This thread was theological from the start, including the title. There's nothing wrong with that. And the posts of the individuals criticizing Alan have been theological.
Alan didn't explicitly criticize the families of the victims, though he may have had them in mind among the people holding or potentially holding the misconception he was correcting. Even if he had criticized the families, there wouldn't have been anything inherently wrong with that. Jesus, Paul, and other Biblical figures sometimes corrected people's grieving, including on explicitly theological grounds. You can love people and grieve with them, yet also correct them, for their own good and the good of others looking on. If you read Alan's first sentence commending the victims' families, followed by his comments on forgiveness that didn't even mention the families and cited an argument used by other people in other contexts, what you ought to come away with is that Alan is concerned about the families and that he's concerned about other people. That's not something he should be criticized for. He should be commended for it.
I agree with Matthew about interpreting people charitably, and I agree that people often express themselves imprecisely and that the context of grieving should be taken into account. And I couldn't understand what people were saying in some parts of the video. But if we interpret the video like we'd interpret anything else, the theme of pronouncing forgiveness to a person who seems unrepentant did come up at times. We know that many people hold such a view, even if none of the people in the video intended to advocate it. So, it made sense for Alan to address the subject. Though we could interpret the comments of the people in the video a different way, charity doesn't require irrationality (1 Corinthians 13:6). Probabilities are superior to possibilities, and we have to be honest about the evidence. When the people in the video repeatedly pronounce forgiveness in a culture in which the view Alan was responding to seems to be so popular, it's likely that the people in the video meant what they seem to have said. To suggest otherwise may be motivated by some charity, but it's also bad reasoning.
The video has some good elements, but it's not beyond criticism. Alan's comments are a good supplement to the video. I don't think the people criticizing Alan have given us any reason to agree with them. Let's love the relatives and other individuals close to the Charleston victims, but let's also love the other people involved in these discussions, people who might be misled by false notions of forgiveness.
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Yes, You Can Correct People Who Are Grieving
Justin Taylor recently put up a post about the Charleston shooting. Among other things, he posted the popular video of people associated with the victims pronouncing forgiveness to the shooter. Below is a response I just wrote in the comments section of the thread. You can read the thread to get the context I'm addressing:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the best things of the video is that one of the family members said to the murderer - "Repent; come to Christ"
ReplyDeletewhich I have not seen played in main-stream media.
They have played other clips of "I forgive you", but not the call for repentance and to come to Christ.
I think that the meaning of not holding on to bitternness and revenge is the key.
The statement by the atheist is powerful:
Charles C. W. Cooke, an atheist who writes for National Review, tweeted:
I am a non-Christian, and I must say: This is a remarkable advertisement for Christianity.
Justin actually agreed with Alan and others on the issue of accuracy of forgiveness - but he just questioned the timing of getting into a debate about it, at a time when people are grieving and when race relations are so sensitive.
While I haven't engaged in the comment section of Justin's blog, I did write a blog post about this topic this morning. I disagree with Alan (and Chris Braun) on this topic of conditional forgiveness. I do so primarily on theological and Biblical grounds, but the practical also comes into play at the end.
ReplyDeleteHere is my post:
http://solofide.blogspot.com/2015/06/charleston-church-members-display.html
Jason, you claimed "I don't think the people criticizing Alan have given us any reason to agree with them," but I have. Any response?
DeleteDeb W.,
DeleteI've added a few more posts to the Justin Taylor thread. You may want to read those latest posts. Most of your argument against my position is addressed in my responses to other people in the thread at Justin Taylor's blog.
For example, as I explained there, we shouldn't multiply categories of forgiveness unnecessarily. And the fact that God's forgiveness of people is different than our forgiveness of people in some ways doesn't justify driving an even bigger wedge between the two. Scripture puts a lot of emphasis on parallels between the two in the context of forgiveness. Those parallels are better explained if our forgiveness of other people is to be conditional, as God's forgiveness of us is. In the Justin Taylor thread, I discuss a few Biblical passages that explicitly associate our forgiveness of other people with their repentance. You don't address those passages in your article. And you bring up issues like how we should avoid bitterness and wrath and cite passages like Matthew 5:44, which are topics I've addressed in the other thread.
