Terry_Herrington
New Member
Gina L said:
You're excused.
Obviously I was referring to IFB as a whole. BTW, I have spent most of my life attending IFB churches, that does not do away with certain tendencies that they seem to have.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Standing firm on Titus/1 Cor verses
- Thread starter Gina B
- Start date
You're excused.
Obviously I was referring to IFB as a whole. BTW, I have spent most of my life attending IFB churches, that does not do away with certain tendencies that they seem to have.
Gina,
I am on your side. I was just pointing out that the thief could repent but not make restitution (pay back what he had stolen) because he was nailed to a cross. But on the other hand Zacchaeus could make restitution and therefore did.
Bob Grey if he repented had an obligation to make it right and he did not therefore he is subject to the laws of the land and was subject to the laws of the land even had he repented and come clean.
I am on your side. I was just pointing out that the thief could repent but not make restitution (pay back what he had stolen) because he was nailed to a cross. But on the other hand Zacchaeus could make restitution and therefore did.
Bob Grey if he repented had an obligation to make it right and he did not therefore he is subject to the laws of the land and was subject to the laws of the land even had he repented and come clean.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Dr Gray is subject to the laws of the land, yes. But if he did repent, he should not be subject to those who profess Christ calling him a pervert.
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Last edited:
thjplgvp, I believe the life of someone is a type of restitution.
However, I'm sure there are many instances where a repentant person was unable to make any sort of right from his wrong here on earth. But...if you're dead before you're able to do so, then that's pretty much all there is too it. If you're alive though, then you're expected to walk worthy, and that would include making things right with those harmed, etc..
My contention was simply with the example you gave. I do believe the thief did pay the ultimate price for his sins against others. Even if that hadn't been the case and he'd simply died falling off his donkey or what have you though, of course it wouldn't have meant his last minute confession didn't "count", since he wouldn't have had the opportunity.
SFIC, you ask me what part of repent I do not understand, so I shall answer.
I do not understand the part of repentance that does not involve making things right with your victim.
I do not understand the part of repentance that makes you continue to accept the honors and praise of people around the nation.
I do not understand the part of repentance that made the man retain a position of authority over others.
I do not understand the part of repentance that made the man continue to let himself be seen as a role model for other Christians.
I do not understand the part of repentance that includes making no apology when busted openly for sexual sins against children.
However, I'm sure there are many instances where a repentant person was unable to make any sort of right from his wrong here on earth. But...if you're dead before you're able to do so, then that's pretty much all there is too it. If you're alive though, then you're expected to walk worthy, and that would include making things right with those harmed, etc..
My contention was simply with the example you gave. I do believe the thief did pay the ultimate price for his sins against others. Even if that hadn't been the case and he'd simply died falling off his donkey or what have you though, of course it wouldn't have meant his last minute confession didn't "count", since he wouldn't have had the opportunity.
SFIC, you ask me what part of repent I do not understand, so I shall answer.
I do not understand the part of repentance that does not involve making things right with your victim.
I do not understand the part of repentance that makes you continue to accept the honors and praise of people around the nation.
I do not understand the part of repentance that made the man retain a position of authority over others.
I do not understand the part of repentance that made the man continue to let himself be seen as a role model for other Christians.
I do not understand the part of repentance that includes making no apology when busted openly for sexual sins against children.
standingfirminChrist said:
True, but the think they are, or they pretend to be. The point is, it's not referring to outside influences. These people seem to be part of the believers...or who we would perceive to be believers (else their words would have no influence and no deception if you already know the source is without Christ)
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Who is to say that Dr Gray did not publicly apologize at what time he stepped down from the pulpit at Trinity Baptist.
The current pastor told police and reporters that he had repented and stepped down.
Isn't it possible that he did repent and some are just not wanting to forgive?
And what restitution would you have him do? Take the French Kiss back? Some things cannot be undone.
