Bearing the Forgiveness of God

Timmy Brister brought up a great question about the place of forgiveness.

Do we forgive unconditionally?:

"Sin/Offense –> Forgiveness –>Repentance –> Reconciliation (Unconditional)"

Or do we forgive conditionally?:

"Sin/Offense –> Repentance –> Forgiveness –> Reconciliation (Conditional)"

He gave arguments for both and asked his readers for observations. Here's mine:

"Clarifying what entails forgiveness is key and the role both the human forgiver plays as well as the role that God plays in the life of the sinner. When I first started skimming through this article to determine if I should read more deeply, I thought you were talking about the forgiveness of God. When I realized that you were talking about human forgiveness, then I had to ask myself the question, “What’s the difference?”

"That is to say that true forgiveness comes from God. Inasmuch as we practice the pattern of forgiveness, we imitate God, but we cannot forgive as Christ forgave. Only Christ can pay for sin. That means that when we extend forgiveness to the unrepentant, we bring the gospel to bear on the situation. Our conscience in the matter is cleansed at that time and the rest must be according to the movement of the Holy Spirit.

"However, God can extend forgiveness himself when we have not and one can repent when no human forgiveness has been extended. At this moment it becomes incumbent on the one who has not extended forgiveness to do so lest they become the sinner and repentance can bring this about.

"At this, the two scenarios you offer break down because the true forgiveness from God logically precedes the sin. If we practice God’s forgiveness, then we must anticipate sin and be prepared to extend forgiveness where no sin has occurred yet. This is especially true for the Christian because we have already been forgiven. And if we don’t live like this, then we endanger our assurance."

Forgiveness is not a matter of whether is it conditional or not. It's a matter of whether we are prepared to live out the gospel of grace in the form of forgiveness to sinners who need Christ.

House With or Without a Foundation

I like to watch House. I haven't particularly known why. He's vulgar, impetuous, misanthropic, atheistic and so intelligent he thinks he's right all the time, which he isn't, and right often enough to make him annoying.

Today, as I watch the umpteenth rerun of House, I finally realize why I like to watch him:

He's what I would be except for the grace of God. Pathetically reliant on my own conflicted reason and rationale. Yet there is a more sure way and as I am submitted to God in the intent of His perfect way, I can see clearly the futility of this conflicted sinful nature that yet calls flames of judgment to lick the bottom of my feet as I press on toward God's perfect peace in His glory.

And may it be that I never look on such characters as House and consider myself any better lest I become the Pharisee who thanks God he is not like the sinner.

Law and Grace in the Christian Life

Skip Cartin at Western Avenue Baptist Church has been preaching through Romans over the past year. This image came to mind recently:

God is like a circle. I know God has been represented as a circle because the line of the circle continues over and over and is kind of analogous to infinity. All metaphors for God are incomplete and using a circle in this way certainly lacks much. However, the circle that I have in mind isn't with regard to God as being infinite in the same way that people often use the circle.

My explanation of this symbol is that the center of God is the center of the circle, here marked by cross hairs. The presence of God radiates out from the center infinitely. The circle itself is the point at which one can be considered to be "in God". Outside of the circle, God is present, but one can be considered not to have company with God there.


We tend to think of this circle as being soteriological. That is, we consider what we must do or have in order to be inside of the circle. As such, most people hang around the circle. Some may stray inward while many remain outside the circle, but most "try to be good" and often wipe their brow, rest some, and plateau when they believe they have "made it" inside the circle.


Theologians may debate precisely where this circle should be placed. Those in between the theoretical circles are held in the sway. Are they in or are they out? Can we consider these to be fellow brothers and sister in Christ? Do they truly have fellowship with God?

Blue and Red hang out near the circle's edge. What could they be saying about Green? Could they be clicking their tongues and commenting on all the evil he does that keeps him out of the circle? Perhaps they are planning how they can get him to come into the circle? What do they tell him to get him to come? It depends on their particular soteriology. they may also look with amazement or disdain at Purple. He's awful far in. Perhaps they think he's to heavenly minded to be of any earthly good. After all, unless one hangs out near the edge of the circle, they may reason, one can't help anyone get in.


The attachment to the circle's edge is purely legal. We want to know whether we are in or out and it's falsely comforting to know what we need to do in order to be "in". That's the law. The problem is that the circle is illusory. We think we can be "in" by doing doing good things. However, if we have any sin at all, entering the circle results in death because God doesn't tolerate sin. What Christ has done has removed this barrier so that we can approach God. The message of grace is to head to the center of God. This is true if you are Purple, Green, Red or Blue:

Now, with the circle becomes not soteriological but merely ecclesiological. It's a matter of how you are going to define the requirements of church membership rather than whether or not you are actually saved.