In your article, you wrote:
"Paul told the believers in Corinth to forgive so they would not give Satan an advantage. When we don’t forgive, we give Satan a foothold in our lives and in the Body of Christ."
You're referring to 2 Corinthians 2:11. The context is the forgiveness of a repentant individual after his repentance (2:6-10). That's supportive of my view, not yours.
You also bring up Matthew 18, which likewise supports my view rather than yours, as I explain in the other thread.
You write:
"Strictly from a Biblical and reformed point of view, it is apparent that forgiveness is the CAUSE of repentance, not conditional on it."
People are forgiven when they come to repentance (Mark 2:5, Acts 5:31, 13:39, 22:16, 1 John 1:9). When forgiveness is referred to as conditional, that's what's meant. Asking whether forgiveness is unconditional in some other sense is a changing of the subject.
Since God's forgiveness of us is so conditional, and our forgiveness of other people is paralleled to such a large extent to God's forgiveness of us, we should ask which view of forgiveness makes more sense of that parallel. The parallel makes more sense under a more conditional view of how we should forgive other people.
Jason, I do not agree that God's forgiveness of us is technically "conditional", because I believe in monergism, rather than synergism. Does God's unmerited favor toward us work with the Holy Spirit to cause faith and repentance in His elect? Of course. But in this respect, we are not God, so we can't put ourselves in the judgment seat. I think this is the problem with view that would teach us to withhold forgiveness.
DeleteAlso, the Bible does distinguish between different kinds of forgiveness, and it is 100% relevant to how we are to forgive others like Christ forgave us and how we are not the executors of divine justice. The Greek Lexicon provides evidence of these counter-distinctions:
Personal forgiveness as charizomai
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5483
Legal and divine forgiveness as aphesis
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G859
As individual Christians and citizens we do not have authority to grant legal or divine forgiveness. We are called to personal forgiveness. Teaching Christians that they do not have to forgive personal offenses is harmful to their soul in my opinion. As Ephesians 4 tells us, it gives satan a foothold in their life. Every one of us has been offended, harmed, unjustly treated by at least 100s of individuals who either have no idea of their offense, or who will never acknowledge their sin, much less repent over it. We must not harbor unforgiveness in our hearts, if we have truly received the unmerited favor of our Lord and Savior.
I do know that many good theologians disagree over this. My view is that it greatly impacts our witness and our relationship with our Lord, so we need to encourage Christians to exercise their freedom to forgive others, even those who will not and cannot repent. Thanks!
Deb W.
Delete"Jason, I do not agree that God's forgiveness of us is technically 'conditional', because I believe in monergism, rather than synergism."
I'm not sure monergism has anything to do with the debate over conditional vs unconditional forgiveness. For one thing, we are not God. What applies to God does not necessarily apply to us.
"Does God's unmerited favor toward us work with the Holy Spirit to cause faith and repentance in His elect? Of course."
If you believe God's unmerited favor works "with" the Holy Spirit, rather than "through" the Holy Spirit, then this is more akin to synergism than monergism.
"But in this respect, we are not God, so we can't put ourselves in the judgment seat. I think this is the problem with view that would teach us to withhold forgiveness."
Why can't we judge because we're not God if God has commanded us to do so? For example, God commanded Moses to appoint judges in Deut 16:18: "they shall judge the people with righteous judgment." Jesus likewise said to "judge with right judgment" (John 7:24). Paul talks about Christians judging one another in 1 Cor 6. And so on.
Besides, if it's true "we can't put ourselves in the judgment seat," then it's also true we can't forgive. If we're not meant to sit in judgment of others, then we can't judge at all, neither judge guilt nor judge innocence. That's because the act of forgiveness is an act which assumes one is judging. One has to have judged a person is wrong in order to forgive the same person. If one doesn't judge a person, then there's nothing to forgive. They're neither guilty nor innocent.
