Nonunconditional Forgiveness
Forgiveness is an important part of life. Without it, no one could ever move on from anything, nor could peace ever exist. But I find something troubling that many people - Christians and not - hold to, that being unconditional forgiveness.
The bible does not command us to forgive unconditionally. It says we are to forgive just as God forgives us. In fact, is goes so far as to say if we won't forgive, God won't forgive us. So we see a direct correlation between our acts of forgiveness and God's.
Now God is just, and punishment for sin is required. That's why Christ came to die. Christ's sacrifice pays for the sins of those who believe in him and repent. Repentance is nothing more than the mental recognition of wrongdoing, coupled with a heart decision to turn away from it. Belief in Christ serves as an attitude of repentance, because it decries our sinful nature and declares our utter depravity before God. Faith in not faith if it is not accompanied with repentance.
Thus, in the general sense, we as Christians have repented from all of our sins. To say that God will not, in the end, forgive us of every little sin we haven't said sorry for is legalistic gibberish. With the Holy Spirit in us, the bible says we can't go on sinning. Thus, no one who gets to heaven hasn't repented from all of their sins, because God will not allow it, and his Holy Spirit brings our hearts to conviction and repentance in the end for any sins we have not been repentant of. Our immediate and open confession of those sins to God protects us from further estrangement from him, which is to our benefit, even though for the believer all will be reconciled in the end because our faith serves as a catch all for repentance. Repenting now prevents the need for a harder (but required because we have faith) repentance later.
Now for us as individuals, we are not commanded to forgive everyone for everything they do regardless of the situation. In fact, to forgive when no repentance is shown is to be approving of the sin and denying its significance, thus rebelling against God’s moral code and subsequently Him. Christ forgave those who came to him in faith, but what about the pharisees? They were not forgiven, because they would not repent.
How did Christ treat the woman who was caught in adultery, who was feeling the full weight of her sin by public ridicule? He told her that her sins were forgiven, saying, “go and sin no more.” How did Christ treat the man on the cross next to him who cried out to him, acknowledging his sins? He told him, “today, you will be with me in paradise.” How did he treat the other criminal who mocked him? He was not forgiven.
We are to forgive just as in Christ God forgave us, leaving vengeance up to God. This means we must be quick to forgive when repentance in shown, and slow to forgive when a lack of repentance is clear, leaving room for God’s wrath. Our forgiveness, when wrongfully used, is not much different than taking revenge: both get in the way of God’s wrath
This is God’s grace: to unconditionally forgive when forgiveness is sought, and to bring judgment to the unrepentant. The Battle Hymn of the Republic has a line that says, “as ye deal with My contemnors, so with you My grace shall deal.” God’s grace brings forgiveness and righteousness, and so should our grace bring reconciliation and repentance.
posted by Chris Hill @ 8/15/2006 11:18:00 AM
53 comments
53 Comments:
Excellent analysis, honey. That is really interesting. I think you are right about God's character and how He deals with forgiveness in the presence of repentance. I'm interested to see what other people say about this.
I love you! :)
I think I can give an amen to that; supported by Luke 17:3-4 "..if he repent, forgive him" and Matt 12:31-32 speaking of sin that cannot be forgiven.
I also can see your logic concerning unwarranted forgiveness minimizing the reality of sin. However, (and I suppose this is debatable so its not to be critical) that's not to say we SHOULDN'T forgive others who persecute us with no show of repentance. Luke 23:24 "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." along with Acts 7:60 "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge" would highlight true Christian character. Whether God did forgive these acts or not, we dont know, but it seems forgiveness in any sphere has its place in scripture.
In both cases, people were doing what they thought honored God. Killing Jesus and Stephen was thought, by the Jews, to be godly, since they were killing blasphemers. Jesus' disclaimer, in fact, was "for they know not what they do." They asked God to forgive the sin because of the people's ignorance. And, in fact, Paul was one of those people who was forgiven... but he did have to repent later.
Something else to mention regarding these cases is that the sin was confessed as sin and forgiveness was requested. Another example is Moses, who pleaded with God to forgive the Israelites on their behalf. There were still consequences, but forgiveness was given.
I thought about this some more over the last few days, and have actually had the same ideas about conditional forgiveness minimizing the reality of sin. Luke 17:3-4 and I Cor 5:11-13 seems to suggest that our forgiveness towards others is dependent upon repentance. Intuitively, this would make sense because God's Forgiveness towards us is only shown in light of repentance and acceptance of God's one and only provision for sin. Its important to mention that God never Forgave Israel's sin, in the truest sense of the word. Apart from Christ's atonement on the cross there is no Forgiveness because anything less would never satisfy God's demands. In the case of the Israelite's great sin in Ex 32:31-35 and subsequent sacrifices, their sin wasn't Forgiven, more accurately it was overlooked (Heb 10:4). For us, the way of God's Forgiveness is clear, but the question arises, what role does forgiveness play in our lives now? Matt 18:21-35 is probably one of the best references. The emphasis here is not on repentance but only the fact a debt is owed. The presence of a debt is sufficient to elicit forgiveness, regardless if repentance is shown or not.
Secondly, showing forgiveness is not approving of sin, it is evidence of the presense of the Holy Spirit. It is divine in nature and a concept foreign to the natural mind. The function of the Holy Spirit in the world is mentioned in John 16:7-11. Bringing conviction or judgement before an indivudual is God's territory.
