? What if she has done this more than once during her husband's ministry? Does that change your opinion on the matter? Again, not trying to hijack, just wondering your thoughts? WOuld the wife's indescretion mean that the pastor is not in control of his own house?
_________________
K. David Oldham
Friendly Face
Posts: 344
2/25/06 7:52 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Not trying to hijack, but what if notwanghere
outcast wrote:
a pastor's wife commits adultery? Should that pastor have to resign? Should his wife have to go through the restoration process? SHould he be allowed to continue to pastor while she did go through some type of restoration? What if she has done this more than once during her husband's ministry? Does that change your opinion on the matter? Again, not trying to hijack, just wondering your thoughts? WOuld the wife's indescretion mean that the pastor is not in control of his own house?


This is an interesting question, and I have my own perspective on it. Does the scripture that a Pastor is to be in control of his own home have bearing? I think probably.

The extent of those implications is interesting. Perhaps if the wife is continually adulterous the husband is under spiritual obligation to divorce her? hmmm
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1794
2/25/06 8:10 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: TJ I assume you never sin... Way Word Worship
He Came To Me wrote:
based on your post. You quote a scripture that you are applying literally. Only a few things can be true for you then. Either:

1. You have NEVER sinned since you were saved, or

2. The only sin you ever committed after salvation you did not know it was a sin, which is not likely, or

3. You only think this verse applies to certain sins.

The thing that really bothers me when men make this argument is they overlook their own sin. How many ignorant sins can you commit? Knowingly committing a sin does not distinguish the sin.

I guess you make my point. Now I feel a preach coming on too.

Funny the Ol' timer here firing for effect again. And I guess there's nothing wrong with lighting up the night sky with a bunch of tracers while everyone low crawls here.

Honestly John, we get a mite spirited with these discussions but I really love you. And I missed you posting for as long as you did a while back. Good to see you here again.
_________________
Wayword


Last edited by Way Word Worship on 2/25/06 10:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Friendly Face
Posts: 247
2/25/06 9:52 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: TJ I assume you never sin... notwanghere
Way Word Worship wrote:
He Came To Me wrote:
based on your post. You quote a scripture that you are applying literally. Only a few things can be true for you then. Either:

1. You have NEVER sinned since you were saved, or

2. The only sin you ever committed after salvation you did not know it was a sin, which is not likely, or

3. You only think this verse applies to certain sins.

The thing that really bothers me when men make this argument is they overlook their own sin. How many ignorant sins can you commit? Knowingly committing a sin does not distinguish the sin.

I guess you make my point. Now I feel a preach coming on too.

Funny the Ol' timer here firing for effect again. And I guess there's nothing wrong with lighting up the night sky with a bunch of tracers while everyone low crawls here.


I guess you disagree with Paul who places sexual sins in a different category. Sin's against his own body?
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1794
2/25/06 10:00 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: A Pastor who has failed morally! whocansatisfy
God is love, but He would not let David build the temple because of his sin.[/quote]


God would not let David build the Temple because he was a man of war with blood on his hands.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
2/25/06 10:11 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: disagree with Paul Way Word Worship
notwanghere wrote:
I guess you disagree with Paul who places sexual sins in a different category. Sin's against his own body?

No. I don't mean to digress but I think the main point of OTCP's original post was to draw us into a discussion about someone who was deceptive and cheap.

Quote:
OTCP wrote:
Would "YOU" want a pastor who you knowed had fell morally, committed adultery for a year before he was caught, an brought shame on his family, church, the ministry and Jesus?


Let's change it a bit now.

What if the pastor had fell morally preached one more Sunday and then quit. Lost his pastorate, lost his family but repented and was rejected fellowship thereafter. Isn't the general church resposible to "restore such an one"?
_________________
Wayword
Friendly Face
Posts: 247
2/25/06 10:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: Would "YOU" want a pastor who had fell morally notwanghere
Restore to fellowship, yes. To Pastoral ministry, no. Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1794
2/25/06 10:19 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post A question for Theolojohn or anyone else His disciple
Help me understand the situation with Peter. In the passage we are using, If Paul meant blameless to mean sinless. How would Peter not be disqualified. He clearly sinned in denying Christ. He had to be restored by Jesus. He was later confronted by Paul for being a hypocrite and causing Barnabas to stumble. Yet. he was the clear leader of the early church and God used him to change the world.

