Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Ecclesiastes 8:11.
Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 13:34.
Does forgiveness release
the guilty from the penalty of the law?
Does forgiving the
guilty release them from penalty?
Does God's forgiveness
cancel penalty for sin?
What did Jesus pay
on the cross?
Does forgiveness of
the guilty effect the penalty he receives?
Should the fallen
be restored without penalty?
The answer to all
of these questions is explained here.
With the recent increase of preachers falling from grace committing scarlet sins a soft on sin mentality is emerging among the "love" activists. After the culprit is caught he is forced to confess or deny his sin. When he repents his followers say, OK, now that he has repented God forgives him and we forgive him and now let him continue right on in his great ministry as if nothing has happened." This is the new libertine mentality that has gripped many of the evangelical church leaders and their people, i.e. that forgiveness constitutes automatic restoration and allows the minister to return to his pulpit and ministry without penalty. This theory is based purely on human logic and human sympathy but not on the sound doctrinal facts of the Bible. Their reasoning is; "If God has forgiven him then can't can't we forgive them?" Because civil law or church law imposes a penalty on a brother who has brought reproach to Christ and done despite unto grace has nothing to do with forgiveness! When a brother has confessed his ungodly deeds then I am morally obligated to forgive him and I do forgive him. But penalty as a consequence of his sin is not dropped as part of forgiveness. Forgiving a man his sin and the penalty the law has already imposed on him are two very different things.
Are the consequences of sin abolished by an apology or admission of guilt or even repentance? If those persons who feel this is indeed the case and that any person confessing or found guilty of an act against moral law are to be restored without the penalty law demands, have allowed their sympathies to overrule their intelligence.
The consequences of this loose theology and non-commitment to the proper disciplines of the flesh has produced strange fruits. One radio preacher noted that at a recent convention of evangelical ministers that the hotels reported that while their rooms were occupied by the pastors and evangelists during that convention that they had the highest amount of paid television pornography in the history of the motel! One large Pentecostal denomination has announced that they are finding out that their minister's viewing of pornography on the internet has reached epidemic proportions.
Politicians, who are the civil authority representing the people are also being plagued by immorality. If a politician has violated his commitment to public office and found to be using the facilities provided by the government for extremely sensual and sexually perverted acts, is caught and lies under oath that he has not committed such an act, and then later admits (let us say, between January and August of the same year) that he did commit the act he denied earlier, should he be released from the penalty of the law for perjury because he admitted he lied?
What did the military courts do to a woman officer recently who was having an affair with a married man and then lied to the military inquiry? She was removed from her commission and from the military for violating military code. Why did they do that? Because that was what the penalty for violating the military code and required as penalty.
The sergeants major of the army was court martialed and demoted for sexual harassment. Why? Because that was the penalty imposed on him by law. In both cases there was regret and admission of guilt. But the penalties were meted out because the purpose and nature of law is to always impose a penalty equivalent to the crime on those who transgress what law defines as evil and immoral.
The double standard being applied to those in the military and those in high office is producing confusion and conflict between all peoples of the nation from the politicians themselves to the man and women on the street. Why? Because America no longer has a single moral authority and code of right and wrong. We have forsaken God's laws and every man is doing that which seemeth right in his own eyes. This diversity of moral values divides the people.
One of the most insidious of all conditions that has entered the thinking of the American people, including the Christians, is their distorted departures from the principles of justice and allowing their emotions to overrule moral law. This is where we have been headed for a long time and now we are seeing this distorted sense of justice in full color!
The confusion comes when we confuse forgiveness with penalty, when we begin to say that, If a man asks forgiveness then he is released from the consequences of his sin. Let us treat this matter right now. This is a very unpleasant story but applies to any transgression of the law lesser or greater. We make it a strong point so as to effect the greatest clarity.
In a small picturesque Kansas town of about twelve thousand people our story takes place. It was on a sunny Friday afternoon in June that this little town suddenly became alarmed when it was reported that the little golden haired daughter of one of the local police officers did not return from school with her brother as she normally did. She was staying late to help her teacher and sent her brother ahead. As night fell the county called an emergency meeting for all able bodied men to come and assist in the search. It was feared that little Julia had wandered into one of the vast wheat fields that lie all around the little Kansas community. But after several days of human chains walking arms length through the surrounding wheat fields it was deducted by local police and the hysterical mother that Julia was a victim of an abductor which had never happened in this little town.
Five days after Julia's disappearance the police received a telephone call from a widow lady at the edge of town complained of a terrible odor coming from the old abandoned garage in a field next to her. The police went to the location, broke the lock and found the dismembered body of the little Julia jammed into a trash can. Autopsy revealed the worst. She had been molested tortured and then her little body dismembered.
The FBI was called in and started their investigation while the shocked townspeople kept asking the question, "But who in this town would do such a thing?" On the fourth day the FBI had their man.
He was a quiet little bachelor man who grew up in the town and was a janitor at the school where Julia attended. He was considered by all as being quiet and to himself but certainly not capable of murdering a child. The trial by jury was not long. The little courthouse was jammed every session. Several times the man's life was threatened publicly. He was brought to the courthouse under heavy guard during the trial. The jury did not remain in deliberation long. As the jury filed into the courtroom with their verdict, the courtroom became tense and silent. The defendant was asked to stand while the verdict was read. The jury found the defendant guilty and recommended the maximum penalty. The Mother of the victim feinted and was taken to the judge's chamber by her husband and two of the court matrons.
The courtroom had broken into melee as they carried Julia's Mother out of the courtroom, the defendant fell across the table in front of her, bursting out in anguish of soul and with shrill pleading wailed out his remorse. Court officers quickly moved to take hold of him and restore order to the court as the judge repeatedly tapped his gavel calling for order in the courtroom! But he continued sobbing and trembling, his face distorted and tears streaming down his face. With one arm he reached out to the judge pleading, asking forgiveness. Then he turned toward the people in the courtroom who were scowling at him crying out, "forgive me"! Forgive me"! Oh, God forgive me"!
As his weeping faded the judge cleared his throat and the courtroom became silent as he began to speak. He addressed the guilty man and ordered him to come before the judges bench. Two police officers helped the trembling sobbing man to his feet. A tear could be seen in the judges eye. The judge scanned the courtroom looking at the jury and then the people and finally his eye fell on the killer.
"I am convinced as surely every person in this courtroom is of the defendants despondency and grief over the hideous act he has committed against a defenseless child of a respected family in this community. We are all grieved for the reproach you have brought to the name of this town and by your thoughtless snatching of a precious life loved by us all. This young lady was in the flower of her youth, she was an excellent student with a personality that distinguished her even at her early age in our little community. She had a whole future of happiness ahead of her, but you came as a wild beast of prey and took her from us and snuffed out her life in violence and humiliation."
The judge continued . . . "But in this courtroom it has been witnessed by all the depth of your regret and that you have even called out to God for forgiveness repenting of this heinous crime which we rightly find you guilty of in this court of justice. Because you have indicated to this court and members of this community present that your regret is of the deepest kind, I suspend the sentence of death and declare you free of the charges against you and wave all penalties required by the laws of the State of Kansas. When you leave this courtroom under special protection we will provide you with a secret new identity so you may return to life as you knew it before you committed this crime. GOD BLESS YOU!" The judge then ordered the police to remove the handcuffs and escort him out of the courtroom to a police car waiting outside. The judge charged the officers with the man's safety until he could be transferred out of the city and be given a new identity.
As the judge stood
to leave the courtroom the people were cheering and weeping for joy for
the loving justice they had witnessed that day in the courtroom of their
fair little town.
