New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Home arrow News arrow Forgive Us: Christians struggle with radical forgiveness
 
Forgive Us: Christians struggle with radical forgiveness Print E-mail
By Ken Camp   
Monday, February 01, 2010
Chris Carrier was abducted at age 8, assaulted and left for dead in the Florida Everglades. Chris not only survived the ordeal, but 22 years later, he told his attacker he was forgiven and lead the man to faith in Christ.

SAN MARCOS, Texas (ABP) -- At age 8, Chris Carrier was abducted, stabbed multiple times with an ice pick, shot in the left temple at pointblank range and abandoned in the Florida Everglades. Miraculously, he survived (although blinded in one eye). But what happened two decades later may be even more miraculous.

A police officer involved in the criminal investigation found the primary suspect, David McAllister -- who never was convicted of the attack on Carrier -- by then bedridden and blind in a nursing home. After the policeman told him he no longer needed to fear punishment, McAllister confessed to the crime.

When Carrier met the man who kidnapped and assaulted him 22 years before, he told McAllister he had long ago forgiven him. In the week that followed, Carrier visited McAllister daily and ultimately led him to faith in Christ.

Carrier credits his ability to forgive his attacker to the faith commitment he made to Jesus Christ at age 13.

“That’s when my security issue was settled,” he said. Before he accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, Carrier confessed, he lived in fear, not knowing where his attacker was or when he might strike again. But that changed when he placed his trust in Jesus Christ.

“There’s no fear factor any more,” he said. “If Jesus is my Lord, what do I have to fear? Security’s no longer an issue.”

Ministry of reconciliation

But a former youth minister with whom Carrier reconnected to make the visit to McAllister challenged him to move beyond forgiveness. He urged Carrier to attempt reconciliation with his attacker, who had at one time been dismissed from a job by Carrier’s father.

Chris Carrier, accompanied by his daughter, Amanda, visits David McAllister, who had abducted and attacked Carrier 22 years earlier. Carrier befriended McAllister and ultimately led him to faith in Christ. (FILE PHOTO/Miami Herald)

Through his faith, Carrier saw himself as no different from McAllister -- a man who apparently carried out a grudge against a father by attacking his son. Likewise, Carrier saw himself having been in rebellion against God the Father and guilty of the crucifixion of the Son of God. But from his cross, Jesus asked God to forgive those who crucified him.

In Carrier’s mind, he could do no less.

“It has to be bigger than forgiving because it makes me feel good about myself or forgiving in order to have closure,” he said. “It’s a calling to be involved in what 2 Corinthians 5 calls ‘the ministry of reconciliation.’”

Today, Carrier -- a Bible teacher and interim campus minister at San Marcos Baptist Academy in San Marcos, Texas -- volunteers in prison ministry. During weekend events, he spends the first couple of days just building relationships with inmates, who often tell him they are “too bad, with no chance of forgiveness.”

After he builds a rapport with the prisoners, then Carrier tells his story.

“I’m able to tell them miracles happen, and they have happened over and over in my life,” he said. “The greatest miracle is that God gave me the chance to go to the man [who assaulted Carrier] ... and say, ‘I want to be your friend, and I want that friendship to be eternal.’”

But if forgiveness is at the heart of the gospel and all Christians are called to a ministry of reconciliation, why is Carrier’s experience the exception rather than the norm?

The police artist's rendering of a suspect in Chris Carrier's disapearance.

Fuzzy understanding of forgiveness

Some theologians suggest many Christians struggle with forgiveness and reconciliation in interpersonal relations because they fail to grasp exactly what those concepts mean in terms of their relationship to God.

Varied views on Christian forgiveness came to light recently when veteran television journalist Brit Hume spoke on the "Fox News Sunday" program about whether Tiger Woods could recover from the revelations of his marital infidelity.

“He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith,” Hume said. “So, my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’”

Those comments by Hume -- who reportedly made a deep faith commitment to Christ following his son’s suicide 11 years ago -- prompted a firestorm. Some comments focused on the appropriateness of the remarks, or the chosen platform for delivering them, or whether Hume accurately portrayed Buddhism.

But the second-generation fallout of the controversy -- the comments made about the comment -- caused some Christians to raise concerns about a perceived cheapened view of God’s forgiveness that portrays it as a free pass based on easy belief.

For example, conservative commentator and provocateur Ann Coulter called Christianity “the best deal in the universe.” Crudely summarizing the incarnation and atonement, she concluded: “If you believe that, you’re in.”

Understanding distinctions

Coulter’s explanation illustrates the muddied understanding many Christians have regarding the related -- but not synonymous -- subjects of forgiveness, grace, repentance, reconciliation and redemption, some theologians insist.

God’s forgiveness of sinners is not based on anything humans do but on what God already has done, said Randall O’Brien, author of Set Free by Forgiveness.

“Contrary to popular opinion, forgiveness precedes repentance,” said O’Brien, president of Carson-Newman College, a Baptist school in Jefferson City, Tenn. “Repentance is the result of God’s forgiveness -- not the cause of it. God does not love and forgive us because we repent. We repent because God loves and forgives us. That’s the radical gospel of the cross.”

Chris Carrier is now a Bible teacher and interim campus minister at San Marcos Baptist Academy.

Jesus demonstrated unconditional love on the cross when he prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Nobody had repented of his involvement in his crucifixion before Jesus freely forgave, O’Brien noted. But God’s universal forgiveness of sinners does not mean universal salvation, redemption and reconciliation, he explained.

“Forgiveness is a necessary but insufficient condition for reconciliation,” said O’Brien. “Reconciliation is always conditioned upon the response of the forgiven.”

What’s true in the relationship between God and sinful people also holds true in human relationships, he explained.

“Forgiveness is a one-way street. Reconcilation is a two-way street,” he said.

Jim Denison, theologian-in-residence at the Baptist General Convention of Texas, president of the Center for Informed Faith and an Associated Baptist Press columnist, agreed.

“Forgiveness makes reconciliation possible but does not ensure that it is achieved. Both parties must be willing to restore their relationship before reconciliation is accomplished,” Denison said.

The example of Christ -- and the grace Christians receive from God -- demands action on the part of the person who has been hurt, O’Brien insisted.

“The victim has the task of initiating reconciliation,” he said. “That sounds crazy. But it’s the gospel.”

No excuse for offense

Forgiveness does not “look the other way” and pretend no harm as been done, O’Brien added. It does not minimize the damage caused or the offense committed.

“Forgiveness is not a substitute for judgment. Forgiveness is judgment. It is saying, ‘I judge you guilty, but I forgive you anyway,’” he said.

Forgiveness involves choice -- choosing not to punish an offense, Denison observed.

“It is not pretending that the person was not harmed or excusing harmful behavior. When a governor pardons a criminal, she does not deny the reality of the crime, but rather chooses not to inflict the punishment prescribed by the law. God forgives our sin in the same way and calls us to treat others as he treats us,” Denison said.

Forgiveness does not mean enabling future bad behavior or imperiling innocent people. O’Brien cited the example of a woman who has been physically abused by a spouse. Forgiveness does not mean placing oneself -- or others who are vulnerable -- in a position that facilitates future abuse.

“Forgiveness is not a synonym for foolishness,” he said. “We’re not called to cast our pearls before swine. We’re not called to put our own safety or health -- or that of our children -- on the line.”

Forgive and forget?

