Forgiving somebody before they repent, removes forgiveness and reconciliation as a possible incentive for them to repent later. You’re actually putting them in more danger of eternal damnation by forgiving the unrepentant person. By making them think the matter is already properly settled. Biblical repentance isn’t just words either, it is a demonstrated change. Saying that you’re sorry (because you got caught) isn’t repentance if you might do the same thing again if you got the chance. True repentance includes realizing your due penalty, and seeking to make restitution, if possible, like how Zacchaeus vowed to pay back fourfold anything he had wrongly charged people, in accordance with the Jewish law’s penalty for stealing. If you’re still trying to justify your behavior, you’re unrepentant.
I know of a couple of apocryphal additions to the New Testament that support this misguided crime-abetting view of forgiveness. The key is to notice that those servants of Satan who wickedly added to God’s words, are clearly pushing this repentance-free forgiveness. Jesus’ and John the Baptist both preached repentance. Most of God’s prophets called for repentance. The Gospel is that forgiveness is available for those who truly repent and call upon the name of Jesus, who gave His life as a sacrifice for our wickedness.
After I wrote “On Forgiveness” I saw this comment and I wanted to explain the problems it raises. Let’s talk about it point-by-point.
Forgiving somebody before they repent, removes forgiveness and reconciliation as a possible incentive for them to repent later.
Forgiving your brother or sister means that you release your claim to their sin-debt against you. It means you release them from any desire on your part for retributive justice. It does not mean that they are released from any justice enacted by God or God’s agent, the government. Forgiveness does not mean a person escapes punishment.
Forgiveness does not mean that you cannot—or should not—seek their repentance and reconciliation. It does not mean you shouldn’t approach them privately as an individual, or with witnesses, or to bring them before the church. Nor does forgiveness preclude the church from expelling your brother or sister from the church.
Forgiving your brother or sister prior to repentance often has the beneficial effect of heaping coals on their head:
Notably also, one cannot reconcile with another unless one has forgiven them. By forgiving early and often, you ensure that you will not be consumed by bitterness, hatred, or spite that could stand in the way of repentance and reconciliation.
You’re actually putting them in more danger of eternal damnation by forgiving the unrepentant person.
If a brother or sister is a brother or sister, then they are not in danger of eternal damnation. To believe is to be saved:
By contrast, if you refuse to forgive a fellow believer, it is you who is in danger of eternal damnation, not them:
How many sins have you committed for which you failed to repent? How many have you forgotten or didn’t even know were sins? How many slights against others have they chosen to ignore simply because they love you?
It is impossible for you to enumerate all of your sins, and yet God forgives you for all of them. And he does the same for your brothers and sisters. If you cannot accept that others get the same rewards and benefits that you do, then those rewards and benefits will not be applied to you. Jesus made this clear:
…and…
God is fair and will judge you according to the standards that you judge others. If you are unforgiving, God will honor your standards and not forgive you either. But if you freely forgive, even those who have failed to repent, then God will forgive you even though you have failed—and will fail—to repent for countless sins.
Biblical repentance isn’t just words either, it is a demonstrated change. Saying that you’re sorry (because you got caught) isn’t repentance if you might do the same thing again if you got the chance.
Yes, that is what repentance is. It is turning away and not sinning any more.
But, when Jesus told Peter that there was no limit to forgiveness, he was saying that such forgiveness must be offered a brother or sister even when they fail to repent. For what is a person who needs to be forgiven dozens or hundreds of times (“seventy times seven”)? It is someone who has not truly repented, one who sins against you again and again when given the chance to do it again.
Being a Christian does not mean we cease to sin. I wish it were, but it’s simply not the case. If by our deeds—our repentance—we had to be saved, then no man or woman would be saved.
This is why forgiveness extended to our brothers and sisters must be independent of their repentance, for how could a man truly forgive his brother or sister if he did not know if she would sin against him again? How could he possibly know if such words were empty or sincere?
It’s not possible to demonstrate repentance (e.g. “have not, am not, and will not engage in adultery”), for that would be to prove a negative. How could one, after all, prove that they were always faithful to their spouse? Proving a negative is effectively impossible because it requires omniscience. It’s simply not possible to know that someone—including yourself—will never fail to repent.
Jesus did not say “repent and never lapse” he said to forgive your brother from your heart. Your duty is not to know, validate, and ensure the heart of another, it is to know your own heart.
True repentance includes realizing your due penalty, and seeking to make restitution, if possible, like how Zacchaeus vowed to pay back fourfold anything he had wrongly charged people, in accordance with the Jewish law’s penalty for stealing.
Jesus showed grace in fellowship by sharing a meal with Zacchaeus before he repented. Jesus initiated the relationship first. He made the first overture of peace. Only after this—and because of it—did Zacchaeus respond by seeking to make restitution for his sins. Then, in the eyes of God, salvation came.
So it is with us. We forgive in order that others will repent, such that God—who knows the heart—will save them.
I know of a couple of apocryphal additions to the New Testament that support this misguided crime-abetting view of forgiveness.
To the best of my knowledge I have not cited any contested scriptures to support the unnecessarily pejoratively named “crime-abetting view of forgiveness.”
The key is to notice that those servants of Satan who wickedly added to God’s words, are clearly pushing this repentance-free forgiveness. Jesus’ and John the Baptist both preached repentance. Most of God’s prophets called for repentance.
Forgiveness does not preclude repentance. Those who have sinned must repent. Those who have been sinned against must forgive. Vengeance remains the Lord’s.
Forgiveness is not repentance-free, it is repentance-independent.
Anyone, at any time, can choose not to enforce the sin-debt they hold against another, just as anyone who holds a financial debt or slavery debt against another can forgive it at any time of their choosing. No one can gainsay a man’s right to forgive, to dole out objectively unfair payments, just as the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard attests.
I believe the key problem here is not with repentance nor with forgiveness. Rather, it is with the lack of excommunication. When Jesus and Paul spoke of forgiving a brother or sister, they did so in the context of the church expelling the unrepentant. Forgiveness was the responsibility of the one who held the sin-debt, while excommunication became the responsibility of the church. The individual duty to forgive remains, but the apostate church has failed in its duty.
Consequently, the issue isn’t whether or not you should forgive—you absolutely must—but in when and how church discipline should take place. And, as this blog has demonstrated, a number of men complaining about forgiveness without repentance have spit on the legitimacy of church discipline. To wit:
If you’re still trying to justify your behavior, you’re unrepentant.
This is true in a way that the Commenter does not realize.
One man tried to justify his rejection of Jesus’ instructions (e.g. to confront privately and with witnesses) by mistakenly claiming that because Jesus—who was one with God, sinless, could read a man’s heart, and who inherently qualified as multiple witnesses—did not follow those instructions, that he too was exempt from obedience to Christ’s instructions.
Another man tried to justify his rejection of Jesus’ instructions by claiming that the body of Christ was limited in authority by isolated pockets according to geographic locality.
The Gospel is that forgiveness is available for those who truly repent and call upon the name of Jesus, who gave His life as a sacrifice for our wickedness.
This is not the Gospel. Here is the reference being made above (noted in bold).
But the righteousness that is based on trust speaks in this way:
(that is, in order to bring Christ down), or,
(that is, in order to bring Christ up from among the dead). On the contrary, what does it say?
(that is, the message about trust that we are proclaiming)
because if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from among the dead, you will be saved. For a person believes with their heart, resulting in righteousness, and a person confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says…
…since there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him; for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord—those who believe, by their confession of faith—are saved. Repentance is a result of such faith, not its cause. Repentance is proof of faith. To say that repentance is required for—that is, the cause of—salvation is works-righteousness.
In the New Testament, repentance is always in the name of Christ:
Just as baptism does not provide forgiveness, neither does repentance. It is calling on the name of Jesus Christ that provides forgiveness of sins. Both repentance and baptism follow from faith.
Notice how the writer of Hebrews says that we have been perfected for all time, but are being made holy. Just as justification and sanctification are not the same thing, so too are forgiveness and repentance different. Justification and forgiveness are received once and for all when one believes, while sanctification and repentance are ongoing. Or, to put it simply, you obey because you believe, you do not obey in order to believe.
I’m appreciating your perspective on this , Derek (last two posts).
Reading though I’m not commenting. Lot of food for thought.
See my response below.
I like that pseudonymous commenter Deti is starting to see and embrace the value of exposing pretty lies and ugly truths of NOT just church, BUT church & state.
Pseudonymous commenter Deti says:
10 April, 2025 at 4:16 pm
So here is the proposed solution. It might work. Perhaps not well, but it would do something like ”married game” making DAL’ ” a happily married MAN with his sexy wife and two wonderful kids in texas”.
I see. “Shock therapy” for men in the form of simply cutting them off. So…. we’re going to single out men who’ve already had the ever loving sh!t kicked out of them for decades; and we’re going to…kick them some more?
Seriouslyzlolzzzlolzzzzzlozozlozoz?
It’s quite telling, isn’t it, that “shock therapy” for single moms/welfare queens made those single moms…. get McJobs. Why didn’t it incentivize them to return to their baby daddies? Why didn’t it make them pick better baby daddies? Why didn’t it incentivize them to find men?
The “shock therapy” is going to make more men self-delete, withdraw even deeper into themselves or addictions, or emigrate/passport bro but without the “bro” or ”your going overseas biotch” even.
What is missing here?
First, I don’t believe America really wants to solve this problem. I believe they really want average men to die in fires. That’s what they REALLY want. And dream about at night after watching Colbert for DS & MAYBE RS after watching a Ben Shapiro debate.
If they do want to solve this problem, though (which I fervently do not believe):
Jobs. That pay well.
It also might be a good idea to stop kicking the sh!t out of men while yelling ”MAN UP & LEARN GAME/RIZZ BEEEYEOTCH!!”
It also might be a good idea to stop calling men incels, rapists in training, sexual assaulters, predators, and violent, merely because they’d like to meet, date, fux, and marry women, and procreate. How about we stop doing that? And how about we stop doing that to average guys, bottom 80% guys? Stop the constant drumbeat of “men ain’t shite, men are worthless, men are evil nasty raping predatory violent sacks of shite that don’t get me aroused”. This last point would be a good second step. That is, if America really wants to solve this problem, which I don’t believe it does.
Where was Pseudonymous commenter Deti when Roissy=Heartiste wrote the following post?
https://heartiste.org/2012/11/09/what-is-the-point-of-telling-ugly-truths/
What Is The Point Of Telling Ugly Truths?
November 9, 2012 by heartiste
The subject of this post is the new plaintive wail you lately hear spilling from the schoolmarmish pursed lips of liberals and status quo-ers who are suddenly becoming very uncomfortable with the torrent of discomfiting truths penetrating the airwaves, and especially with the truthbomb throwers like the proprietors of this blog who actually sport a working sack and don’t give a flying fuck what offense the perpetually fake phony fraudulent grievance constituency takes when their cocktail party discourse is crashed by mischievous pricks.
“What is the point of telling ugly truths? Don’t you know it will hurt people? What good can come from it?”
The value of truth is self-evident. The pursuit of it needs no explanation. The fact that a growing chorus of institutional(ized) ruling elite is starting to think that some truths are best left locked in an attic chest bodes ill for the future of freedom of speech in America. I predict within ten years legislatures and courts across this land will impose restrictions on the First Amendment. And the Founding Fathers, having already rolled a million times in their graves, will roll one last time, and the earth will swallow whole the America we once knew, but which will be no more.
You think I’m joking, or that I’m posing in martyr garb. Ok, think that. Then get back to me in ten years, and we’ll see if you still have the confidence of your snarky smirk.
But I am in a magnanimous mood. Some ask the question from genuine motives. They sincerely don’t, or can’t, see the value in exposing pretty lies and ugly truths. And they want to know, “Where’s the Benefit?” One such topic of discussion which often elicits this bristled reaction is honest discussion about average human population groups differences (along numerous metrics). I understand the urge to silence, or cavalierly dismiss, open discussion of this topic. The human ego is the most powerful force in the universe, more powerful even than the female tingle. We are constructed of origin material that impels us to wrap our senses of self-worth in the neuronal equivalent of three foot steel-reinforced concrete bunkers, and to associate, no matter how unjustifiably, attacks against our tribe as judgments on ourselves.
I get it.
And… you know what? I don’t care.
Not anymore.
Not when the opposite of the truth — the filthy, acrid lies we here have been choking on for fifty years or more in this country — has been, and continues to be, used as a cudgel to bludgeon the skulls of the favored whipping boys and to take a huge steaming dump on reality.
It is an affront to my lying eyes. It is Orwellian in philosophy and practice. It is a humiliation, a personal slap in the face, to parade this stinking carcass of bullshit in front of me as if it is the Word of God and I should swallow it whole, for my own good you see.
I say fuck you to all of that. And I dream of the day when the rope will be knotted and the lampposts freshly lacquered for the vengeance upon my enemies, my betrayers, that is so sweet. So sweet.
Ahem.. oh yeah where was I… just had a caffeine moment… phew.
Anyhow, some persons of what I judge to have good hearts, ask if any good can come from discussing AICH BEE DEE. They ask what, if anything, would change if the ugliest truths were accepted by the ruling class? What is the practical benefit of hurting some people’s feelings? The reader Thursday emailed what I think is a very good reply to this question, and so I reprint it here:
Some practical applications of HBD:
1. Immigration restriction. You need a certain number of high IQ people to keep a First World society going.
2. An end to affirmative action. Minority underperformance is not due to racism, so affirmative action is grossly unfair.
3. Discouraging dysgenics, i.e. not subsidizing single motherhood through welfare, regardless of disparate impact on minorities. See #1.
4. Shutting down movements to let minority prisoners out into society. (I’m open to other equally effective methods of controlling crime, but they should be applied to all, not just minorities.)
5. An end to blaming white racism for all the problems of the world.
5a. This may seem like mostly a minor annoyance. But really intellectual hygeine is reason enough to get rid of it. Forcing people to believe lies is generally corrupting.
5b. It prevents people from thinking seriously about solving the problems among low IQ groups. You can’t solve a problem unless you think clearly about its cause.
You could make a case for some of these things without recourse to HBD, but we all know how effective that has been. For example, you can’t just talk about IQ without talking about HBD. The disparities between high and low IQ racial groups just are there and are used to discredit the idea of IQ in general. These days you really have to quote chapter and verse with hard data to show you aren’t racist.
As for inferior, well that is a judgment call. In some important ways, blacks may be superior to whites and not just in regards to sports and celebrity. T. is Haitian and I’d note that Haitian art is just way better than anything done in America in the past 50 years or so.
Whites have created liberal modernity and it is not without its significant downsides, spiritual, artistic and even intellectual.
Of course, blacks and many of these other groups don’t seem very good at creating and maintaining a crime free, high tech society. Though I’d note that high levels of black crime and social dysfunction are at least partially a response to living in certain societies. I’ve visited St. Lucia, which is a very black place, and, up until the recent influx of tourodollars, it had been mostly crime free and is still relatively so. Blacks in the South up until the 1960s were relatively peaceful and well ordered too. But modernity + blacks seems to equal lots of crime and social dysfunction.
This is just a taste of the good — GOOD — social benefits that would come from listening to the truth instead of running from it or trying to shut it down. IQ is but one measure of a man’s character, and but one ingredient contributing to a culture’s prideful sense of self and trust in fellow-man. The truth covers much more extensive territory than just the particulars of abstract thinking ability. Any lie-pusher who attempts to reduce the debate to a disingenuous IQ war is engaging in deliberate obfuscation of the myriad other truths which pulse through the veins and capillaries of the human panoply of difference.
The consequences of lies matter. They matter more than most are willing to admit.
Derek,
You didn’t know how BIG Roissy=Heartiste could be on HBD /IQ?
“What is the point of telling ugly truths? Don’t you know it will hurt people? What good can come from it?”
The value of truth is self-evident. The pursuit of it needs no explanation.
This sounds a lot like what Derek has said, too, about himself & his blog?
I did not know that, but his blogroll should have clued me off:
I guess I never bothered to actually read it!
This sounds a lot like what Derek has said, too, about himself & his blog?
Indeed. Truthseeking is a self-evidently good pursuit. Without it, I would not be blogging. Remember that when you read Monday’s scheduled post.
Liz,
It really astounds me when people say that a “cursory reading” of the Bible is enough to come to various conclusions, when a “cursory reading” of the Sermon on the Mount yields the exact opposite views from what they claim is “obvious.”
Much of what Anabaptists teach is found by just reading three chapters in Matthew (5-7). All the effort in coming these conclusions comes not in the reading, but in resisting the urge to incorporate whatever a priori doctrinal baggage each man brings.
It further amazes me how foreign the core Anabaptists teachings (such as the Schleitheim Confession and the Dordrecht Confession) are to those who were not raised in it. Consider OKRickety’s comment here (and my two responses). I didn’t invent these ideas, but hardly anyone takes Anabaptism seriously.
I did a 40+ part series on Communion. I’ve been talking about the Matthew 18 protocol—corresponding to excommunication—for years. I consistently oppose participation in government (including voting) and violence (i.e. by promoting nonresistance). I’ve made references to the early patristic writings that reject infant baptism. I’ve noted that Christian leaders must be married with children and not ever having been divorced. I routinely discuss suffering and persecution, which are core Anabaptist concerns. My teachings on divorce and remarriage (here and here) are distinctly Anabaptist.
And here? I am merely simply describing the bog-standard Anabaptist take on forgiveness:
The Amish and Mennonite teachings on forgiveness are deeply rooted in Jesus’ teachings, especially the Sermon on the Mount, and the belief in living out the Gospel through humility, nonresistance, and community harmony. Here’s a summary of their view and when forgiveness applies:
(1) Forgiveness is not optional
It is a central Christian duty, based on Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:14–15—“If you forgive others… your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” Forgiving others is seen as essential for one’s own salvation.
(2) Forgiveness is offered even without repentance
While some Mennonite groups may place more emphasis on repentance, Amish teachings often stress unconditional forgiveness. They believe it reflects God’s mercy and helps prevent personal bitterness or vengeance.
(3) Forgiveness is communal and restorative
Especially in Amish contexts, forgiveness isn’t just personal—it is often practiced within a church discipline framework, such as Meidung (shunning), which is intended not as punishment but as a call to repentance and eventual restoration.
(4) Nonresistance and letting go of vengeance
Forgiveness ties closely to the broader commitment to nonviolence and nonretaliation (Romans 12:19). This is why, for example, the Amish community famously forgave the gunman after the 2006 Nickel Mines school shooting.
(5) Forgiveness as a way of life
It’s not a one-time act but a habit of heart, practiced daily in relationships, marriages, and church life.
When Forgiveness Applies
In case you thought I was making all of this up and that it was just my own private interpretation, it is notable that I only just now asked ChatGPT about this. That its response so closely mirrors my own shows that my viewpoint is not unique.
…and…
You can see from that quote by the founder of my sect why I oppose anonymity. One does not flee from the cost of following Christ, rather one risks it all.
Peace,
DR
I appreciate your series on forgiveness; I think it’s well written and it’s something I agree with. I wanted to point out one thing, though: the commenter’s reference to “apocryphal additions to the New Testament that support this misguided crime-abetting view of forgiveness” is likely a reference to your (or whomever the comment is in reply to) citing Luke 23:34. Although “apocryphal” is likely stretching it a bit; this verse does appear in several manuscripts (including Codex Sinaiticus), just not others.
Oh, that might be it. Nice catch.
As you note “Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence” is not exactly apocryphal. A variant reading, sure, but not missing from all early sources.
The commenter finds another variant reading in Paul’s work (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) to be authentic, even though it shows up in different locations in different manuscripts. IMO, this is stronger evidence of being apocryphal—a scribal gloss—than, say, merely missing from some manuscript families.
The funny thing is, I added that reference to Jesus on the cross after I had drafted the original article. It was not essential at all. I added it in to supplement the argument. Maybe I’ll remove it or replace it with a different reference.
Pingback: On Forgiveness, Part 3 - Derek L. Ramsey
Luke provides a plain refutation to this argument. If forgiveness is an incentive for repentance, then logically a lack of forgiveness will lead to more repentance. This is the opposite of what is seen in Luke. In Luke, we see that if one is not forgiven, they will “love little” and not repent. Repentance results from forgiveness, it should not be the cause of it.
Moreover:
And those who were reclining and eating with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”
Your views are confusing, Derek. I don’t even think our definitions of what “forgiveness” is are the same. You seem to say that after forgiving a person you can still confront the other over the matter and drag them before the church and get them shunned and excommunicated. And excommunication, according to Roman Catholic belief, is literally sentencing them to eternal damnation. To me that all doesn’t seem very “forgiven”. It seems like you are still holding them liable for their sins.
e.g. Your post says: “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins.
By contrast, if you refuse to forgive a fellow believer, it is you who is in danger of eternal damnation, not them:”
That seems to be contradictory. How can I (a believer in Jesus Christ) be in danger of damnation if “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins”. Are you saying that God then damns the same ones He has forgiven?
My comment at Feeriker’s site was before I have just now discovered and lightly skimmed what was going on here, and was not in response to anything written here. However as noted above, Luke 23:34, is questioned by many, partly because of its absence from many early manuscripts, and partly because it is also contrary to many people’s understanding of forgiveness. Also, the lawless Pericope Adulterae which shows Jesus forgiving a whore who is not recorded as showing either repentance or faith, and then Jesus purportedly denies her husband the justice of His Father’s law and subjects the cheated husband to enduring cuckoldry and an adulterous marriage.
Jesus said, “if he repent, forgive him.”
Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. 4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
Why does Jesus there repeatedly drag repentance into a matter where it supposedly isn’t necessary? Is The Omniscient One intentionally trying to cloud things? If other Bible passages omit a mention of repentance, are you basing your doctrine upon a supposed proof due to an omission? If Jesus believed that repentance is necessary for forgiveness, He may well have felt free to sometimes omit mentioning it, for brevity’s sake, because he felt repentance could be inferred and presumed under the context of forgiveness.
No doubt. I’m using the definition of forgiveness—the cancellation of debt—that the Old Testament, Jesus, and the New Testament writers used.
We speak of Jesus as our Redeemer, but in the OT a Redeemer was one who literally paid money to redeem another, such as a firstborn son or a kinswoman. It’s about erasing the debt of another. This is forgiveness:
The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
In union with him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our transgressions, according to the riches of His grace
But they are declared righteous freely by his grace through the redemption that is accomplished by Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an atoning sacrifice through trust in his blood. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in God’s restraint he passed over the sins previously committed…
He entered once and for all into the Holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood, thus obtaining everlasting redemption.
…
And for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called will receive the promise of the inheritance in the age to come.
He rescued us from the authority of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.
Sin is an offence that creates a debt to another, whether just God or also to men. Generally, the debt must either be paid (e.g. in blood, labor, or material wealth) or else forgiven. In the Old Testament, true forgiveness was not available, so sin had to be atoned for, that is, covered over.
Repentance is ineffective at cancelling debts, for it does not—and cannot—nullify the outstanding debt owed, only prevent new debt from acruing to one’s account. Forgiveness means cancelling or paying for debt already owed, repentance means not acruing additional debt.
I’ll say more on that in Monday’s post.
A person is forgiven if you do not demand that their debt against you be satisfied, that is, you permanently release them from that debt.
Church discipline is not concerned with sin debt. It isn’t about punishment at all, not is the church even in a position to dole out forgiveness, because it does not hold the sin-debt. Rather, the church is obeying Jesus—and for that matter, Paul—who told them to remove sin amidst the congregation. It is primarily a matter of calling the sinner to repentance and secondarily to determine if excommunication is required.
The church itself focuses only on repentance, not forgiveness, because a brother in Christ is already forgiven by Christ’s saving work on the cross, once for all. That’s exactly what Matthew 18 teaches.
Thus, to obey Christ, the church instructs the accusor to forgive and the accused to repent.
No, by not forgiving, a man damns himself. It is his own freely made choice. To wit:
…and…
…and…
For more on unforgivable sin, see here and here.
On account of the Law of Moses, both partners had to be punished. It would have been injustice for Jesus to condemn just the woman.
Do you not know? King David committed adultery and God did not condemn him to death as required by the Father’s Law. You should ask yourself why God isn’t required to follow his own Law if it is to be blindly followed without considering the spirit of the Law.
Ask yourself: if the Father could revoke the death requirement for adultery, why couldn’t the Son do likewise?
It is very simple. He doesn’t.
I’m going to do a very quick overview of Jesus’ teaching on repentance, forgiveness, and faith.
In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus mentions repentance (3:2, 3:8, 3:11, 4:17, 11:20-21, 12:41) he does not mention forgiveness at all. In the most explicit reference for the forgiveness of sin (9:2-6), Jesus cites their faith as the reason. There isn’t even a mention of repentance! Matthew attributes the forgiveness of sins to Jesus’ blood poured out (26:28).
The Gospel of Mark mentions repentance just three times (1:4, 1:15, 6:12). In the first, John is baptizing for repentence and the forgiveness of sins. Unless you think John the Baptist was teaching Roman Catholic baptismal regeneration, this isn’t a teaching that repentance is the source of forgiveness. But in the second, after Jesus was baptized, he declared repentance and belief with no mention of forgiveness. In the third, Jesus was preaching that people should repent. He made no mention of forgiveness.
The Gospel of John does not mention repentance at all. It mentions eternal life and forgiveness (in terms of lack of condemnation and judgment) as being the result of faith in five different chapters.
The Gospel of Luke mentions repentence 14 different times, more than all the other gospels combined. But like the other gospels, Jesus taught that the forgiveness of sins was associated with faith (e.g. 5:20-24, 7:48-50, 19:9-10). There are verses where one must repent in order to avoid death, but none in which repentance is the cause of forgiveness. As for Luke 17:3-4, I’ll discuss that in more detail on Monday, but the conclusion is no different than the one we found in Matthew 18.
In short, Jesus didn’t teach repentance for forgiveness, he taught faith for forgiveness, and the New Testament confirms that faith is the source of forgiveness and that repentance—a work of righteousness—is the effect of being redeemed, not the other way around.
See my series on Justification by Faith, particularly part 2.
No doubt. I’m using the definition of forgiveness—the cancellation of debt—that the Old Testament, Jesus, and the New Testament writers used.
We speak of Jesus as our Redeemer, but in the OT a Redeemer was one who literally paid money to redeem another, such as a firstborn son or a kinswoman. It’s about erasing the debt of another. This is forgiveness:
Matthew 20:28
The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Ephesians 1:7
In union with him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our transgressions, according to the riches of His grace
Romans 3:24
But they are declared righteous freely by his grace through the redemption that is accomplished by Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an atoning sacrifice through trust in his blood. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in God’s restraint he passed over the sins previously committed…
Hebrews 9:12-15
He entered once and for all into the Holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood, thus obtaining everlasting redemption.
…
And for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called will receive the promise of the inheritance in the age to come.
Colossians 1:13-14
He rescued us from the authority of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.
Sin is an offence that creates a debt to another, whether just God or also to men. Generally, the debt must either be paid (e.g. in blood, labor, or material wealth) or else forgiven. In the Old Testament, true forgiveness was not available, so sin had to be atoned for, that is, covered over.
Repentance is ineffective at cancelling debts, for it does not—and cannot—nullify the outstanding debt owed, only prevent new debt from acruing to one’s account. Forgiveness means cancelling or paying for debt already owed, repentance means not acruing additional debt.
Sin is an offence that creates a debt to another, whether just God or also to men. Generally, the debt must either be paid (e.g. in blood, labor, or material wealth) or else forgiven. In the Old Testament, true forgiveness was not available, so sin had to be atoned for, that is, covered over.
THIS is the main reason why GBFM said ”many at the Dalrock blog say ”JESUS came to abolish the law.”
For as JESUS himself said
18 For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished.
19 Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness (your uprightness and your right standing with God) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.Matthew 5:17-20-Amplified Bible, Classic Edition
JESUS is the living Spirit of righteousness that the letter of the law could NEVER give, as pointed out by Jesus with the scribes and Pharisees.
This parallels the ”law of ”CHRISTian/married game” as preached chiefly by ST. Dalrock versus the higher calling of The GREAT Renaissance or Spiritual rebirth to restore the CHRISTian soul in marriage, courts, universities & schools as preached by GBFM.
Jesus’ blood fully paid for all the obligations due under the First Covenant (the Law of Moses) in all perpetuity.
Having no ability to pay for our debts, we were sold into bondage—or slavery—only for Jesus to redeem us (pay the cost for our sin) and then to discharge—cancel—the debt that he had purchased. Because he owned the sin-debt, he could cancel it at his discretion and no one could gainsay him.
Having been freed, we now follow Jesus who is the fuller, more perfect expression of the Law.