Forgiveness is a Verb

 I know: forgive is the verb, but I am making a play on the common phrase “love is a verb.” As I am reading through the Gospels, I am reminded that almost every time Jesus exercised His divine power to forgive, He paired it with an action that benefitted the forgiven one. The lame man at the pool of Bethesda, the paralytic lowered through the roof, the woman taken in adultery, the blind beggar and others received forgiveness and something tangible.

This morning’s reading recounted the activities at a banquet at Simon the Pharisee’s house. Most often, we focus on the sinful woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and anointed them with costly oil. It is right that we look here as even Jesus emphasized to Simon the fact that one who is forgiven much loves much. The woman demonstrated her love by humbling herself completely by a tearful washing and by an expensive anointing. Jesus demonstrated forgiveness by removing the stigma of the woman’s former life.

The irony we may overlook is where Simon stood in all of this. Simon the Pharisee, so called by Luke, is Simon the Leper according to Matthew. It is unlikely that people would have gathered at Simon’s house for a banquet if he still had leprosy, so we can assume he was cured, most likely by his esteemed Guest. We don’t know how long Simon suffered with leprosy, but we do know that it is not like the flu or a cold that comes and goes rather quickly. He undoubtedly bore the stigma of his illness for some years. This would have meant no contact with his fellow villagers and especially not his fellow Pharisees. And it meant no access to the temple or synagogue. He was an outcast. So was the sinful woman.

Simon’s Pharisaical understanding would have implied that he too was a sinner because leprosy was considered a curse inflicted for wrongdoing of some kind. As with Jesus’ other cures of leprosy, Simon was delivered not only from the pain and disgrace of the disease; he was also granted reentry into Jewish society if he presented himself to a priest for approval. Throwing a party for his Healer may have stemmed in part from Simon’s gratefulness. Or it may have been a way to bolster his status by entertaining the most popular rabbi the town had ever seen. Look at me, he might have said; Jesus ate here at my table. His failure to perform the expected courtesy of washing his Guest’s feet may suggest that his motivations leaned toward the latter.

In our position as Christ-followers, we too deal in forgiveness; not the forgiveness of sin leading to salvation, but the forgiveness of wrongs committed against us. This is no small matter; more than once Jesus stressed the importance of forgiving as He tied it to our forgiveness by God: “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” I chose the translation using “debts” purposely. Paul counselled the Romans to, “owe no man anything.” Forgiveness is something we owe our brothers precisely because we have been forgiven by our Heavenly Father. Rather than collecting on the debt we imagine is owed to us by the offending brother, we must forgive the debt. Let it go.

The sinful woman at Simon’s banquet demonstrated her respect for Jesus in a dramatic way, and He rewarded what He called her faith. I doubt that she spent the tears and oil in hopes of receiving something in return. She recognized that she owed the Judge her life as payment for her sins; He forgave her debt and gave her back her life. When we forgive someone who has wronged us, we return them to a relationship that is free from indebtedness.

Whereas the woman had preexisting faith (and probably repentance), a number of those who received Jesus forgiveness made no claims to faith; some didn’t even know who He was. This pictures what Paul told the Romans: “While we were still weak, Christ died for the ungodly.” Our forgiveness of others must look like this. We are not to wait until the one who wronged us expresses remorse. Our forgiveness flows from our need to imitate our Lord and to obey His command. This won’t always result in a restored relationship; Jesus forgave those who nailed Him to the cross, but He died, nonetheless.

That is not to say there are no rewards to be had from forgiving regardless of the state of the forgiven. Unforgiveness is, first of all, a sin. Living in a state of continual sin is a curse in itself. Granting forgiveness where it is due relieves the burden of sin. Unforgiveness also causes what the writer of Hebrews calls a “root of bitterness” to grow within us. Bitterness spreads like a cancer into all parts of our being and contaminates every act we attempt, especially our worship. Jesus specifically told believers to, “leave your gift at the alter and go be reconciled.” Withholding forgiveness does nothing to harm the unforgiven; it clearly harms to one who fails to forgive.

