"I know that I have been forgiven by God. I stand before you today to ask you for your forgiveness."

But the Prodigal Son came with a demonstrably repentent attitude. He was only asking to be made one of his father’s servants, not to be restored to the position of sonship. In other words, he was not setting the terms of his forgiveness and restoration. He was simply hoping that his father might forgive him, and didn’t know if he would or not.

And, though the Father forgave him, he did not replace the goods that were squandered, possessions which were not stolen, they belonged to him, but once squandered were gone forever. The Elder Son now had legal right to everything owned by the Father. The Younger Son had no claim remaining.

With the Prodigal, there is no question of his repentance, because it comes through in his attitude. With one who has stolen from another, I question that he has a true attitude of repentance if he is not eager to repay what he stole. And that brings us back to the forgiveness vs. restoration question again. As Luke 17 teaches, we have no right to withold forgiveness, even when we have reasons to suspect repentance may not be genuine. But restoration? Doesn’t that imply a duty on our part to see the person spiritually healed? And doesn’t that require a wise and gracious inquirey into attitudes relating to restoration of stolen goods?

I agree with Jay C, that it is up to the church to decide. I was only asking and wondering, because it seems that there are some issues here that ought to be considered, and that great wisdom and caution is needed in such situations.

Thanks for all the input. It is helpful. This is an area that is not easy, and all your comments have helped me wrestle with the issues.

Just an observation n light of true repentance: consistently throughout Scripture the picture of the truly repentant is that they consequentially judge their actions harsher than they are consequentially judged. Good examples would be…..
1) David—II Sam. 12:5 & 13 “And David…said…the man that hath done this thing shall surely die…And Nathan said…The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die….”
2) The Prodigal—Luke 15:21 - 24 “And the son said…I…am no more worthy to be called thy son….But the father said…this my son….”

[JG] The first should be granted with minimal evidence of repentance. Greg cited Luke 17. By the sixth time in the same day, how much evidence has been given of repentance? Yet, Christ said to forgive the seventh time, too.

If you stole my cow yesterday, sold it, wasted the money, and then came back today and said you were sorry and you are going to pay me back over time, I’ll forgive you now, and our relationship is restored. But if I see you out in my field early tomorrow morning, I’m going to watch to see what you are doing there. And a year from now, if you’ve paid me back, I’ll still probably be watching if I see you in my field. You’ve lost my trust, and sometimes that can never be regained. (I don’t have any cows in my field, FWIW).

Part of the problem is a misunderstanding of what it means to ‘forgive and forget’. I don’t believe we are asked, as evidence of forgiveness, to pretend as if nothing ever happened. The proper exercise of ‘forgetting’ is to not hold the offense in question against the person.

But just as I would not allow someone I didn’t know to babysit my kids, the person who has betrayed trust has gone back to square one, so to speak, in the status of the relationship. True forgiveness, IMO, means that I will grant that person an opportunity to again gain my trust, and until they betray it again, I have no reason not to trust them. I will not withhold my compassion, my friendship, or my help from them based on past offenses. What does forgiving 70x7 mean unless we give people the opportunity to offend us 70x7? If we forgive others as Christ forgave us, aren’t we obligated to give more grace than what we believe that person deserves?

Each situation should be weighed with the specific variables and individuals in mind, and in this case, a pastor must meet certain qualifications of testimony and character. I think a church should be careful about trying to be too gracious, because they are still accountable to keep the principles of 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 & 2. No Scripture gives a church the right to grant pastoral leadership or the office of a deacon to someone who does not qualify because they are want to be kind or humble or forgiving.

The cynic in me has a difficult time with repentance that follows “getting caught” as opposed to repentance that comes from Holy Spirit induced conviction and confession.

[Ron Bean] The cynic in me has a difficult time with repentance that follows “getting caught” as opposed to repentance that comes from Holy Spirit induced conviction and confession.

Getting caught, however, is a significant element in that which produces true repentance. Evidence the account of David, Bathsheba, and Nathan, one of the most detailed accounts of true repentance in all of Scripture.

I am likely the king of cynicism and, therefore, tend to lean towards your position. However, let’s both not let our cynical paradigm supersede the Scripture perspective.

Getting caught is often the means God uses to wake a sinner up. In a way, none of us comes to Christ until we “get caught,” though the getting caught may be an experience that is hidden from other humans. In that moment, I think we all feel completely exposed to the gaze of a Holy God who seems to be saying “Gotcha.” (Blessedly, it’s “Gotcha… now I want to remake you.”)

Please don’t misinterpret my expressions of my personal battle with my cynicism. Having been around many who express deep repentance and experience restoration only after they’ve been “caught” by man, I only pray that we would be “caught” by the Holy Spirit first and moved to repentance.

Cases in point:

I know a number of pastors who were involved in sin (drunkenness, immorality), were finally exposed after years, publicly repented and were restored to leadership positions.

I know only one exception. He was a pastor who behaved inappropriately with a woman on a Thursday, called the church leadership together on Friday and resigned. He accepted church discipline, refused any consideration of restoration to leadership, and went on to serve the Lord faithfully in other capacities.

Good thoughts, Aaron and Ron. God often uses men to “catch us.”

But here is the difference as I see it. When a person exposes his own sin before it is known by others, it is almost always evidence that God has already brought him to repentance. When a person owns his sin only after being exosed by others, it is impossible to discern if his “repentance” is genuine. Is it wordly sorrow, or godly sorrow? Only time will tell.

Being willing and eager to make restitution is one evidence of genuine repentance. That’s why I looked for that detail in the original story, and was disappointed that it was not mentioned. Many people would own their sin of stealing $100,000 after they were caught, and especially if that meant that they would not be prosecuted by the law, or be required to repay what they stole. One of the church’s goals is to restore fallen brothers, which means, among other things, helping them experience true repentance and spiritual healing. I doubt that dismissing their legal debt too quickly will aid in the goal of spiritual restoration.