# Must we always forgive - even if God doesn't?



## Pergamum (Mar 21, 2011)

God doesn't forgive everyone. Some people end up in hell. God does not forgive Satan and the fallen angels.


Must we then forgive everyone at all times? 

Or if this belief a product of today's over-psychologized Christianity?

Many say we must forgive everyone who wrongs us, even if there is no repentance. I have always stated that if there is no repentence then there needs to be no forgiveness. 

Also, it seems that even if one must forgive all Christians, that one does not need to forgive blatant sinners who are unsaved and enemies of God.

Many Christians state the psychological benefits of forgiveness and they assert that unforgiveness make embitter one's heart. But, there seems to be a difference between active bitterness and lack of forgiveness. 

What think ye?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 21, 2011)

In the bigger context of things I think we should seek for reconciliation and be willing to forgive. We shouldn't pretend to be more forgiving than God. 



> (Luk 17:3) Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
> 
> (Luk 17:4) And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.



I don't know how you can forgive something that someone doesn't want you to forgive.

Jay Adam's has a great book on this called From forgiven to forgiving.

Here is a link to something by him on the topic.

http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/?p=2544


----------



## lynnie (Mar 22, 2011)

Vengeance belongs to the Lord. Avenge not yourselves. It is that desire to take vengeance, even just verbally, that generally trips Christians up. You know when the disciples wanted to call down fire from heaven? Jesus rebuked them. I know what it is like to want an asteroid to land on somebody, even when I thought I had forgiven them.

Jesus said to pray for those who mistreat you. If a person is not at the place where they can pray for the person despitefully using them, they are in the wrong. 

If you get these two areas right- not taking vengeance, and praying for the evildoer, the forgiveness bit usually takes care of itself.


----------



## Don Kistler (Mar 22, 2011)

God forgives no one who does not/will not repent. We cannot elevate His standard and say that we must forgive no matter what the other person does. The Scriptures tell us, "If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him." If a person sins against us and repents, we, of course, must forgive him. If he does not repent, we cannot forgive him, any more than God forgives those who do not repent.

That does not mean that bitterness or a vengeful spirit is acceptable, however.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 22, 2011)

I confess that the portion of my being that wants to feel justified in being resentful or holding a grudge is drawn to say "sure! sometimes it is ok to not forgive." 

It is true that there is an element in forgiveness that is contingent upon the offending party seeking forgiveness.

What God does is up to God. But God has called us to forgive. But as has been pointed out I can't "do" that unless and until the offending person seeks forgiveness. But sometimes that can come across like we're saying that until that person seeks forgiveness it is ok for us to be unforgiving.

Someone tell me: Within myself as an offended person, what is the functional difference between having a forgiving heart and having forgiven someone? Again, I'm not asking about the effect on the offending person, I'm referencing what goes on internally: my attitude, my mood, my behavior towards that person, etc. Functionally, what is the difference?


----------



## Andres (Mar 22, 2011)

I agree with Ben and I believe he poses an excellent question. For example, Dr Kistler says, 


Don Kistler said:


> If he does not repent, we cannot forgive him, any more than God forgives those who do not repent. That does not mean that bitterness or a vengeful spirit is acceptable, however.



With all due respect, the above seems like a bit of a contradiction. Or at least it would be for me. When I am wronged, my wicked heart goes to a place of bitterness. It is only when I choose to forgive the offender that this bitterness is alleviated. How does one not have bitter or venegeful feelings without forgiving?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 22, 2011)

Ben,

One of the reasons for my OP is that many evangelicals almost cast blame on Christians that assert that no repentance=no need for forgiveness. I believe they are more influenced by modern over-psychologized notions in the church than the bible doctrine of forgiveness.

While a spirit of unforgiveness might be due to bitterness that eats one up inside, and it might be psychologically healthy to forgive even when one does not "have to" - I have heard some christians rebuke others for expressing a hesitancy at the need to forgive an unrepentent sinner. 

But, it seems that if they do not repent, then the wronged party has no obligation to forgive. And to assert otherwise would be to cast blame on a God that does likewise.

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------




Andres said:


> I agree with Ben and I believe he poses an excellent question. For example, Dr Kistler says,
> 
> 
> Don Kistler said:
> ...


 
You seem to be focused on the psychology and emotions of all of this, whereas I am focused on the real objective guilt of the matter.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 22, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Ben,
> 
> One of the reasons for my OP is that many evangelicals almost cast blame on Christians that assert that no repentance=no need for forgiveness. I believe they are more influenced by modern over-psychologized notions in the church than the bible doctrine of forgiveness.
> 
> ...


 
I strongly discourage you from your apparent attempt to justify a creaturely "non-forgivenes" with what God does. God is a different being than us, and our forgiveness is not as God's. For example, God doesn't just "wipe the slate clean" or "cancel a perceived right to get even" (or however you want to define human forgiveness) as we are called to do. With God there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. God doesn't just "let it go" when someone messes up and then says "please forgive me." No, unless Christ shed his blood for that person, that person would be forever condemned. For us, we don't do that. God doesn't forgive as one fallen creature to another as we do. So don't treat "forgiveness" in regards to God univocally with "forgiveness" in regards to us.

What would bearing "I'm not forgiving that person until he/she seeks forgiveness" look like in our soul? Basically, all I see is an excuse to harbor resentment or anger or a sense of victimization.

Anyway, to my question again - what is the functional difference within myself (as a creature for whom forgiveness is not contingent upon perfect justice) of having a "forgiving attitude" and forgiving the person?

I posit that in regards to my disposition there is no practical difference without a lapse into sin.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 22, 2011)

Andres said:


> I agree with Ben and I believe he poses an excellent question. For example, Dr Kistler says,
> 
> 
> Don Kistler said:
> ...


 
You seem to be focused on the psychology and emotions of all of this, whereas I am focused on the real objective guilt of the matter.


----------



## Andres (Mar 22, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Ben and I believe he poses an excellent question. For example, Dr Kistler says,
> ...


 
Okay, fair enough, but I would assert as human beings we are created with emotions that we cannot divorce ourselves from so I think my question is still a valid one.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 22, 2011)

Andres said:


> I agree with Ben and I believe he poses an excellent question. For example, Dr Kistler says,
> 
> 
> Don Kistler said:
> ...



We are not to be bitter but loving. Being loving is not the same thing as releasing someone from their debt of trespassing. We are to seek reconciliation. We are to guard against bitterness as Hebrews 12 states. I see no contradiction in Elder Kistler's remarks.

This passage might be of some help here. 



> (Mat 18:11) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
> 
> (Mat 18:12) How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
> 
> ...





> (Heb 12:12) Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
> 
> (Heb 12:13) And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
> 
> ...





> (Eph 4:31) Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
> 
> (Eph 4:32) And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.



Forgive as Christ has forgiven you.....



> (1Jn 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
> 
> (1Jn 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
> 
> (1Jn 1:10) If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.


----------



## Andrew Gordon (Mar 22, 2011)

I didn't take the time to read every post so this may have already been mentioned, but I think the way we relate to each other is not completely analogous to God's relations to us. Since our sins against God deserve an eternal punishment, and it is His free grace and mercy that is poured out on undeserving sinners that would NEVER HAVE ASKED FOR IT in and of our own strength. God doesn't save people because they're repentant, but He saves them and then they are repentant. Right? If forgiveness is only given to those that ask for it than we ourselves would be disqualified for we were once dead in our sins and unable to stop sinning or repent. So comparing ourselves to God and saying, "well He doesn't forgive everyone" isn't a license to do the same. I wrote this very fast...


----------



## bpkantor (Mar 22, 2011)

Also important to mention is that God is judge of the world. That is an office that we never hold. Because He is judge there is a justice which He must carry out. We do not act as judge of the world. In light of this, and many scriptures, I think it is right for us to forgive when wronged.

The answer to the question, "Why does God ask us to do something that He does not do?" is:
-He does not. He, as judge, does not forgive certain people. He does not act us to stand in the office of judge and condemn people. He asks us to relate to our fellow creation with forgiveness when wronged.

Hope this is helpful.

God bless
--Ben


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 22, 2011)

We ought always have a heart that is willing to forgive, but there can be no forgiveness if the sinning party is unwilling to repent. Our viking brother's post was helpful, and so is Adams' book on forgiveness. I admit that I wasn't very sure about this matter until I moved to Kentucky, but the pastors here persuaded me of this position. It is easy to say that God's forgiveness is not analogous to our forgiveness, but is there an instance in scripture where a man was "forgiven," whether by God *or another man* when repentance was not present? Is there any clear statement that this set of circumstances would be acceptable? If these are absent in the Word, I'm inclined to think that "forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you" (Eph. 4:32) is a model of not only the loving disposition of forgiveness but the necessary prerequisite of repentance on the part of the offender. And if this is the case, there is clarity on why there are examples of repentance and _then_ forgiveness in Scripture.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 22, 2011)

Luke 17:3 "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and *if* he repents, forgive him." 

Does that forgiveness not sound conditional upon repentance?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 22, 2011)

Yes, it sounds very conditional.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Mar 22, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> Luke 17:3 "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him."



How about looking at this verse and:



> Provebs 19:11 - Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.



or



> 1 Peter 4:8 - Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.



Remember we are supposed to love others:



> 1 Corinthians 13:7 - Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.



I believe that you can forgive without the other person accepting your forgiveness. I agree with Andres:



> When I am wronged, my wicked heart goes to a place of bitterness. It is only when I choose to forgive the offender that this bitterness is alleviated. How does one not have bitter or vengeful feelings without forgiving?