Well I finally hit "refresh" in my browser and learned that I missed two posts on your wonderful blog. I'm going to read them now.
I thought the page would have automatically refreshed after two weeks but I guess not. Chris I think you are smart and I want to hear your exasperation in person again.
My thoughts are a bit jumbled, but here's what I'm thinking:
Christ still offered forgiveness to all, including the other criminal on the cross next to him and to the Pharasees. They had the choice to accept Christ's forgiveness or not, and thus to actually be forgiven or not. But, Christ still freely offered the chance to be forgiven if they so chose.
I believe that we should still offer forgiveness to all, perhaps for our own sake as well as theirs, should they choose to accept it. But, offering forgiveness doesn't necessarily nullify the consequences of whatever the person did who is in need of the forgiveness.
Does that make any sence?
Yes that does make sense. That's exactly what I'm saying, although it's a smaller part of the big picture. We should always offer forgiveness, although I would state it as being quick to forgive. That's why no matter how many times our brother sins against us we still must forgive him.
The issue at hand here is not the offering of forgiveness, but the giving of forgiveness. We aren't to give forgiveness unless it is sought, but must be quick to forgive when it is.
I get what you're saying, Laura, it makes good sense. Forgiving someone doesn't nullify the seriousness of their offenses. If forgiveness were conditional, not one of us would EVER be forgiven because we cannot comprehend the full reality of our sin. In that same spirit, we should forgive others regardless of whether or not they realize the magnitude of their sin/debt. No exceptions.
Chris, I dont understand the difference between the offering and giving of forgiveness. To forgive is to fully pardon a debt or offense. I cant think of a senario where we should not forgive because the offender is not seeking forgiveness from us.
Here's an experience Ive encountered within the last several weeks. A buddy of mine and I went to Colorado in March and I paid for the plane tickets and rental car. He works construction and didnt have work until April so I said he could pay me later. He tells me hell pay me back in one month, two at the most. After he stops returning my phonecalls in June, I go over to his house. Coincidently he's there with his landlord. Surprised, he cuts me a check for half of the money he owed and says he'll get the rest to me the next time he gets paid. The end of July comes along and no money. I go over to his house again and he tells me he doesnt have it and gives me a line of obvisous crap. I ask why he's lying; he gets pissed. I tell him we need to let someone like his neighbor/landlord know about this and start walking into the house, he grabs shirt from the back, tearing it, and now Im about ready to clock him. But instead of cutting off his airway (which I would have loved to do) I walk to my car and dont say another word.
So drama aside, are you saying I should not have forgiven this guy because he isnt seeking forgiveness, or even worse, that he doesnt care?
edit:
There should be a new paragraph after the second sentence.
And, in case you're confused, obvisous crap is a lot like obvious crap except obvisous crap is usually masked by different colors.
Dom -
That's sad that you're friendship has been reduced to quarrels about money. Wasn't the relationship worth more than that to either of you?
And "you're" is a lot like "your".....
Basically it was the second time he lied directly to my face and then stood in that lie when I confronted him. As I found out later, this wasnt the first time hes been shady with paying people back, I actually feel lucky I got half. The last thing I said was "Ill ask you one more time, do you intend on paying me back." He says "Yes." To which I respond "Great, you know where I live," and walked to my car.
Im not expecting anything back. If hed rather have a few hundred bucks than a friendship, he can have it, nobody's going to stop him. It is a sad thing but its not up to me to change his mind.
I might also be worth mentioning that this guy, who Ill simply refer to as abcROBKELLYxyz to keep his identity concealed, was given the benifit of the doubt about his intentions until June when he stopped returning my phonecalls. However, he did answer the phone when I called from a different number no more than 10 minutes after I called from my cellphone, which is why I went to his house in the first place.
If he would simply be honest about why he "cant" pay me back instead of lying about it we'd probably still hang out. But to be repeatedly lied to is awfully disrespectful. I care about things like that way more than money.
Basically, the moral is these kind of offenses should be forgiven-- I dont hold his person accountable for these actions. The fact that I dont talk to him anymore doesnt have anything to do with forgiving him or not.
Dominic, a couple thoughts:
1. Forgiveness is conditional. If it wasn't, Jesus would not have had to die, nor would anyone have to believe in him for salvation (that's a condition too, by the way). You seem to confuse conditions for forgiveness with earning forgiveness. We don't need to earn forgiveness, nor should we require others to earn it from us. That would be like the man who was forgiven much who refused to forgive the small dept of the one who owed him. There are conditions, though.
2. Offering forgiveness is being "quick to forgive." It is different from giving, because it must first be asked for. Christ offers forgiveness to those who would come to him, but he only gives it to those who accept it. There is a distinct difference between offering and giving.
3. There is something to be said about letting things go, especially small disputes. That is not forgiving. Forgiving says that you have done me no wrong - the slate is clean. Letting things go says I'm not going to let the wrong you did affect our relationship. Oftentimes, especially with little things, repentance can be shown in different ways other than a specific "I'm sorry for xyz."
I haven't developed this thought completely, but I think another important thing to learn is giving things over to God for judgement. In other words, forgiving people in your heart, while still acknowledging their wrong, and giving that over to God. The analogy I think of is the man who catches the guy who killed his wife. He then hands the guys over to the authorities. In doing such, he has given up control of the justice process and can be at peace (assuming a good justice system, of which we have a perfect one in God). This brings peace in one's heart and is important. But I think that's different than truly forgiving someone. That would be the guy catching the killer then letting him go rather than turning him over to the authorities. That would be full forgiveness and would be wrong.
