Inform Your 'Faith'

   Forgiveness, in my previous installment was shown to be a posture, attitude and disposition Christians are to maintain and even cultivate. Scripture clearly substantiates this as I elucidated in that entry. As Paul insists, "as Christ forgave you, so you also must do," (Col. 3:13). This "heart" of forgiveness manifests from a heart that has received forgiveness. As this excerpt from Peacemaker rightly recognizes, "A heart of forgiveness patiently/eagerly waits to give forgiveness, as displayed in Matthew 18:21-35 knowing that their sin against God is far greater than another human's sin against them, and by God's grace, the heart of forgiveness shows Christ's love, mercy, compassion, patience, grace." 

    I was aghast by a recent exchange between two men that involved this very thing. One of the men emailed the other (who wouldn't return a phone call) confessing his sin against him and repenting. The individual responded with an email saying that although he appreciated the confession he needed to mull it over and consider it. This clearly is incongruous with the posture of forgiveness established in holy writ (see last entry).

   Christ was quick to forgive the sins of the paralytic for example, (Mark 2:3-9). His retort to the scribes who vocalized their discontent in that passage espouses a veritable readiness to do so. 

     I wonder why confessing Christians are so reluctant to remit sins committed against them. Especially, when keeping in mind their sin's have been remitted through no merit of their own. Humanity had committed the most heinous of sins against a holy and righteous God and it was He that provided the "means" of forgiveness. Those within Christendom really show how ungodly they are when they are unwilling to maintain a posture of forgiveness. Even more so when they are brazenly unwilling to allow for the "means" or "measures" to do so. Paul seems to give cadence to this when saying, "scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us," (Rom. 5:7). It is an utter travesty when confessing Christians won't even forgive when Christ subjected Himself to a brutal death and in so doing provided a "means" to remit their sins when they "were still sinners." What great lengths God has gone to in Christ Jesus in order to grant forgiveness; yet many a confessing Christian will do the converse by going to great lengths in order to withhold forgiveness!

    Let me give a personal example. Once upon a time I, admittedly, sinned against a brother. This came to my attention by way of an email. Two other brothers involved helped me to acknowledge my wrongdoing. As soon as it registered with me the Lord graced me to repent and confess my sin. Did I violate some biblical injunction or command? No. Did I commit a personal or relational violation? Yes, indeed. I subsequently confessed my wrongdoing thrice to all the men communicating in this email forum as well as voluntarily rendering restitution. The person I wronged refused to forgive on the grounds that it was disingenuous even though "fruits of repentance" were brought forth by the efficacious grace of God.

  Recall the instance of Zacchaeus. Luke records that this tax collector, to be sure the chief of tax collectors, approached Christ saying, "Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation I restore fourfold," (Luke 19:1-10). Clearly, Zacchaeus is applying the Mosaic precedent of restitution to his sins. Christ immediately responds with, "Today salvation has come to this house...." Christ's retort was not conditioned by the rendering or the actual act of the offered restitution but was given immediately upon the volitional articulation of remorse and the repentance it signified. 

  Christian forgiveness is not conditioned upon meritorious acts of "penance" or restitution; although acts of penance or restitution do validate confession/repentance. Indeed, the genuineness of repentance will effervesce so to speak during restoration. And confession will express itself in unforced and uncoerced contrition. They do not validate forgiveness. In his treatment The Grace of Repentance, Sinclair Ferguson asks if "...we are forgiven on the grounds of repentance?" His reply is a resounding, "Not at all!" Ferguson understands the complexities of how forgiveness, confession and repentance interrelate while remaining distinct. 

     It is clear that forgiveness within the construct of the New Testament is not to be given only after various meritorious acts of restitution or after restoration; should that be required, (Gal. 6). This is inconsistent with scripture and tradition. To require certain actions to be performed to achieve forgiveness as though formal remission of sin (i.e. forgiveness, absolution; remission of sins) is contingent upon these acts is a schema of Roman Catholic penance as alluded to above. In this unbiblical process, the sacrament of penance or repentance works ex opere operato.  Remission of sins is accomplished vis a vis the "completed act."     

    Ludwig Ott, a distinguished Catholic theologian unabashedly states that, "supernatural life...is cured from the diseases of sins and from the weakness arising from these by Penance...," (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 338). Of course within the Roman Catholic axiom Penance proper consists of private confession, absolution, and a penance (an act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin) directed by the confessor. Inasmuch as this system emerged with good intent it morphed into meritorious works to garner forgiveness, absolution, or remission of sins. 

