**preacher forums**

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Who said making something public was dragging someone out into the street? Are you saying you can't meekly restore someone with public statements?

First of all, I would say that the only people in the position to "restore" someone would be those who have a relationship with him/her. A stranger wouldn't qualify, unless God spoke to them and sent them directly in some miraculous way.

Secondly, I have never seen a public statement in regard to immorality that was:

1. Directed TO the person instead of stated ABOUT the person, and
2. Stated in a spirit of meekness.

I have seen such statements in regard to doctrinal differences. Things along the lines of, "With respect, brother, I ask you to reconsider your views regarding _____________."

Finally, I have rarely seen the humility that Paul asks for where the person doing the "calling out" (meekness? yeah, right.) is doing so in the spirit of considering themselves, lest they also be tempted. (e.g., with the acknowledgement that we ALL have the ability to give in to a temptation)

So with that said, I find very little profit in public *floggings* of people who have fallen into sin. Whether they are a preacher or a saint is irrelevant on that point. If something is already public, it can probably be discussed, BUT it should still be done respectfully, and in the sense of fairness, the person in question ought to be included in the conversation.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

First of all, I would say that the only people in the position to "restore" someone would be those who have a relationship with him/her. A stranger wouldn't qualify, unless God spoke to them and sent them directly in some miraculous way.

Secondly, I have never seen a public statement in regard to immorality that was:

1. Directed TO the person instead of stated ABOUT the person, and
2. Stated in a spirit of meekness.

I have seen such statements in regard to doctrinal differences. Things along the lines of, "With respect, brother, I ask you to reconsider your views regarding _____________."

Finally, I have rarely seen the humility that Paul asks for where the person doing the "calling out" (meekness? yeah, right.) is doing so in the spirit of considering themselves, lest they also be tempted. (e.g., with the acknowledgement that we ALL have the ability to give in to a temptation)

So with that said, I find very little profit in public *floggings* of people who have fallen into sin. Whether they are a preacher or a saint is irrelevant on that point. If something is already public, it can probably be discussed, BUT it should still be done respectfully, and in the sense of fairness, the person in question ought to be included in the conversation.

Exactly!

And all it comes across as is - Yea, that person preached hard on.... say standards, etc. and now look at him. The discussion, all around, only looks like finger pointing, a gotcha game and revenge.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

First of all, I would say that the only people in the position to "restore" someone would be those who have a relationship with him/her. A stranger wouldn't qualify, unless God spoke to them and sent them directly in some miraculous way.

Secondly, I have never seen a public statement in regard to immorality that was:

1. Directed TO the person instead of stated ABOUT the person, and
2. Stated in a spirit of meekness.

I have seen such statements in regard to doctrinal differences. Things along the lines of, "With respect, brother, I ask you to reconsider your views regarding _____________."

Finally, I have rarely seen the humility that Paul asks for where the person doing the "calling out" (meekness? yeah, right.) is doing so in the spirit of considering themselves, lest they also be tempted. (e.g., with the acknowledgement that we ALL have the ability to give in to a temptation)

So with that said, I find very little profit in public *floggings* of people who have fallen into sin. Whether they are a preacher or a saint is irrelevant on that point. If something is already public, it can probably be discussed, BUT it should still be done respectfully, and in the sense of fairness, the person in question ought to be included in the conversation.

I mostly would agree. However there are two points I want to bring up.

1. Public statements about someone are not always about restoring the person who fell but they are sometimes about helping to restore those they may have drug down with them. Oftentimes these statements turn into a public flogging and they shouldn't.

2. If we are a total stranger then we have no business going to the person in a fault. However, we do have business in discussing what happened and how it was handled because the way in which such situations are handled may very well affect us one day and also we can use all this information to learn how to better handle such situations in the future.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Exactly!

And all it comes across as is - Yea, that person preached hard on.... say standards, etc. and now look at him. The discussion, all around, only looks like finger pointing, a gotcha game and revenge.

And I am against that! But I don't think that is the way public statements always have to be.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

And I am against that! But I don't think that is the way public statements always have to be.

They usually come across that way on a forum. If, using Bratti as an example (), fell into sin, I would refuse to participate in that discussion. We already know how to handle right and wrong. There isn't really a need to discuss it. If we don't know by now, we never will.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

They usually come across that way on a forum. If, using Bratti as an example (), fell into sin, I would refuse to participate in that discussion. We already know how to handle right and wrong. There isn't really a need to discuss it. If we don't know by now, we never will.

Well maybe you ancient folks don't need any more wisdom regarding right and wrong but us younguns still do

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Well maybe you ancient folks don't need any more wisdom regarding right and wrong but us younguns still do

Calmao calmao... you're old, chismoso!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Well maybe you ancient folks don't need any more wisdom regarding right and wrong but us younguns still do

I can give it to you plain - STOP IT! That will be $10.

[RevDWW]

Seems the Book...you know which Book I'm talking about....and the Man....you know which Man....says that we should forgive and have mercy or we will not be forgiven or shown mercy.

Could it be some who have had fallen and are restored are harder on those that fall because of a sense of self-loathing and are projecting onto others how they feel about themseleves?

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Could it be some who have had fallen and are restored are harder on those that fall because of a sense of self-loathing and are projecting onto others how they feel about themseleves?

If one is self-loathing I would not consider that one is restored.