Not many identify the name of Jesus with forgiveness

[Lamb]

My friend Forgiven (she's returned here as [MENTION=1087]Forgiven1[/MENTION]) and I were once removed from a Christian social site similar to MySpace for telling the members that Jesus forgives their sins. You see, people don't identify Jesus with forgiveness. There was actually a poll I read about (I don't have the link) but only 13% of the people polled identified the name of Jesus with forgiveness. That's a sad number.

Even in Christian forums we have people who don't believe that their sins are forgiven because of Jesus and feel the need to live a sinless life in order to prove themselves worthy to God to try to gain eternal life. What happened there? Why isn't Jesus' death believed or trusted in? Why aren't churches showering their congregations with the Gospel that because of Jesus God forgives them?

The way we are accepted by God is through Jesus. Not of ourselves lest we boast. I know that's not a direct quote but it shows that if you strive to gain something from God through your efforts that you aren't trusting in what God has already done for you at the cross.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

There's a lot of reasons we could possibly point to as the reason Jesus isn't synonymous with forgiveness. The Semi-Pelagian heresy is probably the biggest one in my mind. Then there's reason. It doesn't make logical sense to people that one person's death could pay for the sins of the whole world and that any person would be willing to do that. Plus people are being told they have to work their way to heaven, we have a thread going right now on this site that claims as much.

 

[Lamb]

There's a lot of reasons we could possibly point to as the reason Jesus isn't synonymous with forgiveness. The Semi-Pelagian heresy is probably the biggest one in my mind. Then there's reason. It doesn't make logical sense to people that one person's death could pay for the sins of the whole world and that any person would be willing to do that. Plus people are being told they have to work their way to heaven, we have a thread going right now on this site that claims as much.

The semi-pelagian heresy bothers me a lot because they don't want to accept that God just doesn't forgive random sins. All sins are forgiven because of the cross. So for a person to say he needs to be obedient to gain eternal life with God isn't looking to Jesus or the cross where their disobedience is forgiven. Obedience is to be faithful to God. That's what God wants from us.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Well we can close the thread, since we've figured it out.

 

[MennoSota]

Two things: First, I'm not sure that people here know what semi-pelagianism is, or they view it inaccurately.
Second, to say God forgives everyone is the view of unlimited atonement, which is...a semi-pelagian view.
God does forgive everyone who has faith and repents of sin, but only those whom God has chosen to become sheep will believe. Those not chosen will not believe. Their sins will not be forgiven.
God does all the work in choosing whom to adopt and whom he will forgive. He has that Sovereign right, which no one else has. He condemns whom He wills (justly) and He forgives whom He wills (graciously).

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Are you seriously going to hikack this thread to promote Limited Atonement?

 

[hedrick]

Yes, you’ve identified a big deal. This site doesn’t have enough members for this to be so visible, but at a larger site, it seems like half the people think they’re going to be damned because they can’t stop thinking impure thoughts. (In many cases I doubt that these are sins at all, but they usually aren’t specific enough to answer that.)

It sounds like Luther’s experience all over again. You have to repent from every sin, and you can never be sure you’re sincere enough or remember them all.

But people are bothered that if you don’t require that, you give a license to sin. There are also doctrinal issues. Paul in 1 Cor 6:9 and Gal 5:21 gives an impressively long list of sins that keep you from “inheriting the Kingdom of God.” Jesus also shows people being judged for their actions (or lack of actions).

But Jesus also says that every sin except one will be forgiven (not can be forgiven if you repent right, but will be). Even if you do the same thing 7 times a day.

It’s easy to see why people disagree on the answer (thus damning us all, since dissension is one of the things on Paul’s list).

My reading of Jesus is that we should take seriously his teachings about unlimited forgiveness, and assume that the people in his parables about judgement aren’t his followers. Indeed both Jesus and Paul seem to classify people into those who follow Jesus and those who are opposed. Jesus uses the term “sinners” to refer to those who oppose. Paul explicitly and Jesus implicitly are certainly aware that even followers sin.

So what about Paul’s sin lists? Both of them say that people who do those things won’t “inherit the Kingdom of God.” Paul’s list is impressively long when you join 1 Cor 6:9 and Gal 5:21. (The wording is the same; there’s no justification for taking only 1 Cor 6:9.)

I took a look at how Paul uses “Kingdom of God.” Outside of those passages, with one possible exception, he uses it for the presence of Christ’s way of life now. Particularly in 1 Cor 6:9, he is talking about the church. I think his point is that these things prevent them, individually but particularly as a church, from embodying the Kingdom. If you look at the two lists together, and take them as showing who will be damned, it seems like no one is missed. Using Internet forums seems particularly dangerous: “enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy." The term "inherit" is interesting. A lot of people seem to read it as getting into the Kingdom when we die. But people who are alive inherit from someone who has died. Like Jesus, in particular. See Gal 3:18, and a few other passages less explicitly. See Rom 6 for how that happens.

Some of the problem in the church may be doctrinal. I agree that semi-Pelagianism seem common. But in some cases I get the impression that people really want to insist that gays can’t be saved, and more generally think that “liberal” Christians are removing all standards. I think this has backed up into their theology.