Sometimes we are able to do something concrete to demonstrate our forgiveness; sometimes we cannot. Whenever possible, we should do what the law requires – that law being to love as Jesus loved. When the forgiven is unable to respond either through lack of desire or because he is unavailable due to death or other circumstances, we still forgive, and we still derive the benefits of forgiveness. We must not let pride stand in the way of doing what is right. By that I mean that pride can lead us to elevate our position as the wronged party. We should remember David’s words regarding his multiple sins surrounding his affair with Bathsheba: “Against You and You only have I sinned.” The woman and her murdered husband surely had a part in David’s sin, but he rightly recognized that the ultimate party to the affair was God.

Likewise, God is the only person we need to be concerned with when we forgive. The woman at Simon’s banquet may have been embarrassed or ashamed; she was one year’s wages poorer for her expense; she was also relieved of a burden only Jesus could bear. When we forgive others, we give that same gift to someone, albeit on a smaller scale. Whether they receive it or not, we are better for it; the verb forgive is both a passive verb and an active verb. Pause and reflect: who do you need to forgive?

Understanding the TULIP Doctrine

Many Christians today follow the basic teachings of the early reformer, John Calvin, without knowing it or even fully understanding what “Calvinism” entails. John Calvin and Martin Luther were the principal theologians of the Reformation. The Lutheran denomination still exists today, although sometimes in forms far removed from their founding namesake. While there is no denomination identifying with the name Calvin, the Reformed, Presbyterian and many Baptist denominations follow Calvin’s teachings in large part, as do many “Bible” churches.

The remaining denominations and non-denominational groups fall primarily into a contrasting theological camp loosely gathered under what has come to be known as Armenians or semi-Pelagians. The names are drawn from the 16^th century debate between John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius over the nature and degree of human fallenness. The two men picked up the debate that originally raged in the 4^th century between the eminent theologian of the day, Augustine, and his detractor, Pelagius. Augustine and Calvin held that humans were totally without power to seek God or find salvation unless God intervened. Pelagius and Arminius believed that people had the ability to find God using their own resources. The Methodists and a few other denominations follow Arminius; the rest of orthodox Christians fall more or less into the Calvinist camp.

The five basic tenets of Calvinism have long been summarized as the TULIP doctrines, an acronym taken from the major tenets: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of saints. There are those who consider themselves “five-point” Calvinists, meaning they hold firmly to each of the TULIP principles. Others pick and choose among the teaching of Calvin to construct their own brand. I will briefly explain what these tenets have meant historically, and then present my personal interpretation of each.

The “T” for total depravity has historically meant not that humans are as bad as they can possibly be, but that they are fallen from grace in every part of their being. To be totally depraved has been understood to mean that there is nothing worthy of salvation within an unregenerate person. The Arminian position holds that there is a glimmer of goodness in everyone, and they have only to follow it to find God. That seems to be at odds with the Scriptural position that, “there is none righteous; not one.” Calvinists believe the declaration by God that once Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they would “surely die.” This did not refer to physical death, obviously, but to spiritual death which means separation from God. The Apostle Paul echoes this theme often referring to the unregenerate state as being dead. One remains dead until God makes them alive, according to Paul’s understanding. (Ephesians 2:1-6)

The “U” in the TULIP refers to unconditional election. The topic of election is itself worthy of full treatment which I have done briefly in “Election: God’s Choice.” The Calvinist position flows naturally from the previous discussion; if humans have nothing in them to recommend them to God, then election to salvation must be without conditions. God does not require a person to be good to save them; God saves people so they can become good. By contrast, the Armenians believe that God chooses those who use their innate goodness to seek Him. Again, I believe Scripture is clear: “There is no one who seeks after God.”

An issue which overshadows the concept of election is the sovereignty of God. The Calvinist concept of election is one aspect of God’s sovereignty which rubs Armenians the wrong way due to their emphasis on human free will. There is a sense in which the struggle to square the circle of God’s sovereignty and human free will trails all the way back to the Garden of Eden. Adam rebelled against the idea that God had a sovereign right to limit human endeavor. The decision to disobey God’s command goes far beyond the simple eating of forbidden fruit; it strikes at the heart of the relationship between Creator and creature. This human willfulness which constitutes the “original sin” continues to plague people throughout history making them selfish idol worshippers seeking anything but a sovereign God who would trample their independence. The Calvinist position is more likely to counter this aspect of human depravity.

