Thank you for your erudite response. What you say about not taking revenge and leaving room for God’s wrath is obvious to any student of the bible and explains why I said:
I'm only on the side of the two boys who became thugs to a point. The Bible says "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." They clearly failed to do this, but the minister was compassionate toward them for obvious reasons.
When I originally wrote that statement I was going to add something about leaving room for the LORD to obtain justice, even if it’s on Judgment Day, but I decided not to go there.
In any case, this leaves us with additional things to consider: The two abused boys in question grew up to be serious thugs in lifestyle, which shows they weren’t Christians -- followers of Christ -- in any way, shape or form. So it’s useless to presume that they would leave justice to the LORD. The opportunity presented itself for them to get justice themselves and so they rashly got it.
Yes, I said “a justified lie is not a sin, because it’s justified,” which brings up the question: Did the minister sin when he lied to give the boys an alibi? Or was he perhaps God’s agent in securing justice that was denied them by our fudged up legal system?
Whether it was a sin or not is between him and God, but I see why you are convinced it was a sin (and maybe you're right). Whatever the case, the priest BELIEVED his false statement was justifiable, which is why he did it.
One last thing, your citing of Matthew 18:21-22 doesn’t fit here. For one thing, Nokes wasn’t the boys’ spiritual “brother.” For another, there’s a huge difference between a personal offense and the gross CRIME in question. Also, Nokes was clearly UNrepentant. Scores of passages offer important BALANCE to that particular text.
reply
share
BillySlater (4096)
4 years ago
We know the boys weren´t Christians, and so the question was never about them leaving justice to the Lord but it´s about the Priest leaving justice to the Lord. By lying, he is supporting the opposing position of what is written in the Bible on revenge.
Matthew 18:21-22 isn´t so much about forgiving a sibling as it is about forgiveness and mercy in general which is why I mentioned it. If we took it literally, then we should only forgive someone 77 times and not once more but that is obviously not the message of the parable.
reply
share
Wuchak (8077)
4 years ago
Your first point is addressed in my post below as well as the questions I asked above:
Did the minister sin when he lied to give the boys an alibi? Or was he perhaps God’s agent in securing justice that was denied them by our fudged up legal system?
Whether it was a sin or not is between him and God, but I see why you are convinced it was a sin (and maybe you're right). Whatever the case, the priest BELIEVED his false statement was justifiable, which is why he did it.
Your issue on this point is with the priest in the movie — or, more specifically, the scriptwriter — not me. He obviously intended to spur these kinds of questions.
As far as Matthew 18:21-22 goes, yes, Christ was talking about
spiritual brothers (or sisters) — the offenses they commit against fellow believers and how to deal with them. “Scripture interprets Scripture” is a hermeneutical rule for good reason and other passages provide DETAILS for when a believer sins against another believer, e.g. Matthew 18:15-17 and Luke 17:3-4. You’ll note that the offending believer is obligated to repent in order for his offense to be dismissed, which corresponds to 1 John 1:8-9 & Ephesians 5:1.
The passage from Matt. 18 clearly states that IF the transgressor remains impenitent then s/he is to be removed from the fellowship, which shows that the person’s sin is NOT dismissed (forgiven) because they’re unrepentant. Of course they should be prayed for and warmly welcomed back if they turn around.
The situation in the movie is different since we are not talking about piddly personal offenses amongst believers, but rather heinous crimes. Scripture shows that people guilty of criminal offenses are subject to the governing authorities who are ordained by God to punish evildoers for the protection of citizens (Romans 13:1-6).
Unfortunately, the legal system failed the boys and they were never granted justice after their unspeakable victimization.
reply
share
BillySlater (4096)
4 years ago
"The passage from Matt. 18 clearly states that IF the transgressor remains impenitent then s/he is to be removed from the fellowship, which shows that the person’s sin is NOT dismissed (forgiven) because they’re unrepentant. Of course they should be prayed for and warmly welcomed back if they turn around."
Can you elaborate on where it says this?
reply
share
Wuchak (8077)
4 years ago
[deleted]
BillySlater (4096)
4 years ago
Interestingly we were referring to two different things in Matt 18. I was referring to the parable of the unmerciful servant even though Peter questions sins within the church from the previous teaching which is where the confusion arose. And the reason I brought up the quote from Matt 18:21-22 is because of what is taught at the end of the parable at Matt 18:35.
reply
share
Wuchak (8077)
4 years ago
[deleted]
BillySlater (4096)
4 years ago
I would agree with what you said except I don´t think this is a general teaching about forgiveness especially the second part, "that we are obligated to forgive others in like manner." Since the final passage says nothing about only forgiving people who are humbled. Indeed the idea of retributive punishment is rejected by Jesus throughout the gospel. Especially in Matt 5:38-41.
We aren´t expected to forgive others in the way God asks us to forgive our sins from him since we aren´t expected to judge or avenge like he does either. I think this below sums it up much better than I ever could.
"Can we forgive a person who doesn’t think he’s done wrong and we think he has, or if he doesn’t ask for any forgiveness? The answer is we can and we must. We must do our part in the forgiveness. This is what Jesus meant, I think, when he said, “Love your enemies . . . bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Luke 6:27–28). They are still our enemies when we do that. They have not asked for any forgiveness, and they don’t think they need any, making life miserable for us — and they think they ought to. We are to bless them, and that blessing means that our part of the inward forgiveness has happened. The opposite of forgiveness is holding a grudge, but blessing is the opposite of holding a grudge, and so blessing is a kind of forgiving.
It is true — I suppose this is what he’s thinking — it is true that the full effect of forgiveness can only happen if the other person believes they need it and want it. That’s why it’s so frustrating when you want to forgive somebody and they don’t think they need any forgiveness. But we do not wait for that, right? We don’t wait for them to do their half before we do our half. We must be rid of bitterness and grudges right away. We do what Jesus did on the cross."
reply
share
BillySlater (4096)
4 years ago
"In 1 Peter it’s described so powerfully. This is how Christ set an example for us: “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten,” — in fact, he prayed for their forgiveness; here’s what it says — “but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23).
We must renounce revenge and trust our cause to God and then return good for evil. That’s our part of forgiveness, and we can do it whether the adversary admits wrong or not. One great miracle has already happened in us. We’re not responsible for the other miracle of repentance in them."
reply
share
BillySlater (4096)
4 years ago
This is also good too.
"If we wait for those who have hurt us to repent first, we will almost certainly wait for a long, long time. We also give ourselves a justification to stay bitter the rest of our lives.
This cannot be right. Even non-Christian organizations are emerging to show the value of forgiveness; their premise is that the greatest benefit of forgiveness accrues not to the one who is forgiven, but to the one who forgives.
One of Jesus' main teachings was that we love our enemies, pray for them, and do good to those who have hurt us. It is curious how some of us read the Gospels over and again and miss this. We may get the theology, but not the graciousness that Jesus taught and exemplified.
How much repentance do you suppose there was at the Cross while Jesus hung there? There was not only an utter absence of repentance, but also total contempt. Jesus' reply: "Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34)."
reply
share
Wuchak (8077)
4 years ago
[deleted]
BillySlater (4096)
4 years ago
I will try and keep this brief since this could go on a while.
I said retributive punishment (by us) is rejected by Jesus throughout the "Gospel". I am aware of Romans 13:1-6 but this doesn´t apply since the governing authorities were never given a chance to punish Nokes. You may say Nokes went unpunished, that the authorities failed the boys but as far as I´m aware, they never went to the authorities to bring charges against him. They killed him as a form of retributive punishment which is rejected by the gospel. The priest is lying so they can´t be punished for this sin, he´s not really acting as God´s servant since Nokes already went punished. By lying he is making himself the authority when he isn´t. The boys could have been truthful about why they murdered Nokes and maybe they would have been shown leniency but of course it would have made for a way less interesting movie.
RE Ephesians 5:1 "Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."
Yes it does say that we should imitate God but as you said context is king. It says we should imitate God (but not as punishers or judges). This is clarified in a later passage where God´s wrath is mentioned for those who disobey and that we should not associate with those who disobey. So if we are imitating God, shouldn´t we also have wrath for those who disobey? No, because it clearly says, do not partner with the disobedient, not punish the disobedient. For that is for God to do.
Likewise, Brother.
reply
share
Wuchak (8077)
4 years ago
[deleted]
BillySlater (4096)
4 years ago
You make some interesting points for sure and obviously some interesting theories too. I´m no doubt out of my depth in terms of biblical knowledge so thanks for sharing your wisdom.
reply
share