No one, especially the other Disciples likes John, would have considered Peter blameless. Paul himself certainly would not consider Peter blameless yet he refers to him as being a leader of the church. Help me understand how all this makes sense using your interpretation of "blameless" meaning "sinless".
_________________
Matthew 7:25
Friendly Face
Posts: 249
2/25/06 10:52 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Would "YOU" want a pastor who had fell morally notwanghere
Excellent point. I do not believe the terms are synonymous. Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1794
2/25/06 11:09 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Peter is the PERFECT example.... He Came To Me
TJ tried to explain him away by saying his denial of Christ happened before he was a bishop. So two months is enough proving time to show you are blameless before you become a Bishop? Peter can be excused only if we choose to not hold him to Paul's standard. He was not blameless. He was not blameless for any period of time before being recognized as the leader of the church. If this qualification is your standard, why did the disciples not choose another to preach on the Day of Pentecost? They stood with him. This lying, cursing Christ denying preacher. If adultery is worse than denying Christ then I may need you to send me the Bible you are reading because mine does not support that theory. Friendly Face
Posts: 120
2/25/06 11:36 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Would "YOU" want a pastor who had fell morally notwanghere
I don't understand why is is so difficult to understand the difference between sin and "moral failure." The fact that Peter was upbraided by Paul for his duplicity in Antioch, yet still seen worthy of Apostleship demonstrates that failure is not the issue.

Reproach deals with that which Paul identifies as a sin against the body. If such can be forgiven, then why does the COG determine homosexuality as a sin from which there is nor restoration? It seems to me that there should be no restoration from either homosexual sin or heterosexual sin.

That is my opinion. The current attitude has in no small way been esxacerbated by the common misconception that the Pastor is no different than anyone else in the Church. To who much is given, much is required.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1794
2/26/06 12:03 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: TJ I assume you never sin... TheoloJohn
He Came To Me wrote:
based on your post. You quote a scripture that you are applying literally. Only a few things can be true for you then. Either:

1. You have NEVER sinned since you were saved, or

2. The only sin you ever committed after salvation you did not know it was a sin, which is not likely, or

3. You only think this verse applies to certain sins.

The thing that really bothers me when men make this argument is they overlook their own sin. How many ignorant sins can you commit? Knowingly committing a sin does not distinguish the sin.


Hi HCTM,

Neither 1, 2, or 3 is true of me. By God's grace, in the power of His Spirit, ALL believers are able to live above sin, and must. Romans 6:1 must mean nothing to those who say we can't help but sin all the time. (Because I had been taught the sin-all-the-time sort of "Christianity," for many years I couldn't begin to fathom all the promises in God's word to make me holy and keep me holy. Thankfully I no longer believe as I formerly did, that sin is more powerful than God's Spirit in me.

The Bible very plainly distinguishes sins committed in ignorance as opposed to sins "committed with a high hand." (willfully and arrogantly against what one knows to be right) See Leviticus chs 4 - 6.

As God is my witness, I pray daily that God search me and try me, that he might find any wicked way in me, cleanse me and renew my mind as only He can, and that He keep me from all evil. Also as God is my witness, I strive, as Paul to live a life "void of offense to God or fellow man." Isn't that what every Christian should do?

Act 24:16 And in this I exercise myself to have always a blameless conscience toward God and men. (Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)

I trust in God's promise to keep me from sin, to deliver me from evil, and to lead me not into temptation. I trust in God's promise that if I walk in the Spirit, I will NOT fulfill the lusts of the flesh. (Galatians 5). Why would this wonderful promise of Scripture, that we don't have to sin, cause anger to rise up in someone's heart?

I'm only claiming what we all SAY we believe in the CoG (and what the Bible plainly teaches), that "Holiness is God's standard of living for His people," and that "sanctification (holiness) is subsequent to regeneration." The Bible is clear that without holiness no man shall see God. By God's grace, I aim to lovingly serve Him with my whole heart with every breath he grants me. As far as I know, there's nothing between my soul and the Savior. May I never sin against Him who shed his blood to save, cleanse and sanctify me.

Those who would defend a man's right to sin are the ones with the explaining to do. One is left scratching one's head as to how they might explain what Paul meant in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 2. I think the thing many are forgetting here is that no minister HAS to commit adultery. It's not as if they have no power available through Christ to resist temptation.

Personally, I believe Paul was dealing with a situation in his ministry that was very different than Peter's denial and restoration. He was instructing Timothy to appoint bishops that were "above reproach." I fail to see why so many fail to see the import of that.

God bless,

John
_________________
"Of course we are concerned about people voting if they are dead," George Stanton, chief information officer for the New York State Board of Elections. Poughkeepsie Journal, October 29, 2006


Last edited by TheoloJohn on 2/26/06 1:54 am; edited 4 times in total
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2160
2/26/06 1:14 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: A question for Theolojohn or anyone else TheoloJohn
His disciple wrote:
Help me understand the situation with Peter. In the passage we are using, If Paul meant blameless to mean sinless. How would Peter not be disqualified. He clearly sinned in denying Christ. He had to be restored by Jesus. He was later confronted by Paul for being a hypocrite and causing Barnabas to stumble. Yet. he was the clear leader of the early church and God used him to change the world.

No one, especially the other Disciples likes John, would have considered Peter blameless. Paul himself certainly would not consider Peter blameless yet he refers to him as being a leader of the church. Help me understand how all this makes sense using your interpretation of "blameless" meaning "sinless".


First, I never used the term, "sinless." If we ever have sinned, we can never claim to be such.

Second, the onus is on those who oppose holy standards for bishops in God's church to please define "blameless," "above reproach," "having self-control," and "having a good reputation among outsiders." I have yet to see any one on the opposing side offer any way to get around these clear standards for the NT office of BISHOP as set forth by Paul.