The “L” stands for limited atonement. The argument here is primarily academic, in my opinion. The question is whether Jesus died for the whole world or only for the elect. I say this is academic because His death is only effective for the elect, so to debate whether it would be efficacious for non-elect persons seems moot. I will say, however, that there are numerous passages of Scripture that emphasize God’s love and concern is for the whole world (John 3:16), and that the opportunity to believe and be saved is made available to all.

This brings up another debated topic that is on the fringe of the TULIP principles: does God elect people to salvation and to damnation, a position known as double predestination. I prefer to think based on passages like Romans 2:12-16 and 1 Peter 3:8-10 that the offer of salvation is universal, but the acceptance of the offer is not. Again, we verge into a tangent discussing the difference between God’s foreknowledge and His predestination. I am comfortable thinking that if the Church does its duty to spread the gospel throughout the world, God will be able to sort out the chosen from those not chosen.

The “I” stands for irresistible grace. The point here is that if God uses His unconditional grace to elect someone to salvation, they cannot do otherwise than to be saved. Here again, the Armenians differ in that they believe people can not only resist initial grace unto salvation, but they can fall from grace after having been saved. (More on this under perseverance.) To me this principle falls under the mystery of election. If I follow the first three tenets of the TULIP doctrine, my election by God has nothing to do with my choice, so if God chooses to apply the atonement of Christ to me, I have no say in the matter.

Jesus told Nicodemus that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless they are born from above. (John 3:1-8) He said later that no one could come to Him unless the Father draws him. (John 6:44) Paul told the Corinthians that the unregenerate person cannot begin to grasp spiritual things because they are completely out of his reach. (1Corinthians 2:14) To me, this adds up to the necessity of grace working in the human soul/spirit apart from human agency to accomplish salvation. The Bible is clear that many will not be saved; hell won’t be populated only by the devil and his angels. If I believe that God is not willing that any should perish (1 Peter 3 again), and that He loved the whole world (John 3:16 again), either grace is resistible as Paul seems to argue in Romans 1:18-23, or I am missing a point somewhere else.

The “P” stands for perseverance of saints. Quite simply this means that once God has elected a person to salvation, they will ultimately be saved. This principle has nothing to do with the details of what happens between initial regeneration and final judgment. Some who hold to perseverance have invented the term “backslidden” to describe apparent believers who cease to live as believers. Others will say that people who appear to turn their back on God after claiming to believe were never truly saved to begin with. The New Testament has several dire warnings written to believers that appear to indicate that they may fall away from belief and suffer eternal consequences.

As a realist and a student of the Scriptures, I tend to believe that God’s chosen people will have less than perfect records of obedience. While repentance and obedience are integral to saving faith, failures are apparently not treated as ultimatums. Think of Moses, David, Peter and other icons of the faith who failed miserably yet were lauded as God’s chosen. God knows the weakness of His creatures (that we are dust) and makes allowances stemming from His boundless grace.

This was not intended as an exhaustive treatment of Calvinism by any means. Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion fills several volumes. My purpose was to lay out the basics and leave the deeper study to those who want more detail. I was raised in an Armenian denomination and “converted” to Calvinism in my twenties. The intervening forty-something years have only served to strengthen my feeling that I am more of a Calvinist that an Armenian. My parents are probably rolling over in their graves at that statement, but I trust when I see them again with the rest of the elect, we will have no arguments – one way or the other. The only tulips we will care about are the perfect flowers in the perfect garden.

Disagree Agreeably

I have been asking myself lately if it is wrong to disagree with a fellow-believer. The rancor of the 2020 presidential election reached a level that I have not seen in my lifetime. The opposing views, conservative versus progressive, pitted many believers against one another. If you are a regular reader, you know that I am firmly in the conservative camp, and I have written forcefully against the idea of Christians voting for the progressive agenda. (See “How Could a Christian Vote for Hillary”) This has put me on the naughty list of several people whom I hold dear.

