Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Forgiveness of What? | Acts 13:38 | Makarios | 23735 | ||
Greetings Sir Pent! I do not believe that we should consider the election or 'non-election' of a 'previous offender' in terms of punishment or non-punishment. When considering the election of an individual to a specific post or status, the focus should be upon the individual himself and his present level of growth and self-reformation, if he has a less than exemplary past. What is most important is the present state of spiritual well-being of an individual as well as taking into account the entire 'gamut' of qualities that an individual possesses. Christians are called to a higher purpose, and that purpose is to serve the Lord in wholehearted worship! Every Christian has been extended a certain amount of grace by the Father (Eph. 2:8), so it would only seem fitting that we would extend grace to each other as well and be less quick to judge, since everyone is in need of grace (Rom. 3:23). With that said, we must consider and apply that to your question.. Your Question: If I was "in charge" of a Pharmacy, would I hire a person with a past of drug abuse to run the Pharmacy? My Response: Are there any other candidates for the position, or is the 'offender' the most qualified person, having the most education and experience among the candidates? Is the 'past offender' the ONLY candidate? Many who abuse drugs are nowhere near attaining the qualifications necessary to run a sophisticated operation such as a Pharmacy. And those who would abuse their privileges as Pharmacists would no doubt be stripped of their obligations if word got out that they themselves became dependent on certain substances, barring them from their practice. So, you see, there are many factors that come into play when considering the election of an individual to a position of influence that may or may not be a 'testing ground' for a previous sin or temptation. Am I saying that a person who has failed in an area and who has since proven to themselves and to others that a genuine repentance has taken place should automatically be considered for a position? Only if there is a good case for such a 'nomination' to be made based on the 'whole' qualities of a person. But in all regards, one must look at the "total person", since it is the individual himself that is the focus, and not the past sin(s) that he has committed. One must take into all the variables or factors when analyzing a lab test or a petri dish. :-) But the present state or condition of a person is the most telling fact, and by determining that, you can have a greater bearing on what future decisions that the person will be confronted with. If you can accurately judge where a person is spiritually, then I believe that you are better equipped as to make a decision about whether or not to 'promote' them. It all depends on that most essential variable- the person. I hope this helps, my friend! Blessings to you, Nolan |
||||||
2 | Forgiveness of What? | Acts 13:38 | Sir Pent | 24067 | ||
Clarification ............................... Dear Nolan and other forumites, The general idea seems to be that our actions towards a person after they have been forgiven should depend on how reformed that individual person was. The problem that I see with that is that it is very subjective. It also is based on the idea that we as humans can accurately determine the heart of another person. Brian G. brought up a good point that unlike God (with Saul/Paul's conversion), we can't really know how changed another person is. Due to this limitation, wouldn't it be better to have objective guidelines for these situations. For instance, if a person has been a child molester then even though they are forgiven of that sin, and have eternal life, there remains an earthly consequence. They could serve God in many ways with adults, but would be prohibited from being a Boy Scout Leader for instance. Or a former drug addict could work at a automobile company, but not at a pharmacy. Does this sound reasonable, or is it too harsh, cold, and legalistic? |
||||||