In part part V of this series, we saw that the New Testament teaches the “lawful use of the law” in revealing sin.  We saw that the rich young ruler thought he had successfully kept the commandments from his youth, just as many Adventists believe that perfect law-keeping is achievable and even necessary to hasten the second coming of Christ.  In both cases, the person who trivializes the law by believing he is capable of meeting its demands risks relying upon his own effort instead of depending on the mercy and grace of God through his Son.  By defining the law so narrowly that we can rise to its demands, we fail to appreciate the incomparable holiness of God and, by contrast, the depths of our own depravity.  As such, we don’t fall under the weight of our own sin and acknowledge our total inability to meet the law’s requirements.

In Psalm 32, we see the biblical response of a sinner’s confrontation with the law.  Perhaps no biblical figure understood his own guilt and the need for God’s grace better than David, who was guilty of committing both murder and adultery.  There is much to learn by reading and applying the words he uses in acknowledging his own sin, having been crushed under the weight of his transgressions.

“Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
For day and night your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer.

I acknowledged my sin to you,
and I did not cover my iniquity;
I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’
and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.” (Psalm 32:1-5 ESV)

Charles Spurgeon eloquently unpacks the truths in these verses in his Treasury of David.  “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven. He is now blessed and ever shall be. Be he ever so poor, or sick, or sorrowful, he is blessed in very deed. Pardoning mercy is of all things in the world most to be prized, for it is the only and sure way to happiness. To hear from God’s own Spirit the words, ‘absolvo te’ is joy unspeakable. Blessedness is not in this case ascribed to the man who has been a diligent law keeper, for then it would never come to us, but rather to a lawbreaker, who by grace most rich and free has been forgiven. Self righteous Pharisees have no portion in this blessedness. Over the returning prodigal, the word of welcome is here pronounced, and the music and dancing begin. A full, instantaneous, irreversible pardon of transgression turns the poor sinner’s hell into heaven, and makes the heir of wrath a partaker in blessing. The word rendered forgiven is in the original taken off or taken away, as a burden is lifted or a barrier removed. What a lift is here! It cost our Saviour a sweat of blood to bear our load, yea, it cost him his life to bear it quite away. Samson carried the gates of Gaza, but what was that to the weight which Jesus bore on our behalf?

Covered by God, as the ark was covered by the mercyseat, as Noah was covered from the flood, as the Egyptians were covered by the depths of the sea. What a cover must that be which hides away for ever from the sight of the all seeing God all the filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit! He who has once seen sin in its horrible deformity, will appreciate the happiness of seeing it no more for ever. Christ’s atonement is the propitiation, the covering, the making an end of sin; where this is seen and trusted in, the soul knows itself to be now accepted in the Beloved, and therefore enjoys a conscious blessedness which is the antepast of heaven. It is clear from the text that a man may know that he is pardoned: where would be the blessedness of an unknown forgiveness? Clearly it is a matter of knowledge, for it is the ground of comfort.”

The same God who forgives sin also tells us he will remember it no more, casting our sin into the depths of the sea and removing our sin “as far as the East is from the West” (Isaiah 43:25, Micah 7:18-19, Psalm 103:12).  These promises provide infinite reassurance to the sinner whose salvation is secure in Christ while dealing a death blow to the belief that an investigative judgment of professed Christ-followers is now underway.

Truly God’s grace is unsearchable, a grace that is apprehended by the faith of a sinner who knows the depths of his own impotent unrighteousness, confessing it without hesitation.

Read more in part VII.

Thanks for continuing this series, Greg.

There are a couple of points I want to try to make.

1. The gospel accounts are equally clear that our forgiveness by God hinges on our granting forgiveness and grace to others. Some of the Matthean texts come to mind (7:1-2; 6:12; 18:23-35). We might resolve this by differentiating between true and false repentance. But in either case, it is the response to that forgiveness that makes complete God’s forgiveness of us. In the parable of the debtor, the king reinstated the original debtor’s obligations (v.34) after the original debtor failed to forgive a far smaller obligation. How long of a period rests between the forgiveness offered by God and our graceful and complete reception of that gift? In the parable the period didn’t appear to be long at all, as the ungrateful (and that’s a response) debtor immediately came across one who owed him a much smaller amount and as immediately offered no grace or forgiveness to his debtor. I’m not arguing that even after forgiveness our sin is maintained in God’s mind or in a record book (maybe God is using CD’s now) indefinitely. But the Bible does indicate that, in keeping with His regard for our free will, one is free to accept or reject the forgiveness. In the debtor’s case, his treatment of his fellow debtor was an indicator of his not accepting with gratitude the forgiveness granted him. And finally, David’s acceptance of God’s gracious forgiveness involved a considerable change of heart; we don’t have any further evidence that David again committed adultery or committed an act of blatant murder.

