OK Then, Should We Forgive Ourselves Whether We Repent or Not?
My articles on forgiveness usually spur some debate, not so much here at PPT, but via email and Facebook. I have come to understand most folks are afraid to show themselves here at PPT which is totally understandable as we are heterodox and giddy about being so. Furthermore, we know for certain that some churches have ordered their congregants not to come here upon pain of church discipline. Susan has suggested that this might be the case more and more as PPT and TANC Ministries improve our articulation of the issues.
The ruckus centers around the idea that we only forgive people if they repent. And we are to be angry without sin, meaning that we leave the revenge to God—He will repay. This also means we do the loving thing when we are presented with an opportunity to get revenge. If we stumble across our enemy’s lost oxen in the wilderness, we take it back to him. In doing so, perhaps the enemy realizes that he didn’t treat you the same way he would have wanted to be treated initially.
It also means that we do not fellowship with the unrepentant until they repent, and in addition, professing Christians who refuse to repent, and others who refuse to forgive when repentance is offered, are to be treated like unbelievers. The popular contrast to this position is blank check forgiveness. We are obligated to forgive all whether they repent or not…“the same way we were forgiven” which requires repentance. Don’t even try to go there – Protestants are completely comfortable with these kinds of contradictions.
Let’s be clear. I have no particular beef with the video below, but merely present it as food for thought. In the video, the person presents the issue of forgiving ourselves. You may agree or disagree that forgiving one’s self is a biblical concept to begin with, but for now, the point made in the video is that if God forgives us, we should forgive ourselves, or he won’t forgive us (an interesting twist), and the key to forgiving ourselves is confession. The author of the video cites 1John 1:9 as a proof text.
Let’s consider what we are talking about when we say that we should forgive ourselves; we are saying we need to clear our conscience. Ultimately, self condemnation comes from the conscience. James stated in his letter to the twelve tribes of Israel that if we confess our sins to each other we will be healed. Often, when fugitives are finally caught, they express relief because a heavy burden is taken off of their souls. Funny, we often hear that we should offer blank check forgiveness to others for our own good, not theirs, but the Bible makes it clear that the unrepentant are the ones who are destroyed. If someone comes to us and asks for forgiveness, we too often find ourselves saying, “Oh, that’s OK, I already forgave you.” To the contrary, it is hardly OK if that person needed to confess for their own good and relationship with God.
Let’s not move too quickly from “It’s OK, I already forgave you.” I argued in my last post that blank check forgiveness circumvents the need for repentance and this makes the point. Where is the strong emphasis (as in the Bible) on people needing to repent for their own good? Instead, by far, the emphasis is on forgiving others whether they repent or not lest we be destroyed…supposedly. If you offended someone and were not convicted about it, would you want them to forgive you any way? Would that be best for you?
In the final analysis you can reject the premise of my argument if you reject the premise of people needing to forgive themselves, but if you don’t, how can you extend forgiveness to yourself without repentance? And obviously, if you can’t forgive yourself without repentance, nor can you forgive others without their repentance. But, self forgiveness has merit because it is your own conscience that is condemning you, and in that case, you need to forgive the other person for your own good, and that would be you because you repented.
paul
Church-22: The Fallacy, Irrelevancy, and Tyranny of Biblical Authority and Divine Inspiration of Scripture
Thoughts on the Bible and Authority.
Recently I received the following question from a reader (see quote below). I spent a few days mulling it over before I responded, and when I did, my comment, as usual, became so long and involved that when finished it resembled more an article than a comment . So, I decided the rational thing to do was to post it as such.
Indulge me a few words as an introduction first.
Heretofore, I have not yet dealt (not sufficiently, in my mind) with the question of how I, personally, integrate the Bible into my philosophy and ideas–a notion about as scandalous as it gets to Christians…for who am I to apply Biblical ideas to my beliefs, and not the other way around?
Anyway…
As a believer (I am no longer comfortable calling myself “Christian”, due to the Protestant and Catholic doctrinal assumptions this label necessarily implies nowadays), it is important…
View original post 1,852 more words
Romans 12:17-21, More on Forgiveness and Enemies
I don’t know how many articles I have written for my ongoing attempt to slay the blank check forgiveness evangelical sacred cow, but I continue to chop away at him. Despite all of the blood, the stinkin’ thing still lives.
So, let’s keep trying, but first, where does this “offering grace” blank check forgiveness stuff come from? If you followed our Heidelberg Disputation series, you know. There are two kinds of Protestants: Calvinists, and functioning Calvinists. The former hold to predestination and the soteriology, the latter function according to the soteriology while denying the specific orthodoxy.
Blank check forgiveness comes from the Reformation doctrine of total depravity which results in moral equivalency and a single perspective on justice. Basically, due to the total depravity of man, and the idea that man saved or unsaved possesses no good or righteousness within (Luther’s Alien Righteousness), everybody deserves hell; including Christians regardless of their conversion; anything other than hell or lesser than hell is “grace,” and therefore, being wronged is only valuable for showing forth the same grace that we received. Few Protestants understand the doctrine of mortification and vivification. That’s “deep theology,” so instead, they teach and apply the applications of the doctrine that are too deep for them to understand. Blank check forgiveness is one of them.
Mortification and vivification is the perpetual revisiting of our spiritual baptism. In other words, the new birth doesn’t happen once, but is experienced numerous times throughout our Christian lives. Now, Baptists can moan and cry in denial like alley cats in heat, but that’s Protestant doctrine reflected in the Westminster Confession and London Baptist confessions as well. I will keep saying it; there is no religion more confused nor pathetic than Protestantism. At least even Muslims know what they believe for crying out loud.
But back to mortification and vivification which is the primary model for change in Protestant orthodoxy. The goal is to experience our baptism as much as possible via joy. That’s the vivification part that is totally out of our control—it is the resurrection part. But it begins with our part/role in the Christian life: “dying daily,” or mortification. This is how the whole taking up our cross and dying daily verses are interpreted. According to Luther and Calvin, God helps us out with the dying part by bringing tragedy into our lives. Look, if you are, for example, a rape victim that has been counseled by ACBC or CCEF, lightbulbs are starting to turn on right about now.
Enough of that for now, let’s go to Romans 12:
“17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord.’ 20 On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
This is one of the many love your enemies verses. I guess I will keep on saying it: why would Paul concede that we will have enemies in spite of our best efforts if we are to simply forgive everybody who offends us? This passage gives instructions for dealing with enemies. Furthermore, the Bible promises rewards for relating to our enemies in the biblically prescribed way; therefore, does blank check forgiveness deprive us of reward? I think it does. And moreover, there is NO forgiveness of enemies with God unless they repent. In the same way that God blesses His enemies who have not repented, we bless our enemies who have not repented, and this is what leads them to repentance (Romans 2:4). Now, I have some learning to do in regard to how this model works itself out, but that IS the model, NOT blank check forgiveness. It would appear that replacing revenge with blessings prevents bitterness and leads to repentance. It would also seem that the goodness unresponded to will lead to a greater judgment in the end by God.
So, all in all, do I think blank check forgiveness keeps people from repenting? Yes.
paul
Let’s Try This Another Way: Forgiveness Only Occurs Among Repentant Believers
“We want to love the unforgiven as our enemies, not lead them to believe that we love them because they are forgiven. That’s not the gospel and is obviously antithetical to how God loves His enemies daily. Blank check forgiveness does not put the gospel on display.”
Wow, this whole thing with being obligated to forgive people regardless of their unrepentance is a serious sacred cow. I have written many articles on this subject, and continue to approach it at different angles; this post is one more.
First, we do no person a favor, including ourselves, by circumventing the need for repentance. Here is what we have, in essence, because people listen to others and not God: “I forgive you, but remember that God hasn’t forgiven you because you haven’t repented, but we are supposed to forgive the way we have been forgiven, because we repented, but in your case it is different because you sinned against me and not God.” How does that square with Matthew 25:31-46? In that judgment, passive neglect is the issue, how much more active abuse?
Default forgiveness is what subjects people to hopelessness, bondage, and misery, not the biblical prescription. We are to remain angry for offenses while leaving retribution to God. Being righteously angry will not “destroy us,” but will rather continue to hold the offender accountable in hope that reconciliation will occur in the future. Though the obviousness of it annoys me, I will point to the redeemed souls under the alter crying out to God to avenge their blood. Pray tell, is there a way to send them one of these putrid memes lest they destroy themselves via unforgiveness? Maybe an angel has a Facebook account and will send them one.
In fact, opportunities to love our enemies may lead them to repentance (Rom 2:4). When we love our enemies without granting unwarranted forgiveness, we are being like God. Furthermore, blank check forgiveness does not foster indictment of conscience that brings about repentance and subsequent change. On this wise, blank check forgiveness goes against God’s natural order of things. Forgiveness goes hand in glove with a clear conscience. Those who are forgiven should have a clear conscience, but if they haven’t repented, we don’t want them to have a clear conscience. People repent because their consciences indict them. If you hold someone accountable for unrepentant sin, yet do good to them, this is more likely to incite the conscience than blank check forgiveness. When we forgive someone, we declare them no longer guilty; again, this is the same way we are forgiven. We want to love the unforgiven as our enemies, not lead them to believe that we love them because they are forgiven. That’s not the gospel and is obviously antithetical to how God loves His enemies daily. Blank check forgiveness does not put the gospel on display.
