Sermon Notes:There is what I call a, “Majority Opinion”, that has taken hold in Western Christianity. This teaching or opinion, while well intentioned, is a dangerous distortion of the teaching of Scripture and of the Holiness of God. This majority position is held by people like Lewis Smedes (1984, p.69) Mark McMinn (1996, p.207) Ed Smith (2005, p.168), Neil Anderson (2000, p.2230), Tim Clinton and George Ohlschlager (2002 p.240) Everett Worthington( 2005, p.114) and Robert Enright and Richard Fitzgibbons (2006, P.41). The position of these writers is that repentance is beneficial for forgiveness but not pivotal. Repentance according to these writers is that repentance is only required for reconciliation. Forgiveness is an act that an offended person can do without ever seeking the repentance of the offender. However, according to this view, reconciliation requires both the giving and the receiving of forgiveness. The majority opinion uses Matthew chapter 18 as its go to passage to justify its viewpoint. In Matthew 18 they turn to the story of the unmerciful servant who has his debt cancelled and does not return the favor to his servant who has debts. Because of his unforgiveness the unmerciful servant is put in jail and his property is confiscated. Jesus in the passage warns that if we do not forgive others our heavenly Father will not forgive us. The story of the prodigal is also a key passage where the father is seen receives his son back and gives a party for him before any word of repentance is uttered (Lk. 15:11-32). The hermeneutic that comes from these and other passages brings a theology and methodology that subscribes to two forms of forgiveness, divine and human. According to Everett Worthington: Jesus’ direct teaching on forgiveness links divine forgiveness with human forgiveness of others who have offended us…. Interpersonal forgiveness is meant to be unilateral, not contingent on or waiting for the offender to accept responsibility confess, apologize, make restitution, ask for forgiveness, and completely turn from the sinful and harmful acts….Divine forgiveness is linked to human repentance….but interpersonal forgiveness is not. Why the difference?....God is infinite and can know each offender’s true motives, but humans cannot. Thus, God relieves us of trying to discern people’s true motives prior to forgiveness (Worthington, Sharp, Lerner and Sharp, p.33). The appeal of this position is that it seems to match the biblical texts. Second, it offers a way for clients to bring healing from past hurts, especially when the offender is not repentant or is no longer alive. Third, it is a means of no longer feeling held captive to the repentance of another. Fourth, it gives a one a sense of being altruistic. The problem with this approach is that it does not match the biblical material fully. Second, is not needed for healing to take place. Third, one does not have to be held captive without repentance. Fourth, it may not be as altruistic as would like to believe. The above assertions are born out in a number of substantial ways. First, we see this truth theologically in our obtaining of forgiveness from God. Every major evangelical theologian across the theological spectrum would agree that repentance is required for forgiveness to be granted and salvation to be obtained, ( Sproul [1992, p.193], Ryrie [1982, p.337], Geisler [2004, p.518], Erickson [1985, p.937] and Miley [1989, p.100]). God requires repentance for the obtaining of forgiveness. Otherwise the atonement would have no value. People would not care to reach out for it. Without repentance being conditional for forgiveness mercy simply become license, justice would become optional, and God’s divine attributes would become fickle. Further, to make Worthington’s argument that God can require forgiveness because He is God and we are not is a very strange assertion. We would be hard pressed to make a statement like that about the necessity for holiness, justice, mercy, love, purity, charity, integrity, humility, sincerity, patience, kindness, gentleness, peace, goodness, long-suffering or righteousness. We are to pursue these because we are called to be holy because God is holy. Our role is to glorify Him. This can only be done when we look and act like Him. Imitation is the best form of flattery. Worthington creates all sorts of strawmen dealing with doctrine and justice versus love and grace from his formulations of warmth-based and conscience-based virtues. Worthington creates an either/or scenario in this formulation. He does not seem to see that without doctrine there is no truth and thus no love, and without justice there is no grace and thus no forgiveness. What is more, there is no forgiveness without the acceptance of it in repentance. Second, we see this truth in the biblical evidence on forgiveness. In Matthew 18 deals with church discipline we are told that, “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (15-16). The meaning of the word, “listen” in this context involves a reshaping of one’s whole perception…and then expressing trust in God by acting on the Word and putting it in practice (Richards, p.333). Hendrickson translates this verse as, “If the sinner refuses to admit his guilt and to repent” (1979, p.669.). In the continuation of Matthew 18 we come to the key passage that is used by the majority position on forgiveness. It is the story of the unmerciful servant in verses 21-35. What is astonishing is how grossly the issue of repentance is missed in this passage by the majority position. The bad guy of the passage is the one who owes debts and has debts owed to him. He goes to his master who is about to demands repayment and begs for mercy, acknowledging his debt. Because of the acknowledgment of the debt and his begging for mercy he is forgiven. The same scenario is played out with his servant who comes to him except the debt is not forgiven. The master of the first servant hears of what has taken place and gets angry because when this first servant confessed (giving the appearance of repentance) and begged for mercy he was given it. I think we all know what would have happened to this man if he had not acknowledged his debt to his master, it would have been a short story! This same issue is seen in the story of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-32). We are told that the boy comes to his senses and says, “I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you”(18). When the son comes and the father sees him he runs to him and kisses him. Why? It’s his son. He misses him and loves him. Yet, the son still knows what needs to be done and he says, “Father I have sinned against heaven and against you”(21). The majority position’s handling of the biblical text engages in an exegesis and hermeneutic that is motivated more by professional pragmatics than biblical accuracy. An example of this is Worthington’s clam that the Scriptures are clear on what we are to do in regards to forgiveness, “We are to forgive unilaterally”(p.32). Respectfully, Worthington’s conclusion comes not from the proofs glean from the text but from proof-texting that guarantees a predetermined conclusion. Worthington pulls together bits and pieces of biblical references on forgiveness without giving any regard to the whole of their context. Worthington takes loving and praying for our enemies (Matt. 5:44), not seeking revenge or not bearing a grudge (Lev. 19:18) or Jesus’ words on the cross, “Father forgive them. They know not what they are doing.”, as equaling forgiveness without repentance. Using this last references as an example, Worthington spends little time digging into the meaning and of the text, its context within Scripture, and its congruency with person and work of God. He overlooks Jesus’ words for what they are, a request to extend the divine offer of forgiveness for sin; an offer always given and received in repentance to God. Worthington all but admits this in his comments on the means of divine forgiveness vs. interpersonal forgiveness. For Jesus to forgive without requiring repentance would, according to Worthington’s hermeneutics, place Jesus not in the realm of the divine but the human. The only other alternative would be to place God in a position of offering a salvation based on theological universalism. Liefeld correctly notes that this prayer to the Father was an offer of forgiveness by Jesus for those who crucified Him (Gaebelien, 1984, p.1043). No one should conclude that this was an offer that did not require repentance on the part of those who engaged in this act. Such forgiveness would have been a miscarriage of justice, an assault on the holiness and veracity of God’s character and nothing more than theological universalism. Why? Because such an offer of uncondional mercy was never given to Judas. We see this issue of repentance throughout the Scriptures: “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents forgive him. If he sins against yo
