Can somone like Jimmy Swaggart ever be more powerful than before?

Can God remove a man's sins as far as the East is from the West?

Is the blood of Jesus sufficient to remove each and every stain of His "Pure and Spotless Bride?"

What sins count more than others? Would the sins of greed , ambition, and crushing the weak under your foot be as culpable before the Lord, as the sin of adultery?

How many, do you think that are in "the ministry" today commit these daily, and move on untouched by conviction?

When you talk about Swaggart's "anointing", let us be careful not to associate it with his influence and fame. They may not necessarily be the same.

He was without a doubt, the most respected and famous Pentecostal minister in the world at one time. His television teaching show was wildly popular, and millions tuned in on his Sunday service at Baton Rouge AG; His name was household .

He was a good singer and musician, producing top selling albums. It seemed that everything he touched came up roses, and he led a LOT of People in a sinners prayer. He preached against corruption in the pulpit, and against sin.

But, was this all anointing? Was all of this the power of God? There is a power in itself that the gospel possesses; it is the power of the truth. There have been cases of unbelievers believing through the speech of unsaved men.

I'll ask you this; "Is it possible for a fully repentant sinner to be totally filled with the Holy Spirit?"

If your answer is yes, then I ask ; "Is it possible for the Holy spirit to anoint this man, and manifest Himself through him?"

This is in reality what the anointing and the accompanying "ministry" really is. It is the ministry of the Holy Spirit exalting the authority of Jesus through clean and cleansed vessels.

The answer then would obviously be YES!...but remember, it is a matter of character, and the fruits of being Christ's possession.....and never forget that the Anointing IS JESUS!!!!..

It is He who acts, and manifests Himself as He moves through surrendered and weak vessels, not some mighty man of power for the hour.

That is, of course , if it really the anointing from the ANOINTED ONE!

PS: I really liked Swaggart, and still do. He's just another brother, like me and you....and though famous, he nor anyone else should be exalted to the hero's status.

I have a motto. Man will always fail you.
Jesus never fails.

There is two seperate issues that seem to be getting co-mingled here. Can brother Swaggert be forgiven? I would think that answer is obvious, yes he can be forgiven. Question number two, and it would probably come under the qualifications for an elder, since we did not have tele-evangelists 2000 years ago. Can he still have a public ministry/

1Timothy 3:1-7
1 ¶ It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

So we see that a man must be above reproach and have a good reputation with those outside of the church. Brother Jimmy is disqualified on both counts. These men are definately seen as Christian leaders, whether it is Jimmy Swaggart or Billy Graham or anyone else with a high public profile. Once that profile is tarnished in the eyes of the public, then that man must step down and away from the public. For it is for Christ's sake that we share the Gospel, it is for the name of Jesus that we live and share. If something was to take away from that, then the right thing to do, and I believe scripturally, is to retire to private life. If I remember correctly, brother Swaggert refused to be disciplined? ........brother Frank

Hi Silo, read the Scripture that I quoted. Do you agree or disagree with that Scripture?...........Frank

Hi trueblue, your mixing apples and oranges. Remember, when Peter was accused of playing the hypocrite, it was because he was playing to the Judaizers, and to resolve the problem they would have a council. This working out of practical theology has nothing to do with a recognized elder disgracing the name of Jesus on an international level and thus disqualifying himself according to 1st Timothy. I know that we can all have opinions on this, any discussion must be based on what Scripture tells us. What do you think of 1st Timothy and if it does not apply to brother Jimmy, why not? ............Frank

HI trueblue, apples and oranges is a British term that simply means you are comparing two things that do not match. Peter was playing the hypocrite because he was acting as one under the law( in no way does that compare to adultery with a harlot) Paul, who had the revelation and spelled out that revelation in Galatians and Romans which the Apostles later accepted as Scripture, was teaching what it meant to be free from the Law and not to be under it.

Now, lets jump forward two thousand years and refer to Scripture which is our guikde and a lamp unto our feet and is a basis for our opinions. 1 Tim, clearly spells out what it means to be an elder. The Scriptures are not broken and the Holy Spirit does not contradict the Word. You talk about some "anoiting," that brother Jimmy has. I have no idea if he has an anointing or not. What I do know is what the criptures say. Time and time again we say on this site that we must act according to Scriptures and test all things by Scriptures. That is all that I am saying. Your counter argument seems to be "but he has an anoiting." Brother, I am a Pentecostal and if I had a dollor for every time I heard that I would be a rich man.

I believe that you could ignorantly go to a Benny Hinn gathering and God could speak to you. Would that mean Benny Hinn has an anointing, or Todd Bentley or any other person who has a public ministry? .........Frank

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

he man may be renewed and restored in his relationship and walk with the LORD; but as far as preaching the gospel, he is disqualified see 1 Corinthians 9: 26-27

So if a man wakes up after being asleep, shakes himself and by the Spirit mortifies the deeds of the flesh, and your saying that he is disqualified?

By what law?

So we see that a man must be above reproach and have a good reputation with those outside of the church. Brother Jimmy is disqualified on both counts. These men are definitely seen as Christian leaders, whether it is Jimmy Swaggart or Billy Graham or anyone else with a high public profile. Once that profile is tarnished in the eyes of the public, then that man must step down and away from the public. For it is for Christ's sake that we share the Gospel, it is for the name of Jesus that we live and share. If something was to take away from that, then the right thing to do, and I believe scripturally, is to retire to private life. If I remember correctly, brother Swaggart refused to be disciplined?

