Reformed Imputation and the Lord’s Prayer
Jun 8th, 2010 | By Bryan Cross | Category: Blog PostsAccording to the Reformed Protestant doctrine, on the cross Christ paid the penalty for all the sins of all and only the elect. And when those persons first believe in Christ, that redemption is applied to them such that all their past, present and future sins are forgiven, and Christ’s perfect righteousness is permanently imputed to them. But this raises a difficulty. When Christ taught us to pray, He prescribed a daily prayer in which we not only ask for our daily bread, but we also ask daily for the forgiveness of our trespasses. But if at the moment we first believe, all our past, present and future sins are forgiven, then why should we subsequently ask for the forgiveness of our sins? Here I will argue that praying the Lord’s Prayer is incompatible with the Reformed notion that all our past, present, and future sins are already forgiven.
Westminster Assembly Portrait
According to Reformed theology, on the cross Christ paid the penalty for all the sins of all and only the elect. The Westminster Confession of Faith states, “Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf.”1 Those sins are all already punished, and they cannot be re-punished. According to the Reformed position, at the moment the sinner believes the gospel, Christ’s redemptive work is applied to him. “They are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.”2 At the moment the sinner believers, Christ’s righteousness is permanently and irrevocably imputed to him. All his past, present and future sins have all already been ‘laid on’ Christ on the cross two thousand years ago. Therefore at the moment he believes the gospel, all his past, present and future sins have not only already been paid for; they are all forgiven.
It is not as though at the moment he believes the gospel, God says to him,
All your sins have already been paid for, but I’ve only forgiven your past and present sins; I have not yet forgiven your future sins, even though my Son has already paid for them all. When in the future you commit sins (that my Son has already paid for), you’re going to need to confess and repent of them if you want to be forgiven for them. But, even if you don’t confess them and repent of them, I can’t punish you for them, because I already punished my Son for them. Therefore you can’t go to hell. And there’s no limbo, so the only place you can go is heaven. Thus even if you don’t confess these post-justification sins, you’ll enter heaven just the same, after the instant sanctification that takes place at your death. So, it really doesn’t matter for you whether I forgive those future sins of yours or not, because you go to heaven anyway. And therefore, it really doesn’t matter whether you confess and repent of your future sins. The thing you need to keep in mind, however, is that if in the future you find yourself not confessing and repenting of your future sins, that’s a possible indicator that you were never justified in the first place, and you might have been created to show forth my wrath.
That’s not the Reformed doctrine of forgiveness. In Reformed theology, all past, present and future sins are forgiven at the moment we believe. Nor, according to Reformed theology does God impute to Christ only those sins that the sinner has already committed, and then, when the believer later confesses subsequent sins, impute those subsequent sins to Christ. No. In Reformed theology the imputation is not piece-meal or successive. It takes place once and entirely, at the moment the sinner first believes. Once the double-imputation has occurred (i.e. all his past, present and future sins are imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to him) at the moment he believes, then he is permanently and irrevocably pardoned and forgiven for all his past, present and future sins.
One problem with this doctrine is that Christ enjoins us in the Lord’s Prayer to pray daily for the forgiveness of our sins. If all our sins are paid for and forgiven, then it makes no sense to ask daily for the forgiveness for our sins. If we are supposed to believe that all our past, present and future sins were already paid for on the cross and forgiven at the moment we first believed, then to ask daily for the forgiveness of our sins is to contradict the doctrine that at the moment we first believed all these sins were already forgiven. Believing that all our sins are already forgiven is incompatible with asking daily for the forgiveness of our sins.
Referring to the Lord’s Prayer, the Westminster Confession of Faith says
God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God’s Fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.3
So, on the one hand, in the Reformed view our past, present and future sins are all already forgiven at the moment we first believe. But on the other hand, in the Reformed view God continues to forgive our sins. The problem is that if our sins are all already forgiven, then there is no reason for God to keep forgiving them. If God is still forgiving them, this implies that they are not all already forgiven. So there is a contradiction here. The doctrine teaches that the sins are all already forgiven. The prayer teaches that the sins are not all already forgiven.
One way of attempting to resolve the contradiction is to make a distinction between God forgiving our sins, and restoring us to fellowship. According to this view, all our past, present and future sins are entirely forgiven at the moment we believe, and at that moment we are brought into fellowship with God. But, if we sin at any subsequent moment, then even though those sins are already forgiven, we lose fellowship with God, until we confess our sins and “beg pardon.” The idea is not that some sins are more severe than others, causing only loss of fellowship, but not causing loss of forgiveness. The WCF itself says “there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation.” (WCF XV.4) The idea, rather, is that after justification, no sin causes loss of forgiveness, but sin can cause loss of fellowship.
The problem with this position is that given the completed nature of the double imputation at our justification, there is no basis for God’s subsequent “Fatherly displeasure” and our loss of fellowship (i.e. losing the “light of His countenance”) with Him on account of our post-justification sins. If all our sins are already paid for, and when He sees us He sees the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us, then there is no reason for Him to be displeased with us, unless He is peeking behind the imputed righteousness. But if He is peeking, then we’re not really covered. And if we are not really covered, then since “there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation,” and because we sin every day in thought, word, and deed, then God is severely displeased with us every day. If, however, God is ever pleased with us when peeking behind the imputed righteousness of Christ, then simul iustus et peccator is false. But if after justification simul iustus et peccator is always true in this life, then if God peeks, we are always under His Fatherly displeasure until we are entirely sanctified in heaven. Given the truth of simul iustus et peccator, the Reformed position viz-a-viz justification entails that after justification either God is always entirely pleased with us on account of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us, or God is always entirely displeased with us if He is peeking behind the imputed righteousness of Christ.
There is a third logical possibility, namely, that there are two qualitatively different levels of righteousness by which God is pleased. The first level is the forgiveness of sins and imputation of Christ’s righteousness; attaining this pleases God in a sufficient but still incomplete way. The second level of righteousness presupposes having already attained the first level; this second level is the level of pleasing or displeasing God above and beyond the perfect righteousness of Christ, by our repentance, confession of sins, and good works. One problem with this dualistic conception of righteousness is that given the truth of simul iustus et peccator, and given that “there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation,” imputation makes God pleased with the believer only if God doesn’t peek behind the imputed righteousness. But if God is peeking behind the imputed righteousness, then given the truth of simul iustus et peccator, and given that “there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation,” it follows by necessity that the believer is doomed.
A second problem with this dualistic conception of righteousness is that it makes Christ’s work insufficient to please God completely. According to this position, God is only partially pleased with us by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. He is at least pleased enough to let us into heaven, but He is not perfectly pleased with us. We have to work to merit the additional Fatherly pleasure that was not provided by the imputation of Christ’s perfect sacrifice. This situation is a bit like paying the penalty for sins in purgatory. Reformed theology doesn’t accept the notion of purgatory in large part because if we have to suffer in some way for our sins, it implies that Christ’s work was not sufficient to make us pleasing to God. So likewise, if we have to work, and confess, and repent, and do good works (and even suffer) in order to gain this additional Fatherly pleasure that didn’t come with justification, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, this implies that Christ’s work was incomplete.
In the section titled “Of Repentance unto Life,” the Westminster Confession of Faith reads:
III. Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.
IV. As there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; so there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.
V. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly.
VI. As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof, upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy …4
Logically, either these statements are limited to the time of justification, or they also refer to the post-justification period. If they are referring to a time prior to justification, then it raises the difficulty of explaining how there can be repentance by those who are still “dead in their sins.” Since Reformed theology does not distinguish between actual grace and sanctifying grace,5 for Reformed theology there is no possibility of repentance prior to justification. But, if these statements from WCF XV are about the time after justification, then since the believer already knows that all of his past, present and future sins have already been forgiven at justification, it makes no sense to say that he should not expect pardon for his post-justification sins, without repentance. It makes no sense to state that he should be “praying for the pardon thereof” or that upon forsaking these post-justification sins he will “find mercy.” According to Reformed theology all these sins were already pardoned at the moment he first believed, and thus he already found mercy for all these sins at that moment. The Reformed teaching that all his past, present and future sins were already paid for on the cross, and that Christ’s perfect righteousness was already imputed to him at the moment he first believed, does not fit with the notion that he needs to pray for the pardon of his post-justification sins, and that if he forsakes them he will find mercy. Either his post-justification sins are all already pardoned, in which case he doesn’t need to ask pardon (because that would be an act of unbelief), or they are not all already pardoned, in which case justification isn’t what Reformed theology teaches it to be.
Regarding this problem Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof writes:
“The usual position of Reformed theology, however, is that in justification God indeed removes the guilt, but not the culpability of sin, that is, He removes the sinner’s just amenability to punishment, but not the inherent guiltiness of whatever sins he may continue to perform. The latter remains and therefore always produces in believers a feeling of guilt, of separation from God, of sorrow, of repentance, and so on. Hence they feel the need of confessing their sins, even the sins of their youth, Ps. 25:7; 51:5-9. The believer who is really conscious of his sin feels within him an urge to confess it and to seek the comforting assurance of forgiveness. Moreover, such confession and prayer is not only a subjectively felt need, but also an objective necessity. Justification is essentially an objective declaration respecting the sinner in the tribunal of God, but it is not merely that; it is also an actus transiens, passing into the consciousness of the believer. The divine sentence of acquittal is brought home to the sinner and awakens the joyous consciousness of the forgiveness of sins and of favor with God. Now this consciousness of pardon and of a renewed filial relationship is often disturbed and obscured by sin, and is again quickened and strengthened by confession and prayer, and by a renewed exercise of faith.”6
Berkhof is claiming that at the moment of justification, God removes the penalty for all past, present and future sin, but not necessarily the subjective feeling of guilt for whatever sins we continue to commit after we come to faith. Because we feel these guilty feelings, even though after our justification we are no longer subject to punishment for any sins we commit, but perpetually stand entirely cleared by God’s declaration, we still feel the need (“urge”) to confess our sins and gain assurance of forgiveness. According to Berkhof, this urge we feel indicates that it is an “objective necessity” for us to continue to confess and pray for forgiveness, so that as we do so, the fact of our having been already forgiven for all our past, present and future sins will sink more deeply into our consciousness.
According to Berkhof’s position, after our justification, feelings of guilt are untrue; they have not yet caught up to what one knows by faith to be true about one’s standing before God. Therefore, it would follow that we should welcome the overcoming or cessation of such feelings. We should outgrow them as our feelings conform to the truth. At least, if we can outgrow such feelings we should. Berkhof claims that the standard Reformed position on the purpose of confessing our sins and asking God for forgiveness after our justification is not to gain forgiveness of sins, but to relieve the subjective urge we feel to confess, and to acquire the comforting feelings of assurance that our sins are forgiven.
This seems to me to be a rather Freudian/Jungian psychologizing of the purpose of “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us” which we pray in the Lord’s Prayer, and of the Apostle John’s statement, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9) Instead of allowing these passages to revise the Reformed conception of justification, the Reformed believer uses the Reformed conception of justification to construe these passages as teaching not that we daily need our sins forgiven, but that we daily need to feel that our sins are forgiven. It sentimentalizes these passages in order to preserve its doctrine of justification. According to Berkhof, even though before God we do not need to ask forgiveness, and we know that we do not need to ask for forgiveness, nevertheless the human psyche has a primitive urge to continue to ask for forgiveness for continued sins. And this is why Jesus included this line in the Lord’s Prayer, because He knew that even though we would know that all our sins were already forgiven, we would still need to live and pray as though our sins were not all forgiven. In other words, it was on account of human weakness that Christ included this line in the Lord’s Prayer, much as it was on account of human weakness that Moses included the permission for divorce. (Matthew 19:8)
What I find most strange about this notion is that in order to convince ourselves in our feelings that all our past, present and future sins were forgiven at the moment of our justification, Berkhof encourages us to do certain acts that imply that our sins still need to be forgiven. So according to Berkhof it is good that we daily confess and ask forgiveness, and in doing so, comfort ourselves by making ourselves think that in confessing our sins daily and in asking God daily to forgive them, somehow that activity ensures that God has forgiven us, even though in actuality our past, present and future sins were all already forgiven at the moment of our justification. The problem here is that asking daily for forgiveness teaches the exact opposite; it teaches that our sins are not yet all forgiven. If we were composing a prayer that teaches that our sins still need to be forgiven, something like the line in the Lord’s Prayer is precisely what we would write. But if were composing a prayer for teaching Berkhof’s theology of justification, it would replace that line in the Lord’s Prayer with this one: “I thank you Lord that all my sins, past, present, and future were already forgiven when I first believed.” For this reason, the psychology explanation does not work; it reduces us to beasts governed by urges and instincts. If we are governed by reason, then we should speak and live according to the truth. And if the truth is that all our past, present and future sins were already forgiven when we first believed, then we should speak and live according to that truth. But if we should speak and live as though our sins daily need to be forgiven, and we should speak and live according to the truth, then it follows that at least our future sins were not forgiven when we first believed.
