Forgiveness, Punishment and Misconceptions.
Posted by RazorsKissMar 19
Vox Weekly’s current question is here, submitted by John Loftus (reposted from his blog, here).
This post is a response.
In my book I argue that there is no coherent understanding of the atonement. Here are some questions for those who accept the penal substitutionary view:
Fair enough.
In order for someone to be forgiven why must there be punishment at all?
Well, I think we’ve crossed terms already. The forgiveness is not dependent upon the punishment. It follows after it, but is not dependent upon it. Forgiveness is granted upon repentance, not atonement. Atonement is required to satisfy God’s Justice, and His Holiness, but not to satisfy His Mercy.
…
To forgive someone doesn’t mean that you must first punish the offender at all.
Yes, they are two different terms altogether.
Punishment is satisfied by the Atonement, and satisfies God’s Holiness.
Forgiveness is granted by God, and satisfies His Mercy.
They are related, as God will not forgive anyone who has not been atoned for. This is due to His holiness, which cannot tolerate sin. A sinful man cannot even *be in the presence of God*. It’s not a random requirement, it is necessity. For us to be with God, we must be atoned for, and our sins as if they never were – as far as the East is from the West.
Forgiveness doesn’t really depend upon the remorse of the offender, either, although it does help quite a bit. At this point it’s not up to the offender at all, but the victim who must find a way to forgive.
Remorse is onlya step toward repentance, which is required for salvation. God found a way to forgive – He substituted Himself for us. The victim took the punishment for the offender, and seeks to grant the offender eternal fellowship with him.
To forgive means bearing the suffering of what that person has done to you without retaliation.
That’s a bit of a fib. Forgiveness is pardon, excusing a mistake or offense – not bearing suffering and the like.
If I stole something from you, then forgiveness means bearing the loss without recompense.
How can we recompense God for anything we’ve done? We have no way of doing so. That doesn’t apply very well. Besides, God doesn’t want recompense. God wants Justice, and Holiness. Neither can accept anything short of perfection without negative consequences.
If I slandered you, forgiving means bearing the humiliation without retaliating.
God cannot slander us, and cannot ever commit any sin in retaliation. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
If the cross of Christ means someone got punished for my sins, then that’s not offering forgiveness, that’s punishing someone for what I did wrong.
Do you really think that forgiveness means that there are no consequences for sin? If my son or daughter steals from me – I’ll forgive him or her – but, they will still be punished for what they did. To simply allow them to do wrong, and not face consequences for it is not good parenting.
I forgive them – I do not hold it against them, and still love them. However, they will still have to face consequences for their wrongdoing.
If the cross was needed to pay the punishment for my sins, then how can God really be a forgiving God?
Punishment was for the sin. Forgiveness is for the sinner. Punishment is for the action. Forgiveness is for the actor. Actions have consequences – forgiveness does not negate those.
Forgiveness and punishment are not balance here. Atonement and punishment are. Forgiveness is the act of God to grant life eternal with Him, to those who believe. Atonement is the payment for sin by the substitutionary death of Christ. The two are not the same. Atonement is paying for the consequences of sin. Forgiveness is granting more than just not-death, but life more abundantly. Therein lies the difference.
Forgiveness doesn’t require punishment.
No, it doesn’t. Holiness and Justice does.
To put it bluntly, if I can’t forgive you for striking me on the chin until I return the blow back to you, or to someone else, then that’s not forgiveness, that’s retaliation, or sweet revenge!
Do we let criminals go free, if the families forgive them? Do we let people get away with crimes, if we choose to forgive them? Only if a pardon is signed – but the consequences are always the same, and authority has to grant that pardon to the consequences.
In God’s legal system, there is one penalty, for one crime. Death, for Sin. To pay that penalty required a substitutionary death. God’s love is still boundless, but it does not allow for sin to go unpunished. It must be atoned for, and it has been, for those who believe. For those who do not, they will take their own penalty on themselves.
Revenge is never an ethical motive for action, even if we are led to take revenge on others sometimes. John Hick: “A forgiveness that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment is not forgiveness, but merely and acknowledgment that the debt has been paid in full. (The Metaphor of God Incarnate, p. 127).
Vengeance is often quite ethical. If a man takes a life, his life is required of him. God says “the man who sins, shall die”. God is the essence of ethics, thus, you are incorrect. God Himself says “Vengeance is Mine”. So, rethink that one. Your own idea of ethical, when God says differently, won’t sway me here.
Besides, revenge is said to be wrong because it can be done spitefully, or vindictively. It’s been a mainstay of human life since human life began, just about. However, Christians are told that revenge is not ours – it is God’s – because He is Just, and Righteous in every way. How could a perfectly righteous God seek vengeance and not do so Justly and Rightly?
