Hi Homer,Homer wrote: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?
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?