Just tonight I read Exodus 20 with the kids. We visited Matthew 22:34-40 and tried to find the two greatest commandments in the ten we just read. We talked about the sermons we've hearing lately. But the ten commandments aren't the only thing in Exodus 20. We've just been taking Psalms in order each night and we were on Psalm 91 tonight. I won't paste it here - go read it for yourself. I love it when a message comes together on its own.

After God delivers the decalogue, the Israelites are afraid because of the lightning, smoke and trumpet blasting from the top of the mountain and beg Moses to have God not do the talking, but to rather come and tell them what He says. They are afraid of God, and rightly so: the revelation of His presence is terrifying. I asked the kids about the sorts of things that make them afraid and we went from there.

But in the Psalm, we have the testimony of the protection of God. We are encouraged as we follow His law of love that we reside in Him and He protects us. He isn't terrifying at all.

So what's the difference? The Israelites were afraid by the physical manifestation of His powerful presence. They had been given the law, but they didn't yet understand His grace. We would be terrified too. Most of us don't understand the grace of God as we ought. May we learn it so we can rejoice with the Psalmist that we can rest in the shadow of the Almighty.

Taking Socialism on the Road

I can't think of a singe word in common usage that refers to a socio-economic political philosophy that stands fully counter to socialism. Capitalism refers only to a system of economics that is relatively free in both the public and private domains. Democracy refers only to a political method of discerning public determination. Republicanism refers to a political philosophy of representative government. Conservatism varies by location and context and technically refers to the preservation of ideology no matter what the ideology is. Libertarianism refers to a philosophy of self-determination albeit limited by degree. Liberalism varies by location and context and refers to any unsettled desire to disturb the current ideology, no matter what the ideology is. Progressivism refers to the desire to change, no matter what the change is.

However, socialism stands monolithically as a comprehensive political philosophy of absolute government control over political methodology, public policy and economic system. It's also one of the worst ideas man has ever considered for self-governance.

Think about that busy road in the town where you live. It's the one where everyone hates to drive because the town planners have not planned the roads, intersections and infrastructure very well. Businesses have noted that it is a high-traffic location, have recognized that being where a lot of people are is good for business and have decided to increase the traffic problem by locating there. Given that people's need for the businesses along this road exceeds their dread of the burgeoning traffic there, they venture in to sit in long lines at the lights and risk being trapped at a business because there is no established way to get back out into the crowded traffic.

What do you do when you need to exit the place of business and get back into traffic and there is no government-established means for doing so? The only thing you can do is drive to the exit and hope someone lets you in front of them. Amazingly, plenty of people have it in their hearts to do this.

So, I sit in traffic and observe. Ahead is a traffic light and I'm in line waiting on it to change so that I can move forward a few feet, closer to the place where I can turn out of this mess and get on my way home. I ease forward and realize ahead that there is a line of cars trying to exit a gas station on my right. I decide to allow one or two out in front of me, Aren’t I nice. The car in front of me inches forward and I signal the driver of the first car exiting the gas station to move out in front of me. He inches forward and gets his nose into traffic and stops. He can't move because the person in front of me has stopped. The light is red up ahead. We're all waiting on the government to turn the light green so that we can go. Of course, a bajillion cars are piling through the intersection from the road this adjoins; gotta let them through.

I suppose if I hadn't let the person out, they could appeal to a nearby police officer who can come and direct traffic so the gas station that is now a parking lot can clear out. Meanwhile, the road behind me has gathered a line of cars that are backed up to somewhere in the Midwest and we are threatening good relations with Canada. Well, now we need a bill to go before the city planners to put a traffic light at the gas station. Of course it's way to close to the lights on either side of the gas station that are already too close to each other. That's why traffic is now backing up - when the light turns red, there are people sitting in the middle of the intersection waiting for the light at the next intersection to turn green, which doesn't matter much because there are cars in the middle of this intersection backed up waiting on me to let these people out of the gas station parking lot which may not happen because of the blockage at the next intersection.

No, a third light at the gas station isn't feasible. We need the occasional people smart enough not to go into the middle of the intersection if they can't drive through it so that people coming the other way can get through when the light turns. We also need people like me kind enough to let people out into traffic in short order.

Socialism looks at the people who already have their place in the road and says it's not fair that people in the gas station can't get out. Socialism would put a light at every entrance and exit to the road effectively reducing the capacity of the road ridiculously by turning it into one giant confusing intersection such that the only way to drive down the road is for all the lights to be green. This is fair for everyone. We are equally parked where we shouldn't be and the system fails. We all go home by breaking the traffic laws and all the businesses close because no one can get to them. Sound ridiculous? This is precisely what socialism does to the civil and economic landscape - every time, without exception.