If Berkhof is correct that the standard Reformed position is this psychologized notion of the purpose of continued confession and asking for forgiveness, then Reformed teachers and pastors should be urging all believers to try to get over this urge to confess and ask for forgiveness. The goal should be to get over the felt-need to say that line in the Lord’s Prayer, or anything like it. True integration of mind, heart and feelings, that is, true spiritual maturity would be to get to the point where one would simply leave out that line when praying the Lord’s Prayer, and feel no guilt or compunction in doing so. Pastors, being mature, would tell their congregations that they [the pastors] no longer confess their sins or ask God for forgiveness, because they do not feel those inaccurate feelings of guiltiness any more; they are fully convinced, in mind and feelings, that all their past, present, and future sins were forgiven at the moment of their justification, and their sheep should all seek to reach that same mature state. But if that is not their belief, their practice or their goal, then they need to believe that sins are forgiven progressively, over the course of a believer’s life. But if our sins are forgiven progressively, then either our sins are progressively imputed to Christ on the cross, or the satisfaction doctrine of the Atonement is correct.
Our Father, who art in Heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done
On earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
- WCF XI.3. [↩]
- WCF XI.4 [↩]
- WCF XI.5 [↩]
- WCF XV.3-6. [↩]
- See “A Reply from a Romery Person.” [↩]
- Systematic Theology, p. 515. [↩]
I have encountered Christians who specifically don’t pray the Our Father (and don’t think that it should be prayed) because 1) they believe as you described that their sins are all already forgiven and 2) they don’t believe that you should talk to our Father in “rote” language.
They said that you can use the Our Father prayer as a springboard for praying to God but always in your own words, and knowing your sins are already all forgiven.
Again, St. Augustine takes the Catholic position:
Devin,
If I remember correctly, that is exactly what I was taught, growing up. This non-use of the Lord’s Prayer was further bolstered by Dispensationalism, which construed the lion’s share of Our Lord’s words (especially in the Synoptics) as being addressed to ethnic Jews rather than the Church.
I heard that by some professors at Moody who held to old-style Dispensationalism. Talk about being a fish out of water, try being a Covenanal, Reformed Calvinist listening to the White Horse Inn at MBI.
Bryan,
I remember some time ago at Jason’s blog we got into this discussion. I am struck by how our Lord tells us not only to ask for forgiveness but, as you mention, with the qualifier, “as we forgive those who…” I love how the Liturgy, in calling us to pray this most bold of prayers (when I teach the Catechism’s section on the “Our Father” I lead in by telling the kids that this prayer is not for the faint of heart and their reactions tell it all), “we are bold to say” or, “we dare to say”. I am asking God to forgive me not only my sins, but only to forgive me as I forgive others. The only way to understand this prayer in any meaningful way is as the Church instructs us.
Devin, Tim, Andrew,
None of the Church Fathers got the memo about not praying the Lord’s Prayer. (Perhaps the Apostles should have asked Jesus for an updated version of the Lord’s Prayer, one that took into account what He did on Good Friday.) So, either the Apostles bungled that one badly by failing to teach the Church Fathers that the Lord’s Prayer was not to be prayed in the New Covenant period, or the Church Fathers prayed the Lord’s Prayer because the Apostles themselves prayed the Lord’s Prayer in all the churches as they carried out their apostolic mission.
Tom,
I agree. Why would the forgiveness of sins while Christ was on earth depend in some way on forgiving those who sin against oneself, but the forgiveness of sins after Pentecost not depend at all on forgiving those who sin against oneself? That doesn’t make sense. Weren’t those under the Old Covenant also “justified by faith.” If so, then either only during an additional three-year dispensation (during the earthly ministry of Christ) was forgiveness contingent upon forgiving those who sinned against oneself, or what Jesus enjoins in the Lord’s Prayer about asking for our sins to be forgiven, applies from the fall of Adam to the time of Christ’s coming in glory.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Also, just to be clear, I’m not only pointing out a contradiction between (1) believing that all one’s past, present and future sins are already forgiven and (2) praying the Lord’s Prayer after coming to that belief. I’m also pointing out a contradiction between the Reformed doctrine of justification (in which one’s past, present and future sins all are forgiven at the moment of faith) presented in WCF XI and the Reformed doctrine regarding post-faith repentance presented in WCF XV in which one is enjoined to pray for the pardon of one’s sins. It is the WCF that appeals to the Lord’s Prayer as the basis for its claim that “God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified.” (WCF XI.5) Those persons who refuse to pray the Lord’s Prayer are, though misguided, being consistent. The consistency problem is in the Reformed theology itself, which teaches that all our sins are already forgiven, and that it is not the case that all are sins are already forgiven. That’s not an ‘antinomy;’ that’s a contradiction.
Bryan,
I think you’ve expressed well the tension between the apparently “continuing” aspect of our forgiveness as expressed in the Lord’s Prayer with the “once and for all forgiveness” we see in the Reformed view. Interestingly though, in contrast with the quotation you gave from Berkhof, the Westminster Shorter Catechism has this to say about the “forgive us our debts” clause of the Lord’s Prayer:
I won’t quote from it here, but the answer of the Heidelberg Catechism is quite similar. Both view this clause as a bona fide request for God to forgive our sins, though Berkhof doesn’t seem to agree that there is really an objective element here. Certainly the wording of the Lord’s Prayer leaves no doubt that the Catechism is interpreting it properly by seeing it as genuinely asking God to forgive us our sins, but as you pointed out, this doesn’t exactly fit in with a complete and total past forgiveness that all the justified are supposed to have.
Perhaps this is supposed to simply be an area of theological tension in Reformed theology, even if we can’t exactly make it all make sense?
Devin,
I haven’t had an evangelical personally tell me that we shouldn’t pray the Lord’s Prayer, but I do recall once sitting through a sermon on the Prayer in a Southern Baptist church (no offense to Southern Baptists or this particular pastor intended–I am a Baptist myself at present, though theologically undecided), where the pastor said at the end that he had considered having us all pray the Lord’s Prayer in unison, but since that would be too much like “vain repetitions,” he would instead show us a multi-media video of the words of the Lord’s Prayer floating across inspiring scenes on screen while a woman sang the prayer. One wonders why having a congregation pray together in the same words, which Christ Himself taught the disciples, is somehow sub-Christian.
Of course, needless to say, many Presbyterian churches do make the Lord’s Prayer an essential part of their worship. I don’t think the evangelical suspicion of the Lord’s Prayer (or other written prayers) can be justly imputed to the Reformed churches, and certainly not to the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Pax Christi,
Spencer
Spencer,
Thanks for the quotation from the SC.
Just curious: If what I’m pointing out here were actually a contradiction, and not mere ‘tension’ (whatever exactly that is), how would it be any different? It seems to me that it wouldn’t be any different. In other words, this seems to me to be an actual contradiction, not merely an apparent contradiction.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
One of my experiences was with a Baptist of my acquaintance who noted that the Lord’s Prayer was not intended to be said, but was a framework for how prayer should be structured. He and his wife had left Methodism for a particular Baptist Church, bringing their children, and at some point in time, all of their family were “saved.”
One of the sons was a hellion and died at a young age (late teens / early 20s) in pursuit of that goal. The Baptist recognized that his son was not living a Christian or moral life but, according to his beliefs, once saved / always saved, that it did not matter. I later heard him give this explanation on his son’s behalf and noted at the time that the words lacked conviction and his eyes could not rest. He wasn’t really defending a point, he was searching for a way out of the dilemma. He was not convinced about the forgiven state of his son’s soul. He believed that morality came from God and, theology notwithstanding, could not divorce morality from how life is lived. The last time I saw him he was in pain over his son and that young man’s choices when he arrived at death.
How do you apologize when no apology is needed? To whom do you confess (John 20:23) when your theology precludes the need to confess to anything?
Donald,
When I dabbled in the Baptist, Methodist, Bible, and Evangelical (of all stripes) communities, I was told the same thing (the majority of the time), that the “Lord’s Prayer” was never meant to be said as a mantra, rather it was a “framework” for prayer. Of course the Catholic position is that it is both the perfect prayer that the Lord fully intended us to pray and that it is also a framework for prayer, but I digress.
Before I began discerning Catholicism, the Lord’s Prayer and the verses that immediately follow it (where Our Lord reiterates that “if we do not forgive, neither will the Father forgive us” for the slow) always struck me. On the surface and taken literally, their meaning is totally obvious… but, naturally, it just didn’t logically fit with the Protestant system as a whole, so I chose to ignore them. That was my intent for avoiding the Lord’s Prayer. When I began discerning Catholicism, it was such a relief to me that I could read those verses again without feeling the guilt of intellectual dishonesty. Around the same time, I had innocently posed the question of “what do you make of those verses” to a very faithful Reformed cousin of mine while we were discussing Scripture. Her reply was, “I’ve always struggled with those verses and I really don’t know what to make of them”. I could totally empathize.
It was also interesting to read Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus in completion for the first time as well. As an Evangelical Protestant, it seemed that John 3 began and ended with John 3:16. The verse completely plucked out of an entire dialogue almost without reference to that dialogue. But, just like every chapter in John’s Gospel, context lay in the entire chapter, not bits and pieces. And Jesus didn’t cease speaking to Nicodemus after he spoke “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son…”. The conversation continues and, read in full, it increases the scope of John 3:16.
I can see how it is easy, and necessary, for some Protestant communities, who do recite the Lord’s Prayer, to go to such lengths to “interpret” the heck out of those verses until they fit into their paradigm. Usually it’s the same ones that recite the Nicene Creed and are forced to interpret “One, Holy, [c]atholic, and Apostolic [c]hurch in ways which the fathers of the councils never intended (the need to “interpret” an extra-biblical writing to fit it in with their worship was always strange to me as well). For that matter, John 6, James 2, Acts 15… nevermind, I could go on all day about the interpretive gymnastics that take place in order for one to feel comfortable with their system.
Joe said
I can not speak for all Protestant churches but the one i grew up in and now the Catholic church i go to understand that this phrase and “And forgive us our trepasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” are important concepts, important enough to be mentioned twice? That these phrases tell us that we will be forgiven if and only if we forgive those who trepass against us. That if we do not forgive others then we will not be forgiven.
Also important are the verses in Matthew 6:1 – 8 that describe not to do acts of charity just to be noticed and to prayers do not need to be made up of a lot of empyt felt words but rather be said with sincerity.
How do other Protestant churches interpret these verses?
My experience in being raised in an evangelical church was having to memorize the Lord’s Prayer as a child – not in order to pray it, but to know it as a section of Bible verses. I also had to memorize the 23rd Psalm at around the same time.
Later, in high school, I remember being taught that Jesus did not intend us to pray the specific words, but taught it as a framework for our own prayers (like Donald mentioned above). I did not understand how we could already be forgiven yet were required to confess our sins.
There was also the uncomfortable connection within the prayer between our forgiveness of others and being forgiven by God. I became Catholic when I saw the teachings of the Catholic Church did not have the contradictions (including faith alone and James 2:24) that Calvinism suffered from.
It might be helpful to consider three things that St. Augustine teaches about the Lord’s Prayer.
First, in his work titled On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, St. Augustine wrote:
Second, in his Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, regarding the article “the forgiveness of sins”, he writes:
Third, in one of his Sermons, St. Augustine wrote:
It is clear here that St. Augustine is fully aware of the distinction between mortal and venial sin, and he is teaching that praying daily for God to forgive us our sins is for venial sins, and is truly for their forgiveness. One of the causes of the underlying theological problem I’m addressing in this post is that Protestant theology doesn’t recognize the mortal / venial distinction. And without that distinction, there is no authentic purpose available for asking daily for the forgiveness of our sins. That’s why Berkhof has to psychologize the passage as a concession to human urges.
As Bryan noted above, Augustine recognized the fullness of Scripture and did not stint in that recognition.
That recognition was part of what required me to search. If my denomination could read what was written, and then dismiss it whole cloth, I deemed it a problem. How do you ignore Jesus’ own words?
I would note that after my initial conversion I had gone through an amazing change. I was not the great and glorious sinner I had once imagined myself to be; but I was not without culpability for what I had thought and done after my conversion, and they did not have the means for me to achieve forgiveness, especially in light of the “whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them” passage. Assuming forgiveness, which is their position, is not a position at all, but is a recognition that they do not have a position or lack the authority to provide the forgiveness that is needed.
