God calls those He saves!! I have recently embarked on a sermon series out of I Corinthians and at the very onset was confronted with the soteriological doctrine of calling. In many circles this truth has been lost or neglected. At least its emphasis.
In some cases, when it is taught, it is treated as some amorphous direction God impresses upon a Christian particularly in terms of personal ministry. In other cases it is acknowledged with indistinct phraseology and given only tacit or irreverent attention. Scripture, although, presents God's calling as sine qua none. Paul is unmistakably clear when he asserts, "those whom he predestined he also called, those whom he called he also justified." (Rom. 8:30). I quote this verse simply to underscore that "calling" is apart of Pauline epistemology pertaining to salvation. Indeed, it is a concrete framework that is noticeably rudimentary.
In some cases, when it is taught, it is treated as some amorphous direction God impresses upon a Christian particularly in terms of personal ministry. In other cases it is acknowledged with indistinct phraseology and given only tacit or irreverent attention. Scripture, although, presents God's calling as sine qua none. Paul is unmistakably clear when he asserts, "those whom he predestined he also called, those whom he called he also justified." (Rom. 8:30). I quote this verse simply to underscore that "calling" is apart of Pauline epistemology pertaining to salvation. Indeed, it is a concrete framework that is noticeably rudimentary.
He writes the Corinthians and interweaves the language of calling in such a way that presupposes it as a knowledge at work within the nexus of their salvific perspectives.Paul especially gives attention to this in chapters 1 & 7.
In chapter seven he clearly evinces that calling occurs and is realized at a particular point in time. He rhetorically inquires, "was anyone at the time of his calling" of a certain status or condition. In so doing Paul is inarguably maintaining that calling can be distinguished in a spatio-temporal sense. One can distinguish a point in individual history when they were called by God.
He concludes this pericope by saying, "So, brothers" (an assumption of their salvation) "in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God" (7:24) The Greek tense "was called" establishes that this activity, reality and experience of "calling" occurs at a specific and particular point in the "brothers" past. The subject of this activity of "calling" is indisputably God and the objects of this divine activity are "brothers". This language of being called only applies to those who are saved. Only those saved have been called.
Paul, himself, understands his conversion and province in life as the very result of this calling or activity of God. His salvific ontology is in fact hinged upon it. His opening salutation substantiates this. In fact the lion share of his letters open with this affirmation. He introduces himself as, "Paul called by the will of God to be an apostle of Jesus Christ" (I Cor.1:1). Now, some may object by arguing that this is a reference to his commission or vocation. This is a narrow and uninformed retort or position. For Paul's conversion and commissioning were inextricably bound as the account in Acts clearly establishes. They occur in a very real way, simultaneously. It could even be stated that his calling specifically was a "conversion of purpose". Paul ostensibly views the warp and woof of his personage according to this "conversion of purpose". (cf. I Tim 1:12-17) What is more the account in Acts is his personal testimonial and retrospection.
Furthermore, the record in Acts substantiates that Paul's conversion and commissioning were part and parcel the direct result of divine activity vis a vis the Christophony. What is more, Paul was anticipating opportunities to persecute Christians at the very moment of his "calling". It was divine activity or "calling" par excellence that changed him and his course. He didn't incidently stumble into this "calling". It was divinely set in motion. When Paul states that he "is called" he conceives of it according to that matrix. Wolfhart Pannenberg amplifies this truth, "As we see our own calling and let ourselves be grasped by it as by a higher will that stands over our lives and gives them direction, we are set on the way to fulfill this destiny of ours." Paul understood his Christian origin and vocation in this unmistakable way. Indeed, his was a transformational encounter, on this Damascus road, that completely altered his life and duty. So much so that he unimpeachably order his existence according to this "calling" despite hell and high water.
