Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots." Luke 23:34.
This prayer does not confer forgiveness.
That is the text that I was speaking of, Richard. I would ask that we consider this carefully. Was Jesus the express image of the Father's character or not? If he was, then his attitude toward these men was the same as the Fathers. Would the Father grant Jesus' request for forgiveness or not? I believe that he would. There is nothing in that text that would imply that forgiveness was not granted.
Again, I think the real problem is that we have come to equate forgiveness with salvation. That is simply not the case. A sinner can be forgiven and still not be saved. This is the crux of my point. If a thief is forgiven but is unchanged he is still a thief. If these men who tried to murder Jesus were never converted, they will die the second death. The issue was not that God was unforgiving towards them. It is that sin results in death.
We need to adopt Ellen White's definition of forgiveness if we are going to use that word today to equate with salvation. I gave her definition in a different thread, but it may serve well to have it here also:
quote:
But forgiveness has a broader meaning than many suppose. When God gives the promise that He "will abundantly pardon," He adds, as if the meaning of that promise exceeded all that we could comprehend: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:7-9. God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin. It is the outflow of redeeming love that transforms the heart. David had the true conception of forgiveness when he prayed, "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me." Psalm 51:10. And again he says, "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us." Psalm 103:12. {MB 114.1}
I want to highlight her words: "God's forgiveness is not merely a judicial act by which He sets us free from condemnation. It is not only forgiveness for sin, but reclaiming from sin. It is the outflow of redeeming love that transforms the heart."
Unfortunately, we have equated salvation with a "judicial act" which pardons our penalty. That is not true. Salvation is that PLUS the transformation, or change, of character. It is not because God would not forgive those murderers of Chrsit. He did, just as Jesus asked. It is that those men assumingly did not subsequently allow God to change them. That's the key.
The only condition that the Bible attaches to God's forgiveness is that we also forgive others. In other words, we must allow God to change us to be like him: freely forgiving. That in no way changes the awful truth, which God first told Adam in Genesis 2:16: sinners will die.
On that last note, several have mentioned that God will destroy in the end, seemingly directed at me. I'm not sure what I said that implied that I might not believe that fact, since you will not find it in any of my posts. Anyone who has ever heard me teach a class on the subject knows that I believe that God will destroy the wicked in the end (second death), and has put many people to sleep (first death) in the past. In fact, my understanding of God's character and his dealing with sin requires that this be true.
I do believe in Mrs. White's characterization of God's attitude towards the destruction of the wicked:
quote:
We are not to regard God as waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. The sinner brings punishment upon himself. His own actions start a train of circumstances that bring the sure result. Every act of transgression reacts upon the sinner, works in him a change of character, and makes it more easy for him to transgress again. By choosing to sin, men separate themselves from God, cut themselves off from the channel of blessing, and the sure result is ruin and death. {FLB 84.7}
There are those who seemingly believe that God will not destroy sinners in the end. I am not one of them. However, I believe that destruction is one of natural consequence rather than imposed punishment. In other words, I believe that when God told Adam that sin would kill him, I believe that God meant that rebellion would result in death, not that God would impose the death penalty as punishment if Adam didn't do what God said. The end result is the same. But what each says about God is not.
I believe that what God demonstrated on the cross was that what He had said about sin resulting in death was true, even if it had appeared at the time that it was not, since God had interposed and not allowed man to die the second death "in the day that he ate". This is EXACTLY what it says in Romans 3:25, when it talks about why Jesus had to suffer death on the cross, which is the topic of this thread.
The truthfulness and trustworthiness of God lies at the center of the great controversy. Answering these accusations saved the universe. I point to the statements of Mrs. White about how what happened at the cross secured even the unfallen worlds from falling. And God answered the question of doubt which formed in Lucifer's mind at the very beginning, whether it was true that sin would result in death, or whether it could be that God was simply withholding freedom from his created beings, and you could live however one wished and still live. God showed on the cross that even the sinless Son, if treated as a sinner and seperated from the Source of Life, would die.
Aside from points on which we apparently do not agree, can't we agree on my primary point, which is that forgiveness, as defined by most people today as legal pardon alone, does not equate to salvation? That in itself would be significant, as a proper understanding of what salvation entails, including both legal pardon AND transformation of character by the power of God, would cure the prevailing understanding of most Christians which results in an impotent gospel, one that has no practical effect on the sinner.