I don’t see how disagreement in and of itself can be wrong. The Bible does clearly call for unity, but unity is not uniformity. Because of our varied, God-given dispositions, and due to the variety of gifts granted by the Holy Spirit, uniformity is not possible. Paul makes this point when describing the function of the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12. We are not all the same, nor should we wish to be.

God had a purpose in making us each unique; the blending of our differences creates the fully functioning body of Christ which is God’s plan for this age. Using the traditional character types as an example, it is easy to see how each might react differently to the same situation. The choleric will want to fight; the sanguine will get everybody talking; the melancholy will worry; the phlegmatic will go with the flow. Put these four in a room to discuss politics and add their individual spiritual gifts to the mix, and you can imagine there will be some disagreement.

Because each of us come at any situation from our own unique combination of natural and spiritual proclivities, some disagreement about how to approach a situation is natural – even healthy. The question then becomes what is the essence of healthy disagreement? The first rule in all relationships is obviously to love the other even if we disagree. Biblical loving is caring about the other person more than for myself. This may mean backing down or giving deference to the other. (Phil. 2:3-4) If the consequences of an issue about which we disagree with another believer puts them or another person in physical, moral or spiritual danger, we have a duty to warn them of the negative consequences of their position. Scripture instructs us to do so (Matt. 18:15-20). This is also the compassionate thing to do as well as the loving thing. (For more on biblical compassion, see “More Than a Feeling”)

This becomes particularly difficult when our compassionate correction is perceived as a combative attack. As in every situation, we look to Jesus for our example of righteous behavior. While it is true as Isaiah 42:3 said, “He will not break a broken reed, and he will not extinguish a dim wick,” His meekness does not keep Messiah from, “bring[ing] justice forth in faithfulness." We have only to look at Jesus’ reaction to the harmful policies of the Pharisees to see strong feelings and strong words emerge from His meek character. Our Lord’s disagreement with the religious leaders of His day angered them to the point of seeking His death.

I see a parallel in the present day. If I express a biblical view of certain things, I will encounter strong disagreement from those with different opinions. These disagreements are not limited to non-believers only. If I denounce homosexuality based on Deuteronomy and Romans, I am branded as a homophobe even by some who call themselves Christians. If I decry the murderous policies of unrestricted abortion, I am called a misogynist. If I say it is not the government’s job to provide welfare for non-citizens, I am a labeled xenophobe. Each of these positions has sound biblical backing, and my disagreement with my fellow-believers flows from the Scriptural directive to teach, reprove, correct and train in righteousness. (2 Tim. 3:16)

The Apostle Paul had disagreements with people inside and outside of the church. His two letters to the Corinthian church are primarily corrective of misunderstandings and misinterpretations of his teaching. Paul’s teachings now represent a large portion of our New Testament, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This fact brings up a critical question regarding differences that stem from Scriptural interpretation. I once had a discussion with a young lady about the biblical position against homosexuality. Her more open-minded position contrasted with my biblical accusation of the behavior as sin. The discussion ended with her declaration that my position was just “my interpretation.”

And she was right. It just happens that “my interpretation” was correct. (See “The Importance of Being Right”) Because we must follow accepted hermeneutical standards and use logical principles of literary understanding, it is possible to claim that one’s interpretation of a Scriptural principle is correct. (See “Answering Rob Bell”) When that interpretation places one believer in disagreement with another believer, sparks often fly. The correct way to deal with the situation would be to have a cool-headed discussion of the salient interpretive principles. Because truth is absolute, and because logic demands that contradictory “truths” cannot co-exist, one person in the disagreement must admit to being mistaken. The result may be a “beam and mote” controversy with each believing the other is wrong.

As a last option, agreeing to disagree, while not ideal, can be the best outcome. I have seen relationships endure for many years with the understanding that certain topics are off limits because of a disagreement. As I mentioned earlier, if there is grave danger in one of the positions, and if dire consequences may result from holding that position, and yet the warning is not heeded, it is painful to stand by and watch the train wreck. In the aftermath, it is difficult not to say, “I told you so.” The best one can hope is that the negative consequences will bring about a change of mind in the one who suffers, assuming the consequences were not deadly.

Sometimes loving someone means having to watch them make serious mistakes brought about by unheeded correction. The collateral damage of “tough love” reaches both the loved and the lover. Jesus wept when He looked upon Jerusalem and the people who were about to turn against Him and call for His execution. Our Savior submitted to God’s will and bore the consequences, “for the joy that was set before Him.” (Hebrews 12:1-3)

Every disagreement will not be resolved in this life. An agreeable disagreement may be painful. We take consolation in the fact that the lives of both parties to a dispute are in the same Heavenly Hands. There may be no resolution to some disagreements, but as Paul told the Philippians (1:27-30), while believers may have their differences, eventually there will be unity when we all stand before the Lord.

Related Posts: “What’s Wrong with Politics in America”; “Beware of Bowlegged Politicians”; “The Uncorrupted Life”

God Was Pleased

There are some statements in the Bible that are not just difficult to understand but also hard to believe. That is to say that they are hard to believe if your beliefs about who God is don’t square with the Person the Bible reveals as God. One of those statements struck me this morning as my devotional reading led me to consider the meaning and purpose of the Sabbath. Stick with me and I will try to retrace my thoughts.

Once when the Pharisees challenged Jesus for plucking grain on the Sabbath, an act that was forbidden by their law, Jesus made a somewhat enigmatic claim: ““The Sabbath was established for [man], and not [man] for the Sabbath. So then, the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27-28) The messianic title, Son of Man, usually draws attention to some aspect of the humanity of Jesus. In this case, Jesus as Lord claims lordship over a human benefit ordained by God in creation: sabbath. Just as God “rested” upon completion of His work in creation, His people were told to take a break from their required labors. Work is not a result of the curse; caring for the Garden was explicitly assigned to God’s people before they rebelled. That work became more tiresome after the fall, but the work and the rest from work are part of God’s original design.

I notice that God was pleased with His original plan; the Genesis record of creation emphasizes that God said it was good. Work and the rest it necessitated were part of the good creation. The fall into sin affected every relationship encountered by God’s people, including their relationship to work and rest. When God set about to rectify the damage done by the fall, He devised a plan to send His Son to earth to work on His behalf. Being the perfect man, the Son was assigned the perfecting work. The most unpleasant part of that work took place on the hill called Calvary.

Here is the shocking revelation about God: He was pleased to offer His only Son at Calvary. We must not imagine a sort of sadistic pleasure; rather, God was pleased to know that through the suffering of His Son, all relationships would be made right again. Isaiah puts it this way: “Yet Yahweh was pleased to crush him…. From the trouble of his life he will see; he will be satisfied. In his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, shall declare many righteous, and he is the one who will bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:10–11). The mess made in the Garden by the first Adam would be corrected by the second Adam.

This sometimes puts believers living in between the first and second coming of the Son of Man in an awkward place. Because we need food, clothing and shelter, we must work to provide those necessities. Human society has become very complex, so most of us don’t tend our own garden to provide our physical needs. In theory, each of us labors as a tiny cog in a giant machine that results in our physical needs being met. It is this labor that necessitates a sabbath rest. One day in seven we take a break to recharge our batteries, and I don’t believe it matters what day of the week we rest, just so we rest. The Fourth Commandment reminds us that our rest day has a purpose: in it we remember our Creator.

But that is not all. We are also required to continue the work Jesus started by bringing the good news of God’s redemptive plan to all people. Paradoxically, our sabbath rest serves as part of our work to bring the good news. Our paychecks would be 14% larger if we skipped the seventh-day break. Those who get overtime pay would benefit even more. But the commandment requires us to honor God with rest one day in seven. If we make this obvious to non-believers, we are declaring God’s rule over our lives; we declare God’s Kingdom come in our lives. (For more reasons to go to church see “Why Bother With Church?)

Everybody knows John 3:16, even many non-believers. What struck me in all this today is how fully “God so loved the world.” As the famous verse says, He sent His Son. But there is more. The world God created is not only the Perfect Planet  for human existence, it abounds with pleasures and beauty. God didn’t have to make pretty flowers or gorgeous sunsets or majestic mountains or tasty food or marital love, but He did. Paul says God “provides us all things richly for enjoyment.” That includes work and rest. It pleased Him to use Calvary to do that. Remember that the next time you take your sabbath rest.