When God forgives sinners, he “will remember their sins no more,” according to Jeremiah 31:34. But some Christian theologians and mental health professionals question whether that is either possible or advisable for human beings.

“God possesses the ability to forget all he forgives.... Such capacity is beyond most humans,” Denison said.

Denison points to the example of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, who offered a prayer of forgiveness for people who were beating him to death with stones.

“Had Stephen survived the stoning he forgave, it is unlikely that he would have forgotten the experience,” he said.

Psychologist Dan McGee of Arlington, who administers counseling services for Texas Baptist ministers for the Baptist General Convention of Texas, agreed.

“I doubt that Jesus forgot his excruciating suffering and death by Roman crucifixion, perhaps the most humiliating and painful means of dying ever conceived by depraved minds,” McGee said. “However, most of the pain we experience at the hands of others, friend or foe, is not the result of willful intent to harm us.”

McGee recalled a personal experience, when he asked a friend how a former colleague could be so cruel in his behavior toward people with whom he had worked. His friend advised him not to take it personally and said, “When people are motivated by fear, they will run you over with no thought of the body count in their wake.” 

“I discovered that it is far too egocentric of me to think they did what they did with my demise in mind,” McGee said. “What I am able to do in [Christ’s] strength is remember, not forget. Remember that what they did makes some kind of sense to them, and try to understand the circumstances they were dealing with to behave as they did. And when I find myself in such circumstances, think carefully of the impact my behavior could have on those God loves.”

Healing power

Forgiveness liberates the person who does the forgiving, O’Brien stressed.

“To refuse to forgive is to live life backward,” he said, noting the person who rejects the possibility of forgiveness can become “a pain junkie” who draws his or her identity from the hurtful experience.

“Only forgiveness sets us free to a brand-new future. The only thing harder than forgiving is the alternative of living in bitterness.”

Forgiveness possesses healing power for the person doing the forgiving, and it holds the potential of broader healing through reconciliation, McGee noted.

“Forgiveness is always appropriate because of what nonforgiveness does to us and what grace expressed has the potential of doing for those who have harmed us,” he said.

“Forgiveness frees up the energy it takes to bear the burden of anger indefinitely. Psychologists know that anger suppressed -- conscious blocking -- or repressed -- unconscious blocking -- creates and sustains depression.”

But at the relational level, reconciliation moves to the next level, he added.

“Forgiveness is the healthiest response, but reconciliation is a celebration,” McGee said. 

“And there is no bond as tight as that one that emerges from two friends, lost in conflict, recovering through reconciliation.”

-30-

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it   is managing editor of the Texas Baptist Standard. John Hall of Texas Baptist communications contributed to this story.

Read more New Voice stories:
• Is forgiveness always appropriate for Christians?
• Opinion: Forgiveness is an unmistakable mark of character





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (38)Add Comment
utter confusion here, too
written by Xenophon, February 01, 2010
Forgiveness is never taught in the Bible as being simply a release from the responsibility of one's own wrong-doing. God did not pardon us by simply signing a document or some cosmic equivalent. Rather, justice had to be served by Jesus taking our sins on himself and receiving not just the physical punishment that the Romans inflicted on him, as painful as that was, but more importantly his enduring eternal torment on the Cross spiritually as he absorbed the wrath of God the Father that he directed against our sins borne by Jesus.

Next, there is no admonition in the Bible to unilaterally forgive those who have wronged us. For example, Jesus taught in Luke 17:3-4, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him." It is clear here that the wrong-doer is to be confronted and he must show remorse before he is to be forgiven--even if this process has to be repeated due to human frailty.

God does not seem to forgive unilaterally. For example, consider Matthew 3:2 where John the Baptist warns "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Jesus followed up on John's admonition: "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:14-15). I John 1:9 tells us "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

So, what did Jesus mean when he asked God the Father to "forgive them for they know not what they do"? I would say that Jesus words here meant that even killing God in his incarnate form could be forgiven. The people who were killed Jesus still had to be convicted of their horrendous sin and ask for forgiveness. Jesus' plea to the Father did not remove the sin from Jews and Romans who murdered him by itself. Of course, he died for this sin as for all others, but the individuals who committed this sin had to repent as with all other sins and accept Jesus' forgiveness, which he was demonstrating was available if those people would open their hearts to him.

There is also confusion here on forgiveness and reconciliation. While they are not synonymous, they are part of the same process. If I forgive someone, I am open to reconciling with that person who wronged me in the past. If I am not open to reconciling with him, then have I truly forgiven him? I would suggest not. In some cases, the same sort of relationship might not be possible to re-establish or the other person might not be willing to restore the relationship. But as much as is possible, there should be reconciliation after forgiveness. In fact, reconciliation is impossible without contrition, some effort to restore the loss to the aggrieved party, and then forgiveness on the part of the person wronged. Anything less than contrition and restitution where it is possible will not lead to true forgiveness or reconciliation. A truly repentant person will want to make things up to those he has wronged as much as he can. Consider the account of the conversion of Zacchaeus in Luke 19 where he promised to repay his tax victims four-fold once he saw his need for a Savior in Christ.

If people are pardoned for their offenses without their being repentant, then they will see unilateral forgiveness as a license to keep sinning. Why should they not? The practical problems with unilateral forgiveness are borne out in social psychology where pacifism has been shown to be the least effective strategy of dealing with aggression while a tit-for-tat strategy has been shown to be the most effective. What a person does when he feels guilt and remorse is punish himself for his own wrong-doing instead of others inflicting it on him. Even the "turn the other cheek" strategy mentioned in the Bible is an attempt to induce the wrong-doer to see the error of his ways.

The wide-spread misunderstanding of forgiveness leads to disastrous consequences and diminishes the importance of genuine forgiveness and restoration.
...
written by KT2005, February 02, 2010
X,

I believe I will have to side with ABP on this one. That said, I always enjoy your thoughts and respect your point of view. I feel that you are confusing the forgiveness of God with the forgiveness men must have toward one another. God's forgiveness is tied to a release from punishment. I believe the Bible gives three entities the authority to judge: God, church (1 Cor. 5:12-13 under the direction of H.S.), and the government (Rom 13:4). Judgment involves punishment. For these three entities to forgive means that punishment is revoked. In order for these three to forgive repentance must be shown. (I can only judge if I am a part of the state, a judge or on a jury, or a part of a church involved in church discipline. Forgiveness or a lessening of a punishment can only be given if evidence of repentance is witnessed.)

Individuals are not to judge (1 Cor. 4:4-6, Luke 6:37). Forgiveness of one man toward another does not involve a release from punishment. . . because individuals do not have the authority to punish (yes I am aware of families in the OT being able to kill someone who killed a family member, but the accused was to go to a city of refuge so a judge could consider the matter). In other words, other people's sin toward me is not to be a barrier to peace between us. I must always seek reconciliation or peace with all men (Rom. 12:18). I must love my enemies (Matt. 5:44). Not forgiving others creates barriers to peace and love between men. Since we have been forgiven, we must forgive others.

I do disagree with the article above when someone says God has already forgiven us before repentance. Acts 8:22 "Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you." Repentance must come before forgiveness, and God's forgiveness includes escape from punishment.

Lastly, calling sin sin is not judging. If someone is committing adultery I am not judging when I say "you are sinning when you commit adultery". Saying such is simply a statement of fact. Judging involves punishment or a verdict. If I call someone an adulterer and then look down on them or treat them with a scarlet letter A then I sin. . . because I judge.
...
written by pjerwin, February 02, 2010
Xeno wrote, "...a license to keep sinning...," which immediately puts one in mind of Romans 6:1 and 15: "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase... Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" Neither unilateral forgiveness nor anything else is an excuse or reason to keep sinning.

KT2005 wrote
Lastly, calling sin sin is not judging. If someone is committing adultery I am not judging when I say "you are sinning when you commit adultery." Saying such is simply a statement of fact. Judging involves punishment or a verdict. If I call someone an adulterer and then look down on them or treat them with a scarlet letter A then I sin... because I judge.
This is not quite biblical, though, is it? The flagrant flaunting of sin in the Corinthian church and the proper response of the church -- remedial or rehabilitative, rather than retributive, punishment -- is a case in point. "What business is it of mine," Paul wrote, "to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" (1 Corinthians 5:12). The answer, of course, is, "Yes, we are, but always with the goal and the hope of reconciliation." Our problem really is that we can't seem to get on board with the "Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?" mentality.
...
written by KT2005, February 02, 2010
pjerwin,

1 Cor. 5:13 says the sinner is to be put out of the church. How is this not punishment or retributive? Yes the punishment's purpose is to foster reconciliation, but it is still punishment. I believe only the church as a whole has the power to use church discipline, not individuals. . . even though individuals carry out the church body's decision. Another motivation for church discipline is the same as your quote from chapter 6. We do not want to see the Lord's name damaged. Therefore we do not sue believers nor allow those in gross sin to remain a part of the church. I hope this helps. Blessings to you.
questions for KT
written by Xenophon, February 02, 2010
Thanks for your comments, KT. I am glad that you enjoy reading my posts. Usually we are in agreement, but it appears that we are not on this issue. Let me ask you several questions relating to the issues you raised.

First, what is the basis for your saying that judgement involves punishment? Next, what the basis for saying that individuals are never to punish? Following up here, how do you define 'punishment'? Would punishment include ostracism or confronting someone over an offense?

It sounds like from you last post in response to PJ that you think separating yourself from someone in response to an offense is punishment. If so, do you believe the Bible teaches that we are to just ignore offenses, and I do not mean simply someone being annoying, and keep on associating with one who wrongs us as if they had done nothing? For example, would you keep lending money to someone who had refused to repay a previous loan or keep doing business with someone who had defrauded you and was unrepentant?

Other issues to consider is how is a particular church or a government founded? God has established these institutions in the abstract, but how are they brought about in particular concrete cases? Are they not founded by individuals acting in concert? Who has the ultimate power in the church among us humans? In conjunction with this issue, do you believe that individuals have the right to self-defense apart from statutory law?

Finally, how would you deal with Jesus teaching in Luke 17 of how to deal with someone who has wronged another? It sounds as though repentance is a prerequisite for forgiveness.
reply to PJ
written by Xenophon, February 02, 2010
Thank you for your comments in response to my post challenging the widespread mistake (as I see it) of believing that the Bible teaches unilateral forgiveness. I simply do not see that position present in Jesus' teaching or in the writings of Paul or any other New Testament writer. Such a distortion is certainly not present in the Old Testament while true forgiveness is.

In direct response to your comments above, you said the following:

"Xeno wrote, "...a license to keep sinning...," which immediately puts one in mind of Romans 6:1 and 15: "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase... Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" Neither unilateral forgiveness nor anything else is an excuse or reason to keep sinning."

Of course, those passages you cite refer to people God has forgiven after they have shown contrition. What I was referring to above was not legal or spiritual justification for continuing to sin. Rather, I was discussing the psychological reality that given our fallen nature, we will go on sinning against other people if we do not feel pain in response to our wrongs. There is just too big of a pay-off to stop unless aggressors are deterred or feel spiritual conviction (internal pain).
...
written by KT2005, February 03, 2010
I would say judgment involves punishment because when God, the state, or church gives a "judgment" it involves punishment (ex. Rev. 18:10). Judgment involves the law. Someone has transgressed the law and must be judged. . . shown to be guilty and therefore punished. I, as an individual, cannot judge the way God judges. . . with a verdict. I can judge in the sense of making a determination, but I do not have the legal authority to judge like God, the state, or the church. . . judge and punish.

Punishment, in the way we are talking here, is the effort to do harm to another for justice sake. God can do harm, but not me (vengence is Mine says the Lord). I must do all that I can to live at peace with all men. Your lending money example would be different. To not give someone a privilege, lend them my money, is not a punishment. Neither is confrontation for sin.

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking or saying in the second paragraph. To remove my presence can be punishment, this is what the church does when she dis-fellowships someone. For me to do this unilaterally is wrong. That said, I have friends that I spend more time with than others. To spend less time with someone is not the same as dis-fellowship.

Your text in Luke 17 is strong. Yet I believe you are making a logical mistake. If someone comes and says I repent, then Luke 17 says I must forgive. You are making a logical jump by saying if they do not say I repent then I do not have to forgive. The text does not say this. Do you really think the repentance is sincere after 7th time. . . in ONE day? No, the offender does not mean it. . . the point is even when people do not repent we must forgive them anyway. (I know you understand 7 is the perfect number so more than 7 offenses would call for forgivness again and again and again and again etc.)
...
written by pjerwin, February 03, 2010
KT2005 I see two problems with your original post. 1) Your position that God's forgiveness is tied to release or escape from punishment. That may not be so. Biblical evidence suggests that one may be repentant and be forgiven by God, yet still suffer punishment, though certainly not the ultimate punishment. 2) "Do not judge" means we're not to be judgmental (i.e. condemning), not that we're not to make or use good judgment. While I do not condemn the drug abuser who attends school with my son, and I can forgive him when he burgalerizes my home to support his habit (whether or not he's repentant), I will not let my son go to parties with him, let him drive my son around, or trust him near my medicine cabinet.

I do agree, though, that it is the corprate Body, the Church, and not individuals who are to judge with regard to a person's relationship and involvement in the life of the Church. However, note Paul's words at the end of 1 Corinthians 5: "I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler -- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?" (1 Cor. 5:11-12). Am I to believe that I must wait for the Church to pass formal judgment that a fellow church member is immoral or covetous or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or a swindler before I decide not to associate with or eat with him? Of course not. We're to make sound judgments and act accordingly. Had the individual church members done so earlier with regard to the incestuous man and his mother, formal church discipline might not have been necessary.

There are two levels of discipline: informal (Christian discipline) and formal (Church discipline). Informal discipline involves self-discipline first; when self discipline fails, informal brotherly discipline kicks in. Informal brotherly discipline can go only so far, and then more formal discipline must be pursued (see, among others, Matt. 18).

In your response, I believe you misunderstood my post. There are different kinds of punishment. Not all forms of punishment are retributive (i.e. retaliatory or revengeful); some punishment -- especially any punishment meted out by the church -- should be remedial (i.e. educative, corrective) and rehabilitative (theraputic) -- often this is necessary even when an individual has been forgiven.
...
written by pjerwin, February 03, 2010
Also note that there's a difference between acquittal and forgiveness.
...
written by KT2005, February 03, 2010
I trust this will have personal application for you my friend. . . as it must for all.
reply to KT, part 1
written by Xenophon, February 03, 2010
Thanks for taking the time and effort to reply to some of my questions that I posed to you in response to your critique of my post above. In my present reply, I shall first take up the issue of judgement and punishment that you discussed in your previous two posts. I largely agree with the distinctions that PJ drew above. I would disagree with him though on the point that God will still punish us after we are forgiven. God might allow earthly punishment that we deserve (or even punishment that we do not deserve, e.g. Joseph being thrown in prison unjustly vis a vis Potiphar and his wife), but God will not reign down his wrath on us after we have been forgiven by him. Consider Paul's statement of this principle in Romans 8:1-2 where he says "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." The reason that God will not punish us after we are forgiven is because Jesus already received God's wrath for our sins in his suffering on the Cross. Jesus declared that humans' sin debt is fully paid in his sacrifice when he declared, "It is finished." At that point, the moral universe was restored to balance. It is up to us to accept or reject the application of Jesus' sacrifice to our own lives when we come under conviction by the Holy
Spirit for our need for a Savior at the point of our conversion (or our rejection of the promptings of the Holy Spirit).

But if we persist in wrong-doing after we are born again or are disobedient to God even if no moral principle is involved, then God might very well chastise us, which involves God lovingly inflicting pain on us without wrath to correct us. The writer of the New Testament book Hebrews tells us of this possibility in Chapter 12, verses 5-11 in his discussion of God's chastisement. When we are experiencing God's chastisement it might very feel like punishment in the moment. But God's motivation is completely different in chastisement. In retrospect after we have responded to the correction properly, then we can feel this difference as we realize that God has protected us and cultivated his relationship with us in his chastising actions. At that point, we can be thankful for God inflicting some pain on us. I know this process first hand.

In punishment, not only is God's wrath is being poured out on us, the moral universe is being set right as God (or some authority acting on his behalf) inflicts a comparable pain on the wrong-doer. If a person is punished justly, the pain inflicted on the perpetrator should not be seen as harm since this pain can be beneficial to the perpetrator, to the victim, and to the greater community. So, I would disagree with your use of the word 'harm' in your discussion of punishment. Perhaps, you intended to use the word 'pain' in your discussion.

reply to KT, part 2
written by Xenophon, February 03, 2010
Now, who can rightly dispense punishment here on earth? I would say that individuals can dispense punishment on wrong-doers. We humans have a basic right to self-defense and defense of others given to us by God. The problem is that people generally do not retaliate in proportion to the wrong inflicted unjustly on us since we are sinful and go beyond what is proportionate in our retaliation. We might also jump to wrong conclusions in many cases and punish the wrong person. So, we delegate our power to retaliate in extreme ways such as killing other people or torture or confiscating a wrong-doer's property to the state. The state is ordained by God to provide these functions of establishing justice, but we bring a particular government into existence in our actions in concrete historical settings such as the founding of the United States or the gradual evolution of the various governments in Europe. Private individuals retain certain rights to retaliate such as less severe occasions as ostracism for boorish behavior or writing bad evaluations on Angie's List in response to mildly dishonest business practices or, in exceptional cases where no agent of the state is available in emergency circumstances such as someone pulling a gun on a person in a parking lot, we retain the right to kill in self-defense or defense of others.

I would also say that individual Christians may rightfully make judgements about other Christians' behavior and take less severe actions against them. In fact, I think one reason that bad behavior abounds in churches is because aggressive people in the church feel uninhibited to oppress others "liberated" from their normal inhibitions by misguided teachings on unilateral forgiveness. These aggressive folks likely feel that they can metaphorically "get away with murder" because of the lack of accountability in the moment from other individuals in the church. While expelling people from the church is a corporate act, informal correction in the hallway from a fellow Christian is not precluded by corporate decisions by the entire body of believers in a locality. The process Jesus describes in Matthew 18:15-17 does not make a clear distinction between the individual and the entire church. It starts between two individuals, one who feels aggrieved and the possible trespasser, and then moves to two or three other individuals who accompany the one who feels wronged to confront the person being accused. Then if these two more personal and informal confrontations do not resolve the conflict, then and only then, is the dispute taken to the entire church. As Paul later teaches, the church should try to resolve disputes, but his directive has largely been ignored by the church (1 Corinthians 6: 3-5).
KT, part 3
written by Xenophon, February 03, 2010
Next, I do not see why you are not picking up the gist of my questions about disassociating oneself from someone who has wronged you. Are my examples not clear? If someone wrongs you, and you forgive them, which entails that you no longer hold them responsible for the wrong done you, do you keep associating with them and give them more opportunities to wrong you? Would you loan money to someone who earlier took your money under false pretenses without showing any remorse or refusing to refund your money from the last go-around? Do you just keep going as if nothing happened? If you really forgive them, that is what you would do, i.e. no longer hold the wrong against the guilty person. And preferring one person's company to another without anyone doing anything in particular wrong is not the same set of circumstances that we are discussing.

Finally, Luke 17 is pretty clear. I haven't heard you or anyone else cite a passage in the Bible that would qualify this teaching from Jesus. There is every reason to take this sequence Jesus lays out for forgiving a wrong-doer as normative. Can God lead someone to show a willingness to forgive up front? Yes. And sometimes that strategy works. But it seems that the Luke 17 approach is what is more typical. Even turning the other cheek does not entail forgiveness. We can overlook wrongs done to us either strategically as I just suggested or if an offense is minor, we might assume that the other did not intend to come across the way we presumed. I am all for these less confrontational approaches to conflicts when appropriate. But I stand by the outline of the typical process of repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation that seem to be clearly presented in Luke 17.

Moving to your final point, just because someone might not be totally sincere is no good reason not to forgive them when they apologize. We all act from mixed motives and we are not always perfectly motivated. It is a judgement call by the people involved when there is enough of a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. Of course, only God can really know people's motives, including our own motives. People also act from habit and compulsion, so that they might very well sincerely apologize and promise not to commit the same wrong again and do it the next day or even sooner. I have done that very thing, and was sincere when I repented. I suspect that we have all done the same.
...
written by pjerwin, February 03, 2010
KT2005 wrtoe: "I trust this will have personal application for you my friend... as it must for all."

Huh?
...
written by pjerwin, February 04, 2010
Xeno wrote: "I would disagree with him [PJ] though on the point that God will still punish us after we are forgiven."

Let's put it this way, Adam and Eve were forced to leave the Garden of Eden -- oh yeah, and there's that "death" thing. David and Bathsheba's baby was taken from them. Need I go on?

Paul wrote, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,because through Christ Jesus;" he didn't write that there is therefore now no punishment -- or chastisement/discipline. The difference isn't between punishment, chastisement, and discipline -- they're all equivalent terms, synonyms. The difference is between punishment and condemnation.

"Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent" (Revelation 3:19).

"...the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives. It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness" (Hebrews 12:6-10).

"...when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world" (1 Corinthians 11:32).

You wrote that forgiveness "entails that you no longer hold them responsible for the wrong done you... Do you just keep going as if nothing happened? If you really forgive them, that is what you would do...? That's not what forgiveness is. Forgiveness is recognizing the fault, but excusing or pardoning it, absolving the offender from repayment, and renouncing anger and resentment because of it. Forgiveness is not denial of the truth, but exercising grace in the full recognition of that truth.
reply to PJ
written by Xenophon, February 04, 2010
First, punishment is wrathful and retributive while chastisement lacks wrath and is only corrective. We Christians are no longer under the wrath of God nor do we owe God a debt that must be repaid by our suffering. Second, forgiveness by definition does involve no longer holding the offense against the wrong-doer. So would you loan more money to an unrepentant cheat?

There was a story on the national news tonight about the CIA directing a Peruvian Air Force fighter to shoot down a missionary plane they mistook for drug dealers a few years ago (the incident is on video). Even though it was a mistake, the CIA agents did not follow protocols they were instructed to follow to avoid shooting down innocents. The CIA covered up the misconduct of the agents on the spot. The Christian parents of the woman who was killed persisted for years demanding justice until the CIA finally admitted the misconduct today. Should the parents of the woman who died had simply forgiven the CIA agents responsible for the death of their daughter and the cover-up without the CIA accepting responsibility for the wrongful death? If you say yes, I ask you for textual evidence to support such an outlandish view.
...
written by pjerwin, February 04, 2010
You are wrong, Xeno. By definition -- look it up -- to forgive is "1. To excuse for a fault or an offense; pardon. 2. To renounce anger or resentment against. 3. To absolve from payment." It is not to foolishly trust. And by definition, punishment is "imposed penalty (a disadvantage or painful consequence resulting from an action or a condition) for wrongdoing;" to chastise is "to correct by punishment or reproof."

The concept of grace is what you need to grasp: "A favor rendered by one who need not do so."
...
written by KT2005, February 04, 2010
My last statement was for X not you P. ;-) I believe the difference between punishment, chastisement, and discipline is purpose. God disciplines believers as his children, while the world's punishment does not require personal redemption intentions since they are under wrath. Christians can experience pain that is not discipline. . . we call these things trials and tribulations.

Going back to Luke 17. The repentant words are empty after 7 times in one day. Empty words show a lack of true repentance. Which undermines your claim that someone must truly repent before we forgive.

Self defense is not punishment, but an effort to survive an attack. We cannot disfellowship others without the church's approval. If we are a part of a church that is not obedient in church discipline, we need to find another church. The idea of vigilanty church discipline undermines the church acting as one body.

Roman 12:18 is clear. I must strive to live at peace with all men. I must do everything possible to make things write. The victim mentioned above in the article did this wonderfully. I do not have to be best friends with all men, but I must strive for peace between myself and all men. If someone has sinned against me then I must forgive if peace is to be attained.
reply to KT
written by Xenophon, February 04, 2010
Thanks for your reply, KT. I think we are thinking along the same lines on punishment and chastisement.

So, on to your next point and that is Luke 17 where Jesus lays out very clearly what we are to do when someone wrongs us. I do not see where you have dealt with what Jesus actually said. Are you claiming that we should not take his teaching here seriously? We have this biblical passage to serve as instruction. Should we simply disregard it because you and others might think it is unrealistic in some way? I stand by my account of how people might be motivated in various cases such as we are discussing, but whether my take on addressing your concerns about forgiving people who fall back into the same sin and profess repentance is adequate or not, we are still left with the words that Jesus spoke and that is repentance is necessary for forgiveness. It is necessary for God's forgiveness. I hope you would agree with that observation drawn from numerous biblical passages that I have quoted previously and a lot more of them that I have not taken the time to cite. From Luke 17, as a rule, it seems that repentance is necessary for human forgiveness. Do you have a biblical passage that modifies or contradicts Luke 17?

Now to self-defense and punishment. The justification for both are the same according to social contract theory. The reason that we can kill someone on the spot who is threatening us is because they are in the process of trying to violate our right to life. The reason that we could, in principle, go back and kill them next week after they attacked us (and we survived) is because they have violated our rights. We generally delegate this power to government, but the government has no authority to carry out any action that individuals do not possess and have not delegated to government to implement on our behalf. That is the rationale for our legal and political system discussed by John Locke in his *Second Treatise on Civil Government.*

The same basic approach to church government was taken up before Locke in the conciliar movements in the Roman Catholic Church. Even more democratic accounts of church government were embraced by Baptists. We as individuals hold the ultimate power in the church (speaking in terms of human authority). Again, I cited passages from the biblical text that support the legitimate activity of individuals taking informal actions against other Christians to address wrong-doing. See again Matthew 18:15-17.

Finally, I disagree that being at peace entails unilateral forgiveness and pacifism. That is not peace but appeasement and fosters aggression on the part of people with that inclination. The strategy that the Bible actually discusses is the best means of realizing true peace with others. Again, this peace is not a perfect peace, but an imperfect peace that is the best we can do in a fallen world.
reply to PJ
written by Xenophon, February 04, 2010
Concerning forgiveness, PJ, try these verses:

Isaiah 1:18: "Come now and let us reason together, says the LORD, though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

Psalm 103:11-12: "For as the heavens are high above the earth, so great is His mercy toward those who fear Him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us."

Hebrews 8:12: "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

The Lord's Prayer teaches us to forgive as God forgives.

Now on to the difference between 'punishment' and 'chastisement.'

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the roots of 'punishment' are "poine "blood-money, fine, penalty, punishment," from PIE *kwoina, from base *kwei- "to pay, atone, compensate" cf. Gk. time "price, worth, honor, esteem, respect," Skt. cinoti "observes, notes," Avestan kaena "punishment, vengeance," O.C.S. cena "honor, price," Lith. kaina "value, price."

For 'chastise' the roots are free of revenge but do involve the infliction of pain, hence the overlap with 'punishment.' Here are the roots for 'chastise': "From Latin castigatus pp. of castigare "to purify, chastise," from castus "pure" (see caste) agere "to do." Sense of "make someone pure by correcting or reproving him."

A nice non-biblical example this dictionary provides is "He alone may chastise who loves." [Rabindranath Tagore, "The Crescent Moon," 1913]

Both terms do refer to the infliction of pain, so that is why 'punishment' is showing up in some definitions of 'chastise.' But the purposes of each are subtly different. As you can see from the roots,
'punishment' involves revenge while 'chastise' involves correction in order to purify (notice the relationship between 'chastise' and 'chastity'--they share the same root). The passage in Hebrews 12 that discusses chastisement clearly refers to God inflicting pain on believers in order to correct and purify them, not to rain down his wrath on them.

As for your implying that I am not relying on grace in my discussions above, do you believe that God is gracious to forgive our sins? Does God require repentance before he forgives?
...
written by pjerwin, February 04, 2010
But, of course, we want a biblical understanding here. So really we’re not dealing with the English words, but the Greek and Hebrew behind the translation/interpretation. But let’s go ahead and deal with the English a little.

As far as the notion that punishment always necessarily involves revenge, that simply isn’t true. Punishment isn’t always retributive (retaliatory or revengeful); some punishment is remedial (educative, corrective) or rehabilitative (therapeutic). Note that dictionaries list the following synonyms as carrying shades of meaning: punish, correct, chastise, discipline, castigate, penalize. All of these verbs mean to subject a person to a penalty (such as loss, pain, or confinement) for an offense, sin, or fault. Punish is the least specific (i.e. the most general) and is a sort of umbrella term. To correct is to punish so that an offender will mend his or her ways. Chastise implies punishment (such as corporal punishment or a verbal rebuke) as a means of effecting improvement in behavior. Discipline stresses punishment inflicted by an authority in order to control an offender or to eliminate or reform unacceptable conduct. Castigate means to censure or criticize severely, often in public. Penalize usually implies a monetary penalty or the forfeiture of a privilege or gain because rules or regulations have been broken.

