Forgiveness, and How We are All Good Calvinists
I get plenty of grief from readers and family alike on my view of forgiveness. I contend that Christians are not obligated to grant forgiveness where reconciliation is not sought by the offender. We may cover an offence with love, but in some circumstances it is not permissible to do so if it endangers the lives of others. As discussed in this post, God-like forgiveness (including the covering with love) requires the forgetting of the sin; ie., it is not brought to anybody’s attention again. This may be ill-advised in certain circumstances and even immoral. If repentance is sought, the perpetrator is held accountable, but can be granted forgiveness while still suffering punishment from the justice system. If the perpetrator is repentant. And not granting forgiveness is not revenge, that belongs to the Lord and we are to love our enemies. If carte blanche forgiveness is the order of the day, we wouldn’t have any enemies.
The argument is: there are two kinds of forgiveness; divine and human. God’s forgiveness is different from ours because He is the only one that is sinless and has a right to “judge.” If we refuse to grant forgiveness, we are making ourselves God. Of course, the difficult real-life questions in regard to this are rarely answered, but most often, it is asserted that this carte blanche forgiveness should be extended to unbelievers as well.
Please note, the first reason this is good ol’ fashioned Calvinism is because we believers are STILL, “sinners.” The protestant fruit never falls far from the tree while some of the fruit denies the tree. Arminianism is little more than Calvinism without the election part. The soteriology is often identical, especially in the way it functions. In this case, we have to grant forgiveness to everybody because we are not like God who is sinless while we are still, “sinners” because we still sin. This is Calvinism to a “T” and embodies the essence of Calvinism: the fusion of justification and sanctification.
In this construct, an unbiblical dichotomy of divine/human forgiveness makes the fusion of justification and sanctification possible, and thereby circumventing the two different kinds of forgiveness according to the Bible. In other words, the biblical dichotomy is replaced with the ideas of men, primarily because Calvin made it a point to fuse justification and sanctification (CI 3.11.6). By the way, the major argument against Sonship Theology by conservative Calvinists in the Presbyterian Church is this very issue. The conservative Calvinists argue that Sonship fuses the two and makes justification the power source of sanctification. But that’s exactly what Calvin taught.
So, the biblical difference between forgiveness in sanctification and forgiveness for justification are confounded. Worse yet, this approach circumvents the gospel and adds to the problem of the church being populated by the unregenerate. A necessary periodic examination of a person’s dedication to the truth of God is glossed over with carte blanche forgiveness. This is not forgiveness and it is not love. To say that we are making ourselves God by not granting forgiveness among believers in sanctification is to say that forgiveness among family members is the same forgiveness that we received for salvation, and it is NOT. This was Calvin’s position to a “T.” The same forgiveness that saved us is the same forgiveness that we need in sanctification. Hence, to not forgive in the same way we were forgiven for salvation is to make ourselves God. The two are the same.
An examination of Christ’s instruction to Peter concerning the washing of the body versus the washing of feet in John 13 makes it clear that there is a difference between forgiveness in sanctification versus forgiveness for justification. In sanctification, it is forgiveness to restore fellowship among family members; in justification, it is forgiveness to become a member of God’s family and a right to the inheritance. If justification is the same thing as sanctification, touché, we in fact are making ourselves God by not granting forgiveness for all past, present, and future sins. But I contend that there is a difference.
Sanctification has different rules. First, it presumes new creaturehood and an expected response to confrontation when you have wronged a fellow believer. Christ states that certain behavior is expected among the redeemed because they are new creatures. Once shown the error of their way, the offender will repent, and the offended party will forgive. If that’s not the case, “Houston, we have a problem.” Carte blanche forgiveness sweeps that problem under the rug; that’s not love, and it’s not forgiveness. And in too many cases, the problem is sex abuse.
If the Matthew 18 process does not go well, the forgiveness that is needed is not family forgiveness, but may be the need for forgiveness unto salvation. We don’t know that for certain, but are to treat that person “like” that is the case. They are not acting like a new creature. Carte blanche forgiveness tells them plainly that they are a new creature no matter what they act like. They are granted the same forgiveness that we received for salvation because no distinction is made. And frankly, in that way we make ourselves God, by granting forgiveness unto salvation in sanctification—the same that we received. That’s the mantra: forgive them in the same way we were forgiven. Hence, regardless of what they do to us, and regardless of whether or not they repent, we are affirming their salvation by proxy. That’s not the gospel, that’s not love, and it’s not forgiveness.