Guilt and forgiveness
Granted, that the idea
of God's forgiveness removing sin from the one who confesses his sin, so
perfectly and entirely that he is absolved from all guilt of his evil deed
as if he had never sinned, is indeed a Biblical fact! However, you
are speaking of forgiveness and guilt only. There is another matter
that must be considered after the matter of guilt. Confession and
forgiveness has been acknowledged.
|
|
Many criminals guilty
of vile crimes have found Christ and His loving forgiveness while waiting
on death row for their execution. Their transformation did not release
them from the penalty of the law. They died as penalty required but
we all received them as a brother or sister and forgave them as did the
Lord.
|
|
Moral obligation is the business of the guilty to confess his sin. Civil authority is morally obligated to require a penalty that is equivalent to the crime of the guilty, so that both moral and legal obligation are operating quite apart from each other. This is a function of pure justice whether it be applied to the civil process of justice or if it be applied to the government of the church.
The fact that a murderer has confessed his regret for murdering his victims and being forgiven by both God and man has nothing to do with his legal obligation which will require a penalty to be put upon him for the crime he committed.
Moral obligation and legal obligation are two different functions which do not effect each other. If we allow these two distinct obligations to become blurred and confused, we will bring great harm and weakness to the body of Christ.
But it is here that the thoughtless soul cries out with a vindictive voice, "But Jesus forgives us and dismisses the guilt of our sin and removes the penalty through forgiveness alone!" You had better rethink the whole idea that Christ forgives us on the basis of our confession alone. Jesus Christ suffered our penalty and received the just punishment of man's sin, satisfying the demands of divine justice and paying a horrible price so that our confession of sin would be heard. There WAS PENALTY PLACED UPON THE HUMAN RACE AND THAT PENALTY WAS PAID FIRST before there was forgiveness granted. Jesus Christ paid the MORAL OBLIGATION REQUIRED BY LAW so that when the sinner comes in repentance to fulfill his moral obligation to Christ, THAT BOTH MORAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATION ARE RIGHTLY CARRIED OUT AND FULFILLED.
In the case of the preacher who falls in sin there is another moral matter, another reality that must be considered. He fell as a Christian, not only as a Christian but as a leader and a role model . He was under Grace and fell to sin. This is another cup of tea altogether from being saved from sin.
Let us read again the qualifications of the bishop given to Timothy by Paul: (1 Timothy 3:1)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Any man entrusted with
the charge of preaching the gospel of Christ who sins under that charge
is no longer worthy of the office. He has disqualified himself for
life! He broke his covenant and vow to God and his very visage represents
failure and weakness that is permissible in under God's grace! (Read
Titus 2:11-12) He has brought reproach to the sacred office of the
ministry and is no longer qualified to stand in any pulpit as a spokesman
for God.
Our problem today is several fold.
First; we have lost the fear of God.
Secondly; we have been influenced in our thinking by the soft and sentimental Charismatic faith doctrines which include a perverted teaching on forgiveness, agape love and restoration to the ministry which is not ever implied in New Covenant Scripture. Yes, we know God kept His covenant with David, but a close look at his life and never had the favor of God operating in him after he transgressed. He was allowed to remain on as king but that is far from being a minister of the gospel under grace!
Thirdly we have lost our concept of the sacredness of the holy calling and the seriousness of God's spokesman and mouthpiece qualified to handle the Word of God in His Name. We have made the preaching something cheap and open to just any ole' Tom, Dick or Harry that "feels the call." We have ignored the apostle's warning to Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man. Its gotten so that anyone who proclaims himself a preacher is considered to be so.
The ranks of the ministry are filled with charismatic slapstick, vaudeville quacks and apostate charlatans. The holiness movement has its share of phonies.
It is good when a man admits his guilt. But that does not effect penalty. If we gave penitent criminals freedom for regret it would devastate society in only months. As we become unjust by demanding a release from all consequence of the demands of law based on a person's apologies or repentance we are destroying ourselves. A lawless society is fast forming in this nation with the next generation.
Retribution and not rehabilitation is the divine order of things. Rehabilitation comes after penalty has been paid but not before.
The effect of the folly of no penalty on violators of law is ruinous. To confuse the moral obligation of forgiveness with the legal obligation to justice is stupidity and a reproach to our supposedly intelligent legal system.
It is also true when as a church you would destroy the principles of justice by confusing forgiveness with justice. To lump them together as being relative is pure ignorance. Christians are supposed to a people who walk with God and walk in His ways (commandments) in matters of righteousness and ethics.
Human emotion and sentimentalism are the worst enemies of justice and the order of society. Satan's most vicious effort is to annul the supremacy of God's moral commandments in the church and in society. The fact that he is being very successful at this points to this being the hour of His return with sudden destruction.
Sentimentalism must be contained within the boundaries of moral law and what is orderly. It is certainly not wrong to have compassion on the guilty, but it is a sin to allow my feelings for the guilty to cancel the process of justice and due penalty.
The idea that penalty is canceled by mere forgiveness is a distortion of Christian doctrine and a perversion of sound theology. Ignorance of Biblical truths can cause a miscarriage of divine justice only in this life. When judges, lawyers, victims, and the accused will all someday stand before the great Judge . . . then will every injustice committed in this mortal life be brought to light and righted! The purpose of the great white throne judgment will be to recall every man into the tribunals of God and have his works judged so that when all the history of man is over there will NOT BE ONE INJUSTICE LEFT UNDONE! The final act of God at the end of this earth and before there is a new heavens and new earth will be to damn all injustices and its perpetrators and correct every wrong committed against the innocent and the righteous in the blazing light and fiery indignation of the God of perfect justice.
Forgiveness is a moral
obligation of the offended.
Penalty is legal obligation
toward the guilty.
Punitive action is the purpose of justice: to determine the guilt or innocence of two people with opposing claims and then vindicate the claims of the righteous and place a penalty on the one guilty of wrong. The whole idea of justice makes no sense if penalty is removed. If and when that happens, truth has fallen in the streets and justice is raped by the wicked. When there ceases to be justice for the righteous, the wicked rule the land. Where there is no penalty for evil required then there is no justice. Where there is no justice, sin and corruption flourish, the immoral are encouraged and the wrath of a just God is pending.
He who advocates the banishment of penalty where there has been repentance advocates violation of moral principles:
a. Advocates the idea of crime without penalty. This goes way back to the garden of Eden when the snake promised Eve disobedience without penalty or consequences. It has always been the "big lie" of the snake.
b. Where there is disobedience without penalty there will develop and open and flagrant resistant to law in all forms, i. e., home government (children's rights), civil government, constitutional reform, judicial enforcement of community ordinances and the process of justice. That is the formula that destroys nations.
c. When a man in the position of publicly preaching the gospel of Christian transformation, and especially a ministry with luminary proportions practices disobedience and rejects the consequences of a just penalty he sends a message to all who look upon his circumstances and his attitude toward authority as a gospel that does not support the ideals of Kingdom justice.
d. The result is a weakening of the sense of justice in the conscience of the Christian. This is especially evil and serves a Satanic purpose in corrupting the young impressionable Christians who may out of loyalty accept such conduct and pass those views on to their generation. It all ends with a moral weakening of the conscience.
There is no such thing as a gospel that functions apart from the highest ideals of justice which is so highly protected in all of the writings of the scriptures. Especially do the prophets demand a regard for justice and judgment against sin and evil in high places.
There is no such
thing as justice apart from penalty anymore than there is such a thing
as sin without due penalty. The horrible scenes of Calvary have been
etched for all the world to see. It has haunted the conscience of
the world since that dark Friday afternoon. If the torturous scenes
of the cross should teach us anything; if it sends any kind of message
to the church it teaches that God does not and will not tolerate sin going
unpunished. Calvary is a spectacle of divine justice. It is
Christ paying a penalty for the sin of man that perfect justice demanded.
If there is no payment for that sin committed there would be no way back
into God's Kingdom and no redemption. There is no such thing as sin
going unpunished in God's Kingdom! There are several arguments against
punishment for sin by Christians who do not understand some very simple
principled of justice. The first argument is that Christ has paid
the penalty for our sins. That we do not pay any penalty for sins
committed as Christians. This is ridiculous. Christ paid the
penalty for our past sins. When we sin against grace and against
the knowledge of God there remaineth no more covering for sin. For
if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth,
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, Hebrews 10:26.
When we sin against God then two obligations follow;
1. Confess the
sin and forsake it.
2. Those who
receive that confession of sin are morally obligated to forgive the one
who has sinned.
This is the moral obligation of the man who has sinned and those whom the guilty has sinned against. So far we have talked about moral obligation. But what is legal obligation? Legal obligation involves the consequences and retribution of sin and the fact effecting all involved. This includes the effects the sin has had upon others. In the Kingdom of God all Christians are a part of a divine government. The church is the terrestrial extension of that celestial Kingdom. The church is under a divine form of government. Every minister of the gospel is obligated in a very serious way to submit himself to that government and its requirements of order and process. When he fails his commission and becomes an evil influence and brings reproach to the church and his brethren by failing to appropriate grace, he is under a very serious indictment and subject to certain penalties. It is the responsibility of those who make up the government of the church to determine a just penalty for the sin committed. Several things should be taken into consideration in the administering of justice and the leveling of sentence against a fallen brother.
The type and serious
of transgression committed;
Was it calculated
and Intentional?
Was it a single instance
of moral failure or was it a continuing practice over a period of time?
Did he come forth
and confess under the conviction of the Holy Spirit?
Was he caught and
then confessed?
Was he caught and
then denied his guilt?
The attitude and depth
of regret and confession.
To what degree did
he violate others?
Was it a misdemeanor,
grand larceny or was it homosexuality?
What were the effects
of the sin?
Did effect only his
family, his church or was it contained within the sphere of his relationship
with his wife or family?
Was it known to the
community? or the world?
Did he involve or
seduce another Christian?
Perfect justice is based on the logic of equivalency. This simply means that penalty must be equal to the wrong committed. There are many degrees of sin. The ideal system of justice is to mete out penalty that is equal and in proportion to the sin committed. If the penalty is more severe than the transgression that is cruelty. When the penalty is lesser than the transgression that is mercy winning out over justice.
Let us consider a couple of cases recorded in scripture which explain the importance of equivalency in the administering of justice. The Old Testament example we would like to use is the instance of the man God ordered to be executed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. It is an excellent example of equivalency as being an essential part of divine justice. It is a sad commentary on this dispensation of the church that we have taken so much of the slobbering sentimentalism in the matter so justice thinking that justice has somehow been swallowed up and done away in the cross of Christ. Divine justice is a subject that needs to be taught more in the modern churches. A Christian not committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ as being essential part of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament church finds it very hard to understand why God Himself called for the death by stoning execution of this man who was merely found gathering sticks on the Lord's day. The carnal mind tends to stick up for this poor man who is being treated so cruelly by Moses and the God of Israel. But study of the text reveals some very significant and critical matters that were at stake in this man's case.
Israel was a very young nation and God had just the moral law and the ceremonial law with laws of hygiene, sanitation, blood sacrifices and other laws of social order for the good of Israel. These laws revealed that God had chosen Israel to be a redemptive nation providing the world with a Savior that was yet centuries away. The preservation of Israel was of supreme importance to God. The seriousness of the laws given to Israel had to be regarded lest Israel fall into corruption. This man was one of the first in Israel to show an utter disregard for those things which God required. He was the first to show contempt for divine government and hold the commandment in contempt. We therefore conclude that there are several critical reasons for the severity of this punishment. First, God used this violation to impress Israel with the importance of paying due regard for the orderly government He had handed down to them. He was making this impression for the good of their destiny. God finds no satisfaction in handing out penalties or punishing his children. All justice administered by God is for the good of man.