The current pastor told police and reporters that he had repented and stepped down.
Isn't it possible that he did repent and some are just not wanting to forgive?
And what restitution would you have him do? Take the French Kiss back? Some things cannot be undone.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
When a pastor steps down from the pulpit, he generally tells the people the reason he is stepping down. Since the congregation apparently knew of the situation and the new pastor said Dr Gray stepped down and that he had repented of the sins he committed, one can only surmise that he spoke to the congregation at that time and told them he was sorry and that because of his great sin was no longer fit for that pulpit.
The man in 1 Corinthians comes to mind in this situation. The one Paul advised to 'put such an one from amongst you.' We must remember that Paul stated in his second epistle to the church in Corinth that the man had repented and that the church was to accept him back in the fold.
It is said that Dr Gray repented and yet the church, the body of Christ does not show the love that Paul commands... but would rather crucify the man.
This is not of God.
The man in 1 Corinthians comes to mind in this situation. The one Paul advised to 'put such an one from amongst you.' We must remember that Paul stated in his second epistle to the church in Corinth that the man had repented and that the church was to accept him back in the fold.
It is said that Dr Gray repented and yet the church, the body of Christ does not show the love that Paul commands... but would rather crucify the man.
This is not of God.
I meant an apology NOW, in public, for the shame this is causing Christianity.
When one is no longer fit to pastor, it doesn't mean in one church only.
You say you "can only surmise". That's accurate, and makes it a very very weak point.
Now, if you don't mind, I think the majority of people interested in this thread would like to see Gray taken out of the equation so it can turn to a discussion of how the process should work.
How should it work with sins of very serious nature? Is restoration meant even after a person has been confronted two times or more? Is restoration for serious crimes such as murder and rape? Does it mean that we act as if that person never committed a crime, or do we still put up safeguards, such as requiring extra accountability, not putting them in positions that could endanger other or tempt the wrongdoer? (such as putting someone who has stolen money in charge of finances, or putting a former child molester in a class teaching children)
When one is no longer fit to pastor, it doesn't mean in one church only.
You say you "can only surmise". That's accurate, and makes it a very very weak point.
Now, if you don't mind, I think the majority of people interested in this thread would like to see Gray taken out of the equation so it can turn to a discussion of how the process should work.
How should it work with sins of very serious nature? Is restoration meant even after a person has been confronted two times or more? Is restoration for serious crimes such as murder and rape? Does it mean that we act as if that person never committed a crime, or do we still put up safeguards, such as requiring extra accountability, not putting them in positions that could endanger other or tempt the wrongdoer? (such as putting someone who has stolen money in charge of finances, or putting a former child molester in a class teaching children)
standingfirminChrist
New Member
If someone killed my only son, my wife, or my mother, according to God's Word, that person would have to stand trial. But also according to God's Word, I must forgive him. I cannot hold hate against another person, for he that hateth his brother is the same as a murderer. And we know no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Frustration? I am sure there would be. There would be many questions. But we must give them over to God who can give us a peace that passes all understanding in even the greatest storms and tempests in our lives.
Yes, we must forgive those who trespass against us.
Frustration? I am sure there would be. There would be many questions. But we must give them over to God who can give us a peace that passes all understanding in even the greatest storms and tempests in our lives.
Yes, we must forgive those who trespass against us.
It's one thing to hold hatred, another thing to hold to responsibility.
It is never said that our forgiveness of other people should include allowing them to get away with what they did. For example, let's take a situation...let's say...hrm. Someone molests a child. Do you honestly believe that forgiving the man means you pretend it never happened?
First, the actual crime isn't something for you to forgive. That's for the victims.
What's your role as a Christian in it then?
1. To encourage the behavior to stop
2. To encourage responsibility
3. To watch out for the spiritual welfare of those involved if you're in that position
4. To make sure you keep others safe from the molester in the future
5. To point out that sin and warn others against it
6. To keep that person from corrupting the church
and it goes on and on and on.