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 22, 2011)

Robert, I also notice how none of those verses mention forgiveness and can be aptly applied without giving forgiveness where repentance is unwilling. To the question, "How does one not have bitter or vengeful feelings without forgiving?" may be answered by saying that there is a difference between a heart that is willing to forgive and a heart that does forgive. Forgiveness is given after the repentance of the offender, but if someone is unwilling to repent we are obligated by the law of Christ to be utterly willing to forgive if the person would change his mind, and we ought to pray for the person to do so. Just because I love my enemy does not make him any less guilty of his sin. 
We can likewise remember that we are worse sinners than we know; we have done wicked deeds just as our offender has done! Therefore, while we recognize that the offender has sinned against us and against God, we must remember that we are in as much need of the gospel as this other person. Self-driven anger ought to be extinguished, while love should overflow and be manifest in our pleading with that person for repentance and prayers for him. Righteous anger has its place as well. Regardless, unless the person has repented, there cannot be forgiveness while the offender is unwilling to be forgiven because of the state of continued sinfulness.
Again, are there any clear statements or examples from scripture of an unrepentant man that is forgiven? Please do mention it or them if you are aware of any. As it stands for me, there are only examples of forgiveness conditioned upon repentance and principles of godly character that demand a willingness to forgive.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 22, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> Luke 17:3 "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and *if* he repents, forgive him."
> 
> Does that forgiveness not sound conditional upon repentance?


 
The point is simply to not withhold forgiveness.

That said, I see plenty examples of my point:

Luke 23:33–35 (ESV)
33 And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. 34 *And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do*.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. 35 And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” 

(For Jesus to have that attitude and to petition his Father to forgive them, what does that say about Jesus' own disposition towards them? I'll give you a clue: He wasn't waiting for them to repent.)

Acts 7:59–60 (ESV)
59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “*Lord, do not hold this sin against them.*” And when he had said this, he fell asleep. 

(Again, why on earth would Stephen say this if he wasn't to forgive unless and until they repented? Here's a pastoral clue: For me to ask God to not hold a sin against someone means that I'm saying, "Lord, I don't hold it as a sin against me.")

I'm sure that someone is going to argue, that's what happens, but I still challenge someone to tell me how for YOU as an offended party, internally and not in regards to them, how does it look to have a forgiving spirit towards someone who hasn't repented and how does it look to have "actually" forgiven them?

I posit that in terms of my attitude and disposition, they are identical.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Mar 22, 2011)

Just because the verses I posted doesn't say, "Forgive" in them doesn't mean it isn't alluding to that fact. What would the ending of 1 Peter 4:8 mean? 



RobertPGH1981 said:


> 1 Peter 4:8 "...since love covers a multitude of sins."


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 22, 2011)

Ben, I appreciate what you're saying, but there remains an issue: Acts 2:23-38 shows that repentance was necessary for the forgiveness of the sins of those who "crucified and killed" (v. 23) Christ. Much could be said about Jesus' and Stephen's cries, but it is clear that the offenders _were not forgiven_, though the victims were willing and desirous of that forgiveness. The same is what I am espousing. We ought to cry to God for the forgiveness of those who sin against us, but we must also realize that it will not happen unless the sinner repents. This is what Jesus and Stephen demonstrate.

---------- Post added at 07:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------

Brother Robert, I am going to go to bed, but I will perhaps respond tomorrow about 1 Peter 4:8, unless someone else responds. You're right, that is a verse that needs to be considered. Have a blessed night.


----------



## sevenzedek (Mar 22, 2011)

There is forgiveness and then there is standing ready to forgive. When have a forgiving attitude, there are two things that we are saying about the one who needs forgiveness.

1. Christ's sacrifice was not enough for that person if he is saved or will yet be saved.

2. God's just wrath will take care of that person who is not in Christ. God says, "Vengeance is mine."


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 22, 2011)

When Jesus said on the Cross "Father forgive them" I believe that every single prayer of Jesus to the Father was granted. Thus, all those for whom Christ prayed were, in fact, forgiven and saved.


----------



## sevenzedek (Mar 23, 2011)

Pergamum,

I assume that you continue to have a discussion on this board because you invite arguments for and against your ideas. This is a good forum for it. Therefore, I will take he liberty of disagreeing with your last statement.

Not every prayer of Jesus was granted. A good example would be his prayers in the garden; that if there be any other way than that he should die on he cross... He sought God the Father's will three times.

However, I think I understand your (perhaps) underlying points. 1. Jesus prays perfectly. 2. Jesus is all loving.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 23, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> Ben, I appreciate what you're saying, but there remains an issue: Acts 2:23-38 shows that repentance was necessary for the forgiveness of the sins of those who "crucified and killed" (v. 23) Christ. Much could be said about Jesus' and Stephen's cries, but it is clear that the offenders were not forgiven, though the victims were willing and desirous of that forgiveness.




Andrew - There's forgiveness as a restoration of a relationship (involving the repentance of the offender) and there's forgiveness as the decision on the part of the offended to to not hold the offense against the offended (which involves only the offended). Jesus and Stephen clearly indicate the legitimacy of the latter.

Not a single proponent of your view has even bothered to engage my question, and for me that is telling.

So, like a broken record, I'll say it again: In regards to my disposition and my attitude as an offended person, what is the difference practically between having a "forgiving attitude" and actually forgiving the offender?

Case study: 

A man comes home from work and doesn't notice all the hard work his wife did around the house. Instead he notices the one thing she forgot to do and he criticizes her for it. She responds by lashing out and saying some mean things. A while later the man comes to his senses and apologizes to his wife seeking her forgiveness for his critical attitude. She responds not by apologizing for her own sinful words, but by "letting him have an ear full" about how she worked so hard all day long and he didn't appreciate her, etc... And not once during this does she express any intent to repent or recant her sinful words.