Is the God of the New Testament the same as the God of the Old? Is there more mercy shown under that Old Covenant than the New?

God would have us show mercy than what the written word says. He said, "I want mercy not sacrifice". Mercy changes the whole message.

When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant, he could have spoken publicly about her and she would have been stoned, but it says that he was a just man, he denied the law and showed mercy.

God could have demanded David and Bathsheba to be stone according to the law, but God showed mercy toward David and others instead were killed for him. God denied His own law.

God told a prophet to take a harlot and to go in unto her and have children. It was unlawful to do such things, but God commanded him and he did it. God denied His own law.

And we say things like, "Scripturally" he is disqualified?

Scripturally David should have been disqualified from being King of Israel. There was no excuse for what he did, none whatsoever. He took a man's wife, kills the husband. The law says, Leviticus 20:10.

And we live under a "BETTER COVENANT', and we have the audacity to say, "Scripturally" he is disqualified?

Samson lost the anointing when his head was shaven. His anointing was wrapped up in the length of his locks. But the anointing grew back and he accomplished more in the latter end than his beginning. And we say "SCRIPTURALLY" he is disqualified?

And a greater than Samson is here.

There is not enough scripture that can be mustered up to convince me that God has lost the power to enable man who has fallen into sin and to make him more of a testimony despite his checkered past.

If we don't have mercy, our scripture is dead.

As great an example this is for God's restoration, Brother Swaggart refused correction, King David however cried for I believe 7 days straight begging for God's anointing and presence not to leave him.

Instead (if you want to believe it) he would tell you that the Lord told him to have two prayer meetings every single day. To which he would tell you that to him that was a hard thing to do, one yes, but two? God promised to show him what was missing in his ministry and life. He did what the Lord told him to do. For nine months he earnestly prayed until he received the answer to which God promised. It changed him, his ministry and all that cared to listen. I cared to listen and wanted to know more about what the cross of Jesus Christ was all about. The "message of the cross" to which he describes is the message for this day and hour.

Anyone who is struggling with sin, should hear what he has to say, it will help you understand your relationship with Jesus Christ and that cross to which He died on and our relationship to that cross, for that is where our victory lies.

KingJimmy writes.....

"I believe men such as Swaggart can find redemption, and again be above reproach in his Christian life, even if he fell in deep sin 30 years ago, and yes, even serve again as a pastor one day. Christ came to take away our reproaches and sin. To say that such men can never serve as an elder again, even should they prove themselves through living a life that is above reproach, is to show a very retarded understanding of God's grace and mercy.

But let me stress, these men must be tested before they serve again in that capacity."

First of all Jimmy, it was not 30 years ago. Secondly, this has nothing to do with redemption, unless you are using that word in a fashion I am not understanding? And the last sentence you said that men must be tested before they serve again in that capacity. Where do you get that from Jimmy? What do you base that teaching on? This is not about mens eternal souls or if they can be forgiven, for of course they can, this is about how the world views them. When you bring this dishonor to God amongst the world, you disqualify yourself from that position, not from walking with the Lord and being used, but from that position........Frank

SNUFALAPAGUS SAID:

"And we live under a "BETTER COVENANT', and we have the audacity to say, "Scripturally" he is disqualified?

Samson lost the anointing when his head was shaven. His anointing was wrapped up in the length of his locks. But the anointing grew back and he accomplished more in the latter end than his beginning. And we say "SCRIPTURALLY" he is disqualified?

And a greater than Samson is here.

There is not enough scripture that can be mustered up to convince me that God has lost the power to enable man who has fallen into sin and to make him more of a testimony despite his checkered past.

If we don't have mercy, our scripture is dead."

........................................................
BRAVO, MY BROTHER!...I could not have said it nearly as well....though I was feeling it.

When the scripture called for the spiritual to "RESTORE" a brother overcome in a fault, or sin, does that mean only in a partial way?

Without offense to any brother,it is the CLERGY/LAITY heresy that gains it power from the Pulpit, and creates a PRIEST CLASS that somehow has the higher standard of unfailing performance; calling itself the "MINISTRY".

It is not. Jesus is the ministry, and it is always to the least of the brothers, whoever that may be. There was no pulpit in the Early church, or the gospel of Paul, and there was always an EQUAL plurality that kept PREEMINENCE at bay. This is what the Pharisee hated about Jesus, for they loved the praises of men more than God.

If God restores any man, from any sin, and chooses to use him, what man could stop Him, and sooner or later folks will see that it doesn't matter anyway.

The entire gospel story is about redemption, and full and complete redemption and restoration, and this applies to all....ELDERS, PROPHETS, KINGS, and PROSTITUTES. It is our hope, and faith, for at our core...we are all a weak mess in the light of His glory.

I'm sorry...but I have no reputation to protect.[ except those times when my pride rises and convinces me I do...] My testimony is that I need his mercy all the time.

When you bring this dishonour to God amongst the world, you disqualify yourself from that position, not from walking with the Lord and being used, but from that position

I will be praying for you brother.

"If it were 50, 5, or 1 year ago... it makes no difference."

