when forgiveness is not love

[HEADJANITOR's note:  I pulled this blog after it was online for only one day -- thinking, that it might be too strong meat for some to receive. But after receiving feedback about how helpful this article was, I decided to enlarge and re-post it. I certainly believe it is relevant and needful, as we labor to "rebuild" the walls of Truth, in the spirit of Nehemiah....]

The two snakes in the above photo are similar in appearance.  But one is harmless, whereas the other is deadly poisonous.  The illustration is meant to suggest that it can be very harmful not to carefully distinguish between two things that look alike.  Consider the principles of Love and Forgiveness.  Forgiveness is commonly perceived as (an act of) Love.  But that can in fact be a deadly mistake....

Recently, it was reported that a pastor publicly expressed "forgiveness" to three men who allegedly broke into the pastor's home and savagely murdered his young wife.  Importantly, it appears that none of the three burglars/murderers has expressed any remorse for his heinous deeds.  In fact, they have all pled "not guilty" to the charges; which, their denial of wrongdoing, is prima facie evidence of their lack of repentance.

At least one well known Christian leader praised the pastor's decision to forgive his wife's killers, saying, that is "what a true man of God must do" (emphasis added).*  But why would a well known and respected Christian leader insist that "a true man of God [or anyone else, for that matter] MUST" forgive unrepentant murderers and thieves?  Moreover, why would one of the world's leading (and Christian-owned) Internet news sites (WND.com) publish and thus endorse such an opinion as that?  Doubtless, one is likely thus to be tempted to believe that the Bible evidently commands that sort of behavior which the bereaved pastor "exemplified," in extending his unsolicited forgiveness to unrepentant killers, and which behavior the reputable Christian leader highly commended.

One may be tempted to believe that the Bible teaches such folly; but one would be wrong actually to believe it.  For, in the case above described, the young pastor's unsolicited "forgiveness" is not an act of "love," but of naiveté, at best.  The pastor's expression of forgiveness, in the circumstances described, may furthermore lead to a number of truly harmful consequences, as I next explain.

We may of course take God as the perfect example of right conduct.  God does not require of individual humans any belief or behavior which is not true of God.  God requires that we must emulate (strive to be like) Him, in the goodness of His moral character.  God both understands as well as He faithfully executes the right application and administration of forgiveness.  We must then learn about forgiveness, by observing (in Scripture) whom--and under what conditions--God forgives.  Even a cursory familiarity with the Bible plainly reveals that God has not forgiven everyone; the reality of Hell is proof that untold multitudes are without God's forgiveness.

And why are they unforgiven?  It is because they are unrepentant of their sin.  God does abundantly pardon the guilty sinner--who is truly repentant (which is something very different from merely feeling remorseful).

But in the absence of genuine repentance, God neither forgives evildoers nor their evil deeds.

Which brings us back to the bereaved young pastor.  By "forgiving" his wife's unrepentant murderers, the pastor thus misrepresented an important doctrine of Scripture.  And contrary to the (un-Scriptural) opinion of the pastor's high-profile Christian supporters, he did not "exemplify" Christian belief and conduct, but in fact he misrepresented the same.  His own misguided actions--especially as those have been widely publicized, doubtless shall influence others to do as he has done, in diverse circumstances where judgment -- and not forgiveness -- is what ought rather to be done.

Forgiving wrongdoers -- who are unrepentant -- makes one complicit with evil.  One might as well "forgive" the devil.  To forgive the unrepentant, is to condone their evil deeds, and so encourage them to persist in wrongdoing.  Whereas, the Bible commands that evil doers are to be "punished".

Victims who "forgive" the unrepentant, may, in some way and in some measure, even hinder God's judgment against their oppressor(s).  If your child, let us imagine, informed you that he was bullied by another kid in the neighborhood; nevertheless, your child also informed you that he had "forgiven" the bully: would you not therefore be constrained, in some measure, regarding how you would subsequently redress the wrong that had been done to your child?  Would you not care to honor your own child's expression of forgiveness?  And might it not similarly be the case with God, whensoever anyone "forgives" his or her oppressor(s), that, once "forgiven" by the victim, God's judgment against the oppressor may thus be mitigated by reason of the victim's act of 'forgiveness'?  Might it not be the case that we may thus tie God's hands, as it were, from His exercising righteous judgment on our behalf?

Yet there is more.  Can one who acts contrary to God's will avail himself of God's power?  That is to say, Can one who "forgives" sin apart from repentance, thereafter receive from God the comfort that comes from the Holy Ghost when one has done what is right in God's sight?  It must be impossible for those, who suppose they have "forgiven" their unrepentant oppressor(s), thus to obtain peace from God.  Yet, that is precisely what many contemporary preachers insist IS the path to peace.

"If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him." 

(Luke 17:3)

Seems straightforward enough, to me.

We have no such duty before God to forgive, willy-nilly, anyone for their trespass.  But we have the express duty (as shown above) to "rebuke" -- even a fellow Christian -- who has trespassed against us.  In so doing, we take the first step, in true obedience to the Word of God, to initiate the process -- in the case that the offender may actually be a Christian, of "restoring" such an one who, evidently, has been "taken in a fault" (Galatians 6:1).  Or, in the case that the offender is not a Christian, our rebuke then serves to expose the works of darkness to the Light of God's Law and, through the power of the Holy Ghost, to bring the offender under conviction of sin.  But if we presume to "forgive" transgression apart from repentance on the part of the transgressor, we ourselves thus become guilty before God together with the transgressor.  For the Word saith:

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds"  (2 John 9-11).

In other words, if you align yourself with the doctrine (and deeds) of a transgressor, even so much as by 'bidding him God speed', you thus become complicit (in partnership) with the transgressor.  God does not merely wish that people would depart from sin and become obedient to His Word, but God "commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30).  At what moment you presume to "forgive" any sinful act -- where there is not true repentance, you make yourself a liar -- for, you have no such authority from God to forgive; and, you become yourself a transgressor -- for, in the sight of God, you have conspired with the transgressor to conceal his or her sins, contrary to the express will of God in Scripture, and so you become complicit with the transgressor.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Doubtless some will object that Jesus, while hanging on the cross, forgave his murderers, even though none of them demonstrated any sign of repentance.  But that supposition is grossly wrong.  Though I have not the space here to fully expound the case, let us briefly consider the essential facts, as follows.  Firstly, Jesus did not say they were forgiven -- as he did in other instances (i.e., Matthew 9:2), but Jesus asked the Father to forgive them.  Secondly, for whom, specifically, did Jesus ask forgiveness?  It was not for everyone who was in any way involved with his trial and crucifixion.  Rather, Jesus asked that those men who actually nailed him to the cross might be forgiven.  How do we know that is true?  Because, Jesus explicitly said:

"...they know not what they do.  And they parted his raiment, and cast lots"            (Luke 22:34).

Who, then, were "they," for whom Jesus requested forgiveness?  'They' were the Roman soldiers -- who, not with malice toward Christ, but in the course of fulfilling their duties as Roman soldiers assigned to be the (Roman) State's executioners, on that particular day, carried out what they evidently believed were lawful orders (subsequent to trial).  "They" were the ones who actually killed Jesus; but "they" did it not with evil intent.  Concerning those who delivered Jesus over to BE killed, Jesus himself said, to Pilate: "[H]e that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin" (John 19:11).

It is high time that Christians cease to regurgitate the corruption they have imbibed at every polluted cistern.  Let us return to the pure fountain of truth, that is, to the Word of God!  Most professing Christians (in America, at least) are perverse in judgment, because they are ignorant of the Bible: and they are ignorant of the Word of God because they love darkness rather than light: as if it doesn't really matter that much to them, anyways...


* Carl Gallups, quoted in Internet article: "After Wife is Slain, Pastor Chooses 'Love, not Hate'"; at URL http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/after-wife-is-slain-pastor-chooses-love-not-hate/   11-24-2015.