I had read John’s letter noting that not all sin is deadly, and found that my own denomination was unable or unwilling to tackle that item. I would tell you that they were consistent in this process. (To be fair to C2C’s founders and Reformed/Presbyterian types reading this submission, this was not the systematic theology of Calvin.) There was an awful lot of Scripture that they were unwilling to tackle, and even more that they denied inspite of the plain sense of what was written. They deemed it to be stuff one could safely ignore. (Its wonderful! Read it. Enjoy it. Ignore it. Move on.) I finally concluded that when they said “Scripture alone” it meant that part of Scripture that they were willing to adhere to, so it was this Scripture alone here and that Scripture alone there, with significant gaps in between. Luther’s epistle of straw was extended in any direction needed to avoid “Catholicism,” a confrontation with the dominant theology which was about being “saved,” about the charismatic gifts, and the imminent return of Jesus.
Sometimes I was actually amazed that we still required 66 books. A relatively short catechetical book of bromides, mostly Scripture cites ripped out of context and associated with “our” positions would have served better and relieved them of the questions they did not want to address. Why bring up forgiveness after conversion, the difference between sin that kills and sin that does not kill, and the forgiveness of others as a key to one’s own forgiveness – if none of that is germaine?
Being about 40 years down this Roman road, I still keenly appreciate auricular confession, and Heaven knows I have need of it. Thank you, Lord!
In order to resolve the apparent contradiction between the beliefs that we are already forgiven and the belief that we should continue to ask for forgiveness as in the Lord’s Prayer, we need to consider two things: Who was it that asked Him: “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples?” and what did they believe about forgiveness. One needs to understand this in order to put the whole Lord’s Prayer in perspective and interpret the passages in context .
It is important to remember that when Jesus answered the disciples request: “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.”, He was responding to a request from a people who, unlike us, were under the Law. In fact, the disciples, Jesus and everyone else were under the law until after Jesus died and rose again, once and for all resolving the problem between God and man – namely, the sin issue. At the time Jesus was speaking, the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28 were in effect. (Obey every one of the 613 laws and you get all sorts of fleshly blessings – disobey even one and you will get the curses). They did not have the blessing of Redemptive Grace. The Law only provided provisions for a covering over of the sins of the people. This provision prescribed a set of rituals and animal sacrifices that would cover – but not take away – their sins. They had to repeat these works each year because there was no actual forgiveness available yet.
When Jesus responded to their question, the only option available for “forgiveness” was the careful execution of the prescribed rituals, prayers and sacrifices. They provided a covering over of their sins. There was no forgiveness because Jesus had not yet died and risen again. Their sins were not yet forgiven. They were still under the law of sin and death. It was appropriate for them to continually ask for forgiveness through the rituals and prescribed sacrifices. Jesus could not have taught them any differently because that is what the Law prescribed. Jesus taught them to use the only way that was available at the time.
We, however, are on this side of the cross. The Mosaic Law is not in effect. Jesus himself said he came to “fulfill” the Law. He fulfilled the Law by satisfying the two requirements of the Law. The Law required total and complete obedience. Jesus obeyed the Law perfectly. He satisfied that requirement for us. The law specified that the penalty for disobedience was death. He satisfied that also. After the cross, there is no need for the non-redeeming sacrifice of bulls and goats, temple prayers or rituals. In fact, they are inappropriate because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and completely fulfilled the Law. The goats and rituals and ritual prayer were never enough. They were a fore shadow of the perfect sacrifice, the sacrifice that would once and for all satisfy the demands of the Law so that God “no longer remembers our sins and lawless deeds.” Asking for forgiveness when we are already forgiven seems to be not only pointless but might even show a lack of understanding of what Jesus actually accomplished. It was appropriate for the disciples while under the Law but not for us or them after the cross.
Bill,
Your comment seems to be arguing for something that’s not the primary point of the post. Bryan’s post (it seems to me) is arguing that one cannot consistently hold the following to beliefs:
(1) All our sins (past, present, and future) were forgiven at the moment of justification.
(2) We should continue to pray the Lord’s Prayer (which includes a request for our sins to be forgiven).
Your post starts by stating that it will “resolve the apparent contradiction between the beliefs that we are already forgiven and the belief that we should continue to ask for forgiveness as in the Lord’s Prayer.” So it seems that you’re going to provide an explanation for how one can hold (1) and (2) at the same time.
But then you go on, it seems to me, and simply deny (2). So your comment, as it stands, isn’t directly relevant to the original post. Your explanation of the Lord’s Prayer tries to contextualize the prayer in such a way that it is only a valid prayer pre-resurrection. But in making that argument, you’re just denying (2). So it seems that your comment doesn’t achieve the go you initially set for itself, namely to “resolve the apparent contradiction” between holding (1) and (2) at the same time.
Bill, (re: #16),
Perhaps you already read the three quotations from St. Augustine in comment #14. Those are just a sample. St. Augustine refers to the Lord’s Prayer in many places in his works, always teaching it as obviously something that believers pray daily, and ought to pray daily. All the Church Fathers believed this, and taught it, namely, that the Lord’s Prayer is something that we (in the Church) are to pray daily. Here are some selections from other Church Fathers on this subject:
St. Clement, bishop of Rome (d. c. AD 97) wrote:
St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon (c. AD 185-200), wrote:
St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage from 249-258, wrote:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) wrote:
St. John Chrysostom (347-407) wrote:
And elsewhere St. Chrysostom writes:
St. Jerome (347-420) wrote:
And elsewhere St. Jerome writes:
The Council of Carthage (AD 419) declared the following three canons against the Pelagians (who thought it possible to live sinlessly):
St. John Cassian (360-435) wrote:
St. Leo the Great, bishop of Rome (400-461) wrote:
So, here’s the problem for the notion that we’re not supposed to pray the Lord’s Prayer, after Christ’s resurrection. Nobody in the early Church got that message. They all prayed it, and believed it was mandatory for us to pray it. It was the heretics (i.e. Pelagians) who thought we didn’t need to pray it, and the Fathers appealed to the universal liturgical practice and Tradition of the Church in her understanding of the Lord’s Prayer, to refute the claim of the Pelagians. So, either the whole Church got it wrong, and the error overcame the whole, universal Church at a very early time, or, the Apostles did in fact teach that we are to pray the Lord’s Prayer. Which, do you think, is more likely, especially if ecclesial deism is false?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
I would add a clarification: It’s not (just) at the moment one believes that all their sins are forgiven, but, logically, at a moment in time as ‘early’ as the Cross. This is because Protestants state (and logically so) that the Cross effected actual forgiveness, not ‘potential’ forgiveness. This has led to a serious (and never really resolved) debate within Reformed Protestantism, popularly titled “Eternal Justification”. Some Reformed emphasize the ‘logic’ aspect and say that since actual forgiveness took place, the elect are essentially born justified (or at least forgiven), while (most) other Reformed emphasize the ‘Scriptural’ aspect and note texts like Eph 2:1-5 state we were born outside God’s friendship.
I wrote about this significant problem here:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/05/eternally-forgiven-more-problems-with.html
Bill,
Among the many things worth considering and responding to in your comment (#16), I want to pick just one. You wrote:
Remember that, just a few short chapters after delivering his Prayer to his disciples, Our Lord did this:
This verse contradicts your claim concerning what was “the only available option for ‘forgiveness’ ….”
I’m curious what Calvin did with this contradiction. Anyone know?
Sarah,
You can check out Calvin’s interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer in his Commentary on Matthew 6:9-13.
Ryan and Bryan,
Ops, you are so very correct in pointing out that my post seemed to contradict itself. In choosing the word “resolve.” I really confused my message. Please excuse me. By “resolve” I meant that the question would be put rest and go away – not that I was going to be able to demonstrate that the two beliefs can work together. I meant to address Bryan’s question and then give an explanation as to why I believe it doesn’t seem to make sense for a person to believe that their sins (past, present and future) are forgiven and then “pray” the Lords’ Prayer asking for forgiveness? If you believe that all our sins (past, present and future) were forgiven at the moment of justification, why would you continually keep asking Him for it?
Ryan, concerning the use of the Lord’s Prayer, if you will allow me, I would like to share a very minority, radical, maybe heretic to some, opinion. It concerns the Lord’s Prayer and the topic of forgiveness. I don’t think it is appropriate for us to “pray” the Lord’s Prayer at all. I have explained why I think it should not be used as a device for obtaining forgiveness as St Augustine says in, “On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sin.” (Post 14) I have come to believe that it was never meant for us
directly – we who are under Grace and not the Law. Rather, it was a perfect example of Jesus doing what he did in the whole sermon on the mount – that is, refute the teachings of the Pharisees, especially the claim that if you stick to the life style that they had come up with you would never come close enough to break one of the laws of Moses and therefore you would be sinless and in compliance with the Law. He spent much of his ministry driving home the point of the Law. The point of the Law is that no matter how hard you try, no matter how many hedges of protection you have, etc., you will never satisfy it. You are lost. It’s hopeless. There is nothing you can do about it. Ours sin is so great that there is nothing we can do make up for it – nothing at all. When a person, then or now comes to the end of themselves and gives up striving and re-striving, trying through their efforts to obtain forgiveness, there is only one possible way, only one place they can go. It is into the loving arms of God where they can accept God’s gift of forgiveness, given to us freely before we even asked him too. The fact that we have had a few thousand years to try and learn how to obey all the Law and never have proves that the only way you can be saved is if God Himself takes care of the problem.
What Jesus was doing in the Sermon on the Mount and in the included “Lord’s Prayer” was the Jews of the time to receive their savior. Until they understood that it was hopeless and that they were lost, He could not save them. The Lord’s Prayer was like the Law, impossible to keep. Like the Law, no one could live up to it. I say that because among other things, it demands that we forgive as God forgives. Verses 14 and 15 make it more explicit: “14For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” I am saying that Jesus gave them an impossible task – just like God gave them a set of rules and requirements in the Law that He knew they couldn’t obey completely. I maintain that it is not possible for us to forgive as God forgives. God forgives perfectly and completely. I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t have a flash of emotion once in a while when reminded of some offense against him. But then we quickly remind ourselves that we have already forgiven them and everything is OK. That is not the way God does it. “The best we can do”
has never been the standard that the Lord uses. When it comes to forgiveness and justification, it is strictly pass/fail. When God demanded something of the Jew under the Law, there was no, “Do the best you can.”It was, “Do it or die.”" In the prayer he demands that we forgive others or He won’t forgive us. Like the Law, I don’t see any allowance for doing the best you can. The problem is, it is not possible to be as perfect as God and forgive and forget as He does. I do of course believe that we can
receive Grace from God to help us and that some of us come closer than other. Maybe even some come close to God but no one reaches a level where they are equal with God in anything. I don’t believe that any one can be perfect as God so how can we forgive as perfectly and completely as God forgives? I don’t believe He actually expected that we would be able to. I think it was a continuation the plan to have them come to the point that they realized they are doomed and the free gift of Grace was the only way to be saved.
The situation now is different. The penalty for sin was and will always be death; however, the penalty under the law of sin and death has been satisfied – completely and permanently by the sacrifice of Jesus. The bulls and goats and rituals never did it. It took Jesus to do it. Jesus fulfilled the Law just like he said. He fulfilled the Law by fulfilling the two requirements of the Law – be completely sinless and die to satisfy the penalty part. There is no amount of prayer, ritual, offering,
sacrifice, tithing, sincere efforts, human intercession, good deeds, church building, mission work that could have done it – including the Lord’s Prayer. But until Jesus died and rose again sacrifice, rituals, sacrifices and prayers were all they had. On this side of the cross we have the forgiveness that was not yet available to them. to ask Him to forgive us when we have already received it is redundant. It is not only redundant to ask for it all over, but I think it minimizes what happened at Calvary. It is an indicator that we have not fully accepted His gift because many of us, like the Disciples at first, don’t really understand it. Everything in our experience shows us that nothing comes for free. We and they find it unnatural to be completely forgiven without paying a price or a penalty of some kind. So we seek ways to pay Him back. We turn back to the sacrificial system but instead of paying for our sins with blood like the Bible tells us, we come up with our own, new sacrificial system. We offer other sacrifices like the sacrifice of money or praise or service or the reciting of a ritual prayer, (i.e., the Lord’s prayer.) The problem is, I believe that when He said
it was finished, I think He meant it was really finished. He didn’t forget or leave out anything for the next guy to finish up. He once and for all resolved the sin/death issue. The demands of the Law have been satisfied. There is nothing we can add to death of Jesus. Because the penalty has been paid we have a different situation that then the people who were listening to him in His time. They had nothing but the Law and the fore shadowing of the arrival of the Christ that was previewed in the original sacrificial system. Christ was a Jewish rabbi, teaching Jews under the Law to obey the law best they possibly could so that they could come the place that they would understand that they can’t obey it.
Some of Jesus’ teachings were directed toward them and their situation and some are applicable to us now. We have to be careful to discern which of Jesus’ teaching were intended to drive home the point to the people that contrary to what the Pharisees taught, they could not be sinless and therefore right with God on their own and which teachings were meant for believers on this side of the cross. The Lord’s Prayer was given to the Disciples as a stop gap until the sin issue was resolved for good just like the Law was. It was never intended to be used by us as a tool whereby if we, as St. Augustine says, (Post 14) are sincere enough, will obtain daily forgiveness.
By the way, here is my disclaimer. It is not my intention to challenge or offend anyone. This seems like an intelligent forum made up of people who want to share and learn so I felt comfortable bringing up my controversial opinions. My comments could cause a firestorm in a less mature blog. I too want to share and learn and I look forward to hearing from others regarding my positions. I sincerely apologize if I have offended anyone.
Andrew,
Thank you for appropriately noting that that the Law was not the only means of forgiveness. Our God can and does anything He wants to and there are of course many other examples of Him forgiving sinners.
(As a side note: I am trying to remember how many of them actually asked for forgiveness? It seemed that He just freely gave it to them, just as He did us.)
Word are clumsy and I am the King of Clumsy so I apologize for seemingly not remembering the forgiveness He gave on many occasions. What I meant was, that except for direct, one-on-One examples of His forgiving I don’t know of any other system at the time that He set up to provide forgiveness to mankind other than the Mosaic sacrificial system? Are you OK with that or am I missing something?
Thank you for keepin me honest. It is hard to really hard to say what you mean and not leave some holes unless you do a full treatise on the subject.
Bill,
Do you have any comments on Bryan’s quotes from the eCf’s involving the Lord’s Prayer. My understanding is the Didache actually required Christians to pray the Lord’s Prayer 3 time a day. This goes back to the first century. Why should we beleive you over them?
Thanks Randy. Here’s chapter 8 from the Didache (roughly AD 100):
Bill,
Be assured, no offense taken. You very graciously expressed your opinion. It sounds like, from what you describe, you accept old-school dispensationalism (the tribulation, the rapture, national Israel being brought back in, two distinct people of God, namely Israel and then the Church as a rupture with and not a fulfillment of Israel). The praying of the Our Father is something that does not separate Reformed theology and Catholic theology for the reason that both understand the Church as a fulfillment of Israel. In short, we see the New Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old, not a departure from, and as such the Church is the new Israel, made up of both Jew and Gentile, centered on Jesus Christ (Eph 2).
[...] to Communion posted an article about Reformed Imputation and the Lord’s Prayer. (Really, C2C is a site you should be reading every [...]
Hi Tom, thank you for your very concise and clear explanation of the Church as the new Israel.
I am dying to know how you came up with such a specific list of my possible opinions about the end times. Did you you find clues in my rather lengthy post, Post #23?
Before I continue, I notice that the thrust of the blog is discussion that seems to be focused on issues concerning Reformed Protestant doctrine and Catholic theology. Perhaps this wouldn’t be the place to ask you a question about your “the fulfillment of the Old, not a departure from.” If I am off topic or out of sync, please let me know and i won’t post here anymore?
I have been both a practicing Lutheran and practicing Catholic but I never was exposed to the rational for some of each’s beliefs. I am really curious about how Reformed Protestant doctrine and Catholic theology deals with the difference between the Law of Moses which was sort sort of pass/fail and the the new Covenant of Grace. If the New Covenant does not depart from the old one, how is that we don’t have to follow the dietary rules, etc.? If we don’t obey some of them but obey others, how do we decide which ones to obey? Is that for the church fathers and theologians to decide and then instruct us?
Thank you in advance for your response.
Bill,
I said that it sounded like you accepted old-school dispensationalism and then went on to give some basic concepts unique to dispensationalism, not necessarily what you believe. The reason I said that was in response to your statement that it is not proper to pray the Lord’s Prayer, which is something taught by quite a few old-school dispensationalism.
It is sad that you were a practicing Lutheran and a practicing Catholic and not exposed to the rational for their beliefs. Catechetical instruction is so integral to the living out of the faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says Dogma is the light that illuminates the path of our spiritual life, empowering the daily life of faith. That said, the basis for obeying some and not others, in reference to the Mosaic Law, comes not from the individual believer determining what to accept or not accept but from the Magisterium of the Church, which is given the authority from God to determine such matters so as to help guide the faithful in the matters of faith and morals.
As for who decides what to do about the Mosaic Law, this seems to be the exact question raised in the book of Acts, and which was settled by the magisterium of the Church at the council held in Jerusalem (Acts 15).
David,
In regard to you Post #31, may I ask you, I am not clear what that settlement was? Do you mean the instructions to the Gentiles to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. Was that saying that the Jew would continue to practice the Law of Moses but that the Gentiles (and now by extension, the Church) only need to obey those parts?
Bill (re: #32),
Here’s what St. Augustine says about this:
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Henry, the King of Eon, saw Joey, Lima, and Drake stabbed his innocent son to death. He was outraged at what they did. It is as if this three didn’t know who he is. They utterly profaned his authority and honor by brutally killing his son. The only way to defend his name as King of Eon is to show justice. Joey, Lima and Drake must be punished far brutal than the worst criminal in the Kingdom. Lima went first to his terrible fate. Then Drake followed the painful path of condemnation. When it was Joey’s turn, King Henry gestured to the guards to stop the execution. To everyone’s surprise the King held Joey’s hand and declared to him and to crowd a kingly decree, “You have killed my son and you deserve all misery of pain and death that I can think of. But, I would be gracious to you. I forgive you from this moment and for the rest of your life. I will take you as my son. Train you to be a prince like that of my son. I will see my son in you so that everything he is, you are to me. You are to be regarded as Prince of Eon though you’re a commoner and do not have the life blood of royalty.” The guards jaw dropped at total amazement. The crowd was so baffled but the decree of the King was clear. Joey, the murderer has been declared Prince of Eon, beyond the clutches of death and condemnation that he so rightly deserves.
One day, at the training arena, Prince Joey tried to hit the target with his bow. His personal trainer was none other than King Henry himself. Yet, every time the Prince tries to hit the target, he loses focus. King Henry reminds him that one of the traits of a Prince of Eon is patience. Prince Joey has none. When he tried to hit the target again and missed, he throws the bow down at his Father. He cursed and said, “I hate this. My hands are aching and my skin is baked under the heat of the sun. Look Father, I tried my best and I think you are just making a fool out of me. How can anyone hit that target?” The gestures and curses he made showed utter disrespect to the King. He forgot his place. He thought he always has been Prince.
King Henry sees the dark character of his choiced Prince. He felt the insult and the disrespect. He did not respond to the immaturity of the Prince but instead started to turn his back and walk slowly away from the Prince. The Prince felt the gravity of his actions as he saw his Father leave slowly. Realizing what he has done, he gently grabbed his Father’s shoulders. He felt his heart pierced to the very core at his transgression, he could not help shedding a tear on his right eye. “Father, I do not know what came in me. Forgive me, I forgot my place. You are here to train me to be a Prince and love me as a son though, I am a murderer. I deserve to…” Before he could finish the words in his heart, King Henry replied, “Son, you are the Prince of Eon. I have chosen and made you so. I know this would happen in our relationship because you are still being trained. But long before you have done this, I saw this coming and I have forgiven you. You are my son and I will not abandon you but promise that you will walk as my son as I train you.” The King bent down and took the bow. Then he took Prince Joey’s hand and gave him the bow then said, “Let’s try it again…” The Prince knowing how his father loves him throws his hand around his father and said, “Father, I don’t know how many times I may forget my place… please forgive me. Help me not fall and act like when I am not your Prince.”
Question: Was there a conflict of the King’s action of imputing to Joey all that his son is (forgiving him and making him Prince) and his later act of forgiveness when Prince Joey loses his patience and insulted him at one of the training sessions?
JoeyHenry, (re: #34),
If Henry had already forgiven Joey not only for all that Joey had already done, but for all Joey would do against him, then yes, there is a conflict between (1) at the time of adopting Joey, having already forgiven Joey for insulting Henry at the future training session, and (2) forgiving him again at the training session.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Hi Bryan,
You said: “If Henry had already forgiven Joey not only for all that Joey had already done, but for all Joey would do against him, then yes, there is a conflict between (1) at the time of adopting Joey, having already forgiven Joey for insulting Henry at the future training session, and (2) forgiving him again at the training session.”
Hmmm… that’s strange a strange way of putting it. It is number (2) that bothered me. You said “forgiving him AGAIN at the training session” as if the act of forgiveness in (1) is different from when the future training session actually happened.
I don’t think there is a conflict the way the story goes. As it goes it could just as easily describe Catholic justification. Joey sees King Henry withdraw and repents. He makes a confession and the relationship is repaired. But what if Joey does not repent? What if Joey continues to think King Henry is too demanding and leaves his adopted Father’s house? Or does his Father force him to stay? Then the parallels get stronger.
Joey, (re: #36)
The issue is not complicated, but rather quite simple. If Henry has already forgiven Joey for everything that Joey will ever do, then Henry cannot forgive Joey again. What is already forgiven cannot be forgiven again. So, if (as Reformed theology holds) Christ has already forgiven me for all my past, present and future sins, then He cannot forgive me again, since there is nothing to forgive, because it has already been forgiven at the moment of my justification. In that case, there is no reason for me, after being justified, to ask Him for forgiveness. Doing so performatively denies what He has already done.
If, however, at the moment Henry adopted Joey he only forgave Joey for his past and present sins, then at the training session Henry can forgive Joey for what Joey does at the training session. Thus, if, as the Catholic Church teaches, at my baptism all my past and present (but not my future) sins are forgiven, then later, when I commit a sin, I can, without contradiction, ask Christ to forgive me, and He can forgive me for it, because that sin is not already forgiven.
If you haven’t read through the post and the comments, I recommend that you do so carefully, before posting further in this thread.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
Forgive me, I’m not quite as learned or erudite as some of the other commenters, but could (or does) the Reformed system argue that the forgiveness of future sins occured at the cross in “God’s time” (since He knows all our sins, even before we commit them), but still we must ask in “our time” for the forgiveness that’s already been given in the past? Sort of like how in Catholic theology, the Sacrifice of the Mass is our participation in Christ’s sacrifice TODAY, even though the sacrifice occurred in 34AD.. I’m probably not stating it clearly, but do you see what I’m getting at?
Chris, (re: #39)
The once-for-all nature of Reformed justification makes progressive justification impossible in the Reformed system. See the last paragraph in this comment. In Reformed theology, the once-and-for all is not just what Christ did on the cross, but what takes place viz-a-viz justification at the moment of faith. In Reformed theology, at the moment a person truly believes in Christ, he is justified, and a justified person can never lose his justification, nor can his justification increase. That’s the once-and-for-all nature of the instantaneously and complete application of Christ’s work to the individual, with respect to his justification. From the moment of his justification he is as justified as he ever will be, because he is totally justified. So this conception of justification does not allow further justifications or increases in justification.
In Catholic theology concerning the mass, there is no claim that the participant has once-and-for-all received as much grace as he can ever receive, and that he cannot lose the grace that he has received. So subsequent participation in the mass is not thereby nullified.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Hi Bryan,
I know the issue is simple. But you seem to complicate and over analyze things. That is why, I put out a fictional story as a way of response to see whether your argument is legitimate.
Now let’s look at it again. Here is your selling point: “So, if (as Reformed theology holds) Christ has already forgiven me for all my past, present and future sins, then He cannot forgive me again, since there is nothing to forgive, because it has already been forgiven at the moment of my justification.”
I can immediately sense the disconnect of your argument when you responded to the story line. This is what you’ve said which reflects also your selling point but, this time, it is not coaxed on motherhood statements but works on some specific details: “If Henry had already forgiven Joey not only for all that Joey had already done, but for all Joey would do against him, then yes, there is a conflict between (1) at the time of adopting Joey, having already forgiven Joey for insulting Henry at the future training session, and (2) forgiving him again at the training session.”
What is wrong at this analysis? You treat the the act of forgiveness in number (1) as if it is different when the event actually took place in time in number (2). Actually, Henry is not forgiving Joey AGAIN when the event finally took place. The forgiveness refers to the same event. Yet both participants in the story line sees it in different perspective. One knows the certainty of the events in the future and therefore could speak of forgiveness past, present and future when declares it so. The other is bound by experience and time. He sees the forgiveness of his Father as he experiences it and therefore could speak of the then-and-now as he tangibly sees it yet his mind is not precluded from imagining the already-and-not-yet aspect of his relationship with his Father.
Joey, (#41)
You wrote:
Here’s the dilemma. At the moment Henry adopted Joey, either (a) Henry forgave Joey’s future offenses against him, or (b) Henry did not forgive Joey’s future offenses against him. If (a), then Henry cannot forgive Joey again at the training session, because Joey’s training session offense has already been forgiven. But, if (b), then the Joey-Henry story is not an apt analogy for Reformed theology, because in Reformed theology, at the moment of justification all one’s past, present and future sins are forgiven, as I explained in #39 in the other thread.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Randy,
You said: “I don’t think there is a conflict the way the story goes. As it goes it could just as easily describe Catholic justification. Joey sees King Henry withdraw and repents. He makes a confession and the relationship is repaired. But what if Joey does not repent? What if Joey continues to think King Henry is too demanding and leaves his adopted Father’s house? Or does his Father force him to stay? Then the parallels get stronger.”
There are two solution to your question of “What if’s”. The King knows and has sovereignty over the “what if’s” even before it will/will not happen. There is no “what if’s” in his point of view. Secondly, you have to understand who the King is. Can He actually deliver His promises to train the Prince and have the character of His Son? Or, is he powerless to do so unless the Prince grants his promises effectiveness by the Prince’s sheer will power?
Have you seen the movie Bruce Almighty? Do you picture God like that of Bruce? He begs for his girl to love him but is powerless to do so and bring it to pass… Do you think this is the God of the Bible? I don’t think so. So when God said this — “My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s hand. ” (John 10:27 ) — does He fail to keep this promise or is this promise an empty one and depends upon our sheer will power for effectiveness?
Bryan,
You said: “Here’s the dilemma. At the moment Henry adopted Joey, either (a) Henry forgave Joey’s future offenses against him, or (b) Henry did not forgive Joey’s future offenses against him. If (a), then Henry cannot forgive Joey again at the training session, because Joey’s training session offense has already been forgiven. But, if (b), then the Joey-Henry story is not an apt analogy for Reformed theology, because in Reformed theology, at the moment of justification all one’s past, present and future sins are forgiven, as I explained in #39 in the other thread.”
The dilemma that you create is non-existent. You fail to see the dynamics and nature of both participants. As I have said, one knows the certainty of the events in the future and therefore could speak of forgiveness past, present and future when he declares it so. The other is bound by experience and time. He sees the forgiveness of his Father as he experiences it and therefore could speak of the then-and-now as he tangibly sees it yet his mind is not precluded from imagining the already-and-not-yet aspect of his relationship with his Father.
I think you can see my point but put a blind eye to it. You treat the the act of forgiveness in number (1) as if it is different when the event actually took place in time in number (2). Actually, Henry is not forgiving Joey AGAIN when the event finally took place.
Joey, (re: #44)
You wrote:
If you wish to refute a dilemma, you need to show the third option. So, here again are the two options I presented:
So, please show the third option.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Joe Henry
you seem to create a different dilemma or at least a perceived dilemma.
So when the King saves Joey, Joey loses free will? Joey is incapable of choosing to defy the king? So how is it that Joey is frustrated and dishonors the King? The King sometimes lets him fail and insult the King, but will always at some point force him to repent?
I can see where it certainly doesn’t depend on our will power. It is 100% dependent on God and we are apparently completely out of the equation. If we sin, it is because God lets us. If we repent it is because God causes us too whether we want to or not.
Bryan,
You seem to dismiss everything that I’ve said. For me, that is unhealthy and speaks a lot of your argument. Thanks for the conversation. There is nothing more to say at this point.
Joey, (re: #47)
There is a law of logic according to which [A or not-A] pretty much covers the bases. That’s why the dilemma I posed to you is a real dilemma. At the moment Henry adopted Joey, either (a) Henry forgave Joey’s future offenses against him, or (b) Henry did not forgive Joey’s future offenses against him. There is no third option. But, if you still think there is a third option, feel free to show what it is. There is no need to criticize me. Simply show the third option. But if you have come to realize that there is no third option, then the best thing to do is simply acknowledge that you were mistaken, and embrace one horn of the dilemma.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Randy,
Good questions:
1) So when the King saves Joey, Joey loses free will?
Question: Define for me what you meant by “free” will.
2) Joey is incapable of choosing to defy the king? So how is it that Joey is frustrated and dishonors the King? The King sometimes lets him fail and insult the King, but will always at some point force him to repent?
Answer: Let’s look at it from a different perspective. Joey can indeed defy the King. The question is, is the King powerful enough to defeat Joey’s defiance? Can the King really bring to pass his promises to make Joey Prince-like? Sure, the King knows everything that would happen in training the Prince (the insults, impatience, even moments of giving up)… The question is, can the King defeat all these barriers as they happen and fulfill his promise to Prince Joey?
The question, therefore, is not whether we are free to defy the King because we do and we will. The question is whether the King knows these defiance and can act to overcome and defeat these defiance by giving us a new heart. Can He? The Bible speaks of it: “I will give them one heart and I will put a new spirit within them; I will remove the heart of stone from their bodies and I will give them a heart of flesh, so that they may obey my statutes and keep my laws and observe them. Then they will be my people, and I will be their God.” (Ezekiel 11:19-20 )
You said: “I can see where it certainly doesn’t depend on our will power. It is 100% dependent on God and we are apparently completely out of the equation. If we sin, it is because God lets us. If we repent it is because God causes us too whether we want to or not.”
I can sense your fear over His sovereignty. I think you are not alone in your fear and objection. Does not this sentiment reflect yours: “Why then does God still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?” (Romans 9:19) — this is the very objection that was raised when Paul discussed the sovereignty of God: “God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden.” (Romans 9:18)
One of those barriers being Joey’s choice? If that is the case, he is not a benevolent King, he is an egoist tyrant, because he is not allowing Joey to choose to love him, he is forcing Joey to love him. That may seem like merciful kindness to some, given that Joey could have been executed by the same man, but it certainly isn’t love, and love cannot be reciprocated where love is not borne.
However, this new twist is not exactly the same story you told originally. The story you told originally had the King forgiving Joey before his execution, choosing to rear Joey as his own, then forgiving him again when Joey impatiently threw his instruments to he ground and cursed. If the King forgave Joey for all of his future transgressions at the point that he prevented his execution, then the scene of Joey’s impatience is utterly pointless. If he had forgiven him for his future transgressions, then he would have been deceiving Joey by pretending to be upset with him in the scene of impatience. You started with one story and now you’re telling another. You’ll have to pick one and accept the implications to their fullest, otherwise, you’ll suffer from storytelling schizophrenia.
Along the same lines, if Joey was just as guilty as the other two boys of the murder of his son, and there is no indication in your story than any of them, including Joey, showed any remorse for their actions, then it seems that the King showed a lack of justice in his decision by killing two to the delight of the onlookers and extending mercy to one, to their dismay, who may not have been sorry for his crime in the first place.
Consider the implications, if Berkhof and Hodge are wrong about all our future sins being forgiven at the moment of justification. Because Reformed theology denies the distinction between mortal and venial sins, it follows that “there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation.” (Westminster Confession of Faith XV.4) But even the holiest among us sins every day in thought, word and deed. Therefore, if (1) no future sins are already forgiven, and if (2) every sin “deserves damnation,” and if (3) all of us sin daily, it follows by logical necessity that we all lose our salvation at least daily, perhaps many times a day, and would, if we were to die during any one of those periods of the day between one of our sins and our subsequent request for God’s forgiveness, be eternally damned.
In order to avoid that conclusion, and maintain that Berkhof and Hodge are wrong about future sins being already forgiven at the moment of justification, one would either have to accept the Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin, or one would have to adopt the Pelagian idea that the righteous do not sin at all.
Bryan (re: #48),
There is no third option. I am not even sure why you need one. I believe in (a). Here is your selling point in this whole escapade:
“If Henry had already forgiven Joey not only for all that Joey had already done, but for all Joey would do against him, then yes, there is a conflict between (1) at the time of adopting Joey, having already forgiven Joey for insulting Henry at the future training session, and (2) forgiving him AGAIN at the training session.” (emphasis added)
The error that you make is pretty much clear. You treat the the act of forgiveness in number (1) as if it is different when the event actually took place in time in number (2). Actually, Henry is not forgiving Joey AGAIN when the event finally took place. In other words, God who is atemporal can speak of forgiveness past, present and future and this is not in conflict when he actually applies his action as he enters into time as they come to pass.
Regards,
Joey
Joey, (re: #53)
Ok, now we’re making progress. We are agreed that there is no third option. Therefore we are agreed that the only two options are:
You say “I believe in (a).” But the same offensive act cannot be forgiven by the same person more than once. If on Monday I tell you that I forgive you for insulting me on Monday, and then on Tuesday I say to you, “I have decided to forgive you for insulting me yesterday” you’re going to realize that either I was not being honest with you on Monday, or I’m presently being dishonest, and attempting to remind you of your debt to me, in order to get something from you.
Therefore, because at the moment Henry adopted Joey, Henry forgave all of Joey’s future offenses against him, and because the same offensive act cannot be forgiven by the same person more than once, it follows that Henry cannot forgive Joey again at the training session, because [as we agreed when you accepted (a)] the offenses Joey commits at the training session were already forgiven by Henry when Henry adopted Joey. So because Joey’s training session offenses were already forgiven when Henry adopted Joey, and because Joey knows this, for Joey to ask Henry after the training session to forgive him, is for Joey to contradict what Joey already knows to be true, namely, that Henry already forgave him for this offense when Henry adopted him. In order for Joey (without contradiction) to ask Henry to forgive him after the training session, Joey cannot know that Henry has already forgiven him for Joey’s training session offense.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
One nuance I would add to the King-Prince example is this: It’s not just ‘forgiveness’ that’s taken place, it’s more specific than that: the punishment (via PSub) has *already* been inflicted, thus the King has no legal grounds to even put the Prince in a position of needing to ask for forgiveness.
If the Prince were to commit adultery next year, and the Reformed view says Jesus already took the punishment for that adultery, thus when next year comes there will be no legal grounds for God to even say ‘repent’ because that would entail the Prince being put in a legal bind with the threat of punishment.
As for the claim that there isn’t really a distinction between (1) and (2), the only ‘option’ for that is the invented distinction between (1) sin legally forgiven in God’s eyes and (2) the individual’s (incidental) psychological need to hear they’re forgiven (even though they know their future sins already are forgiven).
To all in this discussion,
Reading through the comments for this post, and comments on related posts at C2c, I just had a stunning and terrifying realization. The entire time that I was a convinced Reformed Baptist (from, approximately, 2005 until earlier this year), within the parameters of the Reformed soteriology I held, there was no way for me *know*, in fact, that I was saved. Logically, it would also seem that this would also apply to *anyone* who accepts Reformed soteriology– whether Presbyterian, Reformed Anglican/Episcopal, Bible church, Calvinistic Methodist (as was George Whitefield), and so on. I will explain my thinking and invite anyone to correct me if my reasoning is flawed, or completely incorrect, here.
As a Reformed Baptist who, by definition, believed in the Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints (the Reformed understanding of “eternal security”), to be sure (no pun intended!), I believed in assurance of salvation, I sang about it in church, and when I evangelized non-Christians, it was at least my *desire* to share the concept of assurance with them. I *thought* that I knew I was saved, and that my salvation was secure for all eternity. In fact though, there was no way for me to know. All that I could *truly know* is that I possessed *signs* of belonging to the elect.
However, there were other, worrisome “signs” in my life that sometimes led me to *doubt* whether I was one of the elect. I repeatedly struggled with certain sins, and sometimes, chose to give in to them. My Reformed friends would tell me that the fact(s) that I *did* struggle, and that I lamented and hated my sin, showed that I was a true brother in Christ, one of the elect.
There was the other side of that coin though. I still *did* give in to sin at times, and at those exact moments, chillingly, the sin felt good. I also felt sickness, revulsion, and self-reproach, but part of me did like the sin. Soon after would come repentance and confession to God, and many times, talking with fellow Reformed Christians about my various sin struggles. These friends would assure me that I was continuing to hate and fight sin, and that those are signs of being elect. They would also lovingly warn me (as they should have, as my friends) not to become complacent *about* my sin or *about* my assurance– for either of these could lead a hardness of heart and a “falling away,” thus proving that I never really belonged to God.
Therein lies the crux of the problem with the Reformed concept of assurance. It isn’t really assurance. It is a “confidence,” one might say, though without complacence, that one is saved, based on the appearance of *signs* that one belongs to the elect. However, those signs could all be ultimately temporary in one’s life, and therefore, illusory. One must also, from time to time, check one’s life to make sure that the “signs” of belonging to the elect aren’t beginning to be outweighed by possible “signs” of being reprobate (non-elect).
The latter was a periodic struggle (and over time, a heavy burden) for me, as a Reformed Baptist who sought to have “assurance” of my salvation. I could never *truly* have assurance of my salvation, in any sense *other* than how I appeared to be showing signs of belonging to the elect, from one day or week or month (which might have been very encouraging) to another day or week or month (not as encouraging).
To be clear, none of the above has *anything* to do with why I have now, formally and decisively left Protestantism and begun the process of reconciliation to the Catholic Church, which I angrily and ignorantly left almost fifteen years ago. This process has a been a long and very hard one, brothers and sisters. I say that to *all* of my brothers and sisters in Christ– Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and any and all others! :-)
I have re-read and re-studied relevant Scriptural passages (in light of the whole counsel of Scripture). I have studied Church history and the competing claims about that history. I have discovered, and have now been greatly taught and humbled by, the writings of the Church Fathers (both “early,” “medieval,” and more recent). I have had hours upon hours of discussions with Protestant friends, who have attempted to show that the objective evidence doesn’t lead, or doesn’t necessarily *have* to lead, to the Catholic Church. For me to be honest though, with God, myself, and others, the objective evidence has led me there– and I will not, cannot, in good conscience, turn back from what I have seen by God’s grace.
