I have recently discovered Chris Brauns’ blog A Brick in the Valley. Chris has been writing several interesting things on forgiveness. This is the practical and pastoral outworking of the doctrine of the atonement, on which there has been such controversy recently.
It was apparently an unbalanced doctrine of the atonement which led Richard Cunningham of UCCF to declare, in direct contradiction to explicit biblical teaching, that “God never forgives”. Chris Brauns, like Cunningham, is a supporter of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), but Chris realises that this doctrine if properly understood does not conflict with the biblical teaching that God forgives repentant sinners.
But I have a small disagreement with Chris: I believe that God forgives sinners whether they are repentant of not, and that similarly we should forgive those who sin against us whether they are repentant or not.
Chris rightly insists that forgiveness is not just an emotional matter, and offers this alternative and, according to him, biblical definition:
a commitment by the offended to graciously pardon the repentant from moral obligation or liability.
Dave Warnock, no relation to Adrian, has questioned Chris’ definition, especially its limitation to the repentant, and I believe rightly so. But Chris has reaffirmed this aspect of his definition in a post On Bitterness and Conditional Forgiveness, in which he argues that
Biblical forgiveness is conditional. We offer forgiveness to all. But, forgiveness does not happen apart from repentance.
Here is my comment in response to this post:
Chris, a few years ago a fellow Christian did me a serious wrong, and refused to communicate with me any more. I went through a difficult time, and was beginning to become bitter, but friends from church encouraged me to forgive that person and prayed with me that I would be able to do so. It was not easy, but as a result I was able to let go of the wrong which was eating me up and get on with my life. But that person has never accepted my forgiveness, or at least never said that to me, in nearly five years. Were my friends wrong to advise me to forgive? Should I take the issue up again, say that my forgiveness should be only conditional, and so null and void because the condition has not been met? Yes, this person could now turn and belatedly forgive, but what if they had died without accepting forgiveness? It seems to me that you are encouraging me to return to the bitterness which must flow from continuing to hold on to the matter as not forgiven. But I will not do so because I do not believe that this is the biblical teaching.
Are you really interpreting Matthew 6:12,14 as “forgive others when they repent”? Jesus said “forgive others when they sin”, with no mention of them repenting, compare also Mark 11:25 which refers to “anything against anyone” with no repentance condition. In Matthew 9:2 and parallels the paralysed man was forgiven without repenting. In Matthew 18:21 and Colossians 3:13 there is again no mention of repentance. And, more theologically, in Colossians 2:13 we read that God forgave us our sins when we were still dead in our sins, before he made us alive (the aorist participle makes this clear), so before we were able to repent.
So I really don’t think you can maintain your position that God forgives only those who repent, and that we should do the same. Of course in some sense the process is only complete when it is accepted. But it is not merely a conditional offer when it is not accepted. Yes, it is like wrapping a present and putting it under the tree. But it is not a present which can be taken back if not accepted. The giver has given the present irrevocably, the forgiver has forgiven the sin irrevocably, and whether the offer is accepted or not is a matter only for the recipient.
Does this mean that there are forgiven people in hell? Well, there are certainly people to whom God has offered forgiveness, to whom he has said that the road to heaven is open to them because in Christ the price has been paid. If they choose to reject that offer and take themselves to hell, that is their problem. I don’t intend that as a definitive answer to issues of predestination and limited atonement, but it seems to me a more logical and biblical approach than the one you are taking.
Chris responded to this quickly, and here is part of his response:
The stock answer today is that forgiveness does not mean reconciliation. Hence, you forgave both, but only reconciled withe one. The problem with that way of saying it is that the Bible does not say it that way. I don’t think biblical forgiveness happens apart from reconciliation.
So, while it is a matter of definitions, I think it is important that we define words the way that the Bible does.
Well, in further response to that, I would want to point out that the Bible does not define words in the neat, unambiguous and consistent way which Chris seems to assume. For it takes one party to forgive, but two parties to be reconciled. There may be places in the Bible where forgiveness and reconciliation are so closely linked that one cannot happen without the other; I challenge Chris to provide the references. But there are other places where forgiveness is required even if there is no reconciliation. Perhaps the clearest example of this is in the Lord’s Prayer and its postscript:
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. … 14 For if you forgive others when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Matthew 6:12,14-15 (TNIV)
Jesus taught us the vital importance of forgiving others when they sin against us, not only offering them forgiveness or waiting until they repent. If we have not forgiven our debtors, we cannot expect our debts to be forgiven. There is no limitation here to debtors who have repented, as is clarified here:
And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.
