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
The Potter’s House: Romans 10:2-5
Romans 10:2-5
We return now to our verse by verse study of the book of Romans. We primarily left off with Romans 10:1, and now resume at verse 2. We looked in-depth into what Paul meant by all of Israel being saved in verse one. That idea begins as a prayer and desire in verse one and ends with the declaration that it will come about by God’s sovereign will in Romans 11:26. We want to keep in mind that chapters 10 and 11 comprise the particular subject of Israel and their role in the justification of God’s people throughout the ages. We saw how all of Israel will be saved in the Millennial Kingdom. We saw how the Millennial Kingdom will be a fulfillment of what God wanted at Mt. Sinai after He led Israel out of Egyptian captivity.
Christ initially came to the Jews only, and offering the good news of the kingdom. I firmly believe that this was specifically the good news of the Millennial Kingdom and ultimately the new heavens and new earth with God dwelling among men in the heavenly Jerusalem. This is the city built by God that Abraham looked for from the very beginning. This is also what Christians as a whole ultimately look for (2PET 2:13) according to “his promise” [singular] (Ibid).
Righteousness. Its dwelling place will be the new heavens and new earth. Only the righteous will live there for eternity. Therefore, we seek to be righteous citizens in the here and now. The first thing we find out is that people can have zeal for bad knowledge:
Romans 10:2 – For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
The word “knowledge” is the antonym of “ignorant” which also carries the idea of ignoring righteousness. It doesn’t mean a lack of intelligence or stupidity, it means to not know or accept. Instead, they sought to establish their own righteousness based on bad knowledge. Also note: whatever knowledge we follow, we are subordinating ourselves to it. When we follow lust, we often perceive that as engaging in something that delights us, but throughout Romans, it is framed as “obeying” sinful desires.
Can we therefore say that choices always involve a subordination to some form of knowledge? Perhaps. But be sure of this, “If it feels good, do it” is subordinating ourselves to desire. God’s knowledge should be the first consideration for what we obey.
Also note, Paul is speaking of a past event and a specific people: “they,” and “did not.” This speaks of the nation of Israel, the obvious subject in context, and their response to a specific point in time; namely, Mt. Sinai. We don’t want to make the same mistake many make in regard to Romans, chapter one. That chapter speaks of mankind as the “they,” and the time is in the very beginning when man began to multiply. God was visibly manifest and man knew him, but they chose to deliberately ignore him and seek a knowledge of their own. The “they” here is national Israel, and the time is Mt. Sinai.
So, no wonder then that Paul follows with this:
Romans 10:5 – For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
That’s part of the Mount Sinai event, and apparently, “For” …. gar ; a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation….) points back to verse 4:
Romans 10:4 – For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Verse 4 has the same transition that points back to verse 3; so, Christ is the “end” of the law (remember this?) ….for righteousness. “Righteousness” is really a Biblical word that is a synonym for justification:
dikaiosynē; from 1342; equity (of character or act); specially (Christian) justification:— righteousness. AV (92)- righteousness 92; in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God.
For all practical purposes, verse 4 states that Christ is the end of the law for justification. Does that mean the law was ever a means of righteousness? No, “end” means the following:
telos; from a primary τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit, i. e. (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination (literally, figuratively or indefinitely), result (immediate, ultimate or prophetic), purpose);
Christ was the end result of the law for justification. In other passages, the word is translated “fully,” most often, “outcome,” and “aim.” Christ was the aim of the law for righteousness. Christ was the outcome of the law for righteousness. The law pointed to Christ. This is the same thing stated in Galatians:
Galatians 3:21 – Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
The law pointed to Christ and served as our guardian until Christ came. All of our sin was in escrow according to the will:
Hebrews 9:15 – Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Let’s back up a little and look at something else. Note again Romans 10:3;
For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
This is important because salvation is Trinitarian. It is God the Father’s righteousness that has been imputed to us and not Christ’s righteousness. Christ’s death enabled the righteousness of God to be imputed to us. Christ’s death was the fulfillment of the Old Testament law/will that was inaugurated with blood. When He died, all of our sin that were covered with blood by the Old Testament will died with the testator of the will.
Curiously, the ESV, a contemporary translation by New Calvinists, renders verse 3 as stated above. But in a later version of the ESV, verse 3 is rendered as follows:
For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God e.a. [versus “of God”], and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
In manuscript study, there is absolutely NO merit or reason to add these words. Reformed theology relies heavily on the idea that the righteousness imputed to us was primarily from Christ as opposed to the Father. I believe this adoration is to posit that idea. Because the Reformed gospel relies on law as the standard of justification, it is important that righteousness comes from Christ because He lived as a man and kept the law perfectly. That way, verse 4 can be interpreted as Christ being the end of the law because He fulfilled it for our justification. The Reformed Achilles’ heel is the idea that the law requires perfect obedience rather than a declaration based on all of our sins being forgiven. Reformed teachers such as RC Sproul argue that such only leaves us acquitted of sin, but not practically and personally righteous which is impossible because we are not perfect in practice.
Hence, a perfect righteousness must be perpetually imputed to our present lives so that the declaration of righteousness is not “legal fiction.” This requires a perfect practical righteousness being imputed to us, and the only option is Christ because He came and lived on the earth as a man. This is why the imputation of God’s righteousness must be replaced with Christ’s. That is also why the law must be the standard that defines righteousness. Problem is, this is the very assertion that the apostle Paul spent most of his Christian life contending against. And besides, Christ didn’t end the law or fulfill it, He was the outcome of what it pointed toward. He came to fulfill the law through us who cannot be found guilty of any sin because we are under grace and not under law:
Romans 8:3,4 – By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
We can do acts that please God, that’s the proof of our righteousness:
Romans 8:7 – For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
And….
Romans 8:9 – You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
We are righteous because our mortal bodies that cause us to sin are condemned with Christ, and we are made alive by the Spirit who raised Christ from the dead. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” Our willing spirit is what makes us practically righteous. Our imperfection has already been condemned and put to death with Christ. God justified us, Christ died for us, and the Spirit raised us. God declared us righteous in the name of Christ and the Holy Spirit because we died with Christ and were raised by the Holy Spirit:
1Corintians 6:11 – And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
When it gets right down to it, we are born again believers walking around in dead bodies. In regard to justification, it is no longer us who lives but Christ who lives in us:
Galatians 2:15 – We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
This is a major theme throughout Romans; why would you obey the lusts of a dead body? It is dead, and has no power over you:
Romans 6:12 – Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Romans 8:10 – But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
This viewpoint gives us much more confidence that we can overcome sin knowing that we are no longer enslaved to sin, but rather enslaved to righteousness. A perfect keeping of the law is not the standard for being declared righteous; we are practically righteous because slavery and freedom have been reversed. We were once enslaved to sin and free to do righteousness. We are now enslaved to righteousness and free to sin As much as we allow our dead bodies to convince us that we have to obey its passions;
Romans 6:17 – But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Now, with all of that said, here is what it all boils down to:
Romans 10:5 – For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
Stop right there. Paul has pulled out one of his commentaries to further explain his point. Who wrote the commentary? But what does Moses say? Righteousness is NOT BASED on the law! Believe it or not, we are going to look into this deeper by following Paul in his Old Testament commentaries. Next week, we will examine the Old Testament authors that he cites to gain more understanding.
11 comments