2. The idea that our sins remain on the “books” of heaven even after their forgiveness until the sanctuary in heaven is cleansed and our sin then fully atoned for is a) unique to Adventism and b) paradoxically, not born out by the sanctuary typology.  Leviticus 4 indicates that the blood from the individual sacrifice did not enter the Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary. It was applied to the horns of altar of sacrifice and the remainder poured out on the ground. On the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) there were no individual sacrifices. The general burnt offering was made and then offerings made on behalf of the High Priest and all of the people. During the year, only the blood of offereings made for the High Priest and the people at large entered the Holy Place and were applied to the horns of the altar of incense. The Day of Atonement was therefore, essentially a collective ritual, one without bearing on individual sins committed throughout the year. True, the Israelites were commanded to “afflict themselves” (16:31) but as the Day of Atonement reflected the concerns and justification of the entire congregation, there’s no reason here to read into the ritual any sense of individual rememberance of sins past. In a couple of places, EGW erroneously states or implies that the blood from the individual’s daily offering entered the Holy Place and because of that required cleansing on the Day of Atonement (see my comments at the end of your post “The Gospel, 1844 and the Judgment, Introduction").

3. Grace and forgiveness, especially when our recognition of sin is heartfelt, is a beautiful thing. The story of the Prodigal Son(s) is I think the most wonderful in all the Bible.

4. One final point about sanctuary typology: it may be that the sanctuary building and rituals have something to teach us about salvation. But I don’t find any love in them. When a sinner repented he merely brought forward an animal sacrifice. He may have loved the animal and the animal may have loved him (typically not as the animal was probably just recently purchased), but the animal didn’t offer itself voluntarily. And again, at the Day of Atonement, the description of the ritual and the context don’t give much sense of love or gratitude to God. It seems to connote only fear. But we’re told that “while we were yet sinners, God died for us” (Romans 5:8)

Thanks Greg for another great post.

The further out I get from my SDA roots, the more I appreciate reading great sermons on the Law. This sermon from the prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon is no exception:

http://www.the-highway.com/Spurgeon4.html

I don’t agree with Spurgeon’s transference of Saturday to Sunday Sabbatarianism, but the essence of this sermon confirms Greg what you have been presenting.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: David

Stan,
Charles Spurgeon was very much right on in his reverence for the holy Law of God. Thanks for the link to that website. The following sums it up:
“Now, if that law had been too high and too hard, Christ would not have exhibited it in his life, but as our exemplar he would have set forth that milder form of law which it is supposed by some theologians he came to introduce. Inasmuch as our Leader and Exemplar has exhibited to us in his life a perfect obedience to the sacred commands in their undiminished grandeur, I gather that he means it to be the model of our conversation. Our Lord has not taken off a single point or pinnacle from that up-towering alp of perfection.”

I can appreciate your honesty about desiring to hear about the Law the further you get from SDA roots. I left for 13 years for something better, but found life to get way out of my control. Maybe all you needed was a breath of fresh air, and now you can face the stifling church crowd again, this time with an abiding, stable confidence in Christ’s forgiving love. That’s what happened to me. That can make us missionaries to His people

I believe that our natures desire a father’s love and protection and guidance, a father the size of God. Commanding us has been God’s message to the soul that He’s in charge and still with us, despite all our misguided efforts to ruin ourselves and everyone around us.

Its a privilege His commandment-keeping children have to call Him our Father. Its our privilege to obey Him.

David,

Welcome to 4TG and thanks for your assessment of Spurgeon’s article.

Are you saying, though, that you left Adventism for 13 years for something better, and now you have returned to Adventism? I would be interested in discussing this further either on this forum publically or by email at

When I first left Adventism, I was enthusiastic for what is called New Covenant theology, and I still respect this form of understanding of the law as articulated by John Reisinger at http://www.soundofgrace.com

However, I was seeing some disturbing trends in other “New Covenant” circles. I believe the law of God is eternal, but where the Bible clearly talks about ceremonial aspects of the Law given on Sinai such as in Lev. 23, then, it became clear to me that the Sabbath commandment was clearly a law exclusively for Israel, and was never restated as a command for the Christian church.

But, now I have found a church outside of Adventism which respects the Law of God in the way Spurgeon did. We are going to a Presbyterian Church (PCA--which is very conservative) with pastor Ron Gleason http://www.rongleason.org and there are many similarities to Adventism. It’s music is hymnody with just a piano singing the great hymns of the Christian faith. The preaching is “Filet Mignon” meat of the word expository preaching (I did not find good expository preaching in Adventism).