"The Greek Lexicon provides evidence of these counter-distinctions"
The question isn't what this or that Hebrew or Greek word means. Rather, the question is what the whole of Scripture teaches on forgiveness. Both sides can employ the same Hebrew or Greek definitions in their arguments.
"As individual Christians and citizens we do not have authority to grant legal or divine forgiveness. We are called to personal forgiveness."
DeleteYou can only "forgive" a person who has wronged you personally. If they haven't wronged you personally, then what's there to forgive?
"Teaching Christians that they do not have to forgive personal offenses is harmful to their soul in my opinion."
Teaching Christians that they do have to forgive personal offenses is harmful to their soul in my opinion. For example, teaching a Christian woman who has been raped that she absolutely must forgive her rapist who remains defiantly impenitent and who in fact boasts in her face that he'd gladly do it again may be harmful to her mental, psychological, and emotional health.
"Every one of us has been offended, harmed, unjustly treated by at least 100s of individuals who either have no idea of their offense, or who will never acknowledge their sin, much less repent over it. We must not harbor unforgiveness in our hearts, if we have truly received the unmerited favor of our Lord and Savior....My view is that it greatly impacts our witness and our relationship with our Lord, so we need to encourage Christians to exercise their freedom to forgive others, even those who will not and cannot repent."
You're painting with a broad brush. Yes, all of us likely been unjustly wronged by many people. But there are many important distinctions to make. Some of the people who have wronged us may be Christians or non-Christians. They may have done so intentionally or unintentionally. We may have tried to discuss this with them or we may not have. They may be penitent or impenitent. And so on and so forth.
Also, say a non-Christian has intentionally wronged me but remains impenitent about it. Even if this does happen, it doesn't necessarily mean I "harbor unforgiveness" in my heart. As a Christian, I just entrust their eventual judgment to God. God will avenge me. It doesn't necessarily bother me. In fact, it almost always doesn't.
But even if it does bother me, what I do is I just keep entrusting the situation to God, I may even pray for their repentance and faith in Christ, and then as I trust God to keep his promises, then I'm at peace. I'm content. It doesn't negatively impact my witness, not to my knowledge.
Similarly, I have friends who are unsaved, who I wish were saved, and I pray for their salvation, but it doesn't mean I harbor some sort of erosive or corrosive emotional and psychological de-stablizing anxiety about it, day in and day out, because they're not yet saved.
"If you believe God's unmerited favor works "with" the Holy Spirit, rather than "through" the Holy Spirit, then this is more akin to synergism than monergism."
DeleteSorry, I misread your comment here. Please ignore this response.
Rocking: Thanks for engaging here!! I do appreciate much of what you've said, but also have a few retorts.
DeleteFirst, with regard to the issue of judging vs. "the judgment seat", here are some important distinctions:
1- Yes, I agree that Christians are called to judge (as in discern). Which is often why we have a more acute sense of wrongs in society that the unregenerate. This is not the problem I am concerned with.
2- The problem that concerns me is ill-legitimate authority. When I stated that we are not to take God's judgment seat, I have something much more specific in mind. Only the Lord can judge someone from a divine perspective, granting them eternal forgiveness/remission of sin. Likewise, only civil authorities have the rightful place of legally punishing wrongdoers, whether it is with incarceration or capital punishment. Additionally, church officers wield the rightful authority of excommunication of an unrepentant believer from the body of Christ (this explains your passage on Moses' appointing Judges).
As individual persons, our forgiveness to other individuals for their personal harms done to us does not equate to releasing the person from their debt to the Lord, their debt to the church, or their debt to society.
That is why as a rape victim I may chose to forgive my rapist and yet still know that he is subject to excommunication (if he is church member), jail time or the death penalty, and eternal damnation if he does not repent.
I maintain that when we're commanded to forgive as God has forgiven us, we are not given permission to take His authority upon ourselves. It's a call to extend the grace - the unmerited favor - which we have been so richly granted in Christ.
Further, I'm surprised there is so much push back on the differentiation between personal forgiveness and divine forgiveness. Do you really see these as equivalents?
I've also seen others wrongly equate forgiveness with reconciliation. Forgiveness is a unilateral action, whilst reconciliation requires both parties. Don't get me wrong, I would never compel the action of forgiveness upon someone who has not made peace with God themselves. True forgiveness from the heart - the type that the Charleston Church exemplifies - is a supernatural kind that can only come from a heart that has been made new in Christ. Only a Christian believer can really forgive this way - as they have been forgiven.
Thanks, rocking! - Deb
Deb W. wrote:
Delete"Jason, I do not agree that God's forgiveness of us is technically 'conditional', because I believe in monergism, rather than synergism."
You're repeating an argument I've already responded to. See my comments in my earlier reply and the Biblical passages I cited there, demonstrating that forgiveness is conditioned on repentant faith.
You write:
"Also, the Bible does distinguish between different kinds of forgiveness, and it is 100% relevant to how we are to forgive others like Christ forgave us and how we are not the executors of divine justice."
I don't deny that there are different kinds of forgiveness. What I've emphasized in the context of this discussion is that we shouldn't multiply categories of forgiveness unnecessarily.
And the conditional forgiveness view doesn't claim that we're "the executors of divine justice".
You write:
"Teaching Christians that they do not have to forgive personal offenses is harmful to their soul in my opinion. As Ephesians 4 tells us, it gives satan a foothold in their life."
You're referring to Ephesians 4:27. That comes just after a reference to sinful anger in verse 26. Are you suggesting that the conditional forgiveness view maintains that it's acceptable to have such anger toward those who have sinned against us and haven't repented? If so, you don't understand the position you've been criticizing. You can withhold forgiveness without having that sort of anger. I gave some examples in the thread at Justin Taylor's blog.
Or do you have something else in mind with regard to Ephesians 4? If so, what?
I've given you several Biblical passages supporting my view, and you haven't interacted with any of them.
Hi Deb,
DeleteThanks to you too! I'll try to respond now:
"Only the Lord can judge someone from a divine perspective, granting them eternal forgiveness/remission of sin. Likewise, only civil authorities have the rightful place of legally punishing wrongdoers, whether it is with incarceration or capital punishment. Additionally, church officers wield the rightful authority of excommunication of an unrepentant believer from the body of Christ (this explains your passage on Moses' appointing Judges)."
Hm, I don't necessarily see hard divisions between each of these if that's what you're getting at? For instance, can't divine judgment, civil judgment, and/or ecclesiastical judgment overlap at times?
Also, I don't see how modern "church officers" and their roles are equivalent or coterminous with the judges originally appointed by Moses in the Penteteuch/Torah. I think there are enough dissimilarities between the two to call this into question. (Of course, I grant the Mosaic law is not entirely applicable to modern America. But that's another topic.)
"As individual persons, our forgiveness to other individuals for their personal harms done to us does not equate to releasing the person from their debt to the Lord, their debt to the church, or their debt to society."
I don't think I ever claimed otherwise.
"That is why as a rape victim I may chose to forgive my rapist..."
There's a world of difference between "I may choose to forgive" and "I must choose to forgive." But aren't you arguing for the latter?
"I maintain that when we're commanded to forgive as God has forgiven us, we are not given permission to take His authority upon ourselves. It's a call to extend the grace - the unmerited favor - which we have been so richly granted in Christ."
For starters, the context of this forgiveness in Eph 4:32 is between fellow Christians. Not non-Christians.
Also, biblical forgiveness isn't merely "a call to extend the grace." Biblical forgiveness comes through God's justice and righteousness.
In fact, God's forgiveness to us in Christ may be "grace - the unmerited favor" for us. It may be free for us. But it was not free to God. God's only begotten Son Jesus Christ had to die for our sins. That was the cost to ensure God is both just and justifier.