Common sense. If someone stabs you once and you forgive them, and they do it again and you forgive them, that can go on and on and on, but they really lose the right to stand next to you with a knife. It's not a lack of forgiveness that would keep you from handing him a butcher knife the next time that person is over.
Kinda like not allowing child molesters in society, where kids are. Regardless of whether or not you feel they should be forgiven.
It is never said that our forgiveness of other people should include allowing them to get away with what they did. For example, let's take a situation...let's say...hrm. Someone molests a child. Do you honestly believe that forgiving the man means you pretend it never happened?
First, the actual crime isn't something for you to forgive. That's for the victims.
What's your role as a Christian in it then?
1. To encourage the behavior to stop
2. To encourage responsibility
3. To watch out for the spiritual welfare of those involved if you're in that position
4. To make sure you keep others safe from the molester in the future
5. To point out that sin and warn others against it
6. To keep that person from corrupting the church
and it goes on and on and on.
Common sense. If someone stabs you once and you forgive them, and they do it again and you forgive them, that can go on and on and on, but they really lose the right to stand next to you with a knife. It's not a lack of forgiveness that would keep you from handing him a butcher knife the next time that person is over.
Kinda like not allowing child molesters in society, where kids are. Regardless of whether or not you feel they should be forgiven.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
As I stated before, the crimes were done more than 20 years ago and the perpertrator repented according to the church. There is not a cry of foul since then... as far as recent crimes by said person.
I believe repentence is there. The word repentence does not always mean restitution. I mentioned the thief on the cross.
The Bible never mentions Paul going to the families of the people he killed and telling them how sorry he was and asking their forgiveness.
No, Paul repented (turned away from) of his sin, accepted Christ, and began preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I did not see where Peter apologized to Malchus for cutting off his ear.
In Philippians 3:13 Paul wrote, 'Brethren, I count not myself yet to have laid hold: but one thing I do, forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before,'
I believe repentence is there. The word repentence does not always mean restitution. I mentioned the thief on the cross.
The Bible never mentions Paul going to the families of the people he killed and telling them how sorry he was and asking their forgiveness.
No, Paul repented (turned away from) of his sin, accepted Christ, and began preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I did not see where Peter apologized to Malchus for cutting off his ear.
In Philippians 3:13 Paul wrote, 'Brethren, I count not myself yet to have laid hold: but one thing I do, forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before,'
Last edited:
SFIC, hopefully I can address this more fully tonight, as I've got about ten minutes before the girls are ready to head out the door.
In the meantime, here's my initial response.
We are not told that Paul did not have any further contact with the families of those he murdered.
More importantly though, he didn't murder people after his conversion, so this isn't at all the same type of comparison. He didn't preach Christ, then get a little girl out of the audience, take her to his office, and molest her. Paul committed vile sins, was converted, and ceased to commit them. Pastors who become converted, preach Christ, and simutaneously molest children make their stated belief in Christ extremely doubtful. Is it wrong to question the salvation of another? Not at all, not when that person claims Christ and does stuff like this. We have to beware of wolves, of Satan disguised as an angel of light.
The thief on the cross is an example of last minute conversion, a repentance of his sins against God made while paying the ultimate price for his sins against man. Again, it is in no way comparable to the situation at hand. Because God accepts last minute confessions of unbelievers has nothing to do with our duty as believers to pay for what we do wrong to other people.
In the meantime, here's my initial response.
We are not told that Paul did not have any further contact with the families of those he murdered.
More importantly though, he didn't murder people after his conversion, so this isn't at all the same type of comparison. He didn't preach Christ, then get a little girl out of the audience, take her to his office, and molest her. Paul committed vile sins, was converted, and ceased to commit them. Pastors who become converted, preach Christ, and simutaneously molest children make their stated belief in Christ extremely doubtful. Is it wrong to question the salvation of another? Not at all, not when that person claims Christ and does stuff like this. We have to beware of wolves, of Satan disguised as an angel of light.