But, the PCA believes in salvation by sovereign grace alone. It has a very high view of election--same as Spurgeon--but once you are born again, you are really a new creation in Christ. The heart of stone is changed into a heart of flesh, and God’s eternal laws are written in our hearts, and then the overwhelming desire to obey God is implanted. Yes, we still battle our fleshly natures, and we will never be sinless. But we never presume on the grace of God. Because we are new creations in Christ, our new nature wants to obey him, and we can never lose the salvation that is granted as a free gift of grace.

The difference in most of Adventism is that in reality you keep the law to stay saved, rather than because you are saved. That idea creates an oppressive view of the Christian life. Because, if it were possible to lose your salvation by sinning, then at what degree of sinning do you not pass the scrutiny of the Investigative Judgment? I am referring to the traditional teaching of Ellen White in Great Controversy.

So along with Spurgeon, Luther, and Calvin, we hold a very high view of salvation and the sovereignty of God, but, when God does create a new creature in Him, He also creates a hunger in our spirits to seek after Him with all of our hearts.

Stan

[quote author="glennspring"]The gospel accounts are equally clear that our forgiveness by God hinges on our granting forgiveness and grace to others.

Glenn, thanks for your thoughts.  We’re probably seeing this just a little differently, but I think we can agree that those who receive God’s grace will, out of gratitude, extend that grace to others, albeit imperfectly.  Those who are forgiven much, love much (Luke 7:47-48).  Dovetailing with what Stan said, if we are a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), we will hunger to seek after him and in so doing, will forgive others who have sinned against us as Jesus did, even unto death.

[quote author="glennspring"]The idea that our sins remain on the “books” of heaven even after their forgiveness until the sanctuary in heaven is cleansed and our sin then fully atoned for is a) unique to Adventism and b) paradoxically, not born out by the sanctuary typology.  Leviticus 4 indicates that the blood from the individual sacrifice did not enter the Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary. It was applied to the horns of altar of sacrifice and the remainder poured out on the ground. On the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) there were no individual sacrifices.

I had not thought about the individual vs. collective forgiveness of sins before.  You’re right–we have a logical contradiction if we believe the Levitical day of atonement must figure as a type for the antitype of the Adventist investigative judgment when the former is collective forgiveness while the latter is individual.  We also have no evidence that the Israelites made elaborate lists of their various sins and that those unexplicitly mentioned left uncovered by the blood of the sacrificial animal.  In Ellen White’s version of the investigative judgment, an unconfessed sin or even a sin happening in the future after the sinner’s death (resulting from a sin committed while alive) can result in his name being blotted out of the book of life.

[quote author="glennspring"]Grace and forgiveness, especially when our recognition of sin is heartfelt, is a beautiful thing. The story of the Prodigal Son(s) is I think the most wonderful in all the Bible.

I agree.

[quote author="glennspring"]One final point about sanctuary typology: it may be that the sanctuary building and rituals have something to teach us about salvation. But I don’t find any love in them.

Perhaps we can see the love if we spin this another way...God obviously loved his son but offered him up as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, allowing Jesus to endure the full weight of these sins on the cross.  In that regard, the text you closed with (Romans 5:8 ) is one of the most profound in all of Scripture.  Jesus died not for the self-righteous law-keepers, but for miserable sinners.  Simply amazing.

Greg

“Glenn, thanks for your thoughts. We’re probably seeing this just a little differently...”

Hmmm, kinda wondering how NOT to see in the parable of the debtors the idea of provisional or conditional forgiveness?

“Dovetailing with what Stan said, if we are a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17)...”

I suspect that while the first debtor was forgiven, he never became a “new creation”. How does one become in Christ a “new creation”? 

Glenn, what I was getting at is that anyone who is born again will not be the recipient of conditional forgiveness by Jesus.  If a person is born again, he can be absolutely certain of his salvation.  From Romans 8, we know that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Romans 8:1) and that nothing can separate us from his love (Romans 8:38-39).  In other words, there are no works (including the work of forgiveness) that are a precondition for justification or that are even required to sustain justification.  If there were, grace would not be grace (Romans 11:6) and Jesus could not be counted on to complete the good work he has begun (Philippians 1:6).

That said, those who are saved will extend forgiveness to others because they are saved, out of gratitude for the forgiveness they have received from God and out of love for their neighbor.

If a person is hardened against a brother and unwilling to forgive him, there may be cause for concern over whether this person has indeed received God’s forgiveness.  In other words, perhaps the person is not yet born again.  If this is the case, the unwillingness to forgive a brother will certainly be repaid in the judgment, consistent with Jesus’ words in Matthew 18.