Related posts: “What is the Church?”

Why Wait?

From Sunday school to Bible college through two seminary degrees I seem to recall being told that salvation is a process. It has a beginning point; the exact point is debated whether it’s at confession or baptism, but either will do for my point here. Suffice it to say humans are born lost and must be born again to be saved. I have been taught that salvation begins with justification, carries on through sanctification, and ends with glorification. That seems logical, and it can apparently be supported as biblical. (For another look at this idea, see “Lies We Have Been Told”)

There may be a problem with thinking of salvation as a process, however. Looking at each aspect of salvation individually, it is possible to assert that the process explanation is a crutch – a concession to our humanity that disregards the truly spiritual nature of salvation. When Jesus explained to Nicodemus how salvation was accomplished in John chapter 3, He described it as a purely spiritual operation. Jesus said one must be born “of water” and “of spirit.” Most scholars agree that “of water” refers to the physical reality of human beginnings in the amniotic waters of the womb; some argue that it refers to baptism, but either way, it is a physical, material condition.

The second birth Jesus mentioned, the “from above” birth is of the spirit. Jesus and the New Testament authors consistently use “from above” to refer to the spiritual plane. Like us, they thought of heaven as being above where the other, spiritual dimension existed. To be born again, as it is sometimes translated, is to be born of spirit. Paul’s teaching throughout his letters speaks often of believers having been once dead but now being alive. The death that was overcome in the act of salvation is a spiritual death, and the new life that results is a spiritual life. Read Paul again: life “in the spirit” is the sine qua non of saving faith. In the opposite state, in the flesh, it is impossible to please God (Romans 8:1-8)

The space-time continuum as Einstein discovered it was created by God for the benefit of His time-bound, temporal creatures. The Bible is quite clear about this when it says things like, “[God] chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world.” (Eph. 1:4) There is a sense in which those who are born again are justified, sanctified and glorified before they are even born the first time. We spend our earthly existence bound by the restrictions of physical time while at the same “time” we are new creations living in spiritual “time.”

This condition is fairly easy to imagine with regard to justification because it is a one-time declaration of one’s righteousness, but it is more difficult to see how it works with sanctification and glorification. A deeper look into the meaning of each of those words may help clear it up. The New Testament word “sanctification” comes from the same Greek word often translated “holy.” To be holy means to be set apart for a particular purpose. That purpose is anchored in spiritual “time” in Romans 8:28-30 where all the verbs are in aorist tense, meaning they are actions completed in the past. Our purpose, the passage says, is to be conformed into the image of Christ.

The New Testament teaches that the way we are supposed to accomplish our conformation is to live, pray, sing and be filled in spirit (or with the Spirit). We are aided in our specific duties by the spiritual gifts each believer receives; we are sanctified, made holy, when we use the gifts we are given for the purpose God intends. This conforms us individually to the image of Christ, and it corporately forms His body, the Church into the spotless bride for whom He will one day return. Our “setting apart,” our sanctification is a done deal; we have only to get with the program and live like we know it.

Not surprisingly, this brings about our glorification as well. Again, the Greek word “glory” means, on one level, to look good. We glorify God when we make Him look good or reveal His goodness. Just as an earthly father looks like a wise, good parent when his children behave appropriately, our Heavenly Father “looks good” when His adopted children fulfill their spiritual purpose. By living “in the spirit” as we are commanded, we bring glory to God and as a result, we too are glorified.

If all this has become too academic, let me try to put it in practical terms. If we are sitting around on our justified bottoms waiting for our sanctification to become fully realized so that one day we can be glorified and complete the salvation process, we are missing the point. Every time we move in accordance with the promptings of the Holy Spirit, every time we commit an act that is empowered by our unique spiritual gift, every time we reveal the nine-fold fruit of the Spirit in our lives we demonstrate the reality of our salvation. Every believer has the potential to complete his or her salvation whenever the Spirit is allowed to take control.

Not sure if you have fully trusted Christ for your justification? Do it now. Don’t know what your unique spiritual gift is? Begin praying that God will reveal it to you and ask your fellow believers to help you. If you want to bring glory to God, you have the potential to do so this very minute. Now is the time; why wait?