Mark 11:25 (TNIV)
In case anyone is instinctively feeling that Jesus’ teaching is non-theological and naive, that we should turn to Paul’s letters for the true and deep biblical teaching on such matters (I certainly hope they are not thinking that!), I can back up this teaching in similar words from Colossians 3:13, and at a deeper level from Colossians 2:13-14. The latter is a difficult passage which is not always translated very precisely. But the rendering of these verses in the RSV, although hard to understand, clearly represents what the Greek text says:
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having cancelled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
Colossians 2:13-14 (RSV)
The Greek verb tenses make it very clear that God had forgiven us all our trespasses and cancelled the liability against us before he made us alive, so while we were still dead, before we had the spiritual awareness needed to repent of our sins. Forgiveness does not follow repentance, it precedes it.
Of course Chris is right to point out that forgiveness means nothing if it is not accepted, if there is no repentance. That is to say, it means nothing for the one who is forgiven. But it means a lot for the one who has forgiven, who has given away the load of pain and bitterness and accepted the joy and freedom of forgiving and of knowing forgiveness of one’s own sins. This joy and freedom does not depend on the forgiveness being accepted. Maybe my main disagreement with Chris is over terminology, but to me this is the biblical wonder of what it means to forgive.
I must turn my focus to Sunday. I wish we could chat about this in person – – the limitations of the blogging genre. What with the Atlantic and all . . .but I just have time for a couple of thoughts. . .
You said,
“I believe that God forgives sinners whether they are repentant of not, and that similarly we should forgive those who sin against us whether they are repentant or not.”
Do you really believe that? Is this not universalism?
The dominant word in the Gospels for forgiveness is The second word is ἀφίημι / aphíēmi. It occurs 143 times in the New Testament. In the context of forgiveness, this word means, “to release from legal or moral obligation or consequence.” I don’t think the NT ever envisioned the forgiven going to Hell.
The Old Testament word, “סַלָּח / salah” means “to practice forbearance, pardon, or forgive.” It occurs 48 times and it is the only word used comprehensively and exclusively for “forgiveness” in the Old Testament.
Two things stand out about this word. First, it is used exclusively in connection to God forgiving. Second, God’s forgiveness is conditioned upon repentance. A cluster of uses of this word in Leviticus 4 illustrate both points.
Thus shall he do with the bull. As he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this. And the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven (Leviticus 4:20).
And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings. So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven (Leviticus 4:26).
And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven (Leviticus 4:31).
And all its fat he shall remove as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar, on top of the Lord’s food offerings. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven (Leviticus 4:35).
I pastor in a town of 1000 people in the upper midwest. If you come to church tomorrow, I will buy you lunch at the Royal Blue . . .
Thanks for your thoughts – – -Prov 27:17- – –
Chris Brauns.
Chris, thanks for the lunch invite. Unfortunately you are a little too far away for me to make it by tomorrow. But it would indeed be good to talk about such things in person. Also I don’t want to distract you from your sermon on Esther.
I believe that God forgives even sinners who have not yet repented because that is what I see happening in the Bible, in some of the examples I have referred to. I accept that I don’t have clear examples of God forgiving people who refuse to be forgiven. So might one argue that God forgives in advance those whom he knows will repent, or whom he has predestined to repent? The problem with that is that we are told to forgive as he forgives, and also to forgive without making repentance a condition. The only logical conclusion is that God also forgives without making repentance a condition.
I don’t think this implies universalism. For it might indeed be that some of those who are forgiven end up in hell – not because heaven was closed to them, but because they chose to reject forgiveness and go to hell rather than accept forgiveness, unwrap that present which includes their right to enter the eternal joy of the Lord.
I realise that there are various Greek and Hebrew words translated “forgive”. I’m sure they have subtly different meanings. Perhaps we need to go into them in more detail to get to the bottom of this matter. There is a deep mystery here, and it is at the very heart of the gospel.
A quick question for Chris that can wait until after Sunday:
So, it sounds to me that, in Peter’s example, you would tell him not to forgive the person who did him wrong?
Pam, I didn’t post this part of Chris’ reply to me on his blog, which may answer your question without disturbing him:
As you know, it comes down to a matter of vocabulary. I believe your approach was effectively right. But,l I would say that you “offered him forgiveness” or had an attitude of forgiveness rather than that you forgave him. Yours is to wrap the package. But, forgiveness does not happen until he accepts.
I note that Chris has assumed that the person involved was male, although I carefully avoided specifying a gender.
I would say that I gave forgiveness, not just offered it. There is a real distinction between giving something and offering something. If I offer something and it is not accepted, I get to keep it. If I give something, even if the intended recipient does not accept it, it does not come back to me. I would suggest that in some sense the forgiveness I gave does remain with the person I gave it to, as an effective pardon if it is accepted with repentance, but as a witness even if it is not accepted. In any case, the matter is out of my hands, I have no right to take it up again. This is a fact which I sometimes need to remind myself of, and so I find Chris’ approach pastorally unhelpful as well as unbiblical.
Peter. I totally agree with you. I think your forgiveness was given and that reconciliation can begin when the forgiveness is accepted. I’ve read Chris’ blog and seen that mine is exactly the paradigm that he doesn’t like.
I’m not sure if he’s – forgive me Chris – simply being totally pedantic about ‘parsing’ the idea in the bible. In which case, I could probably be a bit more open to what he says.
It seems to me that this risk of this view is that forgiveness becomes something selfish, miserly and cautious rather than something that extends a hand of peace to the other in a way that is outrageously generous and risky.
There are so many Christians preaching about how the problem is with other people who don’t know God’s truth and justice and who don’t know how to behave as we would want them to behave. I don’t think Christianity is about this at all. I think it’s about risking forgiveness that may not be accepted[1] just as I believe God does with all people.
[1] I just want to add a short caveat that I don’t advocate people staying with abusive spouses on the basis that ‘forgiveness’ implies that we act as if the person won’t hurt us again. This could be a sermon or a paper in itself, but I think it’s important to say.
Pam
I’m glad you added that caveat – I would also extend that to any person in any kind of abusive relationship, not just those in abusive marriage relationships.
I appreciate the spirit of the dialogue. It is possible that I am being pedantic (I like to think “a little” more than totally) but I must wear whatever shoe fits.
If we accept that God forgives everyone, then how does that fit with passages like Matthew 6:14 that say that God’s forgiveness is conditioned on our being willing to forgive. Scripture does say “if” regarding the forgiveness of God. I think Peter’s position leads to automatic forgiveness which is unhealthy – -ultimately what happens is that we redefine forgiveness.
Are we not to leave room for the wrath of God?
In any case, I think we have identified the center of the thing. I do not believe that God forgives everyone. Peter does. Peter defines forgiveness as an attitude/disposition towards the one who has done the offending. I (and I am smiling when I obnoxiously write this next part) and the Bible define it as a pardon from guilt. The Bible would not allow for a situation where someone was forgiven but still in Hell any more than if they were justified.
I don’t believe that Christians should be bitter or vindictive nor pursue revenge in any sense. For those who offend me, my goal is to demonstrate grace that in some inferior manner reflects the glory of the Father.
I trust that you are enjoying a blessed Lord’s Day. Things seemed to go well here. Pork chops for dinner so we’re not observing the dietary laws.
The Bible would not allow for a situation where someone was forgiven but still in Hell any more than if they were justified.
I don’t know how Peter ‘categorises’ himself, but I’m an unapologetic Methodist Arminian. In Wesleyan terms, God offers both salvation and forgiveness to everyone. Whether we accept that forgiveness is an entirely different matter.
I like Miroslav Volf’s book Free of Charge: giving and forgiving in a culture stripped of grace. I liked it so much that I blogged on it chapter by chapter. Here’s a link to my summary of Chapter 4, ‘God the Forgiver’: http://tinyurl.com/2owohf
I’m glad you added that caveat – I would also extend that to any person in any kind of abusive relationship, not just those in abusive marriage relationships.
Absolutely. I totally agree.
Yes, Chris, I have enjoyed a blessed Lord’s day, two great services, and between them a roast chicken dinner with a good Christian family. Sorry I wasn’t able to be with you.
I wrote: “Peter defines forgiveness as an attitude/disposition towards the one who has done the offending. I (and I am smiling when I obnoxiously write this next part) and the Bible define it as a pardon from guilt.”
No, Chris, you misrepresent my position. I, like you, understand forgiveness as primarily pardoning the other party, although it should be accompanied by the right attitude and disposition. I believe we should pardon the other party and release them from guilt even if they do not repent.
But Matthew 6:14 reminds me that God’s forgiveness is indeed conditional. So maybe I went too far in what I wrote before. But what is it conditional on? Not on repentance, but on forgiving others. This is of course illustrated by the parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:21-35. I note that the master unconditionally cancelled the debt at the beginning, representing God unconditionally forgiving the sinner. But the master went back on his forgiveness because the servant failed to forgive. Perhaps similarly God goes back on his forgiveness of sinners who fail to repent and show the fruits of repentance; so (thinking on my feet here) perhaps they go to hell because they have lost the forgiveness which they previously enjoyed. But it does not imply that God does not forgive in the first place.
Pingback: Speaker of Truth » More on forgiveness