Sins Forgiven: Past, Present, and Future?

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  Matthew 6:12

In recent years, a particular doctrine has increased in popularity within certain circles.  It has been, however, around for a lot longer than just a few years.  I have heard it, and renditions of it, for thirty years, and there are similar ideas that have existed since the dark ages.  The doctrine of which I speak is essentially this:  All of the believer’s sins - past, present, and future – have already been forgiven in Christ.  In other words (as some have confidently preached) the believer, at the time of the new birth, is forgiven of every sin that he has committed, is yet committing, and will commit in the future.  Some proponents of this view would also declare that God has granted this forgiveness “before the foundation of the world,” while others extend the idea to include all men, suggesting that every sinner is already forgiven through Christ and needs only to accept it personally.

Now before I express my opposition to this doctrine, I would like to acknowledge the fact that some who appear to hold to this view, in truth do not- they are merely mistaken with regard to the usage of terms.  Although they say that all of our sins- past, present, and future – are already forgiven in Christ, they actually mean that provision for the forgiveness of  these sins has already been made in Christ.  I have no contention with those who would convey the right idea, yet through a lack of knowledge are unable to do so properly.

Nevertheless, there are many who do indeed support this view and are zealous to defend it, who do understand what they are saying and are committed to it.  It is this deliberate promotion of this doctrine that calls for opposition- for the doctrine is erroneous and should be exposed as such.

I will now set forth three reasons as to why this teaching should be rejected:  (1) It is bad theology (2) It is contrary to Scripture (3) It is ridiculous

It is bad theology  

Theology is the study of God and of the things pertaining to God.  This study is vital to our faith and spiritual development.  Although good theology does not guarantee a true faith and proper spirituality, a bad theology almost certainly prevents it.  It is therefore important to develop a good theology, a theology that is useful to our spiritual growth.

For theology to be useful, it must meet certain criteria.  It must be systematic, consistent, objective, reasonable, and above all, based upon the clear statements of Scripture.  It cannot be haphazard, ambiguous, subjective, unreasonable, and supported only by vague portions of Scripture. 

Now the teaching that all of our past, present, and future sins, are already forgiven in Christ is bad theology for this simple reason: there are no verses in Scripture that clearly state this to be so!  It is clear from Scripture that our past sins are forgiven in Christ, but nowhere is it stated that our present sins- the ones that we are currently committing- and the ones that we are yet to commit are already forgiven.  Thus, this doctrine does not originate in the clear statements of Scripture, but rather in the subjective reasoning of certain teachers who claim that it does.

But this doctrine is bad theology in that it is unreasonable.  By unreasonable I mean that which is contrary to our sense of reason, and to our consciousness of that which we know to be true.  We are conscious of the fact that forgiveness of wrongdoing, within any system of justice, can only be granted- if granted at all- after certain conditions are met.  We cannot comprehend a system of government that grants forgiveness without a change of behaviour, let alone a government that grants pardons before crimes have been committed!  To declare that God has already forgiven us for sins that we are yet committing, and thus have not repented of, as well as for sins that we have not yet committed, but will commit, is certainly an unreasonable position to hold- it is bad theology.

It is contrary to Scripture

Not only is this doctrine unsupported by the clear statements of Scripture, it is actually in direct contradiction to them!  I will refer to a few of those statements.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  1 John 1:9

In the Bible, the word “if” is used extensively to set forth conditional statements and promises.  If a certain action is taken, then a certain result will follow.  In this verse, the word “if” establishes a specific condition regarding the forgiveness of sins.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive…etc.  Notice that the forgiveness of the believer’s sin is predicated upon his confession of that sin.  The clear meaning of this verse is that forgiveness of sin in the life of the believer occurs at the time of confession- not prior to this confession, and not at the new birth.  Likewise, the statement “God is faithful and just to forgive” is in the present tense, and thus the infinitive “to forgive” also indicates an action in the present.  Therefore, according to this verse, current and future sins are not yet forgiven, and whoever asserts that they are, is contrary to the Word of God.  Although this teaching may seem to some a great revelation, it is obviously one that the apostle John was lacking

