Standing firm on Titus/1 Cor verses

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.

 

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)

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.