The Conditionality of Forgiveness - Part 2

Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in a day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him.
Luke 17:3-4

In this second post, allow me to return to my initial question, namely, "Is unforgiveness the same as bitterness?"

I do not think it is. In the above passage, Jesus seems to imply that one's forgiveness is contingent upon the offender's repentance. "If he repents, forgive him." If someone repents, and turns again and repents of his sin, you must forgive him. If, on the other hand, someone does not turn and repent, Jesus seems to say that we are right in witholding forgiveness. This leads us to a few questions.

First, can one withold forgiveness and not be bitter? Bitterness is repeatedly condemned as sinful in the Bible. "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander, along with all malice, be put away from you" (Ephesians 4:29). Never are we biblically justified to be bitter towards another individual, regardless of the wrong committed to us. To my question, I answer in the affirmative--it is possible to withold forgiveness and not be bitter, for if Jesus, in Luke 17, says that we should only forgive if the offender repents, this must mean that we are not sinning. Never would Jesus allow us to withold forgiveness if that was sin, and bitterness is ALWAYS a sin.

The next questions I will answer are as follows: "What about Jesus and Stephen?" "What should our attitudes be while we are witholding forgiveness?" "If unforgiveness and bitterness are not the same, yet if you are saying that we are never justified to be bitter, how is your framework different than what most Christians have today?"

I'll get to these as soon as I have time.

The Conditionality of Forgiveness - Part 1

Is unforgiveness the same as bitterness?

To most people, this question would seem silly. "Of course it is!" they'd quip. "When someone has withheld forgiveness from an offender, aren't they always consumed with bitterness?" they would reason. It seems like a legitimate plea, does it not?

Separating bitterness from unforgiveness seems unfair and unreasonable, but in these upcoming series of posts, allow me to make a case for how we are to biblically think about forgiveness.

Due to lack of time, this first post will be brief. Allow me to think about this topic more keenly by quoting this explicit and very relevant text from Luke 17, then on later days, I will expound what it means.


Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in a day, and turns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him. Luke 17:3-4

Mull over Jesus' words, and stay tuned.

Merry Christmas

Ponder again the blessings and the wonderful grace God gave to mankind in sending his Son. Have a wonderful holiday season. May our hunger for him and his glory be made strengthened in the upcoming year!

Merry Christmas!

Indwelling Sin

Over my Christmas break, I have begun to dive headlong into my reading, finishing up about five books I started in the fall. While reading these books, I am once again reminded at the wealth of wisdom past saints still hold for us, and how lamentable it is that we are often so ignorant we are of these gems. In his magnificent book, The Reformed Pastor, the seventeenth century Puritan Richard Baxter writes the following helpful comment on how to mortify (kill) sin:

To be much in provoking others to repentance and heavenly-mindedness may do much to excite them in ourselves. To cry down the sin of others, and engage them against it, and direct them to overcome it, will do much to shame us out of our own; and conscience will scarcely suffer us to live in that which we make so much ado to draw others from.

I doubt Baxter would have Christians be hypocrites. To condemn sin, while still living in it and not having a desire to be rid of it is a damnable sin. What Baxter speaks of here is that in our struggle with sin, Pastors should express a hatred for sin by not only self-watch, but also by pleading for their parishioners to repent. Calling others to repent will sharpen your perception of sin, and it should lead to a weakening of it in your own life.

Baxter also suggests that idleness and excessive solitude are pits that become a breeding ground for sin. He continues:

Even our constant employment for God, and busying our minds and tongues against sin, and for Christ and holiness, will do much to overcome our fleshly inclinations, both by direct mortification, and by diversion, leaving our fancies no room nor time for their employment. All the austerities of monks and hermits, who addict themselves to unprofitable solitude, and who think to save themselves by neglecting to show compassion to others, will not do near so much in the true work of mortification, as this fruitful diligence for Christ.

