Forgiveness

Blogger Alan Cornett wrote a post about forgiveness with regard to a specific incident that has been in the news lately, and it sparked a lively debate among commenters on the question of whether or not it's possible to forgive someone who has not asked for forgiveness. My response (to commenter "Anonymous") got a bit long for a simple comment, so it is posted here.
The nub of this debate seems to come down to a difference over the nature of forgiveness. Is it a two-way transaction that takes place between two willing parties (the offender and the offended), or is it a unilateral act on the part of the one offended? Anonymous believes it is the former; I humbly argue that Scripture and plain reason indicate it is the latter.

Dictionaries give several definitions for "forgive" and "forgiveness," however, they all seem to point to things that one person, alone, can do unilaterally: to grant pardon for a debt or offense; to cease to feel resentment against another, etc. Obviously, merely citing a dictionary does not conclusively prove the matter; we have to be sure that Scripture speaks of forgiveness in the same way that our dictionary authors understand it. However, this is useful in two respects: first, it indicates a generally agreed-upon understanding of the meaning of forgiveness as a unilateral act, and second, it helps provide illumination of the fact that those who have translated the Bible into English believe that "forgive" and "forgiveness" are appropriate translations of the relevant Greek and Hebrew words of Scripture.

Moving on to Scripture itself, it's clear that the Bible consistently treats forgiveness as something that the one offended does or grants, regardless of whether the offender asks for it or even acknowledges it. Moses and the prophets beg the Lord to forgive the sins of Israel, a "stiff-necked people," often when Israel had not asked for the Lord's forgiveness, had not repented their sins, and sometimes even while they were still engaged in rebellion and idolatry!
We find repeated instructions in the New Testament that believers are to be characterized by forgiveness. Paul tells the Corinthians to forgive the one they had cast out of their fellowship because of his sin. He tells the Colossians, "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another." Jesus teaches that we should be willing to forgive another as many times as he sins against us--his "seventy times seven" in Matthew 18 is a way of saying there is no limit to the number of times we should forgive. What's interesting is that in each of these cases, the command to forgive is absolute, not contingent. It isn't qualified with "If your brother asks your forgiveness..." The only instance I can find where there is such a conditonal is in Luke 17:4, where Jesus says, "If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him." In this case, however, Jesus' point is not that you have to wait until you're asked to forgive, but that when you are asked there is no point at which you don't have to forgive anymore.

Perhaps the strongest argument for forgiveness as a unilateral act are the actions of Jesus himself. Consider the case in Luke where the paralyzed man is brought by his friends to see Jesus. This man was not coming to Christ to ask him for forgiveness from sins. If anything, he asked Jesus for something altogether different--healing from his paralysis. But what does Jesus do? He announces to him, "Friend, your sins are forgiven." Jesus granted him forgiveness when he had not asked for it or expected it, to demonstrate that He had authority over sin because of who he was. He was turning their world upside-down by bringing to them what they used to have to go and seek at the Temple.

As Alan already pointed out, witholding forgiveness when it hasn't been sought by the one who needs it is not an act of piety or even of necessity. It's an act of disobedience and a confusion of our role with God's. Ours is to forgive the sinner, in light of how greatly we have been forgiven in Christ. God's is to forgive that sin or not; to punish that sin, either in Christ's death on the Cross or in that sinner's person, in hell.

Progress and Renewal

"[T]hose who operate from an Enlightenment perspective typically associate progress with renewal and view disillusionment as a symptom of decay. Those who operate within a framework of Judeo-Christian values, on the other hand, characteristically view a belief in progress as a symptom of decay and a sense of disillusionment the first step toward a realistic appraisal of the world without which renewal is impossible."

~David F. Wells, No Place For Truth, p. 56

Schism

If you've been under the mistaken impression that Baptists are just a bunch of schismatic heretics, or if you've heard people expressing this opinion, check out this post on the current state of various Anglican bodies in the United States. Whenever churches fail to follow Scripture's model for church government and think that a bishop or a general assembly has authority over their congregation, these kind of separations will naturally ensue.