On Tuesday of this now-almost-past week, I met with a wonderful, orthodox, kind, wise, 80-year-old Catholic priest (with age, indeed, comes much wisdom!) and expressed my desire to return to the Church. We talked for 90 minutes, every single one for which I very grateful to God. Lord willing, he will hear my confession as soon as it can be arranged– and then, soon after, the Eucharist, the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of the one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Thank you, deeply and truly, to everyone at C2C, for helping to make this possible for me. I am especially grateful to Bryan Cross, Tom Riello, and everyone else who has helped to answer my questions here, and even more, prayed to Our Father for me and, perhaps, asked for the intercession of Our Lady. A world of pain may be about to come down, in my life, from the possible reactions of many of my Protestant friends, including my roommate (I just told him the news late last night). Please continue to pray for me.
Whatever may come though, I am at peace and happy– because very, very soon, Lord willing, I will be back Home, in the fold of the Church that truly *is* (and always has been!) One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
Christopher,
Thanks be to God! That’s wonderful news. All of us at Called To Communion welcome you home, and rejoice with you. May our Lord continue to watch over you, and guide you into the truth that works in love, and the peace that comes from above. May He grant you the grace to be a minister of reconciliation.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Christopher – welcome (back) home! May the grace received in the Eucharist strengthen you and each of us to fight every temptation that comes our way.
Christopher,
I sing the praises of God and rejoice over this news. It is almost five years ago (Thursday June 23, 2005) that I entered into the rectory at St. Gregory Barbarigo Catholic Church and knelt in the office of a dear priest and said these words, “Bless me Father, for I have sinned…” and after that almost hr of back and forth and many tears, some of sorrow, but oh so much more of joy, I felt the weight of the world lifted off my shoulders and was able to rest in the loving arms of the living God! Be assured of prayers on our end.
Your Grateful Brother in Christ and His Church,
Tom
Thanks so much, Bryan. I have formally resigned, in a letter to the elders, from my Protestant church, and have shared the news with my Protestant roommate (the elders had asked me to keep my questions about Catholicism between me and them). He has told me, frankly, that he thinks I am wrong, and he is now unsure about the state of my soul, from a Reformed standpoint, but that he is also not going to kick me out of the house for my decision. :-)
In the days ahead, by God’s grace, I intend to be the most cordial, loving, respectful brother in Christ to all of my Protestant friends that I can be. Whether or not we will continue to talk about our Christian faith with each other, time will have to tell. I am completely open to it. However, I don’t want to cause unnecessary problems and have decided, at least for a while, not to mention the Church or Catholicism (as a matter of prudence) in conversations with these friends, unless they want to talk about them. Hopefully, we can still bond over our shared faith in Christ, and that may eventually open doors to more specific Catholic/Protestant discussions.
Thanks so much, Tim and Tom! I am smiling and laughing with the pure happiness of a child over the great goodness of God! I know that there will almost certainly be trials and tears ahead in this process, but so much of the weight of the past several months has already been lifted, and right now, I have deep, deep joy, in my mind, heart, and soul. Thanks be to God!
Dear Christopher,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and what you have learned from your studies. I pray for you as you make this dramatic change in your life. Be courageous. I have many close relatives who are part of the R.B. movement, and know that (to their credit) they will ‘give it [i.e., their view of this move] to you straight.’
Let me encourage you with news of a close friend of one of my R.B. relatives. This friend became convicted to enter the Catholic Church and the religious life. She is an only child of Protestant parents, a success at a prominent Christian university, and a young lady with her whole life in front of her. Against tremendous opposition, she listened to her conscience and her calling and is entering religious life now. If we could all be so brave to follow our convictions!
Peace in Christ,
Tom B.
Thanks be to God, Christopher.
I echo Tom’s comment. Friends and family members will be much more consistent in terms of following their system to its logical conclusions than those on the internet when they approach you with their disappointment in your decision. I’ve experienced it too (I think most of us have).
God Bless,
Joe
Christopher. Bless you on your journey.
Tom and Joe (and anyone else who is reading),
One of the things that I love so much, to this very day, about my Reformed Baptist brothers and sisters (at least the ones I have known personally), is their willingness to be direct and honest, when they believe that another brother or sister is wandering into what they (R.B.’s) consider to be dangerous heresy. Of course, as Tom writes, that is to their credit. We all *should* be lovingly concerned for each other’s souls, including to the point of direct confrontation and rebuke, if needed. In that light, by God’s grace, I will face whatever comes from my Protestant friends and know that it almost certainly comes from Christian love and concern.
I write the above, believing also that their concern is likely woefully *misguided or misinformed*, in terms of an accurate understanding of Catholic theology and ecclesiology, and yes, what the Bible truly teaches, in the context of Sacred Tradition and Church history. I say that now, only in light of how misinformed, in retrospect, I and many of my R.B. friends were about the Catholic Church and what she teaches. However, now is *not* the time to mount a Catholic apologetic to my Protestant friends. I will bear whatever reproach comes and hopefully do so with love, humility, and mercy.
This may sound incredibly silly, but due to my “Catholic struggles/questions,” I have not signed in to my Facebook page in months. I used to post there regularly, with Reformed observations, quotes, etc. I have hundreds of Reformed friends there, including the pastor of my former R.B. church in D.C. Soon, I need to go back, sign in, and “face” all of these friends. Please pray for me to do so lovingly. If anyone want to request me as a friend there, here’s the link: http://www.facebook.com/people/Christopher-Lake/1627371775 I’m the guy in the wheelchair. :-)
Tom, thank you for sharing the story of that courageous young woman. That is TREMENDOUSLY inspiring to me. I have already lost career opportunities as a result of my move back to the Church, and I’m at an age (37), and financial place, in my life, when the loss of such opportunities could be very damaging, if not ruinous, to my career life. God knows what He is doing though, and I cannot *not* return to the Church. I would rather be poor in the Church than have a “promising career” as a dishonest no-longer-Protestant who refuses to come Home for love of money and stability. God’s will be done.
Thank you to everyone, again, for your prayers! In case anyone is interested, I will also leave the link to a page where one can listen to a presentation from Joe Manzari, a fellow former member of my old R.B. church in D.C and a Catholic convert. The talk is entitled “Confessions of a Former Calvinist: The Top Five Reasons Your Protestant Friend Isn’t Catholic.” Scroll down to July 20th, and listen. Joe’s a neat brother. :-) http://www.arlingtondiocese.org/yam/_tot_audio.php
Christopher — Great news. Glad to hear it. Welcome back!
Thanks, Sean and Matt!:-) The warm love here is helping to prepare me for the “tough love” of certain Protestant friends!
Christopher-
I have been following your comments here for some time and have always appreciated your honesty and sincerity. I just wanted to join the conversation by sharing my congratulations with you. Your integrity is inspiring! God bless you, Christopher.
herbert vanderlugt
Bryan,
“But the same offensive act cannot be forgiven by the same person more than once. If on Monday I tell you that I forgive you for insulting me on Monday, and then on Tuesday I say to you, “I have decided to forgive you for insulting me yesterday” you’re going to realize that either I was not being honest with you on Monday, or I’m presently being dishonest, and attempting to remind you of your debt to me, in order to get something from you.”
You should see how your example betrays the very concept you are defending. We are talking about future sins here. We are not talking about — “I have decided to forgive you for insulting me YESTERDAY”. “Yesterday” is past. This is very telling of your arguments at this point.
But let me take on your illustration. God who is atemporal sees all aspects of time (past, present and future) as certainty. The future is as certain as the present. His creation (including man) sees time in a linear mode. For us, our future actions does not yet exist. But for God, it does. So when God relates to man and enters through time and said to him, “I have forgiven you of your sins even the one that you will commit on Monday…” For the creature, however, such language is incomprehensible. We understand time as linear and therefore the actions that we commit on Monday, in our perspective, does not yet exist. In our perspective, what is there to forgive and to ask for forgiveness? But for God, that future action does exist and is certain. God knows what we will do and he knows how he will react on Monday as if it were the present because he is atemporal. So in our perspective, when Monday comes, and God enters in the realm of time, applies his verdict as he has declared it to us and forgives us, there is no conflict at all. We are dealing with the “same event” (the Monday event), one that is spoken of by a God who is not bound by time and can therefore speak with certainty that he has forgiven us on this “Monday event” even though from our perspective those sins does not exist and therefore there is nothing to forgive. In our perspective, when Monday thus come and actualized in time, it is not as if God has forgiven us AGAIN.
This kind of foreknowledge of God about future sins is seen in Peter’s experience of denying the Lord three times (Mt. 26:33-35; Mk 14:29-31; Lk 22:31-34; John 13:36-38). For Peter, what Jesus said is incomprehensible. He utterly was determined to protect the Lord and could not imagine himself denying Him. But for an all-knowing, atemporal God, Peter’s future actions is as certain as if it were the present. God knows that he will forgive Peter as he has assured him that he has prayed for Peter, that his faith may not fail; and that once Peter have turned again, he will strengthen his brothers. From God’s perspective, the events are certain as if it already happened. He gives Peter the gift of repentance, protected him by praying that his faith will not fail (In fact, He is the one who answers prayer!). Implicit in this text is that God knows the events of how Peter will react and how He will react. Thus, it is not incomprehensible for such an atemporal being to speak of all future events as if it were past or present. He is as certain as “now” that he has forgiven Peter even before Peter has done his deed. The future is like history to a God who creates and ordains time.
It is not, therefore, unintelligible for God to declare that he has forgiven our past, present and future sins when we understand that he is atemporal! He is not bound by time. He sees clearly as broad as daylight that we will ask for forgiveness as He gives us the gift of repentance and that He will forgive (no matter what aspect of time we are talking — past, present, future). Though our language is incapable to describe how God sees the future, there is a sense in which he can declare to us (time bounded creatures) that he has forgiven us of all our sins (past, present and future).
The error of your criticism against the Protestant doctrine is the failure to account the dynamics and nature of both participants. You did not factor in your logic that God is atemporal and that he relates to his creation who are time bounded. Thus, your argument faces an error that can not be repaired. You may have to improve your whole selling point to Reformed people, for me, because it will not fly.
Regards,
Joey
Joey, (re: #69)
In order to refute an argument, you need to show either that one of the premises is false, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. So, here’s the argument.
(1) At the moment Henry adopted Joey, Henry forgave Joey’s future wrongs against him. [You agreed to this in #53.]
(2) At the training session after the adoption, Joey does something wrong to Henry. [stipulation]
Therefore
(3) At the moment Henry adopted Joey, Henry forgave Joey for the wrong Joey would do to Henry at the training session. [from (1) and (2)]
(4) Once Henry forgives an offense, he never unforgives a person for that offense. [Henry is a man of good character.]
(5) What is already forgiven remains forgiven and cannot subsequently be re-forgiven without first being unforgiven. [By the very nature of forgiveness, as I explained in #54.]
(6) At every moment after the adoption and before Joey wrongs Henry at the training session, Joey is already forgiven for wronging Henry at the training session. [from (3), (4) and (5)]
(7) At the very moment Joey wrongs Henry at the training session, Joey is already forgiven for wronging Henry at the training session. [from (3), (4), and (5)]
(8) At every moment after Joey wrongs Henry at the training session, Joey is already forgiven for wronging Henry at the training session. [from (3), (4), and (5)]
(9) At every moment after the Henry adopts Joey, Joey is already forgiven for wronging Henry at the training session. [from (6), (7), and (8)]
Therefore,
(10) At no moment subsequent to Henry’s adoption of Joey can Henry can forgive Joey for Joey’s wronging Henry at the training session. [from (4), (5) and (9)]
If you want to refute this argument, then you need to show which premise is false, and/or why the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Thank you, Herbert! Your comments here, over the months, have been helpful to me in my journey! God bless you!
Joey,
I see a few problems in your post #69.
(1) Peter wasn’t pre-forgiven in that example, he still had to sin before being in effect mortal sin, and he had to subsequently repent before full reconciliation. There was nothing a-temporal going on here, God merely knew what was to take place.
(2) You are conflating ‘pre-forgiven’ with an ‘a-temporal forgiven’. At the moment of justification (if not earlier, such as the Cross), all sin the elect individual would ever commit is legally forgiven. No sin he commits is contingent on a repentance for forgiveness. This is not synonymous with God’s a-temporal ‘perspective’ (which we cannot fully grasp, though, ironically, many Reformed don’t seem to consider this when discussing predestination/free-will – which is another topic), in which God sees all time ‘now’, though without that affecting the fact there remains chronological/logical order that still runs creation.
