Sunday,
29th of August 2004
early morning |
Differing Views of Forgiveness
I decided to do a Google search on 'Christian forgiveness'
to see what others thought about this issue, and I actually found
the whole range of beliefs. What was intersting was how some pages
cited scripture and some never mentioned it. Oddly enough, I
wonder if certain beliefs are being propogated although they are
unScriptural and totally the invention of man?
(I only scanned these articles, but I believe I did it well
enough to see what their arguments were and how they arrived to
their conclusions. Probably later, when I have more time, I'll
go back and reread them a little more.)
The two best articles were
A Case for Conditional Christian Forgiveness (which follows
more along my current understanding) and
The Question of Christian Forgiveness (a more moderate
understanding). These actually pulled a lot of scripture out to
defend their positions and used language that indicated
understanding of more than just choice Bible verses. :) This
one, You are Forgiven, was weird because I'm not sure
where he was getting some of his definitions from. He has a
remarkeably unique definition for repentance as far as I know.
This one,
Eight Forgiveness Questions to Ponder, gives many of the
questions and responses I'm used to hearing, but if you notice
there is no Scriptural foundation for his arguments. As far as I
can tell it may as well be advice from the World. According to
Confession and Forgiveness we are already forgiven
by God, so you don't need to seek it more than say, "Hey, God! I
agree that I just sinned!" And IVPress has a book out about
forgiveness,
Forgiving and Reconciling, which has in its description what
I've found to be the common understanding of forgiveness, "While
forgiveness is something that we can do on our own, reconciliation
involves another party." This automatically assumes that
forgiveness has nothing to do with reconciliation, hence no
repentance is necessary.
With all these divergent views on forgiveness, it's not
surprising that I feel I am always in conflict with people on
this issue. Most surprising is how some of the articles not only
diverge on their understanding of forgiveness, but on their complete
understanding of the Gospel, which becomes a factor in their
discerning the true nature of forgiveness. It's amazing how much
our own worldviews can effect the way we read Scripture!
I hope I don't define my understanding of Scripture by my own
worldview, but instead define my worldview by what God teaches
me. Looking through a few of those articles I almost felt as
though there was a conforming of Scripture to personal beliefs,
or unchallenged handed-down doctrines. That's why I liked the
first two articles Google found on www.grace4u.org. They seem to
be better thought out, and deal with the passages I'd expect to
be brought up in a serious understanding of forgiveness.
|
Thursday,
26th of August 2004
late evening |
God, Forgive Them
Although most references to forgiveness I've found indicate a
form of repentance, there are two I know exist which seem to be
in the face of the unrepentant: Luke 23:34 and Acts 7:60.
Luke 23:34 is where Jesus says, "Father, forgive them; for they
know not what they do" (RSV), when Jesus is being hung on the
cross. Acts 7:60 is where Stephen says, "Lord, do not hold this
sin against them" (RSV), when Stephen is being stoned to death.
I've checked the Strongest Strong's and it indicates that the
words used are different, although I'd heard they were related,
so I'm actually surprised they aren't the same. The key word
used in Luke is the same as many New Testament references
(meaning to remit, cancel, pardon, forgive, leave, ...), but the
key word in Acts one appears to be used in a more 'spelled out'
fashion (it means 'lay to charge' or 'hold against'). I guess
the one in Luke is a positive statement to throw away, and the
one in Acts is a negative statement to not keep.
Anyway, both seem to be asking God to forgive people who are
certainly not repentant at that moment. :) So, how do these
two passages come together nicely with all the other passages
that constantly call for 'repentance'? I think it's amazing
that these are the only two passages that people bring up
against the idea that forgiveness needs repentance. To their
credit, they are responses by two people who really knew God's
will. As for Jesus', He knows God's will infallibly. :)
I've pointed out to others that Jesus had the power to tell
people "your sins are forgiven" (Matt 9:2, Mark 2:6,
Luke 5:20, Luke 7:48), but He doesn't say this here. Instead,
He defers to His Father. So, I'm wondering if His asking is not
so much a done deal as it is asking for grace so that they
aren't condemned absolutely on the spot for their heinous crime.
In another thought, these statements certainly are anything but
seeking vengence. And even if God was to overlook these
particular sins, they are still in rebellion against God, so
these single-event forgives are not heal-alls. (Maybe the crime
would be such that God would strike them down without a chance
if a petition wasn't given at that moment?)
Any further thoughts?
|
Tuesday,
24th of August 2004
late evening |
Taking on the Debts of Others
Such a great thing it is to just read through books of the
Bible with your friends! This past Saturday I was spending some
time with two friends, and while trying to think of something to
do after a movie we watched, one of them suggested we could read
some Epistles straight through without commentary and just listen
to the words. So each of us took turns reading a full epistle and
listening. It was great!
I wanted to read Philemon. It's so overlooked. Anyway, what
really struck me was what Paul wrote in verses 17-19, "So if you
consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. If
he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to
my account. I, Paul, write this with my own hand, I will repay
it--to say nothing of your owing me even your own self" (RSV).
Paul really gave Onesimus encouragement by sending him with a
letter where he promised to pay for whatever debts Onesimus
may have. Paul may have had the assurance that the debt would be
waived, but for him to an assumption and put himself at risk by
saying he would pay whatever was not forgiven is remarkable!
How many of us would take this type of step? Sometimes it is
just too easy to give assurance without taking on any personal
consequences. "Don't worry, I won't break your computer, I've
worked on them before!" Well, you could add, "If I break it,
I'll personally buy you another one." Would we still be willing
to help someone, even if we had to make such a statement of
faith? After all, something unplanned for may go wrong and you
may owe them a computer. Yet, in their own weakness they may be
afraid to let you work on their precious computer without this
type of assurance (or rather insurance).
Probably a better example may be a senario where I'm trying to
convince someone to play a sport they probably won't get injured
in, yet they are frightened that they may get hurt, and they
don't have insurance or the money to afford hospitalization.
Am I willing to put my money where my words are? Will I assure
them that if they get hurt that I will pay for the damages
because I'm certain they won't get hurt? Or will I sit back and
continue to push them to take their own chance and not try to
take on any responsibility?
I believe it shows strength of conviction to take on the
responsibility of what we say won't happen. And when God has
made me aware, I can sometimes find myself avoiding that
responsibility, but now when I'm aware, I know that if I am
truly convicted, then I must be willing to put something of
myself up for surety. Perhaps it's not wise to be surety for
others (Prov 6:1-5), but it's all the more reason why being
surety for myself can be such a strong indication of what I
believe, and what I truly stand for!
|
Friday,
13th of August 2004
early evening |
Strong's Concordance and Greek-English Lexicon
While searching the web I noticed that people were saying you
could find out what the original Greek was using a Strong's
Concordance (as well as an English definition for the Greek)
so I went to the book store on Wednesday and bought one (I
actually bought The Strongest Strong's). :) But, just to
make sure I was able to find out the definition of a particular
word outside of New Testament context, I bought a Greek-English
Lexicon. So now I can be a little bit surer I can choose the
correct English definitions to use. :)
|
Tuesday,
10th of August 2004
early evening |
Greek Definition of Forgiveness
I asked a pastor to look it up for me, but I became a little
impatient, so I did a websearch using the transliteral greek word
used as forgiveness in many of the New Testament texts
(Matt 6:14,15, Luke 17:3,4, Luke 23:34, Col 1:14 are a few). The
two main forms I located were afes and afete, but there were a
few others. I don't know Greek, so I'm assuming these are all
apart of the same root. It was also difficult to find discussions
directly on these definitions, however when they did provide
a definiton, it had words such as forgive, pardon, and release.