Now: the husband has repented, and the wife responded by adding to her original sinful response even _more_ sinful words _as well as_ an apparent unwillingness to grant forgiveness to the husband even though he's repented, expressed contrition, and asked for forgiveness.

So: In light of your model of "no forgiveness until/unless the offender repents" how does the husband treat the wife until such time as she obeys Christ and grants forgiveness to the person seeking it and until she repents of her own sinful words? How does their marriage look until she repents? What if, in her sin, she DOESN'T seek his forgiveness? Does he become distant and judging? Does he nag her about needing to repent? 

My model, the model of Jesus and Stephen (and others), is that he just lets it go knowing that ultimately her debt is with God, not me.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 23, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> Ben, I appreciate what you're saying, but there remains an issue: Acts 2:23-38 shows that repentance was necessary for the forgiveness of the sins of those who "crucified and killed" (v. 23) Christ. Much could be said about Jesus' and Stephen's cries, but it is clear that the offenders _were not forgiven_, though the victims were willing and desirous of that forgiveness.



First, what do you "appreciate" about what I'm saying?

Now that I'm at work I briefly want to challenge you on this. Misuse of Acts 2:23-38 to try to wipe away the thrust of Luke 23. I think you're wrong - comparing apples to oranges.

The only ones at the crucifixion operating in ignorance were the soldiers doing the crucifying. In Acts 2:23-38 Peter's thrust was that Jesus was rejected in knowledge (the rejection occurs after and inspite of Jesus' signs and wonders) and it is THEY, not the Roman soldiers, who are given the blame. In fact, as far as I can recall in every "you killed Jesus" speech in Acts, the thrust is that the Jews acted with knowledge. In fact, I think it is telling that in the Bible the Romans are only ever given "credit" as pawns. The ones consistently "blamed" for Jesus' crucifixion are the Jews.

So, when Jesus prays in Luke 23:33-35, the only ones in view in the context are the ones just doing their job of carrying out the execution. 

Further - to address Pergy's comment - I don't like when folks try to explain Jesus' comments here by trying to absolutize what is immediate. One can be forgiven a particular sin while still having a whole pile of other sins for which one is accountable. Nothing about Jesus words necessitates a notion that these soldiers for whom he prays are suddenly absolved for every other sin they ever commit.


----------



## sevenzedek (Mar 23, 2011)

> There is forgiveness and then there is standing ready to forgive. When have a forgiving attitude, there are two things that we are saying about the one who needs forgiveness.
> 
> 1. Christ's sacrifice was not enough for that person if he is saved or will yet be saved.
> 
> 2. God's just wrath will take care of that person who is not in Christ. God says, "Vengeance is mine."



OOPS!

I mis-spoke myself. What I meant to say is when we have a forgiving attitude, there are two things that we are saying about the one who needs forgiveness.

1. Christ's sacrifice _is_ enough for that person if he is saved or will yet be saved.

2. God's just wrath will take care of that person who is not in Christ. God says, "Vengeance is mine."


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 23, 2011)

Forgiveness is dismissing a debt. In the New Testament, the Greek noun _aphesis _denotes a "_dismissal_" or "_release_." When you grant forgiveness, you dismiss the debt owed to you. When you receive forgiveness, your debt is dismissed. When you grant forgiveness, you dismiss the debt from your thoughts. Forgiveness is dismissing your demand that others owe you something, especially when they fail to meet your expectations... fail to keep a promise... fail to treat you justly.

That said, forgiveness is not 

- circumventing God's justice
- waiting for time to heal all wounds
- letting the guilty off the hook
- the same thing as reconciliation
- excusing unjust behavior
- explaining away the hurt
- based on what is fair
- being a weak martyr
- stuffing your anger
- a natural response
- denying the hurt
- being a doormat
- conditional (God mandates it!)
- forgetting
- a feeling....

God commands us to forgive. Forgiveness is an act of the will, it is not some emotion.

AMR


----------



## sevenzedek (Mar 23, 2011)

Patrick,

Your thoughts were provocative enough to help me see that I may be confusing reconciliation and forgiveness. I looked up that Greek word for forgiveness in my TDNT and found that the emphasis of the meaning of that word is to release and remit--a letting go. So much is this the emphasis of this word that it lends itself to be used in ways that do not pertain to forgiveness.

I know others on here are leaning toward thinking that forgiveness must be a two-way operation like reconciliation. However, I am now leaning toward understanding forgiveness to be one way with man.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 23, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> Not a single proponent of your view has even bothered to engage my question, and for me that is telling.



Go figure you would assume. I just haven't been paying attention. LOL. What about Matthew 18 where if the gentleman or person does not hear. We are to consider him a certain way. How is that forgiveness? So are you implying there is forgiveness and then their is forgiveness? Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep loving and trying to reconcile the man or not be kind and compassionate toward him. 



SolaScriptura said:


> So, like a broken record, I'll say it again: In regards to my disposition and my attitude as an offended person, what is the difference practically between having a "forgiving attitude" and actually forgiving the offender?