Then why mention 30 years ago when it was not? say . Jimmy fell and the world mocked. Jimmy refused correction and then fell again a couple of years later and the world mocked. No where in Timothy does it say that given the passage of time you can then be above reproach and re-take your position as an elder and then fall again and have another passage of time and again re-take your position as elder. With much responsibility comes much accountability. Listen to what Mattew Henry says on the subject........

II. In order to the discharge of this office, the doing of this work, the workman must be qualified. 1. A minister must be blameless, he must not lie under any scandal; he must give as little occasion for blame as can be, because this would be a prejudice to his ministry and would reflect reproach upon his office.

15. He must be of good reputation among his neighbours, and under no reproach from former conversation; for the devil will make use of that to ensnare others, and work in them an aversion to the doctrine of Christ preached by those who have not had a good report."

We clearly dis-agree on this and that is fine. Let us both be fully convinced on what we believe and why and agree to disagree..........brother Frank

JImmy writes.......

"No... the text does not say that. But it doesn't say what you say either"

Yes it does brother, unless you are making an argument from silence? It specifically states the qualification for this office. I see you make no commment of Matthew Henry ? Scripture is Scripture and this Scripture is about qualification for the office of elder. This has nothing to do with grace or how many Pastors you have known that have fallen or how sad you would be if they did not get to be pastors again.

Being redeemed has absolutely nothing to do with holding office in the Church. You can continue to repeat the statement, but it has nothing to do with holding office and whether some people like it or not, Scripture lays down a standard for those holding office.

Now the same book talks about the office holder being the husband of one wife. This particular subject has ravaged the American church, the subject of divorce. The American church is in crisis, and it starts with a crisis of leadership. Given the logic that you have put forward Jimmy, then a Christian man can get divorced, not for any Biblical reason, then ask forgiveness for it, remain married and hold office as an elder thus negating another qualification for leadership. Lest we forget, these qualifications come from God Himself.

One final point, grace restores a man before God. A man can commit a crime and then be forgiven by God and be completely restored before the throne of grace, but still pay for his crimes in the natural. Example, I could rob a bank tomorrow and kill a man while doing it. I get caught and get sentenced to life in prison. In prison I repent of my crimes and the Lord forgives me and restores me. Yet, when I wake up the following morning, I will still be in prison because this is the natural consequences of my actions. One of the natural consequences of a man who brings the ministry into dis-repute by his actions is that he can no longer hold the office of elder. Does that mean he cannot have a powerful ministry where he shares his testimony and praises God and gives Him honor and glory for His grace that has restored him to a right standing before the Lord? Of course not............Frank

This is the scriptural chronicle of Manasseh, of whom it is written; FILLED THE STREETS OF JERUSALEM WITH BLOOD..."

2 Chronicles 33:1

Manasseh King of Judah
1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years.

2 He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, following the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.

3 He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had demolished; he also erected altars to the Baals and made Asherah poles. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them.

4 He built altars in the temple of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, "My Name will remain in Jerusalem forever." 5 In both courts of the temple of the LORD, he built altars to all the starry hosts.

6.!!!!!! He sacrificed his sons in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom,!!!! practiced sorcery, divination and witchcraft,!!!!!! and consulted mediums and spiritists.!!!!
He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger...............

9 But Manasseh led Judah and the people of Jerusalem astray, so that they did more evil than the nations the LORD had destroyed before the Israelites.

10 The LORD spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they paid no attention. 11 So the LORD brought against them the army commanders of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh prisoner,...and....

Put a hook in his nose, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon.!!

12 In his distress he sought the favor of the LORD his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers.

13 And when he prayed to him, the LORD was moved by his entreaty and listened to his plea; so he brought him back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom.

Then Manasseh knew that the LORD is God.

18 The other events of Manasseh's reign, including his prayer to his God and the words......

Manasseh would have put NERO to shame, yet he was forgiven, and restored..even in Fullness. We will meet Manasseh in Heaven one day, Not because of any goodness in himself, but for glory to a God who delights Himself in MERCY.

The first King, Saul, was not forgiven; for seemingly minor infractions compared to Manasseh. God looks upon the heart; man looks upon the flesh; the outward.

Certainly, in spirit and in type, Manasseh would qualify as the ordained authority in Israel. A pastor may certainly be restored to his authority in the Church also. God sees real faith and repentance.

Romans 9:16
"So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."

Jimmy writes....

"I'm sorry Frank, I love you brother, but that's not Biblical"

Brother, I have given you the Scriptures that lay down the qualifications for an elder. In reply, you have given me your opinion, which is fine and your entitled to it. Its interesting that you make no comment as to the Matthew Henry commentary, which simply lays out what this Scripture is saying. Also you make no comment as the the man who would be divorced, for non Biblical reason, re-marries and then lives 20 years above reproach or however long you would deem that the time frame would have to be(please clarify) Would that man be qualified to be an elder? If not whay not?

I hate to stress the point, but this Scripture is not about a man not finding forgiveness or redemption before the throne, its simply about whether a man is qualified, as laid down by God Himself, to be an elder. I love you too brother, but I think I am going to stick with the Scriptures on this one :)..........brother Frank

Scripture lays down a standard for those holding office.