All in all, forgiveness only has context among believers. That’s why when people refuse to repent, we are to treat them as unbelievers, break fellowship with them, and continue to hold them accountable. The burden is not on those who have been sinned against, but rather on those who have sinned against others. People only change because they are held accountable by God, others, their own consciences, and consequences. Forgiveness does not lead to repentance, undeserved love does. An offer of forgiveness can only be granted when repentance occurs. When we have opportunity to love our enemies, no opportunity exists to present the gospel if we have already forgiven them. They are God’s enemies and our enemies—that’s why “friendship with the world is enmity against God.” We therefore love our enemies and grant forgiveness when those who have sinned against us repent. If they don’t repent, we are to treat them as unbelievers. If they do repent, we have “gained a brother.”
On the other hand, those who will not forgive those who have repented show themselves to be unbelievers as well. When the Bible talks about forgiveness, repentance is always assumed if not stated outright. If you note the Lord’s Prayer, it is addressed to the “Father.” And this brings me to the main point: true biblical forgiveness is only in context of God’s family. No forgiveness takes place outside of it. When a person repents and is forgiven by God, that is their initiation into the family of God, and after that, the forgiveness/repentance paradigm is assumed, expected, and demanded by God. The offended who don’t forgive, and the offenders who will not repent are assumed to be illegitimate family members. Under the auspices of common decency in the world, we accept apologies, but God has little patience for family schisms. True believers reconcile because we are all members of God’s family.
And reconciliation with God and others MUST ALWAYS have two parts: repentance and forgiveness.
paul
Why the Hope of Home Fellowship is Desperately Needed
I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me; recent changes in my life have taught me things I need to know as I strive to see a vibrant network of home fellowships come to volition. This week, I was made aware of a vast reality that most of us do not think about often. I found myself in a situation with my new employment were I was subject to a person in the realm of psychosis. Though, in the final analysis, I have choices, in regard to some employees who had to deal with this guy, not so much, if at all. In the realm of unskilled labor in an employer’s market, if you don’t want to endure the hardship, someone is waiting in line to take your place, and the food that you put in the mouths of your children.
So, I endured working for a client with Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder for about four days, and during that time I had the New Testament on my mind. During New Testament times, workers were literally and legally owned by people just like this. Quitting was not an option. If you quit, you were a fugitive—slaves had no rights in that culture. The only known culture where slaves had rights was in Judea during the Old Testament era. By the way, the Sabbath was part of that.
Evil desire is a most unfortunate human reality. The Bible states that sin starts with a desire, and when the desire is obeyed, sin results. Unfortunately, the desire to control others, torture others, and kill others falls into the realm of these desires. Be sure of this: in regard to organizations like ISIS, religion is an excuse to fulfill these types of evil desires. In my situation, I could only imagine what it is like when people like this have the right to flog you.
At some point this week, I exercised my right as a free man and clocked out; the Bible lesson was complete enough in my mind. And by the way, this guy is a member in good standing at a local institutional church. During my time there in his home, he was very inquisitive about my church life. He was incredulous that our home fellowship meetings do not have “praise and worship.”
Full stop…
…this is the difference between true home fellowship, NOT cell groups of an institutional church posing as home fellowship, and the institutional church: what I was doing for him IS our praise and worship. The problem is the placard over many double doors of the institutional church: “Enter to Worship, Leave to Serve.” The single biggest issue with the institutional church is exactly that—the dichotomy between service and worship. And it is also disingenuous if you understand the core ideology of church; it is only our job to worship, and “service” flows naturally from that in the form of manifestations not really performed by us lest we have a “righteousness of our own.” And trust me, this guy had no righteousness of his own. And of course, what church is complete without one or two such as this fellow accused of being a pedophile.
So, what does the institutional church have to offer for slaves? Well, if I was a member of his church, it was clear that I would have been brought up on church discipline, and that according to him. Should we laugh or cry? Neither, we should consider why the home fellowships of the first century turned the whole world upside down. I went with this guy to deliver something at the home of a church member, and of course, he was a totally different person. Church enables people to live double lives, and have their cake and eat it too. Salvation is by being a member in good standing, ie., the elders say your in. If I did go to this guy’s church, I suck it up, repent, and make it “right” or I lose my salvation because the guy tithes more than I do. This is just the way it works.
No, slaves don’t need more slavery, they need people who gather where they live under the authority of truth and not men. They need to gather where the banner over the door is love. In the first century, Christian slaves had hope. There was much need in that culture, and this is probably why Christians assembled every day of the week. In fact, every home probably had an evening meal at roughly the same time and was open for a gathering nightly. The gatherings would have been small, and focused on need. Though the general format was a meal, Lord’s Table, some sort of spiritual discussion around the word, and encouragement towards good works, the method is and was incredibly fluid and adaptive to any situation. Christians in the worst of situations found love, purpose, encouragement, wisdom, hope, and endurance. This is particularly relevant in our culture because people in bondage of all sorts can find encouragement in a system that God designed to meet individual need.
And the last thing we need in that system is what we find everywhere in the world and its evil desires:
more authority.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment