Answering an objection to God's forgiveness

[NormalBeliever]

After talking to some people I know and reflecting on some things regarding justification, it seems it would be possible for someone to mistrust God’s forgiveness or to object to it in the following way. Some people do in fact have similar but different difficulties, so it would be useful to see what you guys think of how it could be best answered:

a) Just as one’s own bad actions ruined you and made you sin, so too it seems that the best way to redeem yourself is also through your own good actions to counter the bad. While God may be able to forgive sins, there will always be the irremovable annoyance of knowing you couldn’t redeem yourself in this, that you were unable to fix yourself and have to be unworthy of God.

b) In other words, saving yourself with your own actions or compensating your bad deeds with good ones would carry a kind of completeness and satisfaction which is missing in being forgiven - and cases like the Centurion who admitted his own unworthiness of even approaching Christ seem to suggest there is still an unworthiness which can’t be overcome or fixed.

So it’s better to just say you can make yourself worthy instead.

---

Now an obvious response to this is that it misses the point of God’s offer of forgiveness in the Gospel - God’s forgiveness isn’t an inferior solution to the problem of sin that just barely works. It’s a complete defeat of sin - when God forgives you this makes you innocent in the same way as a person who never sinned.

And the whole motive of God wanting to forgive you is because God considers you worth forgiving - it is the value of the person in love being more important than his sin or guilt, so far from devaluing you it shows you how much you are valued and loved! There is no point in complaining about this because it ISN’T an inferior reality but a SUPERIOR one.

What do you think though? How would you respond to this?

 

[Gorgias]

Just as one’s own bad actions ruined you and made you sin, so too it seems that the best way to redeem yourself is also through your own good actions to counter the bad.

There’s a problem with this proposal: it presumes that, prior to your sin, your (potential) salvation was already conditioned on your own actions / merits. It wasn’t – until you were baptized, and received God’s grace without your initiative or personal merit, you would not be in a position to receive eternal reward. Given that this is the case, it’s not the situation that you can ‘bootstrap’ yourself to salvation.

In other words, saving yourself with your own actions or compensating your bad deeds with good ones would carry a kind of completeness and satisfaction which is missing in being forgiven

Not sure I’m seeing a “completeness and satisfaction” in relying on one’s own merits and not on God’s grace. That would seem to be, in fact, an incompleteness and a lack of satisfaction !

What do you think though? How would you respond to this?

“Early Christians asked this question millennia ago. Pelagius suggested precisely this notion that a person has the ability to effect his own salvation, without God’s grace. Augustine responded to this – and the Church concurred – that original sin made this notion untenable. You might want to read up on that discussion, in order to answer the question you’ve raised.”

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Just as one’s own bad actions ruined you and made you sin, so too it seems that the best way to redeem yourself is also through your own good actions to counter the bad

Except by nature we cannot. As the Apostle said, by nature we were all children of wrath.

Romans 3, Galatians and Ephesians 2 make it pretty clear that Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross was meaningless if righteousness could simply be given on the basis of sheer human effort.

And note that the word forgiveness implies that it is given, not earned.

 

[Vico]

…

• " one’s own bad actions ruined you and made you sin"

That is called actual personal sin based upon the personal will. In original sin the human nature is deprived of supernatural grace and preternatural gifts, from the moment of conception and this is not personal sin but analogical sin – an inclination to sin.

• “there will always be the irremovable annoyance of knowing you couldn’t redeem yourself in this, that you were unable to fix yourself”
• “saving yourself with your own actions or compensating your bad deeds with good ones would carry a kind of completeness and satisfaction which is missing in being forgiven”

Oneself is the partial cause of one’s salvation, the primary cause is supernatural grace. Supernatural grace is not irresistible and one has free will to reject it.

 

[NormalBeliever]

I agree with all of that. The question though is how to respond to someone who thinks this is all bad - that the only way to have peace of soul and joy is to remove the sins yourself by countering them with good works so you can sort of “prove” you are good and don’t have to accept you can do nothing about being unworthy. It’s more of an existential question rather than what Christianity happens to teach.

You can imagine a person being anxious and afraid, wanting to undo the sin himself and thinking that God’s forgiveness isn’t enough because failing to redeem yourself will always be there to annoy him and make him dislike himself and feel guilty.

 

[goout]

I agree with all of that. The question though is how to respond to someone who thinks this is all bad - that the only way to have peace of soul and joy is to remove the sins yourself by countering them with good works so you can sort of “prove” you are good and don’t have to accept you can do nothing about being unworthy. It’s more of an existential question rather than what Christianity happens to teach.

You can imagine a person being anxious and afraid, wanting to undo the sin himself and thinking that God’s forgiveness isn’t enough because failing to redeem yourself will always be there to annoy him and make him dislike himself and feel guilty.

In short, you convey the graceful mercy of God by witness. Witness conveys the common predicament we all share. The attempt to justify one’s self by self reliance and effort is natural in a fallen way. So the person needs to overcome that natural way of self justifying. This is a change of thinking, or “repentance”. If the person attempting to earn God’s love can see that he/she shares a common struggle with others who are going the same way, it is easier to see God’s grace in action. And absorbing the grace of God can definitely change your way of thinking, if given space to work by the person.

The person stuck in self justification is looking for liberation. And self justification is a dead end, pun intended. Self justification by effort can never lead to liberation. Your witness and the witness of others, of liberation from sin offers the only real alternative. You can teach these concepts (and you should teach them) but human witness to the power of God’s grace forms a commonality that people can latch on to, and that is liberating.

 

[Gorgias]

The question though is how to respond to someone who thinks this is all bad - that the only way to have peace of soul and joy is to remove the sins yourself by countering them with good works so you can sort of “prove” you are good and don’t have to accept you can do nothing about being unworthy.

“Wanting to undo the sin” oneself is a thought that exists in many ancient cultures. The Egyptians thought that, following death, the soul of the person was weighed against the ‘feather of truth’ – if the person’s soul wasn’t weighed down with sin, then he achieved eternal bliss. Eastern religions, with their notion of reincarnation, brought the notion that the balance of one’s actions (good against evil) determined one’s station in the next life.

Judeo-Christian beliefs, though, were different. In Ezekiel 33, God asserts that the just person who subsequently sins will be punished and the sinful person who repents will be saved. It’s not the balance of activity, but the repentance to God which saves. (Note that if it were the “balance of activity”, then we could make the claim that it is the person’s own merits which saves them.)

Jesus, too, asserts this principle. His whole message to sinners is “repent; go and sin no more.”

The response, I think, depends on the person to whom you’re talking, right? If they self-identify as Christian, then point out Scriptural teaching. If they self-identify as non-Christian, then you’ll likely need another approach.

You can imagine a person being anxious and afraid, wanting to undo the sin himself and thinking that God’s forgiveness isn’t enough because failing to redeem yourself will always be there to annoy him and make him dislike himself and feel guilty.

Actually, that was kind of Luther’s problem, too. He never saw himself as worthy of even God’s mercy, so he devised a system for himself in which all he had to do was fall on God’s mercy once, and nothing which he did subsequently mattered. Oddly enough, that implied that he did do it himself – that his profession of faith was sufficient for salvation.

So, rather than saying “I can do it myself”, Luther decided “I can’t do it, and neither can God, so the only thing that’ll save me is my own profession of faith.”

 

[NormalBeliever]

(Re-posting this because my previous one didn’t directly adress you)

Nicely said! Really like your emphasis on the personal reality of God’s love and the spiritual freedom we have from Him - the precious pearl is recognised best when it truly shines as well.

Though there would still be one question (or more likely, question-begging) someone who thinks this would have - the reason he says that even if he were forgiven he would still feel guilt or find it hard that he didn’t save himself is that he’s still stuck in the mindset of having to prove himself - of thinking that saving yourself with your own hands has a certain gravity that being saved wouldn’t have.

Of course, since we’re talking about God He would have even more gravity than we mere humans would have with our own effort, but how would you defuse this thorn in the head?

 

[goout]

Nicely said! Really like your emphasis on the personal reality of God’s love and the spiritual freedom we have from Him - the precious pearl is recognised best when it truly shines as well.

Though there would still be one question (or more likely, question-begging) someone who thinks this would have - the reason he says that even if he were forgiven he would still feel guilt or find it hard that he didn’t save himself is that he’s still stuck in the mindset of having to prove himself - of thinking that saving yourself with your own hands has a certain gravity that being saved wouldn’t have.

Of course, since we’re talking about God He would have even more gravity than we mere humans would have with our own effort, but how would you defuse this thorn in the head?

Everything is grace, starting here:

1. you didn’t ask to be born, and you don’t create yourself. The very fact that you exist is pure grace. No work on your part whatsoever.
2. We all die without exception, and if we are to have hope beyond that death, we need grace. There is no other way. Attempting to “pay your own way” is folly.

All you can do is get on your knees and be grateful. “Thank you God for my life”. And respond with giving your life back to God. This acknowledges the primacy of grace, and the works that are a response to that grace. I do good things not because I can accomplish God’s grace with them, but because I am responding out of gratitude (eu-charist)

 

[NormalBeliever]

Yep - this would illustrate the goodness of grace quite nicely. One thing though is that this isn’t about trying to accomplish grace, but about not wanting it in the first place. Even if the person admits the efficacy of forgiveness, he would still complain that he still hasn’t saved himself, and can’t accept that because he thinks and feels that the best way to fix yourself, achieve peace and see yourself in a good light is to do it yourself. That saving yourself brings a sort of completion and integrity to you that nothing else can - you don’t need to be accept yourself because someone else did it, but because you did it.

Of course, this would stem from an inability to accept oneself and to trust in the fact that your value in love is greater than your sin, but in what other ways could we respond to this as well?

 

[NormalBeliever]

If they self-identify as non-Christian, then you’ll likely need another approach.

Yeah, that’s the primary possible audience intended. Though I haven’t met anyone who directly expressed this problem, some other similar things I’ve heard and know of make this a likely position for someone to hold, so exploring ways to respond to this resistance seems useful.

 

[Gorgias]

Yeah, that’s the primary possible audience intended. Though I haven’t met anyone who directly expressed this problem, some other similar things I’ve heard and know of make this a likely position for someone to hold, so exploring ways to respond to this resistance seems useful.

OK. If they’re non-Christian, what is their position on the existence of God? On the identity and nature of God? That’ll be important in choosing an approach for the discussion…

 

[goout]

Yep - this would illustrate the goodness of grace quite nicely. One thing though is that this isn’t about trying to accomplish grace, but about not wanting it in the first place. Even if the person admits the efficacy of forgiveness, he would still complain that he still hasn’t saved himself, and can’t accept that because he thinks and feels that the best way to fix yourself, achieve peace and see yourself in a good light is to do it yourself. That saving yourself brings a sort of completion and integrity to you that nothing else can - you don’t need to be accept yourself because someone else did it, but because you did it.

Of course, this would stem from an inability to accept oneself and to trust in the fact that your value in love is greater than your sin, but in what other ways could we respond to this as well?

I lived this way, and many people do as we speak. It could be called the “American way”, generally speaking. “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps” etc…The myth of the self made man.

Unfortunately, the remedy to this thinking is usually to fall down in some way and come face to face with your existential helplessness. That’s what it took for me.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Well, the issue here isn’t what view of God the person takes, but what view of justification. Here, it would be thinking that forgiveness isn’t enough to redeem you or make you good because you will always have to live with the annoying/painful fact you couldn’t redeem yourself from the bad things you did.

In other words, the person wants to redeem himself from his bad acts by doing good acts so as to become good / prove himself through them - and this way of saving yourself seems so important that if it isn’t done this way, even if you are forgiven it’ll still be hard to accept yourself or to think of yourself as good because you didn’t make yourself / prove yourself to be good.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, the issue here isn’t what view of God the person takes, but what view of justification.

One’s view of God isn’t the issue, but it certainly drives the way you’d answer the question…

If you believe there is no God, then how does the question of ‘divine forgiveness’ come into play in any way?

If you believe in a God, but in a different context than Christians do, then that’s a different story.

Even beyond that, if you believe only in some sort of “force of the universe”, that will color the discussion.

So, yeah… I think the question is highly relevant to the way the answer is formed!

 

[NormalBeliever]

Yeah, I think the person asking the question is either willing to believe God exists and thinks he can only redeem himself and wants to be safe, or does believe in God but doesn’t believe in religion so thinks he can only save himself before God.

 

[NormalBeliever]

Agreed - though the specific complaint here is that admitting your existential helplessness is permanenlty bad because it leaves you with the fact you couldn’t save yourself which is a painful thorn that never leaves. Essentially, someone who takes this view thinks that the best way to regain peace with themselves is to fix yourself - if your sin is a personal act that ruined you by making you bad, then only good acts can restore you to being good; the gravity of personal action here is what the person thinks is the strongest, and the only way to accept yourself and be truly good is by redeeming yourself with the gravity of your own acts.

So one possible way to answer this would be to point out how it isn’t permanently bad to admit your helplessness - your perpetual inability to prove your own goodness by good acts isn’t a permanent stain or pain of guilt on you. You don’t have to constantly think you are horrible because you couldn’t save yourself, and you don’t have to be constantly pained by the bad things you did previously because you truly have been set free by forgiveness.

What do you think though?

 

[Vico]

…
It’s a complete defeat of sin - when God forgives you this makes you innocent in the same way as a person who never sinned.
…

However, becoming innocent in every sense is not necessarily what happens for there is something that may remain, such as attachment to sin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence , or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati) ; since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence . Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

 

[goout]

Agreed - though the specific complaint here is that admitting your existential helplessness is permanenlty bad because it leaves you with the fact you couldn’t save yourself which is a painful thorn that never leaves. Essentially, someone who takes this view thinks that the best way to regain peace with themselves is to fix yourself - if your sin is a personal act that ruined you by making you bad, then only good acts can restore you to being good; the gravity of personal action here is what the person thinks is the strongest, and the only way to accept yourself and be truly good is by redeeming yourself with the gravity of your own acts.

So one possible way to answer this would be to point out how it isn’t permanently bad to admit your helplessness - your perpetual inability to prove your own goodness by good acts isn’t a permanent stain or pain of guilt on you. You don’t have to constantly think you are horrible because you couldn’t save yourself, and you don’t have to be constantly pained by the bad things you did previously because you truly have been set free by forgiveness.

What do you think though?

Admitting your existential dependence is not bad. It’s not a value judgement at all. It’s simply perceiving and dealing with reality. You can’t save yourself with compensatory works, and that is dealing with reality. I love the etymology of the word humility. “Humil” or “of the earth”. Humility is not to grovel and think yourself impotent…it is simply to be well grounded in reality. And dealing with life as it is can only be a good thing. It’s the only place from which to progress forward.
And the idea of the self made person who is entirely self sufficient and capable of self justification is a deception. It’s putting yourself in God’s position.

Just as personal witness (and I’m sorry if this is cringeworthy but it’s my experience with this topic)
I lived in an dysfunctional relationship with a troubled woman 35 years ago. She had two children and we conceived another child which we aborted at my decision. She had 6 abortions throughout various relationships.

When the light of Christ began to shine into those dark places, I spent a lot time scheming about how I would make restitution for the taking of a life and the misery his mother endured. I guess my question to you is, which good works do you suggest to compensate for the evil I perpetrated?
There are no works that can compensate. The only answer is to get on your knees, face your maker and ask for mercy.

And the truth is that we are all in that position, even if the specifics are not that startling. In the light of God’s perfection, we are all glaringly dependent. And it’s only through plugging into God that we are made whole and complete. And our works then become a response to love, not a foolish attempt to compensate.

And the beauty of God’s mercy is that once you accept that you need it and put your pride aside to accept it, you also begin to see God’s care for those you have wronged. God alone is capable of atoning for things beyond our capacity, and I am grateful that he has done it.

 

[Hodos]

Sounds an awful lot like Pelagianism. Paul says: For by works of the law no human beingc will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Paul says your works will not justify you before God and somehow merit his grace. In fact he defines grace as something that is not worked for. He describes grace as a free gift.

The means by which we received God’s grace is by faith in Christ.

Through him we have also obtained access by faithb into this grace in which we stand, and wec rejoiced in hope of the glory of God.

This was given before we were even considered to be on God’s side.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.