So, forgive is always paired with a word
that refers to the definition given for forgiveness as being
to pardon. No definitions mention releasing anger, so as far
as I can see forgiveness does refer to pardon or dismissal of
charges in those passages. It seems odd then that so
many people talk, not about pardoning others when they
forgive (the type described in the Bible), but talk about
releasing anger. Where do they get that translation?
So many people tell me that the reason why we forgive is so
that we don't destroy ourselves due to building anger. And I
can see that's why we release our anger, so that we can love
(agape) more effectively, but that's not a pardon.
It would seem that people use the word 'forgive' in a sense
differently than that used in the Bible and yet act as though
they are doing the same thing.
I believe they are tricking themselves into thinking they forgive
as Christ and His Apostles directed, but in reality they're using
the same English word, but wrong definition. However, I'm not a
Greek scholar, so I'll have to say this with a caveat: If you
know I'm wrong, please let me know!
(My thoughts on forgiveness:
The Purpose
of Forgiveness)
|
Friday,
6th of August 2004
evening |
Absolute Definitions versus Relative Definitions
Everyone talks about absolute truth versus relative truth, and
sometimes I'm not sure if they know what they're talking about.
What's really important is to consider absolute definitions versus
relative definitions for the words we use. How can I be sure if
they are saying what I think they are saying if I can't be sure
what they intend to mean is the same thing as I interpret them
as meaning? What if my sematics are different than their
semantics? How do you know what I'm trying to say is what
you think I'm saying?
Let's say I have a rock. Everyone will immediately have some
idea of what a rock is. It's some hard lump of stone. Someone
might say, the absolute definition of rock is this hard lump of
stone. It may be a very common definition of rock, but the
definitions of words are quite variable. Just because rock may
have meant only that at some point, it now can possibly refer
to music. So, the abstract understanding hard lump of stone is
in fact the only thing that's absolute if we each experience it
in the same way, otherwise the definition of the word could
change, and some day rock may just refer to the music! How
about that! :)
So, someone could tell me because they are sure of what they've
learned, "I understand this topic like a rock?", and I could
think silently to myself, "I guess it sings in your head
continuously. How odd." Probably a bad example, but still it
shows how communication can break down because definitions
aren't absolute.
In fact, I've had so many problems with miscommunication
even after telling people ahead of time the definition of a
word, such as "rock refers to a rowdy and exiting type of
music". I'll say afterwards, "I like rock. My favorite rock
band is called Harvey." And they'll say, "You like stones?
I do too! You like to wear bands made of rock and actually
name them! Wow, you are weird!" A very extreme example, but
it happens so often I can't take the risk of trying something
more subtle! I can't even be sure if anyone gets this one!
:( Semantics are just too relative!
Going back to why absolute and relative truth is less important
than symantics. It's because the definitions of absolute,
relative, and truth are all relative! DOH! And so, I'm not
even sure if you even get that because the meaning is all
relative! Relative! Relative! DOH! You may have the
meanings of relative and absolute reversed and misunderstand
me! :(
So, how do we even know if we properly interpret books we read
if definitions can be so easily changed depending on the viewer?
Is the book dependant on the writer or the reader? One could
say the definitions of the words are absolute from the frame
of mind of the writer who understands what he means to say,
but to all of society it's all relative because they don't
necessarily know precisely what he just said. And since we
all look through relative spectacles, and aren't him, it may
as well be relative! :)
The beauty of this discovery is that I can now use it to make
things say what I want them to say! Hmmm. I think friend
means you do what I want you to do for me. I think that's a
swell definition, so if you don't, then I'll just say you're
not me friend! Who cares if you think you're doing what's
best for me, if it's not what I want, you're not my friend!
Nya! Nya! So, now I can read through Scripture and get all
types of good, yet sometimes confusing messages, because
sometimes it seems like friend is used this way, yet
sometimes it's not, but I really like this definition! It
makes sense to me. It's not as though what the author
actually intended to mean is important for understanding...
So, are definitions relative or absolute? Well, for those of
you who are like me, and can care less about approaching the
intended meaning, and find reaching for the easy and personally
understandable meaning the way to go, I'd say it's all relative.
