A RESPONSE TO MICHAEL SHANBOUR=S AA GOSPEL ACCOUNT OF OUR FATHER AND THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF JESUS@ BY DALE E

A RESPONSE TO MICHAEL SHANBOUR’S “A GOSPEL ACCOUNT OF OUR FATHER AND THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF JESUS”

(Part IV)

QUESTION IV: “BEFORE THE FATHER FORGIVES US OUR SINS, WAS IT NECESSARY FOR CHRIST TO DIE ON THE CROSS AS A SACRIFICE?”

In search of the answer to this question, Mr. Shanbour relies on what he considers to be all the verses that apply, those in which Jesus states that one must forgive in order to be forgiven (Matt. 6:14; Mark 11:25; Luke 6:37) and which speak of how sincerely one must be willing to forgive in order to obtain forgiveness (Matt. 18:33-35; Luke 11:4). And it is at this juncture that Shanbour protests the loudest thus far, calling the atonement doctrine “barbaric” (again with the emotive metaphors!) and making this highly charged statement: “To imply that the Heavenly Father could only forgive when an innocent person is killed not only is a total abomination of the teachings of Jesus Christ, but also makes the Heavenly Father seem like a conspirator to premeditated murder.[1]

True enough, the verses Mr. Shanbour cites state that God will forgive those that have forgiven others. But the question still remains: Is forgiveness of others the requisite for forgiveness of one’s own sins, or is something else being said here? If we must provide the means of our own salvation, then we run the risk of not meeting the mark, just as we had the same problem above with obeying the Law. This condition would put our salvation at great risk, should we have to rely on our own ability to forgive everyone of every wrong that we (or others we know of) have endured at the hands of others. I personally would not want to shoulder such a burdensome responsibility, because I know from experience how difficult it is to forgive others completely and without prejudice. I would be living in the constant fear that I have not quite fully forgiven all my debtors before my time has come. What if, as a demonstration of this notion’s absurdity, I was forced to watch my wife being gang raped and murdered, and immediately afterward I too was murdered by the same gang who wished to avoid witnesses? Would I have had the time necessary to take the matter up with God and forgive those that committed these heinous crimes? Probably not, and only because I lacked the time to do so would I be condemned, according to Shanbour. Nonetheless, if such is the task set before us, let us try hard to give Mr. Shanbour the benefit of doubt, lest we shrink from our duties and disappoint our Maker.

Well, despite his sincere efforts in providing his readers with an exhaustive list of passages in which Jesus provides answers on how to be forgiven, Mr. Shanbour missed a few (once again). In Matthew 9:2-8 (cf. Mark 2:3-12; Luke 5:18-26), we see Jesus stating to the paralytic that his sins had been forgiven.[2] Nowhere in this passage is it stated, much less inferred, that the paralytic had been forgiven because he first forgave all his debtors. In fact, nothing is said about his background except his infirmity. By what criteria, then, was the paralytic forgiven? We read in the passage that it was by the paralytic’s faith in Jesus (as well as by that of those that had carried him on a mat to see Jesus) that he was forgiven.

From a passage in which Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees because they accused him of being in league with Satan for casting a demon out of a man (Matt. 12:25-29; Mark 3:23-27; cf. Luke 12:10), we hear Jesus again discussing forgiveness:

“‘And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.’” (Matt. 12:31-32)

What this message clearly states is that anyone who blasphemes against God the Holy Spirit has committed the unpardonable sin, and this fate applies no matter how perfectly and completely the blasphemer may have been able to forgive others. Strong words coming from God’s spokesman, would not Mr. Shanbour agree? These words serve as a strong antidote to his premature conclusion that to be forgiven, one must forgive.

When Jesus was being anointed by a sinful woman (probably a former prostitute) at Simon the Pharisee’s house (Luke 7:36-50), he encountered some resentment for allowing her to touch him. Upon hearing these murmurs of dissatisfaction, Jesus told a parable to Simon in which the debts of two men who could not pay back the money they owed were canceled by the moneylender. Because one of the debtors owed ten times as much as the other, Jesus posed the question which of the two would be more grateful toward the moneylender, to which Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled” (v. 43). Then Jesus applied the parable to a personal, real-time situation involving both Simon and the sinful woman. The woman, whose sin debt was apparently very great, had demonstrated the depth of her love and gratitude toward Jesus, whereas Jesus pointed out to Simon that he had not been the least bit hospitable toward him as a guest. After all was said and done, Jesus told the woman, “‘Your sins are forgiven’” (v. 48). Now, again, I ask Mr. Shanbour, was there once any mention of the woman having to forgive all her debtors in order for her to have been forgiven? The answer is none whatsoever, and we do not know whether or not she had done so up to that point. What, then, was the criteria by which she had been forgiven? Again, it was her faith in Jesus, and not her ability to forgive others, that led to her own forgiveness: “Jesus said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace’” (v. 50).

Before demonstrating his power over the grave by raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus made this unequivocal proclamation regarding what one must do in order to attain eternal life:

“‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.’” (John 11:25-26)

Likewise, sometime during the Last Supper, Jesus reiterated this very compelling claim, that belief in him is the key to salvation:

“‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” (John 14:6)

These verses in effect kill two birds with one stone. First, they further dispel Mr. Shanbour’s previous notion that one must demonstrate love to his neighbor in order to receive eternal life. Secondly, the verses serve here as further evidence that one cannot expect do earn forgiveness by forgiving others or by any other performance criterion.

In light of the above passages, let us re-examine the verses Mr. Shanbour has cited as his rationale for claiming that the forgiveness of others is the prerequisite for one’s own forgiveness. We can plainly see that this is not the case, in light of the verses I have referred to, which infer that some other criterion (i.e., faith in Jesus) is the cause of forgiveness. How, then, can the two sets of verses be in harmony with one another, assuming both are equally viable and the Bible does not contradict itself? It must be that the capacity to forgive is not a requisite, but merely a reflection of one’s salvation, which is had by believing in the saving power of Jesus. If one is truly forgiven, and if one has placed their faith in him who has the power to forgive, he or she will reflect their gratitude, loyalty, and love toward their Savior by forgiving others. When Jesus taught us to pray, he did not say, “Forgive us our debts, since we also have forgiven our debtors.” Forgiveness is not the means by which we attain forgiveness; rather, we will forgive others because we have ourselves been forgiven. Subtle changes in context reap costly errors in meaning.

[1]. Mr. Shanbour is parroting a telltale passage of The UB, which is apparently his true source of inspiration. The UB does not waste much time before getting to its central theme, which is to justify a denial of the atonement doctrine by way of alleged celestial mandate. A “Divine Counselor” puts it this way in one of The UB’s earlier papers, replete with emotive remonstrations: “What a travesty upon the infinite character of God! this [sic] teaching that his fatherly heart in all its austere coldness and hardness was so untouched by the misfortunes and sorrows of his creatures that his tender mercies were not forthcoming until he saw his blameless Son bleeding and dying upon the cross of Calvary!” (4:5.6). The Wizard of Oz ain’t got nothin’ on this apparition!

[2]. Jesus acknowledged his own authority to forgive sins when he stated that “‘the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’” (Matt. 9:6; cf. Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24).