And while the English word “punish” may have ποινη (poiné), ποινη is not found in the Greek NT. Instead, punish is used to translate a variety of Greek words and is often interchangeable with chastise (e.g. Luke 23:16, 22; KJV: chastise; NASBu, NIV, etc.: punish). The same is true for the Hebrew. While יסר (ysr) and םוסר (musr) are the main words translated/interpreted with the word group above, there are others, and punish and chastise are often used interchangeably, often depending upon the version. However, note that chasten and punish are used to translate parallel thoughts in Hebrew (e.g. Jeremiah 30:11 “For I am with you,” declares the Lord, “to save you; for I will destroy completely all the nations where I have scattered you, only I will not destroy you completely. But I will chasten you justly, and will by no means leave you unpunished.”

Further, in regard to your notion that “chastisement clearly refers to God inflicting pain on believers in order to correct and purify them, not to rain down his wrath on them,” Note the following passages:

“O Lord, do not rebuke me in Your anger, nor chasten me in Your wrath.” (Psalm 6:1)

“O Lord, rebuke me not in Your wrath, and chasten me not in Your burning anger.” (Psalm 38:1)

In answer to your question, “Does God require repentance before he forgives?” In short, no. “In Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them ...be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:19, 20) God has already extended forgiveness; repentance is required for us to receive it, for it to be effectual for us.
questions for clarification
written by Xenophon, February 05, 2010
PJ, please see my remarks in response to your same reply on the other article on forgiveness. Here are a few questions that seek to clarify the differences we are having on these issues surrounding the proper way to understand Christian forgiveness.

1. Is there a distinction between correction and retribution even if both involve the infliction of pain?

2. If so, can we stipulate words to denote the difference when speaking more carefully?

3. Are people in Hell forgiven by God?

...
written by pjerwin, February 05, 2010
1. Is there a distinction between correction and retribution even if both involve the infliction of pain? Yes, but they aren't parallel terms. Correction is s form of punishment intended to cause an offender to mend his or her ways. Retribution may or may not involve inflicting pain. Although it carries a negative connotation in modern American English, is not necessarily negative, meaning "1. Something justly deserved; recompense. 2. Something given or demanded in repayment," Retributive punishment is 1) deserved and 2) demands a payment. Corrective punishment may involve retribution.

2. If so, can we stipulate words to denote the difference when speaking more carefully? Sure, but it's not a difference between correction and retribution. Just remember that "punishment" is an umbrella term for a whole range of words (see the list above with the shades of meaning).

3. Are people in Hell forgiven by God? Jesus was the propitiation -- atoning sacrifice -- for their sins (the sins of the whole world; 1 John 2:2), and forgiveness had been extended to them, but they either rejected or did not receive it.
follow-up questions
written by Xenophon, February 05, 2010
Thanks for your responses to my questions, PJ. I am still not clear on where you stand exactly on the substance of these issues. Let me ask some follow-up questions for greater clarity.

1. Are Christians ever under God's wrath in the sense that we deserve punishment for our sins in order to make moral recompense to God?

2. Are there crucial "shades of meaning" between retribution and correction?

3. I do not see a clear answer to my third question above. I would agree that forgiveness has been offered to people who died and went Hell while they were alive on earth. If they rejected God's offer of forgiveness, were they still forgiven? If they were not forgiven, then God's forgiveness is dependent on their repentance. If they were forgiven, why are they in Hell being punished (in the retributive sense, not in the corrective sense) for their sins?
...
written by pjerwin, February 05, 2010
1. Are Christians ever under God's wrath in the sense that we deserve punishment for our sins in order to make moral recompense to God? Can you restate the question in other terms?
...
written by pjerwin, February 05, 2010
2. Are there crucial "shades of meaning" between retribution and correction? No, they aren't congruent terms. As shown above, it isn't shades of meaning, but different meanings. Correction is a form of punishment, while retribution may come in the form of either reward or punishment. And even if you were to ask if there are crucial shades of meaning between "retributive punishment" and correction, I would have to say that they still aren't conguent.
reply to PJ
written by Xenophon, February 05, 2010
1. I wonder why you are having trouble with my first question. Is it not clear?

How about this: Do we need to suffer for our sins to appease God's sense of justice in order to add to Jesus' suffering on the Cross as he atoned for our sins?

2. You say above: "Note that dictionaries list the following synonyms as carrying shades of meaning: punish, correct, chastise, discipline, castigate, penalize. All of these verbs mean to subject a person to a penalty (such as loss, pain, or confinement) for an offense, sin, or fault. Punish is the least specific (i.e. the most general) and is a sort of umbrella term. To correct is to punish so that an offender will mend his or her ways. Chastise implies punishment (such as corporal punishment or a verbal rebuke) as a means of effecting improvement in behavior. Discipline stresses punishment inflicted by an authority in order to control an offender or to eliminate or reform unacceptable conduct. Castigate means to censure or criticize severely, often in public. Penalize usually implies a monetary penalty or the forfeiture of a privilege or gain because rules or regulations have been broken."

I do not know really know how to respond to your last reply in light of what I just quoted from a previous post of yours. As I pointed out above, the etymology of 'punish' and 'chastise' are different. They both involve the infliction of pain but for a different purpose, 'punish' being retaliatory and 'chastise' being purifying.

As you may know, language evolves in erratic ways as people use words in very unpredictable ways that can alter their original meanings. For example, 'scan' and 'skim' as "in skimming over a text" and "scanning a text" had opposing meanings in the Eighteenth Century with 'skim' meaning lightly and quickly reading over a text while 'scan' meant a slower, more careful reading of a text. Over time, they came to have the same meaning. Nevertheless, we do still distinguish between a quick once-over reading and a careful, analytic reading.

So here, apart from discussions of the evolution of these terms, I am interested in conceptually distinguishing between inflicting pain on a person primarily in order to pay a moral debt from inflicting pain on a person primarily in order to correct the person. Can both motives, as well as others, be at work in the same act? Yes, there can be, but they are still conceptually different.

But in the case of a Christian standing before God, it seems that the Bible clearly teaches that the born-again Christian will never be subject to God's retributive wrath to pay a sin debt (see my discussion above on this in my extensive reply (part 1) to KT). God might very well inflict pain on us to correct us when we deliberately sin. He might also require us to repay another person we have wronged, such as have us repay an outstanding financial debt. God might also allow us to be subject to the state inflicting retributive justice when we have broken the law. But once we accept Jesus as our Savior, God will never inflict his retributive wrath on us in payment for our sins.

3. I do not see a response to my Question 3.
...
written by pjerwin, February 06, 2010
3... I would agree that forgiveness has been offered to people who died and went Hell while they were alive on earth.... What? They went to Hell while they were alive on Earth?
...
written by pjerwin, February 06, 2010
3... God's forgiveness is dependent on their repentance... No, our effectual reception of God's forgiveness is dependent upon faith.

...
written by pjerwin, February 06, 2010
1. How about this: Do we need to suffer for our sins to appease God's sense of justice in order to add to Jesus' suffering on the Cross as he atoned for our sins? This is a different question than your first one: Are Christians ever under God's wrath in the sense that we deserve punishment for our sins in order to make moral recompense to God? Since it is unclear what you're asking and what the point is, I'll just break it down into parts.

Even though the sentence doesn't make sense to me, let's take your whole question first:

a) "Do we need to suffer for our sins to appease God's sense of justice in order to add to Jesus' suffering on the Cross as he atoned for our sins?" What good would that do? What is it you're really trying to get at?

b) We cannot add to Jesus' suffering on the cross, "It is finished." How could anyone add to Jesus' suffering on the cross? Why would you ask such a thing?

c) Any suffering we experience for our sins is not to appease God's sense of justice. If our suffering could appease God's sense of justice, then He would not have needed to have given His Son as a propitiantion for our sins.

d) Sometimes we do need to suffer for our sins, not as a means of expiation, but perhaps as a means of remediation or rehabilitation. Sometimes suffering the natural consequences of our sins is simply unavoidable.

e) Sometimes we suffer and it has nothing to do with sin, ours or anyone else's.

Scripture makes it clear that God uses our suffering for our good to develop something in us, that's why we rejoice in our sufferings.

Now for the question this one was intended to clarify: "Are Christians ever under God's wrath in the sense that we deserve punishment for our sins in order to make moral recompense to God?"

a) Are Christians ever under God's wrath? Let's use the word "believers," rather than Christians. Are believers ever under God's wrath? I would say that since the passages I cited above imply that believers may be chastened in God's wrath, the answer is, "yes." However...

b) "...under God's wrath in the sense that we deserve punishment..." Well, sure. If we didn't deserve punishment, would God punish us; if we needed no chastisement, would God chastise us? No.

c) "...in the sense that we deserve punishment for our sins in order to make moral recompense to God." Any punishment believers endure for our sins is not to make moral recompense to God. If by punishment we could make moral recompense to God for our sins, there would have been no need for the Cross of Christ.

Is this really what you intended to ask, or is there something else behind your question?
...
written by pjerwin, February 06, 2010
"The creature has nothing else in its power but the free use of its will, and its free will hath no other power but that of concurring with or resisting the working of God..." -- William Law, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, 1729
chastisement and wrath should be distinguished more clearly
written by Xenophon, February 06, 2010
In reply to my questions, PJ, you say:

"a) "Do we need to suffer for our sins to appease God's sense of justice in order to add to Jesus' suffering on the Cross as he atoned for our sins?" What good would that do? What is it you're really trying to get at?

b) We cannot add to Jesus' suffering on the cross, "It is finished." How could anyone add to Jesus' suffering on the cross? Why would you ask such a thing?

c) Any suffering we experience for our sins is not to appease God's sense of justice. If our suffering could appease God's sense of justice, then He would not have needed to have given His Son as a propitiantion for our sins.

and


If by punishment we could make moral recompense to God for our sins, there would have been no need for the Cross of Christ."

I agree completely with all of what you say in these passages I have just quoted from your last post. I agree with your other comments on God allowing us to suffer. My purpose in the questions that I asked above were to get you to focus on what you just said in our discussion of God's wrath. Those who have accepted Jesus as Savior never face God's wrath for their sins to pay their sin debt to God.

So, we born again Christians never face God's vengeful wrath for their sins. I agree.

I do not, however, agree with your characterization of God's chastisement. But I do not see your making a clear distinction between chastisement and God's wrath such as when you say:

"Are Christians ever under God's wrath? Let's use the word "believers," rather than Christians. Are believers ever under God's wrath? I would say that since the passages I cited above imply that believers may be chastened in God's wrath, the answer is, "yes." However...

b) "...under God's wrath in the sense that we deserve punishment..." Well, sure. If we didn't deserve punishment, would God punish us; if we needed no chastisement, would God chastise us? No."

There is a huge chasm that I see between God's retributive wrath and chastisement that you seem to be blurring. I see chastisement as only corrective and purifying. Chastisement is akin to getting a spanking as a child from a loving parent who is trying to protect her from harming herself in contrast with facing the wrath of the angry father who takes revenge on those who harmed his daughter. If you have ever seen the Shakespearean play, *Titus Andronicus,* where two families get into a vicious, and I mean vicious, blood feud, you can appreciate how wrathful anger differs in principle and intensity from displeasure at seeing a loved one slipping into error and feeling forced to take corrective actions to head off more trouble for the recipient of the caregiver's chastising hand.

Finally, language is used to draw comparisons and contrasts. We need to distinguish between the sources of God's motivations for inflicting pain on humans more carefully.
Are people in Hell forgiven?
written by Xenophon, February 06, 2010
I still do not see a clear answer to this question about your understanding of whether people in Hell are forgiven. I say that they are not. You picked up on an ambiguous phrase in my post above seemingly to evade the question. Of course, what I meant was that people who die and go to Hell had the chance while they were alive on earth to accept Jesus as Savior and receive God's forgiveness. They chose to reject God's offer of forgiveness and so they were never forgiven.

You say above to my line of reasoning on God's forgiveness that " No, our effectual reception of God's forgiveness is dependent upon faith."

So, once again, I ask, are people in Hell forgiven of their sins by God? I still do not have a clear answer on this question. My clear answer to my own question, once again, is that they are not forgiven. God was ready to forgive them and prepared the way for their forgiveness and entreated them to respond to his offer of forgiveness, but since they rejected his offer, they were never forgiven and are receiving the just consequences for their sins.

Finally, we still have no biblical support from you or anyone else for the claim that we are to forgive without the wrong-doer repenting from their sin.
...
written by pjerwin, February 06, 2010
X you srote: "I do not, however, agree with your characterization of God's chastisement. But I do not see your making a clear distinction between chastisement and God's wrath." Again, you're not using correlative terms. Wrath is anger, forceful, often vindictive; chastisement is punishment, as by beating or servere rebuke. Recall the verses I cited above about God chastening in His wrath -- that's straight from Scripture. So, it's not that I'm not making a clear distinction, I'm just relying on Scripture.

I don't have to rely on Shakespearean plays or operas to understand wrath. My step-dad was an angry drunk. Once he chastized me in his wrath so severely that the next day the police removed me from school and took me to the hospital. It wasn't the first time, nor the last.

Now, it took a while, but I forgave him, even though he was never repentant. I forgave him for my sake, not his, but he never received it. The forgiveness was done, but it was never effectual for him, so we were never able to enjoy a relationship. Note:
Psalm 79:9 "...deliver us and forgive our sins for Your name's sake;"
Psalm 106:8 "...He saved them for the sake of His name;"
Psalm 109:21 "...deal kindly with me for Your name's sake;"
Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am the One Who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake;"
Isaiah 48:9 "For My name's sake I defer my anger."

Also, remember that from the cross Jesus implored, "Father, forgive them, for they are repentant," right? NO! He said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). They didn't know what they were doing, thus they were unrepentant, yet Jesus prayed for their forgiveness.

This explains my position on those who are in Hell. They didn't receive God's forgiveness.

Why are people in Hell? Jesus died for their sins, didn't He? "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). So it wasn't a matter of a sin-debt because the debt was paid. And it was paid while they were still helpless, still sinners, still enemies of God -- in other words, still unrepentant. The sin-debt was paid, once for all. But did everyone receive it?

Are people in Hell because God didn't forgive them? They are in Hell because they did not believe/trust in Jesus.
reply
written by Xenophon, February 07, 2010
PJ, if you read Hebrews 12:5-11, the imagery the writer paints is of a child being corrected by a loving parent, not the wrath of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." I am very sorry to hear of your experiences from childhood. Of course, what you describe from your home life is not the same as the loving correction of a well-balanced parent. This kind of treatment is exactly what we Christians will never face from our Heavenly Father. At times, however, when we are receiving intense pleasure from sin, God must increase the amount of pain we feel to open our eyes to the destructive consequences of our disobedience.