This can be seen more clearly when comparing the Reformed notion of “Perseverance” with the Catholic notion. From God’s view, He knows and sees the elect as having persevered. Yet from the view of creation, Reformed and Catholics say perseverance happens two different ways. The Reformed say the elect never can fall, thus he has de-facto “persevered” from the moment of conversion (if not earlier). The Catholic view says the elect can fall, but if they do, they will repent and be reconciled before death, and thus whenever death comes they will be found in a relationship with God. Both persevered, and God sees this reality, though perseverance took place two different ways.
(3) Your comments don’t mesh with the language of scripture, which only speaks of ‘past sins’ being forgiven, never ‘future’. Future sins being forgiven is a philosophical construct built from other doctrines. Further, your line of argumentation effectively puts you in the “Eternal Justification/Forgiveness” camp, where the ‘sinner’ is in fact born justified/forgiven before he even exercises faith.
While thinking about this topic of the weekend, something occurred to me that seems to make the argument in the post even stronger. All Protestants (so far as I know) maintain that
(1) at the moment of ‘x’ (fill that in with ‘faith’, ‘baptism’ or whatever), all my sins (past, present, and future) were forgiven.
Bryan’s original post is attempting to argue that those Reformed persons who hold to (1), cannot consistently and simultaneously hold to the view that
(2) when a Christian prays the Lord’s prayer (sincerely), at least one of his sins is forgiven.
So the dilemma Bryan proposes is that either (i) one may continue to hold (1) and (2) only on pain of irrationality [because they are mutually incompatible] or (ii) one must give up (1) or (2). The RC denies (1) and affirms (2).
In the combox, some have tried to escape the dilemma by arguing that the Lord’s Prayer is merely a model for prayer, it’s not meant to be prayed. So these people hold to what I’ll call the ‘model view’ of the Lord’s Prayer. And by holding that view they technically escape the dilemma because they can deny (2). [Bryan, and others, have tried to show that one cannot plausibly deny (2) with quotes from the Church Fathers.) So let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the one holding to the ‘model-view’ escapes the dilemma as worded.
But, it seems to me, this ‘model-view’ of the Lord’s Prayer doesn’t escape the thrust of (2) at all. If the model-view is correct (as we’re assuming), then the Lord’s Prayer sets out a model for prayer. That model contains several sub-elements, one of which is that one should ask for the forgiveness of one’s sins. Therefore, even if one doesn’t pray the Lord’s Prayer word-for-word, one should follow the ‘model’ and ask for forgiveness of one’s sins. If all this is true, the then the original dilemma still stands in its essence.
So for the Protestant holding the ‘model view’, (2) is easily revised to be
(2*) when a Christian prays [according to the model of] the Lord’s Prayer at least one of our sins is forgiven.
So for the Protestants holding to the ‘word-for-word’ view, (1) and (2) create what appears to be an insuperable problem. And for the Protestants holding to (1) and (2*), the original dilemma still creates what appears to be an insuperable problem. In short, one can’t escape the thrust of the dilemma by adopting the ‘model-view’ for two reasons. First, the ‘model view’ probably isn’t true (see the quotes from the Fathers). Second, even if the view is true, the original dilemma stands. Thus, the ‘model view’ adherent must either (i) one may continue to hold (1) and (2*) only on pain of irrationality [because they are mutually incompatible] or (ii) one must give up (1) or (2*).
The RC affirms (2) and denies (1) and (2*).
Chris,
This is Joe from CHBC. A friend alerted me to your post on here. I’d love to catch up with you. Shoot me an email at joemanzari [at] gmail.com.
– Joe
Hey, Joe! I’ve been meaning to get in touch with you for some time, brother! :-) I’ll send you an e-mail!
Without having read the article, let me add this question:
How does one square C2C’s position (namely, that God hasn’t forgiven us for our future sins) with Hebrews 10:14 (“For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Italics mine))?
Thanks!
Brad
Brad,
Concerning Hebrews 10: 15-18, Haydock writes:
In short, in the first part of 10:14 the author of Hebrews is talking about redemption, not the application of redemption. The “being sanctified” part of the verse is the application of Christ’s redemptive work.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Dear Christopher:
I am late to the party here, found the news on Tim Troutman’s blog.
Congrats and welcome Home!
6 years ago, after 31 years as an evangelical protestant(not reformed) I knelt down and prayed an act of contrition and then experienced a life-changing grace through absolution that continues to change me and draw me closer to Him through the riches of his grace in the Catholic Church.
You have just started a journey that keeps getting richer and deeper and, yes harder, as you face loss, persecution and trials. But his grace is sufficient for you and through the Church the channels of grace are wide opened and never ending.
God bless you
Russ Rentler, M.D.
http://www.crossedthetiber.com
Thank you Bryan. (Note: My caps are meant for italics, not for combative attitude :))
By your closing paragraph you seem to agree with Haydock where he states right near the beginning: “all that is wanting, is the application of the merits and satisfactions of Christ.”
Yet, this seems to completely ignore the EFFECT of Christ’s sacrifice in this text – namely, that it has “perfected forever” his followers. It seems nonsensical to say that he has “perfected forever” his followers, yet that Christ’s true followers will have sins not forgiven until pardon is asked.
Also, I don’t know of anywhere else in the NT, besides the Lord’s Prayer, where we are commanded to ask forgiveness. (1 Jn 1:9 may come into play, but I’ve seen that dismissed as directed to the non-Christian opponents whom John is combating in his letter.) If our forgiveness truly rested on our asking for it over and over, surely we would see it made obvious somewhere else, right? (Although I’m not a proponent of the it’s-really-important-only-if-it’s-said-a-bunch-in-the-Bible argument. So maybe you can dismiss that question.)
Thanks for any countering insight.
Brad
Brad,
When you hear “by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” you hear it this way: “by one offering, those who are being sanctified were permanently perfected.” But the context shows that this passage is about the objective priestly work of Christ. Every other priest, writes the author, has to repeat what he does, over and over. Christ does not have to repeat His sacrifice. He priestly work is completed in the one sacrifice of Himself. So when you read the “for all time” you should understand it this way: by this one sacrifice Christ has once and for all made complete atonement for those who are being sanctified. That is the sense in which He has perfected us, and that is the sense in which this perfection is “for all time.” The verse is not teaching that everyone for whom Christ died is already perfected with respect to the application of Christ’s work, because it is not referring to the application of redemption but to the procurement of redemption. The ordinary means by which the effect of Christ’s sacrifice comes to us is through the sacraments He has established; this is how His redemptive work is applied to us.
The universal testimony of the Church Fathers is that we are to pray the Lord’s prayer, to ask daily for the forgiveness of our sins. And only the Pelagians thought that the true Christian was sinless. St. Augustine makes this point over and over in his works against the Pelagians. The Church Fathers frequently refer to 1 John 1:8 as applying to all Christians. If you haven’t read the post, I recommend that you do so, because it may answer some of the questions you are raising here. See also my comments #14 and #18.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Thanks for your response Bryan. And I may take you up on your suggestions in the closing paragraph.
Grace.
Brad
Bryan – (Note again, caps are for italics)
You wrote: “But the context shows that this passage is about the objective priestly work of Christ.”
I definitely agree that this passage is about Christ objective work. However, I don’t think the context shows that this passage is SOLELY about Christ’s objective priestly work. It seems to be clearly also about it’s APPLIED results to the believer, which is where I disagree with your statement that,
“The verse is not teaching that everyone for whom Christ died is already perfected with respect to the application of Christ’s work, because it is not referring to the application of redemption but to the procurement of redemption.” .
We see that the context indeed deals with the APPLICATION of Christ’s work to the believer in the following verses:
vv1-4: “1For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, MAKE PERFECT THOSE who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the WORSHIPERS, having once BEEN CLEANSED, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to TAKE AWAY SINS.”
v10: “10And by that will WE HAVE BEEN SANCTIFIED through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
v.11: “11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never TAKE AWAY SINS.”
And again, v14: “14For by a single offering he has PERFECTED FOR ALL TIME THOSE who are being sanctified.”
Again, the context seems to be speaking about the application of Christ’s work, not just about the objective reality of it.
Thanks!
Brad
Brad, (re: #82)
I didn’t say that this chapter is only about the procurement of redemption, and not about its application. The focus in this chapter is on the procurement. Step back to the broader context. In chapters three and four the author explains that Jesus is our high priest in the New Covenant. Because He is our high priest in heaven, we may draw near with confidence to receive grace to help in the time of need. (Heb 4:16) The receiving of grace is the application of Christ’s priesthood to us. To all those who obey Him, He becomes the source of eternal salvation. (Heb 5:9) Then, at that point, the author says that he wants to explain more about Christ’s high priesthood, but the persons to whom he is writing are still immature. He shouldn’t need to lay again the foundation about the elementary teaching about Christ, namely, repentance, faith, washings (i.e. Baptism), the laying on of hands (i.e. Confirmation), and tasting the heavenly gift (i.e. Eucharist). Those are the ways in which Christ’s work are applied to the believer.
In continuing to explain Christ’s high priesthood, in Heb 7:23-25 we are told that because Christ holds His priesthood permanently [lit. into the age], He is forever [lit. to the perfection/completion/entirety] able to save those drawing near to God through Him, because He is always living to make intercession for them. Christ, in heaven, now has “obtained a more excellent ministry.” (Heb 8:6) That ministry in the New Covenant is His intercession for us, through His once-and-for-all perfect sacrifice. He entered into the more perfect tabernacle (Heb 9:11), through His own blood. (Heb 9:12) There is a clear relation between Heb 10:14,18 on the one hand, and Heb 6:6 and 7:22-25 on the other hand. In Hebrews 10:14, when the writer refers to the “one offering” he is referring primarily to the procurement of redemption. In the second half of the verse, the “being sanctified” refers to the on-going application of that redemption to the believer. Objectively, Christ takes away sins once and for all by His once-and-for-all sacrifice. But, that objective work has to be applied to the individual person, or it does not benefit them. The one-time nature of Christ’s sacrifice is reflected in the one-time nature of the application of it (to us), in baptism, as I explained in comment #67 of the Baptismal Regeneration thread. Christians are to remain in the grace that they receive in their baptism. This is what is meant by keeping unstained the white robes we receive at our baptism. Baptism in this way is the application Christ’s sacrifice, by which the baptized are “the perfected forever [lit. into the continuity, i.e perpetually].” Through our baptism into Christ’s one sacrifice, we are in this way once-and-for-all perfected with respect to being translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of light, having put off the old man and putting on the new man, having received the Spirit and walking thereon in the newness of the Spirit. And yet through the means of grace we continue to grow in the life of Christ and partaking of the grace He merited through His sacrifice; hence the continuous, progressive nature of “being sanctified.” (Heb 10:14)
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
PBI: Brad, the instructions for adding actual italics and other formatting are here, in case you’re interested. :)
Thanks Bryan.
You wrote:
“Through our baptism into Christ’s one sacrifice, we are in this way once-and-for-all perfected with respect to being translated from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of light, having put off the old man and putting on the new man, having received the Spirit and walking thereon in the newness of the Spirit. And yet through the means of grace we continue to grow in the life of Christ and partaking of the grace He merited through His sacrifice; hence the continuous, progressive nature of “being sanctified.” (Heb 10:14)”
But Heb 10:14 is not addressing (at least not directly) the concept of being transferred to the Kingdom of light, or the old man/new man, or the reception of the Spirit as they are applied to the believer. The immediate context addresses the forgiveness of sins and it’s application to the believer. As you parse v.14 you focus on Christ’s perfect sacrifice and the believer’s sanctification, but you seem to tend to fail to address that it is the BELIEVER (the one who is being sanctified) who is perfected. The believer is the direct object of “perfected,” not Christ’s sacrifice (although it is his PERFECT sacrifice that is the cause of the effect of the believer’s being made perfect).
Thanks much.
Brad
Law wife -
Ah, bless you!!
Brad
Brad,
You wrote:
I don’t think we’re not in agreement (at least I don’t see where you are disagreeing with me). That forgiveness of all past sins, that already of the believer’s perfection, just is the translation from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light; that takes places through baptism, by which we are instantly made sharers in the once-and-for-all death and resurrection of Christ. See the thread titled “The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration.”
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Brad,
How does your reading not require the author to be saying that we are perfect now? Neither Protestants nor Catholics believe that we have already been made perfect. Protestants believe that we are accounted perfect but are not actually perfect. The strong grammatical argument you keep pushing back on Bryan seems to prove more than you would actually want it to.
David -
Thanks for the question.
I don’t agree that my “accounted perfect” argument has intertwined with it being “actually perfect.” Sorry if it came off that way. In the immediate context of Hebrews 10, I only see being “perfected forever” as regarding “accounted perfect” as in being forgiven perfectly (ie – past, present, and future) of our sins.