This "call" of God is not the same as the outward or external call by way of the gospel. It speaks to the inward activity and prerogative of God being individually actualized. Paul elucidates upon this distinction in chapter one of I Corinthians. He acknowledges that the gospel is a stumbling block to the Jews who seek signs and folly to the Gentiles who seek wisdom precisely because they have not been called by God. This is true, as he says in the same breath, because the gospel is only effectual in and to those Jews and Greeks who are called!!! As the called apostle substantiates, "We preach Christ crucified....to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (I Cor.1:24) The inward and effectual call of God is distinct from the outward call of the gospel.
Shortly after this Paul interpolates the language of God choosing to compliment this dynamic of calling. (I Cor.1:26-28). All this verbiage betokens divine activity and initiative within the ranks of actual historical life.
"If, unlike cosmological mythologies, we experience the deity as at work in history and revealing himself in it, so that human life achieves order only on historical premises, then the divine origin of ideals of life declares itself in a sense of election and calling that in some way sets the lives of individuals or particular societies in relation to the rest of humanity and to all peoples" Wolfhart Pannenberg
Inform Your Faith
Shortly after this Paul interpolates the language of God choosing to compliment this dynamic of calling. (I Cor.1:26-28). All this verbiage betokens divine activity and initiative within the ranks of actual historical life.
"If, unlike cosmological mythologies, we experience the deity as at work in history and revealing himself in it, so that human life achieves order only on historical premises, then the divine origin of ideals of life declares itself in a sense of election and calling that in some way sets the lives of individuals or particular societies in relation to the rest of humanity and to all peoples" Wolfhart Pannenberg
Inform Your Faith
It seems to me that the prevailing political climate of our day patently indicates an unnecessary antinomy. Both represent, or at least claim to represent, cluster's or particularities of society. Liberals tend to be the advocates of the populace consisting of the destitute, deprived, impoverished, or the so called minority and the like. What comes of things when the "minority" carries the weight of the majority? What happens when legislation is passed that then oppresses the other strata of society not associated with that ilk. Is this not oppressive as well? Conservatives, on the other hand, are proponents of the responsible, ethical, self-sufficient. These are the harbingers of capitalism who incessantly pontificate upon liberty and excellence. What happens when those liberties are abusively touted? Doesn't the dynamic of corporations seem to reflect an individualistic consumerism, although "legalized"? Have liberties and rights not devolved into a sophisticated way of promoting selfishness and idolatry?
Both spectrum's of political theory and practice are quick to point the finger, assign blame and avoid mutually beneficial solutions that are both equitable and charitable. As Timothy Keller astutely remarks, "Liberal theorists believe that the "root causes" of poverty are always social forces beyond the control of the poor, such as racial prejudice, economic deprivation, joblessness, and other inequalities. Conservative theorists, put the blame on the breakdown of the family, the loss of character qualities such as self-control and discipline, and othe habits and practices of the poor themselves" (Generous Justice). Both mentalities smack of irresponsibility and selfishness the result of which is the break down of society and the church.
Although there are legitimate points made by both sides as well as illegitimate points the problem is more foundational. And while there are economic, political, legislative and ideological considerations that are worthy of note and analysis I venture to postulate that the societal and cultural contructs that have been burgeoning over the decades are the outcome of a more systemic collapse.
This collpase is inexctricably related to the egregious disregard for the "commonality" or "similitude" of humanity. Aside from the salvific distinctions within biblical nomenclature for instance there are the equitable and charitable categories which are applicable to humanity in general. Without being too circumlocutory holy writ obliges Christians to be charitable and equitable to all strata of its environs. This is true for the simple fact that all are God's creatures (although not all are God's children; scripture does not espouse a universal fatherhood) and intrinsically bear the image of God (Gen.1:26-27,9:5-6), though in vestigial form (James 3:9). As philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff concludes in an illustration to this effect, "because we treasure his owner we honor his house." (Justice: Right and Wrongs) When Christ, who was the embodiment of equity and charity walked amidst humanity he was routinely moved with compassion towards the crowds while inculcating love toward neighbor and enemy.
We have lost the reality of biblical and Christologicaly incarnational ethics. Both sides of western society are replete with guile. One trumpets equity while burying charity and the other trumpets charity while burying equity. All of God's creatures should be treated with equity and charity as well as appreciated for their indissoluably inherent creatureliness; mininally.