"Further, I'm surprised there is so much push back on the differentiation between personal forgiveness and divine forgiveness. Do you really see these as equivalents?"
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. But anyway to answer your question, no, I don't necessarily see God forgiving us as equivalent to a human being forgiving another human being. Of course, there are more qualifications to be made, depending on the specific case at hand.
"I've also seen others wrongly equate forgiveness with reconciliation. Forgiveness is a unilateral action, whilst reconciliation requires both parties."
I don't think that's an appropriate way to differentiate the two. If I had to, I'd prefer to say something like forgiveness opens the door to reconciliation.
Also, I don't see how forgiveness is necessarily "a unilateral action." There are still at least two parties (sometimes more) involved. One can offer forgiveness, and the other can accept or reject forgiveness. If someone rejects forgiveness, then how can he or she be forgiven?
Hi Rocking:
DeleteYou asked, " I don't necessarily see hard divisions between each of these if that's what you're getting at? For instance, can't divine judgment, civil judgment, and/or ecclesiastical judgment overlap at times? "
Yes, I suppose there is a type of overlap, but the distinction is valid because of the issue of authority. For instance, do individual citizens have the authority to pardon a murderer, or is that power given to the magistrate? Do individual church members have the authority to excommunicate or restore unrepentant sinners to the body of Christ? In both cases, I think you'd have to say, no, correct? So then, in terms of personal forgiveness we should not to equate our authority with that of the Lord's, but rather, "as far as it depends on us, live at peace with everyone, leaving the judgment to the Lord.
So, the idea of the unilateral nature of forgiveness is tied to my wording of "I may choose to forgive my rapist". Forgiveness is a choice. Personal forgiveness is the area where we have been given authority to exercise that choice. I think the main contention that I'd make is that Jesus wants us to make the choice to forgive others freely in order to demonstrate the unmerited favor that He has shown us. Now, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't desire or seek repentance and reconciliation. It just means that sometimes that option is not on the table, perhaps with unbelievers, those who've died, etc..When I say that forgiveness should be a unilateral action, I have the Lord's monergistic salvation in mind, our repentance is entirely a work of the Holy Spirit and apart from regeneration and faith (the gift of God), we are incapable of it. So, that is how I equate forgiveness as unilateral act. Yes, the person who has offended is involved, but the action itself is one way. In order to achieve reconciliation, both parties must act.
So, yes, I do agree with you that forgiveness opens the door to reconciliation. That is why I see it as so important for Christians to move toward those who've offended them, to make the first move, so to speak.
It may be more a matter of semantics. My main point was to support the actions of the Charleston church members and defend their display of forgiveness as being a Biblical response.
Jason, you wrote:: "I've given you several Biblical passages supporting my view, and you haven't interacted with any of them."
DeleteThe reason why I didn't interact with your passages is that I didn't see how they actually support your view very well - and I believe I've already addressed the passages that do support the view that repentance is required for forgiveness.
So, let's look at the ones you gave:
Mark 2:5, "When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
The paralytic's friends bring him to Jesus, and because of +their faith+, Jesus says to the paralytic that his sins are forgiven. Unfortunately, that passage does not seem to support your position at all.
Acts 5:31, "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins." So, Jesus is bringing Israel to repentance. I think this validates the monergist act of the Holy Spirit who supernaturally brings people to repentance and forgives them, rather than conditioning His work on their response.
Acts 13:39, "and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses." - Faith is the gift of God - again part of the monergist package that is divinely applied through the work of the Spirit to the elect..
Acts 22:16, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Good passage about baptism, but ...?
1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" - this is a true statement and pattern given to believers. The context is in the passage that deals with heretics in the church we suppose they no longer sin. John is tell them that, yes, they still do sin, even as believers. Then in this passage, he encourages them to confess their sins and relays a promise that Jesus forgives their confessed sins...