It used to be that Protestants commonly defended the idea that we were judged entirely on faith, and that we could trust that God would work in those with faith to bring them around. Over the last decade or so, that viewpoint has almost completely disappeared from discussions.

 

[atpollard]

Let’s also be honest that a lot of people have reason to not feel forgiven ... a lot of people choose not to repent and some make excuses why it is not a sin needing repentance. The Pharisees didn’t associate Jesus with the forgiveness of their sins either.

Should the two women married to each other that attend our church in spite of the fact that our church teaches that homosexuality is a sin (we just don’t stone homosexuals, or drug addicts or people with criminal records either) feel that Jesus has forgiven their ongoing lifestyle choice?

 

[MennoSota]

Are you seriously going to hikack this thread to promote Limited Atonement?

No, I am pointing out that the Sovereign God has the full authority to forgive or not forgive as He so wills. Thus, not all humans are forgiven of their sins.
God is quite clear on this issue. Humans still fight against God and His supreme authority to do as He so chooses.

 

[Lamb]

Let's talk about what I want to talk about...the topic: Not many identify the name of Jesus with forgiveness. So back on to my topic or I'll start deleting off topic posts here.

 

[MennoSota]

Let's talk about what I want to talk about...the topic: Not many identify the name of Jesus with forgiveness. So back on to my topic or I'll start deleting off topic posts here.

My point is that not many will identify Jesus with forgiveness because Jesus only forgives those he elects to forgive. All whom he chooses not to forgive...are not forgiven.
Recall Jesus words when he told the woman "Your sins are forgiven?" Recall how the Pharisees responded? They correctly stated that only God can forgive sins. They recognized that Jesus was making the claim that he is God.
So...only those to whom God extends forgiveness would, or should, recognize Jesus with forgiveness. All others should recognize him as the Judge who condemns them.

 

[Josiah]

People tend to know Jesus through His disciples....

When people think of Christians, do they immediately think of forgiveness, grace, mercy? Probably not. Whose fault is that?

 

[MennoSota]

People tend to know Jesus through His disciples....

When people think of Christians, do they immediately think of forgiveness, grace, mercy? Probably not. Whose fault is that?

It's the fault of the person who is hiding from God.
However, as believers we must live by grace ourselves. If we teach maintaining our salvation by works, we will preach that doctrine of works to people who know they are guilty and their works fall utterly short.
We patiently tolerate sin in others because God patiently tolerates sin in us.

 

[Lamb]

People tend to know Jesus through His disciples....

When people think of Christians, do they immediately think of forgiveness, grace, mercy? Probably not. Whose fault is that?

I'm seeing more and more followers of Christ who won't tell anyone that they are forgiven. They don't trust in the power of the cross to atone.

 

[Forgiven1]

I find it sad that there are Christians who believe Jesus forgives only those he elects to forgive. With this there is no assurance of salvation for those who believe Christ died on the cross for all. It makes confession meaningless then. It makes Christ’s sacrifice meaningless.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

I find it sad that there are Christians who believe Jesus forgives only those he elects to forgive. With this there is no assurance of salvation for those who believe Christ died on the cross for all. It makes confession meaningless then. It makes Christ’s sacrifice meaningless.

I have the same problem with that view too. Where is the assurance of salvation? But for some Christians, reason trumps Scripture.

 

[hedrick]

Mennosota hasn’t given an argument for his position, but let me remind you where it comes from. Luther had exactly the problem we describe here. He could never believe he was forgiven.

One of the most common late medieval positions was that we should make a reasonable effort, and God would then give them grace and forgive them for everything else. Luther’s problem was obvious: who can ever believe they’ve done enough? But some version of this is still the most common answer. More later.

Luther’s answer was that it wasn’t up to him. If it was, he could never believe he had done enough. So God saved him, independent of anything he did. Sounds good. But isn’t this universalism? The only logically consistent way to maintain that it’s God that saves us, not dependent upon what we do, and avoid universalism, is to say that God saves who he wants to and everyone else is damned.

Of course the other possible answer is universalism.

I haven’t seen any other options:

• In the end it’s up to us; sure God gives us grace and all that, but in the end it’s up to us to respond in a way that makes us his
• It’s up to God; he saves who he chooses
• Everyone is saved; this probably should be combined with 1 Cor 3:12; we may all get saved, but not much of us may be left after the purification

(Of course logically there’s the other possibility: everyone is damned.)

These really are tied up with the question of forgiveness. How can you be confident you’re forgiven? How can you tell other people that they are? How can you show people that God is forgiving if you think he's going to torture 90% of people eternally? It's logically possible, but is it realistic? It was precisely the question of how to be sure you're forgiven that led to the Reformation-era debates of justification.

Most Christians try to make the first possibility sound as good as possible. We emphasize that God’s grace comes first. But if he gives everyone a real chance, then it’s our response that matters, and who can believe they’ve done enough?