I very much appreciate the verses you cite on forgiveness above. I think they could be consistent with either of our views in themselves. As for Jesus' words from the Cross, as I interpreted the account we have of Jesus' imploring God the Father to forgive those who were in the process of murdering him, I do not believe that these folks were actually forgiven until they realized their horrible sin, even for the Romans who at least were aware they were treating an innocent man unjustly, they remained condemned. I think what Jesus was saying is that even this sin of murdering the incarnation of God was forgivable.

I still cannot understand your position on people in Hell being forgiven. Yes, Jesus died for their sins. So, God could maintain his sense of justice and still forgive them. Jesus laid the groundwork for their being forgiven. God was ready, able, and willing to forgive them if they had responded favorably to the promptings of the Holy Spirit when they came under his conviction, but they refused as you pointed out. So, how can they be both forgiven and condemned simultaneously? I do not believe that they can be. They are tragically condemned due to their own decision. The offer of God's forgiveness was not accepted, so the offer expired with their death.

Finally, from your and others' personal testimony, it seems that people who have suffered terrible wrongs committed against them by unrepentant aggressors find solace in the understanding of forgiveness that this article terms "radical forgiveness." I can understand that people seek relief from the burden of resentment and bitterness and find this approach to forgiveness appealing. I think an approach that is more consistent with the teachings found in the Bible is that we should be, like God, open and ready to forgive, hoping that we can forgive, but not forgiving and releasing someone from responsibility for their wrongs until they actually repent in some form or another (someone might not actually say certain words, but they show contrition in their actions or demeanor). Until they do so, we can cast our burden on the Lord and trust him to set the situation right in his time. Additionally, we can examine ourselves for the reasons that God has allowed us to suffer injustice at others hands. God has a purpose in our suffering even if we are innocent vis a vis the person(s) who victimized us. Charles Stanley, who holds a view similar to yours, urges people to see all actions ultimately coming from God, which I agree with, and look for his purpose in our suffering. God can bring good out of evil if we respond in faith in God.

I appreciate our discussion of these difficult and tragic issues.




...
written by pjerwin, February 08, 2010
X You wrote: "...if you read Hebrews 12:5-11, the imagery the writer paints is of a child being corrected by a loving parent..." That may not be quite true, for the writer went on to say "Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of Spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good..." (Hebrews 12:9-10) The contrast is between eathly fathers who did what seemed best to them, not necessarily always for our good, but God is different from our earthly fathers and His discipline IS always for our good.

As for Jesus' prayer from the cross, Jesus, unlike us, always prayed according to God's will. He didn't pray, "Father make Your forgiveness available to them," or, "Father forgive them if they repent."

You wrote: "I still cannot understand your position on people in Hell being forgiven." I said they did not receive forgiveness.


And finally, you wrote: "...from your and others' personal testimony, it seems that people who have suffered terrible wrongs committed against them by unrepentant aggressors find solace in the understanding of forgiveness that this article terms "radical forgiveness." I'm not talking about some pitiful need for personal solace, I'm talking about godly forgiveness.

I've shared this before elsewhere in this forum and I'll share it here again. I know my story is not as bad as many, but I have suffered grave wrong in my life. I was taken away from my father when I was too young to ratain any memories of him and taught for the rest of my life that he was a vile human being. I was raped about the age of 4 (which as you know, for a male carries its own stigma). I was also sexually abused by family members from about 5 years old to my preteen years. During that time I was also severely physically as well as emotionally abused. When I was a teenager, my sister, my only natural-blood sibling, was murdered. Forgiveness is not a metter of solace, but of survival. Perhaps the better way to understand this is that folks who haven't lived through such suffering haven't got the depth of experience to understand radical forgiveness. Remember this: Forgiveness is excuseing someone for a fault or an offense, renouncing anger and resentment against them, not releasing them from responsibility for it. God will not act as if we were never sinners; He will acknowledge that we were sinners, but that Jesus paid our debt.
summary
written by Xenophon, February 09, 2010
So, it sounds as though we can agree, PJ, that God's correction is not the same as God's wrath to avenge our sins. We seem to be in agreement on our understanding of Hebrews 12's account of chastisement (I think).

As for Jesus' plea to the Father to forgive his murderers while hanging on the Cross, do you believe that they were forgiven at that point and never held accountable for their actions if they did not later repent and ask for God's forgiveness? If they are in Heaven because they accepted Jesus as Savior, then I agree with you. They are not being held accountable for murdering Jesus. Jesus atoning death even covered that sin as heinous as it was. If they never repented and are (or will be) suffering in Hell, do you believe that they are not being punished for, at least, murdering a man they knew to be innocent? Would you want to be in Caiphus' shoes at the Last Judgement if he never accepted Jesus as his Savior?


You say above that "I said they [people in Hell] did not receive forgiveness." But are they forgiven by God? Obviously, not.
Consider the following two verses, which I could supplement with many others:

“I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins." Isiah 43:25

"For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
And I will remember their sins no more.” Hebrews 8:12

So, if people in Hell were forgiven, then God would not be holding their sins against them, which he is.

These verses that I quote just above also sheds light on your concluding claim:

"Forgiveness is excuseing someone for a fault or an offense, renouncing anger and resentment against them, not releasing them from responsibility for it. God will not act as if we were never sinners; He will acknowledge that we were sinners, but that Jesus paid our debt."

Every bit of textual evidence that we have from the Bible is that God will never hold us responsible for our sins in the sense of facing his just wrath for our sins after we have been forgiven. For example, if we are fully pardoned by an earthly governor, then our legal sentence is over and that is the end of the matter as far as the law goes. So it is with God as Jesus accepted the full responsibility of our sins as far as our sin debt to God. Consequently, if we are forgiven, there will not be a penalty imposed on us for our sins to appease God's justice. As I said in another post, as the song says, and you seem to say at times, "Jesus paid it all."

Among humans, if we really forgive someone, then we fully release them from the debt that they owe us and we are open to reconciling with them depending on their willingness to reconcile. For example, if I forgive someone a wrong they committed against me, then I would not press charges against them or take them to court to find justice. My personal pardon would be similar to the governor's pardon. That would end the matter as far as what justice demanded as far as I had any say in the matter.


addendum
written by Xenophon, February 09, 2010
To really put a clearer edge on my closing remarks above, let me quote Romans 8:15-17 and Romans 8:29-39.

"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory....

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:
"For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

So, contrary to your close above, God does not see us as sinners who are saved, but as he sees Jesus, as "heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17). God never brings charges of condemnation against us again if we are covered by Jesus' blood he shed for us on the Cross. As verse 15 says above, we can cry out to him as we would a loving father. (Incidentally, a loving father does not pour out his wrath on his child as I was saying above in regard to Hebrews 12--consider not only the Hebrews passage but also Romans 8:15--after rereading what you wrote above, I think we are still reading the Hebrews passage differently or with a different emphasis, so my seeing agreement with you here in my last post might have been incorrect.)

In short, we are forgiven in Christ and God never punishes us for our sins after we are covered by Jesus' atoning death. Those who reject Jesus' offer of redemption, face God's judgement for their sins based on their own merits and are not forgiven. They are held fully accountable for their sins. That is why they suffer in Hell and why people suffer in different degrees in Hell. That is also why we must get the word to people and use any means we can to prompt them to feel the need for a Savior by turning to Jesus as the only source for true forgiveness.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.