David said that he meditated on the law of the Lord day and night. And he knew that he deserved death and cried unto God for mercy and God heard him and David's child died in his stead.

Did David stop being King?

There was certainly consequences, however, he still retained his office of being a Pastor over the flock of Israel, he was subject to the reproaches of those around him.

Now, if God can wink at all that and forget about it, how much more under the New Covenant of a "better covenant"? God certainly raised the bar of tolerance.

What a merciful God we have. He is merciful to the merciful, the more mercy He shows me the more I fear Him.

Please don't use the words of Paul as if he established a law that we are to be bound with. Our righteousness is by faith and if we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Christ Jesus the righteous who will cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Jimmy writes..........

"Somebody who is involved in an unbiblical remarriage cannot qualify as an elder, because Biblically speaking, he is the husband of more than one wife. He is of course free to do other ministries within the Church, but, cannot be held up as a model for the Church, because he is involved in an unbiblical remarriage, which automatically makes it impossible for him meet the qualification in 1 Tim 3."

So, there is no redemption from an unbiblical re-marriage since you are tying redemption to re-instatement. Well, fair enough, I guess you are picking and choosing which qualification stands and which does not.

"I didn't see Matthew Henry saying anything worth commenting on."

Not sure what to make of that, since what he spoke of was "germaine,' to the very subject we are discussing. Its fine to disagree with Matthew Henry if you like. Last point...no clarity on the time frame?...........brother Frank

which automatically makes it impossible for him meet the qualification in 1 Tim 3.

I have heard it time and time again that "God will not go against His word". God has and will on occasion.

JImmy writes........

"I believe he could be re-installed if he met the qualifications of being beyond reproach, namely, through the death of his current wife, or if his former wife re-marries or dies. But so long as he lives as somebody who is not the husband of one wife, then he is not above reproach and cannot qualify, and thus, cannot be re-installed."

Forgive me brother but I believe that you are all over the place on this issue..........brother Frank

Jimmy, there are many precious saints who qualify. The church may be full of people who do not, but there are many saints who have not been caught up in public scandal or been divorced.

In Act 9 we see Paul stating that it would be better for him to die than to have his glorying made void. Paul refused to take money from these people so that he could preach the Gospel and not be accused of doing it for money. Why do I raise this point? Paul was a radical server of Christ and the Gospel and he would rather die than to have the Gospel somehow bismirched even by a false accusation.

Now this is a man who is full of the Holy Spirit. A man sold out to the Gospel and to the Lord Jesus he served. The Gospel was everything to these men and they would die rather than bring any kind of dishonor to it. Oh that we had men of similiar Spirit today........brother Frank

I have a motto. Man will always fail you. Jesus never fails.

@Brothertom
I have part two of that motto.

Jesus will always forgive you. Man will not.

"I have a motto. Man will always fail you. Jesus never fails."..Brothertom
........................

"I have part two of that motto.
Jesus will always forgive you. Man will not."..Codek

Amen Codek!...that's funny! But why do I want to weep? It is true.

I want to say, that this idea that an elder can never be restored and retake his office, IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!

It is not there. What is there is an open door, a conjecture, that could be interpreted as such. This is similar to what Jesus confronted when He said:

Mark 7:6

6. "And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN."

8."Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."

9. He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition."

Matthew 23:23
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

So we see that along with judgment, MERCY AND FAITH are integrated above legalism...[ Remember David and his violations ??? ]

There are denominational conclusions that are taught as Bible, and as I noted before, they are but conjecture. They have been received as Bible, but they are but doctrinal stances that men have assumed some where along the line, and they have remained.

They in themselves may not be evil, but the danger is that we let these override mercy and faith, which is at the very heart of what the gospel IS.

A man, by committing adultery, is not disqualified from EVER entering into the ministry again, and let us be clear...we are talking about eldership. [ Always plural and equal, without being paid or hired...without the preeminence..]

This brings me to my next point. Eldership is always LOCAL! It is not extra-local, though a man may carry his gifting and calling extra-local,.... the authority of the eldership remains in a church...not THE CHURCH.

How many of you have actually met Jimmy Swaggart? Do you KNOW if he has repented, and is clean? The point is, we judge by appearances, the media, etc. The local body of elders around him are the ones, the ones that know him.....to decide whether or not he is able to elder or not, according to the witness of the Holy Spirit.

[ I am not saying he has or not, just that the onus of authority is always local, not superimposed by varying doctrinal opinions.This is what legalism is all about.]

For those of you who have not read it, I would recommend that you get ahold of John Bunyan's AUTOBIOGRAPHY.[ grace abounding to the Chief of sinners?].

He wrote Pilgrim's Progress...[the mostly widely read Christian book other than the Bible.]

He was gloriously saved, and ministered, and gloriously backslid, and recounts his restoration.

There are several accounts of missionaries and preachers throughout time that have had similar grace experiences. Being and elder, or not, is but a side issue. If Jesus restores, He restores, and that is all the way; and a broken man, a former Pastor, will often make a better Shepherd after his fall, for he will not depend on his own strength any longer.

Tom, you write.....

"A man, by committing adultery, is not disqualified from EVER entering into the ministry again, and let us be clear...we are talking about eldership. [ Always plural and equal, without being paid or hired...without the preeminence..]

Tom, the basis of at least Jimmy and my discussion has nothing to do with adultery. It was a discussion on 1st Timothy 3 and what it means. Also, this discussion has really nothing to do with Jimmy Swaggert, he just happens to be the example that was used to discuss 1st Timothy. Let me ask you a question brother, do you deny that 1st Timothy lays down a standard or qualifications for being an elder? Lets keep it to that tight question and perhaps we can move on from there.........brother Frank

"Let me ask you a question brother, do you deny that 1st Timothy lays down a standard or qualifications for being an elder? Lets keep it to that tight question and perhaps we can move on from there".........brother Frank

Of course I don't deny that, and it seems that if I said yes I did, that it would be ludicrous. The issue, as I see it with you, is that if an elder did fall into Adultery, or other egregious sins, the he would no longer be "blameless", and have a "good reputation without".

So then, the issue becomes a matter of interpretation, or indoctrination. I say that these scriptures emphatically do NOT specifically deny complete restoration to eldership, and the idea of blame or Godly reputation is assessed by conjecture, NOT SCRIPTURE!

He may have a better reputation without, after his humbling and restoration, and attain a higher grace in his character to be considered blameless after his fall.

You have decided, for whatever reasons that this is absolutely forbidden.

"Lets keep it to that tight question and perhaps we can move on from there.........brother Frank"

The answer to your conclusion, as I see it, is that it is highly opinionated. I don't know if "we" can move on from there in agreement, but that certainly has zero to do with my respect to you as a brother and friend.

There are probably many more that agree with your interpretation than mine, but it is NOT crystal clear in the word. Again, the local assembly elders know the man, the circumstances, his heart. The gifts and callings of a man are without repentance, and if a man is called to be a Shepherd by God, is he forever disqualified by mortal sin?

To me, it is clear that he is not, and where sin abounds, Grace does much more abound.

Another thing. Ministry and true Godly authority is the actual impartation of Jesus Himself. This is the origin of real power. If a man is restored to this, after a fall, No man could ever trouble him; denying that. If a local body of elders come to that conclusion about a restored comrade, would you step in and deny that?

It's a big problem with denominations."We believe.."...and set forth a pattern of laws that interpret scripture for the rest.

The sin of ambition and the desire to Preeminence; To become a Preacher, and the respect of many as a minister is much more dangerous than carnal temptations. This is because it is hidden away in the heart of the "Pastor", or preacher. It cannot be readily seen, therefore it is much more difficult to repent of...... but if it were, it would shock because of it's monstrosity.

We are all called to the ministry, and the brotherhood exceeds the eldership. Elders are called to feed, protect the body, and assure that the Holy Spirit is not quenched.

THE CHURCH IS NOT A MEETING....WHERER A MASTER OF CEREMONIES IS REQUIRED....up front of course.

The church is a family and a community. That is why we are called brothers and sisters.

THIS CLERGY LAITY HERESY , AND THE ENSUING IDEAS OF WHAT MINISTRY IS OR IS NOT, HAS RUINED MORE SOULS THAN ALL THE DIVORCES AND ADULTRIES COMBINED. It is this that may "ruin your testimony" more, in my eyes.

LUKE 22:23

"And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.

24. And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
Jesus ; just before His crucifiction....the final words to His apostles..

So, if a brother is called to serve, and is cleansed entirely and restored after a fall; he can no longer serve?..I think not.

Again; my love and respect for you Frank, as a man of God.

Now this is a man who is full of the Holy Spirit. A man sold out to the Gospel and to the Lord Jesus he served. The Gospel was everything to these men and they would die rather than bring any kind of dishonour to it. Oh that we had men of similar Spirit today..

The Gospel they were contending was the Faith the was once delivered unto the saints.

The people that Paul had to contend with were the Judizers. Every time Paul ministered to new converts this crowd of Jews would come in and try to confuse the minds of these new converts into incorporating the law. This was what he was willing to die for, the upholding of the salvation through grace by faith. This was a hard thing to do, still is to this day.

For this is the gospel, it's the good news of Jesus Christs' sacrifice that opens the door to any that the Spirit of God is drawing into.

The election of the elders is not the Good News.

I heard his challenge for us as Christians to call our anger 'murder' as God views it, and to call our lust 'adultery', just as Jesus put it.)

If Jesus restores, He restores, and that is all the way; and a broken man, a former Pastor, will often make a better Shepherd after his fall, for he will not depend on his own strength any longer.

Well, I think all have had their say on this subject and it looks like we shall agree to disagree which I am comfortable with. I appreciate the brothers and sisters that enetered into this discussion as mature saints, genuinly seeking to see what the Scriptures say. Looks like the name callers still have a wee bit more growing up to do, but there you go, this is a forum :).........brother Frank

I've been following this thread quite closely, did I miss something? Who was name calling?

Jimmy Swaggart is an Evangelist. Regardless of what he does in his life he must like any called man or woman of God must walk in the calling to which God put them in.

Take Dr Gene Scott. As far as I am concerned this man disgraced the name of Jesus Christ. However, his teachings are remarkably insightful, provoking and deep. Though he delivered the message, he may have ended up a castaway, as Paul said.

As for Brother Swaggart. The argument was can he be qualified to sit as an elder. When one who has been forgiven by God, would he not be counted as "Blameless"?

I remember one time a man who was delivered from homosexuality and God was moving in his life. The Pastor to which this man sat under, wanted to promote him to a higher office in the Church. The Pastor didn't know about this man's past, but when he found out about it, he was disqualified saying to the young man, "It wouldn't look good".

Now, Paul said "such were some of you". Where do we draw the line in regards to being "blameless"? In another place it says, "Blessed is the man in whom the Lord will not impute iniquity, Blessed is the man in whom his sins are covered".

Brother Swaggarts sins have certainly gone before him, yes, the whole world saw this, but God has covered his sins like he has covered mine. When you consider how people start out with the Lord, no one starts out and continues to go forward perfectly. I truly am disheartened about the lack of understanding concerning this issue. There is a legalistic mindset here that is frightfully sickening.

Because of the grace of God, we stand under a waterfall of forgiveness.

Chris writes..........

"This is a difficult topic. I am torn between the thought of whether a man of God would even WANT to be placed in a position of "overseer" or "bishop" after having fallen in a public manner. I imagine that a person who has truly repented of such public disgrace would probably prefer to step aside and humbly serve the Lord outside of the position of leadership." And...........

" I certainly believe that God can forgive such men. I even think that such men can serve God in ministry to this fallen world. I just have to wonder, however, why such men often continue to pursue such a position of leadership."

"I have to wonder why such individuals would continue to aspire for such a position that might have partially encouraged the conceit that took the individual's eyes off of God in the first place.'

Chris, I think you have captured the essence of the Scripture that was under debate by at least some of us. In days gone by, even in the public world, when an offical was disgraced, he would step down from his office for the sake of the dignity of the office. Politicians have long since gotton away from that. It used to be that was the honorable thing to do, and as we all too well know, there is not a lot of honor in the political world anymore.

What I have noticed, particularly in the American church, is the lack of balance and a lack of accountability. One is either a legalist or a proponant of , not grace, but cheap grace. Where the name of Jesus and His honor is considered above all. Men desperately seek the limelight in this age of the "personality cult." They have a desperate desire to be recognized and have the pre-emminence. Of course all of that runs counter to the Gospel where men of God only desire that the name of Jesus be elevated and that anything that takes away from Jesus, even if it were legitimate, would have to take second place. The Apostle Paul knew fine well that he had the legitimate right to be financially supported, but , if people thought that he was only preaching the Gospel for money's sake then he would gladly make tents and avoid the controversy. This is the spirit that is so lacking in today's world.

I know that its hard for some, especially some not as mature in the faith, but there is discipline within the church and their are consequences for actions. Now the mature saint can understand that there can be forgiveness and restoration and yet there is still natural consequences. If I rob a bank tomorrow and get sentenced to 20 years, I can still find forgiveness and restoration in God, yet still have to do the time.

Chris addressed the fact that Jimmy's sins were committed long before Chris came to Christ, but he knows about them. That is exactly the point of the Scripture that some of us were debating. The original debate was about why the Scripture said what it says. Why does one, in order to qualify as an elder, have to have a good reputation with the world? There is room for this discussion without anyone being accused of being a legalizer, which, at least in the Christian world, is one of the worse things you can slander someone with. Its used as an immature way of trying to shut a reasonable discussion down and its quite sad to see............brother Frank

"There is room for this discussion without anyone being accused of being a legalizer, which, at least in the Christian world, is one of the worse things you can slander someone with. Its used as an immature way of trying to shut a reasonable discussion down and its quite sad to see............brother Frank

Absolutely Frank:...and at the heart of this issue is whether a man is permanently disqualified from ever holding the office of Shepherd again, after committing gross immorality as one. Your position is that no, there is no restoration, holding to interpretation that he would no longer be of "good reputation."

It does appear that the Assemblies of God , that Jimmy Swaggart belonged to, did not hold to that view. They assigned an allotted time of discipline for Jimmy to be restored, which required a stepping down from the pulpit. As we know, Swaggart rebelled against that counsel, and soon addressed his restoration on his own terms. He wept on TV, with his then famous; "I have sinned!" statement. I think it made the cover of Time Magazine; then the zenith of public news.

But you could say that the view you hold is somewhat legalistic without slandering you. In the end, it is your opinion, or legal interpretation of the scripture; and as I said before, It is not one that Swaggart's denomination holds.

I too, agree with Chris. "Why would some one WANT to return to this office?" People see themselves in the ministry, and it is death to them if they depart. It is manic. Phariseeism; the hold of power, prestige, and the benefits of the Pastor role.

While I do not agree with you, I might see the benefit of such a covenant. Certainly there would be more fear in the ministry than there is now, and perhaps would induce a little more holiness. I personally have hardly EVER seen true scriptural discipline in the church, much less do I remember people actually being restored.....and certainly not a priest-class Pastor.

I think we all have to begin again, as family; as brothers and sisters. I want to see this Priest-class thing destroyed, so that a holy, unprofessional, plural eldership may arise. I see this as the model that the Lord is restoring....and the terrifying thing to the professional preacher, or the wanna-be Pastor, is that this church is not pulpit centered. It springs from the daily life of the families and individuals within the community; One as important as the other.

It does not center therefore around the meeting; but from fellowship with the Lord, and then with the local community. The MEETING follows after the community. This will surely destroy the Master of ceremonies, the Pastor/Priest role, and the pulpit he feels commissioned to preside over. Then the body will edify itself by love and faith, as each part is connected.

The PASTORS [plural and equal and unpaid...] then assure that the body is fed well, protected, and that Jesus as Lord is glorified in all aspects of the church they oversee.

HI Brothertom, as you know, we agree on more things than we disagree. I love you as a brother and have always enjoyed the fellowship that we have had on the phone. Actually I had finished posting on this thread but I saw waht appeared to be a response to Chris's comments. I found Chris's view on this to be very succinct had tapped into perhaps some of the reasons why that Scripture in 1 Tim was written for our instruction. I was more interested in people's view on that actual Scripture and what that Scripture specifically meant. Chris and I have had many disagreements on the role of Christians in society and what if any role we should have in politics, but I did feel the need to defend his right to express his view without the comment that was made directly after he had made it. Anyway, agreeing to disagree is always a good way to end any impasse................brother Frank

Hi John,

Some great points which I appreciate. The cross of Calvary is a perfect demonstration of the perfect combination of judgement and mercy. We have to be as wise as a serpant and as harmless as a dove.

The fact that Jimmy committed adultery is very far from the specific point that I was trying to make. I do have an example that may or not be useful. 15 years ago, I was part of a very large, good church. Numerous people were saved every week and there was such a heart to see people saved. It was a pentecostal church and every week there was "words,' given and "tongues," and "interpretaion of tongues.' There came a time when some harder "words,' came forward. Warnings of lifestyle and so on. Leadership were uncomfortable with these "stronger,' words and decided that any "word,' had to be run by the elders that sat at the front. You would go down, give the "word,' and then get, or not, permission to go up on the platform and share it.

As time went on, it was noticable that only "encouraqing,' words were being allowed to be shared. This was an uncomfortablle situation for some, but any with words of warning were considered to be "legalistic,' or "Spirit quenchers.' At the time there was a former child molester who had claimed that he had been gloriously saved, reconcilled and changed completely by the power of God. It was now a number of years since he had had his change of life and had lived exemplary since those years before. The reason any one even knew anything about it becuase he was seeking the leaderships blessing on marrying a single parent in the church, the lady had a eight year old daughter. This was granted and the couple sat through several months of marriage counciling by the leadership. The couple were married.

The policy of only encouraging words being allowed continued. Less than two years after this new policy, the Pastor, a man in his early 60s, who had been in the mninistry for decades, ran of with the secretary and a substantial amount of money. Turns out this had been going on for a few years and that the elders had refused to act on some things that should have been addressed. Some of the more stronger "words,' it now turns out, were specifically related to what was going on.

One year after the marriage of the man who had been "completely restored,' he was arrested for raping the young daughter. Now what is the point of this story. I think the point is that the church must be led by balanced men of God. The perfect balance that we see at Calvary between judgement and mercy. Can God restore and forgive a child rapist? Yes. Should that man at a later date be allowed to be in charge of children, I would say no and that this would be a natural consequence of prior behaviour. There are consequecnes to our actions. Some people do not believe that. Not all stories have a "Hollywood,' ending. I knew a man back in Scotland who had been an alcholic for 20 years and badly abused his family. He gloriously came to Christ and was radically changed. Yet, his family wanted nothing to do with him. Every Christmas he would go and leave presents at the door of his family's house, he was never acknowledged. He lived for 20 more years having never been reconciled to his family, yet praise Jesus he was reconciled to His Lord and that was enough. You see, despite the pain of the rejection from his family, he knew that he had brought the rejection on himself and and that this was a natural consequence of his actions. He had not come to Christ so that he could be reconciled to his family, he came to Christ because he was a sinner and recognized that fact. He rejoiced in his salvation and in his Lord and his family situation was a private matter that caused much pain but he continued to serve his Lord in the situation that he was called to. Many do not want to acknowledge that there are consequences for our actions, not tied to forgiveness and reconcilliation with the Lord. We are all entitled to our opinions, but in any gathering for Christians there will be a call for order and for discipline and for decisions to be made. The Scriptures guide us in these...........brother Frank

"Many do not want to acknowledge that there are consequences for our actions, not tied to forgiveness and reconciliation with the Lord. We are all entitled to our opinions, but in any gathering for Christians there will be a call for order and for discipline and for decisions to be made. The Scriptures guide us in these...........brother Frank... "Appolus"

I agree. This entire thread is somewhat idealistic anyway; meaning that when and if it happens, this is where I stand. It falls way down the tree , under fellowship and the bond of Peace in the body. We have become a church without consequences, because of the emerging doctrines of extreme grace, and the perversion of the concept of God's love.

I fall much closer to your thinking than you may believe, and I believe that you cannot have holiness without the holy fear of God that we may just come short of it. Remember Ananias and Sapphira. They were struck dead, receiving the consequences of lying to the Holy Spirit.
Acts 5:10

"At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

11.Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events."

Why did great fear fall upon the church? Because they realized that there were consequences for sin.
Without discipline the church will become a "bastard" church, the same as we as individuals will.

Hebrews 12:7

"If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8. But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."