And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.  James 5:15

This verse, which refers to physical healing, contains three promises:  (1) The prayer of faith shall save the sick, (2) the Lord shall raise him up, (3) if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.  Promises are identifiable by their verbs, which are always in the future tense.  The verbs, “shall save,” “shall raise,” and “shall be forgiven,” are all in the future tense, and thus denote an action that has not yet occurred.  Notice the third promise which is concerned with the forgiveness of sins.  When does this forgiveness take place?  Has it already happened?  Clearly the sins that James refers to here are not yet forgiven, but rather shall be.  This is a second example of how this doctrine is contrary to Scripture.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  Matthew 6:12

The Lord’s Prayer, from which this verse comes, was given to Christ’s followers as a guide for their prayer lives.  It was not to be a one-time prayer.  Each aspect of this prayer was to be a perpetual petition.  If therefore Christ himself instructed us to include in our prayers a continual request for forgiveness, would it not then be reasonable to assume a continual need for forgiveness, as well as a continual granting of forgiveness?  And if a continual granting of forgiveness exists, then a one-time forgiveness for current and future sins does not.

It is ridiculous

This teaching should be seen for what it is: it is ridiculous.  It is ridiculous for the same reason it is bad theology.  I showed earlier how this doctrine is bad theology in that it is contrary to reason.  The fact that we would be unable to accept any earthly system of justice that would pardon crimes while they were yet being committed, as well as crimes which had not yet occurred, but will occur, proves the doctrine in question to be unreasonable.  Thus, to ascribe such a system of justice to God is ridiculous.  This idea of forgiveness of sins being granted before the commission of sins is not very far off from the medieval system of indulgences, in which men were guaranteed forgiveness for sins that they had not yet committed, but were intending to.  

Again, this teaching is ridiculous, for if taken to its logical conclusion the believer would never need to deal with God regarding his sin.  Think.  If I am already forgiven of my current and future sins, I do not need to confess them or ask for forgiveness.  What need would I have to confess sins that I have already been forgiven of?  My confession of sin, or lack of confession, would have no bearing upon the act of forgiveness which would have already taken place apart from any action on my end.  If I am already forgiven, then I am forgiven regardless of what I do.  

Likewise, I have no need for the Lord’s Prayer, for every debt that I have, or will incur, has already been forgiven without my asking.  Why ask for that which I already possess?  Furthermore, if I am already forgiven of current and future sins, then I certainly do not need to repent of them.  Repentance is for those in need of forgiveness.  But I have no need for forgiveness inasmuch as I am already forgiven.  Consequently, I have no need for repentance either, for I have already been forgiven without it.  I may repent if I like, but it has no bearing upon my condition- I am already forgiven.  In fact, if in the future I deny Christ and become an apostate, I yet have cause for rejoicing- I have already been forgiven of those sins too!  Hallelujah! 

RIDICULOUS!

Now some may argue that I just do not understand this revelation.  They may argue that because God is beyond time and exists in the eternal past, present, and future, that all of our sins past, present, and future are in his mind already forgiven.  In his mind, they say, we are already perfect.  To this I say that although there may be truth with regard to God existing beyond time, what profit is there for us to attempt to relate to that which is beyond our understanding?  I might just as easily say that in the mind of God, you are already in hell!  In the mind of God, you are already reprobate!  Or on the contrary, in the mind of God, you are already in heaven, on the sea of glass, with a glorified body!  But this type of theology is useless, and to attempt to interpret Scripture from the perspective of the eternal future, of which you can only fantasize, is foolish.  This only reaffirms that the doctrine under scrutiny is ridiculous.

In conclusion, why would any believer hold to this view?  Does it offer some special comfort to think that our future sins are already forgiven?  Could you not derive the same sense of comfort from believing that provision for the forgiveness of these sins has already been made in Christ?  I think that the real problem here is this:  People tend to treat sin lightly, and gravitate to doctrines which allow them to avoid any personal dealings with God regarding sin.  It is more pleasant to believe that sin is already forgiven, thereby eliminating any uncomfortable introspection, or any possible unpleasant conviction of the Holy Spirit that may accompany true cleansing.  In any event, the doctrine of sins forgiven –past, present and future- is bad theology, contrary to Scripture, and ridiculous. 

Let’s reject it.