A Necessary Foundation for the Superstructure of a Vibrant Life

It is painstakingly obvious, but all buildings need a foundation. The larger, more glorious a building, the more firm its undergirding structure needs to be. All right-minded men would scoff at the builder who plans to construct a Sears Tower-like building on a foundation sufficient for a small cottage. It simply would not work.

Similarly, if we desire to know God rightly, a right foundation must be sought. God commands us to know him rightly--not omniscient--but rightly. The very existence of our minds and God's Word proves that all humans are under obligation to know the Most High. So, if we must know him, what might be some fundamental ingredients that would bind in a firm, strong, unbending foundation of knowing God?

Tom Schreiner, professor of New Testament interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, suggests in his massive commentary on Romans that one of these fundamental beliefs must be an understanding of the heinousness of our sin. He suggests this tangentially in the following sentences on Romans 1:16-17:

The same emphasis on the name of God as the ultimate ground for his action is found in Ezek. 36:20-32. I stress here that the saving righteousness of God is rooted in his desire to glorify his name, because it will play a central role in the following verses and chapters. The fundamental sin of the Gentiles (Rom. 1:21) and Jews (Rom. 2:24) was the failure to glorify and honor the name of God. (71)

Schreiner contends that Israel was made for the glory of God. Their very existence, and the continuation of it despite their continual wickedness, was linked to the glory of God. Both Isaiah 43:7 and Isaiah 49:3 explicitly state that Israel was formed for the renown of the Lord God Almighty. God's action with Israel, from their conception to their sustenance and to their destruction, was for God's glory. Thus, because they existed for God's glory, it was completely right and just of God to wipe them out in 721 and 586 B.C. (Israel and Judah, respectively) because their sin rose up to them to God as a most awful stench. Their sins were not simply mistakes, or gaffes, or slip-ups--they were an offense against the glory of God!

The prophet Jeremiah laments concerning the state of Israel:
Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which does not profit. Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the Lord, for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water. (Jer 2:11-13, ESV)

According to God, speaking through the prophet Jeremiah, the greatest evil that the nation of Israel committed was that they forsook him, who was the well of living water. The spurned the most valuable, precious being in the world. Furthermore, they constructed their own cisterns, but they were faulty, for they held no water. The idols Israel set up were flawed and ultimately unsatisfying. So, at the end of the day, Israel turned their backs on the Most High instead sought pleasure through petty, meaningless, heinous idols.

So, I believe the foundation that is necessary for the superstructure of a vibrant life is a correct, coupled understanding of the glory of God and heinousness of sin. They go hand in hand. One cannot have the former without the later. But the later cannot happen without the former. One cannot grasp the wickedness of their sin without helping them understand WHY it is heinous. So, may we all come to know the God who says,
"I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other,nor my praise to carved idols" (Is 42:8)

Reformed vs. Emergent Gospel

In the past decade or so, the emerging movement, lead by the likes of Dan Kimball, Brian McLaren, and Scot McKnight, has gained incredible influence over the evangelical world. Their critiques of traditional evangelicals are tantalizing; their suggestions for reform have encompassed the passions of many.

And yet, I fear that the emerging movement has many things that it must address for it to be biblically faithful and truly Christ exalting. Not least of this is their understanding of the gospel. Lee Irons does a very helpful critique of the Brian McLaren's understanding of salvation found in his recent book Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope.

Here is his conclusion:
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather stick with the “old, old story” of personal guilt, God’s holy wrath, Christ’s atonement (obedience unto death), and the hope of the resurrection. Yes, Christians ought to be deeply involved in doing good deeds that are helpful to our neighbors — all kinds of good works, from adopting unwanted babies, to seeking racial reconciliation in our communities, and even to recycling if need be. But we do so in order to bring glory to Christ and to adorn the gospel, not to save the earth. We leave that job to Christ at the end of the age.

