our forgiveness vs. God's forgiveness

[motorex]

iv'e been thinking about the recent events where a couple of notable pastors have had to step down because of moral failures, reading that they will never be able to be ministers again in the sda church. one of the pastors old web sites has even pulled all his sermons and any link to him at all is gone., What i find interesting is that David had a few moral failings, and yet we seem to accept God's forgiveness of him, we still read psalms as inspired, song of soloman was written by a guy with questionable moral fortitude, and yet we still hold it to be God's word. paul was a murderer before God chose him to lead his church. it just makes me wonder if our standards are a little different than God's?, it's as if the the man is more important than the message, it just seems that if we will only read, or listen to sermons from "sinless pastors", the play list is going to be pretty short. i get it that appearances are very important in this church, and we don't want it to look like we condone moral weakness, but really, sin is sin, and we've all come short of the Glory of God. if someone say's that they have asked for forgiveness, i trust God that he has forgiven them, and for me to act otherwise or treat the person in any other mannor, is to call God a liar in my view.

[Raven]

It may be that a pastor who has fallen in certain ways can no longer be allowed to shepherd the flock, but I don't believe that removes the legitimacy of their previous sermons; if they were truth when they were uttered, they do not cease to be truth because the man has fallen.  We do not discount the truths proclaimed by Jones and Waggoner, even though they later apostatized.  Neither does it prevent those who have fallen today from continuing to stand for truth.  They just may have to do it in a different capacity.

But, since the cause of Christ has suffered reproach due to the actions of these individuals, we need to be really careful in how much responsibility we accord to those who have been involved in these kinds of situations.

Certainly David was forgiven, and was even allowed to remain as king.  But his credibility was damaged, and the kingdom suffered for it the rest of his life.  Maybe God allowed him to remain "in office" to show us the possible results of retaining in office those who have been guilty of grievous sins.

Certainly we can agree that marital infidelity is in a different category than most other failures.  It is a betrayal of a solemn pledge to be faithful unto death.  It is similar to our commitment when we were baptized, which is why it is so often compared to marriage in Scripture.  In our modern age it is taken too lightly, but that doesn't mean that God's attitude towards it has changed.

[Larry Lyons]

I am not sure the church has been consistent in how certain pastors were dealt with under the same circumstances. I have seen and heard the testimony of one man who is a current pastor and I assume he is an ordained minister who described how he divorced his wife, left the church and was involved in a homoxual lifestyle for several years that included homosexual promiscuity, drugs and alcohol. God did not give up on Him and at some point he rejected that way of life, including homosexuality and is now again a married Seventh-day Adventist minister. That is the way I remember the interview. He now will minister to others who are having similar struggles.

I can think of two high profile Adventist ministers, who reportedly had moral failures at one time during their ministries. One is currently active.

My point is that it appears to me that some ministers have been able to either continue in their ministries, or return after a period of time, if their spiritual life has been straigtened out. I would like to know if that is not the case.

[newbie]

Should these leaders remain in those positions?  Doesn't it make everyone else vulnerable to their actions?  In the old days, I believe stoning was the penalty.  What to do today? 

[Larry Lyons]

Should these leaders remain in those positions?  Doesn't it make everyone else vulnerable to their actions?  In the old days, I believe stoning was the penalty.  What to do today? 

It appears that Samuel Pipim did the appropriate thing by confessing his sin and voluntarily resigning his position and giving up his ministerial credentials. His sin was not discovered by others, as far as we know. There are sometimes lawsuits against the church and/or related institutions or ministrys and  newspaper accounts that bring discredit on the church when these things happen.

[newbie]

It appears that Samuel Pipim did the appropriate thing by confessing his sin and voluntarily resigning his position and giving up his ministerial credentials. His sin was not discovered by others, as far as we know. There are sometimes lawsuits against the church and/or related institutions or ministrys and  newspaper accounts that bring discredit on the church when these things happen.

I'm glad to know this.... so then, we must not be so hasty then.  Should there be a time of probation and then possibly reinstatement?

[Larry Lyons]

I'm glad to know this.... so then, we must not be so hasty then.  Should there be a time of probation and then possibly reinstatement?

I don't know. I would hope so. I hate to see Him lost to God's work. Brian Neumann, in his statement, expressed the hope that he will be able at some point to again do the work he was doing. I don't know if he was an ordained minister. I think not. I don't know, but that may make a difference if he is part of an independant ministry. Dr. Pipim was employed by the Michigan conference and was an ordained minister.

[ColporteurK]

 Samuel Pipim has been re- baptized in Ohio. Many are not in favor.

[sdazeal]

What did Pipim do wrong?

[newbie]

What did Pipim do wrong?

Long story.... pm me if you still want to know.

[Raven]

Samuel Pipim has been re- baptized in Ohio. Many are not in favor.

Whether or not his repentance is genuine, is between him and God.  I can't help but wondering if the "dog-pile on Pipim" would have been as intense if he had been espousing "progressive" propaganda all those years, rather than standing for truth.  His behavior was inexcusable, but the libs have always hated him, so this was the golden opportunity for them to grind him into the dust.

[Ed Sutton]

Considering Ohio - we were members there - ( if it was political in nature vs for the remission of sins ) = tainted hands baptizing ( if the process will not stand the full light of day upon investigation ) - tainted water ( message that would authorize it, if baptism for any reason than the gospel) - tainted candidate - if seeking restoration to the pastoral ministry after apostasy through repeated adultery.

I hope it was on the up and up, but presently I am leery and need to see fruit - after the baptism.  Too many red flags for quick acceptance.

[ColporteurK]

 The Michigan conference would not allow pastor Hodet to re baptize him. This conference is viewed as the most conservative  in the nation.

[newbie]

and Ohio, California, and now Florida turning liberal in that order...

I would be oh so cautious with any position they gave him in the church......  and consider him still on 'probation' if there is such a thing