4. It is important to always live in grace. To not forgive someone doesn't mean you hate them or necessitate that you break fellowship with them. Although your friend is treating you poorly, you should treat him gracefully ("turn the other cheek" etc.). That's not being weak, mind you, but is choosing to not take the actions that you justly deserve to take.
5. "Couple" refers to 2, of which rule I obviously violated.
6. I changed the font for this one blog entry only. Thoughts?
Good thoughts.
1. One of my first posts was an attempt to distinguish between God's Forgiveness and our acts of forgiveness. They really should be two different words. God's Forgiveness is conditional upon acceptance of his one and only provision for the Forgiveness of sins. Any given individual's standing before God is therefore, in Christ or in their sins. We have done absolutely nothing to merit Forgiveness; all required work was done by Him; all justification is apart from our doings. Isaiah 53 is a good reference. It is an awesome thought to think we had absolutely nothing to do with our salvation. Before anyone is saved they understand this concept.
I would also agree that we should not require others to earn forgiveness from us, however, I am saying we would be wrong in placing conditions on our forgiveness towards others. I'll assume the conditions you're talking about are mentioned later.
2. I believe this is where the confusion comes into play. For Christ to pardon sins is for God to pardon sins. Many of the miracles Christ did was an expression of this truth. (Mark 2:9-11) However, for us to pardon an offense does not mean God pardons that offense. We have two completely different systems in operation here. In Mark 11:25 Jesus tell us to "...forgive, if you have ANYTHING against ANYONE..." If we do not, our fellowship with God will be compromised.
Furthermore, if offering and giving differ only in respect to how this forgiveness is recieved, our role doesnt change at all. To us, they are the same action.
3. I think I follow you. If we still hold a grudge we havent truly excercised forgiveness. We may have "let it go" for the sake of a relationship but havent fully pardoned the offender. I would also agree that repentance doesnt necessarry have to be verbalized as such, a change in heart and mind is what matters.
Ok, I think I see where you're coming from. I would just reinterate that forgiveness is from the heart and not necessarily dependent upon actions. Turning the killer into the authorities would be justified because it is obeying established law and/or is done in order that this killer doesnt kill again. If we do it out of a vengeful spirit God knows.
4. I have forgiven abcROBKELLYxyz. Essentially, I took the attitude that I just gave him a bunch of money for no reason. If he wants to give it back, great, if not, oh well.
Chris - those are very wise thoughts. I'm proud of you. :)
Dom - The "conditions" that Chris is referring to (as per Christ offering forgiveness to us) is that we accept it. He's not saying that we need to act, be, look, etc. in any special way for the offering of forgiveness.
The the condition comes into play in the "giving" of forgiveness, not the "offering" of it, and that simply being that the party in need of forgiveness actually wants and accepts it. You cannot make someone be forgiven if they don't want to. All you can do is control the offering of forgiveness, not the accepting of it (those both parts are essential for any actual forgiving to occur.)
In any way, it does sound that you're on your way to making peace with the particular situation you mentioned - good work.
Dominic,
We are to forgive just as God forgave us. There is very little distinction between our forgiveness and that of God's. Both have the same method, only the magnitude seperates the two.
There is nothing wrong in placing conditions. The condition of repentence is a clear requirement of Scripture. To forgive without repentence does not "leave room for God's wrath."
Just like Laura was saying, offering forgiveness means being ready to forgive as soon as repentence is evident (i.e., someone accepts the forgiveness by acknowledging their wrongdoing and turning from their actions).
The killer analogy works regardless of the society's laws. It is not a practical or legal question, but a moral one.
Laura,
I understand his argument. I was nearly in agreement with him until I read what the Bible had to say.
This "condition," if true, should not change our attitude concerning forgiveness at all. I promise you, it is possible to forgive someone even if they dont recognize their debt or want to be forgiven. I can fully forgive someone for spitting on my Bible even if they dont repent of that offense. Christ clearly says if we hold ANYTHING against ANYONE we are to forgive them. Their "acceptance" of this forgiveness does not matter as far as we are concerned. To say conditions apply is provide an excuse for sin.
Chris,
We cannot forgive in the same way God forgave us, there is infinite distinction between Christ's forgiveness and our forgiveness. It is the very difference between man and God. God's forgiveness is conditional, our's should be unconditional.
If even if you dismiss Mark 11:25, the Lord's prayer states "And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive EVERY ONE that is indebted to us." There are no conditions.
In Luke 17:1-4, the Lord warns of a temptaion to sin-- not forgiving your brother. Is He saying we are not to forgive if no repentance is shown? No, He is teaching us that forgiveness does not have limits. To say He is placing conditions on forgivness is out of context of His teaching and the rest of the Bible. We have been freely forgiven from sins we have not repented of and sins we commit thinking we serve God. In this spirit, we are to execise forgiveness "forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you."
Here are just a few Biblical examples. Joseph forgave his brothers, they did not ask for forgiveness. David forgave Saul for seeking his life, Saul did not ask for forgiveness. Jesus forgave those who nailed Him to a cross, they did not ask for forgiveness.
Is this idea of conditional forgiveness being taught somewhere or did you just make it up, because it is not found in the Bible.
