Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Acts 13:38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Acts 13:38 "So let it be clearly known by you, brothers, that through Him forgiveness of sins is being proclaimed to you; |
Subject: Forgiveness of What? |
Bible Note: Greetings Sir Pent! Excellent question! When dealing with people, it is important that one's interpersonal relationship with an offender is restored after repentance and forgiveness. An offender should be forgiven, yes! However, that doesn't even begin to cover whether or not the offender still has a "weakness" in the area in which he has so blatantly failed in the past.. In every instance, it is encouraged to lead an offender into a changed or 'reformed' way of life after forgiveness has occurred. It is just as important to help an individual heal as it is to confront them with and acknowledge their sin. With this in mind, they can begin to "rebuild" and start fresh and anew, with a 'clean' slate amongst their brothers and sisters in Christ. However, I believe that despite this forgiveness, a level of accountability must be present at least for a small period of time following the infraction. If it has ever been proven that a person has 'shown much difficulty' or has wrestled with the same sin or emotion in the time following the infraction, then I believe that this must also be acknowledged, and that stricter methods of accountability should be investigated. And if these behaviors continue, where a person has a 'weakness' in a certain area, then yes, we must continue to forgive them! However, we would only be doing the church, society, and the "offender" harm by letting them ascend to positions that would help to compromise their 'weakness', if in fact, they proved that they continued to show signs of weakness in a particular area. There is a difference between a "first time offender" and a "hibitual offender". I believe that a first time offender needs accountability, but not to the same extent as a habitual offender. So would I let a 'first time offender' ascend to positions of responsibility that may compromise their aforementioned 'weakness'? Perhaps, if I felt that the 'offender' was the best qualified candidate by examining all aspects of the situation. For a 'habitual offender', do I believe that it would be benefitial for them to ascend to positions that may compromise their weakness? Absolutely not! I pray that I'm still on topic here, my friend! Blessings to you, Nolan |