One is the actual seeking attitude of love. The other is the actual sense in where the debt is released. Can we release someone from their debt when Go doesn't? I don't think so. We can put it aside and hand it over to Christ. I absolutely love Proverbs 19:11. Pro 19:11 *The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression*. I am not sure this is forgiveness as much as loving. But then again. We cast all our care an burdens upon Christ because He cares for us as 1 Peter 5:7 states. After all. When a person sins they ultimately sin against God. And that is where the bar must be met. 

Now hear is a place that this question can lead to and where the limitations can be stretched. If we sinned a long time ago and don't remember it and haven't confessed it does that mean it isn't forgiven? There are some serious implications for this thought. And that is where this question might take an about face for some of this discussion. But at the same time Ben, you can't ignore the other passages that also require a repentance or a condition to be met. You seem to be shoving them under the rug. JMO.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 23, 2011)

sevenzedek said:


> Pergamum,
> 
> I assume that you continue to have a discussion on this board because you invite arguments for and against your ideas. This is a good forum for it. Therefore, I will take he liberty of disagreeing with your last statement.
> 
> ...


 
I will start another OP about this important issue. I believe that the Father hears and grants every single petition of Jesus.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 23, 2011)

I would like to engage this more but I don't have much time to handle this adequately. Let me just throw out some things for consideration: 

1) In human relationships, there are sins that demand repentance and sins that don't, depending on the nature of the sin.
2) Sins that demand repentance cannot be forgiven until the offender has repented, and these types of sins are of a nature that split fellowship and cause a damaged relationship. Here we consider Matt. 18, Lk. 17, etc.
3) Sins that don't demand repentance are relatively insignificant matters that don't need a rebuke or confrontation.
4) Both Adams and MacArthur agree on number 3, but MacArthur calls that forgiveness and Adams says it is not forgiveness, though 1 Peter 4:8 is used by both. 

Do what you will with that information.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 24, 2011)

sevenzedek said:


> Patrick,
> 
> Your thoughts were provocative enough to help me see that I may be confusing reconciliation and forgiveness. I looked up that Greek word for forgiveness in my TDNT and found that the emphasis of the meaning of that word is to release and remit--a letting go. So much is this the emphasis of this word that it lends itself to be used in ways that do not pertain to forgiveness.
> 
> I know others on here are leaning toward thinking that forgiveness must be a two-way operation like reconciliation. However, I am now leaning toward understanding forgiveness to be one way with man.



I think you are on the right track, Jon. Ben's comments resonate with my own views, so there are a few of us here who see things differently than others.

AMR


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> God doesn't forgive everyone. Some people end up in hell. God does not forgive Satan and the fallen angels.


 



Pergamum said:


> Must we then forgive everyone at all times?


In my view, the answer to this is Yes. 



Pergamum said:


> Or if this belief a product of today's over-psychologized Christianity?


No. 



Pergamum said:


> Many say we must forgive everyone who wrongs us, even if there is no repentance. I have always stated that if there is no repentence then there needs to be no forgiveness.


 I disagree. 

Reason: Jesus commands us to ask the Father to "Forgive our debts *as we also *have forgiven our debtors." Matt. 6:12.
If we want God to forgive our sins completely we must also "have forgiven" all those who sinned against us.
This is not necessarily reconciling with enemies, a Matt. 18 situation may result as the end of disagreements among Christians and Paul issues a qualified not absolute command: "if possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Rom.12L:18) which governs our relationships with non-believers.
Problem: our sense of justice does not like the seeming injustice involved, but 
Solution: that sin that the sinner never seeks reconcilliation for will be paid for, either by Jesus death being applied to the sinner by faith or the sinner in Hell who rejected Jesus' payment for that sin. 



Pergamum said:


> Many Christians state the psychological benefits of forgiveness and they assert that unforgiveness make embitter one's heart. But, there seems to be a difference between active bitterness and lack of forgiveness.


 
Lack of forgiveness is to bitterness as cause is to effect.


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2011)

timmopussycat said:


> Lack of forgiveness is to bitterness as cause is to effect.


 
I have to agree. Unforgiveness means holding something over someone's head. It is impossible to hold something over someone and not mentally and emotionally follow in kind.

I wonder if the claim that repentance is necessary is coming from a view where a person in authority forgives someone under his care. In that case repentance is needful to restore the proper recognition of authority. It is not needed in the case of equals. Certainly familiarity is affected by sin amongst equals, but one can forgive without having to be familiar and trusting again. Where repentance and confession were forthcoming there would be a basis for restoring a trusting relationship.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 24, 2011)

So do we then posit different moralities for God and man? 

God can refuse to forgive but man can't lest he sin?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

BTW, I can be persuaded that I am incorrect on this issue. I am not going to be dogmatic about my understanding. I need to consider the whole counsel of God on this. This has been a good discussion. I appreciate it. Thanks guys. 

Please continue on.

I would just like to know if Proverbs 19:11 is an attitude of Love or is it forgiveness among equals? And how do we take into account the record of Matthew 18 and the phrase 'if he repent?'

Pro 19:11 The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> So do we then posit different moralities for God and man?
> 
> God can refuse to forgive but man can't lest he sin?


 

I've already addressed this.

---------- Post added at 07:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 AM ----------

I'm glad the distinction between reconciliation and forgiveness has been brought up. I realize that in the vernacular we - I - tend to use "forgiveness" to refer to both ideas, but in reality they are distinct concepts.