So, none of those passages really provide a burden of proof for your argument, as far as I can tell. In fact, I find that they've made me more confident of mine.
I will grant that there are passages, however, that more clearly tie repentance to forgiveness. However, my concern is with saying that our personal forgiveness is conditional based on a person's repentance to us or to God. My concern with this has been two-fold:
1) the nature of our forgiveness from God was not conditional based on our action, per se, because faith, repentance and conversion are all gifts of God. Remember how Jesus responded to Nicodemus when asked "How can one be born again?" - by the Spirit, not by the works of man.
2) when we are told to forgive as we've been forgiven, it is not meant that we should put ourselves in God's place. Rather, we should remember where we were when we were called, washed, justified, adopted... Such were we - enemies of God. God who has every right to exact full wrath upon us, but who withheld his wrath and gave us the gift of salvation, while we were dead in our trespasses and sins. How shall we, we deserve much worse than whatever offense we presently suffer, withhold forgiveness on others who are created in His image?
I know plenty of others disagree with me here.... Good people. Solid theologians.
Yet, here I stand! I hope I have at least made sense, even if we agree to disagree...
- Deb
Hi Deb,
DeleteI'd like to revisit a couple of past comments you've made since it might be helpful for those following the debate. I'll also respond to your most recent comments.
"Jason, I do not agree that God's forgiveness of us is technically 'conditional', because I believe in monergism, rather than synergism. Does God's unmerited favor toward us work with the Holy Spirit to cause faith and repentance in His elect? Of course. But in this respect, we are not God, so we can't put ourselves in the judgment seat. I think this is the problem with view that would teach us to withhold forgiveness."
1. Unfortunately, I'm afraid your comparison doesn't work for the same reason. Even though regeneration is monergistic, it's still the case that salvation is contingent on faith, repentance, and perseverance.
2. And even in Reformed theology, sanctification is cooperative. Moreover, sanctification is a prerequisite for salvation.
3. As for "putting ourselves in the judgment seat," that confuses eschatological judgment, which is God's prerogative, with our making judgments about sin and punishment. The latter is entirely Scriptural. It's part of church discipline. It's part of OT penology.
"The problem that concerns me is ill-legitimate authority. When I stated that we are not to take God's judgment seat, I have something much more specific in mind. Only the Lord can judge someone from a divine perspective, granting them eternal forgiveness/remission of sin. Likewise, only civil authorities have the rightful place of legally punishing wrongdoers, whether it is with incarceration or capital punishment. Additionally, church officers wield the rightful authority of excommunication of an unrepentant believer from the body of Christ (this explains your passage on Moses' appointing Judges)."
1. That's a very expansive definition of "forgiveness," which is not what Alan or Jason had in mind. Your definition concerns pardon or punishment.
2. When dealing with an impenitent church member, it becomes an issue of punishment (i.e. excommunication). But that's not how it starts. It can be resolved at an earlier stage without that.
"Forgiveness is a choice. Personal forgiveness is the area where we have been given authority to exercise that choice."
Unfortunately that's a very wooden conception. Forgiveness has a psychological dimension. We can't just will ourselves to feel a certain way about someone. We don't have direct control over what we feel. At best, that's something we have to work on.
"For instance, do individual citizens have the authority to pardon a murderer, or is that power given to the magistrate?"
Delete1. As mentioned above, forgiveness is separable from pardon or punishment.
2. Also, if a murderer is truly guilty of murder, I don't see why they need to be pardoned. If they're convicted, then normally they would need to be punished (e.g. capital punishment).
3. However, speaking biblically, and not according to our judicial system, I don't necessarily see a problem with allowing relevant individuals to punish someone guilty of murder. For example, if a pedophile raped and murdered a child, I don't necessarily see a problem with allowing the parents to execute the pedophile murderer. (I speak of punishment since it's the flipside of pardon.)
"Do individual church members have the authority to excommunicate or restore unrepentant sinners to the body of Christ?"
Please see my comment above about dealing with an impenitent church member.
"I think the main contention that I'd make is that Jesus wants us to make the choice to forgive others freely in order to demonstrate the unmerited favor that He has shown us."
1. I don't agree "Jesus wants us to make the choice to forgive others freely." It depends on a number of factors: whether the person is a Christian or non-Christian, whether the person is penitent or impenitent, and whether the person has personally wronged me.
2. Also, unless you're an Arminian or universalist, Jesus didn't demonstrate unmerited favor toward non-Christians. So there's no basis for unconditional forgiveness in Jesus' unmerited favor.
"My main point was to support the actions of the Charleston church members and defend their display of forgiveness as being a Biblical response."
To the contrary, that's taught. That's not spontaneous. Rather, the Charleston church members took that position because they were indoctrinated in a particular theory of forgiveness. They think that's their duty. What they ought to do.
Rocking, I appreciate the attempt at discussion. Right now I don't have time to delve in further. One thing that I will say though is that you have not dealt with the points I've brought up as I have intended them to be understood. That may be partially my fault as the combox is somewhat limiting. I'll come back and try to clarify. Thanks!
DeleteThanks, Deb. No problem. I thought I had addressed your points, but if I missed something, please let me know. Also, I hope you'll address the points I've raised as well. Thanks.
DeleteDeb W. wrote:
Delete"The paralytic's friends bring him to Jesus, and because of +their faith+, Jesus says to the paralytic that his sins are forgiven. Unfortunately, that passage does not seem to support your position at all."
If he's forgiven on the condition of faith, that supports conditional forgiveness.
You wrote:
"I think this validates the monergist act of the Holy Spirit who supernaturally brings people to repentance and forgives them, rather than conditioning His work on their response."
The issue isn't whether "His work" is conditioned on repentant faith. Rather, the issue is whether forgiveness is conditioned on it. If God were forgiving unconditionally, he would have forgiven from the start rather than waiting until the time of faith to do it. If I wait until people repent before forgiving them, do you call that unconditional forgiveness? No, you don't. You've been commending the people associated with the Charleston victims for forgiving Dylann Roof before he repented. That's not what God did in Mark 2:5, Acts 5:31, etc.
You wrote:
"Faith is the gift of God - again part of the monergist package that is divinely applied through the work of the Spirit to the elect"
Whether faith is a gift of God is a different issue than whether God conditions forgiveness on faith. You're confusing categories.
You wrote:
"Then in this passage, he encourages them to confess their sins and relays a promise that Jesus forgives their confessed sins"
Did Dylann Roof confess his sins in the sense of 1 John 1:9? No, he didn't. Yet, you're paralleling God's forgiveness with people's forgiveness of Roof.
You wrote:
"the nature of our forgiveness from God was not conditional based on our action, per se, because faith, repentance and conversion are all gifts of God"
Again, saying that faith comes from God doesn't address whether forgiveness is conditioned on faith.
You seem to be changing the subject from whether forgiveness is conditional to whether it's conditional in a particular way. But if it's conditional in either sense, then it's not unconditional.
You've responded to some Biblical passages I cited about how God's forgiving is conditional. But you still haven't interacted with the passages I've cited about the conditional nature of forgiveness between people (Matthew 18, Luke 17, 2 Corinthians 2).
Good thoughts, Jason. I agree with you that Alan's comments were helpful.
ReplyDeleteJesus said Forgive or you will not be Forgiven, no qualifiers.
ReplyDeleteThis means that you're going to hell, JM, because it's impossible for you to have forgiven everyone who has ever sinned against you, because it's not possible for you to even know all those who have sinned against you.
DeleteYou might want to re-think your "no qualifiers" absolutism, no?
JaredMithrandir,
DeleteJesus said a lot of things that he didn't qualify in one place, but did qualify elsewhere. Or his culture qualified what he said, or his context offered qualifications. That's how people communicate. We frequently intend qualifications without spelling them out explicitly. We see that in some portions of scripture more than others, like Proverbs.
I've already given some examples of where and how Jesus qualifies his comments on forgiveness (Matthew 18, Luke 17, etc.). And some of the passages that allegedly tell us to forgive unconditionally add a qualifier in the immediate context that's often overlooked. They parallel our forgiving to God's, and we know that's God's forgiving is conditional.
The position for the OPC website speaks to this issue very well:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=129
Hi Deb,
DeleteI'll respond to this article:
"By 'forgive,' I mean to "stop feeling angry or resentful toward someone for an offense, flaw, or mistake" (New Oxford American Dictionary)."
Honestly, that's an incompetent starting-point:
1. That's not a theological definition, but a secular definition and a psychological definition.
2. Moreover, it fails to distinguish between the meaning of words and the meaning of concepts.
Is the concept of Christian forgiveness in Scripture simply or primarily to "stop feeling angry or resentful" towards the offender? Or is it more about not holding something against them? More about how you act towards the offender?
The fact is, I don't have to consciously forgive someone to stop feeling angry or resentful. Feelings often fade with the passage of time.
"To forgive someone when something like that takes place is to not harbor feelings of resentfulness and bitterness towards the one who offended you. Let it go. Bear with it. Get over it. Tolerate it."
1. Even if that's true, he's not exegeting that concept from Scripture. He's not showing that's the Biblical idea of human forgiveness.
2. Is "toleration" the same as forgiveness? Isn't toleration rather a grudging attitude?
3. The fact is, it's quite possible not to harbor resentment or bitterness even if you don't consciously forgive someone.
For instance, maybe someone wronged me in high school. But I haven't seen them since I graduated from high school. Suppose I never "forgave" them. But that may be because I didn't take offense at the time. I didn't take it that seriously. I just brushed it off.
Or even if it made me resentful at the time, I haven't thought about them for years.
And even if I did think about them, those feelings have faded. They are swamped by other good things or bad things that have happened to me since then.
I think what he and others like him really have in mind is people we deal with on a regular basis. If they did something to rub us the wrong way, and we have to rub up against each other every day or every week, then there's a great potential for cumulative resentment. There isn't time enough in-between for little offenses to dry up and blow away, because we're in constant contact. More friction generates more heat, absent oil.
"And then go beyond forgiveness by returning the offense with gracious acts of kindness. Return hate with love. 'Repay no one evil for evil' (Rom. 12:17). 'Beloved, never revenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God' (12:19). '[I]f your enemy is hungry, feed him, if he is thirsty, give him something to drink' (12:20). 'But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also' (Matt. 5:39). 'Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you' (5:44). 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do' (Luke 23:34)...You must replace feelings of wrath and resentment and vengeance with feelings of kindness, affection, and love. And then perform acts in keeping with your forgiving heart."
DeleteHe defines forgiveness in purely psychological terms, then says how you act towards them is "going beyond" forgiveness. But is that dichotomy Biblical? If anything, isn't the truth more nearly the reverse? Isn't forgiveness not avenging the offender? Isn't forgiveness not taking retaliatory actions?
I don't deny that forgiveness involves cultivating an attitude of the heart, but it's also about not evening the score when you're in a position to do so.
"You do not have the right to withhold forgiveness. You are just a sinner like everyone else. If someone offends you, get over it, because you deserve worse."
That's theologically confused. Deserve worse from whom? From the offender? Does a victim of child prostitution deserve even worse from the pimp?
I guess what he means is we deserve worse from God. True. But he himself says we shouldn't conflate divine forgiveness with human forgiveness.
"The only Christians who condition forgiveness upon repentance are church elders as they preside in an official capacity over matters of church discipline. This is called the doctrine of the keys of the kingdom."
Only if you grant his Presbyterian ecclesiology.
Deb W.,
DeleteYou're reposting a link originally cited by Steve Prost in Justin Taylor's thread. And you aren't interacting with what was said in response to Brenton Ferry's arguments there or here.