The Greek word translated forgiveness is also translated
remission. I suppose there is no
difference between these terms. Yet I
have preferred the term remission over forgiveness in most cases. I suppose because forgiveness seems more of a
feeling type thing, while remission is more of legal type thing. In either case or term used, it seems that
the idea is being released from a consequence or obligation, which even a bad
feeling is a consequence. I have done a
lot of thinking about forgiveness for 20 years or more, as it relates to
biblical issues, such as the (unlimited) propitiation of Christ, and as it
relates to other terms (redemption, justification, etc.). I was reading about some passage that uses
the word forgiveness in a commentary by Lutheran scholar Lenski, and he said he
preferred remission over forgiveness because forgiveness was too pale of a
word. That was my thinking as well. But maybe it doesn’t really matter.
The aim here is obviously biblical accuracy, since there is
definitely agreement that we are saved by grace through faith and not our
works. We can disagree on the use of the
term of forgiveness and yet agree the basis of our salvation is the death of
Christ for our sins and that we are justified by faith alone in Christ as
Savior.
My concern over the years has been with the relationship
between forgiveness (I’ll stay with that term for our discussion) and
propitiation. Maybe if I took the view
that all references to forgiveness are of a temporal nature, I would have had
less of a struggle to make sense of how forgiveness and propitiation
relate. However, I always understood,
and still do, that several passages speak of forgiveness in an eternal type
sense. My reason for struggle is because
a friend and former pastor believes that all people have been forgiven through
the death of Christ. His view is that if
Christ’s death for all sin and provided satisfaction for all sin, then all
people have been forgiven. Now he does
not believe all have been justified or regenerated because not all
believe. I use to agree with this view,
and I use to think this was Lewis S Chafer’s view, but I begin to have problems
with it and discovered it wasn’t exactly Chafer’s view (but only careful ready
of his writings reveals that). Newell in
his commentary on Romans seems to take this view, but he makes a distinction
between remission and forgiveness, the former being legal and the latter personal: everyone has been released from the
obligation of their sins, but not every one has been forgiven, which is a
personal matter (something like that).
Anyway, the discussion of temporal verse eternal does seem
to relate to my concern over how propitiation relates to forgiveness.
Though I am not a Calvinist (determinist) when it comes to
salvation, I was greatly helped by
things I read in the theological writings of Charles Hodge and WGT Shedd on
this issue. I will briefly state,
contrary to what a lot of people think, that even though Christ’s death for
sins was a propitiation for all sins, I do not believe that automatically
resulted in everyone being released from the eternal obligation to their
sins. There is a difference between
propitiation and forgiveness, understanding that propitiation speaks of
satisfaction of divine justice against sin, while forgiveness speaks of being
release from the obligation of sin. A
lot of people will say that no one is condemned for their sins, because already
bore their sins on the cross. They are
condemned for unbelief only. However,
they will still say they are forgiven when they believe, but forgiven of
what? Unbelief? Even if you were to remove forgiveness from
the discussion, you still have a problem with justification if you define it as
an acquittal, but acquittal from what?
Unbelief? Yet some define
justification as only a positive thing, being the conferral of a right
standing, or being declared righteous, but then forgiveness could be just a
term to refer to that part of justification that is negative or subtraction
(such as acquittal).
If forgiveness could be understood in both a eternal and
temporal sense, it could be understood this way…
In both cases, it is being released from a consequence or
obligation.
In the eternal sense, it is being released from separation
from God forever, being ultimately in Hell.
This is a one time thing. Once
released from the eternal obligation of sins, one needs not be released
again. This would be the same as being
delivered from the wages of sin. It
could be the same as “redemption” in some cases (Greek being apolutrosis). It could be part of the idea of justification
(justified from all things) without being superfluous, it could be used as part
of it or in place of it. It could be a
synonym for “salvation.” It seems that
if Peter was to tell Cornelius words by which he would be saved, and Cornelius
was saved when he heard the words “whoever believes in him will receive
remission of sins,” then forgiveness communicated an eternal sense of salvation
from sin. Cornelius believed the promise
of remission of sins through faith in Christ for it.
The temporal sense of forgiveness would be being released
from the temporal consequence of sin, being a break in fellowship. Sin after salvation will not separate one
from God forever in Hell, but it results in a temporal break in fellowship
because it has to do with present conditions.
Just because sin cannot separate me from God forever does not mean it
cannot cause a break in fellowship. It’s
like knowing God in a relational sense and in a obedience
sense too: we say so and so knows the Lord, meaning they are saved, but are
they knowing the Lord in obedience to His commands? We are forgiven of our sins eternally, but
temporally, if we have unconfessed sin we walk in darkness. I don’t seen how it is illogical to see the
need for temporal forgiveness if we have eternal forgiveness.
If forgiveness is not a legal thing, I don’t see why it
needed the death of Christ. Scripture
says that forgiveness is through the blood of Christ. One could forgive freely or conditionally,
but without a death. The fact that
Scripture connects forgiveness with the death of Christ indicates to me that it
is a judicial thing. Both forgiveness and
justification are said to be by the death of Christ.
So…temporal forgiveness is not illogical if we are eternally
forgiven, and forgiveness in a legal, eternal sense is not superfluous to
justification if it is a part of it or used in place of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment