Is God's Forgiveness Unconditional?

It has become very clear to me that there is much confusion and conflicted, contradictory teaching within Christianity around this question. The analysis which follows aims to answer that fundamental question and support that answer with both scripture and reason.

As an example of the confusion I’ve noticed, in one lesson a pastor said that God's forgiveness was unconditional and because of this, we should forgive others unconditionally as well. But then later in the same lesson he explained that some people don't avail themselves of the forgiveness that God has offered to them. But that statement–which I believe is true–contradicts the prior because it makes God's forgiveness conditional. If God's forgiveness was unconditional, then everyone would have God's forgiveness no matter what. That’s what “unconditional” means. But if you say that not everyone “avails themselves” of God's forgiveness, you are necessarily saying that God's forgiveness is conditional.

In addition, to describe God’s forgiveness as an “offer” also points to a condition. When you “offer” something to someone, you are engaging that person’s volition. To “offer” something to someone is to ask “Do you want this? If you do, it’s yours.” An offer has to be accepted. You can’t say that God’s forgiveness is “offered” if you also believe that God’s forgiveness is unconditional. If God’s forgiveness is unconditional, then everyone has God’s forgiveness and if everyone has God’s forgiveness, then it would make no sense so “offering” forgiveness is not necessary at all.

Another pastor published a document about forgiveness and in it he committed a very similar contradiction. In one instance he wrote:

"Every sin ever committed in human history has been forgiven by God the Father…" and "God has forgiven the sins of every person in history."

But elsewhere in the same document he wrote the following:

"The forgiveness of sins is appropriated to any individual the moment they make the non-meritorious decision to believe in Christ for salvation."

If the latter statement is true, then God’s forgiveness is conditional, and the condition is faith in Christ. But if the former statements are true, then God’s forgiveness is unconditional and it doesn’t matter whether you’ve believed in Christ or not, either way your sins are forgiven. Both statements cannot be true because they are contradictory.

So which is it? If the former statements are true, then no one needs to accept the Gospel in order to enjoy God’s forgiveness because He has already granted it, and God’s forgiveness could then be described as “unconditional.” But if the latter statement is true, then the only people who enjoy God’s forgiveness are those who accept the Gospel and those who have not accepted the Gospel do not enjoy God’s forgiveness. Is God’s forgiveness conditional or unconditional?

The correct answer is that God’s forgiveness is conditional. What is the condition? Acceptance of the Gospel/faith in Christ. If you accept the gospel, you get God’s forgiveness and if you don’t, you don’t. Therefore, some people receive and enjoy God’s forgiveness and some people don’t. Why have I reached this conclusion, and why should the reader do the same? The Undeniable Implications of the Book of Acts In the book of Acts, the apostles are described as “preaching forgiveness” to the Jews as they spread the gospel. Acts 26:17-18 is a great example, where Jesus Himself says the following to Paul:

"I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you,‘to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me."

Jesus is sending Paul to spread the gospel to the gentiles so that they may receive forgiveness. That means that they don't have God’s forgiveness yet. The aim of sending Paul to the Gentiles is to open their eyes, turn them from darkness (where they don't enjoy God's forgiveness) to light (where they do). This makes God's forgiveness conditional. Acts 2:38

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

The word translated “remission” here has exactly the same meaning as “forgiveness,” which is to be released from a debt. It ought to be obvious that the people being addressed don’t already have “the remission of sins.” If they already have God’s forgiveness, why dangle that as a carrot; why use as a selling point a thing that these people already have? Quite clearly, they are dangling it as a carrot precisely because they don’t yet have forgiveness and this can only mean that the forgiveness is conditional. Acts 10:43

“To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

Who will receive remission of sins? Whoever believes in Him. The necessary and undeniable implication here is that the person who does not believe does not receive remission of sins. Therefore, forgiveness (remission of sins) is conditional. See also Acts 5:31 and 13:38. In all of these, the Apostles are using forgiveness of sins as a selling point as they preach the Gospel. This would only make sense if the people they were preaching to did not already have forgiveness, but stood to gain forgiveness if they accepted the Apostles’ teaching regarding the Gospel. Conclusion: God’s forgiveness is conditional; not every human enjoys forgiveness of sins. Conditional Forgiveness in the New Testament Epistles We also find robust support for God’s conditional forgiveness in the New Testament Epistles. For example, Colossians 1:13-14:

"He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins."

Who has redemption through His blood and the forgiveness of sins? Paul is speaking to an audience of believers here. Paul is telling these people about the wonderful benefits they enjoy as believers. Of what value would this be to Paul’s audience if unbelievers enjoyed those same benefits? If God’s forgiveness was unconditional, Paul’s message here would be of no value to this audience. For more of the same, see Ephesians 1:7 and also Colossians 2:13:

“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.”

“And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses…”

In both passages, Paul is addressing believers and describing the benefits which believers enjoy. Among those is that their trespasses have all been forgiven. But if unbelievers enjoy this benefit as well–if God’s forgiveness is unconditional–then of what value is Paul’s statement to his audience? Paul’s audience might well respond with “Why are you telling us this, Paul, when unbelievers enjoy the same benefit?” Clearly God's forgiveness is conditional. Hiding In Plain Sight In a debate with John Lennox, Richard Dawkins mocked the idea that God killed His only Son in order to forgive humans when he asked:

"Do you really think that [God] couldn’t think of a better way of getting rid of the sins on this one little speck of dust than to have himself tortured? He’s the one doing the forgiving, after all. Couldn’t He just have forgiven?"

It turns out this is an excellent question that hides in plain sight the answer to the issue I’m considering here. The answer is, “No, God couldn’t have just forgiven.” But why not? Because if He had just forgiven, without holding anyone accountable, then God would be participating in the sins of humanity. What happens if you observe a crime being committed, and you see a policeman nearby but you choose (willfully) not to alert the officer? Are you not taking part in the crime at that point? If you alert the Police, you can rightly say that you’re standing against that crime. But if you have the opportunity to alert the Police and you don’t, then you’re actually assisting in the commission of that crime. The same principle is in action here. If God forgave humanity unconditionally, (as Dawkins suggests He could) without requiring any sort of accountability, that would amount to God participating in the sins of humanity. Similarly, if you forgive unconditionally and do nothing to call out the offense (as directed in Luke 17 and Matthew 18) then you really are just allowing the sin. You are essentially giving permission for the offender to continue offending and in so doing, you are participating in it… even if you yourself are the victim of the sin. God cannot have fellowship (take part in, participate in) sin because to do so would violate His character. He can, however, forgive sin providing certain conditions are met. What are those conditions? There are two. The first condition is that some representative human must take the penalty. If God’s forgiveness was unconditional, then Christ would not have had to hang on the cross at all; God could have simply waved His hands and said “All is forgiven.” The second condition is that sinners like us admit to our inability to meet God’s standard; admit our need for God’s mercy. Lennox's answer was appropriate, but incomplete:

"Because this is a moral universe, Richard, and just forgiving doesn’t make sense. God sends His Son into the world to provide… a basis on which He can justly bring forgiveness."

Faith is Non-Meritorious One thing that trips us up is that the condition to receive God’s forgiveness is "non-meritorious." We recognize how easy it is (in one sense, anyway) to meet the condition and this leads us to conclude, erroneously, that we shouldn’t consider it a genuine condition. But this only creates confusion. Romans 4:4-5 explains the distinction:

"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness."

Work has merit or value, and so the money you’re paid for the work you do is a debt someone owes you. By saying “But to him who does not work but believes,” Paul is placing faith in a completely different category from work. The person he’s describing has faith in Him who justifies the ungodly, but that person does no work. This means, necessarily, that in God’s economy, faith is not counted as work. Faith has no value, no merit, in itself. The value and merit are always in the object of faith.

This is how low the bar is: All we have to do is acknowledge to God that we need His mercy; rely upon the solution He has provided, and that solution is Jesus Christ. This is not “work” and whatever you get as a result of this is not anything God “owes” you; it can still be referred to as a “free gift.” This also comes through loud and clear in the parable of the tax collector and the pharisee in Luke 18:10-14. It is really the core of the gospel message. Believe in Jesus… why? Because you can't meet God’s standard yourself. You need God's mercy, you need a savior and Jesus is it. The Pharisee is there for contrast; he denies his need for God’s mercy. He refuses to acknowledge his debt to God. He exalts himself; imagines that he is without sin. But the tax collector acknowledges his debt; his inability to pay. He says “Have mercy on me, a sinner.” This is his expression of faith; this is his repentance. He humbles himself, and Jesus says he who humbles himself will be exalted, and he who exalts himself will be humbled. Jesus says that, of the two men, it’s the tax collector who is justified, or declared righteous. That declaration of righteousness, by the way, was conditional, and that’s why the tax collector was justified while the pharisee wasn’t.

Because an acknowledgment of debt is non-meritorious, when a person sins against another and they acknowledge the debt/ask for mercy and the offended person forgives, the offender has been released from their debt by grace. In other words, the forgiveness is undeserved and it was conditional and there is no contradiction because the condition is non-meritorious. To admit you can’t pay a debt, in other words, is not the same as paying the debt. So if the person who has been sinned against expects an acknowledgement of debt, that person cannot be accused of seeking to extract payment from the offender. In fact, they are seeking to avoid punishing the offender, they actually want the offender to be off the hook. Just as God wants us to be saved (and all that goes with it, including forgiveness) the person is actually hoping that the offender won’t have to pay the penalty. Motivated by love, the offended party is giving the offending party a way to escape punishment in the same manner God has given us a way to escape punishment, and that way of escape is itself a grace provision and it is an expression of love. And just as we are free to take advantage of God’s way of escape or not, the offending party is free in exactly the same way. They can choose to humble themselves and receive the forgiveness that’s available, or they can choose to exalt themselves, deny their sin, and live with the consequences.

The acknowledgement of debt, therefore, can rightfully be described as the condition on which God’s forgiveness is based, and that forgiveness can still be described as a “grace gift” because acknowledging your inability to pay your debt is non-meritorious. Putting your trust in Christ amounts to an acknowledgement of debt. It’s an admission that you are deficient; that you cannot solve the problem at hand, that you cannot repay the debt that you owe and that you need God to solve this problem for you. The same idea carries over into our personal relationships. The apology you offer the person you’ve wronged is an admission of wrongdoing, an acknowledgment of debt and the appeal for forgiveness is implied. In Luke 17:3-4 Jesus says the following:

“If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”

Notice there is a rebuke involved and that rebuke is justified. Nothing wrong with rebuking the one who has offended. Notice also that the rebuke is the first step… it precedes forgiveness. But the forgiveness is clearly conditioned upon whether the offender repents, and “repent” here essentially means “to think twice” or really to reconsider or change your mind about (in this case) your own behavior or decisions if you are the offender. This is yet another description of forgiveness that is conditional, and notice that Jesus is prescribing this course of action to humans.

The parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18) recognizes the importance of acknowledgment of debt as well. The master forgave Servant 1 who owed the master 10,000 talents, but he only did that when Servant 1 acknowledged the debt and asked for mercy. But then Servant 1 turned around and went after Servant 2 who owed him money. When Servant 2 acknowledged his debt and asked for mercy, the Servant 1 was not merciful. He had Servant 2 thrown into prison. He did not forgive as he had been forgiven when Servant 2 met the same condition. And when the master found out, the master revoked Servant 1’s forgiveness because Servant 1 had failed to show compassion on Servant 2 the way the master had showed compassion on him. But the master's prior forgiveness wasn't unconditional… and this is amplified by the fact that he revokes the forgiveness when he finds out how Servant 1 went after Servant 2. Servant 2 acknowledged his debt, asked for mercy, same as Servant 1 had done. But Servant 1 told the guy to pay up anyway. So the master said "When you were given the opportunity to show mercy the way I showed you mercy, you blew it. So now you’re not going to get my mercy. Away you go."

So then what about the commands to forgive others as God has forgiven us? Indeed, these are important, but these commands only imply unconditional forgiveness if God’s forgiveness of us is unconditional. Such commands really just mean that our forgiveness of others should follow the same policy as God’s forgiveness of us. That is, the terms should be the same. If God’s forgiveness is unconditional, then our forgiveness of others should be as well. But if God’s forgiveness is conditioned upon a non-meritorious acknowledgement of debt, then our forgiveness of others should be conditioned according to the same policy. In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus says that if your brother sins against you but won't repent or won't acknowledge the debt, you should let him be to you as a tax collector or a heathen. He doesn't say to forgive that person anyway. If God expects us to forgive unconditionally, then Jesus’ instructions here contradict that plainly. Jesus’ teaching here and in Luke 17:3 is consistent with the pattern established by God’s plan of salvation. You can only receive God’s forgiveness if you meet the condition, and that makes God’s forgiveness conditional.

And that brings us to the other component that creates confusion: There is a difference between the availability of a thing and actually possessing or acquiring the thing that is available. Copies of The Source Weekly, a free newspaper in Bend, are available everywhere and they are free. But you don’t possess a copy until you go somewhere and take one off of the stand. Employees of The Source Weekly don’t go around handing them out to every person. If that was how the paper was distributed, it would be missing the mark to say that the paper is merely “available” because the word “available” implies contingency. You can have the thing in question, but some kind of action on your part is required. The availability of God’s forgiveness is unconditional and universal… that is, His forgiveness is available to every human. But not every human avails him or herself of that forgiveness; not every human meets the condition to actually acquire that forgiveness and that’s because God’s forgiveness is conditional.

The acknowledgment of debt is, therefore, an entirely reasonable and Biblical condition for true forgiveness and is completely consistent with God’s grace policy of forgiveness for us. The very act of making forgiveness available–whether God does it for us or we do it for someone who has sinned against us–is an expression of grace and agapé love, even if that forgiveness is conditioned upon the acknowledgment of debt. But then there’s Luke 23:34. As Jesus is hanging on the cross, He says:

“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”

In a video she recorded on forgiveness, Christian YouTuber Shaneen Megji says this about Jesus’ words here:

"In the most unimaginable pain, Jesus chose forgiveness."

This is horribly misleading. Jesus did not "choose forgiveness." Rather, He expressed to the Father His desire that those who had persecuted Him so badly would be forgiven. You might say He was asking the Father to choose forgiveness for these people, but to say that Jesus Himself "chose forgiveness" is a gross distortion.

Can we conclude–based upon Jesus’ expressed desire that these people be forgiven by the Father–that they actually were forgiven? I don’t think so. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus expressed a desire as well when He prayed:

“My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

But did the Father let this cup pass from Him? No, He didn’t. That Jesus asked Him for a way out didn’t mean He gave Him a way out. So while Jesus may have asked the Father to forgive those people, that doesn’t mean that the Father did forgive them. That’s important.

We also need to ask ourselves: Should we jettison Jesus’ prescriptions of forgiveness conditioned upon repentance and conclude from this one verse that God insists that we forgive others unconditionally? That seems like quite a stretch, doesn’t it?

There are other curiosities about Jesus’ prayer in Luke 23:34 as well: For example, exactly who is Jesus referring to here? It turns out there are different opinions about that. Presumably it’s the Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross. But what about the Jewish leaders who urged the Roman soldiers along? Jesus isn’t talking about them? Why not? I’ve even heard some suggest He was talking about all of humanity. Interesting.

It’s also interesting to consider the matter of authority here. Does Jesus have authority over God the Father to just order God the Father to forgive? Although I think it’s fair to describe this as a request, it’s worded more like an order. These are all interesting questions, but there’s one simple observation that renders all of that moot. Jesus is not presenting this as a prescription for humans… He is addressing God the Father. It’s a description of something Jesus did, about which there are many unanswered questions. But Luke 17:3 and Matthew 18:15-17 are clearly prescriptions aimed explicitly at humans. Why would we take a request Jesus makes to God and turn it into a prescription for us when we have very clear statements aimed at humans elsewhere that clearly prescribe forgiveness conditioned upon repentance? What is the “Golden Rule” of Bible interpretation? Are we to interpret the clear in light of the unclear, or the other way around? Luke 23:34 is interesting–and I don’t claim to understand it completely–but it wouldn’t make sense to use it to override the clearly prescriptive-to-humans teaching found elsewhere uttered by Jesus Himself.

Another verse that is used frequently to scare someone into forgiving unconditionally is Matthew 6:14-15, in which Jesus says:

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

What’s really ironic is that the word “if” in this passage explicitly makes God’s forgiveness conditional. So if I were trying to convince someone that God forgives humans unconditionally, wouldn’t it be weird if I used this verse to support that? But we should also notice that the condition described here for receiving God's forgiveness is quite different from that typically described in the gospel, and we ought to ask "Why?" The condition is not faith in Christ anymore? What's going on here?

One popular move is to bifurcate God’s forgiveness into two categories and then associate this verse with a popular understanding of 1 John 1:9 and say that the two are talking about a different kind of forgiveness.There are two problems with this:

First, nowhere in scripture is God’s forgiveness explicitly bifurcated into two categories. That doesn’t prove anything by itself, but it means that it’s entirely possible that these categories are merely man’s attempt to work around a contradiction created by certain–possibly flawed–assumptions.

Secondly, 1 John 1:9 says nothing about forgiving others as a condition of receiving God’s forgiveness. And likewise, Matthew 6:14-15 mentions nothing about confession of sins. If this passage in Matthew is about how to gain a second kind of forgiveness, then why are the terms different than in 1 John 1:9? What… are there three different categories of forgiveness now? This is looking like an unworkable solution… God is not the author of confusion.

And speaking of confusion, contrast Matthew 6:14-15 against Matthew 18:17, in which Jesus says the following about the brother who has sinned against you:

“And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”

What sense does it make that on one hand Jesus says that if you won’t forgive your brother your heavenly Father won’t forgive you, but then He says, in effect, don’t forgive your brother if he refuses to hear you? I believe there is a way of understanding these passages that eliminates the contradiction.

Even if we were to grant the aforementioned popular understanding of both Matthew 6:14-15 and 1 John 1:9, both of these verses explicitly describe God's forgiveness as conditional. In Matthew 6, God forgives you if you forgive others, in 1 John 1:9 God forgives if you confess your sins. There's something else lurking in 1 John 1:9 that’s interesting:

“If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

John describes God as “just” to forgive us our sins if we meet a particular condition: Confession of sin. If that’s a valid description, then it would be appropriate to conclude that it would be unjust for God to forgive us our sins if we did not meet that condition. The implication, then, is that forgiveness without any sort of condition can be described as unjust. If we are to be imitators of God, as Ephesians 5:1 says, then our policy regarding forgiveness of others ought to correspond with God’s policy. This is why, in Luke 17 and Matthew 18, Jesus advocates so clearly for forgiveness conditioned upon repentance. There is another very simple and very powerful reason to accept that God’s forgiveness is conditional. First, we must compare the idea of forgiveness with the idea of justification, or being declared righteous by God. The idea that Justification is conditional doesn’t seem to be controversial. But, to be declared righteous by God is really no different than being forgiven by God. The terms are, in effect, interchangeable. What would it mean to be declared righteous by God, but NOT forgiven? What would it mean to be forgiven by God, yet NOT justified? To illustrate this further, imagine a 12 ounce glass with 6 ounces of water in it. That glass can be described as half-full OR half-empty. Both descriptions are accurate; each represents the same reality. Notice that the glass cannot be described as half-full unless it is half-empty and it can’t be described as half-empty unless it is half-full. Is it possible to conceive of a glass that is half-full, but not half-empty? Is it possible to conceive of a glass that is half-empty, but not half-full? Absolutely not. In the same way, a person cannot be described as justified (declared righteous) unless he or she has been forgiven, and they can’t be described as being forgiven unless they’ve been declared righteous. Absolutely everyone who has been forgiven has been justified, and everyone who has been justified has been forgiven. There can be no exceptions to this. The two terms cannot be separated, because they are, in effect, synonymous, and if Justification is conditional, then forgiveness has to be conditional as well. In the same way, we would all agree that reconciliation with God is conditional. But one cannot be reconciled to God unless one is forgiven and one cannot be forgiven unless one is also reconciled. Our reconciliation to God is the immediate and automatic result of God’s forgiveness. There’s no such thing as a person who is reconciled to God but not forgiven, or vice-versa. So the same logic applies: If reconciliation is conditional, then so is forgiveness. Only those who trust in Christ are forgiven, justified and reconciled to God. Another important point related to this is that there is no middle-ground–no neutral zone–between unrighteousness and righteousness. Forgiveness doesn’t just take you to a neutral position where you still need to be declared righteous. No, both happen at exactly the same time. There is perfect Righteousness, and there is unrighteousness… there’s nothing in-between. If you’re forgiven, you’re considered by God to be Righteous. Another approach relates to two passages in Mark and Luke that make forgiveness conditional. First, consider Mark 3:28-29:

“Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”

And words to similar effect in Luke 12:10:

“And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”

It is fairly well-established that this “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” amounts to rejecting God’s testimony of His Son; to refuse to accept the Gospel, and I agree completely. This aligns well with Luke 18:10-14 where the pharisee “exalts himself” by denying that he needs God’s mercy. In John 3:33 John writes:

“He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true.”

And in 1 John 5:10 he goes further with this:

“He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.”

Mark 3:28-29 and Luke 12:10 are flatly inconsistent with the idea that God’s forgiveness is unconditional. The person who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit does not have forgiveness of sins, but the person who accepts the Holy Spirit’s testimony will enjoy forgiveness of sins. That is a description of conditional forgiveness, and is consistent, then, with the policy described in Luke 17 and Matthew 18 where forgiveness is prescribed only when the offender has acknowledged his/her sin against you and when the offender refuses to do so, you are to regard them as a heathen and a tax collector. The other person’s sins against you could be forgiven if that person would accept your testimony, but if they won’t accept your testimony, they are essentially calling you a liar. Under such conditions, there is no forgiveness. Another indication of God’s conditional application of mercy is found in James 4:6:

“God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

This verse, which is quoted from Proverbs 3:34, makes it very clear that God’s grace is applied conditionally, just as justification is clearly conditional in Luke 18. Humble yourself and admit your need for God’s mercy as the tax collector did, and God will give you grace. But God will resist you if you’re stuck on denying your sin as the pharisee did. Either way, we are making God out to be a liar when we will not receive His testimony. We are refusing to acknowledge our inability to pay; we are denying our need for His mercy; we are not acknowledging our sin. In Luke 18 Jesus says “He who exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” This is exactly what Jesus is talking about. When someone changes his/her mind and decides to acknowledge their abject need as the tax collector did, that change of mind can be described as “repentance” and that person is justified (forgiven). There are several verses in the New Testament which seem to demonstrate that Paul’s approach to those who misbehave is inconsistent with a policy of unconditional forgiveness. Romans 16:17:

"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them."

This would be a good spot for Paul to include a message of unconditional forgiveness if he thought that was the policy God required of us. Paul doesn’t say “Forgive those who cause divisions and offenses even if they refuse to repent.” Rather, we are to avoid such people. If Paul had an “unconditional forgiveness” approach to such things, he could not have written the above… nor any of the following. 1 Corinthians 5:11:

"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person."

1 Corinthians 5 represents another opportunity for Paul to advocate unconditional forgiveness, yet he doesn't. It also represents an opportunity for Paul to say we should just overlook the sin of another on the basis that we, too, are sinners. But Paul does neither of those things. Instead, he insists that you not associate with that person, which seems quite consistent with Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18. Paul doesn't say "Well, heck… we're all sinners, so we shouldn't make an issue out of what this person has done."

2 Thessalonians 3:6

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us."

This is yet another opportunity for Paul to recommend unconditional forgiveness… but he doesn't. Instead, he says to keep your distance from that person. Paul doesn't say "Well, heck… we ALL walk disorderly, so don't pay it any mind if Frank is walking disorderly." No, he clearly advocates consequences for the person in question. 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15

"And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."

In this verse, Paul blows yet another opportunity to preach unconditional forgiveness. And in this case, Paul actually intends for the offender to experience shame. How is this consistent with unconditional forgiveness? How is this consistent with “We should look the other way because we’re all sinners, too.” True, Paul cautions against treating the offender as an enemy, but he also insists that they be admonished. In other words, he’s not letting that person off the hook; he’s not looking the other way; he’s not ignoring their offense; and in doing so, he’s clearly not violating God’s policy on forgiveness or acting inconsistent with principles of Grace. 1 Timothy 1:20

"…of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to

Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme."

Set aside for a moment the question of what, exactly, it means that Paul “delivered to Satan” Hymenaeus and Alexander. Whatever that means, it doesn’t sound pleasant; it doesn’t sound like Hymenaeus and Alexander enjoyed it. Where is the unconditional forgiveness here? How is this looking the other way? How can Paul hold Hymenaeus and Alexander accountable this way given his own personal history? Should we think that Paul is a hypocrite or that he denies the price that Christ paid in order to forgive him? Apparently we should not think so, because here’s Paul advocating that Hymenaeus and Alexander be held accountable for whatever it was they did.. 1 Timothy 6:3

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.

Where is the unconditional forgiveness here? I don't see the slightest hint that Paul has any such thing in mind in any of these passages. Why? 1 Corinthians 4:14

I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children.

Clearly Paul has no objection to admonishing anyone who has committed offenses. But if, in fact, forgiveness is supposed to be unconditional, he should. Ephesians 5:11

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

Paul seems to be very much in line with Jesus’ recommendations in Luke 17 and Matthew 18. We are not to participate in evil, but instead we are to expose it. Some translations say “reprove” the unfruitful works of darkness, which is the same idea as “rebuke.” Paul does not recommend looking the other way, nor does he recommend pretending that the evil isn’t happening or never happened. He doesn’t say to forgive these works of darkness unconditionally, nor does he say not to call those works out. Galatians 6:1

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.

It’s interesting that in none of these passages does Paul advocate looking the other way regarding the various offenses he highlights. He never says “Well, we’re all sinners, so when a brother sins against you, you shouldn’t say anything. You should simply overlook it.” Even so, he is acutely aware that he himself is a sinner: Romans 7:24

O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

1 Timothy 1:15

This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

The conclusion here is inescapable: You can and should call someone out when they have sinned against you—especially if it’s a significant sin—and when you do, you are not violating principles of Grace or denying the basis on which God forgave you or anything of the sort. Having said that, it’s worth pointing out that we are given some latitude in this area. That is, we are not commanded to call out every single offense against us. Apparently there are circumstances where it is appropriate and even virtuous to overlook an offense: Proverbs 19:11

The discretion of a man makes him slow to anger, And his glory is to overlook a transgression.

So yes, we can and should overlook certain offenses, but certain other offenses–it would seem–should not be overlooked. Since we aren’t given any clear guidelines for this, it seems that God is leaving it up to our discretion to a large extent. The remedy isn’t “one size fits all.” It’s fair, however, to recall verses like Ephesians 4:32, which says: Be kind and loving to each other, and forgive each other just as God forgave you in Christ. Given that Paul wrote the seven verses above, Ephesians 4:32 cannot be taken as support for unconditional forgiveness. We are to forgive others according to the policy by which God forgave us. Obviously, if God's policy is unconditional forgiveness, then it would be fair to say that this verse supports that. But by now it’s clear that God’s policy on forgiveness is conditional. If God’s policy on forgiveness is unconditional, why doesn't Paul ever seem to follow it?

In the end, the idea that God’s forgiveness is unconditional and that humans should therefore forgive other humans unconditionally does not appear to be supported Biblically. God’s forgiveness of humans is obviously conditional. Our policy on forgiving others should emulate God’s policy of forgiveness towards us. He establishes the pattern that we should adhere to. Clearly we are to love unconditionally, but that doesn’t translate to unconditional forgiveness. Those are two different things. Making forgiveness available is an expression of unconditional love. Loving someone unconditionally doesn’t obligate you to allow them to abuse you or someone else by looking the other way in the name of unconditional forgiveness. To forgive an offender when they refuse to repent or acknowledge their wrongdoing (unconditional forgiveness) is indistinguishable from simply permitting the offense to continue.

Another aspect of forgiveness that gets overlooked is when third parties are involved. If Bob does harm to Mike, Mike is the only individual who has any business forgiving Bob. A third party cannot forgive Bob for what he’s done to Mike. If that third party has been harmed indirectly because of what Bob has done to Mike, then that third party can forgive Bob for that, but has no business forgiving Bob for the harm he’s done to Mike. Only Mike is in a position to forgive Bob for that. Common Talking Points Related to Forgiveness: "Forgiveness is our duty even when the offender won’t repent or apologize; we are to forgive unconditionally." We know this much, at least: Unless God wants us to follow a policy that’s different from His own, this talking point is certainly false. It’s absolutely clear from scripture that God’s forgiveness of humans is conditional, and it’s also very clear that we should forgive others using the same principle; that if an offender acknowledges his or her debt, you are to forgive that person. And if they offend again and they acknowledge the debt again, you are to forgive them again. But there appears to be no obligation to forgive anyone who refuses to acknowledge their debt or admit they’ve done wrong, etc. "Forgiveness doesn't mean that you have to tolerate abuse." This one presents an interesting challenge, especially if uttered by the same person who offered #1 because the two really are impossible to reconcile. If unconditional forgiveness is expected of every person, then no person has the standing to call out any offense against them. And if you cannot call out an offense against you because you are duty-bound to forgive unconditionally, then what can you do besides tolerate the abuse? If speaking out against the offense violates a particular understanding of forgiveness or grace, then you certainly do have to tolerate the abuse. "Forgiveness doesn't mean you have to forget." Agreed. To expect someone to literally forget an offense is absurd. You can, however, choose to behave in a way that’s no different than if you had forgotten the offense, and if the person has acknowledged his or her debt, to “forget” in this figurative, “effective” sense is appropriate. In the Bible we find various descriptions of God’s forgiveness, the writer of Hebrews says that God will “remember our sins no more.” But nobody could make the case that this is literal. It’s simply a way of saying that God will not hold our sins against us, so that He has in effect forgotten our sins. He hasn’t actually forgotten them in the literal sense. He has declared us Righteous and this necessarily means that He no longer sees us as sinners. "Forgiveness does not imply denial of restitution." This one is interesting. In the Bible, forgiveness is often explained in terms of financial debt. If you borrow money from someone and they forgive you that debt, you are released from having to pay back the debt. The term “restitution” is a term often used to refer to paying for damage done to property, where the offender is essentially reimbursing the victim the money they lost when they had the damage repaired. This talking point is saying that it’s fair to expect restitution even if the offense has been forgiven, that you can forgive someone yet still insist that they pay some sort of damages. My point here is not to argue for or against this particular talking point, but rather to use it to demonstrate that the concept of “forgiveness” seems to have a lot of latitude. That is–at least in some peoples’ minds–the concept of “forgiveness” leaves room for insisting on restitution even when the offense has been forgiven. "Forgiveness isn't the same as reconciliation." I can agree with this in a technical sense. I would express it this way: Forgiveness and reconciliation are not synonyms. The word “forgiveness” describes something that is offered by the offended party and accepted by the offending party, while “reconciliation” describes the state of that relationship after the forgiveness has been offered and received. At that point, the relationship is restored; the two parties are reconciled. So, yes… they are two different things. Having said that, this talking point is used to suggest that the offended party can (and should) forgive even if the offended party is unrepentant and even though reconciliation may not be an immediate result of that forgiveness. Many have said that even though you’ve forgiven, reconciliation may never happen. This, however, is demonstrably false and is not supported Biblically. First, consider Colossians 3:13, which says:

“Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances

you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”

God’s forgiveness of humans follows a particular pattern, template or policy. When Paul writes “Forgive as the Lord forgave you,” he is saying that our policy of forgiveness ought to mirror His policy, whatever that policy is. This is very consistent with Ephesians 5:1, which says:

“Be imitators of God as dear children.”

I’ve already demonstrated above that God’s policy of forgiveness involves a non-meritorious condition, and Ephesians 4:32 adds further support to that:

“Be kind and tenderhearted to one another, forgiving

each other just as in Christ God forgave you.”

The point of this passage is identical to Colossians 3:13, except that it adds a condition. Notice “…forgiving each other just as in Christ God forgave you.” If you want God’s forgiveness, you need to be “in Christ,” a reference to being in union with Christ and you achieve that by accepting the gospel, and accepting the gospel is essentially what the tax collector did in Luke 18 when he beat his chest and cried out to God “Have mercy on me, a sinner.” He was recognizing his abject need of God’s mercy; he was admitting that he could not meet God’s standard; that he was unable to pay the debt he owed. This is God’s policy regarding forgiveness and we ought to follow it. But what about reconciliation? While I acknowledge that reconciliation is not the same as forgiveness, I completely reject the very popular notion that reconciliation does not have to be the immediate result of genuine forgiveness. I would say that if reconciliation is not the immediate result, then the forgiveness is not genuine. This can be demonstrated by posing two very important questions:

“Of all people who have received God’s forgiveness, how many

of them have yet to be reconciled to God?”

“Of all people who have been reconciled to God, how many

of them have yet to receive God’s forgiveness?”

The obvious answer to both of these is “ZERO,” and that alone blows this popular idea right out of the water. Everyone who has God’s forgiveness is reconciled to God and everyone who is reconciled to God has God’s forgiveness. Proper, Biblical forgiveness automatically results in reconciliation. If reconciliation doesn’t happen immediately as a result of forgiveness, then the forgiveness wasn’t valid or genuine. Forgiveness that is one-sided or unconditional is forgiveness that is invalid. Remember that forgiveness is offered by the offended party, and has to be accepted by the offending party. The only way the offending party is going to accept forgiveness you’ve offered is if they admit that they need it. If they won’t, then your forgiveness falls flat. The offer is still there, but your forgiveness hasn’t been received and reconciliation is impossible. When forgiveness is conditioned upon repentance (as described in Luke 17 and Matthew 18) then reconciliation is the immediate and automatic result. Consider Matthew 18:15:

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.”

Jesus describes a scenario where one person sins against another, and the offended party is directed to call the action out privately. If the offender hears you and (by implication) agrees that it was wrong and repents, then “You have gained your brother.” This is a description of reconciliation. Forgiveness and reconciliation may indeed describe different concepts, but they are so closely related that, when forgiveness is offered and accepted, reconciliation is the immediate result. "Forgiveness doesn't mean you have to trust." This one I can find some agreement with. However, it does present some problems. If forgiving someone means that you no longer hold their offense against them, then I can see that someone could argue that to not trust that person would be to hold their offense against them and that if you simply insist that it’s not, I could see why someone might say that’s just special pleading. In other words, it’s not quite clear to me how a person can distrust a person because of the offenses they’ve committed and yet claim not to hold that person’s offense against them. On the other hand, however, it makes sense to say that you only trust that person again after they’ve demonstrated their sincerity over some period of time. In the end, I can’t necessarily plant a flag on either side of this with absolute confidence. I see potential contradictions in it, but I see wisdom in it as well, and so I’m not able to resolve that tension right now. "Forgiveness is for the benefit of the forgiver, not the forgivee." This idea is ubiquitous, but I cannot find any Biblical basis for it at all. For one thing, the most prominent & distinctive Christian ethic is to orient your actions toward what benefits others, setting aside what benefits you personally. Along with that, we are supposed to demonstrate love toward others and one way we do that is by making forgiveness available to others when they’ve done us wrong. But how is it a demonstration of love for the other person if our motivation for doing it is to benefit ourselves? On that basis alone, we ought to be very skeptical of this idea. Secondly, for whose benefit does God forgive us? His own? If yes, how does that demonstrate God’s Love for us? Clearly, God’s Love for us compels Him to forgive us (when we meet His non-meritorious condition) because it benefits us, not because it benefits Him. Thirdly, I have been unable to find anything in the Bible to support this particular talking point. Having said all of this, it’s impossible to deny that there are benefits to the forgiver. That they are reconciled with the other person is one obvious benefit–but that’s different from saying that the reason you should forgive is for your own benefit. That cuts across the grain of the Christian ethos in a profound way.

In the end, it appears to be impossible to conclude from the text of scripture that God forgives humans unconditionally. It is absolutely clear that God forgives humans if and when we realize that we need His mercy; that we cannot meet His standard; that we need to trust in the solution He provided, Jesus Christ. Thus, when a person commits some significant offense against another, the victim of that offense ought to forgive the offender only if and when that offender comes to understand -- and expresses -- that he or she has done wrong. At that point, the offended can commit to no longer holding the offense against that person. This is Biblical forgiveness.