For example, take the case of adultery...

Both Scripture, and my confession of faith, agree that if my wife commits adultery I am allowed to divorce her (I'd add that I am allowed to divorce her even if she's remorseful and on her knees begging me to try to work it out). 

Though I'm allowed to divorce, I am to forgive. If reconciliation and forgiveness are one and the same then to divorce would necessarily indicate lack of forgiveness. But as it is, the fact that I must forgive though I retain the right to divorce indicates that forgiveness and reconciliation are not identical nor necessarily attendant concepts.

Randy - your question... reflect on what I wrote about divorce and forgiveness above, reflect on 2 Sam 12:13-14, etc.

One thing is sure: Matt 18 is not to be overwrought to imply that because Jesus says to "let them be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector" that he is also commanding the contempt and loathing with which Jews typically regarded these groups. And since that is true, is it not true that it is possible that our entire disposition is one of personal forgiveness and compassion and love even as we exercise discipline?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> I'm glad the distinction between reconciliation and forgiveness has been brought up. I realize that in the vernacular we - I - tend to use "forgiveness" to refer to both ideas, but in reality they are distinct concepts.
> 
> For example, take the case of adultery...
> 
> ...


 
I understand that there is no loathing permitted Ben. That is why I have been making known the distinction and command that we are to be loving and seeking their pardon and reconciliation even after. Remember what I asked and fully wrote?



PuritanCovenanter said:


> What about Matthew 18 where if the gentleman or person does not hear. We are to consider him a certain way. How is that forgiveness? So are you implying there is forgiveness and then their is forgiveness? Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep loving and trying to reconcile the man or not be kind and compassionate toward him.





PuritanCovenanter said:


> We are not to be bitter but loving. Being loving is not the same thing as releasing someone from their debt of trespassing. We are to seek reconciliation. We are to guard against bitterness as Hebrews 12 states.


 
But that is not forgiveness is it?


Ben,

Doesn't forgiveness have a distinction of removing the offense and pardoning to the place of no longer remembering the offense thus removing the consequences of the offense?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

> (2Sa 12:13) And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
> 
> (2Sa 12:14) Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.



I am considering this passage in light of what you said Ben. I would say this. I still believe that there is chastisement. There is a consequence to sin. But David was not cut off nor was he divorced as in your previous statement. He repented and the Lord restored the relationship. And David even proved his repentance and accepted the chastisement. He went on to warn others of the consequences of sin so that they would in turn be converted and walk with God.



> (Psa 51:13) Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.





> (Psa 103:12) As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 24, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But David was not cut off nor was he divorced as in your previous statement.



I didn't say he was divorced. The divorce topic was an entirely different example. 

But as you note, he was chastized - he was disciplined. Yet prior to the discipline he was forgiven - The LORD had put away his sin. 

Did you read my case study? It isn't really fictitious. I've heard this type of situation played out in counseling sessions not to mention my own life... How should the husband respond?

See, as has been noted by myself and others, for us creatures dealing with other creatures, the act of forgiving in the sense of releasing someone from the debt they owe, that occurs entirely within myself and is in no way contingent upon the offending person. There may be consequences and the relationship may not be reconciled, but in terms of my disposition towards that person, I've let it go.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > But David was not cut off nor was he divorced as in your previous statement.
> ...



Thanks Ben for bearing with us. Yes, I read your case study. It isn't infallible though. Just because the situation was led the way it was doesn't mean it was the correct way. That is why I mentioned David. He wasn't divorced from God and he responded correctly in the reconciliation (the forgiveness process didn't include divorce). Yes, I understand that you can let it go. But what do you let it go to? Nothingness? I think that is what you are saying. I would think it more biblical to release it to the care and judgment of God as it is truly to be rendered. That isn't necessarily releasing the person totally. That is rendering it to God's care. That is why I wondered if Psalm 19:11 is relative to this discussion. 

I still don't think you have dealt with my questions properly concerning Matthew 18 and the implications of 'If He Repent'. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

Oh yeah, and I do believe the process of 1 John 1:9 was performed in David's situation.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 24, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Yes, I read your case study. It isn't infallible though. Just because the situation was led the way it was doesn't mean it was the correct way.



Huh? I think it is an extremely pastoral and relevent question: How does a spouse act when another spouse won't repent? I say forgive anyway. If you don't all you do is create bitterness. 


And I think I have adequately addressed your "point" about Matt 18. 


Anyway, the distinctions between forgiveness (God's, ours) and reconciliation have already been stated. Patrick did a good job listing what forgiveness is and isn't.

Do what you will.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I read your case study. It isn't infallible though. Just because the situation was led the way it was doesn't mean it was the correct way.
> ...


 
This isn't necessarily true. Love, compassion, and humility can prevent that. I believe you are glossing over my comments as I might be doing the same thing with you. We might be speaking past each other and not understanding the other. I didn't say it wasn't being Pastoral. I just think it isn't infallible in what was Pastorally handed down.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Mar 24, 2011)

> So do we then posit different moralities for God and man?
> 
> God can refuse to forgive but man can't lest he sin?



When does God refuse to forgive somebody when they earnestly seek (godly sorrow) his forgiveness? Man doesn't* forgive sin* they accept the other persons actions and take on any damage the other person has done without payment.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 24, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Originally Posted by timmopussycat
> Lack of forgiveness is to bitterness as cause is to effect.
> I have to agree. Unforgiveness means holding something over someone's head. It is impossible to hold something over someone and not mentally and emotionally follow in kind.



I received the following thought from an insightful correspondent this morning:


> I was thinking about forgiveness this morning too: how love keeps no record of wrongs and how God's forgiveness really is what sets us free from the reality of our sins -- they are not found when they are looked for. We participate in this in a small way, in forgiving others: in letting their sins go and not letting them define that person. They may be what those we love are coming from but part of our love is to travail in hope that they are not what the loved one is going to -- they are not 'really' who the loved one is, so we let them fall away. This can be a small part of their experience here of the forgiveness of God which does actually render them righteous. Forgiveness is a more powerful, and I think, a much bigger aspect of our human loves in a fallen world than is often apparent in our unexperienced apprehensions (which are not only mixed up with self seeking, but with seeking God in the wrong places) about what our marriages, friendships, parenting, etc will be like.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> So do we then posit different moralities for God and man?
> 
> God can refuse to forgive but man can't lest he sin?



Are not there moral categories that apply to the creature alone and not to God? Does not God have a morally consistent reason within Himself to command what we must do? Is not "Because I said so" sometimes sufficient for the creature?

AMR


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> So do we then posit different moralities for God and man?
> 
> God can refuse to forgive?


 
Yes, yet there is no "injustice on God's part" in refusing to forgive for "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Rom. 10:14,15 citing Exod. 33:19) remains God's prerogative.



Pergamum said:


> . . . but man can't lest he sin?


 
Indeed so.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> > So do we then posit different moralities for God and man?
> >
> > God can refuse to forgive but man can't lest he sin?
> 
> ...


 
This might not apply but it might. 



> (Heb 12:16) Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
> 
> (Heb 12:17) For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: *for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears*.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Mar 24, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> (Heb 12:16) Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
> 
> (Heb 12:17) For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.



God's Election of a certain individual will later on be the cause of the holy spirit to circumcise the heart of the sinner. It's not until one is born again will they seek God and have godly sorrow. The sorrow that Esau has was because he lost his blessing. Basically, God was disciplining/punishing him because of what he did. God already gave his blessing to another something that Esau could not repent for and had to suffer the consequences of his actions. 



> Heb12:17 "For you know that afterward, *when he desired to inherit the blessing*, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought [his blessing] with tears." - emphasis added


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

I agree Bob. And that is why I brought this passage up. You can go to far and then even if you develop a right attitude for repenting you can go past the point of it. For instance, as I well know, your spouse may abandon the Marriage Covenant in deep sin. They may remarry someone else. After they remarry there is no possibility in God's will for them to return to the original Marriage Covenant. Even if they abandon the one they are in when they realize what they have done. They aren't even permitted to be remarried to the original spouse even if their recent spouse dies. They have gone too far and there is no reconciliation for that original marriage covenant permitted according to Deuteronomy 24:3,4. There is a point of no return.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Mar 24, 2011)

What would be the definition of Repent and Forgive in terms of Greek and Hebrew?


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> So do we then posit different moralities for God and man?


 
God is the moral governor of the world. Man is not.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> What would be the definition of Repent and Forgive in terms of Greek and Hebrew?



Go look it up? It is your question. Do some footwork. It will stretch you. Then if you want come back and tell us what you find. Remember context when interpreting. That has a lot to do with definition.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > So do we then posit different moralities for God and man?
> ...


 
Amen. And He expects us to be conformed to the image of Christ. And He is conforming us to that image. 



> (Mat 5:43) Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
> 
> (Mat 5:44) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
> 
> ...



As a side note notice that Jesus said you have heard it said. He didn't say it was written.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Mar 24, 2011)

> Heb 12:17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.



Repent is the Greek word met-an-eh-o and means to think differently or reconsider. This verse is saying he could not take back his actions and he had sorrow but it’s not the sorrow that brings about forgiveness. 



> Luk 17:3 Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,



I agree now that you do not have to forgive unless the offending party repents. Just because you don’t forgive doesn’t mean that you will automatically carry resentment and bitterness around with you. In this instance it’s better to not forgive unless the person repents. The reason is simple… Tough love... By doing this it will make them aware of what they have done and could cause reconciliation between the two parties. Also, if they do not it doesn't mean we ignore them we still offer them help and show them love when it is needed.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 24, 2011)

If a murderer were to kill your family and the state were to decree his execution and the man went to the chair unrepentant, one could say, "He deserves what he gets" and have a certain sense of satisfaction without sinning at the demise of said murderer because justice is done. You could pray for his repentance, but still rejoice at his execution. There would not need to be forgiveness, especially as one pressed charges and tried to get the guy the heaviest maximum punishment possible. Emotionally, one would not need to forgive either but could say as Paul said, "May the Lord reward him according to his deeds..." if he doesn't repent.

Is this scenario wrong?