Srsly. Its like you havent even read the scripture I've provided. Its fine to have an opinion, Chris. Just dont use the Bible to justify that opinion after its formed. In order to be taught by God, we must first be empty ourselves. I Cor 2:12-13 "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth."
Dont take my word for it, take God's.
Fin.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dominic said:
"Its like you havent even read the scripture I've provided. Its fine to have an opinion, Chris. Just dont use the Bible to justify that opinion after its formed."
For your own sake, please don't write things you wouldn't say to someone's face.
You said:
"In order to be taught by God, we must first be empty ourselves."
That's a rather arrogant and condescending statement to make. Remember that whole thing about dealing with the log in your eye before the speck in your brother's? Please be more courteous, especially to those who deserve your courtesy and respect, such as Chris.
I said I was done, I guess not, sorry.
God's forgiveness towards us is not conditional upon our repentance. "The only explanation of the forgiveness of God and of the unfathomable depth of His forgetting is the Death of Jesus Christ. Our repentance is merely the outcome of our personal realization of the Atonement which He has worked out for us." -Oswald Chambers. I just read that tonight. If it is the Spirit of God leading us to the knowledge of His Son then His forgiveness is acquired apart from anything we do. Essentially, the only thing we can "do" to be free from His forgiveness is to resist God, or in other words, blaspheme the Holy Spirit.
Also, if it matters to you, Jordan, the same man quoted above has also said "In order to be taught by God, we must first be empty ourselves." Im sorry you think thats an arrogant and condescending statement. Its true.
There's no need to sugar-coat the Word. I hope we are all big enough people here that we can embrace criticism and over-look unintended points of personal offense.
By all means, if the Bible says something contrary to what Im saying LET ME KNOW. Otherwise I will never learn. I promise I will not be offended, nor cry, nor display any forms of sentimental emotion. I will probably thank you. Pv 28:23 "Whoever rebukes a man will afterward find more favor than he who flatters with his tounge."
Pr 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
Dominic,
I would ask that you please refrain from personal attacks on my blog. You have accused me of Scriptural ignorance without reason and assaulted my character rather than truly understand what I'm saying and discuss the issue at hand. I don't think you would say those things to my face. Your comments are thus cowardly. Please know I am not calling you a coward, but am saying your actions are cowardly. You are sharpening no man through this, and throw out single verses to prove everything you say. I could prove to you anything I wanted to if I took a few verses and went off of those (see: Jehovah's Witnesses). You have ignored any kind of biblical context, which requires the use of the rest of the bible to interpret itself, and use Scripture as a form of attack rather than a means to understanding. That may be find if you're attacking Satan, but not in a discussion amongst believers regarding theology. I think your understanding of Scripture itself is flawed in what I have seen of your comments both here and in the past. Although I started to write a response explaining my thoughts with more Scripture, I do not believe it will go anywhere.
Jordan,
Thank you for the kinds words.
Chris,
Please dont take things personally, my intentions were not to offend you, I apologize if they did. Had we had this conversation face to face I would find nothing wrong with saying "Its fine to have an opinion, Chris. Just dont use the Bible to justify an opinion after its formed," because it appears that is what you're doing. Your stance on forgiveness being conditional on repentance is NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE. It seems as though that thought is not in context with the rest of scripture. Do you realize you have not mentioned a single specific passage from scripture for us to refer to?
Perhaps Im not offended as easily as others, if thats the case I apologize for not understanding your feelings better.
If you think my understanding of scripture is flawed, you're right. The thing is I dont know where so help me, Im only a sinner saved by grace =). Show me where I have ignored any kind of biblical context.
These kind of discussions are healthy, I enjoy them, I am learning a good deal through this. Dont be offended, Im sorry, finish your reply.
Here is the prompt: The Bible says forgiveness is to be excercised only after repentance has first been shown.
If anyone is feeling upset, simply follow the link below, take a deep breath, exhale, and smile.
Thanks.
http://themes.myqth.com/Wallpaper/Kitten%20Wallpaper.jpg
I did not have to work today so I looked up every mention of the word "forgive" and its derivatives in a concordance.
Forgiveness- to pardon, also rendered to send off or away, fundamentally it means to separate the sin from the sinner.
Matt 6:12a, the Lord's prayer. We should ask God to forgive our debts. But our sins have already been forgiven? This acknowledgement should brings us into rememberance of what it cost God to forgive our sin. It cost God His Son. We are no longer viewed as in our sins but as in Christ, that will never change. There is no intermittent forgiveness.
Matt 6:12b Because we have now been fully forgiven, we ought also to fully forgive every one of our debtors. Obviously we desire full forgiveness from God, even if we dont think we need it. Forgiving our debtors unconditionally is an expression of the full and unconditional forgiveness we now have in Christ. Having this attitude will keep us in a right relationship with God.
Matt 6:14-15 If we lose that attitude towards forgiveness, our fellowship with God will be broken. God does not literally un-forgive us or stop forgiving us. Instead, as our Father, he will bring us back to any given point until we learn what He is trying to teach us, in this our forgiveness towards others.
Matt 9:2,5 Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, wholly and completely. It's emphasized he heals this man in order to demonstrate that He has this power. Nothing is mentioned of repentance before forgiveness here. They simply had faith that Jesus could heal them. "Thy sins be forgiven thee." Because he had repented? No, but because he had faith that Jesus was fully able to do so.
