I just thought this exchange between Damion and myself would be helpful for others.
what we consider good, such as the “infinite bliss and happiness”
We might indeed usually speak of it that way, but that's not what I'm after here. On atheism, does it make sense that ANYthing be called good? Whether it makes sense doesn't necessarily touch on whether people will believe it, as I'm sure you'd agree. Proof is not the same as persuasion.
on your theological premises, God would still be perfectly good if only one person (say, um, Enoch) enjoyed infinite bliss
You are right. Further, God would be perfectly good if NOONE enjoyed infinite bliss.
Compared with how it really is, one could say that He'd have shown less mercy and compassion that way, but one would not have a useful or reasonable way to judge that, or to judge God as wrong.
billions of souls suffering eternally counts for exactly nothing in the overall calculus of good and evil in the universe
No, I wouldn't say that. That's not a good thing, not at all. It's so distasteful and wrong, in fact, that it cost Jesus Christ His very life.
Does God acts in good ways because He embodies goodness, or does He embody goodness because he acts in good ways?
It's the former.
what precisely do you mean when you say that goodness is an ontological attribute?
I can't guarantee that my language is the most strictly correct and proper, philosophically speaking. What I'm trying to say is that God has revealed Himself as being good and there is every reason to trust Him. Further, there is no viable alternative for defining good in any useful way.
but on your terms no conceivable amount of harm (even the eternal harm of billions of souls) is unjustified so long as it is divinely ordained. Can you think of any harm which is unjustified, and in what sense is it so?
Former sentence is correct. For one thing, as I said before, we don't know the full plan of God and so have insuff information to judge. On atheism, I don't see any way to ground "justification", so that's another problem.
You asked for "any harm", in general, so I'd say that any and all evil committed by a created being, be it human or angel, would be unjustified harm. Sorry if that's not what you were asking for - elucidate the question and I'll be happy to respond to it.
it is only wrong to murder because God specifically forbade it?
I would say that, yes.
As I understand natural law theology (which is not all that well), I think a proponent thereof would disagree and say that it's also forbidden by natural law. I am not sufficiently versed in that to say either way.
you would say God just had to punish someone because He is perfectly just, so much so that ordinary outright forgiveness is logically impossible for Him
I guess you could say that, yes. The way that the law and justice are set up, wrongdoing must be punished.
justice (as we usually use the term) requires that the punishment for a given criminal fit his own crimes, God’s justice allows Him a loophole -- punish an innocent volunteer instead of the guilty party
Oh, I guess that wording, while a bit irreverent, fits, yes. The alternative is that, indeed, every criminal pay for his crimes, and his crimes are of infinite evil b/c they offend an infinitely holy God's holy law. God does not tolerate impurity in His presence, so we'd all be doomed forever to separation from Him. The only "candidate" for acting as substitute for mankind is God Himself.
Once again, it seems, you’ve run so far afoul or ordinary usage that you would actually be better off using antonyms.
And that would be a problem if I cared much about "ordinary usage". We do not judge God by man, but rather man by God.
Is God also being unjust in allowing sinners into heaven?
This is an excellent question, and speaks to the untruth of Islam. It's a major chink in the Islamic armor - Allah allows some sinful people into Paradise and the virgins and all that. And on what basis? Allah just --poof-- forgives the offenders.
The God of the Bible does no such thing. Take me as an example. All the times I've lied, been unjustifiably angry, looked with lust at a pretty girl, etc, these things have been fully punished. All the just punishment has been poured out on Christ on the Cross. My sin has been reckoned/imputed to Him and His perfect righteousness has been reckoned/imputed to me. Think of it as swapping bank accounts. At the Cross, I told Jesus I was sorry for all the 50% APR credit card debt I'd racked up and meant it. I asked Him for His Swiss bank acct containing €100 million. He agreed and did the switch.
Sounds crazy, right? To me too, but that's the reality. Christianity is too good to be true, only it really is true.
For those who reject the bank acct swap, they justly go to "debtor's prison". For those who accept the acct swap, they justly receive the money, since the guy who receives the bad debt has the resources to pay it. It's just that He's generous enough to share His incredible wealth with whomever might ask.
If they are non-believers, then by definition they *cannot* turn to God since they do not know God is really there.
God says that they DO know He exists - Romans 1:18-22. Further, that His law is written on their hearts, so that they have no excuse - Romans 2:10-15.
OTOH, it's true that they can't turn to God. For a person to turn to God, it requires a supernatural work on His part in their life.
I understand that you believe God is loving, but would not the hypothetical deity (affirmed by universalists) be far more loving than the one that you believe in?
How loving is it to refuse to punish all the evil done in the world? To arrive in Heaven and find an unrepentant Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot hanging out on the clouds with you? Especially since your last thought was "curse Hitler" as the SS guards threw the switch to flood your shower stall with sarin gas?
To arrive in Heaven and find the man who just finished raping and messily murdering you and your family there beside you?
I think this series of articles is very useful and illustrative of my meaning, for real.
I am *NOT* criticizing God but merely a man-made concept...
Fair enough, but you really do need to incorporate the idea of internal vs external critique into your argument. From my end, your viewpoint is man-made, and TGOTB really does exist.
So I ask myself - can atheism provide any grounding for making such moral critiques as I find here? So far I've not seen one, but I could be surprised someday.
But in this case you must give up on Anselm, because it becomes trivially easy to conceive of a greater being than the one you claim to worship.
Oh, that's a very interesting thought, actually!
I'll have to chew on that for a while, but I think you may very well have a great point WRT Anselm's ontological argument...
Peace,
Rhology
Showing posts with label forgiveness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label forgiveness. Show all posts
Friday, April 24, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Forgiveness-3
Continuing my discussion with rotsaP loeJ...
I honestly didn't think that the biblical teaching on different levels of, well, badness of sin would be in question.
Jesus Himself made those kinds of comments many times.
21"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. "Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. - Matt 11:21
Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. - Matt 12:31
" Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation - Matt 23:14
"The second is this, ' YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these." - Mark 12:31
who devour widows' houses, and for appearance's sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation." - Mk 12:40
"For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little." - Lk 7:47
Jesus answered, " You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." - Jn 19:11
There are other NT examples, but hopefully that clarifies what I mean.
And yes, of course, any one sin, even a "small" one, is enough to condemn me to Hell forever. But OTOH, some sin leads to greater condemnation in Hell than others. An unrepentant dead Hitler is in a lower, hotter level of Hell than my grandma will be if she doesn't repent before she dies.
is it that Pilate's authority makes him less culpable for the crucifixion, or that Judas' lack of official status as a minister of secular justice increases his?
That's a good question.
On one side, I think it's irrelevant to our discussion, since obviously the fact that there is a greater sin remains.
My first guess would be that Judas spent no less than 3 years with God Himself incarnate, and yet he still thinks it's worth a mere 30 silver pieces to betray Him. Pilate had just met Jesus and knew little about Him.
But "weightier portions of the law" is a question of letter vs. spirit (the pharisees were using technicalities in order to justify being jerks)
Matt 23: 23"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
24"You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"
I don't know if I agree with you on this one. Why did God spend so much breath and emphasis all thru the OT and reiterate it several times in the Gospels that "I desire obedience and not sacrifice"? Is it really a wash whether one tithes all his dill but shows no mercy or justice or whether one is very just and merciful and gives only 9% of his dill?
his great point is that 'unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and pharisees you are not fit to inherit the kingdom of heaven.'
True, and that's b/c His emphasis was there. It's far more important to preach the Gospel that'll get people saved from their sins, after all, than it is to discuss a finer point of theology.
my view is that the "something" may be anything at all, so long as it creates relational tension.
And I think there is the key! Buried within the first post, I said that, and I think it's key. Maybe I didn't say it or entitle it right, that may be. But just as constantly confronting my brethren for any little offense would rip apart our relations, so would my constant begging for forgiveness do the same. Don't you think?
Repentance is a necessarily selfless and virtuous action.
Which unblvrs CAN perform. Those acts are not meritorious before God, but they are virtuous and selfless.
I must acknowledge the objective basis of my sin
Yes, but people neglect to take things to their logical conclusions all the time. Atheist commenters on this blog are a perfect example.
the status of a sinner is such that he suppresses this knowledge with all his power, for otherwise how could he live with himself?
He can protect himself thru inconsistent thinking.
When he ceases to suppress it he becomes a Christian
Agreed.
you may disagree with my definition of repentance
I guess that is mostly what it comes down to.
-----------------------
On a related point, an excommunicated person must be a Christian. I don't agree that the excommunicant can have been faking.
What of 1 John 2, then?
18Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that (AW)antichrist is coming, (AX)even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
19(AY)They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, (AZ)so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
And 2 Tim 2 and 1 Tim 1:
1 Tim 1:19keeping (BJ)faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to (BK)their faith.
20Among these are (BL)Hymenaeus and (BM)Alexander, whom I have (BN)handed over to Satan, so that they will be (BO)taught not to blaspheme.
2 Tim 2:16But (AM)avoid (AN)worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,
17and their talk will spread like [a]gangrene. Among them are (AO)Hymenaeus and Philetus,
18men who have gone astray from the truth saying that (AP)the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset (AQ)the faith of some.
Or Galatians 2:4But it was because of the (C)false brethren secretly brought in, who (D)had sneaked in to spy out our (E)liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to (F)bring us into bondage.
5But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that (G)the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
Satan wants to destroy the church, no? And so one of the best ways to do that is to rip it apart from within, and to introduce false teachers and false brethren. Ch discipline is for kicking them out once they're revealed, don't you think?
The whole point is that the disciplined person is a brother who will be now treated like a stranger.
Well, he's assumed to be a brother up until the time of excomm. Now we're not so sure, but the way is open for him to come back, if he specifically repents. Much like an unblvr has to repent to join the church.
because non-Christians are not capable of real repentance outside of God's transformative work,
I don't know if I'd agree with that. Definitely I agree that he can't repent BEFORE GOD outside of the Holy Spirit working in him, but truly repenting of having committed evil against another in a totally non-Christian context? I don't know if there's any biblical revelation either way, is there? You think that most of the societies in the world in history have been founded and gone their way w/o ever having experienced true repentance over wrongs? Not that they'd consider those wrongs in any consistent worldview, but people are capable of gross, grand, monumental inconsistency!
so threatening them with excommunication ...makes as much sense as threatening them with violence.
Well, obviously they have some reason for coming to church; otherwise they wouldn't come. Now they've lost access to whatever value they placed on churchgoing. That might be big or small, but that's all one can do. And it's another chance to share the Gospel and also to sanctify the congregation thru the removal of bad leaven and thru teaching the Scr's teaching on ch disc and holiness.
(your idea about withholding forgiveness seems indistinguishable from this to me. Is there a distinction you're making, or would you simply say the one is a more formal version of the other?)
Hmm, yeah, I'd probably call it a more formal version.
-------------
1) Fair enough - Simon hadn't specifically wronged Peter.
2) I asked: Shall we be more forgiving than God? So, maybe you could help make progress towards that - are we indeed to be more forgiving than God?
You answer:
I would say yes, certainly, and of course.
Hmmm, I don't know if I can buy that, you know? God is THE exemplar for our actions and thoughts. Forgiveness is objectively a good action. And yet I can exceed God in a good action? Me?
3) I think it's better to say that my judgment might be shaky as far as extrapolating from withholding forgiveness in the context of ch disc to withholding it for unblvrs in certain circumstances, since I dealt with the part about excommunicating (secret) unblvrs above.
One thing I haven't seen you take into account, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the concept that we withhold forgiveness certain times for the good of the person, for love of them. Since this action would be motivated by pure love of the offender, does that have anythg at all to do with it?
I honestly didn't think that the biblical teaching on different levels of, well, badness of sin would be in question.
Jesus Himself made those kinds of comments many times.
21"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. "Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. - Matt 11:21
Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. - Matt 12:31
" Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation - Matt 23:14
"The second is this, ' YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these." - Mark 12:31
who devour widows' houses, and for appearance's sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation." - Mk 12:40
"For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little." - Lk 7:47
Jesus answered, " You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." - Jn 19:11
There are other NT examples, but hopefully that clarifies what I mean.
And yes, of course, any one sin, even a "small" one, is enough to condemn me to Hell forever. But OTOH, some sin leads to greater condemnation in Hell than others. An unrepentant dead Hitler is in a lower, hotter level of Hell than my grandma will be if she doesn't repent before she dies.
is it that Pilate's authority makes him less culpable for the crucifixion, or that Judas' lack of official status as a minister of secular justice increases his?
That's a good question.
On one side, I think it's irrelevant to our discussion, since obviously the fact that there is a greater sin remains.
My first guess would be that Judas spent no less than 3 years with God Himself incarnate, and yet he still thinks it's worth a mere 30 silver pieces to betray Him. Pilate had just met Jesus and knew little about Him.
But "weightier portions of the law" is a question of letter vs. spirit (the pharisees were using technicalities in order to justify being jerks)
Matt 23: 23"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
24"You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"
I don't know if I agree with you on this one. Why did God spend so much breath and emphasis all thru the OT and reiterate it several times in the Gospels that "I desire obedience and not sacrifice"? Is it really a wash whether one tithes all his dill but shows no mercy or justice or whether one is very just and merciful and gives only 9% of his dill?
his great point is that 'unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and pharisees you are not fit to inherit the kingdom of heaven.'
True, and that's b/c His emphasis was there. It's far more important to preach the Gospel that'll get people saved from their sins, after all, than it is to discuss a finer point of theology.
my view is that the "something" may be anything at all, so long as it creates relational tension.
And I think there is the key! Buried within the first post, I said that, and I think it's key. Maybe I didn't say it or entitle it right, that may be. But just as constantly confronting my brethren for any little offense would rip apart our relations, so would my constant begging for forgiveness do the same. Don't you think?
Repentance is a necessarily selfless and virtuous action.
Which unblvrs CAN perform. Those acts are not meritorious before God, but they are virtuous and selfless.
I must acknowledge the objective basis of my sin
Yes, but people neglect to take things to their logical conclusions all the time. Atheist commenters on this blog are a perfect example.
the status of a sinner is such that he suppresses this knowledge with all his power, for otherwise how could he live with himself?
He can protect himself thru inconsistent thinking.
When he ceases to suppress it he becomes a Christian
Agreed.
you may disagree with my definition of repentance
I guess that is mostly what it comes down to.
-----------------------
On a related point, an excommunicated person must be a Christian. I don't agree that the excommunicant can have been faking.
What of 1 John 2, then?
18Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that (AW)antichrist is coming, (AX)even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
19(AY)They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, (AZ)so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
And 2 Tim 2 and 1 Tim 1:
1 Tim 1:19keeping (BJ)faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to (BK)their faith.
20Among these are (BL)Hymenaeus and (BM)Alexander, whom I have (BN)handed over to Satan, so that they will be (BO)taught not to blaspheme.
2 Tim 2:16But (AM)avoid (AN)worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,
17and their talk will spread like [a]gangrene. Among them are (AO)Hymenaeus and Philetus,
18men who have gone astray from the truth saying that (AP)the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset (AQ)the faith of some.
Or Galatians 2:4But it was because of the (C)false brethren secretly brought in, who (D)had sneaked in to spy out our (E)liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to (F)bring us into bondage.
5But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that (G)the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
Satan wants to destroy the church, no? And so one of the best ways to do that is to rip it apart from within, and to introduce false teachers and false brethren. Ch discipline is for kicking them out once they're revealed, don't you think?
The whole point is that the disciplined person is a brother who will be now treated like a stranger.
Well, he's assumed to be a brother up until the time of excomm. Now we're not so sure, but the way is open for him to come back, if he specifically repents. Much like an unblvr has to repent to join the church.
because non-Christians are not capable of real repentance outside of God's transformative work,
I don't know if I'd agree with that. Definitely I agree that he can't repent BEFORE GOD outside of the Holy Spirit working in him, but truly repenting of having committed evil against another in a totally non-Christian context? I don't know if there's any biblical revelation either way, is there? You think that most of the societies in the world in history have been founded and gone their way w/o ever having experienced true repentance over wrongs? Not that they'd consider those wrongs in any consistent worldview, but people are capable of gross, grand, monumental inconsistency!
so threatening them with excommunication ...makes as much sense as threatening them with violence.
Well, obviously they have some reason for coming to church; otherwise they wouldn't come. Now they've lost access to whatever value they placed on churchgoing. That might be big or small, but that's all one can do. And it's another chance to share the Gospel and also to sanctify the congregation thru the removal of bad leaven and thru teaching the Scr's teaching on ch disc and holiness.
(your idea about withholding forgiveness seems indistinguishable from this to me. Is there a distinction you're making, or would you simply say the one is a more formal version of the other?)
Hmm, yeah, I'd probably call it a more formal version.
-------------
1) Fair enough - Simon hadn't specifically wronged Peter.
2) I asked: Shall we be more forgiving than God? So, maybe you could help make progress towards that - are we indeed to be more forgiving than God?
You answer:
I would say yes, certainly, and of course.
Hmmm, I don't know if I can buy that, you know? God is THE exemplar for our actions and thoughts. Forgiveness is objectively a good action. And yet I can exceed God in a good action? Me?
3) I think it's better to say that my judgment might be shaky as far as extrapolating from withholding forgiveness in the context of ch disc to withholding it for unblvrs in certain circumstances, since I dealt with the part about excommunicating (secret) unblvrs above.
One thing I haven't seen you take into account, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the concept that we withhold forgiveness certain times for the good of the person, for love of them. Since this action would be motivated by pure love of the offender, does that have anythg at all to do with it?
Monday, January 12, 2009
Forgiveness and Luke 23:34
rotsaP leoJ has commented on my last post about Christian forgiveness.
I respond:
Signore,
Thank you kindly for your thoughts. I did say this was an exercise in discernment. :-D Let me try to see if I can form an explanation that satisfies both of us.
1. The way I interp the Willis' intentions is that they withhold the consolation of forgiveness from the imprisoned Gov. in hopes that it will play a part in stimulating him to repentance.
I don't think that "do not feel capable of forgiving" is a fair way of describing their state of mind at all. That link branches off to several others, and I read them all, so that might help you understand them as well.
You said:
our forgiveness cannot be predicated upon the other fellow ceasing to sin.
-In most cases, I agree - see Point 1 of the post.
-In certain cases, I disagree, but I would restate it to say "predicated upon the other fellow more or less explicitly repenting of his sin", rather than "ceasing to sin" - the "70 times 7" thing would knock out the "ceasing to sin" part.
Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors, the prayer goes; and we are forgiven - that is, the penalty of our sins is satisfied - long before we have the capacity to repent.
No argument there at all. But on the grand scheme, forgiveness of sin is ACQUIRED thru repentance and faith.
it violates the example both of Stephen and of Christ, forgiving those who obviously were not close to repenting.
It is true that their examples present a difficulty for my position. I'd say a few things in response.
1) Christ - Lk 23:34. That verse is actually a textual variant, interestingly, of at least questionable origin.
As for Stephen, I'd say that he was following Christ's example. Possibly, in fact, since the Acts psg is not in question wrt textual crit, perhaps it was copied back into Luke by some scribe a little later on. Or perhaps Christ did indeed say that or sthg like that from the Cross, but it wasn't in the autograph. (Both of those are proposed as possibilities in the NA27.)
2) The situation is that Christ is being nailed to the Cross. This is the ultimate and infinite injustice, that the sinless and holy Savior should be put to death by sinful men for hypocritical and untrue accusations, mostly just to get Him out of their way. God has responded in the past to such blasphemy and horrifying disobedience by the following actions:
-Causing flaming brimstone and fire to swallow up a few entire cities
-Killing everyone on Earth with a flood
-Causing the ground to swallow up Korah and 100s of others
-Sending a plague to destroy 1000s of others the day after Korah
-Sending burning serpents to kill 1000s of others on a different occasion
-Utterly wiping Israel (N Kingdom) and later Jerusalem off the face of the Earth
-Ditto with Tyre
-Ditto with Nineveh
etc. So I see a parallel there, between those great sins and the great destruction that followed. Jesus is interceding for humanity, to this effect: "Father, we both know that this is an infinite injustice; there is no question it's worthy of obliterating the entire planet with a wrathful explosion. Yet do not do that, I pray. Do not destroy, but let us be patient and save for ourselves a people for our own possession." Sthg like that, specifically related to the horrible act of crucifying God.
3) John MacArthur suggests (I seem to recall) that He is interceding for those who are participating, and who would eventually repent and believe.
4) 1 Cor 2:8 - the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Ignorance of the Law is no excuse, ultimately, but it does play a part in mitigating certain consequences.
2. presumably the Willises do not imaging they are delivering Gov. Ryan over to Satan.
Yes, but I'm not trying to apply the considerations from every "don't forgive absent repentance" scenario to all of them.
3. of course no-one can forgive offenses to other people, conditionally or otherwise. The condition of the person seems highly irrelevant.
Perhaps it is irrelevant, though I don't know about highly. I think I was relating the idea of withholding forgiveness to the idea of confronting the offender and asking them to repent. Obviously, if one forgives the offender unilaterally, no confrontation takes place. And of course, as you said, a 3rd party has no standing to forgive anyway.
4. I submit that such formal arrangements for the constitution of the church are not directly intended to govern individuals.
I'd be inclined to agree, so I could have made that a little more precise in terms of differentiating between how we treat fellow blvrs and how we treat unblvrs, it would appear.
If we direct the idea straight at intra-church relationships, however, I think this is still highly relevant b/c a grave offense against a fellow blvr will need to be dealt with for the good of the offender and the church itself.
Like the Willises, again: I see no reason to suppose that Gov. Ryan is legitimately a brother subject to the discipline of their church, so what on earth are they trying to prove by withholding forgiveness?
Yes, I agree, no ch discipline is possible here. But I think you are leaving out sthg I tried to emphasise. I should think this paragraph from the post answers:
And let us remember the distinction we made earlier about the freestanding commands not to remain angry, not to let bitterness take root in us. It is all about the attitude of the offended party in these cases – we don’t want the offense to remain, we want to forgive, but we postpone and withhold forgiveness b/c it bolsters the possibility of a better outcome in the future for the offender. This motivation is out of love as well, and this fits very well into God’s overall scheme for forgiveness of humans.
so are they just going to try to wait him out until Ryan becomes a Christian?
Keeping in mind the caveats I mentioned, this is kind of a crude way of putting it, sort of.
Ryan's repenting of ALL of his sin before Jesus' Cross is the best-case scenario. For him to at least say that he did wrong and apologises for THAT sin, I should think it would suffice for forgiveness to be extended, since that's the example of Scr. One hopes and prays for the former with a ready heart to forgive when true repentance is offered.
If sincerity is to be the test, no non-Christian can ever really repent
I should think this comment confuses sincerity with full realisation of the gravity of the offense.
They may not know how bad their action was, but they can know that it was bad and that they are sorry for it.
What about people who cut them off on the interstate?
Really, I think my post is sufficiently clear to be able to differentiate between the offense the Willis family suffered and being cut off in traffic. This strikes me as a bit of a cold comment from you, and that surprises me a bit.
Anyway, I hope that helps. As always, more discussion is welcome.
I respond:
Signore,
Thank you kindly for your thoughts. I did say this was an exercise in discernment. :-D Let me try to see if I can form an explanation that satisfies both of us.
1. The way I interp the Willis' intentions is that they withhold the consolation of forgiveness from the imprisoned Gov. in hopes that it will play a part in stimulating him to repentance.
I don't think that "do not feel capable of forgiving" is a fair way of describing their state of mind at all. That link branches off to several others, and I read them all, so that might help you understand them as well.
You said:
our forgiveness cannot be predicated upon the other fellow ceasing to sin.
-In most cases, I agree - see Point 1 of the post.
-In certain cases, I disagree, but I would restate it to say "predicated upon the other fellow more or less explicitly repenting of his sin", rather than "ceasing to sin" - the "70 times 7" thing would knock out the "ceasing to sin" part.
Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors, the prayer goes; and we are forgiven - that is, the penalty of our sins is satisfied - long before we have the capacity to repent.
No argument there at all. But on the grand scheme, forgiveness of sin is ACQUIRED thru repentance and faith.
it violates the example both of Stephen and of Christ, forgiving those who obviously were not close to repenting.
It is true that their examples present a difficulty for my position. I'd say a few things in response.
1) Christ - Lk 23:34. That verse is actually a textual variant, interestingly, of at least questionable origin.
As for Stephen, I'd say that he was following Christ's example. Possibly, in fact, since the Acts psg is not in question wrt textual crit, perhaps it was copied back into Luke by some scribe a little later on. Or perhaps Christ did indeed say that or sthg like that from the Cross, but it wasn't in the autograph. (Both of those are proposed as possibilities in the NA27.)
2) The situation is that Christ is being nailed to the Cross. This is the ultimate and infinite injustice, that the sinless and holy Savior should be put to death by sinful men for hypocritical and untrue accusations, mostly just to get Him out of their way. God has responded in the past to such blasphemy and horrifying disobedience by the following actions:
-Causing flaming brimstone and fire to swallow up a few entire cities
-Killing everyone on Earth with a flood
-Causing the ground to swallow up Korah and 100s of others
-Sending a plague to destroy 1000s of others the day after Korah
-Sending burning serpents to kill 1000s of others on a different occasion
-Utterly wiping Israel (N Kingdom) and later Jerusalem off the face of the Earth
-Ditto with Tyre
-Ditto with Nineveh
etc. So I see a parallel there, between those great sins and the great destruction that followed. Jesus is interceding for humanity, to this effect: "Father, we both know that this is an infinite injustice; there is no question it's worthy of obliterating the entire planet with a wrathful explosion. Yet do not do that, I pray. Do not destroy, but let us be patient and save for ourselves a people for our own possession." Sthg like that, specifically related to the horrible act of crucifying God.
3) John MacArthur suggests (I seem to recall) that He is interceding for those who are participating, and who would eventually repent and believe.
4) 1 Cor 2:8 - the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Ignorance of the Law is no excuse, ultimately, but it does play a part in mitigating certain consequences.
2. presumably the Willises do not imaging they are delivering Gov. Ryan over to Satan.
Yes, but I'm not trying to apply the considerations from every "don't forgive absent repentance" scenario to all of them.
3. of course no-one can forgive offenses to other people, conditionally or otherwise. The condition of the person seems highly irrelevant.
Perhaps it is irrelevant, though I don't know about highly. I think I was relating the idea of withholding forgiveness to the idea of confronting the offender and asking them to repent. Obviously, if one forgives the offender unilaterally, no confrontation takes place. And of course, as you said, a 3rd party has no standing to forgive anyway.
4. I submit that such formal arrangements for the constitution of the church are not directly intended to govern individuals.
I'd be inclined to agree, so I could have made that a little more precise in terms of differentiating between how we treat fellow blvrs and how we treat unblvrs, it would appear.
If we direct the idea straight at intra-church relationships, however, I think this is still highly relevant b/c a grave offense against a fellow blvr will need to be dealt with for the good of the offender and the church itself.
Like the Willises, again: I see no reason to suppose that Gov. Ryan is legitimately a brother subject to the discipline of their church, so what on earth are they trying to prove by withholding forgiveness?
Yes, I agree, no ch discipline is possible here. But I think you are leaving out sthg I tried to emphasise. I should think this paragraph from the post answers:
And let us remember the distinction we made earlier about the freestanding commands not to remain angry, not to let bitterness take root in us. It is all about the attitude of the offended party in these cases – we don’t want the offense to remain, we want to forgive, but we postpone and withhold forgiveness b/c it bolsters the possibility of a better outcome in the future for the offender. This motivation is out of love as well, and this fits very well into God’s overall scheme for forgiveness of humans.
so are they just going to try to wait him out until Ryan becomes a Christian?
Keeping in mind the caveats I mentioned, this is kind of a crude way of putting it, sort of.
Ryan's repenting of ALL of his sin before Jesus' Cross is the best-case scenario. For him to at least say that he did wrong and apologises for THAT sin, I should think it would suffice for forgiveness to be extended, since that's the example of Scr. One hopes and prays for the former with a ready heart to forgive when true repentance is offered.
If sincerity is to be the test, no non-Christian can ever really repent
I should think this comment confuses sincerity with full realisation of the gravity of the offense.
They may not know how bad their action was, but they can know that it was bad and that they are sorry for it.
What about people who cut them off on the interstate?
Really, I think my post is sufficiently clear to be able to differentiate between the offense the Willis family suffered and being cut off in traffic. This strikes me as a bit of a cold comment from you, and that surprises me a bit.
Anyway, I hope that helps. As always, more discussion is welcome.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Sunday School notes on Christian forgiveness
This is a study is entitled “A lesson in applied discernment and scrutiny among church members. Subtitle is: Rhology teaches, what better opportunity will you have?” that I taught at my church last Sunday.
Today we are discussing forgiveness, particularly between human beings and how the way God forgives humans applies in that consideration.
It’s a study in avoiding 2 extremes – hard-hearted self-righteousness on the one side and undiscerning, pacifistic, universalism on the other. And by no means let us consider this to be the final word on this topic. This is to get the brain juices flowing on everyone’s part, including mine. As always, stop me anytime with a question, a comment, a challenge, or an ego-stroking, oozing compliment.
Definition of forgiveness: John MacArthur defines it (in his book The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness) as a choice made by the offended party to set aside the other person’s transgression and not allow it to cause a breach in the relationship or fester in bitterness.
And a point to keep in mind – there are freestanding commands to keep oneself free from bitterness and longstanding anger and grudges. That is a distinction to remember.
Analogy – God forgives in two ways, you might say. You might say that Jesus, while walking the Earth before His ascension, forgave in a different way than God’s overall way of forgiving, and this distinction is consistent with the differences between Jesus’ 1st Coming and His 2nd Coming. Follow me on this as we look at things from a human perspective.
Bottom line: the imputation of all of our sins, past and present, to the perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ, as well as the imputation of Jesus’ righteousness to each of us. Our situation went from horrible to awesome with the sacrifice of one singularly perfect and loving God-man. Out from this flows all possible forgiveness that we could extend to anyone else. Is forgiving loving? Of course, and “we love because He first loved us”.
Yet we still sin. Each and every sin that any of us commits, no matter how “small”, is enough to separate us from God forever and send us to Hell forever. Some sins are worse, weightier, than others, yes, and that plays a part in these considerations as well. And each one of these sins has consequences and God disciplines His children for sins (Heb 12), and are not the consequences very often/always part of the disciplining He performs? Consider the consequences and the discipline that typically comes from taking a toy from your kid brother vs that from being caught in the act of adultery by your own spouse. Big difference, right?
So today I’d like us to consider a few things about forgiveness, some obvious and one or two perhaps not quite so obvious, with respect to the way in which we are to forgive others for their sins against us.
Thesis statement: Ephesians 4:31-32 - 31Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. (cf Col 3:13)
Point 1 – for ‘merely’ big bad sins, let us overlook them and forgive them.
Prov 10:12, 17:9, 19:11
1 Cor 13:5
2 Cor 5:19
Eph 4:1-3 – let us remember that no one is perfect and we can’t spend all our time going to each other with corrections b/c such would not be conducive to the bond of peace or acting very lovingly towards others.
1 Pet 2:21-25 – in simply bearing the offense, the offended party is following in Christ’s footsteps.
1 Pet 4:8. Just a thought – does “a multitude” mean all here? ;-)
Anyway, why are we overlooking these sins? B/c nobody is perfect. We simply cannot spend all our time on this, and constant correction from one fallen human to another feeds resentment and bitterness on the one side and ego on the other. Let us remember the oft-eisegeted and almost always incompletely-quoted text Matthew 7:1-5. V.2 – you’ll be judged by the same standard. Can you stand up to that standard? If not, then think more than twice before confronting people all the time with these petty offenses. Love enough to do that. This is the way Jesus walked on Earth, and it is the default position.
BUT, Point 2:
Caveats: We are to be always ready to forgive in our hearts and attitude. We are not to hold anger in our hearts beyond the day – Eph 4:26-27.
And of course, we never return evil for evil – Rom 12:17, 1 Thess 5:15, 1 Pet 3:9
We must always entrust ourselves to Him who judges righteously – 1 Pet 2:23. Vengeance is mine, says the Lord – Heb 10:30-31.
Forgiveness involves at least two people, so let’s say two for example. What happens when we forgive? Plenty of things. Among those things is the clearing of the consciences of each party with respect to himself and to each other. In a sense, doesn’t the offended party grant that clearing of conscience to the offender when he forgives him? What if the offense is grave, such as the murder of a child or spouse or something horrible like that, or a negligent homicide by drunk driving? Shall the offended party simply forgive such an offense (theoretically speaking; I doubt very many people would in reality be able to do this) right after it happens? After all, why wait? The offense is done, it’s in the past. While the driver is still drunk and the body of the loved one is still warm, why not just call it good and concern oneself no more with it? Is there any good reason why this wouldn’t be the best course of action?
Would this not be more of a sham forgiveness than anything else? That is, does it make the situation better to ignore the severity of the offense?
Of course, we need to address the issue biblically.
1 Jn 1:9
It is obvious that God forgives sin based on repentance and faith in God. See Lk 18:13 for an example. There is a breach in the relationship between God and the sinner. The sinner is repentant and asks for forgiveness. Both sides benefit from this. In what ways (ask for input)?
(God gains a worshiper, God is recognised as glorious, as holy, as authoritative to forgive sins, as powerful to forgive, as generous, as merciful, etc, which is what He wants. The sinner is forgiven from the guilt on his own conscience and on his account before God and gains eternal life.)
Go into the consequence of the universalism, mentioned earlier – if our forgiveness reflects the way that God forgives and we forgive that way, what is the implication of how God then forgives sinners? Implications of how sin then does not matter in the slightest. Not only does the sin not matter, but reconciliation doesn’t matter, restitution is irrelevant b/c there’s no wrong committed. You may feel bad but that’s not bad either.
Relate Jn 20:23 and Matt 18 ch discipline psgs.
Lk 17:3-4 “if he repents”
In Jn 20, Christ gives the disciples the authority to share the Gospel and to do church discipline. The option to retain sins is interesting here, isn’t it? On what basis might they retain someone’s sins? No, it’s not b/c they’re priests and can absolve you, my son, if you say 10 Hail Marys and make sure not to miss Mass this month. It’s unrepentance, right? Like in Acts 8:22 with Simon Magus – he probably wasn’t really repentant of his sin. So the point is that the NT allows for the withholding of forgiveness for certain purposes.
So how do we distinguish between these 2 situations? When do we overlook a sin unilaterally out of love and when is the sin of sufficient gravity to confront and deal with it bilaterally?
Grave offense – we can certainly forgive unilaterally, keeping in mind all the things mentioned above, such as love, unity, peace, etc. But there may be times when extending this unconditional forgiveness would be counterproductive.
1. When the offense will/might end up hurting the offender. Gal 6:1-2
-The example of the Willis family and Gov George Ryan of Illinois. Note how the motivation is love for the offender. Tie it in to the benefit of the tax collector vs God in the Lk 18:13 example. They both benefit, but the offender far more, and in this case he stands in need of forgiveness from God for all of his sin. It would be the best day of his life if God were to grant him repentance and a broken heart over his sin.
2. Church discipline – when the sin is damaging to the body of Christ, is scandalous – read Ronnie’s book for more, a lot more, on that.
3. When the offense is serious but not committed not against you but someone else, especially if that someone is weaker or defenseless, such as the orphan, the widow, the alien (of course, unless the other person tells you not to confront the offender) (Isaiah 1:17).
4. When a relationship is broken absent formal forgiveness – Lk 17:3 and Matt 18:15 – “you have won your brother”
5. When the name of Christ might be publicly besmirched (I’d call this one a weaker example than the others)
Of course, one could certainly not fault another for acting out of excessive forbearance and love, right? Better to err on that side, certainly. But it bears consideration in these certain cases to what extent we as humans are responsible to extend forgiveness on a different basis than that on which God Himself extends it – repentance.
And let us remember the distinction we made earlier about the freestanding commands not to remain angry, not to let bitterness take root in us. It is all about the attitude of the offended party in these cases – we don’t want the offense to remain, we want to forgive, but we postpone and withhold forgiveness b/c it bolsters the possibility of a better outcome in the future for the offender. This motivation is out of love as well, and this fits very well into God’s overall scheme for forgiveness of humans.
Final note, somewhat of an aside: If someone isn’t repentant, let’s remember, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s not bothered by his evil deed. “Burning coals” indirectly speaks to this situation; that is, the answer is not necessarily to cease all relationship with the person, but it does not mean we extend forgiveness to them. The relationship is certainly changed, one would have to admit.
2 Cor 2:7 – “otherwise, this one might be overwhelmed with excessive grief”. Repentance is evidenced by her actions.
Responding to difficulties: Lk 23:34, and cf. 1 Cor 2:8
Today we are discussing forgiveness, particularly between human beings and how the way God forgives humans applies in that consideration.
It’s a study in avoiding 2 extremes – hard-hearted self-righteousness on the one side and undiscerning, pacifistic, universalism on the other. And by no means let us consider this to be the final word on this topic. This is to get the brain juices flowing on everyone’s part, including mine. As always, stop me anytime with a question, a comment, a challenge, or an ego-stroking, oozing compliment.
Definition of forgiveness: John MacArthur defines it (in his book The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness) as a choice made by the offended party to set aside the other person’s transgression and not allow it to cause a breach in the relationship or fester in bitterness.
And a point to keep in mind – there are freestanding commands to keep oneself free from bitterness and longstanding anger and grudges. That is a distinction to remember.
Analogy – God forgives in two ways, you might say. You might say that Jesus, while walking the Earth before His ascension, forgave in a different way than God’s overall way of forgiving, and this distinction is consistent with the differences between Jesus’ 1st Coming and His 2nd Coming. Follow me on this as we look at things from a human perspective.
Bottom line: the imputation of all of our sins, past and present, to the perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ, as well as the imputation of Jesus’ righteousness to each of us. Our situation went from horrible to awesome with the sacrifice of one singularly perfect and loving God-man. Out from this flows all possible forgiveness that we could extend to anyone else. Is forgiving loving? Of course, and “we love because He first loved us”.
Yet we still sin. Each and every sin that any of us commits, no matter how “small”, is enough to separate us from God forever and send us to Hell forever. Some sins are worse, weightier, than others, yes, and that plays a part in these considerations as well. And each one of these sins has consequences and God disciplines His children for sins (Heb 12), and are not the consequences very often/always part of the disciplining He performs? Consider the consequences and the discipline that typically comes from taking a toy from your kid brother vs that from being caught in the act of adultery by your own spouse. Big difference, right?
So today I’d like us to consider a few things about forgiveness, some obvious and one or two perhaps not quite so obvious, with respect to the way in which we are to forgive others for their sins against us.
Thesis statement: Ephesians 4:31-32 - 31Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. (cf Col 3:13)
Point 1 – for ‘merely’ big bad sins, let us overlook them and forgive them.
Prov 10:12, 17:9, 19:11
1 Cor 13:5
2 Cor 5:19
Eph 4:1-3 – let us remember that no one is perfect and we can’t spend all our time going to each other with corrections b/c such would not be conducive to the bond of peace or acting very lovingly towards others.
1 Pet 2:21-25 – in simply bearing the offense, the offended party is following in Christ’s footsteps.
1 Pet 4:8. Just a thought – does “a multitude” mean all here? ;-)
Anyway, why are we overlooking these sins? B/c nobody is perfect. We simply cannot spend all our time on this, and constant correction from one fallen human to another feeds resentment and bitterness on the one side and ego on the other. Let us remember the oft-eisegeted and almost always incompletely-quoted text Matthew 7:1-5. V.2 – you’ll be judged by the same standard. Can you stand up to that standard? If not, then think more than twice before confronting people all the time with these petty offenses. Love enough to do that. This is the way Jesus walked on Earth, and it is the default position.
BUT, Point 2:
Caveats: We are to be always ready to forgive in our hearts and attitude. We are not to hold anger in our hearts beyond the day – Eph 4:26-27.
And of course, we never return evil for evil – Rom 12:17, 1 Thess 5:15, 1 Pet 3:9
We must always entrust ourselves to Him who judges righteously – 1 Pet 2:23. Vengeance is mine, says the Lord – Heb 10:30-31.
Forgiveness involves at least two people, so let’s say two for example. What happens when we forgive? Plenty of things. Among those things is the clearing of the consciences of each party with respect to himself and to each other. In a sense, doesn’t the offended party grant that clearing of conscience to the offender when he forgives him? What if the offense is grave, such as the murder of a child or spouse or something horrible like that, or a negligent homicide by drunk driving? Shall the offended party simply forgive such an offense (theoretically speaking; I doubt very many people would in reality be able to do this) right after it happens? After all, why wait? The offense is done, it’s in the past. While the driver is still drunk and the body of the loved one is still warm, why not just call it good and concern oneself no more with it? Is there any good reason why this wouldn’t be the best course of action?
Would this not be more of a sham forgiveness than anything else? That is, does it make the situation better to ignore the severity of the offense?
Of course, we need to address the issue biblically.
1 Jn 1:9
It is obvious that God forgives sin based on repentance and faith in God. See Lk 18:13 for an example. There is a breach in the relationship between God and the sinner. The sinner is repentant and asks for forgiveness. Both sides benefit from this. In what ways (ask for input)?
(God gains a worshiper, God is recognised as glorious, as holy, as authoritative to forgive sins, as powerful to forgive, as generous, as merciful, etc, which is what He wants. The sinner is forgiven from the guilt on his own conscience and on his account before God and gains eternal life.)
Go into the consequence of the universalism, mentioned earlier – if our forgiveness reflects the way that God forgives and we forgive that way, what is the implication of how God then forgives sinners? Implications of how sin then does not matter in the slightest. Not only does the sin not matter, but reconciliation doesn’t matter, restitution is irrelevant b/c there’s no wrong committed. You may feel bad but that’s not bad either.
Relate Jn 20:23 and Matt 18 ch discipline psgs.
Lk 17:3-4 “if he repents”
In Jn 20, Christ gives the disciples the authority to share the Gospel and to do church discipline. The option to retain sins is interesting here, isn’t it? On what basis might they retain someone’s sins? No, it’s not b/c they’re priests and can absolve you, my son, if you say 10 Hail Marys and make sure not to miss Mass this month. It’s unrepentance, right? Like in Acts 8:22 with Simon Magus – he probably wasn’t really repentant of his sin. So the point is that the NT allows for the withholding of forgiveness for certain purposes.
So how do we distinguish between these 2 situations? When do we overlook a sin unilaterally out of love and when is the sin of sufficient gravity to confront and deal with it bilaterally?
Grave offense – we can certainly forgive unilaterally, keeping in mind all the things mentioned above, such as love, unity, peace, etc. But there may be times when extending this unconditional forgiveness would be counterproductive.
1. When the offense will/might end up hurting the offender. Gal 6:1-2
-The example of the Willis family and Gov George Ryan of Illinois. Note how the motivation is love for the offender. Tie it in to the benefit of the tax collector vs God in the Lk 18:13 example. They both benefit, but the offender far more, and in this case he stands in need of forgiveness from God for all of his sin. It would be the best day of his life if God were to grant him repentance and a broken heart over his sin.
2. Church discipline – when the sin is damaging to the body of Christ, is scandalous – read Ronnie’s book for more, a lot more, on that.
3. When the offense is serious but not committed not against you but someone else, especially if that someone is weaker or defenseless, such as the orphan, the widow, the alien (of course, unless the other person tells you not to confront the offender) (Isaiah 1:17).
4. When a relationship is broken absent formal forgiveness – Lk 17:3 and Matt 18:15 – “you have won your brother”
5. When the name of Christ might be publicly besmirched (I’d call this one a weaker example than the others)
Of course, one could certainly not fault another for acting out of excessive forbearance and love, right? Better to err on that side, certainly. But it bears consideration in these certain cases to what extent we as humans are responsible to extend forgiveness on a different basis than that on which God Himself extends it – repentance.
And let us remember the distinction we made earlier about the freestanding commands not to remain angry, not to let bitterness take root in us. It is all about the attitude of the offended party in these cases – we don’t want the offense to remain, we want to forgive, but we postpone and withhold forgiveness b/c it bolsters the possibility of a better outcome in the future for the offender. This motivation is out of love as well, and this fits very well into God’s overall scheme for forgiveness of humans.
Final note, somewhat of an aside: If someone isn’t repentant, let’s remember, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s not bothered by his evil deed. “Burning coals” indirectly speaks to this situation; that is, the answer is not necessarily to cease all relationship with the person, but it does not mean we extend forgiveness to them. The relationship is certainly changed, one would have to admit.
2 Cor 2:7 – “otherwise, this one might be overwhelmed with excessive grief”. Repentance is evidenced by her actions.
Responding to difficulties: Lk 23:34, and cf. 1 Cor 2:8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)