About Us
Rebuilding truth in biblical theology and Christian worldview.
150+
15
Trusted by believers
Faithful community
Learn About Types of Prophecy
So Much to Know in the Word!
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM IS POSED
I was introduced to this mystery in 1967 when I was a senior in college. A seminary student approached me at church one day and asked, “Do you think 1 John 1:9 is directed to Christians or non-Christians?” I told him I wasn’t sure but would happily study the question. After some investigation, I concluded that the verse—“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”—is more appropriately addressed to the unbeliever. The seminarian had reached the same conclusion and later wrote his thesis on the subject.
From that point on, the mystery became fixed in my mind: Why do Christians, who are already forgiven on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice, need to continually seek forgiveness for their sins in order to maintain fellowship with God?
I had accepted Jesus as my Savior to resolve the sin question according to the “plan of salvation” I learned in high school (Romans 3:23, 6:23; John 3:16; and 1 John 5:11–12). I was also taught the doctrine of “fellowship”—that a believer who sins falls out of fellowship with the heavenly Father until he confesses that sin and receives forgiveness. First John 1:9 was the verse used to illustrate that transaction.
Around that time I attended a family retreat where a respected Bible teacher presented truths about the spiritual life. I was disappointed that he focused on “fellowship” and 1 John 1:9. I had hoped to learn something new, but this was already familiar territory.
In the years since, further study has confirmed my original conclusion: Christians who have been forgiven once for all do not need to keep seeking forgiveness for their sins. It has also deepened my amazement that this is not more widely recognized in the Church.
Confession has proven to be a sensitive subject among Christians. Many believers cannot articulate why they hold their view or defend it biblically, yet they remain adamant that everyone must confess each sin.
Years ago, while working at a church in Vancouver, I taught a weekly Bible study for young people and Christian workers. Several staff members from a well-known campus ministry attended briefly and then stopped coming. I later heard they were upset because I taught that Christians are completely forgiven and therefore need not structure their spiritual life around 1 John 1:9. Their organization—which embraces Pentecostalism and extends fellowship to Roman Catholics—would fire any staff member who rejected the 1 John 1:9 model.
On another occasion, while serving in Maine, I attended a concert by a touring group from a major Christian university. Their leader presented the gospel but placed the strongest emphasis on getting Christians to confess their sins. Afterward, I approached him and asked an innocent question: “If Christians are already forgiven, why must they keep asking for forgiveness?” When he proved unprepared to defend his position, the conversation grew heated. He ended by almost shouting as I walked away, “God will never use you! God will never use you!”
Despite the fact that no historic Christian creed teaches the doctrine of using 1 John 1:9 to maintain fellowship with God, many believers hold it with the zeal of orthodoxy. They may not know how to defend it, but they are convinced it must be protected from all “heretical” challengers. I believe the larger issue is not the verse itself but the underlying philosophy of the spiritual life that supports this interpretation. The verse is merely the visible tip of a much larger iceberg. My purpose is to examine the proper use of 1 John 1:9 and to clarify the believer’s true relationship with God.
The Doctrine of Forgiveness
Justification by faith has been a cherished doctrine of the Reformation churches—Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican—and their heirs for centuries. The Articles of Religion of the Church of England state:
“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings.”
We receive the “righteousness of God,” not a legal righteousness of our own, through Christ’s passive obedience on the cross and His active obedience to the Law. This secures our forgiveness and grants us the imputed righteousness of Christ.
The forgiveness a believer receives is total, covering every sin at any time. Dr. W. G. T. Shedd wrote:
“The justification of a sinner is an all-comprehending act of God. All the sins of a believer, past, present, and future, are pardoned when he is justified.”
(Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, p. 545)
L. S. Chafer echoed this truth:
“It was on the basis of the efficacy of Christ’s death for his sins that the believer was saved in the first place…a holy God being thus free to pardon righteously every sin that ever was or ever will be.”
(Systematic Theology, Vol. III, p. 326)
This understanding sharply distinguishes Protestant theology from Roman Catholicism, which insists that justification requires not only faith but also the sacraments, the merits of the saints, and one’s own good works. Canon 9 of the Council of Trent famously declares:
“If anyone says that the ungodly man is justified by faith only…let him be accursed.”
Yet despite their firm teaching on justification, many theologians still insist that Christians must continually seek forgiveness from the Father. Shedd writes:
“When a justified man commits sin…he experiences the withdrawal of the divine favor, and God’s paternal chastisement.”
(p. 546)
Chafer likewise states:
“The cure for the Christian’s sin is by family forgiveness and cleansing, which is secured by confession of the sin to God.”
(Vol. III, p. 101)
This presents a puzzle:
If justification provides comprehensive forgiveness, why must the Christian continue seeking forgiveness?
Chafer is emphatic that Christ bore all condemnation for the believer. Yet he is equally emphatic that the believer must seek daily forgiveness. To me this is a curious contradiction.
What the Bible Says
The New Testament teaching on forgiveness is summarized powerfully in Hebrews 10:12–17:
“But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God…For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified…And their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
Three points stand out:
One sacrifice for all time (v. 12).
Christ’s single sacrifice was entirely sufficient.Perfected for all time (v. 14).
Believers are perfected permanently through His offering.Sins remembered no more (v. 17).
This is an unconditional statement of forgiveness rooted in the New Covenant.
Paul rarely uses the word “forgiveness,” but expresses the concept in the legal term “justified.” Justification pictures the sinner in the courtroom of God, acquitted of all charges because Christ bears the penalty and His righteousness is imputed to the believer.
Paul writes:
“Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.”
(Romans 3:23–24)
And he describes the exchange explicitly:
“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
(2 Corinthians 5:21)
Through justification, the believer becomes God’s child—fully forgiven and fully righteous in His sight.
The Consequences of Forgiveness
From the moment of salvation, all the benefits of redemption apply: forgiveness, eternal life, adoption, union with Christ, inheritance in the Kingdom, and more. These blessings depend on forgiveness being complete and permanent.
For example, Paul teaches that believers are seated with Christ in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6). This would be impossible if any sin remained unforgiven. Likewise, we are united with Christ in His Body, which is glorious and undefiled; we could not belong to that Body if our sins remained outstanding.
Romans 5 further explains that justification brings peace with God and establishes us permanently in a state of grace. Both verbs (“have obtained” and “stand”) are in the perfect tense, indicating an ongoing and unalterable reality. If forgiveness were incomplete, neither peace nor grace could be permanent.
Romans 8:31–39 emphasizes this security: no accusation, no condemnation, and no separation can touch those justified by Christ. “Nothing” can separate us from His love—and “nothing” necessarily includes sin.
Paul never inserts the caveat, “unless you fail to confess your sins daily.” He simply says:
“There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
(Romans 8:1)
If Paul believed that ongoing sins could interrupt fellowship, withdraw divine favor, or block God’s grace, he never once mentioned it.
Where, then, is the supposed loophole in justification so large that our daily sins can disrupt our relationship with God? Paul seems to teach that forgiveness is final and comprehensive—and this is difficult to reconcile with the notion of daily “fellowship forgiveness.”
Watertight Compartments
And here the mystery deepens.
Theologians who strongly affirm comprehensive justification nonetheless insist that believers must confess each sin to restore fellowship. Charles Hodge wrote that no condemnation rests upon the believer—yet also that Christian experience consists of “daily and hourly confession…for forgiveness.”
Charles Ryrie likewise believed in once-for-all forgiveness but taught that sin breaks fellowship and must be repaired through confession.
Zane Hodges went further, calling the teaching that Christians need not ask daily forgiveness an “aberration.”
To my mind, such statements appear contradictory. One cannot coherently claim, “You are fully forgiven,” and also, “You are not forgiven until you confess.” A cannot be non-A.
Possible Explanations
Several explanations are commonly offered:
1. Two kinds of forgiveness
This is the most widespread explanation.
Judicial forgiveness: once for all, permanent, given at salvation.
Parental or fellowship forgiveness: repeated, conditional, restoring daily relationship.
God’s family is compared to a human family: one’s status as a child is secure, but fellowship can be disrupted.
2. Standing vs. state
Another explanation distinguishes:
Standing: perfect position in Christ.
State: our actual daily experience, which includes sin.
Thus, though positionally perfect, practically we require repeated forgiveness.
3. Forgiveness “in the bank”
A third view claims forgiveness is real and fully provided but not applied until the believer asks for it—much like funds available but not withdrawn.
These explanations seem plausible, but the crucial question remains:
Are they supported by Scripture?
That is the issue we must now explore.
CHAPTER II — SOLVING THE MYSTERY
There is a well-known fable told to children called “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” In it, a dishonest tailor convinces the king that he has made a magnificent suit when, in fact, he has made nothing at all. Because the king believes the lie, his subjects feel obligated to praise his “clothing” even as he parades through town in his underwear. Finally, a child blurts out the obvious truth: the emperor has no clothes. The illusion collapses. The fable illustrates the intimidating power of authority and peer pressure.
Sometimes I feel like that child. While most Christians confidently affirm that any known sin disrupts fellowship with God—and that fellowship is restored only through confession and forgiveness—I see the situation differently. I see the believer’s life as grounded in God’s once-for-all forgiveness, with the problem of sin addressed within an atmosphere of unconditional acceptance.
This leads to what I call a fourth solution to the “mystery of forgiveness”:
There is only one kind of sin and one kind of forgiveness—the once-for-all kind.
Therefore, the believer does not need to seek additional forgiveness through repeated confession in order to “restore fellowship” with God. That would be unnecessary. The believer is already forgiven. His sin must indeed be addressed, but it is addressed within the context of his permanent acceptance before God.
The Two-Levels Theory
The first solution—widely held—is that Scripture teaches two types of forgiveness: one for the unbeliever at salvation, and another for the believer to maintain fellowship. The New Scofield Bible states:
“In the fully developed doctrine of Christian salvation there are two areas of divine forgiveness. The first…comes to the sinner at the time of justification…The second area…deals specifically with the matter of fellowship whenever it is broken by sin…To obtain such forgiveness we must confess and forsake the sin (1 John 1:9).”
Other theological authorities say similar things. Major Bible Themes states that sin causes the believer to lose fellowship, joy, peace, and power—and that these are restored when he confesses his sin (1 John 1:9). J. D. Pentecost likewise argues that fellowship requires a flawless walk and must be restored through confession.
A common supporting analogy is the foot-washing scene in John 13. Some interpret “the bath” as regeneration and the foot-washing as the daily cleansing needed for fellowship. But this analogy fails for several reasons. The disciples offered no confession; Jesus acted on His own initiative as their advocate (cf. 1 John 2:1). Further, what is gained in 1 John 1:9 (“cleansing”) is already possessed in John 13:10 (“you are clean”). The word cleanse is used elsewhere to describe the spiritual state of regenerated believers. It is difficult, therefore, to describe believers as “unclean,” especially when Acts 15:9–11 declares them cleansed and saved through grace. A dual use of the term cannot be sustained.
Is the concept of two levels of forgiveness psychologically appealing? Perhaps. But is it biblical?
Advocates mainly cite two New Testament passages:
• 1 John 1:9, the central text
• Matthew 6:12, the Lord’s Prayer (“Forgive us our debts…”)
Other passages are sometimes added, such as Psalm 66:18 and James 5:15, but these provide only thin support. If 1 John 1:9 and Matthew 6:12 do not clearly teach two types of forgiveness, the doctrine effectively collapses.
1 John in Context
The purpose of 1 John is to confront destructive heresy and provide assurance of salvation. John was addressing false teachers who threatened the churches under his care—not merely Christians who were “out of fellowship.” He establishes tests of authenticity through repeated phrases such as “if we say” and “he who says” (1:6, 1:8, 1:10; 2:4, 2:6, 2:9; 4:20). These tests distinguish the true Christian from the false professor.
Some say the theme of 1 John is “fellowship.” John indeed writes that believers have fellowship with the apostles and with God (1:3). But this fellowship is not a fluctuating condition among Christians—it is a description of what a Christian is, in contrast to those outside the truth. Fellowship corresponds to salvation itself, as in 1 Corinthians 1:9: “You were called into fellowship with His Son.” To claim fellowship (1:6) is to claim salvation.
John also uses the imagery of light and darkness. Light represents God’s holiness and truth; darkness represents sin and unbelief. One is either in the light (saved) or in the darkness (unsaved). Thus, the contrast is between believer and unbeliever—not between two types of Christians, one “in fellowship” and one “out.”
Interpreting 1 John 1
In chapter 1, John immediately confronts three heretical claims about sin:
Sin does not affect one’s relationship with God (1:6).
We have no sin nature (1:8).
We have not sinned at all (1:10).
These statements deny the need for the cross. If one has no sin, one needs no Savior. John answers each false claim with the truth:
Instead of walking in darkness, walk in the light (1:7).
Instead of denying sin, confess sin (1:9).
Instead of denying past sin, rely on Christ the Advocate (2:1).
These false claims are not made by Christians in temporary rebellion; they are made by unbelievers embracing heresy. John includes himself in the pronoun “we” rhetorically, as a pastor might when admonishing his congregation.
Why 1 John 1:9 Refers to Salvation
You list eight reasons, all of which I’ve preserved but re-framed for clarity:
The book’s purpose is assurance of salvation, not instructions for regaining fellowship.
The immediate context deals with heresy, not the daily experience of believers.
The connection with verse 8 shows that the same person who denies sin (an unbeliever) is the one who must confess (v. 9).
The vocabulary (“confess,” “forgive,” “cleanse,” “faithful,” “just”) is standard salvation terminology, not spiritual-life terminology.
The verb tenses (“forgive” and “cleanse” in the aorist) point to a once-for-all act.
The grammar (a third-class conditional sentence) fits an evangelistic appeal, not a presumed Christian practice.
John assumes believers are already forgiven (2:12) using a tense that emphasizes permanence.
The verse makes forgiveness conditional, which contradicts the New Covenant promise of total, unconditional forgiveness. If believers remain unforgiven until they confess, then the cross is insufficient.
Even non-evangelical scholarship supports this reading. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that in 1 John, confession of sins is the decisive act that leads a person from death to life.
Interpretive Issues
For 1 John 1:9 to support a doctrine of daily restored fellowship, three things must be proven:
That 1:9 actually teaches such a doctrine.
That believers can have unforgiven sins despite the cross.
That Scripture teaches two kinds of forgiveness elsewhere.
None of these is established. Building an entire doctrine on a single ambiguous verse—especially one that would overturn the New Testament teaching on justification—is poor hermeneutics. Sound interpretation uses clear passages to interpret unclear ones—not the reverse.
Before accepting a two-tier forgiveness model, we must answer:
Why is the New Covenant’s promise—“I will remember their sins no more”—not unconditional and comprehensive?
How can there remain a sphere of unforgiveness if Christ continually intercedes for believers (1 John 1:7; Romans 8:34)?Write your text here...
CHAPTER III
FORGIVENESS AND THE LORD'S PRAYER
I will read the section from the Lord's Prayer which talks about forgiveness.
Matthew 6: 1 2:
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation but deliver us from evil. For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.
In this passage, which many churches recite every week, Jesus was saying that your forgiveness depends on your forgiving other people. If you do not forgive everyone else, God won't forgive you. Immediately we have the same conflict with our justification. Are we unconditionally forgiven once for all through faith alone, or are we only forgiven conditionally, as it seems here? Is this some kind of secondary forgiveness such as the family fellowship forgiveness of I John 1:9?
The Purpose of the Sermon
In order to understand this verse, you really have to understand the purpose and the meaning of the whole Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is very difficult to interpret, and there is much debate and disagreement about it. You may read the Sermon on the Mount and think you understand it just fine, but if you are asked the question, 'For whom is the Sermon on the Mount valid, people then, people now, or people in the Millennium?", you may have a problem. Granted, the sermon is speaking of the Kingdom of God, but to whom does it pertain, and in what time frame?
If you say the sermon is for Christians today, have you realized the difficult position that puts you in? Have you felt the full weight of it? That's what I'm going to show you now.
Understanding the context of the whole Sermon helps to understand the meaning of a particular part of it. When Jesus came and presented Himself and started preaching in Galilee, His message was, "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Jesus preached the coming Kingdom of God the same way John the Baptist also did. He was preaching and teaching the Good News about the Kingdom.
The question arose, "Who will be able to go into that Kingdom?" "Who can qualify to enter the soon coming Kingdom of God?" "What is the standard of righteousness that is required to enter the Kingdom?" This was important, because as John the Baptist had said, those that didn't make it were going to face a difficult future. God was going to throw them into the fire. "Who will enter the Kingdom?" became a crucial question. That's what Jesus was talking about in the Sermon on the Mount. He was defining the standard of righteousness that was required for entering the Kingdom. How good do you have to be to get in? They found out.
I believe the key to understanding the Sermon on the Mount is Matthew 5:20. Jesus said, "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." At that time the Pharisees were the ultimate good guys. They were religious fanatics. As the ultimate religious achievers, they were the ones who devoted their whole energy and activity to keeping the Law of God. Jesus was saying to all, "Unless you're way beyond them, you will not get in." This is first clue as to how difficult it would be.
Jesus put the standard for getting into the Kingdom way beyond what the Pharisees had said or done. The standard for getting into the Kingdom was keeping the full requirement of the Old Testament Law. Just before this He said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished."
The righteousness required for the Kingdom was the complete fulfillment of the Law, not according to the interpretation of the Pharisees, but according to the interpretation of Jesus. He gave His interpretation of the full requirement of the Law. Practically the whole Sermon on the Mount is Jesus' interpretation in contradiction to the Pharisees' teachings and practices.
Take, for example, the Beatitudes: "Blessed are the poor in Spirit, blessed are those who mourn, blessed are the gentle, blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness." All these things were opposite to the way the Pharisees were. The Pharisees were not poor in spirit. The Pharisees did not hunger and thirst for righteousness. They were self-satisfied and proud. They were outwardly righteous but inwardly corrupt.
He was giving His interpretation of the Law as opposed to the interpretation of the Pharisees to show how God's Law must be kept. In fact, Jesus presented Himself as the second Moses, the new lawgiver. The Beatitudes are parallel to the Ten Commandments. He would say, "You have heard it said," referring to Moses, and then counter with, "But I say," as greater than Moses. He reinterpreted and amplified the Law of Moses.
There are numerous contrasts throughout between Jesus' and the Pharisees' teachings to show that God required so much more. This becomes a problem of understanding for us because the Sermon on the Mount is pure law. In fact, it almost seems to teach salvation by works. It seems to show the Kingdom achieved by personal righteousness. You can have a very difficult time harmonizing the Sermon on the Mount with the grace teachings of Paul. That is why liberal and Social Gospel churches, which believe in works salvation, are so fond of the Sermon on the Mount, because it emphasizes works. Some interpreters, who have been honest enough to recognize the legalistic nature of the sermon, have felt forced to place its application in the Millennium because of the difficulty of harmonizing it with grace.
The Sermon on the Mount is concerned with "your" human righteousness. For example, in 5:16, "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works." Verse 20, "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees." 6: 1, "Beware of practicing your righteousness." You see, He's talking about the person who is trying to establish his righteousness before God on the basis of his good works.
People who don't understand that the Sermon is an exposition of the Law have to find a way to explain why He's not teaching salvation by works. His approach was to say, "This is what you have to do to be righteous enough to enter God's Kingdom. This is how good you have to be." What He did was to make the standard so high that no one could possibly attain it. There is no grace here. He had to raise the standard because the Pharisees were the accepted model. They thought they had it made, but He put the standard way above them. There is no grace in the Sermon on the Mount. There is no Gospel in the Sermon on the Mount. It is an exposition of the Law and the full weight of the Law for those who would try to justify themselves before God.
Let me read you a quote from a famous Bible scholar about the Sermon on the Mount, "That it delineates the Gospel that Jesus Christ died and rose again, “that it presents justification by faith or is suitable to point an unbeliever to salvation in Christ is plainly not the intent of this message.” (emphasis mine) (Walvoord) The Sermon on the Mount is not to present the Gospel, because it is not compatible with grace.
What was He doing? He was showing the full weight of the Law so that no one could think he could keep it, so they would humble themselves, admit their sin, and cast themselves upon the mercy of God. It is what we call "pre-evangelism". He tore down their idea of works righteousness so they would accept God’ s grace and God's Messiah and put their trust in Him. You can't give a gift to someone who is not prepared to receive it or doesn't think he needs it. He was preparing these people to see that they needed God's grace. They needed forgiveness because they could not earn their way into God's Kingdom.
The Burden of the Law
When you see how high He set the standard, you'll see that what I'm saying must be true, because as a standard His exposition of the Law is crushing. Look in 5:21-22, "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder', and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that
everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, Raca' (which means good for nothing) shall be guilty before the Supreme Court; and whoever shall say, “You fool, shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery Hell."
He took the teaching of Moses, "Thou shall not murder", and He raised the ante. He said that if you are even angry with a person, you are guilty of murder. If you even call somebody a dumbbell or a fool, you are going to go to Hell. How's that for a high standard? What are you going to do with that? According to this, if you've ever been angry with someone or called them a fool, you are on your way to Hell, if you take it literally. Are you brave enough to take it literally, or will you water it down? If you take it literally, how do you reconcile it with biblical justification?
There is a lot more than that. Try verses 26-28, "You have heard that it was said, you shall not commit adultery'; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." So, He took the command, "Thou shall not commit adultery," referring to an act and applied it to the thought. He made lust into adultery. How's that for an impossible demand? He made everyone an adulterer, if we're going to be honest, which we are reluctant to be, but God knows.
Look at verses 29-30, 'And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into Hell. And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into Hell." Literally He's saying that if you sin with your hand, or if you sin with your eye, cut off the eye or hand, or else go to Hell. That sounds tough, but it's rigorously logical. If your eye makes you sin, it's better to be blind than to go to Hell, right? However, we are left with some difficult choices, wouldn't you say? How many body parts do we have available to cut off?
The whole thing is an impossible standard of righteousness, but that's the point. All these things are impossible humanly, such as, "Love your enemy." In case your mental processes are really impaired, and you don't get the message, look at the last verse of the chapter, verse 48. "Therefore, you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." That's where he's been heading. The righteousness required to get into God's Kingdom is that you have to be perfect like God is.
He was reinterpreting the Law so that the people would feel the full impact, and know they couldn't possibly obey it, nor the Pharisees. Thus, they would have to be ready to admit they were sinners and receive God's grace. That's the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount. He did the same thing in chapters 6 & 7, examining the Pharisees' practices. Everyone thought the Pharisees were good, but He shot them full of holes when He talked about their charity, their praying, their fasting, their materialism. He showed them how the perfect righteousness of the Law went way beyond anything they ever thought of doing.
The Lord's Prayer
That brings us to the Lord's Prayer. How does the Lord's Prayer fit into this scheme of things? We see that the Lord's Prayer is the prayer of a perfectly righteous person under the Law. The Lord's Prayer is under the Law. Under the Law they did not have the assurance of once for all forgiveness. That came after Christ died and rose again.
Under the Law, forgiveness was conditional. You received the payment for your actions. In the Old Testament your forgiveness depended on several factors. There was not the blanket forgiveness that we know today. That's why He could say, "If you forgive everyone else, God will forgive you." Thus, if you don't, then God won't. That's the kind of forgiveness there was in the Old Testament. He was talking here about the forgiveness that was under the Law, which they were used to receiving on a piecemeal or case by case basis. To that he added an additional condition, that you forgive your brother first. They did not have assurance of forgiveness.
If you doubt what I'm saying to you, take a look at Deuteronomy chapters 28 and 29. Deuteronomy 29 mentions some poor fellow, actually he's rebellious. He says in Deuteronomy 29:19 after hearing what God will do to people that break His Law, "And it shall be when he hears the words of the curse, that he will boast saying, I l have peace though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart in order to destroy the watered land with the dry."' Verse 20 tells us, "The Lord shall never be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and His jealousy will burn against that man, and every curse which is written in this book will rest on him, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven.'
Deuteronomy 28 gives what are called "the blessings and the cursings." Those that keep the Law will be blessed. Those that break the Law will be cursed. Under the Law, your relationship with God depended on how you kept His Law. The relationship was conditional and could be precarious. In Deuteronomy 28 the blessings go from verses 1 to 14, and the cursing go from verses 15 through 68. We have 14 verses of blessings and 53 verses of cursing. They didn't understand once for all forgiveness because they didn't have it under the Law.
If you want to make your eyes burn, look at verses 58-61, "If you are not careful to observe all the words of this Law which are written in this book, to fear this honored and awesome Name, the Lord your God, then the Lord will bring extraordinary plagues on you and your descendants, even severe and lasting plagues, and miserable and chronic sicknesses. And He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt of which you were afraid, and they shall cling to you. Also, every sickness and every plague which, not written in the book of this Law, the Lord will bring on you until you are destroyed."
That's the Law. Notice that He said in verse 58, "All the words of the Law." You have to follow everything, or you are under the curse. When Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount expounded on the Law, He was only continuing this tradition. He exploded the Pharisees' reinterpretation of the Law into something that they could keep, a valiant but short-sighted effort.
What Kind of Forgiveness?
This section of the prayer (6:12) is expressing the conditional relationship and conditional forgiveness that were under the Law. He was talking here about the same kind of forgiveness that was talked about in the Old Testament. Forgiveness is forgiveness, and they didn't have the assurance of forgiveness under the Law like we do now under grace. In the prayer He increased the weight of the Law by adding another requirement: right relationship with your fellow man. Under this conditional relationship, you are "out of fellowship" with God if you are out of fellowship with man. In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, this is a serious problem.
People do funny things with this verse to try to reconcile the conflict between once for all forgiveness and what it says here, that God won't forgive you until you forgive everyone else. They'll say, "Well, God has already forgiven you, so therefore you will forgive the other person." Bulletin!! That's not what it says. It says God won't forgive you until you forgive the other person. According to Jesus, it's the other way around. Make no mistake, this is conditional forgiveness. He is literally saying, "May God forgive us in the same way that we have forgiven others. Who could go to the bank and deposit forgiveness on that basis?
What is our conclusion? There is no need to make this a different kind of forgiveness than everywhere else. There is no need to invent a secondary level of forgiveness that depends on something you do, or on your confession of sin, or your forgiving someone else. There is no secondary kind of forgiveness. There is only one kind of forgiveness.
In the Old Testament under the Law they didn't have it, but under grace, under Jesus in the New Covenant, we do have it. The Sermon on the Mount is not addressed to post Pentecost Christians to tell them how a Christian will live. It was addressed to His followers of that day to show them they couldn't make it on their own. Under grace, the Apostle Paul said we do fulfill the requirements of the Law, Romans 8:4. God will help us do a lot of these things under grace. However, it will be out of the energy of grace and not the obligation of Law.
He was not talking about grace here; He was talking about what the requirements of the Law were. Now we are under grace. Now we will be able to do a lot of these things. We will fulfill God's requirements with his help, through Jesus' Spirit working in us, without being concerned about what God will do to us for our failures. What the Sermon on the Mount did was prepare them to receive the message of grace and the Messiah who brought it.
We conclude that forgiveness is still forgiveness. There is only one kind of forgiveness, and He was talking about it here just like in every other place.
Further, in this context, the only kind of forgiveness they could have known about, that would have made any sense to them, would have been what they knew from the Old Testament. Such a thing as "family forgiveness" is an anachronism at best, since they didn't understand or have once for all forgiveness which came after the cross. You must have once for all forgiveness before you can understand "family forgiveness". The only forgiveness they knew came from the Old Testament.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones unintentionally supported my interpretation:
“Nothing shows me the absolute need of a New Birth or of the Holy Spirit and His work within so much as the Sermon on the Mount. These
Beatitudes crush me to the ground. They show me my utter helplessness. Were it not for the new birth, I am undone.”
Unless God saved us by grace, we could never live up to these requirements. You notice there is no need to be involved in the debate about whom or what time period the Sermon was intended for. It was for the people to whom it was spoken and for anyone else who needs to understand the requirement of the Law and the inadequacy of one's own works righteousness. As a byproduct it also shows the potential of practical righteousness that is possible under grace, if you bring it out from under Law. If you leave it under Law, it kills you.
One thing the Sermon is not, is a constitution for the future Messianic reign of Christ. Pushing it into the Millennium doesn't help our problem. His reign over the people of God in the Millennium will be no more legalistic than it is now over the Church through the New Covenant. The New Covenant will be the constitution for the Millennium.
You will notice also that this verse says nothing about confession of sins. It has nothing to do with the "Fellowship" doctrine. That concept stands alone, buttressed only by I John 1:9
In a similar vein, we must say that James 5:15 gives little support for the confession-forgiveness-fellowship doctrine. The passage has considerable ambiguity, including whether the individual concerned is regenerated or not (NASB "restore" is literally "save"). What we can definitely say is that the forgiveness mentioned is the result of the elders' prayer of faith rather than the person's personal confession. If there is any confession to be done it is to one another (verse 16) and it, along with prayer, results in healing.
CHAPTER IV
POSITION VERSUS POSSESSION
Let's remind ourselves. We are trying to solve the mystery of forgiveness. The mystery concerns why those who are already forgiven through Christ should keep on having to seek forgiveness.
We've considered two passages (l John 1:9 and Matthew 6:12) that are made to say that Christians are forgiven, but not completely, because there are two kinds of forgiveness. One kind is absolute forgiveness, which we call justification, and the second is a daily forgiveness for fellowship. We've examined those passages and determined that they were not talking about a secondary kind of forgiveness. They were talking about the same forgiveness that we know in the rest of the Bible. That forgiveness was anticipated in the Old Testament and fulfilled through Jesus Christ.
Now we come to another possibility that we will investigate and solve. Is it possible that a Christian is forgiven once and for all in Jesus Christ positionally, but not experientially? Could a believer have a spiritual position that does not apply to his daily experience? Sometimes a distinction is made between our position and experience, so that what is true for one isn't true for the other.
Positional Truth
Let's define our categories. Theologians describe what they call "positional truth". Positional truth is the list of benefits that we have through Jesus Christ. They are God's gifts to us in Christ.
For example, Paul mentions many things that we have through being "in Christ". "In Christ" is the key phrase. When he says we have something "in Christ" or "in Him", that is our position. That is what we have through our union with Christ.
This is true in regard to sin. In Christ we are forgiven. Nothing can change this position. In regard to holiness, our position is that we are righteous in Christ. God sees us with the righteousness of Christ, and nothing can take that away. We are positionally forgiven, and positionally righteous.
Scriptures are abundant that support this. For example, Ephesians 1: 7: "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace." Here is our position in Christ: redeemed, because forgiven. We are also positionally sanctified, set apart or made holy. Hebrews 10:10 says that through Him we have been perfected for all time. We are positionally perfect in God's sight.
Whenever the Apostle Paul began one of his letters, he wrote, "Paul, apostle called by God, to the saints in Philippi," etc. When he wrote a letter, he wrote to the "saints." That's not saying they were all perfect, in the sense that they never did anything wrong, but that was their position. Their position before God was "saints,' holy people who were righteous in His sight.
Our position does not depend on what we feel or what we do. It depends on God, what He says and what He did. For example, you may not feel forgiven for something. Some people feel, which means they think, that they have done something that God can never forgive them for. Just because they feel that way doesn't mean He can't or won't forgive them. Your position doesn't depend on your feelings. It doesn't even depend upon how you act. You may not act in a righteous manner all the time, and who does? That doesn't mean you are not a saint. You are still a saint because every believer is a saint in God's sight. That is his position.
These positional truths are very important, and there are many of them besides being positionally forgiven and positionally righteous. Paul said that we have been crucified with Christ, positionally crucified. He said we have been raised to newness of life with Christ, positionally resurrected. He said we have been baptized into the Body of Christ. How often do we say that the Church is the Body of Christ, and we are members of one another? That's positional truth.
Those things describe our position. The fact is that you are part of the body of Christ, and it doesn't depend on how you feel. That's what God says is true because of what He has done. Positional truth becomes almost unimaginable when Paul in Ephesians 2 said that we have been exalted to heaven and seated at God's right hand with Christ. Our position in Christ is that we are at God's right hand sitting with Jesus on His throne. That's our position- You may not feel that you are there, but you are. That's what God says anyway. There are many of these positional truths.
What Is It?
What kind of truth is a positional truth? Is it a symbol? Is it a metaphor or analogy? Is it theoretical, mystical, metaphysical, or is it somehow real? What kind of a truth is a truth that you can't see or taste or feel? What can it mean to me?
I went for a long time trying to understand Romans 6, which says that we have been baptized into Christ's death. This is positional truth. I wanted to know how it was possible to be baptized into Christ's death. I don't feel baptized into Christ's death, and I certainly don't feel dead to sin. I don't feel like I've been raised from the dead, either. In what sense is it true? These are positional truths. What do they mean?
A positional truth is a spiritual truth. As one man said, "Christ was crucified physically; we were crucified with Christ spiritually. Christ was raised physically; we were raised with Christ spiritually. Christ ascended to heaven physically; we've been exalted with Him spiritually."
That answers the question, but only partially. If it's a spiritual truth, what is that, and what relation does it have to my life? So, it's a spiritual truth. What is that supposed to mean to me?
A spiritual truth is a truth of the invisible world where God dwells. This world referred to in the Bible as "heaven" or "heavenly places." It is invisible, but quite real. It is perceived by spiritual means, not by flesh and blood. The spiritual is not something that you can tangibly see, taste, touch or feel, but it is still real.
The believer's position is his spiritual identity in the invisible world of heaven. is analogous to the identity of Jesus when He was on the earth. His spiritual identity was veiled because it was encased in His human body. Most people knew him in His physical identity, as Paul once did (Il Corinthians 5:16). Those who had their spiritual eyes opened could see the glory of the incarnate Son of God. Similarly, the believer's identity is veiled behind our flesh. It takes spiritual insight to understand all that we are as sons of God in Christ.
The position that we have in Christ is spiritual reality. Some people say that has no relationship to our everyday life whatsoever. They think that our life and our position are like two air-tight compartments that don't touch one another.
Position Versus Experience
There may very well be a distinction between our position and our experience, but it is a difference of perspective. We may not look at things the way God does. The way we think or feel doesn't change who we are, because God's perspective is the true one.
A lot is made to hang on the difference between our position and our experience. What about that? What is the relationship between position and experience, or what should it be? How do the two interact? Are they in air-tight compartments, and the fact that you are a saint before God has nothing to do with your life?
Here is a quote, "Hence every believer is now said to be positionally sanctified, holy, and is, therefore, a saint before God. This position bears no relationship to the believer's daily life more than that it should inspire him to holy living." Also, "Positional sanctification is absolutely dissociated from daily life." (Walvoord)
This bears on our question of forgiveness. The ones who say that our position in Christ doesn't affect our experience would say that our position of forgiveness doesn't mean we don't have to ask for forgiveness. Every day we are the same as we always were, sinners who need forgiveness. God has made some statements about us that change our destiny, but don't change our day to day way of relating to God. We're still basically sinners who have to seek forgiveness. God gives us the Holy Spirit to help us do better. However, when we sin, we still come to Him as sinners.
Apparently, they think of Jesus as something like a filter, which David Needham aptly describes as the "Jesus filter" in Birthriqht. Instead of looking at you directly and seeing you as a miserable rotten sinner, God puts Jesus between Him and you. He looks at you through Jesus, through the Jesus filter. Instead of seeing you as you are, he sees Jesus. He superimposes Christ on you, and then you become acceptable. The filter is God's rose-colored glasses, allowing Him to see you differently because of Christ. However, for them the filter doesn't filter everything, since sin still blocks your fellowship. Thank God for the Jesus filter, even if it is incomplete and leaves us relating to God as sinners.
The "Jesus filter" idea sees the believer as fundamentally unchanged from what he was before he accepted Christ. What I am saying is that he is fundamentally different. That's what the "new creature" (Il Corinthians 5:17) is all about.
Here is how that point of view is applied to Christians confessing their sins and asking forgiveness. Supposedly our position of forgiveness doesn't really affect our daily experience. "Disobedience does not affect position, it affects fellowship. To be restored to fellowship with God, we must confess our sins." (Pentecost) "It is claimed that a believer already has forgiveness in Christ, but this point of view confuses the perfect position which a Christian has in God's Son with his needs as a failing individual on earth." (Hodges) Even though we are once for all forgiven positionally, we still sin and need to ask for forgiveness daily- I believe this is the primary rationale for the forgiveness/fellowship doctrine.
I submit to you that our position in Christ is all encompassing reality, It is a spiritual reality, which is ultimate reality. Just because it's invisible to the naked eye doesn't mean that it's not true. Our position in Christ is who we really are. We need to be spiritually enlightened to see it, and we may not feel it, but it's true.
It is similar to the way I see you with my physical eye. I see a form but it's not the same as how you look under an electron microscope. Similarly, I can look at you with my human eye, and maybe I see a sinner, but if I had spiritual eyes to see who you really are, then I would see all that you are in Christ. That is the real you. The spiritual you, your identity and your position, are who you really are. We need God's power to enable us to understand and live according to that position. Through faith, He gives us eyes to see who we are and the ability to be that person (in
experience).
I repeat, our position in Christ is fundamentally who we are. We are new creatures. We are saints. We are at the right hand in the presence of God Himself.
God's Perspective
On God's side He relates to us according to our position. He treats us as new people in Christ. For Him the old things, indeed, the old us, has passed away. He deals with us according to our new position in Christ, as forgiven and righteous, a member of His family, a part of Christ's body. His dealing with us is totally according to the new man and according to grace. We relate to Him as saints. It is often pointed out that the word "adoption" in Galatians 4:5 refers to adoption as adult sons, meaning we have adult privileges.
The Apostle Paul treated these truths as very real. He didn't treat them as theoretical or unrelated to life. He treated them as very real and very practical. For example, in Galatians 2:20 he said, "1 have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me." He was talking about his identity in Christ as something very real. Granted, it was still "l" who was living, but not the old "l". This new life was brought into his experience by faith and touched his everyday experience. He was not talking about doctrine, but "the life I live" being based on co-crucifixion with Christ. There was nothing theoretical about it.
This is the constant theme of the Epistles. Your position in Christ, your spiritual identity, is real, very real. It is not perceived physically because it is invisible, just as God is invisible. Jesus Christ is invisible, and so is your identity in Christ, and it is just as real.
Paul talked about being crucified with Christ and raised with Christ in Colossians 2:12. Based on that, he said in 3:1-3, "If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth." He was saying to live according to who you are. If you have been raised with Christ, your nature has been changed, and that is supposed to affect your outlook. Your daily life is lived on the basis of invisible spiritual reality. Who you are determines how you live.
He continued in verses 3-4, "For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory." Again, it is real but hidden. Your death and your resurrection are hidden with Christ. Because you have already been raised spiritually, when Christ's glory is revealed, yours will be also. And because you have died with Christ, he can say, "Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come.'
Your identity in Christ is the basis for your life today and your hope for the future. That's what provided the energy for Paul's message. He was very excited about our position in Christ as the basis of our Christian life and hope. Therefore, his appeal was to become who we are, and live according to our calling. It is a shame that theologians have relegated positional truth to the dusty bin of "doctrine."
Dual Kingdoms
It could be that Paul's intent was only to use their position as a way to inspire them to godly living. However, I believe there was more to it than that. Paul was speaking from a point of view that could be called Christian dualism. We commonly think of it as dual citizenship, being citizens of the Kingdom of God at the same time that we are citizens of this world.
We participate in the two kingdoms simultaneously. Just as Paul said that our true citizenship is in heaven, our true identity is in heaven also, because of who we are in Christ. God knows us as citizens of His kingdom, not as American citizens.
Similarly, He knows us as totally forgiven and righteous, not as fallen sinners. The trick for us is to know ourselves as God knows us, which comes about by faith, believing that what God says is true. Faith is also the key to living out who we are.
We live simultaneously in two kingdoms, physical and spiritual. Which one is the most rea depends on whether we are controlled by the Spirit or the flesh. In the age to come, the kingdom of flesh will pass away. Our challenge is to live according to he age to come (and the spiritual man) while the flesh is still with us.
Jesus was constantly open to the invisible kingdom because He lived as true spiritual man. In John 5:19 He said, "...the Son can do nothing of Himslf, unless it is something He sees the Father doing." He referred to Himself as being in heaven, even while he was on the earth, John 3:13. I know that some manuscripts do not contain the phrase, "who is in heaven", but it is easier to account for it being taken out than to understand how it could have been put in later in various forms.
The Apostle Paul definitely had the same mind set. His knowing Christ in a personal way was an indication that he experienced life in the invisible kingdom. He challenged the believers in Ephesians 1:18 to have their spiritual eyes opened to be able to experience the invisible kingdom as well, where God is and where their true identity lay.
Paul there made the unflattering implication that unbelievers are not the only ones who are spiritually blind. Believers are blind also, else he would not be praying for them to have their eyes opened. "Seeing" Jesus (Il Corinthians 4:6) in order to trust Him as Savior is just the beginning of life in the invisible Kingdom of God. Those who are inclined to disregard the conclusions I am drawing about our position should consider praying for their own eyes to be opened to their riches in Christ. Perhaps there is more to be discovered about life in the Spirit.
The believer's position is who he truly is--justified, sanctified, even glorified (Romans 8:30). The growth process is bringing that true identity into experience, bringing heaven to earth. Conversely, it is entering more into heaven while still on earth.
Our position in Christ makes the entire Christian life possible. Because we are forgiven, God gives us eternal life. Because we are born again, we have the possibility of abundant life. Because we're in the body of Christ we can care for one another. Because we are in Christ at God's right hand, we share authority over Satan. It's all because of our position, and it includes everything that we have as Christians. To say that our position in Christ doesn't touch our daily lives is almost incomprehensible to me.
A Christian could never claim victory over Satan if his position in Christ had no relationship to his daily life. I can remember when, as a new Christian, someone showed me Ephesians 1:20-22, which says that when God exalted Christ to His right hand, He subjected all things under His feet. It was pointed out that if the spiritual powers were under Christ's feet, they were under our feet as well, because we are in Christ. I have relied on that spiritual authority many times in spiritual confrontation. It is because of our position with Christ that we can expect to have victory over Satan, and believe me, we need more than inspiration to stand against the hosts of darkness.
We relate to God, to our fellow believers and to Satan on the basis of our spiritual position in Christ. Our position is nothing if not intimately and practically a part of everyday life.
No More Walls
If positionally we are at God's right hand, actually seated in heaven, this means that all the barriers to our fellowship with God have been taken away. If we are actually there, seated in heaven, what barrier can there still be? If we sin, we are still there positionally, which is spiritually and actually.
I believe we are there, that we actually participate in two parallel universes concurrent . Christians are dual creatures with two types of "sense organs," physical and spiritual. Our reality is to be dwelling in heaven in God's presence, if we could just perceive it. The problem is our understanding this. God is not far away. He is here with us, as are angels and demons.
There are no barriers on God's side toward fellowship with us. The problem is on our side. For example, the person quoted said, "Disobedience does not affect position." If our disobedience does not affect our position, then it does not affect our privilege, because our position determines our privilege.
I know that sin is a problem. I'm not minimizing that, but the problem is not on God's side. He continues to accept us. It's been dealt with as a problem on His side through forgiveness. Our position is unconditional forgiveness, which entitles us to sit with Christ at God's right hand. Since the problem is on our side, then we have the choice to move toward God or to move away from Him. To move away from Him is what we conventionally call sin.
For example, you can be in your home, and your teenager can be there enjoying the family fellowship. The teenager has the choice that he can stay there and relate to his Dad, or he can walk out the door. A believer has the same choice. In his attitude he can stay close to God, or he can turn his back and walk out the door. In reality he is still there, even if he has turned his back. If a believer does this, God doesn't "lock the door" on him. The believer can still turn around and come back at anytime. From Gods side the door is always open.
God is exactly like the picture Jesus drew of the father of the prodigal son. The prodigal son turned his back and went off to do his thing, but the father never shut the door. All the son had to do was to desire to come back. This was repentance. Forgiveness had already been taken care of.
There are no conditions for a believer returning to God except that he wants to.
There is no condition such as I John 1:9, that makes him keep applying for forgiveness. There is no condition such as Matthew 6:12, that he has to forgive everyone else first, or God won't let him back. The only thing a believer has to do to come back to God is to want to.
We may perhaps speak of two types of sins. One type would be deliberate or premeditated, a conscious choice of disobedience. Another type is unintentional or accidental. For example, a little child hangs on your neck, and you speak sharply, "Let go of me," before you think about it, or your teenager gets under your skin. You're not like your heavenly Father, and you become irritated. Some anger sparks out of you.
For an intentional sin, a deliberate turning away from God, you need to change your mind (repent). Part of coming back to God is repenting and changing your mind. An unintentional sin is not so much a matter of repentance but is an indication that the flesh is in control. It has been forgiven, and the blood of Christ continually cleanses you from it (I John 1:7).
In either case you need to ask God's Spirit to renew your mind, making you into the kind of person that will please Him and yourself by doing the right things. For neither kind of sin do you have to go through a ritual confessing and seeking forgiveness, because forgiveness is already taken care of.
Our position in Christ is our spiritual reality, which should be reflected in our daily life. In particular, our position of being forgiven is our day to day reality. Our sins are all forgiven, so there is no need to continually apply for forgiveness.
Write your text here...
Subscribe for Divine Insights
Rebuild your understanding of God's truth.