The problem with the other two options is that it's not so clear that they are consistent with Jesus’ teachings or the Bible as a whole. I know the Reformed tradition thinks Paul teaches option 2, but I think this misunderstands what he was saying. I think you can make a case for universalism, but it’s iffy. You interpret Jesus’ teachings about judgement as talking about being held responsible for what you do, but not indicating final rejection. It’s easy to interpret Paul as a universalist. But still, the first position is the most common, and the easiest to see in Jesus’ teachings.

But if in the end it’s up to us, how can we ever be sure we’re actually forgiven? The practical solutions seem to be tests for probable salvation; if you go to church you’re probably OK, if you’re baptized you’re probably OK, if you’re pretty nice to people you’re probably OK. But this has a tendency to turn into “at least I’m not like that homosexual over there.”

One I’ve toyed with is that everyone starts out forgiven; you have to do something pretty drastic to reject it. That is consistent with the general Christian belief that all infants and children are saved. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have some magic age where suddenly the situation is reversed. Why would God be biased against adults?

But a lot of people in my own tradition have concluded that the only way you can really assure people of God’s forgiveness, and love them in any kind of realistic way, is universalism. Probably combined with some form of accountability short of eternal torture.

 

[atpollard]

I find it sad that there are Christians who believe Jesus forgives only those he elects to forgive. With this there is no assurance of salvation for those who believe Christ died on the cross for all. It makes confession meaningless then. It makes Christ’s sacrifice meaningless.

Meaningless for the reprobate. Not meaningless for the elect.
The alternative is to deny the revelation of the Holy Spirit to our conscience and agree that the Cross was impotent for some and our salvation depends on Human choices rather than a Sovereign God’s ability to keep His promise.

 

[MennoSota]

Mennosota hasn’t given an argument for his position, but let me remind you where it comes from. Luther had exactly the problem we describe here. He could never believe he was forgiven.

One of the most common late medieval positions was that we should make a reasonable effort, and God would then give them grace and forgive them for everything else. Luther’s problem was obvious: who can ever believe they’ve done enough? But some version of this is still the most common answer. More later.

Luther’s answer was that it wasn’t up to him. If it was, he could never believe he had done enough. So God saved him, independent of anything he did. Sounds good. But isn’t this universalism? The only logically consistent way to maintain that it’s God that saves us, not dependent upon what we do, and avoid universalism, is to say that God saves who he wants to and everyone else is damned.

Of course the other possible answer is universalism.

I haven’t seen any other options:

• In the end it’s up to us; sure God gives us grace and all that, but in the end it’s up to us to respond in a way that makes us his
• It’s up to God; he saves who he chooses
• Everyone is saved; this probably should be combined with 1 Cor 3:12; we may all get saved, but not much of us may be left after the purification

(Of course logically there’s the other possibility: everyone is damned.)

These really are tied up with the question of forgiveness. How can you be confident you’re forgiven? How can you tell other people that they are? How can you show people that God is forgiving if you think he's going to torture 90% of people eternally? It's logically possible, but is it realistic? It was precisely the question of how to be sure you're forgiven that led to the Reformation-era debates of justification.

Most Christians try to make the first possibility sound as good as possible. We emphasize that God’s grace comes first. But if he gives everyone a real chance, then it’s our response that matters, and who can believe they’ve done enough?

The problem with the other two options is that it's not so clear that they are consistent with Jesus’ teachings or the Bible as a whole. I know the Reformed tradition thinks Paul teaches option 2, but I think this misunderstands what he was saying. I think you can make a case for universalism, but it’s iffy. You interpret Jesus’ teachings about judgement as talking about being held responsible for what you do, but not indicating final rejection. It’s easy to interpret Paul as a universalist. But still, the first position is the most common, and the easiest to see in Jesus’ teachings.

But if in the end it’s up to us, how can we ever be sure we’re actually forgiven? The practical solutions seem to be tests for probable salvation; if you go to church you’re probably OK, if you’re baptized you’re probably OK, if you’re pretty nice to people you’re probably OK. But this has a tendency to turn into “at least I’m not like that homosexual over there.”

One I’ve toyed with is that everyone starts out forgiven; you have to do something pretty drastic to reject it. That is consistent with the general Christian belief that all infants and children are saved. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have some magic age where suddenly the situation is reversed. Why would God be biased against adults?

But a lot of people in my own tradition have concluded that the only way you can really assure people of God’s forgiveness, and love them in any kind of realistic way, is universalism. Probably combined with some form of accountability short of eternal torture.

Number one is salvation by works apart from grace. God never teaches such a method of salvation.
Universalism is never taught in scripture.
That leaves God, sovereignly choosing whom he will forgive and whom he won't forgive.
God simply tells his children to be ambassadors of reconciliation. Be reconciled to God by justification through faith. Those who are marked out for forgiveness will believe. Those marked out to remain in their sins will not believe. The choice is for the Sovereign God (King) to make. He knows who His sheep are. He will forgive them.

 

[MennoSota]

I have the same problem with that view too. Where is the assurance of salvation? But for some Christians, reason trumps Scripture.

The assurance is in God's word.
Romans 8:38-39 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.