Matt 12:31-32 The unforgivable sin, the only sin that God's forgiveness will not separate from the believer. This is in relation to an individual's forgiveness before God, not our forgiveness towards others. To apply it in any other context in not justified.
Matt 18:21-22 If our brother sins against us we should forgive him. Period. No restrictions, no limitations. Again, this is an expression of God's unlimited forgivness given to us in his Son.
Math 18:23-35 This man owed a debt he could not pay. He did not repent to be forgiven, he simply understood that he could not repay the debt he owed as was required. *He only realized his utter helplessness.* That realization was enough for his master to forgive him. Later, this man fails to show the same forgiveness to those indebted to him and the king becomes angry. He took for granted the king's mercy by not showing it to those who were indebted to him and was put in prison. No conditions are mentioed, just the simple fact that a debt that cannot be repaid is owed. That is enough to illicit forgivness if we have indeed been forgiven of God.
Mark 2:5-10 Similar to Matt 9
Mark 3:28-29 Similar to Matt 12
Mark 11:25-26 "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." Clearly, forgivness ought to be unconditionally applied to anyone who sins against us. This is actually emphasized in this verse.
Luke 5:20-24 Similar to Matt 9
Luke 6:37-38 Excellent verses.......
to be continued after golf and grilling....
Dominic,
My views are supported by the bible. Just because I didn't quote references doesn't mean the ideas don't come from Scripture.
My response to your comments has nothing to do with my emotions. I was not personally hurt in any way. The issue is that you are being rude, insulting, condescending, and irrational, which have no place in this discussion.
If you think your point is justified because I have not taken you to task verse by verse, you are mistaken. I could very well do this, but will not because I don't believe it will be productive.
I know you desire to seek out truth and study Scripture to find answers. That is very admirable. However, you lose credibility when you speak in condescending ways, and people will be less likely to actually discuss things with you, since they know you won't listen to them anyway.
Chris
God does forgive unconditionally in that his forgiveness has no limit. He will never withhold forgiveness from us--he is gracious. However, before God can show us grace through forgiveness he requires some sort of aknowledgement of our sin first, right? That is why we must "confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Romans 10:9)before we are saved. Christ died for our sins so that we could stand righteous before God--forgiven, and spend eternity in heaven. God intentionally forgives because we intentionally pursue him with a repentant heart.
Dominic,
After reading again what you wrote, I felt the need to point out that you keep debating me on things we don't disagree on. Let me try to be clear here.
Repentance is nothing more than the mental recognition of wrongdoing, coupled with a heart decision to turn away from it. Belief in Christ serves as an attitude of repentance, because it decries our sinful nature and declares our utter depravity before God. Thus, in the general sense, we as Christians have repented from all of our sins.
Dom, you said:
"I promise you, it is possible to forgive someone even if they dont recognize their debt or want to be forgiven."
I agree that we should forgive people without constraint - that's what I meant when I said we should offer forgiveness to all without condition. To us then, they will be forgiven. However, for them to be forgiven to them (and thus, at all) - they have to want/need and accept our forgiveness. Does that make sense?
I can completly forgive someone in my own heart and mind (all on me) without them actually being forgiven (conditionally on them). We can control our resposibility to forgive others, but we cannot control other's responsibility to be forgiven. We can walk away knowing we offered forgiveness and grace and be better off for it. The person we'd wish to forgive can walk away from the same transaction still steeped in guilt if they do not accept the forgiveness offered to them.
I don't believe that anyone here has said that we should include conditions on forgiving others, but only on being forgiven. Forgiveness is a two-way street.
Chris:
I agree - I think that people are arguing over something that has already been agreed upon. Perhaps the problem is one of communication.
I hope someone took the time to look up some of these verses. If you only look up one make it this one.
Luke 6:27-38 "..and as you wish other would do to you, do so to them... do good and lend, expecting nothing in return... forgive, and you will be forgiven......For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you." Maybe you can already guess what Im going to say. Assuming we desire to be forgiven, of others and of God, we had better forgive others in the same way we need to be forgiven, unconditionally. If we forgive others only if certain conditions are met, we will be held to that same standard, remember the parable in Matthew. Also, to not forgive someone is to condemn them for that offense; there's only one Judge and it's not us.
Luke 7:47-49 Similar in priciple to Matt 9. There seems to be an implied relation between love and forgiveness. The more we understand how much we have been forgiven, the more we will love. The more we love, the more we will show forgiveness. Do we ever wake up and look for opportunities to love others, just because they are who they are and because God loves them unconditionally even if they dont show that love back? I firmly believe forgiveness works the same way. To forgive is to love, it is always good. Im thinking of that Dave Matthews song, everyday.....
Luke 11:4 The Lord's prayer again. "...for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us."
Luke 12:10 Similar to Matt 12
Luke 17:3-4 I really believe the emphasis here is not on the "if he repent" but on how forgiveness is without constraints. Not forgiving is mentioned here as a temptation to sin. The repentance here makes it clear that we should be forgiving this person; there is no question that some offense has been committed so there is no question that we need to forgive them. If no repentance is shown, it may not be clear that an offense was committed. Rebuke is important in order that our brother may be edified, otherwise he may not know he is sinning. Thus if this person is truly a Christian, its only natural that he would repent after being rebuked for this sin.
Luke 23:24 The last mention of forgiveness in the Gospels is Jesus forgiving his enemies from on the cross. Enough said.
Chris, I dont understand you sometimes. You say you dont believe it will be productive to defend your perspective but yet you feel there's something to be gained by pointing out to me how poorly I am approaching this topic. Why is it that you care enough to tell me how Im coming across to you but dont care enough to validate your own opinion? If my methods are really bothering you that much maybe you can try to look past the "bad attitude" and simply focus on the content.
The only thing I am debating here is the theme of your first entry. "The Bible says forgiveness is to be excercised only after repentance has first been shown." That's what I understand to be your point of view in this debate. The other things I mention are simply for the sake of giving some sort of foundation or background for debating the primary issue at hand.
Katie, I think we basically all agree on that. Paul was saved before he repented. Repentance is something that should naturally come once we have been saved. Not necessarily before, although is probably does. It's likely we prayed to God before we got saved, too. To realize that Jesus died for me is what needs to occur. Repentence or prayer help us get to that point.
Laura, I see what youre saying about the two way street thing. I would describe it as two one-way streets meeting at God. We can only do our part, if they see no need for forgivenss that is between them and God, not us. Im glad you think we should forgive without constraint. Im also happy you took part in this discussion. It's usually easier to avoid confrontation than to stand up for what you believe.
"If my methods are really bothering you that much maybe you can try to look past the 'bad attitude' and simply focus on the content."
Or, here's a crazy thought, perhaps you could stop insulting others?
Do you have an opinion you would like to contribute, Jordan?
"Why is it that you care enough to tell me how Im coming across to you but dont care enough to validate your own opinion?"
I did validate it and don't feel the need to go farther to explain myself. Everyone else who has been a part of this discussion understands what I was saying and agrees with it. Thus, I would be defending my views to no one other than you, and I don't think you're going to agree with me even if I write 10 pages citing Scripture left and right. I have read through your comments and the way you have understood a good part of the Scripture you quoted is illogical (i.e., to say repentence is not a requirement for salvation goes against the entire New Testament, not to mention Christian doctrine over the last 2000 years). It also seems very hard for you to understand what others are saying (i.e., you completely misunderstood my wife's comments), yet you accuse others of not understanding you. In addition, you tend to insult those who don't follow your failed logic. I therefore refuse to continue any debate because it won't go anywhere, and it will only digress into personal insults.
Dominic,
This is my blog. I err on the side of allowing comments that may be objectionable to some. Your response to Jordan shows an attitude of arrogance. If you would like to moderate a discussion, get your own blog. As it is now, this is not your discussion to moderate, so please don't act as such. Thank you.
Chris
Chris, if there is one thing that truly bothers me it is when the Bible is used to say something it does not. "The bible does not command us to forgive unconditionally....we are not commanded to forgive everyone for everything they do...slow to forgive when a lack of repentance is clear, leaving room for God’s wrath." Its not even that you believe these things, its that you are leading others to believe them as well.
I think the reason youre making excuses for not defending your opinions is because you cannot. God knows. Best of luck to you.
Dominic,
You are wrong as to my motives. If you were really making good points that I couldn't defend, but still wanted to stick to my position and lead others astray, I could have deleted everything you wrote here. I did not and have no plans of doing so.
Very few people, if any, will listen to what you say with the attitude you put across here. It's one thing to say, "the bible is true, let's understand what it says," and completely different to say, "if you disagree with me you disagree with God," which is the attitude you have portrayed.
Honestly, where do you want me to debate you? On the points that I tried to you completely ignored what I said and went off on some tangent. You disagree with me on points that I agree with you on, as if I'm some idiot that "doesn't get it," when I've agreed with you all along. You've ignored my definition of repentance, which is clear in your writings. You've insulted my knowledge of Scripture. You throw out verses left and right as if credible ideas are proportional to the number of quoted verses. The verses you do quote you read into without taking the rest of the bible in order to understand them. You have failed to stay consistent so that we could actually discuss something tangible. I honestly don't even know where to start with you. I can't debate you because you don't make any sense. It's like I'm trying to play tennis and you keep changing to baseball, then football, then soccer. We can't play any game like that!
Thus, I'm sorry to say the discussion is over. You have shown a clear lack of logical thought in your writing, and use insults rather than reasoning. Yes, God does know, but I won't end my comment with such arrogant words.
Chris
As I said before, please dont take my word for it. No doubt, some thing I have said are probably wrong, use your own discernment. However, many of the things I have said are spot on. Open the pages of your own Bible and see what God has to say, thats all I have ever asked. If you were to do that, honestly and objectively, I do not believe you would have come to the same conclusion you did with this blog entry.
I was simply asking you to elaborate how the Bible supports your stance, not just a verse or two, but in its entirety. Its a very reasonable thing to ask. It is the only real issue in question here.
Not every single sentence I write is to debate some point. I say them to add emphasis or clarify some other point. Perhaps Im just saying things because I think it might help someone else reading this. Sometimes it might be completely off the main topic altogether! That doesnt mean Im disagreeing with you. In other forums I post in, most people understand that not everything that's posted is part of the argument, they only follow the main thought that began in the first post. The rest is just salt or garbage depending of your point of view. It seems you perceive something that is not there.
Dominic,
For the sake of peace I do not wish to continue this discussion. For what it's worth, to give the guy credit, I originally got the idea to write this entry when listening to R.C. Sproul. He made a side comment regarding requirements for forgiveness. I agreed and expressed my thoughts on the matter here. These were not his thoughts; they were mine, since I've thought about this before. Regardless, we basically agree. Does that give me more credibility in your eyes? I didn't follow your rule of more verses = more credibility, so maybe citing a well-respected Christian theologian will help. Regardless, I stand by my comments, and see no benefit in continuing a discussion.
Chris
Is this the same guy?
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/sproul/general.htm
From the link, direct quotes:
"And, if there's anybody who should be supplementing his search of sacred Scripture concerning the nature of human souls by studying secular psychology, it's the pastor, because of what is at stake, the souls of your people."
"It comes from God because he wants each of us to understand how important we are"
"It is because God has assigned worth to men and women that human dignity is established. From his creation to his redemption, man's dignity is preserved. His origin is significant. His destiny is significant. He is significant."
I hope for your sake you're not listening to this guy.
I didn't bother bringing this up before since it didn't seem worth it, but since we're now discussing non-Biblical sources I would like to point out the danger in the Oswald Chambers quote you used above:
"In order to be taught by God, we must first be empty ourselves."
This can be taken in a way that is quite counter to scripture. Eastern mysticism as well as demonic ritual is filled with meditative "emptying" of oneself. The eastern and pagan religions often encourage emptying your mind and emptying your soul of yourself. I'm aware of nowhere in the Bible where such a notion is encouraged. God has made each of us unique and invites us to open our hearts to him so we can be made more into his image, and in so doing we fully become who we were made to be. God is a God of individuality and uniqueness (see Rev. 2:17 about the future of this uniqueness, which is maintained apparently)--most certainly not a god requiring us to be empty. He commands we open ourselves to Him--not that we empty ourselves of who we are. That quote irked me because it would fit much better in a Buddhist text than a Christian one.
Also I don't see what's wrong to saying God finds us significant. Apparently he finds us significant enough to slaughter his own son on our behalf. I agree that the first quote could be taken in a really bad way. "Supplement" is a poor choice of word because it can mean either something that's added (which would make the quote fine) or something that "corrects" which obviously would make the quote quite contrary to the scriptures. Anyway, I haven't read the context at the website and it's time for bed.
See Dominic, this is why I didn't want to continue a discussion with you. You find a website that criticizes Sproul (as a side note, one of the criticisms of Sproul is that he *gasp!* agrees with James Dobson... it also gives harsh criticism - to the point of ascribing blasphemy - to Bill Bright and Campus Crusade, Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship, CS Lewis, and the man every Christian hates: Billy Graham), take a few quotes from the site, then have the nerve to say I shouldn't be listening to this guy! Perhaps you shouldn't be reading that website!
This is the same technique you use with Scripture, which is an abuse in my mind. You search until you find something that supports your view - something you criticize me of doing - then throw it in someone's face. If there is any disagreement with you, then it is treated as ignorance, foolishness, and a rejection of God's truth, regardless of whether or not your point even made sense.
I don't even disagree with those quotes you used to somehow criticize Sproul. I do disagree with Sproul on a few things, primarily his Calvinist views, but to throw out a couple quotes that probably everyone else reading this discussion agrees with if they saw them in context in order to make yourself look intelligent in just plain foolish. You keep trying to build yourself up - that is arrogance. You are looking for a fight in order to declare that God is on your side of the argument because you can quote more Scripture, regardless of whether or not it adds to the discussion, and everyone else is rejecting God's truth because they disagree with you.
Please forgive me if I have misunderstood your motives or have been overly harsh. Your attitude seems clear to me, and I have no desire to continue a discussion with someone who has this attitude. The bottom line, however, is that, when discussing this topic, you (1) do not make sense and you (2) insult others in the process.
Here's part of the devotional I read by Oswald Chambers "'Sell all that thou hast,' undress yourself morally before God of everything that might be a possession until you are a mere conscious human being and then give God that...What Jesus says is hard, is only easy when it is heard by those who have His disposition." I take this to mean any perconceived idea about God, any hint of personal independence, any form of opinion or natural wisdom, anything that might prevent the Holy Spirit from dwelling fully in our hearts and minds. Although not explicit, Phil 3:5-8 implies this attitude was in Christ. 1Cor 2:14-16 tells us the things of God are understood only by the Spirit of God. Emptying ourselves of all that we are is humility before God. He will then fill us with His Spirit, leading us into knowledge of Himself.
Individuality and uniquness are not attributes we as Christians are called to embrace. He are unique members of one body in Christ. He sees us in Christ, not in our naturally unique rebelious state.
The fact you find this to have Buddihst applications is irrelevant. Jesus says "But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret." It seems this type of solitude would also be found in Buddhist teachings concerning meditation.
Chris, its obvious youre very frusterated. I have NOT ONCE labeled you using any negative words or phrases like you have CONTINUALLY done with me. You then have the audacity to say I am insulting you because you perceive my words as threatening when they are not. I have questioned where this idea came from, I have questioned whether or not you have read the verses I have written, and have questioned your use of the Bible to support your views. I have not called you arrogant, ingnorant, foolish, or stupid. Any personal attacks you have derived from my words you have created within your own mind and become somewhat defensive and childish in the process. Here's is what you have labeled my actions as: cowardly, rude, insulting, condescending, and irrational, illogical, and arrogant. The problem lies with your perception of things, not in my approach.
I have overlooked your mean-spirited words, labeling, and name calling up to this point. I should ask for you to apologize for this, I forgive you anyway.
Dominic,
I stand by my criticism of your actions. I do not mean to insult you as a person, and apologize to the extent that my words did that. For what it's worth, I did no name calling. This is why I did not want to continue this discussion - for the sake of peace. I only comment here for the sake of clarity and finality. The discussion is over.
Katie, you were right about repentance. The very first words in Jesus' ministry were "Repent: for the Kingdom of God is at hand." I obviously did not have a thorough understaning of repentance. Coming to Christ in faith is acknowledging our sin and how its separates us from God. Otherwise why would we need to come to Him in the first place? We turn from our old state and become a new person in Christ. After reading into the salvation of Paul, I understand the manner by which he was saved should not be compared with the salvation of souls during this time period of Grace. I Cor 15:8 tells us how he was "born out of due time." A more accurate translation would be to say he was born prematurely. His salvation is an foreshadow of the saving of souls after the rapture, when this dispensation of grace is completed, and before the second advent of Christ.
After reading the link about RC Sproul I wanted to say something else. He said in one of his ministries, "The Bible commands us to love ourselves. ... the Bible implies that we do not love ourselves at all. ... Because you are the image of God, to love yourself means to love God. ... Humanity's ... hatred of itself is concealed in what is perversely called 'self-love'." I remember a night I went to Navs where Tom Kidd spoke about this exact same thing during the ministry time. It was during that night I solidified my decision to stop participating with the Navigator's ministry. I did not articulate my decision as such because I did not want to encounter the same reaction that I did when I spoke with Marty concerning why the Navs endorsed the Message. I simply heard the call of God and became less involved without stirring up conterversy. I retrospect, I think Luke 9:50 supported that decision.
Chris, if you still stand my your first entry and RC Sproul, this seems to contradict what you both have said. "There is only one cure for the cancer of bitterness, that is to forgive the perceived offender. Once and for all, with God's help, as strange as it seems, I am suggesting that some of us need to forgive God for those heartaches that are charged to His account. You've carried resentment against Him for years. Now it's time to let go of it. [Dobson now tries to escape the blasphemy he's just uttered, but he is unsuccessful.] Please don't misunderstand me at this point. God is in the business of forgiving us, and it almost sounds blasphemous [it is!] to suggest that the relationship could be reversed. He has done no wrong and does not need our approbation. But the source of bitterness must be admitted before it can be cleared. There is no better way to get rid of it than to absolve the Lord of whatever we have harbored. ... It is the only way you will ever be entirely free. ... Corrie ten Boom forgave an SS guard who shared responsibility for the deaths of her family members. Surely we can forgive the King of the Universe who sent His only Son to die as an atonement for our sin." Im not saying I support this or your view, Im simply trying to understand where the attitude that we should forgive others only under certain conditions originates.
Dominic,
You need to stop quoting a wacko website and start coming up with your own ideas. You do not make any sense in your comments, and do not follow general forms of logical reasoning. You don't put a lot of thought into what you say either, which is apparent in your many, many misspellings.
Let me explain in more detail by taking your last paragraph:
1) I assume you mean "by" not "my".
2) You address me, then later say, "what you both have said."
3) You say that I "stand by RC Sproul," which shows a complete lack of understanding of anything I have said. I only used his name to point out that it wasn't just me that believed what I was saying - even well known theologians agree with this. Thus, you can't blow this off as someone just not reading the right verses. I don't "stand by" him anymore than I "stand by" any other well known theologian I might agree with from time to time. I pointed out areas I agree with him and areas I disagree with him. To say I "stand by RC Sproul" makes no sense.
4) You quote James Dobson, which is very confusing because you gave no context for why you would use a Dobson quote when speaking about RC Sproul.
5) The quote you used makes no contextual sense at all. It is completely irrelevant. Do you think I agree with it? If so, what is your point?
6) You say you neither agree nor disagree with the quote - then why use it?
See, Dominic, this is the kind of stuff you do that confuses me to know end. I don't understand you, and I know it's not me. You just simply don't make any sense. Both my wife and I have read your last post a couple times and we're still confused. I can find 6 things wrong with a single paragraph right off the bat, 4 of which prevent any type of reasonable discussion. Here's another example: what was the point of your Sproul quote? You throw out a quote but don't connect it to anything else you have said. Then you go on to explain why you can't associate with Navigators, which again has no connection with anything else you're saying.
Again, to reiterate: the discussion is over. I may just start deleting posts...
It is a very good website, look at some of the other things they have to say. I thought Mr. Sproul said that, he didnt, my bad. Go ahead and disregard the last paragraph.
No, Dominic, it's a horrible website. I did look at it. It is one seaking division amongst believers, and would be considered a fringe group by most respected Christian leaders.
I could disregard the last paragraph, but you have ignored my primary point: you don't make sense. Disregarding one paragraph doesn't change the fact that almost every other one before it is nonsensical.
Glad I wasn't around for the original firefight...
Anyhow, Chris you put it well when you said;
"Repentance is nothing more than the mental recognition of wrongdoing, coupled with a heart decision to turn away from it. Belief in Christ serves as an attitude of repentance, because it decries our sinful nature and declares our utter depravity before God. Thus, in the general sense, we as Christians have repented from all of our sins."
Funny thing happened when some Jehovah's witnesses came by; they were condescending to me and somehow wanted me to hear them out after that. Great strategy, right? I forgive them that, but waking me up from a good night's sleep? That's just not going to happen ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home