Secondly, God established His personal commitment to and His personal interest in the moral commandments. He identified with the laws of perfect justice as an upholder of those principles of right. He was establishing His commitment to His law in the eyes of the people. Thirdly God understood that if He did not make an example of this violation of law that it would spread and set a precedent of tolerance and carelessness toward the righteousness of the law. There would be a landslide of disobedience on a wholesale scale that would lead Israel into contempt toward Moses and the government he represented. If that should happen, Israel's corruption would come early and possibly be diverted from the divine plan.
It was not merely
"sticks" that was the issue. It was his contempt for the Law of God
and his disregard for what effect his example would have on corrupting
the nation Israel. It was an extreme violation with many perpetual
causes attached to it. The penalty was made severe because the principles
involved were critical to the destiny of Israel and the redemptive plan
as a whole. Whether it be sticks or murder, both are acts of contempt
for orderly arrangement and violation of the ultimate good of others.
It is not the deed so much as the impact and effect the transgression has
upon others. The demoralizing effect it has on others which God hates
and judges.
THE NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLE is important to us because we find that under the New Covenant there is still penalty for sin. This indicates that there are sins still unto death which the cross apparently does not cancel. Let us say quickly, sin that is not confessed is not forgiven. Many Christians carry sin around with them that has not been confessed. Scripture clearly states, IF we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. So it is in this case we now cite from the New Testament church's early history and which was administered by the apostle Paul. John assured us that, " Note that the condition for forgiveness is that we confess our sins."
We again bring attention to Hebrews 10:26 where scripture states, For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, which reveals another condition where sin is not forgiven even though the cross exists. The case we are considering happened in the Corinthian church. There was a believer found living in incest with his Father's wife. There are two possibilities as to what Paul is speaking of here. It could mean that he was having an affair with his Father's wife who was not necessarily his Mother. Or it could mean that she was indeed his mother. It matters not which may be the case. Paul considers it an extreme violation of God's moral laws. The particulars are not discussed by Paul. The relationship was a foul transgression of Christian morality worthy of extreme penalty; judgment unto death. Paul demanded that the church take immediate action and committed the man to God's judgment that in death he may repent and be saved. The greater part of 1 Corinthians chapter 5 contains this story and Paul's lecturing them for their trifling attitude toward sin. This clearly indicates that the processes of justice including penalty for sin committed are still in force in the New Testament era after the cross had made a provision for the sin of man. It indicates that penalty equal to the sin committed is in enforced in the New Testament church in the dispensation of grace! In the Old Testament case, as in the case of the New Testament case, the penalties were handed down and the sentences announced by the heads of the church. At this point we must introduce a very important fact; that the process of justice and the penalties for sins committed against grace, against knowledge has nothing to do with the matter of forgiveness. In other words, to forgive someone of what they have done does not excuse them from receiving the just penalties of their sin. Forgiveness has nothing to do with nor does it effect the process of justice. We are dealing with a matter of righteous justice when dealing with sin committed whether confessed, admitted or not. The legal aspects of justice are not effected by it nor are the results of justice effected by it. Legal obligation to penalize the guilty is not emotionally involved with guilty but rather emotionally involved and committed to the innocent the guilty has caused to suffer. Moral obligation may be involved emotionally and may show affection and compassion for the guilty. And should do so - but not justice! I am morally obligated to forgive those who sin against me whether they ask for my forgiveness or not. However, it must be settled in our minds that if the guilty asks for forgiveness does not effect the principles of justice that demand a just penalty for transgression. Nor is justice to be misinterpreted as being contrary to the compassion of the cross.
Look at the cross! You will see two things: You will see Christ suffering, The just for the unjust. That death, sir, is God paying the penalty! The sufferings of the cross reveals that God does not allow sin to go unpunished even if the only way it could be done was to take the life of Heaven's Lamb! Calvary is the epitome of perfect justice. It was Christ taking the penalty. There was no emotional retraction of justice on God's part when it came down to the only way a legal atonement could be effected was by substitution of a sinless man, and that man had to come from heaven! The penalty was not passed over. No sir! It was paid in full! Look at the cross again and you see the unfathomable compassion of the God of perfect justice. For while the cross reveals God's perfect hatred for sin it reveals is perfect love for man. The cross at a glance simply reveals that God wants man saved from his sin: God wants man without sin and He went to the farthest extreme to accomplish both.
Forgiveness is the
Christian's moral obligation to man.
Justice is the Christian's
legal obligation to God.
At this point let us explain why we are forgiven our sins by confession of them and not by paying the terrible penalty.
In the sinner's confession of sin he is released from guilt because he realizes Christ paid the penalty!
So in forgiveness' unto regeneration, in being born again the matter of penalty is most certainly there.
There is a law in God's Kingdom that simply states The soul that sinneth shall die. Of course this is speaking of the soul of the man who continues in sin and disregards moral law. The principle is there. Transgression is met with punishment. Ezekiel 18:4
Or, Whatsoever a man soweth that shell he reap. Galatians 6:7. No amount of confession of sin or no amount of forgiveness will effect this law of guilt and penalty. It is eternal and immutable. Nothing cancels the penalty of sin but penalty. That is a law of the Kingdom. A government that permits transgression of moral values without an equivalent penalty is on the road of self destruction. The Christian life, the home, the church or whatever institution it is, cannot survive when this principle is not being embraced and rigidly regarded.
In recent times we have had some great luminaries who have committed stupid sin. In so doing they betrayed their calling to the ministry and every person who looked to them. They have brought a reproach to every evangelical Christian whether of the same faith or not. They have made Sinclair Lewis's Elmer Gantry look good in comparison. As far as their reputation had reached they spread their disgrace and harm to the church.
When I heard the news of Jimmy Swaggert's sin I sought the sanctuary of God and fell before God and wept. I wept for him, his family; but especially for the Lord and His church. I forgave him and encouraged others who seemed bitter toward him to do the same. I respected his public confession of guilt. Even though he continued in his sin until he was found out he did admit his guilt to the world. Some men sin and the deny it was a sin or that they committed any wrong. Some weeks later his church elders had to consider the just penalty. They asked him to step down from the pulpit for the appropriate time. Some thought the requirements were too lenient considering the visibility of his life. He refused to accept the penalty. Then we started hearing the same statements that came from unlearned people after the Jim and Tammy Baker case. But, if God forgives him then I forgive him. We need him back in the ministry carrying on with the great ministry God has given him. This is an expression of mere human sentimentalism but certainly not the voice of one who is committed to the truth of God's Word and pure doctrine. The General Council of The Assemblies of God is to be commended for insisting on a just penalty for the transgression committed. They did not cave in to the demands of sentimentalism or financial expedience.
For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Hebrews 10:26.
Sin in the eyes of God is a "terrible picture." To man it may be tolerated and passed over as insanity. But sin is heinous in the eyes of God! Sin is always worse to God than it is to man. Samuel told Saul that "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft."
It is sometimes cited that David and Peter both went on in their ministry after they had sinned. These were two different kinds of weaknesses occuring in two different dispensational periods. Peter's sin was the sin of denial which he repented of and died a martyr for for Christ. David's sin was a moral sin that included murder, deception, adultery and lying. David was never used of God again. He filled the throne and served to inspire Israel for his past greatness but suffered nothing but loss and heartache after he sinned.
David was not a minister of the gospel of Christ. He sinned under altogether different dispensational conditions than do men today who possess the power of the inner presence of God's Spirit. You cannot compare David's sin against the external law of God to the same sin committed by a minister of the gospel today. David violated the commandments of the moral law, but a man or woman who sins under Grace has sinned against the indwelling Holy Spirit of truth!
Let us as Christians not forget to carefully and prayerfully forgive a fallen brother. That is our moral obligation. But let the guilty accept their penalty with grace and submission. That is legal obligation.
End ____