C.S Lewis penned, "There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations-these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. It is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit..."
Credo ut Intelligam
As was elucidated in the last installment repentance, from a biblical vantage point, is especially concerned with the disposition of the heart. When outward or external exercises and exhibitions become paramount biblical repentance is consequently reduced to a medieval pseudo-repentance that is eerily compatible with the decree of the fourth Lateral Council in 1215 wherein a latent formulaic externalism began to be propounded. Within that decree it was ratified, "All believers...must faithfully confess their sins in person at least once a year to their own priest, and must make the effort to carry out the imposed penance according to their ability." (emphasis mine) Such posturing is noxiously obsessed with a ritualistic formalism devoid of concern or attention for true and genuine repentance of the heart and mind. After referring to those who propagated that "repentance consists chiefly" in outward acts Calvin concluded that, "This delusion of theirs must be removed." Kudos John Calvin...kudos. (It must be noted though that confession and penance within the Roman Catholic construct was initially contrived with a healthy focus on genuine repentance of the heart and mind that produced outward acts that would compliment that repentance)
Among some for instance, public confession is demanded as a form of repentance or fruit of repentance as a precursor to forgiveness. For this misguided ilk such outward acts of contrition or penance (among an omnibus list of acts) is what repentance consists of. And even if they would not concede that statement, perhaps because they "define" repentance technically aright, they nevertheless are exponents of its devastating effects by their implements and ecclesiastical requisites. As John Calvin acutely recognized, "when the term 'repentance' is applied to this external profession, it is improperly diverted from its true meaning...For it is not so much a turning to God as a confession of guilt, together with a beseeching of God to avert punishment and accusation."
Now there may very well be those who would argue that such measures are required to validate a genuine repentance. I think such a tall tale is worthy of consideration. (Again, as I have previously stated, fruits will accompany genuine repentance; but lasting fruit and genuine fruit will arise from a truly repentant heart not by way of force or coercion. Fruit produced from the latter is temporary.) The pitfall of such a nominalistic approach is that a determinative formula is not provided within the scope of scripture. Imposing or demanding certain exercises of repentance leads invariably to forced contrition and coerced confession. How sure can the priestly or clerical caste be that the penitent is genuine? Is it within their purview to determine or probe the depths of the human heart and psyche? Are ministers such perspicacious judges that they can assuredly do so? These are considerations a minister must keep in mind when handling any who repent within the church.
When Paul addressed repentance in II Corinthians 7 for instance he referred to the fruits or palpable manifestations of their repentance. In acknowledging them he attributes the "products", so to speak, of their repentance that was worked in them to the sadness or sorrow "used by God" and not the sadness caused by Paul (vs.9). He revels in the eagerness produced in them through godly grief that yielded the fruits...not by them accomplishing certain imposed external acts of penance. Paul aggrandized what the godly sorrow produced "in" them (vs.11). Moreover, Paul's focal point was not merely upon the outward acts that could evince the nominal sadness Paul may have caused but on the inward sorrow or disposition subsequently producing outward repentance.
What is more, Paul did not exhibit disbelief regarding the repentance reported by Titus. He didn't undertake an "apostolic" examination to establish the purity of their posture.
This dynamic proved to be of major interest within the medieval church. As required acts of systematic penance were more and more demanded and imposed the question of the priests ability to determine the sincerity of contrition and penance burgeoned. Gabriel Biel, a scholastic at the University of Tubingen, especially gave voice to this effervescent question in his Exposition of the Canon of the Mass. The salient concern of course was whether the priestly ilk was moving beyond their post by determining sincerity of heart through measuring that sincerity through the external acts defined by way of ecclesiastical prerogative. As observed by doctrinal historian Jaroslav Pelikan concerning this matter, "The priest" could not "know whether or not the contrition or the confession of the penitent were sincere; for that matter, the penitent himself did 'not have a consciousness or sense' even of every mortal sin as was proved by the prayer of David, 'Cleanse me of my secrets.' "
This raised serious problems germane to the practical, pastoral, and theological application/s of granting absolution/forgiveness. Antoninus Pierozzi, a 15th century penitential scholar, grappled with this dilemma of sincerity when questioning, "Is a confession valid if it has been made by someone who is not contrite, who does not sorrow sufficiently for his sins or does not intend to refrain from them in the future?" (Confessional; emphasis mine) The crux of his concerns however rise and fall upon his concern of sufficient sorrow. Sufficient by whose dictates. Sufficient by whose demands. Sufficient by whose prerogative?