The way the traffic works best is when enough people recognize the need to limit themselves and show grace. When we have people who are in dire straights and need help, there are still people on the US willing and able to help them privately. The way the economy works best is when some people of means are willing and able to occasionally help others who find themselves in unfortunate economic or civil circumstances. That's the way the US used to be and we're still like that to some degree. The more the government takes over, the less inclined people are to assume personal responsibility, not only for themselves, but for each other.

What Makes Bad Language Bad?

I posted on vulgarities a couple of years ago. This video of Paul Tripp on what makes language bad is from the Desiring God 2008 National Conference. Warning: some bad language used for demonstration purposes.

-

-

Paul Tripp articulates what we should understand of the Law of Moses and the Law of Grace. Following the letter of the law is mere moralism. It's good to be moral people. But true righteousness is found in the willingness to refrain from what is allowed in order to glorify God before others. It is the law found in our hearts where we submit to the needs of others and desire to be pleasing to God.

The Invalent Matthew 25

I can’t find “invalent” in any of my dictionaries. Apparently, I’m not the first to use the term. Most instances I can find in the vast writings found on the immense trade land of ideas of the internet are a misspelling of “invalid” or “indolent”. I have found a screen name of someone who calls him/herself “invalent”. Then I have found the term contrived for use in technical discourse in the areas of philosophy and chemistry. I’m contriving it for my own purposes and I’ll define it for you:

The prefix “in-” can mean “not” (negative) or “into” (positive). The suffix “-valent” means to have a valence specified by the prefix. Valence has the etymological definition “capacity” and is relate top words like “value” or “valid”. If something is invaluable, then it is priceless. If it is invalid it is worthless. (Someone who is an “invalid” is incapacitated in some respect.)

Since “invaluable” and “invalid” already have established meanings with one or the other meanings of the prefix “in-”, and since “invalent” isn’t likely to hit the dictionaries in general usage anytime soon, I’m coining it for my own usage. As such, it is unknown to any who understand any meaning of the suffix “-valent” to know which meaning of the prefix “in-” I intend. This is fitting, for I intend the meaning to be perfectly ambiguous.

Valence also has a couple of other interesting definitions that apply. In psychology, valence is the degree of attraction or aversion that an individual feels toward a specific object or event. Valence, in general, can also be the capacity of something to unite, react, or interact with something else.

So, when asked how I am doing today I may reply, “Simply invalent, thank you.” This will leave the questioner entirely in the dark. If they think about it, they may arrive at the conclusion that my response was intended to be ambiguous and that perhaps that is indeed how I am feeling today.

Which, by the way, is how I feel most days: both invaluable and worthless. Consider that this term could apply to some victims toward their abductors/abusers/attackers where they find a certain attraction to them. I’ve heard of it happening in hostage situations. There are people who stake their sociological claims by devaluing others. They often become popular among those they devalue. The reason is because the ones who are being devalued notice the popular attention that such individuals attract and unreasonably believe that sociological proximity to these people can obtain for them the sociological value that has been usurped from them. Another example may be the capacity to interact sociologically on one level but not another, which is what you get when people ask questions like, “How are you today?” They don’t often want the truth.

But this has theological value as well.

Linus is certainly trying to be contrite. I might believe it if this were written my Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown hopes beyond hope that Lucy will not pull the football away time after time. From him she merely obtains entertainment value at his physical and emotional duress. She doesn’t value his dream of kicking the football. Yet his desire is less in kicking the football as it is hoping that Lucy will value him enough not to pull it away at the last moment. Charlie Brown has been beaten down enough to see himself as less than valuable.

Enter the eschatological Matthew 25. I read this with the kids last night and realized something about the parable of the talents that I had never noticed before. I asked the kids if they had ever learned about the parable of the talents in Sunday School or some other class at church. Hope didn’t recall it, but Luke did. I asked if they had a side note in their study Bibles that expounded on this passage. Luke read one from his and I asked him if this was the lesson that he was taught from this passage. This, he affirmed, was the case.

The lesson is one I’m sure we’ve all heard if we’ve ever heard a lesson from this passage. This is that we should use the gifts and talents we have been given for building the Kingdom of Heaven. You may think of such abilities to teach, preach, sing, evangelize, etc, as the gifts and talents we have been given. This is a good lesson. We should want to serve God with those things we are equipped to do. However, I realized last night that this lesson doesn’t fit the eschatological context.

Matthew 24 establishes clearly that Christ is talking about the “end-times”. The first verse of Chapter 25 affirms that He is still teaching about the “end-times”. “Then [or at that time] the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins…” He then tells a parable about being prepared for the second coming of Christ. Immediately after the parable of the talents is the account of the judgment of the “lambs” and the “goats”. When does this take place? In the “end-times”. Why would we not understand the parable of the talents in light of Christ’s teaching of eschatology?

