True Forgiveness

[Paidion]

I left a church where I was an elder for over twenty years because of this idea of restoring a person to the same status as though he had not sinned. He is forgiven, they said. He had divorced two women while attending the church (one prior) and was married to his fourth wife. None of that matters, they insisted, he is forgiven the same as anyone else. So they "restored the relationship" as you say, and made him an elder. Think about it, this perfectly illustrates my point. You can forgive and love the person but there are consequences that never should be changed, such as with a pedophile.

If God restores the relationship, why the restriction on being an elder?

Hi Homer,
Is the above the question you wanted me to address? I didn't respond because I don't understand the scenario. Who was being restricted? You say the man was forgiven, and they made him an elder. So he must not have been restricted. How does the story make your point? What are these "consequences" that never should be changed? There were consequences that never did change for the women he divorced, but he should have offered restitution. Did he ever repent? Did he offer restitution to any of the women?

Why did you leave the church? What was the issue? If the man did truly repent and make restitution as far as he was able, is it your belief that he should forever be excluded from eldership? Is he a danger to the people? Do you believe he is likely to continue to divorce and remarry? If that is likely, it seems to me that he never truly repented, and therefore could not have been forgiven (in the true sense). If he had never repented, in what sense did the church "forgive" him? Or did they mean that God had somehow forgiven him? And how did they know that He had?

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Is the above the question you wanted me to address?

Yes.

I didn't respond because I don't understand the scenario. Who was being restricted?

Sorry I wasn't more specific. I was referencing the scripture regarding the restrictions (qualifications) regarding who can be an elder in the church. You have maintained that a person who has sinned, if he has repented, must be restored to the same status as though he had not sinned. The restored relationship must include treating the person as though the sin never occurred, else the sinner hasn't been forgiven. You maintain that this is how God treats us when He forgives us.

You say the man was forgiven, and they made him an elder.

The man told me if he could live his life over he would remain married to his first wife. I assume this means he has repented, although he did not say anything about the two subsequent women he divorced.

So he must not have been restricted. How does the story make your point?

No, he was not restricted. He was chosen to be an elder in spite of three previous divorces and was only married to his current wife for four years. The argument presented to me when I objected to him being an elder was the argument you make regarding a person who has repented being treated as though the offense never occurred.

What are these "consequences" that never should be changed?

His status as multiple divorcee regarding the qualifications required to be an elder; i. e. the husband of one wife.

Why did you leave the church?

Because the church made an unqualified man an elder, did it in haste, and without due consideration of a viewpoint contrary to their action. I had requested more time for the elders to study together the relevant scriptures. And someone used poor judgment in informing the man of my position. I felt it best to leave quietly rather than divide the church.

What was the issue? If the man did truly repent and make restitution as far as he was able, is it your belief that he should forever be excluded from eldership?

Yes, or at least for a great many years. I believe the key issue is this: is the man above reproach, both within the church and within the local community?

Is he a danger to the people?

I believe as an elder he should be in a position to give wise counsel regarding marriage.

Do you believe he is likely to continue to divorce and remarry?

Time will tell.

If that is likely, it seems to me that he never truly repented, and therefore could not have been forgiven (in the true sense).

Only God knows for sure.

If he had never repented, in what sense did the church "forgive" him? Or did they mean that God had somehow forgiven him? And how did they know that He had?

See previous answer.

So my question remains: if true forgiveness requires that a relationship must be restored to the status quo ante because that mirrors how God treats the forgiven sinner, then how can Paul place any requirement regarding past marriage(s) on a candidate for elder?

[Paidion]

Thank for the explanation, Homer.

So you see "the husband of one wife" to mean that an overseer is unqualified if he has one or more wives consecutive to his first wife.
Would this mean that a man who remarries after his first wife dies, would be unqualified to be an elder?'' Some Christian writers in the fourth and fifth centuries understood it this way. They thought "the husband of one wife" to be tantamount to "married only once."

Some today, think that the qualification requires that an overseer be married rather than single.

I take this qualification to mean that an elder is to be monogomous. In the first century polygamy was rather common, and was never forbidden to the ancient Israelites. There is no OT record indicating that God had ever said anything in opposition to polygamy, and men in the early church may have been polygamous. Some of them may have married several wives prior to becoming Christians. I don't think Paul would have recommended that those men divorce all of their wives except one. However, I think he would have opposed any of those men becoming overseers. Why would Paul have opposed that? I don't know. The other qualifications are pretty strict also. I know quite a number of overseers and/or pastors who do not control their children, and also know some who are lovers of money and some who are not well thought of by outsiders.

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (I Tim 3:2-7)