Third, with regard to Peter, apparently it is the case that his caving under pressure to the point of denying Christ was not as huge a deal to Jesus as it may seem to us. Do we read anywhere that Christ ever even mentioned it to Peter, much less rebuked or openly condemned him?

Fourth, what we see in Peter is a totally new level of character, power, and stedfastness after Pentecost. He may not have perfectly overcome all of his ethnic prejudices until later, but we have no record of him ever committing adultery, or backsliding again, especially after Pentecost.

His temporary wavering with regard to the fellowship with Gentiles issue was not something that he persisted in once confronted. He demonstrated a humble attitude and was himself instrumental in the Jerusalem Council in advocating the acceptance of Gentile Christians and of not making them convert to Judaism as well as Christianity.

Finally, if anything is certain, regardless of how many professing Christians live a life of "let us continue in sin, that grace may abound," God's word is forever the standard. It can never be overruled by those who profess Christ's name with their lips but by their works deny Him. Just because Peter or David sinned, what excuse does that give you? Like my momma used to always say, "If everybody else jumped off a cliff, does that mean you should?"
_________________
"Of course we are concerned about people voting if they are dead," George Stanton, chief information officer for the New York State Board of Elections. Poughkeepsie Journal, October 29, 2006


Last edited by TheoloJohn on 2/26/06 3:05 am; edited 3 times in total
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2160
2/26/06 1:32 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Peter is the PERFECT example.... TheoloJohn
He Came To Me wrote:
TJ tried to explain him away by saying his denial of Christ happened before he was a bishop. So two months is enough proving time to show you are blameless before you become a Bishop? Peter can be excused only if we choose to not hold him to Paul's standard. He was not blameless. He was not blameless for any period of time before being recognized as the leader of the church. If this qualification is your standard, why did the disciples not choose another to preach on the Day of Pentecost? They stood with him. This lying, cursing Christ denying preacher. If adultery is worse than denying Christ then I may need you to send me the Bible you are reading because mine does not support that theory.


Okay, help me here. I'm confused. First you say that a short time is all that is necessary for full restoration to the same ministry one had before, that is all that Paul means by "blameless," but on the other hand you say that Peter was not even blameless for even any amount of time?

I think we have to keep in mind that Paul is referring in 1 Timothy to leaders after Pentecost, who had no doubt already received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, while Peter had not yet received this overcoming power to be a witness for Christ when he displayed such panic and cowardice.

Finally, let me set the record straight--This is definitely not "my" standard. It is Paul's. Those who reject it, reject God's own Word.
_________________
"Of course we are concerned about people voting if they are dead," George Stanton, chief information officer for the New York State Board of Elections. Poughkeepsie Journal, October 29, 2006
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2160
2/26/06 1:42 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post justachristianin2007
I would like to meet the person posing this question in person! This is obviously Jesus (the only person I know of who hasn't made mistakes and is perfect). Otherwise this is a Holier than thou that has covered up his obvious failures like a cat covers it"s poo. You stink of lies and deception if you're telling us you're perfect and have never sinned. Be sure your sins will find you out my friend. All of us have come short of the glory of God but thank God He forgives even when people (like you) don't! Get a life. Newbie
Posts: 5
11/6/07 5:09 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Old Time Country Preacher
justachristianin2007 wrote:
I would like to meet the person posing this question in person! This is obviously Jesus (the only person I know of who hasn't made mistakes and is perfect). Otherwise this is a Holier than thou that has covered up his obvious failures like a cat covers it"s poo. You stink of lies and deception if you're telling us you're perfect and have never sinned. Be sure your sins will find you out my friend. All of us have come short of the glory of God but thank God He forgives even when people (like you) don't! Get a life.


Thanks Rehoboam, as the new youngun on the block, for bein able to so adequately go back over a year ago an define the substance a this thread an all. Course, here is a few observations:

1. Son, you dont know what ya talkin bout. Nobody is sayin nobody is perfect.

2. They is a difference in perfection an qualifications fer public office--ie. bein above reproach. Yep, seems like Paul did stipulate that little qualifer.

3. It aint a matter a "me" fergivin nobody, its a matter of a feller, by his own sinful/public actions, disqualifyin hisself for public ministry.
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15559
11/6/07 9:33 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post christian
30 Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;
31 But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.
32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
.34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.
35 He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.

This, in addition to what Paul writes in the New Testament.

Even though any sin can be forgiven, the wages of some sins are much higher than others. One of the payoffs of sexual sin is that when a person's name is brought up in conversation or you meet them on the street, that's the first thing you think of, even though it may be years later. Yes God forgets, but we don't have a sea of forgetfulness. The memory will be there until God wipes away our tears and bad memories. When people make the choice to commit this particular type of sin, they are also making the choice of disqualifying themselves from some ministries. They are much like the person who became a christian after going to prison. They still must reap what they have sown.
Newbie
Posts: 1
11/7/07 2:44 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.