For the virgins, what is the price of admission to the wedding banquet? Oil in the lamps? Just to be on time? Well, we know that they needed oil in their lamps to get down the road to the place where they needed to be, but they didn’t keep their lamps filled. It doesn’t seem that the issue was that they needed money, but that they had not invested the money and the time they had in the very substance that would ensure their preparedness.

In the judgment, the sheep are admitted and the goats are excluded on what basis? The sheep gave to the least of these brothers of Christ and the goats did not. The sheep gave acts of simple grace to otherwise worthless people. They invested in Christ by doing so.

As an aside, why did Christ make the distinction between sheep and goats if He also made the distinction between giving and not giving? Could it be that there is an intrinsic difference implied between “sheep” and “goats” in this account? What if a sheep didn’t give? What if a goat did? Would the goat who gave magically become a sheep? Would the sheep who failed to give magically become a goat? How would Arminius answer this question? ‘Nuff said.

So what is the parable of the talents about? It is about investing, but what are we investing? When I realized this, I directed the kids to Romans 5:16-17. The gift, I argued is the gift of grace and the righteousness of Christ. I asked them what would happen if they give grace and righteousness away? Would they run out of grace and righteousness? I saw the lights go on in their heads. “No,” they replied, “God gives us more.” I explained that when we give grace and righteousness, we are given more. Plus, someone else has received grace and righteousness. The kingdom of heaven has been propagated.

On the other hand, if we have received the gift of grace and righteousness and have hidden it away for fear that someone else will have it, then we have not invested properly in the kingdom of heaven. It has not been propagated. As new creations, we have not been fruitful and multiplied. If it is grace, then it must be given away – or it is no longer grace. So, whoever does not give the gift of grace that has been given, from them will be taken the gift of grace. Lest you think I’m contradicting the perseverance of the saints, there is a matter where we have all been given some general grace. For those who bear the mind of the Master, they will give general grace and receive the particular grace of salvation. Like the virgins who gave their money and obtained oil early.

Grace and the righteousness of Christ are valuable. The investment of such in the lives of others yields extraordinary dividends in the kingdom of heaven. For the Charlie Browns among us who would hope for a Christmas present yet are convinced of their own lack of value, they may receive a gift that is more valuable than a toy that will break in a couple of weeks. They may receive the free gift of grace and righteousness.

It is a source of constant frustration that yields a feeling of worthlessness that my particular gifts and talents are underutilized for the kingdom of Christ. Yet, I know that have invested where I could if only with the “bankers”, among the people of God. Perhaps it is that my abundant gifts are a special blessing for the very few to whom I am able to offer them. Do you desire to use the gifts that God has given you for His glory? Especially, do you seek to give away the gift of grace and the righteousness of Christ that you have received? Are you worthless, but have been given the invaluable gift? This, you have to give. You also can be “invalent”?

Who Should Have Grace?

A good quote by Jeff Noblit at the Building Bridges conference in Ridgecrest, NC:

"Those of us who hold to the doctrines of grace* should have some."

A hearty "Amen" from this 5-pointer.

* "doctrines of grace" refers to Reformed theology or Calvinism in particular.

Questioning God

Human beings in all the stupor of our fallen condition often ask sophomoric questions of God. After considering some act of evil one may ask, "Where was God?" Why, He's omnipresent, of course. He was there. We may also ask, more to the point, "Why does God let bad things happen?"

To answer this, we must ask the question, "What is a bad thing?" Certainly if we break God's law a bad thing has occurred. However, how bad is it? Has God been harmed by someone breaking His law? We can say that Christ was crucified and that certainly counts as being harmed. But is it? God has His ends in mind and He is not thwarted by our measly disobedience. There is no power against God in sin. Sin does harm to us, not God. In fact, He can use it to His advantage - to glorify Himself. Before whom is God glorified? Over whom does he require an advantage? He is God. He has the glory and the advantage without our faithless praise and vain prayers. That we have any proper inclination toward God is due to His condescension toward us, not our attempts to please Him. If we seek His face, we do so for our benefit, not His - for how can we benefit God? Nothing we can do in the world is untainted by sin.

So what do we say of people who are murdered or killed for no apparent reason? "They are innocent and undeserving of death," many are inclined to declare. No. All of us deserve death. We have an unfaithful view of God and His promise of eternal life if all we see is the function of our bodies in this world. There is more that this mud hole. It is a mere shadow of what God has for us. All whose bodies cease to function in this world for whatever cause are in the hands of a God who is both just and gracious.

Can we then do anything of worth? Yes, all things have worth and are redeemable by our Creator. However, God is not unconcerned for us and desires that we should do those things that benefit us. What most benefits us is a relationship with Him. This relationship in a fallen world is best fostered by our obedience to Him. He therefore gave us His law to reveal Himself to us, protect us, and provide a context to save us.

May God grant us wisdom to have faith and the power to obey.