At this juncture Thomas Aquinas was culled from. He made two distinctions of sorrow comprising attrition and contrition. Attrition is a sorrow arising from self love or selfish motives. Contrition, on the other hand, is sorrow arising from love of God. These are acute distinctions that can be established and substantiated within holy writ. However, this in no way gives place for the minister to determine the sincerity of the repentant. The challenge of judging whether the confession/repentance was genuine remained. This is because gauging such motives are outside the abilities and authority of man. As Martin Luther maintained, "no one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition" and that consequently there could be no assurance of forgiveness based on the quality or quantity of ones contrition, which could never be worthy or sufficient.
By extension ministers are a maleversation who presumptuously seek to dictate the sincerity of a repentant believer or unbeliever, when their is manifest evidence, on the grounds of their own making or through their capricious contrivances. In so doing repentance is then twisted into a manufactured contrition that is inescapably ineffectual.
Sincerity is not contingent upon whether or not a penitent meets the pretentious demands of a misguided, delusional minister suffering from a sordid god complex. For, "what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of man which is in him." (I Cor.2:11) Attempting to gauge what only the mind of God can know leads to a phantasmagoria of clerical abuses. Man has not been endowed with the duty to prove or disprove the sincerity of anothers repentance through a litany of ministerial demands. Calvin casts many aspersions upon such "Scholastic" methodologies as described above:
"They are so doggedly set in outward exercises that you gather nothing else from their huge volumes than that repentance is a discipline and austerity that serves partly to tame the flesh, partly to chastise and punish faults. They are wonderfully silent regarding the inward renewal of the mind, which bears with it true correction of life. Among them there is , indeed, much talk concerning attrition and contrition. They torture souls with many misgivings, and immerse them in a sea of trouble and anxiety. But where they have seem to have wounded hearts deeply, they heal all the bitterness with a light sprinkling of ceremonies"
When handling the reality and nature of repentance it is incumbent upon all ministers to bear in mind that the experience of repentance will vary from person to person.Sinclair Ferguson posits that, "the actual experience of repentance will vary from person to person, as will the consciousness of their own sin." The variances within the existential outworking of repentance, i.e. the change of heart and mind, are not to be confined to human formulae. Applying a sustained formula of mechanistic externalism to individual repentance reveals an ignorance of the biblical conceptions pertaining to the interplay of humankind and sin. Herman Bavinck's comments on this aspect of repentance are perceptive:
"Repentance is ,despite its oneness in essence, different in form according to the persons in whom it takes place and the circumstances in which it takes place...The moment we have eyes to see the richness of the spiritual life, we do away with the practice of judging others according to our puny measure. There are people who know of only one method, and regard no one as having repented unless he can speak of the same spiritual experiences which they have had or claim to have had...The true repentance does not consist of what men make of it, but what God says of it"
What is more, when ministers apply themselves to judge the purity of anyone who repents based upon imposed acts of repentance or penance they reach the nadir of turning the penitent toward themselves and their corresponding demands instead of God. This breeds a Christian nominalism, which is expressed by a merely outward faith and public confession of sins. Simeon, a theologian in the Eastern Church of the 10th and11th century, repudiated externalistic emphases, practice and definition of repentance. He wrote in his Discourses, " Let us endeavor to attain to purity of heart, which comes from paying heed to our ways and from constant confession of secret thoughts of the soul. For if we, moved by a penitent heart, daily and constantly confess these, it produces in us repentance for what we have done or even thought"
THIS CONSIDERATION OF COURSE DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT CONFESSED AND WHO HAVE SHOWN NO MEASURE OF REPENTANCE WHATSOEVER. ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE MADE CONFESSION, ADMITTED WRONG DOING, AND EVINCED THE MOVEMENT OF REPENTANCE.
Credo ut Intelligam
In the previous two blogs I delved into the topic of forgiveness. Surely we need to constantly remind ourselves, as Christian's, of the enormity of our debt that has been payed for through the meritorious work of Christ Jesus along with the complimentary forgiveness of those debts. In so doing we must maintain a posture of forgiveness; IF in fact we ourselves have been recipients of Father God's forgiveness in Christ. As Donald Guthrie remarks, "Those who ask for forgiveness and yet harbour an unforgiving attitude to others are asking the impossible. There may also be a sense in which our attitude towards forgiveness should bear some faint resemblance to God's forgiveness for which we are praying....The parable of the unforgiving servant (Mt.18:23-35) shows that one who accepted forgiveness is expected ipso facto to forgive." A forgiving attitude, as espoused by the New Testament corpus and foreshadowed within the Old Testament construct, will be quick to fore go any outstanding debts.
Conversely, the above posture does not nullify a Christian's personal responsibility to walk in and emphasize a sanctified state of repentance out of which confession and the like proceed. A life of repentance is enjoined and urged upon the Christian community.
There is also a position which suggests that Christians are to forgive when no repentance/confession is to be found. This is undeniably without biblical precedent when the full scope of scriptural import germane to forgiveness, confession and repentance is properly given preponderance. As Peacemaker observes, often Christians are told to GIVE forgiveness for their own health or so that their sins can be forgiven, even if the sinner is unrepentant--this is unbiblical and destructive to the individual believer, the sinner who is unrepentant, and to the body of Christ, HIS Church, as well as to the non-believer. Unfortunately, most who address this fallacy do so at the expense of eschewing biblical forgiveness.
In my experience within the ranks of the independent church and some of the more liturgical denominations either mechanistic repentance is required for forgiveness or vacuous forgiveness is advocated without palpable repentance. Both extremes do great damage to the Church and are unequivocally without biblical warrant.
Now that I have touched upon some initial considerations lets move on to a more focused handling of repentance/confession within biblical nomenclature. (Bear in mind I have already given credence to forgiveness in the last two blogs) What then are we to make of repentance? How is repentance to be conveyed within the church? What does holy writ establish relative to its emphases?
Within the Old Testament corpus the Hebrew word Shub predominates the conceptions of repentance. It is interspersed throughout the book of Jeremiah 100 times for instance. Of course Jeremiah was a prophet who found himself encircled by an apostate Israel. That word connotes changing a course of action, turning away, and turning back. Now, Within the confines of the New Testament three words are used primarily in relation to repentance: 1.) epistrepho, carries the idea of turning back 2.) metamelomai, carries the idea of regret 3.) metaoeo, carries the idea of becoming cognizant of something afterwards. The latter is the more prevalent usage in the New Testament and conveys the notion of a changed mind that leads to a change of lifestyle. The overall schema of repentance is no less then a holistic turning from sin. So emphatic is the thrust of repentance that, it involves an "ongoing, dogged, persistent refusal to compromise with sin," as Sinclair Ferguson succinctly states.
With that in mind to what is repentance directed. Within the corpus of Scripture it pertains to both outward and inward acts. "Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind" (James 4:8) However, the former is always subordinated to the latter. Those who ardently place a disproportionate amount of stock upon outward acts to the exclusion of "the inner disposition of the heart" (Calvin) do so without the consent or authority of scripture. According to this modus operandi the externalism is paramount. Isolated acts of sin become the objects of attention and complete focus as well as the measures taken to counteract those isolated acts vis a vis prescriptive remedies in the name of exercising "repentance."
Are fruits of repentance urged within holy writ. Inarguably. However, as is clear within the whole teaching on the subject, those fruits proceed from an inner quality or source. Christ helps us here in saying, "Every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matt.16:20) A good tree is not known because of its fruit but by its fruit because of its inward condition. Paul operates in much the same way when handling the concept of repentance. When acknowledging the evident repentance of the Corinthians he associated it directly to a "godly sorrow" that was at work by "the will of God"(cf. II Cor.7:9-11) This is true for Paul because, "the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret."(ibid) Even Paul locates repentance within the inner disposition of the heart.
Repentance is not to be restricted to individual acts of contrition, "for God looks into men's hearts," as John Calvin maintains. Defining repentance or emphasizing repentance in this convoluted manner betrays the precedent of the inspired word of God. All this does is promote a religious externalism or formalism that is sustained by an outward compunction. Calvin opines,
The old writers often mention exercises of this sort when they discuss fruits of repentance. But although they do not place the force of repentance in them - my readers will pardon me for saying what I think - it seems to me that they depend too much on exercises. And if any man will wisely weigh the matter, he will agree with me, I trust, that they have in two respects gone beyond measure. For when they urged so much and commended with such immoderate praises that bodily discipline, they succeeded in making making the people embrace it with greater zeal; but they somewhat obscured what ought to have been of far greater importance. Secondly, in afflicting punishments they were somewhat more rigid than the gentleness of the church would call for"
This is best evinced in the historical antecedent of the doctrine of penance. This praxis within the Roman Catholic Church was contrived from a mistranslation of the word "repent" in Matthew 4:17 by the Latin Vulgate (the official translation of the RCC). Therein repent was rendered poenitentiam agite, or do penance. In so doing the words and meaning of Christ was distorted and misconstrued. The sordid emphasis placed upon outward acts of penance or repentance, which were in effect meritorious, is alien to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Luther vociferously established. He wrote his vicar, "I venture to say they are wrong who make more of an act in Latin than of the change of heart in Greek"
It would seem that the emphasis on isolated acts within the church has returned as a conceivable "Latinization" courses through the veigns of the Western psyche. Within many a baptist and charismatic church decisional regeneration is espoused by way of altar calls, whereby a single act is enough to merit salvation and regeneration. Within other circles repentance is overwhelming presented in a way that confines the action or movement of repentance to instances of course correct in relation to individual acts of sin that surface from time to time. Both are misguided and erroneous. As Sinclair Ferguson comments regarding repentance as an "isolated, completed act", "For us, as for the medieval church, repentance has been divorced from genuine regeneration."
Biblical repentance, especially within the paradigmatic tapestry of the New Testament is the outworking of regeneration as a result of union with Christ. To be sure the regenerate state of conversion will naturally surface in this way. However, believers still struggle with indwelling sin thus necessitating the need for it to actively cultivate a life and discipline of repentance; albeit not a mechanistic formula divorced from the washing of regeneration. Paul especially speaks to this when urging the Christian community to, "walk by the spirit" for in so doing "you will not carry out the desire of the flesh" (Gal.5:16-26) as well as "put on the new self that is being renewed..." (Col.3:1-13) Again, Ferguson asserts, "true repentance...arises in the context of our union with Jesus Christ; and since its goal is our restoration into the image of Christ, it involves the ongoing practical outworking of our union with Christ...that is, being conformed to Christ crucified and risen.
Luther articulated a radical and lifelong character of repentance maintaining that repentance is the actual outworking of divine regeneration and renewal. Calvin goes so far as to define regeneration as repentance.(Institutes III.iii.1)
Scripturally, the locus of attention is given to the heart within the landscape of repentance. As the prophet Joel enjoined, rend your heart and not your garments (Joel 2:13). This will be elucidated more in the next installment.
Credo ut Intelligam
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:
"Receive, therefore, without doubting, him that repents. Be not hindered by such unmerciful men, who say
that we must not be defiled with such as those, nor so much as speak to them: for such advice is from men
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."
Credo ut Intelligam
In the next few blogs I will be giving consideration to Forgiveness, Confession, Repentance...and Penance? They are all interrelated to a great extent. This blog, in particular, I will be handling forgiveness. It is of course not an exhaustive treatment but is necessarily adumbrated.
Sacred Scripture makes plain that Christians are to maintain a deliberate posture of forgiveness. This is true because as believers, or the "elect of God," we are recipients of forgiveness. If a person knows of and holds to the forgiveness of Christ that person will be quick to extend it just as they have received it. In fact, the Apostle Paul makes it an injunction on these very grounds. He advances that, "as the elect of God," believers are to, "forgive one another...even as Christ forgave you...," (Col. 3:12-13). He then amplifies the gravity of this disposition by saying that it is, "a must do." This is an imperative that carries the weight of obligation and necessity. This language makes a forgiving posture unequivocal.
Commenting on this very text R.C Sproul posits, "we are God’s chosen ones — His holy people (Col. 3:12). Because He has made us holy, we can forgive even those who have sinned heinously against us. Believers have no option but to forgive others, especially other Christians (v. 13), and so there is no excuse for unforgiveness in the church."
Christ articulates this very dynamic of reciprocating forgiveness just after elaborating on the exercise of church discipline in Matthew 18. This parable of the "Unforgiving Servant" should be very harrowing for those who are beguiled by the sin of unforgiveness. According to the parable, the Master "forgave" a servant his debt. This very servant who was granted forgiveness perniciously refused to do the same to a "fellow servant." The Master's response to this is scathing,
"You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you? And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses," (Matt. 18:21-35).
The warp and woof of this disposition of forgiveness is grounded in the reality that we, the elect of God, have ourselves been forgiven. Suitably, we should be quick and ready to forgive those who have made confession out of their lifestyle of repentance and sanctification.
The latter of course should always precipitate the former. Forgiveness is not without the precursor of confession/repentance. Christ tells the disciples, "Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times a day returns to you, saying I repent, you shall forgive him," (Luke 17:1-4). This passage makes inarguably clear that upon articulation of repentance/confession (saying I repent) forgiveness is to be extended bar none. Even to the extent that the same "offender" does so "seven times in a day."
Elsewhere, Peter amorphously grasps this according to Matthew 18: 21-22. He will forgive a person up to seven times, more than the three times the rabbis prescribe in his day (v. 21). That Peter’s comprehension is incomplete is revealed in the Savior’s command to forgive “seventy times seven,” (v. 22). According to some Reformed New Testament scholars Jesus really says, “seventy-seven times,” but the precise number is unimportant. As R.C Sproul rightly adjudges, "Christ is actually teaching that forgiveness must be unlimited."
All too often man make forgiveness into an exhausting chore. In so doing, they evince that they are farther away from the New Testament corpus and the Gospel of Jesus Christ than they might like to admit. Whenever a confessing Christian sins and subsequently repents to the person sinned against there is no alternative to extending forgiveness. To do contrariwise is to have the Father withhold forgiveness from the one unwilling to extend it, (Matt. 6:14-15, Mark 11:25-26). Conversely, this tenably suggests that the "unforgiven" of God is not one of "the elect of God" (Col.3:12-13). Matthew Henry speaks to this in two places:
“Those who do not forgive their brother’s trespasses, did never truly repent of their own, and therefore that which is taken away is only what they seemed to have.”
"Believers, collectively as the church and individually, must always forgive penitent people. How can we possibly be Christians if we, whose unpayable debt has been erased, refuse to pardon those who have wronged us?"
When confessing Christians exert considerable effort to not relinquish a debt incurred or withhold forgiveness on the heels of articulated repentance/confession they violate scriptural precedent and perhaps reveal their inner quality. “I can never forgive him,” is commonly found on the lips of those who have been sinned against, especially when the violation is heinous. Some of us may feel like we can never pardon a particular individual even if we never admit it. However, if we have come to faith in Christ, we have been set apart as His holy people and can, with His help, forgive others. "To say that we cannot forgive is a cop-out at best and possible evidence of a heart of stone at worst," (R.C. Sproul).