I’m sure the commentator Matthew Henry can say it better than me: “We are not to suppose that God actually forgives men, and afterwards reckons their guilt to them to condemn them; but this latter part of the parable shows the false conclusions many draw as to their sins being pardoned, though their after-conduct shows that they never entered into the spirit, or experienced the sanctifying grace of the gospel.”

To answer your last question, a person becomes a new creation in Christ by faith in Jesus (Acts 16:31, John 3:16-17).  This is the essence of being born again (John 3:1-8) and the change in nature that flows from this is entirely the work of God (Philippians 1:6, Hebrews 10:14).

Greg

Glenn wrote:

“suspect that while the first debtor was forgiven, he never became a “new creation”. How does one become in Christ a “new creation"?"
-----------------------------------------------------------

According to John 1:1-3, Jesus Christ Himself created us.

Through the redemption of the cross, Christ has created the elect as new creatures in Him. So Christ is the author of the first creation, and He is the author of the new creation. We are being formed into His image--Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Stan

Matthew Henry (via Greg)

“...their after-conduct shows...”

So there is still a conduct, “works” based form of evidence operating here, even after, or perhaps because of, their conversion.

I hate to sound argumentative here. Because I think I agree with the general conclusion that a record of our past, forgiven sins are not gathering dust in heaven or on cd’s in the celestial orbit being observed by inhabitants on other planets.

But this parable and other illustrations of Israel’s history post-Exodus and during the life of Christ imply that while the promise of salvation was extended, not all benefited from its provision. And that in some cases where grace is extended and forgiveness offered, the gift is not received.

And I’m not even sure Jesus is trying to say that forgiveness is conditional here. He may be making some other point about the debtors (and us). That being that the debt we owed is/was astronomical, while the debts owed us by others are minute.

So I don’t know for sure.

But I appreciate your continued feedback and input.

Hey Glenn, sorry for the late response to this, I’ve been traveling.

I have just one more point on Matthew Henry’s commentary.  In looking at the whole quote, Henry seems to agree that those who don’t have the “after-conduct” of extending forgiveness to others have not yet experienced the “sanctifying grace of the gospel.” True, forgiveness is a “work,” but it isn’t a work upon which our justification hangs.  Any good works we perform are only because God continues His work of sanctification in those he has already justified:

“And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:11-14 ESV) (Incidentally, this text has a lot to say to those who believe in the two apartment model of Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary.)

For a slightly different perspective, here is what John MacArthur says about Matthew 18:23-35 in his commentary:

“Jesus is not speaking here of the forgiveness that brings salvation, saying that God only saves those who are forgiving. That would be works righteousness. He is speaking of people forgiving each other after they have experienced His free grace. Those who are saved, transformed, given a new nature in Christ, and have the indwelling Holy Spirit generally will manifest that changed life by having a forgiving attitude (see Matt. 6:14-15). But there will be times when we fall into the sin of unforgiveness, and this instruction is for those times.

As mentioned earlier, if the first man does not represent a Christian, a person who has been forgiven by God for his immeasurable debt of sin, the instruction in the context of the parable completely breaks down. Jesus was speaking to the Twelve, who not only were believers but apostles. All believers, no matter what their position or accomplishments in the church might be, are held accountable to forgive every offense against them committed by fellow believers, for the very reason that they themselves have already been forgiven an incalculable debt by God. They are expected to reflect God’s forgiveness because they have experienced God’s forgiveness.”

MacArthur favors a view where the man who did not forgive the smaller debt was chastened by the master.  This interpretation acknowledges that Christians will, at times, not forgive perfectly.  Instead of putting their salvation in jeopardy, the failure to forgive results in God’s righteous chastening of those who are already his own, much like a parent would discipline a child.

I won’t pretend to have all the answers on this (or any) text, but I think MacArthur’s view makes a lot of sense because no Christian I know exhibits perfect forgiveness.

Glenn, thanks for the dialogue and let me know if this helps or if you have additional thoughts.

Greg

“MacArthur favors a view where the man who did not forgive the smaller debt was chastened by the master. This interpretation acknowledges that Christians will, at times, not forgive perfectly. Instead of putting their salvation in jeopardy, the failure to forgive results in God’s righteous chastening of those who are already his own, much like a parent would discipline a child.”

I think this is a good point. Verse 34 doesn’t actually say that the first man is cast into hell (although that might be one possible reading of it). But it does suggest that the person was to be delivered to the “tormentors” until he had paid his debt. I’m not sure how or if this translates to the Christian, since we are not capable of paying the debt. Is there still room here for the first man to repent (again) and receive forgiveness, which is the forgiving of his debt (his sin)? Of course the parable or story, if taken literally, implies a distinction between sinners, when the actual point of the parable, as I think I mentioned above, may actually be not between sinners but between the debt we owe God and the debts we owe each other.