Best,
Brad
Brad, (re: #89)
One problem with claiming that “he has perfected” [τετελείωκεν] in Heb 10:14 means that believers’ future sins are all already forgiven is that in Heb 7:25 the author had already written, “He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” If their sins had already been forgiven at the cross, then there would be no more reason to continue to make intercession for them. But the fact that He continues to make intercession for us indicates that at the moment of justification, it is not the case that all our future sins have already been forgiven. And this implies that we should not assume that τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that believers’ future sins are all already forgiven.
Another good reason to believe that τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 does not mean that believers’ future sins are all already forgiven is that the author says in 10:29, “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” Unless you think that a person can be sanctified without being justified, then the persons being referred to here in 10:29 are justified. And yet they are told that if they they “go on sinning willfully” (Heb 10:26), there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.” (Heb 10:26-27) Yet, if all their future sins had already been forgiven, then there could not possibly be any reason to expect judgment and the fury of fire for those sins. In other words, Heb 10:29 makes no sense if τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven.
Similarly, the author goes on to say, “But My righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” (Heb 10:38) A righteous person who is living by faith, is, necessarily, someone who has been justified. But if God has already forgiven all this righteous person’s future sins, then God has already forgiven him for shrinking back. But if God has already forgiven him for shrinking back, then God cannot cease to take pleasure in him for shrinking back. So, if τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven, then Heb 10:38 makes no sense. Likewise in Heb 12:25, the author writes, “For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven.” Here too, if τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven, then there is no possibility of needing to escape from divine wrath and punishment. So here too, treating the τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 as if it means that at the moment of justification, all a person’s future sins are already forgiven, turns Heb 12:25 into misleading fear-mongering. “Oh Paul [assuming Pauline authorship], come on, we see through your deceptive warnings; they don’t fool us, because you already told us in Heb 10:14 that our future sins are all already forgiven. So, just lay off all these silly warnings of divine fury and fire and wrath and not escaping. Go take a logic course, and get a coherent theology, for goodness’ sake.”
A much more coherent explanation of all this data, is one that comports with what St. John says in his first epistle: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:8-9) St. John is writing to and about believers. No Christian avoids all [venial] sin, at least not in this present life. This is why we still need to “confess our sins” so that He will “forgive us our sins.” If all our future sins were already forgiven, then after coming to faith there would be no need to continue to confess our sins and ask Christ to forgive us our sins. But the Church Fathers universally advocated the daily praying of the Lord’s Prayer, and hence that all Christians daily petition Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. This explanation also makes sense of all the warning passages in Hebrews, genuine warnings even to those who are presently justified. To assume that τετελείωκεν in Heb 10:14 must include the forgiveness of future sins, and use that assumption not only to assume that 1 John 1:8-9 must be talking about non-Christians, but also to undermine all the warning passages in Hebrews and to conclude that the whole entire early Church must have been misled or deceived in believing that we must daily confess our sins and ask for their forgiveness, would, in my opinion, be presumptuous and unjustified.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan -
I have yet to give this last post of yours a complete reading. If I don’t end up replying, you can assume I either bought your points or at least that it was good food for thought and further study in order to figure out my beliefs regarding this topic.
Thanks!
Brad
As a Christian in the reformed tradition, I thought I should say a few words about your article on reformed imputation and the Lord’s prayer
Firstly the forgiveness of sin in justification is the free, permanent and complete acquittal from the guilt and ultimate penalty of sin [past present and future] and belongs to all who are in Christ. [John 5:24 Rom 8:1 Eph 1:7] . This is not the same as the forgiveness of sin we are commanded to pray for in the Lord’s prayer. It is clear that when Jesus speaks about forgiveness in the Lord’s prayer he does not mean forgiveness in that sense because in like manner we are to extend this forgiveness to others that wrong us. I don’t know about you but when I forgive others it is not based on a requirement for satisfaction or expiation. To emphasize the point, the Lord reminds us that His forgiveness will be withheld from us when we fail to forgive others.
The life of the believer [one who is justified] is one in which remaining pollution is purified within us as we grow in Christ likeness. – This is called sanctification or daily putting to death the old nature by applying the righteousness and merits of Christ daily to our lives. This is demonstrated by the Savior’s work as a high priest in the heavenly sanctuary. John writes, “If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1). If a believer commits a sin, he still remains a child of God. However, the Holy Spirit is grieved by sin (Eph. 4:30) and a believer’s fellowship with the Father is disrupted. Thus, we need to acknowledge our sin and appeal to God through our Advocate—Jesus Christ
Regardless of whether you hold to a piece meal justification and propitiation for sin as taught by the r.c. church or a completed justification and once for all sacrifice, as taught by reformed churches, it is clear from this and the rest of scripture that those who are truly justified, are adopted as sons into the kingdom of God and household of faith and are commanded to make the confession of sin their constant duty. The Lords prayer emphasizes our dependency on the Lord as created beings. We are commanded to acknowledge that all our physical and spiritual blessings come from Him and just as bread is necessary to our physical body , so is the blessedness that comes from forgiveness necessary for our spiritual well being. Maybe thus is what Berkhof was alluding to in you article however our Father knows what is best for His people and regardless, the command of Jesus alone should put an end to any controversy.
Maybe the difficulty you have in understanding why reformed folk pray for forgiveness has to do with a failure to understand the difference between God’s wrath and eternal damnation upon the unjustified vs. His divine displeasure and chastening on the justified when they sin.
Nigel Wilson
Mississauga,
Canada
Nigel,
For clarification, would you say that we are asking for the forgiveness of sins in the Lords prayer or not? You make some good points about the Lords prayer pointing to our dependance on God, quite true. But Christ does ask us to ask for forgiveness.
When I was Reformed I took this to mean that 1. I had sinned.(which every time I checked I had) and 2. I needed forgiveness that was not given until I asked (other than God’s grace for forgotten sins)
Are we asking for forgiveness for our sins or not?
Peace,
David Meyer
Nigel, (re: #92),
Thanks for your comments, and welcome to Called To Communion. If the forgiveness of sins in justification includes the forgiveness all past, present and future sins, then at any subsequent time, what remains to be forgiven? That is, if justification is sufficient to forgive all our sins (past, present and future), then what could possibly remain to be forgiven?
Of course I agree that when I forgive those who sin against me, I’m not acquitting them from the ultimate penalty of sin. But of what sin exactly, does the Father forgive us, when we forgive those who trespass against us, if at some prior moment of justification all our sins (past, present and future) were forgiven? It seems in that case that there is no unforgiven sin left, for which to ask forgiveness from the Father.
Is it a sin to grieve the Holy Spirit? If so, then are all future sins of grieving the Holy Spirit forgiven at the moment of justification, or not? If they are, then why subsequently ask for their forgiveness? But if they are not, then why are those sins not forgiven at justification, while all other (past, present and future) sins are?
The “command of Jesus” doesn’t put an end to the controversy because we do not believe Jesus to be a mere dictator, but also the Truth. So when He commands that we should ask the Father daily for the forgiveness of our sins (as we ask for our daily bread), this implies that we still have daily need of forgiveness, and thus implies that our future sins were not all forgiven at the moment of justification. If Jesus had commanded us to pray, “And patch up the disrupted fellowship between You and us, as we patch up our fellowship with others,” we would have good reason to believe that the Lord’s Prayer does not teach that we are supposed to be asking daily for the Father’s forgiveness of our sins against Him. Or if Jesus had commanded us to pray, “And put aside your divine displeasure toward us your displeasing sons, as we put aside our displeasure toward our displeasing friends,” we would have good reason to believe that this request is about something other than asking for the forgiveness of our sins. But, that’s not what Jesus commanded. He commanded us to ask the Father daily for forgiveness of our trespasses against Him.
If God is already as pleased with you as He can possibly be, because by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness when the Father sees you He does not see your own filthy rags but instead sees Christ’s perfect righteousness, then there is no reason to think that God is “displeased” with you. The very notion is incompatible with the reason for and implications of once-and-for-all double imputation. If the Father sees that you’ve been sinful, and has displeasure over your sinfulness, by peeking behind the covering of the imputed righteousness of Christ, then you are not only under “divine displeasure;” you are still under divine wrath. Does the omniscient God only partially peek behind Christ’s imputed righteousness? Surely not. Either the imputation covers or it doesn’t. If it covers, then there is no reason for the Father to be displeased with you, because the Son never did anything displeasing to the Father, and by faith alone you irrevocably have the Son’s perfect righteousness. And therefore, if you’re Reformed there is no reason for you to ask the Father daily for the forgiveness of your sins, not only because those sins were already covered by the imputed righteousness of Christ when you first believed, but because in that same moment you acquired the perfect righteousness of Christ, in whom the Fathers is well-pleased, and not in any way displeased.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Yes our sins are forgiven, but not with respect to our justification. That is a completed matter for believers. What accompanies Justification is adoption where we are placed into the family and care of God and because of our union with Christ we are forgiven daily. This forgiveness and the grace attached to it is with respect to sanctification and with NOT with respect to our status or position before God. Our sanctification is the dying and putting to death of remaining filth, sin and pollution.
This is shown beautifully in John 13 where Jesus says to Peter, you took one bath you dont need to take another, all you need is your feet cleaned. As believers we are bathed in the rigteouness of Christ and what He wants to do is to clean off our remaining sin and pollution from dailiy living
So to summarise then, the forgiveness in justification is judicial and is a completed event for believers, the forgiveness in the Lord’s prayer is Fatherly and relational because of remaining sin in us and our living in the world.
I think a larger issue for those in the roman church is why, [since you believe in a progressive justification,] do you pray “Our Father…”
Nigel, (re: #95)
You have re-stated your position, but it seems to me that you are not answering the questions I asked you about it. If all our sins are already forgiven at the moment of justification, then there is nothing left to forgive. So if you say, “Well, there are still sins left to be forgiven with respect to sanctification,” I’m going to ask you what does that even mean. That is, what does it even mean for sins to be forgiven with respect to justification, but not yet forgiven with respect to sanctification? Are there fundamentally two kinds of sins (i.e. the justification sins that are all forgiven at the moment of faith, and the sanctification sins which are forgiven progressively over the course of one’s earthly life), or are there two modes of forgiveness in God (i.e. the justification mode of forgiveness, and the sanctification mode of forgiveness)? If the latter, then what, exactly, is the difference between these two modes of forgiveness, and where are you getting this from in Scripture? If you are united to Christ at the moment of faith, then why isn’t Christ’s death sufficient to effect the present [sanctification-mode] forgiveness of all your sins (past, present and future), while His death is sufficient to effect the present [justification-mode] forgiveness of all your sins (past, present and future), such that you have to add some of your own works to Christ’s sacrifice to acquire this [sanctification-mode] forgiveness.
It seems very odd that Christ’s death would, at the moment of faith, be sufficient to effect the immediate [justification-mode] forgiveness of all your sins (past, present and future), but not sufficient to effect the immediate [sanctification-mode] forgiveness of all your sins (past, present, and future). In addition, how much work do you have to do, to get God to [sanctification-mode] forgive you, since He hasn’t already [sanctification-mode] forgiven you for all your present and future sins? How do you ever know you have done enough to acquire that sanctification-mode forgiveness for your past and present sins? If faith alone isn’t sufficient to get God to [sanctification-mode] forgive you, then what and how many human works must you do, to get Him to [sanctification-mode] forgive you? What if you forget to do these works? Do those sins remain [sanctification-mode] unforgiven? How is it possible for a sin to be forgiven by God [justification-mode], and yet that same sin to be unforgiven by God [sanctification-mode]? Does God see us in two different ways, one as covered by Christ’s righteousness, and one as deprived of Christ’s righteousness, and not let His left hand know what His right hand is doing? Why isn’t the imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness sufficient to make you perfectly righteous in the Father’s sight? Does it even make sense to put the following words into God’s mouth: “I forgave you for that sin already, in my justification-mode of forgiveness, but you still need to beg for forgiveness for that sin, because in my sanctification-mode of forgiveness, I have not yet forgiven you.” Would any decent human father say that to his children? “I forgave you already, for what you did wrong, but you still need to beg forgiveness from me, because in another mode, I haven’t yet forgiven you.” That seems to make God schizophrenic. This conception of God’s forgiveness of our sins seems so incredible that the Catholic explanation makes more sense.
If you wish to know why Catholics pray the “Our Father … ” see comments #14 and #18.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Simeon (949–1022) preached against nominal Christianity, which was expressed by a merely outward faith and public confession of sins.
Bryan
Consider:
Simeon ( 949–1022) argued that if our Christian faith is genuine, we will be engaged not only in the periodic public confession of our sins, but in the daily private confession of our sins as well.
From his Discourses, we read,
“Let us endeavor to attain to purity of heart, which comes from paying heed to our ways and from constant confession of secret thoughts of the soul. For if we, moved by a penitent heart, constantly and daily confess these, it produces in us repentance for what we have done or even thought.”