It’s not possible. Thus, you are incorrect.
To sum up:
Forgiveness =/= Atonement.
Punishment does not relate to forgiveness.
Vengeance is not wrong when God executes it.
That’s about it.
2 comments
Comment by John W. Loftus on March 20, 2006 at 7:24 am
Atonement is required to satisfy God’s Justice, and His Holiness, but not to satisfy His Mercy. Punishment is satisfied by the Atonement, and satisfies God’s Holiness.
So you’re saying God cannot let sin into his presence? He’s pure and sin is not allowed near him?
Exactly where does sin reside in us? Can it be located somewhere in our bodies and seen by an X-ray machine, or does it somehow make an actual black mark on our soul? The truth is that sin isn’t an existing thing at all, nor is sin something we have. We cannot hold a cupful of sin in our hands. Sin is an action we do. Once we do it, sin becomes a memory of a hurtful deed done. We don’t carry sin on us; we do sinful things. So there is no sin to bring with us into God’s presence.
Comment by Ed "What the" Heckman on March 25, 2006 at 7:20 pm
We don’t carry the actual acts of sin into God’s presence, we carry the blemishes of sin. (I’m talking here of bringing them into His presence as in a face-to-face meeting type of situation. Because God is present everywhere, we have already committed our sins “in His presence.”)
Imagine you just bought a brand new car. Your first stop after leaving the dealership is a grocery store to pick up some milk. When you return to the car, you find that someone hit your car and there’s now a huge dent in the bumper. The act itself is long over with, but as a result of that act, your car is no longer “perfect.”
Once we commit a sin, we are no longer “perfect.” Even if it’s just one “little” sin, we have crossed the line from being a perfect person to being an imperfect person. The Bible makes it clear that God cannot have anything at all to do with imperfection because he is perfect. (For example, see Psalm 5:4)
Look at it this way. Heaven is supposed to be a perfect place. But if anyone who is imperfect lives there, can heaven be considered to be perfect any more? No. You could say it’s “mostly perfect,” but it would be illogical to say that it is “perfect.” Heaven would then become “imperfect.”
The only way an imperfect person could enter a perfect place and live with a perfect being would be if that person had the imperfections removed so completely that it would as if those imperfections had never existed in the first place.
That is why mere forgiveness is not enough. The damage and imperfections of our sins must also be removed. That is why Christ had to die.
There are a couple of other things I should point out as well.
First of all, Romans 6:23 starts off with this simple statement: “the wages of sin is death.” As you read through the Bible, you’ll find that “death” is actually separation from God, not simple physical death. (See Revelation 2:11, 20:6, etc.) Furthermore, any sin automatically requires death. There is no negotiations, no decision process. God and sin simply cannot coexist. (More on this in a bit.)
Just as in earthly relationships, our relationship with God requires action from both parties in order for the relationship to be restored. If someone does something to harm you—let’s say they steal something from you—you could forgive them, but you won’t be able to have a relationship with them unless they express remorse over their actions. In other words, you certainly won’t go bowling, or to a football or baseball game, or invite the person who stole your (new) car over to dinner if that person is unrepentant. No, you would stay as far away from them as possible, even if you have forgiven them.
Jesus reflected this two part difference between forgiveness and reconciliation in His direct teachings. Consider these verses:
Notice that the only way the relationship can be restored (“you have regained your brother”) is for the transgressor to admit that they are wrong and express repentance. If no such repentance is expressed, there is to be no relationship at all with the transgressor.
As I was working on this, I did a quick search on the word “forgive” in the NASB translation. It was rather interesting to read through the verses that were found. In nearly every instance where the word “forgive” was used, the concept of someone being forgiven either required repentance or the passage was an expression of repentance and a request for forgiveness. There were some verses where the writer was asking God not to listen and forgive some people who repent, but even then, the concept of forgiveness was tied to repentance.
There was only one exception to this pattern:
Even here, forgiving other men is a form of repentance and an admission to God that we are no better than the other man we were holding a grudge against. Even so, forgiving someone for a transgression does not mean there will be a relationship with the other man. It merely means we are willing to do our part, just as God was willing to do His part.
The Bible clearly teaches that God desires a relationship with us. It also clearly states that sin creates a separation (death) from God. There are two parts required for our relationship with God to be fixed: An action on God’s part to remove the imperfections of sin and a willingness to forgive, and an action on our part to admit that we are wrong and that we want a relationship with God. Just as in human relationships, no relationship with God is possible without both sides doing their part to build the relationship. Is that really so surprising that God would ask us to do our part when He has already done His part?