And this fusion of justification and sanctification in regard to forgiveness is at the very core of many controversies in the church like the SGM pedophilia class-action lawsuit. This whole concept of “forgiving the way we were forgiven” is a phrase that the victims are all too familiar with.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Wow, I never realized how far you would go to feel justified in not having to forgive people who have hurt you. It’s a sad day when you can’t even forgive someone without calling foul and denouncing forgiveness because to do so would be “calvinistic”. So I guess that makes me a calvinist by your standards and as such I guess I am no longer invited to your BBQ’s.
LikeLike
Anon,
I just went to a funeral where all of those people attended, and trust me, I am not the least bit angry with any of them. In fact, I feel sorry for them. Rick’s own son referred to his saved deceased father as a, “wicked sinner.” The pastor who spoke insinuated that Rick was no hero, but a shadow of Christ. Where does the Bible ever say that God’s children are anything like a “shadow.” He then went on to say that Rick died so that we could, “see God better.” Besides the fact that I would still be in that camp if not for what they did to me, how can you be angry at people who are that pathetic? As these kinds of things were being said in direct contradiction to Scripture, heads were nodding in agreement like Bobble dolls. I felt the same way when I saw these mindless people at a concert some months ago: nothing. However, you do remind me of what they did to me: an answer to my arguments are replaced with accusations. And per the usual, it’s my fault that the two kinds of forgiveness in the Bible are framed as divine/human versus sanctification/justification. When people refuse to be reconciled to you, they are your enemies. That would seem evident. We are commanded to love them and not seek revenge, but not to cast away the offence as if it never happened. Fact is, treating forgiveness the same in sanctification as in justification is Calvinism. Get over it.
LikeLike
You make a strong case and it seems Biblical to me. Also, it’s important to remember, even when real repentance is offered, it does not mean consequences are automatically eliminated. True repentance will offer restitution. Repentance will not resent restitution.
LikeLike
“We may cover an offence with love, but in some circumstances it is not permissible to do so if it endangers the lives of others.”
You can’t forgive what was done to someone else — that’s not your place. This is one of the most obvious pop-christian mistakes on forgiveness.
You punch me in the face, I can forgive you. You punch someone else in the face, why are you telling me to forgive you? Go talk to them silly.
LikeLike
Forgiveness also doesn’t mean I have to want to be around you. I can forgive, let go of a grudge, and yet not want anything to do with you because I know you’re trouble. Calvinists want to force victims to hug and hang out with predators that raped them. They may forgive, but there’s no reason why they would want to be around those people unless they’ve taken leave of their senses. “But when God forgives, he forgets” the Calvinists will say, and what I am describing (they will say) is “forgive, but don’t forget.” Yeah, well, Amazingly enough (and I know this is hard for some people to grasp), God isn’t human. Nobody can rape God. Its just not possible, although SGM probably would if they could. You Calvinists are expecting too much out of human beings. The emotional makeup of a human being is not the same as that of God. And really, I’m not so sure they really understand how God forgives exactly right to begin with.
LikeLike
Calvinists always want to make some moral equivalence between a petty misuderstanding such as a careless word spoken that results in hurt feelings and that which is a crime. I can excuse someone being rude or stepping out of line with regards to my personal business. If they recognize their offense and seek forgiveness I can forgive and move on. But if someone commits a crime against me, yes, they may genuinely be repentant and seek forgiveness, and I can forgive that as well, but you can be certain I would be very foolish to put myself in a position where they could ever hurt me again, no matter how much they claim to have been “rehabilitated”. (You don’t take a recovering alchoholic and make him a bartender.) That’s not a matter of forgiving and “forgetting”, that’s just plain common sense!
LikeLike
Forgiveness seems to be the buzz word lately from various blogs. Note Challis posting that was sent to me this morning:
http://www.challies.com/discernment/discernment-filter-forgive-yourself
LikeLike
This is what’s known as “circling the wagons”. All the Ncists are trying to get ahaead of the game by couching things in terms of “forgiveness”. They are clearly setting the narrative that those who seek justice are unforgiving. They seek to put us on the defensive by trying to define us. If we react to the accusation, then we have fallen for the trap. We must reject their premise outright and argue from the correct one by defining them for what they are. Paul has done this quite articulately on this this blog for some time now!
LikeLike
I am not a calvinist. I am a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ!!
LikeLike
So, you don’t believe that Jesus came to fulfill the law for us; that’s a good thing.
LikeLike