Questioning the Power of God's Forgiveness

[ValleyGal]

I wonder what would have happened had the church's judgement disqualified Hosea from prophesying after marrying a promiscuous woman - and get this - it was GOD who instructed him to take, and stay with, this promiscuous woman. Sure, some might argue that was because God had a bigger plan for Hosea, by who is to say that God does not have a bigger plan for the PK and his promiscuous-no-more wife? I wonder what would have happened if Hosea had his church come to him and tried to warn him or correct him on the issue of taking his promiscuous wife?

Honestly, the church needs to get over themselves and their self-righteousness.

 

[razzelflabben]

I wonder why this thread is stuck on talking about judgmental people when everyone here has already said that judgment is a bad thing. In fact, I was told that the OP wanted to discuss the role of the church but when I talked about that, the topic was changed again back to judgment in the church....I personally wish the OP would clarify what the topic of the thread is.

 

[ValleyGal]

Because, imo, the church does not have a role in this situation, and if they think they do, it is judgemental meddling at best....imo, and not trusting in God's full pardon through Christ because she has already proven fruit in her spiritual life.

 

[razzelflabben]

I Personally believe that God sets the rules for what the churches role should be as per a previous post. Personally, I don't think that man has the authority to dictate what God wants from the church...but that is just my opinion as per the scriptural references I made and no one addressed.

 

[mkgal1]

Because, imo, the church does not have a role in this situation, and if they think they do, it is judgemental meddling at best....imo, and not trusting in God's full pardon through Christ because she has already proven fruit in her spiritual life.

Their role is to love and encourage this couple's love for God and each other (my opinion).

Like you mentioned earlier.....she was fit to teach their children (by their standards)....she should be considered "fit" to be a part of their church family (trusting in God's full pardon through Christ, like you said).

 

[razzelflabben]

Their role is to love and encourage this couple's love for God and each other (my opinion).

as previously stated, encouragement includes but is not limited to frank discussions about what the pitfalls might be. In fact, a good marriage counselor will talk about some of these pitfalls as well. That being said, with a promiscuous past, there will be pitfalls, or dangers if you will that are unique to the sinful past. That is what is being discussed as to the churches role, a discussion of the things that will more than likely challenge the couple.

Like you mentioned earlier.....she was fit to teach their children (by their standards)....she should be considered "fit" to be a part of their church family (trusting in God's full pardon through Christ, like you said).

as demonstrated from real life stories, not just emotionally charged ones, teaching SS isn't a fail safe for someone who is above reproach or living a life of freedom from their past sins, nor is it an indicator that there will be no unique challenges for their marriage. In fact, her teaching SS does nothing to inform our discussion about the role of the church in this situation.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

as previously stated, encouragement includes but is not limited to frank discussions about what the pitfalls might be.

again, what this church did was not "frank discussion about what the pitfalls might be".

They flat outright said that this woman was not good enough for the son of the pastor.

I believe someone asked this earlier, but exactly what pitfalls might this couple experience because of HER history? And exactly now does it "encourage" a relationship to continuously throw a past in someone's face? Because constantly saying "you know, she used to be xxx" does exactly that.

It is my opinion that the "pitfalls" might involve overly judgmental people like the congregation of the church.

I was talking to my husband about this the other day and he said if he was a member a church where half of its members were this shallow and judgmental he'd leave it. If he was the pastor of that church he'd put them under church discipline and refuse them communion until they repented of their sin.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

as demonstrated from real life stories, not just emotionally charged ones, teaching SS isn't a fail safe for someone who is above reproach or living a life of freedom from their past sins, nor is it an indicator that there will be no unique challenges for their marriage. In fact, her teaching SS does nothing to inform our discussion about the role of the church in this situation.

I wanted to address this point separately.

No one is saying that she must be changed because she is teaching. The point being made here is that the congregation didn't come out and protest that she wasn't good enough to teach sunday school or be involved in ministry. If she is good enough to do these things in the eyes of the congregation, why then is she not good enough to marry the pastor's son?

THAT is the point.

 

[razzelflabben]

again, what this church did was not "frank discussion about what the pitfalls might be".

we don't know what this church did, it is a fictitious story without detail...in addition, the discussion is about the role of the church, not whether or not this church did X, Y, or Z at least that is what you said in an earlier post, are you changing the topic now?

They flat outright said that this woman was not good enough for the son of the pastor.

I believe someone asked this earlier, but exactly what pitfalls might this couple experience because of HER history? And exactly now does it "encourage" a relationship to continuously throw a past in someone's face? Because constantly saying "you know, she used to be xxx" does exactly that

repeatedly went over this, in detail. Oh, and no one is suggesting throwing anything in anyones face as has been clarified mulitple times now.

It is my opinion that the "pitfalls" might involve overly judgmental people like the congregation of the church.

on that we agree, as we did many posts ago as well, when we first talked about this topic.

I was talking to my husband about this the other day and he said if he was a member a church where half of its members were this shallow and judgmental he'd leave it. If he was the pastor of that church he'd put them under church discipline and refuse them communion until they repented of their sin.

I think a vast majority of people would but the discussion is about the role of the church, now about judgmental people in the church, of which all churches seem to have some.

 

[mkgal1]

These are the details we're working with (directly from the article):

This is when the problem began. You see, about one half of the church did not think that a woman with a past such as hers was suitable for a pastor's son.

The church began to argue and fight about the matter. So they decided to have a meeting.

As the people made their arguments and tensions increased, the meeting was getting completely out of hand.

The young woman became very upset about all the things being brought up about her past.

 

[razzelflabben]

I wanted to address this point separately.

No one is saying that she must be changed because she is teaching. The point being made here is that the congregation didn't come out and protest that she wasn't good enough to teach sunday school or be involved in ministry. If she is good enough to do these things in the eyes of the congregation, why then is she not good enough to marry the pastor's son?

THAT is the point.

Then you will have to talk to someone that takes that POV rather than asking me. Teaching SS doesn't mean anything when it comes to change. As to the rest of it, it's a fictitious story meant to insight an emotional response, therefore, who knows, not all the information is given.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

we don't know what this church did, it is a fictitious story without detail...in addition, the discussion is about the role of the church, not whether or not this church did X, Y, or Z at least that is what you said in an earlier post, are you changing the topic now?

I am going based on what the story says. It says that half of the congregation believed the woman was not good enough for the pastor's son.

I don't know why you are thinking I am changing the topic, but this is what got this thread in trouble the last time, so how about you just quit accusing people of things that aren't happening.

Half of these church members were not acting in a Christ-like manner. That should be a fairly easy concept to grasp.

The "church" itself is a physical building and wouldn't have a role per se in this couple's relationship. The pastor of the church would see to it that they received marital counseling. That should be it. The members don't get a say in who their pastor's son marries.

repeatedly went over this, in detail. Oh, and no one is suggesting throwing anything in anyones face as has been clarified mulitple times now. on that we agree, as we did many posts ago as well, when we first talked about this topic.

False. You keep suggesting that it is the church's role to tell this couple the pitfalls of the pastor's son marrying someone with a history. That's continuing to throw it in her face.

As I pointed out, if you came to me and my husband when we were engaged to tell us the pitfalls of him marrying me in the way that this congregation did, you'd be laughed out of our house.

I think a vast majority of people would but the discussion is about the role of the church, now about judgmental people in the church, of which all churches seem to have some.

Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of this statement. A vast majority of people would what? Yes, all churches have judgmental people in them - THAT'S actually what we're talking about.

 

[razzelflabben]

These are the details we're working with (directly from the article):

what about all the things we don't know? Like, what she was seen doing last week, how long ago was this past, whether the same people were upset about her teaching SS, what exactly about her past were they having problems with, and if this is such an important lesson, why is it fiction and not non fiction?

 

[razzelflabben]

I am going based on what the story says. It says that half of the congregation believed the woman was not good enough for the pastor's son.

I don't know why you are thinking I am changing the topic, but this is what got this thread in trouble the last time, so how about you just quit accusing people of things that aren't happening.

Half of these church members were not acting in a Christ-like manner. That should be a fairly easy concept to grasp.

The "church" itself is a physical building and wouldn't have a role per se in this couple's relationship. The pastor of the church would see to it that they received marital counseling. That should be it. The members don't get a say in who their pastor's son marries.



False. You keep suggesting that it is the church's role to tell this couple the pitfalls of the pastor's son marrying someone with a history. That's continuing to throw it in her face.

As I pointed out, if you came to me and my husband when we were engaged to tell us the pitfalls of him marrying me in the way that this congregation did, you'd be laughed out of our house.



Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of this statement. A vast majority of people would what? Yes, all churches have judgmental people in them - THAT'S actually what we're talking about.

none of this reflects anything I really did say, thus being ignored

 

[PreachersWife2004]

none of this reflects anything I really did say, thus being ignored

seriously?



Okay then.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

To get this back on track (not that I think it was off track, but you know...)

I keep going back to this part of the article:

Too often, even as Christians, we bring up the past and use it as a weapon against our brothers and sisters.

Forgiveness is a very foundational part of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If the blood of Jesus does not cleanse the other person completely, then it cannot cleanse us completely.
​

This goes directly to what I've been saying. If the woman wasn't good enough for their pastor's son, then they aren't good enough for anything either. We ALL have a past, we have all sinned. No one is a "Better" sinner than someone else. Oh, our humanity wants to put a level on sin, but the bible clearly says that if we've broken one commandment we've broken them all.


Thankfully, my salvation doesn't depend on the judgmental attitudes of sinful men. My salvation is in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross and took on the punishment that was intended for me.

 

[mkgal1]

what about all the things we don't know? Like, what she was seen doing last week, how long ago was this past, whether the same people were upset about her teaching SS, what exactly about her past were they having problems with, and if this is such an important lesson, why is it fiction and not non fiction?

As far as I'm concerned, the way the story is written, we have the relevant details. The article says things like, "As time went on she became a faithful member of the church" (showing faithfulness over time)....and "She eventually became involved in the ministry" (allowing time--again--to show a true change)...then it goes on to say, "this faithful young woman". That's all I think we need to know----she's faithful.....forgiven.....repentant.....restored. The article says *nothing* about anyone having any issue with her being in children's ministry. All the rest that you're bringing up is extraneous and unnecessary to quibble over. Whether it's a parable or a real-life story.....it doesn't matter. I think we've ALL witnessed something similar (in general).....and it's the message that's important (how sins of the past shouldn't be criticized by actively sinning in the present with a self-righteous attitude).

 

[mkgal1]

To get this back on track (not that I think it was off track, but you know...)

I keep going back to this part of the article:

Too often, even as Christians, we bring up the past and use it as a weapon against our brothers and sisters.

Forgiveness is a very foundational part of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If the blood of Jesus does not cleanse the other person completely, then it cannot cleanse us completely.
​

This goes directly to what I've been saying. If the woman wasn't good enough for their pastor's son, then they aren't good enough for anything either. We ALL have a past, we have all sinned. No one is a "Better" sinner than someone else. Oh, our humanity wants to put a level on sin, but the bible clearly says that if we've broken one commandment we've broken them all.


Thankfully, my salvation doesn't depend on the judgmental attitudes of sinful men. My salvation is in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross and took on the punishment that was intended for me.

Exactly.

What I was trying to express earlier is that I hope that people recognize that self-righteousness and unfair judgement of a person's past (that's LEFT in the past) is NOT reflective of God (even if that sort of judgement is happening in large numbers in a church---by people claiming Christ's name). That whole attitude does violence to the Gospel, and really (IMO) is "another spirit" ....."another gospel"....."another Jesus"...that Paul spoke of in 2nd Corinthians 11:4.

 

[razzelflabben]

As far as I'm concerned, the way the story is written, we have the relevant details. The article says things like, "As time went on she became a faithful member of the church" (showing faithfulness over time)....and "She eventually became involved in the ministry" (allowing time--again--to show a true change)...then it goes on to say, "this faithful young woman". That's all I think we need to know----she's faithful.....forgiven.....repentant.....restored. The article says *nothing* about anyone having any issue with her being in children's ministry. All the rest that you're bringing up is extraneous and unnecessary to quibble over. Whether it's a parable or a real-life story.....it doesn't matter. I think we've ALL witnessed something similar (in general).....and it's the message that's important (how sins of the past shouldn't be criticized by actively sinning in the present with a self-righteous attitude).

I'm glad that no one has a right to judge me with so little information...but then again, people judge me all the time with less information than in the story. But all that aside, there are two important aspects to this that no one here seems to want to deal with 1. those who judge the congregation are as much judges as the congregation was, and 2. as the thread started, this is only true for certain sins, others we feel justified to continue to judge, like the child molester. This is a double standard, but old news from this thread, so I guess there is nothing left to talk about. BTW, I have heard people call people who are unrepentant as faithful, saying the words doesn't make it so....just saying, we don't have enough info.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Let's talk about judging for a moment.

I think one of the most misused passages/phrases from the bible is "Judge not, lest ye be judged" or some paraphrase from it.

In context:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.


The idea that we aren't supposed to judge others is part of this whole secular world thinking. Yes, we can judge, but we better make sure our house is in order before we do so.


We can certainly judge a person by their outward actions, which is why we can (and should) judge the actions of the people in this church. We can do this because the bible actually instructs us to do so!




2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

and

Matthew 18:15-17
Dealing With Sin in the Church15 “If your brother or sister[a] sins,[b] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

The members of the church who were upset that their pastor's son was going to marry a woman with a history weren't doing what the bible instructed them, right from the start. On top of that, there was no sin in what the pastor's son and the woman were doing.

But the people judging the people in the church are doing so rightfully, as commanded in scripture.

The short form of this is that yes, you can have bad judging and good judging. The people in the congregation were partaking in bad judging. Those calling them people in the congregation out are doing it as a call to repentance.