The Purpose of Attaining Knowledge

Here is a worthwhile quote from Bernard, a saint many hundred years ago, as quoted by Richard Baxter in his book The Reformed Pastor:
Some desire to know merely for the sake of knowing, and that is shameful curiosity. Some desire to know that they may sell their knowledge, and that too is shameful. Some desire to know for reputation's sake, and that is shameful vanity. But there are some who desire to know that they may edify others, and that is praiseworthy; and there are some who desire to know that they themselves may be edified, and this wise.
May we have the perception to grasp why lies at the heart of our desire to learn more, and, above all, may that desire be honoring to God!

Are Apostles Alive Today?

Over the last century, the uprising of the charismatic movement has yielded many questions; not least of which is the notion of whether apostleship exists today. Questions on the definition of an apostle abound in this age. Many believe that apostles do exist today. Experience and Scripture are appealed to on both sides. For those who affirm its existence, Paul's statement in Ephesians 4:11-12 is cited, "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ." No doubt apostles have at one time existed, but do they exist today?

The short answer, biblically speaking, must be "no," but various cavaets must be clearly admitted. The word "apostle" can carry a number of different meanings. Coming from the Greek "apostolos," which derives from its cognate "apostello," (which means "to send") some have suggested that an apostle is "one who is sent." An apostle can carry some idea of one who is sent, but this is rather short-sighted. One cannot always define a word by looking at its verbal cognate. For example, the Greek word for church is "ekklesia," which comes from the words "ek" (meaning "out of") and "kalleo" (meaning "to call"). This, however, does not mean that the church is simply the "called out ones"--although in some senses this is true--but the church is either referred as a local assembly of believers or an universal body of saints. Words must be defined as they are used in each context. Authors give meaning to the words they use, although I do confess that words generally have a limit of possible meaning.

It the strictest definition of the word; however, apostles are alive today. Though it can carry the definition of "a sent one," it is predominantly used in the New Testament as one who "stands in" for someone, namely, God himself. He is in a sense commissioned by God, but, more specifically, he is one who speaks on behalf of God himself. So, in this sense, apostles are alive today, for their letters exist. When we read Ephesians, Romans, or the Gospel according to Matthew, we must not think of their books as the musings of another equally-gifted believer, but rather as an apostle, one who utters the words of God himself. Paul speaks as an authority, because he is not only an emissary (sent one) from God, but proclaims God's truth in all its convicting authority.

Is Prayerlessness a Form of Pride?

One thing that is often neglected for many believers is the continual dependence upon the Lord in prayer. Sure, we may give thanks for each meal, blurt out a quick blessings on our drive to work, or beg God to heal a loved one, but could we be described as a man or woman steadfast in prayer (1 Thess 5:17)? When one analyzes the answer to this question, do we dismiss it as a lack of time or an optional spiritual discipline? Something deeper may be at the root of our prayerlessness.

1 Peter 5:6-7 reads, "Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may life you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you." Until recently, I noticed two commands in this passage: 1.)Humble yourselves and 2.) Cast all your anxiety on him. At best, I reasoned, they are indirectly connected, but the Apostle Peter does not mean for there to be any direct connection between the two.

Thankfully, my study of the Greek grammar has help to correct some of the misconceptions about this passage. I have been reading through Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, and his insight to the particulars of Greek syntax has been particularly illuminating. Concerning the construction of this passage, he writes:

Although treated as an independent command in several modern translations, the participle should be connected witht he verb of v 6, tapeinothate. As such, it is not offering a new command, but is defining how believers are to humble themselves. Taking the participle as means enriches our understanding of both verbs: Humbling oneself is not a negative act of self-denial per se, but a positive one of active dependence on God for help (p 630).

Rather than being constructed as a separate command, the participle, often translated as "casting your cares on him," should be prefaced by the preposition by. This is a preposition of means, and it explains how we are to humble ourselves under God's might hand. To put it negatively, if one does not pray and cast our cares upon God, it reveals a haughty, proud spirit. It is the proud man that God will resist (James 4:6; 1 Pet 5:5).

My hunch is that when the Bible warns against prayerlessness, it does not do so simply because it is an optional spiritual disciple that should be accomplished, but that it is a barometer of the vitality of our spiritual lives. Moreover, when we are prayerless, we de-god God, for we declare ourselves to be self sufficient.

More Responses to John Piper

I admit I am becoming a little obsessive on this topic. Nevertheless, the article John Piper wrote soon after the collapse of the 35W bridge in Minneapolis has generated a lot of discussion.

Weighing in this time is Ben Witherington III. Here is a sampling of his critique:

John Piper on his website of course recently had a post about the disastrous collapse of the bridge over the Mississippi in Minneapolis. His view was that however random it might seem to us, that actually this was the will of God, and in essence we should just suck it up. God is sovereign and he disposes things as he will, and according to his sovereign pre-ordained plan. If you just happened to be on the raw end of the deal, so much the worse for you. Since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, actually God has a right to judge the whole world now, if he so chooses. The fact that he spared some shows God's mercy, according to Piper, but he was under no obligation to spare anyone. 'There but for the grace of God go I", so to speak. This doesn't sound much like an attempt to mourn with those who are mourning. It is interesting that Senator Chambers and Rev. Piper would seem to agree on the source of this sort of mayhem.

Click here to read his entire response. It really is quite worth it. To put it briefly, I find his theodicy to be lacking in numerous ways. Perhaps I can elaborate on some of them tomorrow, if I have time.Until then, thoughts?

Burk's surrejoinder to Boyd

When Pastor Greg Boyd posted his reply as to how the book of Job corresponds with his understanding of God's sovereignty, he was particularly responded to Denny Burk. In his blog, Burk asserted that Boyd's theology directly contradicts the teaching of Job. As you can read in my previous blog entry, Boyd responded in a lengthy fashion to Burk's accusations. In likewise fashion, Burk has offered a detailed surrejoinder, listing faults in many of Boyd's conclusions.

Burk begins:
Last month, I wrote a short blog post on the collapse of the I-35 bridge. In it, I took issue with Boyd’s open theist view of how God relates to calamities, and I did so using the book of Job as a case study. I recently found out that Boyd has a lengthy response to what I wrote in which he refutes my interpretation of Job, “The 35W Bridge Collapse and the Book of Job.”

I believe that Boyd’s reading of Job has serious problems. I will respond to each of his points in turn.

Click here to read Burk's critique.

Boyd on Job

The blog world has recently been filled with numerous posts from theologians debating the extent of control God had in the collapse of the 35W bridge. Pastor John Piper began the discussion a few hours after the tragedy, as Pastor Greg Boyd responded about a week later. Postconservative Roger Olson also weighs in here. These men bring many varying viewpoints, resulting in extended dialogue and debate. In particular, Boyd has received criticism for his failure to consider how the biblical character Job jives with his position.

Here is a snidbit of Boyd's response:

Hopeful what I’ve said has been adequate to refute the view that the book of Job depicts God as controlling “every move Satan makes” and the view that Job’s statement that “the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away” (Job 1:21) is a view the author of this book endorses.


Click here to see Boyd respond in full.

Incredible Testimony to the Inscrutable Plan of God

This is perhaps the most God-glorifying short testimony I have heard in my entire life. How it puts me to shame for my occasional hard heart toward God's sovereign workings. And O how God is magnified through this message!



(HT: JT)

Levity in the Dorm Rooms

As I continue on in my month long break from school, I continue to trudge along through various books. My previous class, History of Christianity, sparked a keen interest in the lives of Christian men that have gone before us. As the writer of Hebrews admonishes us, I desire to "remember our leaders" and "imitate their faith" (Heb 13:7). Undoubtedly this author had our joy that we receive in mind when he wrote this, for when we behold the grace of God working through the unworthy vessels that have gone before us, how can one help but marvel at the goodness of God?

In light of this, a week ago I journeyed a mere mile to Bethel Seminary's enormous library, browsing and perusing title's of books that would seem worthwhile to read. Having a few Christian leaders in mind, I first came across one that was at the top of my list, Charles Haddon Spurgeon. One of the most capable preachers ever to live, Spurgeon wit, wisdom, fidelity to the Gospel, and uncanny ability to reach scores of people equipped him as a very influential preacher and author. Perhaps that last sentence is phrased poorly. Undoubtedly Spurgeon was an amazing talent and surely he worked tirelessly, but as the Apostle Paul would be quick to say (and Spurgeon as well!), it was the grace of God working in him.

The wisdom Spurgeon spews forth could fill numerous blog posts. One comment, however, was rather convicting, and is acutely applicable to the majority of college dormitory settings. In his biography on C.H. Spurgeon (labeled as such), author Arnold Dallimore writes concerning the new home for his Pastor's college:

The building did not contain any dormitories, however. The Men still boarded among the families of the Tabernacle. Spurgeon believed that if they all lived together there would be too much joking and lightness, as was generally the case in other colleges. "Levity of conduct in my brethern," he stated, "brings heaviness of heart to me....Oh, how can ministers be ... talking lightness and wantonness, when sinners are perishing? It must not be so among us."

In today's age of an adolescence that permeates and persists into the late twenties for many males, this statement is devasting. How can we persist in such triviality when souls are dying? How can we be so amused in meaningless, shallow laughter, when sinners each day are perishing? As one who sees unfortunate residue of child adolescence in his own life, may God remind us that we need to make the best use of the time, for the days are indeed evil (Eph. 5:15-16).

Grappling with Total Inability

Since my previous class concluded about two weeks ago, I have been given a total of a little of a month to speak and camp and dive into various theological discussions. I have always been intrigued with the topic of God's sovereignty and human responsibility; it is a most central doctrine. Thus, I have been reading Loraine Boettner's book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. His comments on Total Inability, often referred to as Total Depravity, assisted me in better understanding its full meaning. He begins by saying negatively:

This doctrine of Total Inability, which declares that men are dead in sin, does not mean that all men are equally bad, nor that any man is as baad as he could be, nor that any one is entirely destitute of virtue, nor that human nature is evil in itself, nor that man's spirit is inactive, and much less does it mean that the body is dead.

When one considers the doctrine of Total Inability, one must remember that God has given common grace to all. Why my heart, prior to being regenerated by the Holy Spirit, did not manifest itself in such sinful acts as Adolf Hitler is no testimony to my own goodness. We were both born equally depraved; however, God, in his infinite wisdom deemed it most wise that I would be born in a Christian family that emphasized the importance of godly character and good morals. These structures restrained me from acting out in as much evil as I would have been capable of, given the right circumstances. In my estimation, the argument that Total Depravity is inconsistent, and therefore wrong-headed, simply because it is plainly evident that unsaved men are not equally evil--this argument does not serious consider God's common grace.

Why the 35W Bridge Collapsed

As many of you are probably very well aware of, the 35W bridge located just north of St. Paul collapsed last week. That very night Pastor John Piper gave a wonderful reflection located here. In essense, Pastor John briefly exegeted Luke 13, noting that just as the tower of Siloam fell to enable sinners to have more time to repent, so also the 35W bridge collapsed so that we too would turn and repent. In my estimation, this response is biblically sound, and thoroughly orthodox to boot!
Here is a response to Pastor John from Greg Boyd, pastor of Woodlands Hills Church in White Bear Lake. Due to lack of time, I am unable to write a long critique of his response. If Pastor John deems it most wise not to respond, I may offer some insights next week when I return from camp. Until then, any thoughts?

Understanding John's Use of Sonship

Because of various circumstances, I have recently been forced to quickly pick up my grasp of Koine Greek. Having taken two years at Northwestern, I have a fair comprehension, but as it is true with most things, when you do use it, you lose it.