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 25, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> If a murderer were to kill your family and the state were to decree his execution and the man went to the chair unrepentant, one could say, "He deserves what he gets" and have a certain sense of satisfaction without sinning at the demise of said murderer because justice is done. You could pray for his repentance, but still rejoice at his execution. There would not need to be forgiveness, especially as one pressed charges and tried to get the guy the heaviest maximum punishment possible. Emotionally, one would not need to forgive either but could say as Paul said, "May the Lord reward him according to his deeds..." if he doesn't repent.
> 
> Is this scenario wrong?


 
Your scenario is mostly right. But I would still have to reach the point of being internally forgiving out of obedience to Christ as well as ready to grant forgiveness at a moment's notice, should the criminal repent.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 25, 2011)

Tim,

I don't understand the part about being "internally forgiving." One can accept God's bitter providences, but this is not forgiveness towards a human perpetrator of injustice.

As one acts in a forgiving manner, one is being forgiving. Forgiveness is a moral act and not merely a sentiment. 

I suppose you mean that I should not let things eat me up inside if such a scenario were to happen. But if one suffers a trauma in their life, mere unforgiveness won't eat up a victim any more than other emotions such as second-guessing, wondering why me in general, or grief at loss. 

There would be a readiness to receive repentance and a willingness to treat one's enemies to loving acts (such as a medic treating enemy wounded even though they are still enemies) but I don't see any sin in not forgiving if the perp does not repent. An argument that forgiving even when repentance is not present might be said to be psychologically healthy, but I think many psychological concepts that we take as settled are really and truly wrong. 


I also think that we cannot drive a huge wedge between the moral nature of God and the moral nature that we should desire in ourselves. We are made in the image of God and Jesus was both God and man and he is to be imitated. Therefore, it is very relevant that God only forgives when there is repentance, and I believe this is a model for us as well.


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 26, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Tim,
> 
> I don't understand the part about being "internally forgiving." One can accept God's bitter providences, but this is not forgiveness towards a human perpetrator of injustice.


 
The Lord's prayer says "Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors." Do we want God to forgive all our sins or just the ones from which we have repented? 



Pergamum said:


> As one acts in a forgiving manner, one is being forgiving. Forgiveness is a moral act and not merely a sentiment.
> 
> I suppose you mean that I should not let things eat me up inside if such a scenario were to happen. But if one suffers a trauma in their life, mere unforgiveness won't eat up a victim any more than other emotions such as second-guessing, wondering why me in general, or grief at loss.


 
I did not mean that. I meant a true forgiveness must be reached internally despite a lack of repentence and reconcilliation. God commands us to forgive and what makes it possible for us to do so in situations where repentance and reconcilliation is not present is that we are certain that the sin will not be "unpunished" but paid for either in the death of Christ or by an eternity spent in hell. I find it hard to believe how anyone who has any true conception of the what the latter entails could ever wish (in cold blood) for any enemy to go there and I find it easy to understand how someone might truly pray, in the heat of being sinned against, "Lord lay not this sin to their charge." This despite having a daily struggle to reach a state of forgiveness WRT a particular person who has not repented of sin against me. 



Pergamum said:


> There would be a readiness to receive repentance and a willingness to treat one's enemies to loving acts (such as a medic treating enemy wounded even though they are still enemies) but I don't see any sin in not forgiving if the perp does not repent. An argument that forgiving even when repentance is not present might be said to be psychologically healthy, but I think many psychological concepts that we take as settled are really and truly wrong.
> 
> I also think that we cannot drive a huge wedge between the moral nature of God and the moral nature that we should desire in ourselves. We are made in the image of God and Jesus was both God and man and he is to be imitated. Therefore, it is very relevant that God only forgives when there is repentance, and I believe this is a model for us as well.


 
God does not forgive on the basis of human repentance. Before He regenerates any sinner, He forgives that sinner on the basis of His grace, a grace justified by Christ's death in which the sins of the sinner receive their just punishment. Since God does not forgive where there is repentance, "forgiving on repentance only" cannot be our model.


----------



## TimV (Mar 26, 2011)

As far as internal attitude, perhaps one should "stand ready to forgive" i.e. have no bitterness etc.. towards the person etc... but at the same time one shouldn't be pressured by guilt manipulation to forgive until restitution is made.

So, someone steals my chainsaw. It hurts me financially because I need it to make money. I don't have fantasies about him getting AIDS or paralyzed in a car wreck or beating him up, but I still demand restitution (i.e. I don't forgive him), but I stand ready to do so without hate or bitterness.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 27, 2011)

TimV said:


> As far as internal attitude, perhaps one should "stand ready to forgive" i.e. have no bitterness etc.. towards the person etc... but at the same time one shouldn't be pressured by guilt manipulation to forgive until restitution is made.
> 
> So, someone steals my chainsaw. It hurts me financially because I need it to make money. I don't have fantasies about him getting AIDS or paralyzed in a car wreck or beating him up, but I still demand restitution (i.e. I don't forgive him), but I stand ready to do so without hate or bitterness.


 
Yes, Tim, I agree. And so this would also make our morality to mirror God's morality because God does the same thing.

---------- Post added at 07:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 AM ----------




timmopussycat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Tim,
> ...


 
The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of the necessity of repentance:
"Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, 15:1-3).


----------

