Ed and Patsy now live in Athens, Alabama and are members at the Pepper Road church. As administrator of this blog, he enjoys sharing thoughts about spiritual maters. Not only his thoughts but good articles from other authors. He is also thankful to have been able to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ for over sixty years.
The idea that a Christian should forgive a brother who sins against him, whether or not he repents, seems to be gaining momentum among my brethren. We read of it in the social media, hear it discussed in Bible classes and preached from pulpits. I am convinced that it is part and partial of the trend toward pop psychology and away from seeking and saving the lost in our preaching. This shifts the emphasis from spiritual healing to psychological healing – aimed more at relieving guilt feelings than relieving actual guilt.
Though such unconditional forgiveness may be widely extolled as being Christ-like, it is the very opposite of what Jesus did. I have yet to read where He forgave or encouraged anyone to forgive without repentance. Take, for example, Luke 17. There Jesus taught his disciples about forgiveness. When one sins against us, we have a two-fold responsibility: 1) We are to rebuke him and 2) if he repents forgive him. What if he does not repent? Keep on trying to bring him to repentance so that he can be forgiven.
Matthew 18:15-17 follows the same basic pattern. Where “tell him fault” is equivalent to “rebuke him” in Luke and “if he hears you” is equivalent to “if he repents.” Here Jesus contemplates a brother sinning. His sin is not only against God (as all are), it is also against a brother in which case the brother sinned against is to follow certain steps to gain his repentance. At first only three are involved: God, the one sinning, and the brother sinned against. If the sinning brother repents his God forgives him as well as the brother sinned against. The problem is solved. It needs to go no further. If there is no repentance, then the second step kicks in. The brother sinned against is to call in the help of “two or three” others. These try to help bring the sinner to repentance. If successful, problem solved. If unsuccessful, it is to be told to the church. If the sinner does not respond favorably to the church, he is to be treated as a heathen and tax collector. (This is equivalent to delivering unto Satan in, 1 Corinthians 5:5, for the destruction of the flesh so that the spirit can be saved). The purpose of each step is to save the sinner by bringing him to repentance so that he can be ultimately saved.
On the surface unconditional forgiveness may seem to be magnanimous but it really discourages repentance, without which one can not be forgiven. It releases one of accountability without repentance. It also reflects a basic misunderstanding of what sin and forgiveness are really about. Forgiveness is not merely telling one that he is forgiven, it is bringing him to the point to where he can be forgiven.
Withholding forgiveness from guilty people until they repent is not, as some allege, demonstrating malice, hatred, or ill-will, but rather genuine love. How can I love a sinning brother without holding him accountable until he does what is necessary for forgiveness from God?
One with an “unforgiving spirit” is not one that withholds forgiveness until there is repentance, but the one who refuses to forgive after the sinner has met the conditions of forgiveness. Unless we forgive the penitent we cannot hope for forgiveness from God.
The unconditional forgiveness theory renders church discipline nigh unto impossible. How can a church withdraw from a persistently sinning brother and at the same time be telling him “we forgive you all is well?”
I appreciate your good thinking and reasoning here.