The thief on the cross is an example of last minute conversion, a repentance of his sins against God made while paying the ultimate price for his sins against man. Again, it is in no way comparable to the situation at hand. Because God accepts last minute confessions of unbelievers has nothing to do with our duty as believers to pay for what we do wrong to other people.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
Ah, but Paul did not cease to commit sins. In Romans we see that he said 'the evil that I would not, that I do.' We also read in 1 Timothy 1 that Paul refered to sinners adding, 'of which I am chief.' Paul did not say 'I was,' but rather, 'I am.'
Paul still found himself sinning every day. His flesh warred against the Spirit daily. And we know Paul continued to preach.
Also, has it been established that Dr. Gray did, in fact, commit any of those sins since he repented of them? If there is no evidence that he did, we cannot jump to that conclusion.
Paul still found himself sinning every day. His flesh warred against the Spirit daily. And we know Paul continued to preach.
Also, has it been established that Dr. Gray did, in fact, commit any of those sins since he repented of them? If there is no evidence that he did, we cannot jump to that conclusion.
Of course people still sin after salvation. However, repetitive gross sins are another matter than our everyday temptations. They are abnormal perversions of the mind that are strongly indicative of the spirit of satan, not a mind and heart indwelled with the Spirit of Christ which will, though not be perfect, strive towards it with unceasing fervor.
If we had only sinless preachers, we'd have no preachers. However, it is never fit or scriptural to have someone pastor who after being converted still retains a proven propensity and demonstrated capacity for gross sins.
As far as establishing whether or not Gray committed any sins since he repented of them, I would say no. I say no because I have absolutely no evidence that he repented of anything, save for an alleged statement from a man who seemed to have known about this sin, failed to handle it properly by providing more protection for children, failed to protect the church from it by warning every church about the man, who failed to cooperate with the laws of our nation by not reporting it to authorities, and now I'm supposed to trust that everything is A-okely dokely because this same man says Gray was sorry?
I don't think so.
If we had only sinless preachers, we'd have no preachers. However, it is never fit or scriptural to have someone pastor who after being converted still retains a proven propensity and demonstrated capacity for gross sins.
As far as establishing whether or not Gray committed any sins since he repented of them, I would say no. I say no because I have absolutely no evidence that he repented of anything, save for an alleged statement from a man who seemed to have known about this sin, failed to handle it properly by providing more protection for children, failed to protect the church from it by warning every church about the man, who failed to cooperate with the laws of our nation by not reporting it to authorities, and now I'm supposed to trust that everything is A-okely dokely because this same man says Gray was sorry?
I don't think so.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
according to your version of repentance, I must still be lost in my sins. For, as a child, I stole candy from a store many times. Now, although I asked God to forgive my sins, I never went back to that store and admitted to those people that I stole from them. Therefore, I have not repented and am still a thief.
Amazing. I am sure glad my Lord Jeus forgave me and forgot those sins.
Amazing. I am sure glad my Lord Jeus forgave me and forgot those sins.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
I've been watching you too dicker over this. Good thread!
StandingFirm, I have a question. It seems to me that you were saved as an adult, correct? The Bible says when I was a child I spoke like....but when I became a MAN.....
Sins commited as a child were forgiven by God when you were saved yes(spiritual responsibility), but as a child the (physical) responsibility for your theft was your parents. Now if you'd been MY child you'd have been making restitution all the way home!
But when you became a man, an adult, you were therefore responsible for you own actions both spiritually and physically. So if you stole as an adult then you would therefore be responsible for both the spiritual aspects AND the physical aspects.
If you stole as a SAVED adult, I believe that you would be doubly responsible for your actions. We are supposed to be representatives of Christ. How does it look to outsiders for a Christian to steal, cheat, lie, molest or (fill in the blank) and not make it right? Are we no better than the world?
