More on Forgiveness: Loving Our Enemies Reopens the Door for Repentance and Reconciliation While God’s Justice Looms
“And the blank check approach doesn’t reconcile the whole counsel of God… Eventually, the forgiven enemies feasting together skip the food fight and draw swords in a battle of unresolved conflict. The debate over the color of the carpet is just an excuse.”
I have upset a lot of people for what I am writing about forgiveness, and particularly here and here. But at the very least, my detractors have to admit that blank check forgiveness is the emphasis and not the obvious importance of repentance that paves the way for it as strongly emphasized by Christ. Though I might leave some room for blank check forgiveness in sanctification, it should be a rare instance, but my detractors make it the norm.
Come now, let’s be honest with ourselves, compare the practice of Matthew 18 with the incessant calls from the pulpit for blank check forgiveness. Rather than conceding that there has been an unbiblical emphasis in the American church for years, my whole construct is disregarded out of hand and I am labeled “bitter” lest anyone would have to engage in the hard task of reevaluation. For the most part, blank check forgiveness is a tool for lazy pastors who don’t want the hard work of laying the building blocks of repentance. Making it easier for people to forgive is hard work.
And the blank check approach doesn’t reconcile the whole counsel of God:
Revelation 6:9 – When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”
Houston, we have a problem. Furthermore, consider King David’s deathbed instructions to his son Solomon:
1Kings 2:5 – “Moreover, you also know what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, how he dealt with the two commanders of the armies of Israel, Abner the son of Ner, and Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed, avenging in time of peace for blood that had been shed in war, and putting the blood of war[c] on the belt around his waist and on the sandals on his feet. 6 Act therefore according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace. 7 But deal loyally with the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be among those who eat at your table, for with such loyalty they met me when I fled from Absalom your brother. 8 And there is also with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim. But when he came down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the Lord, saying, ‘I will not put you to death with the sword.’ 9 Now therefore do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man. You will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol.”
Robert Alter described David’s last will and testament as that worthy of a dying Mafia capio, and in fact, this biblical account was copied by Francis Coppola for use in The Godfather (King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel; Jonathan Kirsch, p. 277).
Moreover, as mentioned before in the other arguments, the Bible commands us to love our enemies; but in contrast, blank check forgiveness presumes that we are not unreconciled to anyone. Hence, we don’t have any enemies to love, and that is most unfortunate because it circumvents future opportunity for true reconciliation. Blank check forgiveness enables us to pretend that there is nothing to be reconciled. This simply does not work in the real world of anthropology. Blank check forgiveness is easily responsible for 90% of church splits that we see because the pseudo-forgiveness chickens finally come home to roost.
Let me explain: in Exodus, we read the following:
Exodus 23:4 – “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. 5 If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.
Returning your enemy’s lost ox or donkey, which were vital for economic survival in that day and something that most could ill afford to replace, clearly showed ones character to the enemy and lent opportunity for reconciliation. If we do not allow none-repentance to create enemies, the possibility for true reconciliation is circumvented. Is it any wonder that there is so much strife in the church? While assuming that blank check forgiveness creates unity in the church—it in fact does the opposite. Eventually, the forgiven enemies feasting together skip the food fight and draw swords in a bloody battle of unresolved conflict. The debate over the color of the carpet is just an excuse.
As far as overcoming evil with good, and blessing our enemies (ROM 12), this is curative, and I have experienced it firsthand. But in the past, I have misinterpreted my likable feelings towards my enemies in that circumstance as “forgiveness.” I suppose that loving our enemies can also lead to a silent repentance in which they stop persecuting you (that was the case in my particular circumstance), but I never extended forgiveness for what they had done to me. In this reality, judgment by God for the unreconciled offence looms. Always:
1Thessalonians 4:6 – that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. 8 Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
James 5:4 – Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. 5 You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.
7 Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and the late rains. 8 You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. 9 Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door.
You can say that you have given carte blanche forgiveness till the cows come home, but in reality, you are placing the offender in a position where he/she may be judged by God because the assumption is that the same forgiveness that was wrought for justification is also wrought in sanctification: ie., “forgiving the same way we were forgiven.”
Churchy soundbites and Christian bumper stickers will not give life. Only truth sanctifies.
paul
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
Biblical Forgiveness
For all of you out there who insist on believing that Christians have to forgive others regardless of anything, I am going to let you have that belief and I am going to attempt something else in addition; before I am done with this article, I am going to tell you what biblical forgiveness is. If you are going to tell people that they have to forgive others regardless of anything, you should at least be able to tell them how to do it. That way, when sister Sally comes to you for counsel because deacon Dan molested her in the broom closet at church 17 years ago and she hasn’t yet been able to “forgive” him, you can at least tell her how to do that.
You see, the WHY we should forgive others is NOT the HOW. Folks are immovable on the why, let’s at least do the how. I once heard my son’s school teacher say, “We are created for work and doing things because we have minds, muscles, feet and hands.” Nothing in the Christian life is ever a mere mental ascent; the “blessing” is in the “doing” (James 1:25). Does that include forgiveness? Sure it does.
I suppose the best argument is the idea that there are two kinds of forgiveness: “divine forgiveness” and “human forgiveness.” Hence, when we say that we should forgive others like God forgave us, that’s not really what you mean to say because God’s forgiveness requires repentance. Well then, stop saying it that way! If we are to forgive a different way, don’t say “like” because words mean things. I guess that would be the first thing: stop causing confusion with your words.
However, the passages used to proof text this argument are ALL, I repeat, ALL, conditional on repentance by the offending party; a fact that is conveniently left out. And apparently, “if” doesn’t mean “if.” “IF” is a conditional transition. Nevertheless, as I said, the point will be granted, and as Christians, we have the liberty to cover minor offences with love (“love covers a multitude of sin”), but there is still an obligation to do it biblically.
So, how do we counsel someone to forgive? Like God (apparently, in regard to this point only), they must give opportunity for repentance. Go to them “alone.” How important is repentance to the forgiveness process? Well, if they won’t repent, you are to return with two witnesses. Really? Why not just forgive them and be done with it? If we have to forgive them anyway, why all the fuss? If they “listen” to you and the witnesses, “you have gained a brother.” But if he/she still doesn’t listen, “tell it to the church”? Again, if repentance is not that important, why all the fuss? And why is repentance not emphasized x3 in churches as opposed to carte blanche forgiveness according to the Christian bumper sticker? Why not emphasize what Scripture emphasizes? Obviously, great effort in obtaining repentance is a very important element of the how.
Furthermore, the practice of forgiveness must contain the following elements:
1. You will not bring it up to yourself ever again (opposite of step 1 of Matthew 18).
2. You will not bring it up to the other person ever again (step 1 of Matthew 18).
3. You will not bring it up to others ever again ([gossip] step 2 & 3 of Matthew 18).
4. You will fellowship with that person with intentionality ([putting off old memories and putting on new memories] opposite of disfellowship in Matthew 18, you have “gained a brother”).
Like God’s forgiveness (again, apparently on this point only as well), you refuse to remember their sins any longer. God doesn’t forget, that means he will not bring it up again for the purpose of condemning. You do the like when you forgive someone.
This is the only biblical forgiveness that brings true healing. And by the way, as studies have shown, the same principle works in the world as well. Unbelievers become the best of friends in severe circumstances when the offender is truly regretful of what they did and seek the forgiveness of the family. In other words, there is a commonsense element here.
But what should we do if someone refuses to repent and ask our forgiveness? Matthew 18 is clear: we are to consider them unbelievers and treat them accordingly. True Christian forgiveness is impossible without the Matthew 18 process. And if we do cover it with love, four of the five elements are efficacious to true forgiveness. Otherwise, repentance must be sought first, though we may not get it.
Now, once a person is considered an unbeliever, or is an unbeliever, can the Christian grant them forgiveness? That’s a good question. Stephen and Christ beseeched God to forgive their persecutors; why didn’t they simply say that they themselves forgave them? When they asked God to forgive them, is God going to do that without repentance?
Therefore, I am not sure believers can grant forgiveness to an unbeliever; in fact, it may give them the wrong idea that God will do the same. At the very least, we should explain to them that we ARE NOT forgiving them like God forgives them. So, do we explain to an unbeliever in the process of forgiving them that there is a “divine forgiveness” and a “human forgiveness”? What if an unbeliever does ask us for forgiveness? Should we grant it to them? Or would it be better to tell them that only God can do that? Who has the authority to forgive sin on earth? Us? Or God? Would we really tell that person that we forgive them but God doesn’t? Now who is making themselves God?
At any rate, these are some questions to think about, but there is NEVER any true forgiveness apart from the previously listed five elements—forgiveness is not a mere mental assent. In regard to forgiving unbelievers, at the very least, the Christian must overcome evil with good; there must be intentional action in context.
And I am not sure overcoming evil with good is the same as granting forgiveness. But in either case, true healing requires deliberate action. Forgiveness is not a mere mental assent.
paul
Why Does Paul Washer’s Family Stalk People?
Sanctified Calvinist Joel Taylor was once a member of a Heart Cry (Paul Washer’s missionary society) church plant. Since he left more than a year ago, Washer’s boy-elders have been stalking him and his family. Taylor’s recent, and chilling account can be read here.
By the way, just sayin’, if Paul Washer ever smacks me on the head, it’s on. If any New Calvinist ever lays hands on me, they are in for a really, really big surprise. “Paul! Where in the world did that come from?” I’m not at liberty to say. Let’s just say that my nature is not as passive as some other brethren. And even before I was a Christian I had contempt for bullies.
And Paul Washer is a bully. While presenting himself as a crusader against easy believism and a stalwart of Biblicism, he propagates an egregious false gospel. That’s why he allows his little minions to stalk his detractors; he’s unregenerate. 2 + 2 = 4.
Let me make that case. In Washer’s book, The Gospel Call And True Conversion, one does not even get past the first chapter without taking note of blatant heresies. In chapter one, under The Essential Characteristics Of Genuine Repentance, and under the element, Renunciation of works, Washer states that the truly righteous person “sees” the impossibility of possessing God’s righteousness and the “unsearchable depths of his own depravity.” Any questions? Under Practical Obedience, if one reads carefully, Washer posits the only logical conclusion to the assertion that Christians are totally depraved; “obedience” is a “manifestation” of Christ’s salvific works progressively imputed to us.
Under Continuing and Deepening Work of Repentance, Washer states that maturity in a Christian life grows as we obtain a deeper and deeper sense of our own brokenness and depravity. But then the grand heresy follows under the same heading that is the last element of repentance in chapter one. Washer asserts that as the Christian becomes more and more aware of his own depravity, visions of God’s grace results in joy. Washer states that the joy equals our brokenness. So, focusing on our depravity, as Christians, leads to seeing God’s grace more and resulting in joy. In essence, and please note this with all vigor, we find joy in our depravity. Of this, Washer states in the same section, “This cycle simply repeats itself throughout the Christian life.”
That’s why my dear Sanctified Calvinist friend—that’s why Washer stands by silently: it’s a totally depraved family tradition.
paul
2 comments