On Being Reformed and Baptist

If you haven't noticed it already, in the comments on one of my recent posts there's a brief discussion of a recent LifeWay poll on Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. This coincides with a recent article on young evangelical Calvinists in Christianity Today. The discussion continues over at Gregory Baus's blog, with his post on Calvinism in the SBC, and in the comments on that post.

Also, David Koyzis wonders if becoming soteriologically Calvinistic mustn't lead Baptists to reconsider other areas of theology, as well. The answer, at least in my case, is yes. An understanding of God's sovereignty in salvation--and especially an understanding of the history of that doctrine--can't help but affect other areas of our thought as well. See my comment on his post for more.

I Belong

In a very helpful sermon on Ruth 3, yesterday, my pastor Mark Dever asked this probing question: "I wonder whose you would say you are. To whom do you belong? Do you have anyone in your life who directs you, who guides you? Anyone in your life who cares that much? Anyone in your life who points you to the good in the way Naomi did Ruth?"

Mark was directly addressing non-Christians, but the idea of belonging is one that Christians need to remember to think deeply about, as well. As a child, whenever I was about to go spend time with friends and my mother wanted me to be on my best behavior, she often said when I was leaving, "Remember whose you are." She knew that just telling me to behave, to do this or not to do that, would never be as effective as reminding me that what I did and said mattered more than I usually realized. What I did reflected on my family, whose name I share. Most importantly, what I did mattered to the Lord.

I'm reminded again of the wonderful first question and response of the Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

I belong, first and foremost, to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.

I belong to an earthly family, whose name and blood and history I share; to parents, who have invested their lives in raising me in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

Very soon I will belong to a wonderful wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of matrimony.

I belong to the 536 saints of God known as Capitol Hill Baptist Church, with whom I have covenanted and pledged to walk together in brotherly love.

Without these belongings, life would be a cold, comfortless, disconnected and frustrating existence. But by the grace of God, I belong. Thanks be to God.

The Gifts of God for the People of God

You scored as Calvin. You are John Calvin. You have a Nestorian Christology and separate the Divinity and Humanity of Jesus. You believe only those who have faith are united to Christ, who is present spiritually, yet you call this "Real." Calvin 88% Zwingli 69% Luther 50% Catholic 13% Unitarian 0% Eucharistic theology created with QuizFarm.com

I don't know about Nestorian Christology--in fact I reject attempts to separate (rather than distinguish) Jesus' humanity and divinity. I have found Calvin's commentary on the Lord's Supper helpful, though.

Bavinck on Calvin on Common Grace

"[Because of God's common grace], not only is an orderly civil society made possible among men, but arts and sciences develop, which are not to be despised. For these should be considered gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is true the Holy Spirit as a spirit of sanctification dwells in believers only, but as a spirit of life, of wisdom and of power He works also in those who do not believe. No Christian, therefore, should despise these gifts; on the contrary, he should honor art and science, music and philosophy and various other products of the human mind as praestantissima Spiritus dona [most outstanding gifts of the Spirit], and make the most of them for his own personal use."

~ Herman Bavinck, Calvin and Common Grace, tr. Geerhardus Vos

Consumer Worship

John Parker, a priest in the Orthodox Church in America, has an excellent article on church worship services in this month's issue of Touchstone Magazine. Therein, he discusses the increasing market-driven commodification of many modern Christian worship services. Churches today are determining what they do in their public services (and when and where they hold the services) by what the consumers--baptized, believing members or not--want, rather than by the Word of God and tradition. As a result, they have forgotten that the audience of worship is the triune God, and that the purpose of the church's public gatherings is primarily for God's people to worship Him corporately and to be built up in faith by Word and sacrament. Though Rev. Parker and I would undoubtedly come to significantly different conclusions regarding the details of the worship service, we share the fundamental perspective that it is for the Church, not "seekers" or "consumers" or "the unchurched." And it is God who determines how his people are to approach him--not the latest fad or gimmick that will get people in the doors.

Redemption Through Christ

THE second Adam, sov'reign Lord of all,
Did, by his Father's authorizing call,
From bosom of eternal love descend,
To save the guilty race that him offend;
To treat an everlasting peace with those,
Who were, and ever would have been his foes.
His errand, never-ending life to give
To them, whose malice would not let him live;
To make a match with rebels, and espouse
The brat which at his love her spite avows.
Himself he humbled, to depress her pride,
And make his mortal foe his loving bride.
But, ere there marriage can be solemniz'd,
All lets must be remov'd, all parties pleas'd.
Law-righteousness requir'd, must be procur'd,
Law-vengeance threatned, must be full endur'd,
Stern justice must have credit by the match,
Sweet mercy by the heart the bride must catch.
Poor Bankrupt! all her debt must first be paid,
Her former husband in the grave be laid:
Her present Lover must be at the cost,
To save and ransom to the uttermost.
If all these things this Suitor kind can do,
Then he may win her, and her blessing too.
Hard terms indeed! while death's the first demand:
But love is strong as death, to take the upper hand
To carry on the suit, and make it good,
Though at the dearest rate of wounds and blood.
The burden's heavy, but the back is broad,
The glorious Lover is the mighty God.

~The first part of one of several "Gospel Sonnets" by Ralph Erskine [1685-1752], an 18th-century Scottish preacher and pastor. The son of a Puritan minister who was forced out of his living by the 1662 Act of Uniformity, Erskine pastored--first Dumferline Abbey, then Queen Street Church--for over forty years. Throughout his life, Erskine was dedicated to expositional preaching and considered it the most important work of his ministry. He was also a gifted poet, and was fond of setting forth systems of divinity and engaging false doctrine in verse.

Currently reading

There are in fact quite a number of things I'm currently reading, including Preachers and Preaching, Mind: A Brief Introduction, The Cross-Centered Life, Beyond the Fall of Night, and From Embers to a Flame: How God Can Revitalize Your Church, just to name a few. I have a habit of starting a book before I finish the one(s) I was already working through, and sometimes it makes it seem like quite a triumph to actually finish one.

At any rate, a smaller work I've discovered recently is an article by Herman Bavinck called Calvin and Common Grace. I've long been interested in the doctrine of common grace and what various theologians and Christian authors think of its importance, and this is, so far, an interesting treatment of the subject in manageable size. Bavinck takes a high view of the value of learning from the wisdom of so-called pagans:

The good philosophical thoughts and ethical precepts found scattered through the pagan world receive in Christ their unity and center. They stand for the desire which in Christ finds its satisfaction; they represent the question to which Christ gives the answer; they are the idea of which Christ furnishes the reality. The pagan world, especially in its philosophy, is a pedagogy unto Christ; Aristotle, like John the Baptist, is the forerunner of Christ. It behooves the Christians to enrich their temple with the vessels of the Egyptians and to adorn the crown of Christ, their king, with the pearls brought up from the sea of paganism.

Doctrine quiz

How well do you know basic Christian doctrine? Try your hand at this quiz from the White Horse Inn. Answers to follow later.

Questions About God and Christ (Answer True or False)
1. Jesus was God, but only appeared to be human.
2. Jesus was the first of all God’s created beings.
3. Jesus had a human body and divine soul.
4. In the Old Testament, God was known as the Father, in the New Testament, as the Son, and after Pentecost, as the Holy Spirit.
5. Mary is the mother of God.
6. God chooses people because he knows in advance they will choose him.

Questions About Salvation (Answer True or False)
7. The only way we can be saved is by the perfect conformity to the law of God.
8. We are saved by grace after all that we can do.
9. I am saved because of my decision to accept Christ.
10. God is so sovereign, he can change his mind.
11. The Bible teaches that there is an age of accountability, and that children who die before this age go to heaven because they are innocent.
12. If I die with unconfessed sin, I will not go to heaven.
13. The main motivation for holiness is fear of punishment and hope of reward.
14. God cannot hold someone guilty for the sins of another.
15. Justification is the process by which a person, through faith in Christ and sorrow for his sins, receives the gift of the Holy Spirit and so becomes a child of God.
16. God cannot require of us anything which cannot be performed.
17. True Christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.
18. God helps those who help themselves is a biblically sound principle.
19. Though no one is perfect, the Lord looks on the heart to see who really loves him

Calvinist?

"We would like to spell out what we believe the Scripture teaches on these five points. Our great desire is to honor God by understanding and believing his truth revealed in Scripture. We are open to changing any of our ideas which can be shown to contradict the truth of Scripture. We do not have any vested interest in John Calvin himself, and we find some of what he taught to be wrong. But in general we are willing to let ourselves be called Calvinists on the five points, because we find the Calvinist position to be Biblical.

"We share the sentiments of Jonathan Edwards who said in the Preface to his great book on THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL, 'I should not take it at all amiss, to be called a Calvinist, for distinction's sake: though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines which I hold, because he believed and taught them; and cannot justly be charged with believing in every thing just as he taught.'"

~Bethlehem Baptist Church staff, "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism"

Evangelicals and C.S. Lewis

This evening on the way to the evening service at church, my friend who's from Northern Ireland asked my opinion of an interesting phenomenon he's noticed. Evangelicals in the U.S., he points out, generally love the writings of C.S. Lewis, and look to him in many respects as something of a spiritual mentor or guide. Lewis, however, was not himself an evangelical, and had some theological views that most evangelicals today would find troubling. In Britain, it seems, most evangelicals are aware of this, and while they might appreciate some of Lewis' works, they wouldn't nearly treat him as much of a patron saint as Americans do. Why, then, is it that your average American evangelical would probably tend to trust Lewis as someone whose writings are generally faithful to Scripture and trustworthy?

I have enjoyed several of Lewis' works myself, and I appreciate the gift of clear, thoughtful, imaginative communication that God clearly bestowed on him, but I'm curious about this. Is it that American Christians are generally fairly theologically ignorant and undiscriminating? Maybe the average member of Wherever Bible Church wouldn't expect to get along with an Episcopalian spiritually, but, not knowing much about Lewis' affiliation, doesn't know or care enough about theology to know problematic material when he or she reads it?

I'm just musing here, and I'm curious to know what others think. Why do you think American evangelicals regard Lewis so highly?

Theological humor

Hat tip to Kent Hendricks.

It just so happened one day that Karl Barth, Paul Tillich,
and Reinhold Niebuhr find themselves all at the same time
at Caesarea Philippi. And who should come along but Jesus,
and he asks these three famous theologians, "Who do you
say that I am?"

Karl Barth stands up and says: "You are the 'wholly other,'
the vestigious trinitatum who speaks to us in the modality
of Christomonism."

Following this, Paul Tillich states: "You are he who heals
our ambiguities and overcomes the split of angst and
existential estrangement; you are he who speaks of the
theonomous viewpoint of the analogia entis, the analogy of
our being and the ground of all possibilities."

Reinhold Niebuhr gives a cough for effect and says, in one
breath: "You are the impossible possibility who brings to us,
your children of light and children of darkness, the
overwhelming oughtness in the midst of our fraught condition
of estrangement and brokenness in the contiguity and
existential anxieties of our ontological relationships."

And Jesus looks at them and says, "What?"

Review: Evangelicalism Divided, by Iain Murray

The term “evangelical” is in a questionable position these days, at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Many Reformed Protestants, Emergent Church folks, and others are reluctant to use the term to describe themselves, despite coming from ecclesiastical traditions that have historically had that label. Others take pride in using the term, finding it useful to locate themselves in the Protestant world, identifying themselves with supporters of a number of political, social, and cultural causes. Nonetheless, many (if not most) of those who use the term have a hard time defining just what an evangelical is. One case in point is a recent forum on evangelical involvement in foreign affairs where a panelist, head of a Texas evangelical association, was unable to provide any useful or satisfactory definition of evangelicalism.

Part of this inability to pin down what an evangelical is stems from the movement’s convoluted history over the last half-century, as its leading figures in Britain and the United States came to be deeply divided over what evangelicals are about and how they relate to other groups within professing Christianity. It is this history that Iain Murray chronicles in Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000.

Continue reading this post...

Review: Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church by Don Carson

Augustine of Hippo, in his essay De Mendacio (“On Lying”), wrote, “When regard for truth has been broken down or even slightly weakened, all things will remain doubtful.” In that essay, as will appear by the title, Augustine illustrated the nature of lying and its evil effects, apparently addressing a problem that was widespread among Christians, and perhaps even pastors, at the time. In the intellectual framework in which many pastors today operate, however, lying is scarcely possible, because truth has ceased to be a meaningful category. As Augustine opined that evil was but the perversion of good, so lying is the perversion of truth—but if truth is denied, there is nothing to pervert. Such is the state of many people’s understanding of religion today, including many Evangelicals influenced by postmodern thought, some of whom are identified with a movement known as the Emerging (or Emergent) Church.

Continue reading this post...

Review: A Generous Orthodoxy, by Brian McLaren

What is orthodoxy? What is the essence of “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” for which we are to contend? Through much of church history Christians have understood “orthodox” to mean (as the word itself would suggest) right thinking—belief in a body of essential doctrine that the Bible reveals as the central message of Christianity. For some today, however, this definition does not suffice. Whether because of a postmodern aversion to doctrinal propositions or because of a desire not to be “divisive,” many today are redefining the essence of following Jesus as a mission, rather than a message. Brian McLaren is perhaps the most visible example of this. His book, “A Generous Orthodoxy,” seeks to paint a new vision for what orthodoxy ought to be in a postmodern world.

Continue reading this post...

Review: Reformation of the Church by Iain Murray (part 3 of 12)

This post is the third of what will ultimately be twelve essays interacting with Iain Murray's book The Reformation of the Church.
________________________


In Section III of The Reformation of the Church, Iain Murray begins the examination of “The Need for Reformation” with three excerpted articles, one on the many abuses in the Church of England in the sixteenth century and two on the relation of the state to the church. Thomas Wilcox, in “The Necessity of Reformation”, written to Parliament in 1572, lays out various ways in which the English church still resembled too much the Roman church and failed to reflect the standards of Scripture. Among the abuses he attacks are absenteeism, scarcity of preaching, lack of a plurality of elders, corruption of the office of deacons, and failure of “ecclesiastical discipline.” William Ames, writing in 1631, continues a dialogue “Concerning a National Church” by responding to an essay by Dr. John Burgess. In the excerpt, Ames argues that a state-run hierarchy ruling local churches is found nowhere in Scripture, and that unity among particular churches is found primarily in common confession, not in organizational rule. Finally, Charles Hodge, writing in 1863, surveys various ways in which state and church related to one another throughout history, showing that the separation of church and state that has characterized the United States is both biblical and a historical innovation.

Continue reading this post...

Corporate Worship and the People of God

For millennia, worship of God has been the fundamental act that characterizes His people. From the Old Testament distinction between the pagans who worship false gods and the Israelites who worship the true God to the New Testament division between the church and the world, worship has always defined the people of God, for it is fundamentally what God’s people are all about. Since the Reformation dispensed with the idea that the practice and pronouncement of the Church are inherently infallible, Christians have asked what worship is, and how Christians should go about doing it. They have answered these questions in many different ways. Ligon Duncan, in his two chapters in Give Praise to God, Don Carson, in his chapter in Worship By the Book, Terry Johnson, in Reformed Worship, and David Peterson, in Engaging with God, all address the topic in slightly different, yet helpful, ways.

Continue reading this post...

Review: Reformation of the Church by Iain Murray (part 2 of 12)

This post is the first of what will ultimately be twelve essays interacting with Iain Murray's book The Reformation of the Church.
________________________

The second section of Iain Murray’s The Reformation of the Church is titled “The Rule for Reformation—The Word of God.” Martin Luther argues, over against the Roman doctrine of the infallibility of the Church and the Pope, that all human men are sinners subject to error, and that therefore their writings must be submitted to the judgment of Scripture. William Cunningham lays out the Regulative Principle established by the reformers—the doctrine that all the Church’s practices in worship must be positively found Scripture, and he goes on to apply it to the matter of church government, arguing that the Scriptures set out a particular form of government to which we must hold. John Hooper, writing during the Vestment Controversy in England in the 1550s, gives four criteria which must be met for something to be considered a “thing indifferent,” and concludes that the wearing of special priestly garments does not meet the criteria and is therefore prohibited by Scripture. John a Lasco delves into the vestments issue more deeply, showing how their use is prohibited by the abolition of the Aaronic priesthood in Christ. Finally, an excerpt from the Geneva Service Book of 1556 gives several scriptural proofs for the Regulative principle.

Continue reading this post...