I agree with you Frank, almost to the jot;;I believe that it's is the minor possibility that a ruling elder who fell; could and would repent, may find grace at some point to be restored to eldership. It is a possibility in my eyes..that's all. As far as Jimmy Swaggart goes.....A lot of it is TV land, and for the cameras anyway. Who knows? He is a celebrity, and lives in another world of Christianity than me. I wish him the best, and move on.

Lysa wrote and has written before........

"To talk about the sin of adultery and how some people take it upon themselves to throw the first stone..."

I am not sure how many times it has to be said and why the point is consistantly ignored, this topic is not about the sin of adultery. The topic is about this Scripture..

1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

This is the subject at hand, does a man have a good report "of them that are without." Any other topic is another subject. One may not like the Scripture above, but that is the Scripture under discussion. As for this statement .........

"I dare say there is a hardly a man out there that has been or is qualified to be a pastor."

I find that comment very cynical. I have known personally, wonderful men of God , well qualified to be Pastors and without public scandal. Are they perfect? I think all of us agree that there is no one perfect, but to say almost all men are disqualified for ministry is, well, quite strange...........brother Frank

Hi Lysa,

With all respect, I think that you have the issues hopelessly confused. I have asked many times what do you make of the Scripture we are discussing? Do you think the Holy Spirit made a mistake when He wrote that or simply forgot about what Jesus said when he was adressing the Pharisees? Is it possible that you have been wronged by adultery and therefore say that no man is worhty of ministry in your mind?

Once again, and probably for the final time, the issue is about having a good report amongst the world, meaning not have been taken up in scandal because it hampers one's ability to share the Gospel if one has claimed to be a Christian and then became, say a drunkard? If a man is to hold the office of an elder or a deacon he cannot be known as a drunk, a lover of wine or a person greedy for money. These are qualificatins Lysa whether you like it or not. Should I hold to your opinion or the Scriptures?........brother Frank

HI Lysa....you wrote........

"Only God knows the hearts of men and we walk by faith not by sight"

Now you are making the point Lysa. We are not called to judge mens hearts for who can know a mans heart(ie the sin of lusting after a woman) But we are called to judge the action of men and woman. For example, if you and I were in the same church and I knew you to be having an affair, then I would come to you and confront you about that. If that did not work I would take some more with me, then take it to the elders and the church. If at that point you were still unrepentant, then you would have to leave the Church.

Quote "Brother, I know exactly what 1 Tim 3.7 says but contend that it is describing external behavior while the other side to my whole argument is... what about the man that does is “of a good report of them which are without” and in the church but inside is guilty of committing adultery every week if not every day?"

Apples and oranges Lysa(British phrase for describing two different things) The exernal behaviour we have been called to judge, but we have not been called to judge a man's heart. And secondly, there is no call for sinlessness to be in ministry, anyone who claims to be sinless would be lying and violating 1st John and to follow your logic, there would be no one in ministry. So the man who is lusting in his heart, that man has to deal with that before the Lord, and as John says in the previous comment, perhaps have other men to be accountable to and to confess one another too, so that it is brought into the light of another brother and delt with.

Now, the problem with scandal is that everytime a man that has been in leadership, and had been caught up in scandal, everytime he stands up the world will say, "there goes the man who sleeps with prostitutes." Or, "there goes the man who was the head of the Evangelical alliance and was caught with a homosexual lover and doing drugs." The world is not forgiving and it is the world that we have been called to share the Gospel with. For the honor of Christ and for the sake of the Gospel, that man steps down and seeks reconcilliation with His Lord and his family.

Consider Moses, there was a reason that he did not enter the promised land. Consider David, there were reasons that he did not build the Temple. There was a reason that his child died. Consider Abraham and the child that he bore through his servant trying to bring God's plan to pass, that did not end well. There were consequences for all of these actions by the greatest men of God and I am sure that they bore it with dignity.

Lysa, it seems to me that you do not have a problem with what I am saying, but have a problem with reconcilling what Jesus says about a man's heart and what the Holy Spirit says about qualifications to be an elder. The letter of the Law thing I will ignore :) The Spirit and the letter of the Word in this particular case is about honoring Jesus and the Gospel above all else, including our earthly ambitions and our name. When men begin to care about lifting up the name of Jesus then, and only then will men be drawn to Christ. For the last few generations , we have had the personality cult. Where men worshipped other men and it was their names that were elevated. There is a generation, I believe, of nameless men of God who only care about building the Kingdom of God, being raised.

Wigglesworth famously made this reply to the comment "your name is being mentioned all over the world.' He said "then I will not be long for this world because God shares His glory with no man." How this flies in the face of tele-evangelists and men of the last few generations. Wigglesworth died one year after making this comment........brother Frank

Ginnyrose writes.....

"Americans like their preachers to be celebs, like them to have lots of charisma and this sets these guys up for a fall, like Humpty-Dumpty.'

I agree with this statement, and of course there is lots of money involved in these ministries that support many people. To listen to people today, one would think you could not reach the world without TV or radio. Obviously the Lord used a very few people to spread the Gospel over most of the earth long before TV or radio.

Arguably, today, we have the weakest generation of Christians in 2000 years. With all of our mass communications and showmen preachers, we have devolved into the least effective generations of Christians since Christ walked the earth.

There is a way that seems right to men. The question is, will we follow men and their ways, or will we follow the Lord and His revealled will? Anytime we get away from the Word of God, nothing good ever comes of it........brother Frank