For anyone who is really intent on understanding what the
author truly believed he had put on paper, which would be a
more absolute definition, I feel sorry for them and their lost
cause. In the end you're liable to just think you
discovered what they had written by distorting all the
definitions just right so it all makes sense to you.
Ha! Ha! So you still don't know what they're saying! At
least my way is the easy way, and I can feel comfortable
right away without concern of having been wrong!
And is this what I really believe? It all depends on how
you interpret what I've just written. I am the author, and I
know what I meant to say, but expecting anyone to understand
what I just said is quite another matter!
In reality, the point I intend to make is that it makes no
sense to read or hear someone's words if I don't intend to
approach, in my own mind, the absolute meaning of what they
say. If I don't seek to use the proper definitions, what
they say means nothing close to what they believed they
were saying, and so what I see and what they see can be
quite different. When people honestly try to translate from
one language to another language, they try to transfer meaning
as accurately as
possible between the two languages. Why is it then that so
many people insist upon their own definitions and lack
concern about understanding words in the context of the
writers who used them? How can I truly change what a writer
wrote by using the definitions from more contemporary
language? You can't. You can only have a break down in
communication. You can only lack understanding and wisdom.
|
Thursday,
5th of August 2004
evening |
Doing Your Own Thing.
The past two weeks the SBCC church I'm attending has been
covering Matt 21-22. I thought of something
while rereading Matt 21:28-32,
"What do you think? A man had
two sons; and he went to the first and said, 'Son, go and
work in the vineyard today.' And he answered, 'I will not';
but afterward he repented and went. And he went to the second
and said the same; and he answered, 'I go, sir,' but did not go.
Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said,
"The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you,
the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of
God before you. For John came to you in the way of
righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax
collectors and the harlots believed him; and even when you
saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe him.
Usually I just read it as the second one saying he'll do it,
but not doing it because he doesn't care. But I thought maybe
some of the priests might say, "But we do the will of God.
Aren't we in the fields?" Well, the parable would say
no. So I just mused what if the first says he'll go but was
careless about the directions (still because he didn't care, but
at the point of agreeing, he was really agreeing about something
completely different) he ended up in the wrong field. So the
disobeying could be as much from hard of hearing as anything else.
The person who said "no" knew exactly what he didn't want
to do. He was actively rebelling, but when it came to his
repentance he not only knew he was saying no to working in
a field, he knew details, like which field. :)
I'm just musing about this. I'm probably just reading too
much into it, but I'd never thought of that possibility before!
No Free Lunch!
In the wedding feast passage (Matt 22:1-14) I thought it was
interesting what happened at the end with the guy without the
wedding garment on (Matt 22:11-12).
"But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there
a man who had no wedding garment; and he said to him, 'Friend,
how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was
speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand
and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will
weep and gnash their teeth.'
It struck me that we often joke about 'free food' being the
reason to go to particular events, and often those of us who
go just for the food don't have the proper attitude when we
show up. The only words we heard was 'food to be served'.
I remember many times having problems as a student leader with
people appearing, taking the food, and disappearing right away.
They were obviously not interested in the purpose of the
meeting.
Well, in this parable, first the king invites a whole bunch of
people, but they've got things to do that please them more than
hanging out with the king. So the king says, fine! I'll invite
everyone else and certainly some of them will be interested!
Well, someone showed up and heard the word 'banquet' and didn't
hear the 'wedding' part. :) Here they were thinking
they'd get some good food and what they really received was much
worse!
And this led me to the thought that sometimes people treat being
Christian as a way to avoid Hell and have eternal life in Heaven.
They want people to know God not for the sake of knowing,
glorifying, and enjoying Him, but so that they may live in
Heaven too and not suffer the flames of Hell. Let's say someone
did decide to become a Christian just to avoid the flames of Hell.
Isn't that like showing up to feast on eternal life but not really
being there for the real purpose, which is to party with God?
|