Somewhere, it was asked what kind of restitution could a pentitent Christian man who molested a child/children make. IMO, these are the cases where owning up to what was done and willingly accepting the penalty of law would go a long way in making such restitution.
StandingFirm, I have a question. It seems to me that you were saved as an adult, correct? The Bible says when I was a child I spoke like....but when I became a MAN.....
Sins commited as a child were forgiven by God when you were saved yes(spiritual responsibility), but as a child the (physical) responsibility for your theft was your parents. Now if you'd been MY child you'd have been making restitution all the way home!
But when you became a man, an adult, you were therefore responsible for you own actions both spiritually and physically. So if you stole as an adult then you would therefore be responsible for both the spiritual aspects AND the physical aspects.
If you stole as a SAVED adult, I believe that you would be doubly responsible for your actions. We are supposed to be representatives of Christ. How does it look to outsiders for a Christian to steal, cheat, lie, molest or (fill in the blank) and not make it right? Are we no better than the world?
Somewhere, it was asked what kind of restitution could a pentitent Christian man who molested a child/children make. IMO, these are the cases where owning up to what was done and willingly accepting the penalty of law would go a long way in making such restitution.
standingfirminChrist said:
I did not say you were lost in your sins for stealing candy when you were a child. I said that when a person claims Christ, then goes out and commits crimes, and in this case repeatedly over years, it strongly calls their claim to question.
As far as what you did as a child, if you remember it and there is a reasonable way to make up for the theft, do so. If it is impossible to do so, or would cause the people more harm than good, restore it in another manner. For example your case of having stole candy from a store...here's what you do.
If the store is still in business, send them a letter explaining and at LEAST as much money as you think you owe them. If that is impossible, take that money and put it in the offering plate at church, or use it for some other good deed. Perhaps give it to a person struggling with a new business. Perhaps give it to a shelter to help feed hungry people. It's never too late for restitution towards those you harmed, or to make up for it in some manner.
I've done this myself. When I was somewhere between 11 and 13 I stole money from a church. After being converted, which was shortly before I joined this board, my conscious still bothered me about it. Not because I didn't think God forgave me, but because I had stole and not made it right with the church.
But I didn't remember the church's name, or even the town.
So...part of the money went in the offering plate at church, and the rest of it went to help a neighbor who needed it. That was upon the suggestion of people on this board btw, Dr. Bob in particular, as I brought it up in a thread for discussion.
"Owe no man anything". If you stole from someone, you owe that, whether it was yesterday or fifty years ago.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
I have stated, as the news has affirmed, Dr Gray was said to have repented and stepped down from the pastorate. If he truly repented, he turned away from that sin which he committed. And it is not my responsibility to pass judgment as to what should happen to him.
I have stated that he will spend time in jail, in fact, he may even die in jail or prison. He must be judged by the proper authorities. But I cannot hold his past sins against him if God has forgiven him.
Paul spoke of the man who was fornicating with his step-mother in the first epistle to the Church at Corinth. In the second, we see he had repented. We see no restitution made (although I do not see what restitution could possibly be made). In the second epistle, the church is instructed to receive the man back in the fold because he had repented.
It is said that Dr Gray repented. I would receive him in love and trust that God had truly forgiven him and that, as Paul wrote, we should too.
Trinity Baptist was wrong in not dealing with the situation when it came out, in not putting Dr Gray out of the church right away. But that is in the past. The fact is, the church said Dr Gray has repented.
Did Paul instruct the church at Corinth that the man repented and he was to be made to pay a restitution before receiving him back in the fold? I just cannot find that anywhere in the New Testament scripture.
I have seen so many hateful remarks toward one who many of you do not know. Many of you had never heard of before this came out. And all of a sudden, it is a Christian lynch mob.
You know, Jesus said to the religious leaders when they brought a woman to Him who was caught in the very act of adultery, 'Let he who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone.' Are you without sin? I certainly know I am not.
Each one who is so quick to judge one who is said to have repented of his sin, take out the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the mote from your brother's eye.
I have stated that he will spend time in jail, in fact, he may even die in jail or prison. He must be judged by the proper authorities. But I cannot hold his past sins against him if God has forgiven him.
Paul spoke of the man who was fornicating with his step-mother in the first epistle to the Church at Corinth. In the second, we see he had repented. We see no restitution made (although I do not see what restitution could possibly be made). In the second epistle, the church is instructed to receive the man back in the fold because he had repented.
It is said that Dr Gray repented. I would receive him in love and trust that God had truly forgiven him and that, as Paul wrote, we should too.
Trinity Baptist was wrong in not dealing with the situation when it came out, in not putting Dr Gray out of the church right away. But that is in the past. The fact is, the church said Dr Gray has repented.
Did Paul instruct the church at Corinth that the man repented and he was to be made to pay a restitution before receiving him back in the fold? I just cannot find that anywhere in the New Testament scripture.
I have seen so many hateful remarks toward one who many of you do not know. Many of you had never heard of before this came out. And all of a sudden, it is a Christian lynch mob.
You know, Jesus said to the religious leaders when they brought a woman to Him who was caught in the very act of adultery, 'Let he who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone.' Are you without sin? I certainly know I am not.
Each one who is so quick to judge one who is said to have repented of his sin, take out the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the mote from your brother's eye.
First, since I went and tossed my tapes of him, I'm thinking I did have knowledge of this man in the past.
Second, even if I didn't, it is still my brothers and sisters that have been hurt by this. Do you honestly believe that this can happen within the church and it is not felt after a certain amount of mileage has been reached? The church is one, not individual little churches separately serving Christ.
Third, I've already given you my reason for not trusting the statement of repentance. No restitution, it comes as third hand info as stated by a man who has zero credibility in my book, speaking for a man who has negative zero credibility.
Fourth, it is not a lynch mob. I repeatedly attempted to direct you towards leaving Gray out of it and focusing on the process of restitution, but you seemed to wish to continue using it. I went with it. Please don't try to turn your own desire to continue discussing his situation into somehow making me have a lynch mob mentality. That makes no sense.
I do not know what the adulterous man in your example was told to do. I'd imagine we don't know. As you said, what do you do in that type of situation? As I stated earlier, sometimes attempts at restitution only cause more harm. It's a matter of common sense. Where it benefits your victim, do it. If it will only cause more harm, it is selfish if you do it because then you're just assuaging your own guilty feelings. Some things you can't make up for, and that's just one more reason not to do them in the first place! You may have to live with the consequences of it, whether physical or mental, the rest of your life.
Second, even if I didn't, it is still my brothers and sisters that have been hurt by this. Do you honestly believe that this can happen within the church and it is not felt after a certain amount of mileage has been reached? The church is one, not individual little churches separately serving Christ.
Third, I've already given you my reason for not trusting the statement of repentance. No restitution, it comes as third hand info as stated by a man who has zero credibility in my book, speaking for a man who has negative zero credibility.
Fourth, it is not a lynch mob. I repeatedly attempted to direct you towards leaving Gray out of it and focusing on the process of restitution, but you seemed to wish to continue using it. I went with it. Please don't try to turn your own desire to continue discussing his situation into somehow making me have a lynch mob mentality. That makes no sense.
I do not know what the adulterous man in your example was told to do. I'd imagine we don't know. As you said, what do you do in that type of situation? As I stated earlier, sometimes attempts at restitution only cause more harm. It's a matter of common sense. Where it benefits your victim, do it. If it will only cause more harm, it is selfish if you do it because then you're just assuaging your own guilty feelings. Some things you can't make up for, and that's just one more reason not to do them in the first place! You may have to live with the consequences of it, whether physical or mental, the rest of your life.