Again Matthew Henry provides us with another salient principle for the Christian life, “God multiplies His pardons, and so should we. We should make it our constant practice to forgive injuries, and should accustom ourselves to it until it becomes habitual.”
Forgiveness, Confession, Repentance and Penance will be explored more in the next few blogs.
Credo ut Intelligam
John Calvin is remarkably one of the most noteworthy figures of the Reformation period amidst a veritable pantheon of contributors. This is especially true within the parameters of Protestantism’s emerging locus of orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
For Calvin the quintessential bedrock for any other doctrinal formulae is the knowledge of God and ourselves (duplex cognitico). He prodigiously posits that both are inextricably interrelated as the bifurcating antecedent to “true and sound wisdom.” This is why Calvin consciously begins his Institutions elucidating those truths respectively. As Calvin says, “no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God.” Essentially, through mans natural inclination to be self aware and subjectively introspective he cannot help but to have his thoughts turned from the basest of things to the more sublime. This is resoundingly true because mankind is endowed with such a wealth of natural resources or “mighty gifts” that upon pondering such things the only conclusion to be drawn is that by possessing such gifts one realizes his poverty and thus, that his very existence is, “nothing but subsistence in the one God.”
It is only when a knowledge of God is touched upon that man truly begins to rightly concatenate and know himself, “man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating Him to scrutinize himself.” It is only by this juxtaposition of sorts that man attains to the wellspring of knowledge. So it is that mans thoughts are directed upward through a primal and simple knowledge resonating within man, the creature. Yet only upon elevating to the “true light of wisdom”, that is true knowledge of God, can man derive a sound knowledge of itself.
It needs to be understood Calvin is not postulating that the knowledge of God merely serves to enhance knowledge of the self, for knowledge of God is always paramount and occupies the place of primacy relative to mans chief aim while knowledge of man is to be understood as a secondary interest only as that knowledge relates to God. “The order of right teaching requires that we discuss the former first [knowledge of God], then proceed afterward to treat the latter [knowledge of man].”
Nevertheless, there is a sense in which some residual form of composite or mundane knowledge occurs naturally within the human consciousness precipitating an amorphous yet distinctly numinous awareness of God along with a subsequently specious knowledge of the self. This is what Calvin asserts to be “an awareness of divinity” (divinitatis sensum). This innate awareness, “within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct,” is incomplete and fragmented at best leading precariously only to “irreligion” and an erroneous understanding of divinity and subsequently humanity. Despite mans ineptitude to rightly adjudge Gods natural revelation leading to a “labyrinth” of confusion reckoning man to be, “whirled and twisted about by blindly indiscriminate fortune,” God provides man with a better way. As Calvin asserts, “Scripture gathering up the otherwise confused knowledge of God in our minds, having dispersed our dullness, clearly shows us the true God.”
This dynamic is much like the ruins of a once pristine and prosperous civilization. An onlooker is able to deduce and make inferences from the ruins of that previously established city or community and derive a partial knowledge of what once was. It is possible to project a rough image of the city from the variegated archaeological discoveries as well as ascertain what kind of commerce was present or even determine the societal construct to a limited extent. However, even after reflection upon and the consolidation of every known extant piece of data pertaining to that city or community one cannot assuredly know that the minutiae of data collected was arranged or interpreted accurately so as to actually know what that city essentially was. Yet if documents were unearthed that provided information about that respective site from its original inhabitants it would be possible to accurately derive a true knowledge and understanding of that particular city that now lay in ruins. Calvin views scripture much like this. Holy writ is in effect a key to the map as it unscrambles the confused conjectures and speculations resonating within mans discombobulated mind.
The profundity of Calvin’s point of emphasis is no less true today than it was then. Far too often is the human rationale placed in a lofty position so as to be elevated above the inestimable depths of the wisdom and knowledge of God found within the sacrosanctus of Scripture.
“We must lay hold of the best human opinion in order that borne by it as on a raft, we may sail over the dangerous sea of life, unless we can find a stronger boat, or some sure word of God, which will more surely and safely carry us”
~Socrates
Credo ut Intelligam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