Today I translated half of 1 John, and as I was teaching myself again the art of detecting augments, reduplication, and hortatory subjunctives, I came to realize the repeated contrast that the Apostle makes. It is all very dark or light to him; nothing much is inbetween. As an aside, having that mindset today probably would have made it hard for him to connect in most churches. No one is really good, and on the same note, no one is completely evil. It is really more of a spectrum. It is usually contingent on how you are feeling each day whether the "good" side will outweigh the "evil." But really no one is ALL evil or ALL righteous? ..... Isn't this what is taught, by and large?

But the Apostle seems to be quite a hardliner. A passage that particularly stuck out came toward the end of my translation tonight. My translation reads:

4Everyone who does sin also does lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that he was manifested that he might take away sins, and there is no sin in him. 6 Everyone who remains in him does not sin, everyone who sins has not seen him nor has known him. 7 Children, let no one deceive you, the one who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 The one who does sin is from the devil, because the devil sins from the beginning. Until now the Son was made manifest from God, in order that he might destroy the work of the devil. 9 Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because his seed remains in him, and he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is visible the children of God and the children of the devil: Everyone who does not do righteousness is not from God, and the one who oes not love his brother. (1 John 3:4-10; my translation).

Consider some of the juxtapositions and conclusions John makes.

Sin --> Lawlessless --> Cannot remain in Christ --> Why? --> He died to take away sins & No sin is in him

Does righteously --> Is righteous --> Remains with Christ --> Why? --> He is righteous

Does sin --> From the devil --> Why? --> The devil has been characterized by sinning from the beginning

A theology of "What you do, you are, and who you are, that is who you are connected with" permeates all of John's writings. In fact, John, in chapter eight of his gospel, reports how Jesus lambasts the Pharisee's assertion that they are children of Abraham.

34Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35The slave does not remain in the house forever;the son remains forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father (John 8:34-38; ESV).

What Jesus implies in this last verse, he later goes on to clarify in verse 44, namely that they are the children of the devil. They were seeking to kill him and were committing sin, therefore they were functionally categorized with the devil rather than the Father. They were equated with who they were alike. What they did defined who they were.

Now, of course, there are many nuances to this. Sinless perfectionism will never be a reality, and John even confesses that if we claim to have no sin we make God to be a liar (1 John 1: 8,10). but humans are always known by what they do and where their desires lie. Furthermore, John is making stressing the dichotomy of the children of the devil and the children of God to emphasize that Christians, who are united with a Holy God, will be known by their holiness. They are told that they cannot sin (vs. 9). Of course, this is not talking about ontological capactity. To imply as much I think misses the point. God's children will be known for being like God. Conversely, the devil's children will be known for be like the devil.

Philosophy of Blogging

With this post, I will have made the complete plunge into the blogosphere. And what a blogosphere it is! With the variety of blogs being so vast, I feel is is necessary for me and perhaps helpful for you for me to establish the purpose of this blog.

1.) To strengthen and stretch my mind as I struggle and grapple with complex issues that I come across in my study or daily interaction with others. Being a Bible student and a lover of God, the majority of my posts will center around the nature of the Trinity and the thirst they have for their own glory.

2.) To increase me joy in God. The Psalmist commands us to delight ourselves in the Lord (Ps 37:4) and Paul later admonishes us to rejoice in the Lord always (Phil 4:4). My prayer is that this blog will nurture both the hearts and minds of the author and the readers.

3.) To use my (and your) time wisely. With this response, I know some may sneer and respond, "You have begun your quest on a blog. Very little could my more time-consuming and wasteful than surfing from one blog to another." I absolutely agree; however, much about blogging is very beneficial. Being that so many individuals are internet-savvy, the field of blogs is drenched with God-fearing, Christ-exalting believers who can sharpen one another. This is my prayer.

May God give me grace to diligently post various thoughtful musings about his nature and the nature of mankind, and may he also give you wisdom as to whether this is a blog that is worthwhile visiting. If it is not, please do not waste your time; it is a precious gift from God. If it is, and if the posting stimulate your mind, engage me on my ideas so that we can more fully comprehend how wide and how deep is the love of God.