    Duns Scotus who greatly influenced Catholic thought during the high middle ages, himself took the position that, "necessary thought they were, none of the usual three parts of the definition of penance-contrition, confession and satisfaction-constituted its essence, since they were human actions (the Sentences)." Jean de Gerson a French scholar of the early 15th century went so far as to say the form of absolution (remission of sins, forgiveness) was, "absolute rather than conditional." 

    Martin Luther was outraged by penitential (and sacramental, as a whole) conditionalism and repudiated this schema through his work, The Babylonian Captivity. The aforementioned practice of the Sacraments (including Penance) availing because of human merit was, "By far the most wicked abuse of all," according to Luther. 

    The position that forgiveness is attained only after acts of contrition, restitution and the like is a contemporary version of Penance. It is a more sophisticated way and more simply a variation of articulating Tetzel's infamous diddy:

"As soon as the coin in the coffer rings

A soul from purgatory springs"

    Such contrived mechanical formulas are spawns of simony. They emerge from an environment of exasperated and conflated clericalism whereby ministers assume an authority to grant absolution or forgiveness on grounds of their own making. Forgiveness is taken to be a possession the minister can grant or not grant. I have heard the argument that Christ's words recorded in John endow cleric's with this authority. 

"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained," John 20:23.

    The position taken upon these words is that the Apostles and those whom they set in office are given positional authority to determine grounds of forgiveness. This is true to an incisive extent. The grounds upon which Christ endows this authority is inextricably related to His commissioning of them, "As the Father has sent me, so I send you," (John 20). This activity is of course the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom and repentance. They were not given unrestricted liberty to dictate grounds of reception into the kingdom and participation in the church according to their whim. This invariably results in a carte blanche execution of clerical office. Officers within the church forgive in a representational way and manner. Even the Pharisees recognized this when saying, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Christ responded sharply with, "that you may know the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins," and then proceeded to heal the paralytic. (Mark 2; Moses acknowledged this as well in Ex. 32:32). I like to make the distinction that Jesus can forgive sins while those of the clerical ranks may forgive sins. When people use forgiveness as leverage or as a possession of man they do so without biblical warrant. Man forgives in a representational way. Christ and Scripture determine grounds of forgiveness.

    As the Westminster Confession of Faith aptly states, church authority is inseparable from the Word of God, which alone binds the conscience absolutely (1.10). Scripture, and the events it records, establishes the church; therefore, Scripture stands in authority over the church. Church decisions bind only when they are biblical; to violate God’s Word for tradition’s sake is evil (Matt. 15:1–9). I was involved in an occasion wherein forgiveness was withheld on grounds that a penitent would not go to Teen Challenge. This action superseded the demands of Scripture. It was wrong.

   This form or expression of authority betrays its representational nature and assumes a sacerdotalistic nature. Sacerdotalism may be defined as "religious belief emphasizing the power of priests as essential mediators between God and mankind." Wherever this praxis is found ministerial abuse is likely to precipitate. Forgiveness is withheld until it is earned vis a vis restitution, acts of contrition, pilgrimages so forth and so on. Man can get lost in his own creativity and that is the problem. Forgiveness then becomes some grueling and arduous process of mechanistic achievement determined by the priestly caste. 

    This attitude and atmosphere is alien to the patristic practice of clericalism. It is well adjudged that this priestly posture was unknown in the apostolic church. The operation of clergy within the church functioning in a mediatorial capacity of sorts was initially introduced by Cyprian (A.D. 200-258). The locus of this burgeoning construct was found within applying the categories of the Levitical priesthood to the office of bishop/elder. 

   Ministerial tradents who treat forgiveness as a "conditional" dynamic procured by way of penitential acts inherently deny that forgiveness of  a Christian's sin is achieved by Christ's meritorious work over and against what a minister dictates. When ministers adhere to this modus operandi you will find an adherence to a variegated Penance and a variation of sacerdotalism. Subsequently, it becomes far more difficult for a confessing Christian to receive forgiveness and remain in the church.

    Ignatius understood his role as bishop in the ancient church and how to administer "the keys" a bit differently. He wrote the church of Philadelphia, "I therefore exhort you in the Lord to receive with all tenderness those that repent and return to the unity of the church, that through your kindness and forbearance they may recover." What is more, Bishop Ignatius was referring to those guilty of heresy and division! How then can man excuse making it more cumbersome to be granted forgiveness towards other Christians who have perpetrated much lesser sins; in degree? Further attestation to this can be found in the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles:

that are unacquainted with God and His providence, and are unreasonable judges, and unmerciful brutes."    

    Elsewhere, the patristics made clear that, "the church is not to make it harder for a man to be forgiven than it was for him to enter the church in the first place."