“< Tweet, Tweet
Godless anti-justice = “It’s not what happened to you, it’s how you respond.”
Carte Blanche Forgiveness is NOT the Goodness of God that Leads Others to Repentance
“With all of the talk about living in a way that ‘looks like the gospel,’ why is the order of the day forgiveness that really isn’t forgiveness in the same way we were forgiven?”
I suppose I should be patient because we have all lived in this Protestant Dark Age that began in circa 350 AD and became Dark Age Light in the 16th century. To name just a few; no, the church is not the bride of Christ. No, Christians are not sinners saved by grace. No, Christ did not die for the church. No, Christ did not die for the sins we commit as Christians. No, there is no such thing as “church discipline.” No, “legalism” is not a biblical concept. And no, we don’t forgive those who sin against us if they don’t repent.
We are the guests of the Bridegroom, not the bride. Christians are not sinners (a sinner sins as a lifestyle). Christ died for Israel (Acts 5:31, 13:23, 28:20)—we were grafted in to make the unrepentant Jews jealous (Rom 11:11). Christ is the end of the law, and where there is no law there is no sin; so no, His finished work on the cross does not have to be applied to the sins we commit as Christians. He may discipline us as sons, but that has nothing to do with salvation and the supposed need for a perpetual “covering.” The apostles wrote specifically about self-discipline, and the Lord’s discipline; if there is “church discipline,” why wouldn’t they have simply said so? “Legalism” is a word that is not found in the Bible, nor is the concept itself anywhere to be found in Scripture.
We could discuss many more Protestant traditions of men that skew a proper understanding of the gospel, but this post is about carte blanche forgiveness propagated early in church history for the purpose of control. The concept first appears in the Didactic Creed during the tension between bishops and lay elders circa 70 AD.ff. The Didactic posited the idea that blank check forgiveness eliminates having enemies while the Bible assures us that enemies will always be with us. The question is what to do with them? The Bible states that we are to forgive others the way God has forgiven us and that is very true to a “T.” That is exactly how we are to forgive others.
Someone sent me a link to an article that apes the worn-out Protestant truism of carte blanche forgiveness that is NOT the same way God forgave us. Or should I say, “the way God forgives us” which is in the present continuance tense. Does God presently forgive us as family members, or “sinners”? Are you saying that we should forgive others the same way God forgave us unto salvation, or as sons? And is there a difference? Are we sons or sinners, or both? Do we need our whole body washed daily, or just our feet? And how does this all relate to our forgiveness for others?
What are people saying when they say we are to “forgive others the way God forgave us”? I venture to say they don’t really know when it gets right down to it. Let’s start with the usual truisms taken from the aforementioned article:
Forgiveness is much more about YOU -than whoever hurt you.
What Christian victim hasn’t heard that one? So, when the pastor’s son dragged you into the janitors room while you were minding your own business and raped you, that’s more about you than it is the rapist? Really? Does the parrot who wrote that realize we write on the community board of the World Wide Web? I suggest that the Bible teaches that we make it more about the offender than the victim. That’s love: striving to make the individual come to grips with what he/she did. If they don’t make it right with us, neither are they right with God (Matt 5:23). We either believe in universal salvation or we don’t. Is God going to save everyone without repentance, or is repentance required?
I am very concerned about the sappy stories I hear in regard to Christians giving blank check forgiveness to those who have committed heinous crimes against them. This sends the message to the criminal that God forgives without repentance—that’s a false gospel. Is it not better to lead that person to repentance? And how do we do that? But first, let’s take another nugget from said article:
The act of forgiveness releases us from the wounding agent. I have witnessed countless people refuse to forgive. In turn, I have watched those same people repeatedly tear their own wounds open, time and again, right at the moment they begin to heal. -Forgiveness releases us from the wounding agent and allows the healing process to begin and continue. It is the well medicated bandage that is placed on a wound that has been properly cleaned and dressed.
Forgiveness is also the antidote for the infection of bitterness. I have witnessed bitterness eat people up like a vicious emotional and spiritual infection, causing even more damage than the initial wound.
Well, let me introduce you to some saints in heaven. Because they are in heaven praying, we must assume they are in pretty good shape spiritually and emotionally, no? Let’s listen to their prayer:
Rev 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?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.
Justice is very important to God, and often you will hear victims say that justice brings “closure.” Only then can many victims move on. However, when the offender is repentant for what they have done, victims testify that this makes a huge difference in the healing process. Here is what I suggest the Bible teaches:
Seek to bring the person to repentance through love rather than forgiving without repentance.
How is that done? Well, we are to forgive like God forgives, right? If there is any truism that holds water, it is this one: “You have to get people lost before you can get them saved.” Likewise, people have to be your enemy before you can RECONCILE with them. I am going to keep on saying this:
Blank check forgiveness circumvents the need for reconciliation.
Let’s now take another excerpt from Pastor Parrot’s post:
In addition, forgiveness protects relationships.
You mean pretend relationships where no real reconciliation has taken place? And how important is reconciliation to the gospel?
We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God (2Cor 5:7).
Furthermore, if God’s goodness to the unrepentant leads to repentance (Rom 2:4), why would it be any different with us? Why can’t our goodness towards the unrepentant bring them to repentance? Isn’t that better than pretending while leaving them out of sorts with God? Not to mention a continuation of their unrepentant behavior that will harm others. What about them? The Bible never tells us to forgive our enemies—it tells us to love them the same way God loves them. Whenever you are commanded to forgive….
REPENTANCE IS ASSUMED.
Let’s take another excerpt from said article to make this point:
This is exactly why Jesus responded “seventy times seven,” when he was asked how often we should be willing to forgive each other.
Ok, let’s go to the context of his citation:
If he sins against you seven times in the day, and seven times returns, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him” (Luke 17:4).
Excuse me, but what in the Samhell does “IF” mean? Really, I find the whole notion of the Holy Spirit being a poor communicator very annoying. If means, “if.” This isn’t rocket science. God so loved the world that He made a way for reconciliation—that’s how we should love. With all of the talk about living in a way that “looks like the gospel,” why is the order of the day forgiveness that really isn’t forgiveness in the same way we were forgiven? In fact, why all the fuss in regard to Matthew 18? Why not just forgive everybody and be done with it?
Because love is better. Because it prescribes a process that does not call God’s justice into question. It does not put the burden on the abused so that pathetic excuses for pastors can push the easy button.
paul
Spiritual Abuse, and an Answer to a Pastor
Pastor,
I am not on a journey to recover from spiritual abuse. The spiritual abuse was a symptom of a much bigger problem—I am on a journey to learn more and more about the cause of the symptoms. That is my journey. I have been on the journey long enough to know that Protestantism itself is the problem, and I am rethinking the Western traditions of men.
Furthermore, you have requested this of me before based on my disdain for the psycho-babble clichés being offered wholesale to the spiritually abused. Specifically, that forgiveness is critical to the “healing process.” First, victims do not effectively forgive where there is no repentance. This ministry has dealt with those who have been doing that gig for 20 years and now realize that it is a lie. I don’t forgive my abusers—they have not repented. I love them as my enemies, but I don’t forgive them. If they needed my help, I would help them in a heartbeat.
Why? As long as there is opportunity to love them as my enemies, the hope of RECONCILIATION looms in the future. Carte blanche forgiveness circumvents true reconciliation, and repentance that will assure as much as possible that others will not be victimized. Only then can true forgiveness from the heart take place—after true reconciliation and our properly vacated duty to protect others.
You should know all of this, but you still don’t get it. You first attempted to “move on with your life” in the beginning and it didn’t work. In fact, your silence was indirectly responsible for your best friend’s broken marriage. You see connections with my blog as a hindrance to once again “moving on” to the future. You now want me to participate in your continued ignorance, and I will not.
The answer to your request is, “no.” Resubmit your request when the lightbulb turns on.
Paul Dohse.
Whatever Happened to Guilt by Association?
In a rather heated debate on another blog, I presented my three-point plan for getting rid of spiritual abuse in the American church:
1. Reformed theology must be rejected in totality.
2. Those that will not reject Reformed theology in totality must be dismissed as credible advocates for the abused.
3. Education in regard to the worldview/ideology/doctrine/true history of the Reformation.
This will eliminate the lion’s share of abuse in the church, the rest can be mopped up by other means.
After getting involved in commenting on the particular post (referred to me by one of my readers; they are always getting me in trouble by doing that) over at Spiritual Sounding Board (authored by the Blogosphere Diva), I again noted that guilt by association has been long buried with my wise grandmother. This lost concept of guilt by association is directly related to Reformed ideology.
And what are the results? We stand befuddled when we hear the likes of Pastor Marc Monte sing accolades to the memory of Dr. Jack Hyles. Hyles’ ministry was absolutely nothing short of a criminal cartel. But yet, Monte needs to only preface his accolades with “I don’t agree with everything he did.”
How in the sam-heck can he get away with that and still be the pastor of one of the most recognized churches in IFB land? Because we are all good Protestants, that’s why. When we throw around spiritual bumper stickers like “We are all just sinners saved by grace,” we ponder not the power of such statements. We know not that most children raped in the church are violated to the lyrics of that jingle.
And that motto is uniquely Reformed. Others go with it: “But for the grace of God, there go I.” In Reformed theology, there is guilt by association: everybody is guilty, even the saints. In the words of one great Reformer:
The saint is no whit different than the unregenerate.
So, quibbling about associations is an anomaly. Get a grip: the victims are also guilty. Get a grip: “We all need grace.” Get a grip: “We all deserve hell.” Get a grip: ALL life events point us to grace, that’s a good thing. If we embrace the grace solution. Some organizations even call themselves, G.R.A.C.E.
But there is an exception. There are those we must not associate with according to the Reformers. Those who don’t get it. Those who don’t know that we are all in the same boat with child rapists. Those who don’t understand that grace is only found in the mother church. Rapists must be cured with grace as well as the victims, but those who threaten the mother church must be cured with the sword. There is only one thing worse that a child rapist: those who don’t understand “grace,” and where it is found.
It is often said that I am hard to understand—is this understandable enough? These are core thoughts that people must get, add you own balance, but do not deviate from the core reality.
If you do, the abuse problem will never be solved. If we do not understand the metaphysical differences between saint and sinner, and good versus evil: the body count will continue to climb under the auspices of compassion. We will be nothing more than those who sang hymns to the European child thieves on the way to the gallows.
paul
WadeWatch Continues to Foster Burleson Nonsense
“Deb and Dee, that cold one is for you. That’s what you promote when you give credence to the likes of Wade Burleson.”
I believe Deb and Dee over at WadeWatch are Southern Baptists. As a Southern Baptist myself, I take great comfort in knowing that we are too doctrinally dumbed down to be completely take over by the New Calvinist movement. Wade Burleson, a kinder, gentler New Calvinist like Joseph Prince, may not be as much of a threat as I once feared in that venue.
The thing that drives me batty about Burleson is his make it up as you go theology. This ministry has already called him out on forming a theology based on a post-biblical Greek word. He shortly thereafter changed the subtitle on his blog that was the focus of our criticism. His former subtitle was a lame attempt to make a case for Redemptive Historical hermeneutics which is not just a mode of biblical interpretation, but Martin Luther’s epistemology for interpreting reality itself. Luther rejected the idea that reality is interpreted grammatically, but rather through redemption. This leads to a Gnostic indifference to human suffering and a devaluing of a sense of justice. Though Burleson’s behavior is un-Neo-Calvinist like, he shares their ideology.
Apparently, to the orgasmic delight of WadeWatch, Burleson actually posts comments on that blog from time to time and I was sent a particular one the other day. In regard to the usual burloney, it did not disappoint:
God makes His love for us so captivating, so alluring, so charming, so dazzling, so enthralling, so mesmerizing, so spellbinding (gospel comes from “good spell”), so magnetizing, so enrapturing, so gripping, so compelling, so hypnotizing, and so absolutely “sweep me off my feet” enamoring that I cannot, I must not, and I will not refuse, though I have the power to do so.
Where to start? Burleson makes salvation some road to Damascus event instead of a belief in the simple facts of the gospel. His kinship to the despicable John Piper is seen here in that Piper teaches that one is not saved unless he/she experiences Christ as an immense “treasure chest of joy.” I once knew a young man that I witnessed to who was being counseled by a certified NANC counselor who held to this view. This young man was living in the very bottom of human depravity. I later heard that he prayed on his knees for hours, begging God to save him while waiting on some ultra-joy experience. Deb and Dee, that cold one is for you. That’s what you promote when you give credence to the likes of Wade Burleson.
Much could be discussed in regard to this excerpt, the excellent points made by the reader notwithstanding, but I tend to have a special hankering for Burleson in regard to his make it up as you go theology. In this case, the idea that the “gospel” carries the idea of being put under a spell. Really? Am I here right now? Somebody google, “Gospel, Burleson, Cupid” and see if we get lucky.
The fact that Burleson would assign “gospel” a meaning from the spelling of the word long after the Bible was written, and on top of that not even the meaning of it at the time it was spelled that way to make a point speaks for itself. This is the same type of shenanigans that we have called him out on before. Here is the citation from Online Etymology Dictionary:
gospel (n.)
Old English godspel “gospel, glad tidings announced by Jesus; one of the four gospels,” from god “good” (see good) + spel “story, message” (see spell (n.)); translation of Latin bona adnuntiatio, itself a translation of Greek euangelion “reward for bringing good news.”
The first element of the Old English word had a long “o,” but it shifted under mistaken association with God. The word passed early from English to continental Germanic languages in forms that clearly indicate the first element had shifted to “God,” e.g. Old Saxon godspell, Old High German gotspell, Old Norse goðspiall. Used of anything as true as the Gospel from mid-13c. Gospel-gossip was Addison’s word (“Spectator,” 1711) for “one who is always talking of sermons, texts, etc.”
The first element of the Old English word had a long “o,” but it shifted under mistaken association with God. The word passed early from English to continental Germanic languages in forms that clearly indicate the first element had shifted to “God,” e.g. Old Saxon godspell, Old High German gotspell, Old Norse goðspiall. Used of anything as true as the Gospel from mid-13c. Gospel-gossip was Addison’s word (“Spectator,” 1711) for “one who is always talking of sermons, texts, etc.”
“Spel,” even when it was spelled that way long after the Bible was written, meant “story” or a “message,” not like a magic spell of some sort. Good grief. Now, true, I allow the Burlesons of the world to comment on PPT, but that’s for comparison and contrast, not endorsement.
And this is a great Segway into my idea for Deb and Dee. They could get rid of Burleson over time and not lose credibility. See, I don’t dislike them at all, just trying to help here. All they have to do is start disagreeing with him here and there when he comments on WadeWatch. Everybody disagrees with each other from time to time, right? So, they could ratchet this up slowly over time. They could eventually start treating him like Alex Guggenheim.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment