# MUST we forgive?



## 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


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 11, 2011)

If we are wronged and the wrong-doer is unrepentant, then must we forgive them?

And if so, why does God demand this if He Himself is not bound to this law but sends the unrepentant to hell. Morality is a reflection of the character of God, after all.


Many evangelicals say that we MUST always forgive. they also throw in all sorts of psychological reasons (its healthier to forgive, etc).


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 11, 2011)

According to Jesus, there is a condition of repentance for forgiveness, even among people (Luke 17:4). Note that Jesus says "if he repents," not "regardless of whether or not he repents."

That being said, we must always be willing and ready to forgive.


----------



## bug (Nov 11, 2011)

I think a distinction has to be made between our fellow believers and those outisde the church. 

Peter tells us that 'love covers a multitude of sins" 1 Peter 4:8. It seems to me that is a call to be forgiving towards our brethren regardless of their actual penitence for the sin commited against us. Now, I do not see that as doing more then God does for us, rather I see it as going excatly what God does do for us. If we are sudeenly snatched away from this life without time to bring the sins of the day befor ethe Lord in prayer does he hold us accountable for those sins or has his love covered the all the christains sins (past, present and future?)

Now, as it relates to the world, I think the example of the Lord Jesus Christ is the one to be followed, 'Father forgive them for they know what they do." Luke 23:34.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 11, 2011)

Joshua: 

Some of us are hard-headed and need the info twice I guess.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 11, 2011)

We are to forgive, but this is not incompatible with seeking justice.


----------



## NB3K (Nov 11, 2011)

My argument has always been that those who know grace forgive because it is their new nature.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 11, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> If we are wronged and the wrong-doer is unrepentant, then must we forgive them?
> 
> And if so, why does God demand this if He Himself is not bound to this law but sends the unrepentant to hell. Morality is a reflection of the character of God, after all.
> 
> ...



Is there someone you would prefer not to forgive?

As to your second question, is God not free to demand of us anything He pleases? And is it not enough to indicate the goodness of an action for us that God has been pleased to demand it? As Matthew Henry says, _It is reason enough that God would have it so: his will, as it is law sufficient, so it is reason sufficient; for his will is his wisdom._ 
We know perfectly well that there is an asymmetry between us, even on this score: God is the God of vengeance, but rather than imitating him in this, we are to leave vengeance to him to whom it belongs. Though we know it is right for God to administer vengeance, we know it is wrong for us to do so.

As to the actual point at issue, what I always wonder is what stature do I have to hold some ultimately minuscule offense against me over someone's head. Who am I that offenses against me should be taken so seriously? Someone may lose my trust or make me uncomfortable in their presence to the point that I even avoid them, but it doesn't seem to me that someone hurting my feelings or damaging me is significant enough to hold it against them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 11, 2011)

Great points Bat! Great first question also.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 11, 2011)

I think a better question would be, "*MUST we seek forgiveness from others, when we have wronged them?*"

It's so common to hear people respond, when one person apologizes to another for whatever reason, "Oh, it's okay!" Shouldn't we say back, "NO, IT'S NOT! Sin is serious business! Please, forgive me!" Of course, in some instances people may apologize to each other even if what has happened was a mere accident, nothing intentional. In such cases it may not be necessary to seek forgiveness, I think. What think ye?


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

1) When Jesus said, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," were the unbelieving Jews repentant?

2) The Lord's Prayer- "And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"

3) Is God withholding forgiveness from you if you have unrepentant sins of thought and word that you have forgotten to confess?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 11, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> 1) When Jesus said, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," were the unbelieving Jews repentant?
> 
> There were some elect among the people who brought about the crucifixion of Christ. This prayer was made concerning them, not any reprobate.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Nov 11, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> saintandsinner77 said:
> 
> 
> > 1) When Jesus said, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," were the unbelieving Jews repentant?
> ...



1) nonetheless, he was still praying for those who were unrepentant at that time
2) Right- I agree- God forgives freely as we should forgive freely
And yes, I agree, God has taken care of all sin past, present, and future, thus we should not withhold forgiveness from others, whether or not they come to us and ask for forgiveness...freely we have received forgiveness, freely we forgive..


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Nov 11, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > saintandsinner77 said:
> ...


.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 11, 2011)

> And if so, why does God demand this if He Himself is not bound to this law but sends the unrepentant to hell. Morality is a reflection of the character of God, after all.



God is without sin; we don't have that "moral highground". Unforgiveness can pander to our natural self-righteousness.

Even Christ - who was sinless, and would have been justified in unforgiiveness in a way that we wouldn't - showed His forgiving spirit, in praying the Father to forgive His murderers.



> We are to forgive, but this is not incompatible with seeking justice.



When I say this, I'm thinking that it is possible to forgive and yet seek appropriate church or civil or other sanctions. 

The question of imprecatory prayers and forgiveness is maybe even more difficult.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 11, 2011)

that is not an evangelical thing, that is a Bible thing. Yes you must always forgive. You do not always have to be friends with those who harm you and get a long with them, but you have to forgive even the unrepentant.


----------



## PointingToChrist (Nov 11, 2011)

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
(Matthew 6:14-15 ESV)


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 11, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If we are wronged and the wrong-doer is unrepentant, then must we forgive them?
> ...





> Is there someone you would prefer not to forgive?



Not yet. But I had a conversation with a very psychologized evangelical and his point was that we MUST forgive in order to be like Jesus.

---------- Post added at 01:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 AM ----------




> As to your second question, is God not free to demand of us anything He pleases?



God demands of us things that are consistent with his nature, the same nature that does not forgive all but sends sinners to hell.

---------- Post added at 01:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 AM ----------




saintandsinner77 said:


> 1) When Jesus said, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," were the unbelieving Jews repentant?
> 
> 2) The Lord's Prayer- "And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors"
> 
> 3) Is God withholding forgiveness from you if you have unrepentant sins of thought and word that you have forgotten to confess?



Walter,

You asked:



> When Jesus said, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," were the unbelieving Jews repentant?



I believe that every request by the Son is granted by the Father. 

Therefore, all those who the Son asked for the Father gave. At the Cross were some, of which Jesus was speaking, who were forgiven and saved.

Otherwise we would have to believe that Jesus' prayers are not always answered. Not much comfort if He is sitting at the right hand of the Father right now making intercession for us (which sometimes doesn't do any good).

---------- Post added at 01:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 AM ----------

---

jogri17:


You said;


jogri17 said:


> that is not an evangelical thing, that is a Bible thing. Yes you must always forgive. You do not always have to be friends with those who harm you and get a long with them, but you have to forgive even the unrepentant.



I believe your statement more reflects modern psychology or current sentiments than it does the Bible.

---------- Post added at 01:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 AM ----------




Peairtach said:


> > And if so, why does God demand this if He Himself is not bound to this law but sends the unrepentant to hell. Morality is a reflection of the character of God, after all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Richard:

You stated:




> Unforgiveness can pander to our natural self-righteousness.



It CAN, but it does not always need to. 

It seems that forgiveness is conditioned upon the "IF" of repentance.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 11, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> God demands of us things that are consistent with his nature, the same nature that does not forgive all but sends sinners to hell.



I think this is a point where people needlessly tie themselves in knots. I think most statements about God's nature might be formally reducible to nonsense, but let us simply take it at face value and press on. 

If God commanded you to execute vengeance, that would be right for you to do. The rule of your actions is not the divine nature considered in abstraction from the actual commands he has given you. 

God tells us that he is slow to anger, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin and also that He will by no means clear the guilty. It is plainly His prerogative to determine what side of that he wishes us to emulate, and when. And again, the revelation is that vengeance he has reserved for himself, while forgiveness is commanded to us.

Or consider it this way: there is no necessity that any particular person have a relationship with us. _Restoration_ or _reconciliation_ does not have to happen with another human being, because we can mostly limp along without a particular individual. But relationships with God are necessary. Again, there is a lack of symmetry between our case and God's.

Or again; God is sovereign, judge and king. We are roughly equal worms. It is very different for one worm to insist on another's repentance, and for the Creator of them all to require a recognition of the disparity between him and the worm in question.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 11, 2011)

Ruben,

So you agree that restoration need not happen if there is no repentance?


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 11, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> I believe your statement more reflects modern psychology or current sentiments than it does the Bible.



Back it up with texts s'il vous plaît. It sounds though , not saying this is the case, but it sounds like someone offended someone you know, doesn't feel like he didn't do anything wrong and will not repent as you feel he ought to. 

Happens all the time in the Christian life.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 11, 2011)

Yes, albeit at the edge of the sword, one must still forgive.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 11, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Ruben,
> 
> So you agree that restoration need not happen if there is no repentance?



The question is far too sweeping. You would have to define things much more precisely.

In some cases there must be restoration, even if there is no repentance. For instance, you may rebuke me, I may disagree that I was wrong - and we may have no choice but to work together or go to church together. 

In some cases it will probably not happen even if there is repentance; the distance created or the irrevocable decisions made during a time of conflict cannot always simply be overturned in such a way as to make things exactly as they were before.

But we were talking about forgiveness: about holding something against a person or not. And my contention is that your argument from the nature of God doesn't fly, run, or walk - but I don't hold that against you.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 11, 2011)

From the John Angell James quote above:



> "If your brother sins, rebuke him, *and if he repents, forgive him*. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and comes back to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." But still there are certain duties to be performed towards him even in this obdurate and unrelenting state of mind. We should in the exercise of meekness and gentleness endeavor to convince him of his wrong-doing in the manner laid down in the former essay. We are not, on discovering his impenitence and obduracy, at once to turn away from him in anger and disgust, and leave him to himself, and thus allow sin to lie upon him. And even after all suitable expostulations have been used, and he still remains stubbornly bent upon making no concession, we are not to allow ourselves to cherish enmity and malice towards him; we must harbor no ill-will towards him; we must pray for him—and be willing to do any good to him. Kindness shown to an impenitent offender, in a way that will not seem to connive at his sin, or encourage a repetition of it—may melt his hard heart. This is what the apostle calls heaping coals of fire on his head, and by the agony of a guilty conscience, rendered more susceptible by your forgiveness, melting down the cold, hard substance of his iron heart.
> 
> *Here we act like God*, who though he does not receive impenitent offenders to his favor, or bestow upon them the blessings of his children, still continues to them many providential comforts.




In the bolded section he seems to link our morality to God's moral nature. We as image-bearers must bear some semblance to God's moral nature in order to be moral. So it is a fair argument to ask why God would demand something of us that is not fitting to his own moral nature. And God's moral nature is such that he is willing to forgive, but only actually does so when repentance is present.


----------



## Tbordow (Nov 11, 2011)

It is true that for those who have not repented we are not called to forgive them, but simply not to curse or pay back evil for evil. Calvin's words on this are very helpful:

"Christ does not command us to forgive save when the sinner is turned to us and declares his penitence...Sins are forgiven in two ways. If anyone does me an injury and I set aside any feeling of revenge and do not cease to love him and even repay him with benefits instead of injuries; although I may think badly of him, as he deserves, yet I may be said to forgive him. For the Lord bids us wish our enemies well, He does not demand that we shall approve in them what He Himself condemns, but only wishes our minds to be purged of hatred. The second sort of forgiving is when we receive a brother into our favour in such a way as to think well of him and be convinced that the memory of his fault is wiped out before God."

Calvin's Commentaries Matt 18:21


----------



## py3ak (Nov 11, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> In the bolded section he seems to link our morality to God's moral nature.



Not exactly: he says that by doing good to offenders we _act_ like God, that is, we act in the way God acts.



Pergamum said:


> We as image-bearers must bear some semblance to God's moral nature in order to be moral. So it is a fair argument to ask why God would demand something of us that is not fitting to his own moral nature. And God's moral nature is such that he is willing to forgive, but only actually does so when repentance is present.



Again I register my protest that speaking about God's moral nature often does nothing more than needlessly confuse us. Be that as it may, however, it has already been pointed out that the Bible itself registers a difference between God and men in the related area of vengeance. So even if it could normally be presumed that what God does is held out to us for imitation, we are forced to recognize that this is not always the case. And it is not hard to understand: in many respects a father is pleased when his children imitate him; but there are privileges, prerogatives, and responsibilities that he possesses which his child does not possess and should not try to imitate. Is a father a hypocrite when he puts his child to bed at eight while himself staying up until ten? The child does well to imitate his father _only in those points which are proposed for imitation_. For us to imitate God without warrant is presumption rather than obedience; especially when it brings us to act as though sin were against us, and as though we had the right of releasing or retaining it. Our rule is God's command, not his providence and not his own actions. (Shall we drown the world in a flood? shall we command genocide? shall we punish our son in the place of the neighbor's boy?)

As I said before, every person is necessarily related to God, and to God as judge. But most of us are not judges, and we don't have any judicial relationships to other people that could not be otherwise. The argument from God's moral nature through man's image-bearing to one of us holding something against an individual until he expresses repentance takes no notice of these considerations. Until it accounts for them, it doesn't get off the ground.

Let's put it another way. In addition to the facts that everyone is related to God in a way that no one is related to us; that all sin is ultimately against God; that God is the moral governor of the world and we are not; that God is infinitely beyond us in dignity (and in everything else); that God has a right to require authoritatively what we cannot demand; in addition, I say, to all that is also the fact that God has the power to bestow what he requires. You contend that God demands repentance for reconciliation, and rightly so; but God also exalted Christ to give repentance. Now if you choose to imitate God in holding someone's offense against them, can you also imitate God in bestowing repentance on them? If not, then your putative imitation of God on this point is necessarily partial; and once that is admitted, the nerve of the argument is excised and disposed of.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 12, 2011)

Tbordow said:


> It is true that for those who have not repented we are not called to forgive them, but simply not to curse or pay back evil for evil. Calvin's words on this are very helpful:
> 
> "Christ does not command us to forgive save when the sinner is turned to us and declares his penitence...Sins are forgiven in two ways. If anyone does me an injury and I set aside any feeling of revenge and do not cease to love him and even repay him with benefits instead of injuries; although I may think badly of him, as he deserves, yet I may be said to forgive him. For the Lord bids us wish our enemies well, He does not demand that we shall approve in them what He Himself condemns, but only wishes our minds to be purged of hatred. The second sort of forgiving is when we receive a brother into our favour in such a way as to think well of him and be convinced that the memory of his fault is wiped out before God."
> 
> Calvin's Commentaries Matt 18:21




Thanks, very helpful.

---------- Post added at 10:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 AM ----------




py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > In the bolded section he seems to link our morality to God's moral nature.
> ...




There is a reflection of God's moral nature in what God requires of us (be ye holy for I am holy, etc). What God demands in us is not merely arbitrary fiat, but His commandments flow forth from His Nature. 

God's moral nature is expressed to us in the form of commandments - these constitute our moral obligations. These obligations reflect God's essential character. 

And the quotes given by Calvin, Rutherford and James all verify what I suspected, that where there is no repentance, there needs be no reconciliation, even though kindness and a willingness to forgive is left open to the offending party... and this seems true for both God and man.

---------- Post added at 10:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------




jogri17 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I believe your statement more reflects modern psychology or current sentiments than it does the Bible.
> ...



jogri17:

What do you think of the Rutherford, James and Calvin quotes given above? I am in agreement with those quotes.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 12, 2011)

Perg, I don't think you should be citing the Rutherford quote in favor of the position you seem to be advocating (or leaning toward?): he explicitly states that _between persons_ forgiveness *cannot* be contingent on repentance, but must occur whether our enemy repents or not, even as Christ forgave those which crucified him; the only type of repentance he says _is_ contingent upon repentance is reception back into the church - that is, formal, authoritative recognition that his forgiveness of God is ratified in Heaven. This is an authoritative, ministerial act, which exists _because_ the church in its authority is executing a ministerial act on behalf of Christ. This cannot be duplicated among private people. If you will read the Calvin quote closely, with his language of "being convinced his fault is wiped out before God," I think you will find him to be expressing the same idea. As to J.A. James, I cannot speak for that.

More to the issue that Ruben has been well explaining, the commandments are a reflection of God, but certainly not in the manner you are suggesting - we cannot say we are commanded to do something because it's "based on some nature of God which demands he do the same." Does not God have the right over life and death of whom he will? (But surely we do not). Why are we not to kill? Obviously not because it's rooted in God's nature not to kill, but because all men are created in the image of God and because we, unlike God, have no right over the life of another, but must humble ourselves before them; so likewise, why must we forgive? Because our brother is also a creature of God, and we are sinful creatures ourselves who have no inherent, moral right over them, but are to receive them in charity. The commands proceed from God in that they are perfectly just and a perfect representation of his wise will; but one must keep in mind that what is just for the infinite, holy Creator is not always the same as what is just for the finite, sinful creature. Yes, we are to "be holy _because_ God is holy;" but that does not mandate the same actions or imitation of all the same actions - God performs vengeance, whereas we commit vengeance unto him, etc.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> There is a reflection of God's moral nature in what God requires of us (be ye holy for I am holy, etc). What God demands in us is not merely arbitrary fiat, but His commandments flow forth from His Nature.
> 
> God's moral nature is expressed to us in the form of commandments - these constitute our moral obligations. These obligations reflect God's essential character.
> 
> And the quotes given by Calvin, Rutherford and James all verify what I suspected, that where there is no repentance, there needs be no reconciliation, even though kindness and a willingness to forgive is left open to the offending party... and this seems true for both God and man.



"The divine willing is the divine nature." It is faulty theology to posit a division between God's nature and God's will.
As far as your duty goes, God's commandments tell you what to do. 
We are still speaking, or at least trying to, of forgiveness. I'm pleased to hear you agree with Rutherford: _private Christians are to forgive their Enemies whether they repent, or not...._ Positively, that is what I am contending for. 
Negatively, I am contending against your method of using an idea that makes God subservient to his own nature as a way to interpret what your duty is. I have raised multiple objections to that line of argument, but so far you appear to have overlooked all the particular objections, and only replied to the general objection. But even if you were right in general in your ideas on that point, you would still have to grapple with the fact that on certain points, as, again, with vengeance, we are told _not to imitate God_. You would have to account for the difference in ontological stature and official position between us and God. In other words, you would have to set out how created, private Christians in their own sphere imitate God. Divine, judicial forgiveness, on the face of it, is rather different from _creaturely, private_ forgiveness.

Thank you, Paul: are you available to be hired to write posts for me?


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 12, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Thank you, Paul: are you available to be hired to write posts for me?



Ruben, my standard rate is one post a week for every serving of vegetables consumed or each new type of food tried during the course of the preceding week. I trust Heidi can provide me with an accurate tally at the end of each week. No guarantees as to the quality of the posts.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 12, 2011)

Prufrock said:


> Perg, I don't think you should be citing the Rutherford quote in favor of the position you seem to be advocating (or leaning toward?): he explicitly states that _between persons_ forgiveness *cannot* be contingent on repentance, but must occur whether our enemy repents or not, even as Christ forgave those which crucified him; the only type of repentance he says _is_ contingent upon repentance is reception back into the church - that is, formal, authoritative recognition that his forgiveness of God is ratified in Heaven. This is an authoritative, ministerial act, which exists _because_ the church in its authority is executing a ministerial act on behalf of Christ. This cannot be duplicated among private people. If you will read the Calvin quote closely, with his language of "being convinced his fault is wiped out before God," I think you will find him to be expressing the same idea. As to J.A. James, I cannot speak for that.
> 
> More to the issue that Ruben has been well explaining, the commandments are a reflection of God, but certainly not in the manner you are suggesting - we cannot say we are commanded to do something because it's "based on some nature of God which demands he do the same." Does not God have the right over life and death of whom he will? (But surely we do not). Why are we not to kill? Obviously not because it's rooted in God's nature not to kill, but because all men are created in the image of God and because we, unlike God, have no right over the life of another, but must humble ourselves before them; so likewise, why must we forgive? Because our brother is also a creature of God, and we are sinful creatures ourselves who have no inherent, moral right over them, but are to receive them in charity. The commands proceed from God in that they are perfectly just and a perfect representation of his wise will; but one must keep in mind that what is just for the infinite, holy Creator is not always the same as what is just for the finite, sinful creature. Yes, we are to "be holy _because_ God is holy;" but that does not mandate the same actions or imitation of all the same actions - God performs vengeance, whereas we commit vengeance unto him, etc.






> The commandments are a reflection of God



I am not suggesting a perfect 100% same-ness. I agree with this quote.

---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:26 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > There is a reflection of God's moral nature in what God requires of us (be ye holy for I am holy, etc). What God demands in us is not merely arbitrary fiat, but His commandments flow forth from His Nature.
> ...






> you would still have to grapple with the fact that on certain points, as, again, with vengeance, we are told not to imitate God



Yes, I have never put forth any more than a general argument. Everyone knows there are distinctions between the Creator and the creature, even if we bear God's image and are told to imitate Christ, the God-Man.



> even if you were right in general in your ideas on that point,...


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2011)

I'm afraid those rates are well beyond what I can routinely afford, although if the post were guaranteed to include a clever wisecrack I might take you up on it occasionally.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I have never put forth any more than a general argument. Everyone knows there are distinctions between the Creator and the creature, even if we bear God's image and are told to imitate Christ, the God-Man.



But those distinctions matter; and in this specific case the contention is that they make all the difference necessary to overthrow the idea that we can hold something against someone until they apologize to us.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 12, 2011)

Prufrock said:


> Perg, I don't think you should be citing the Rutherford quote in favor of the position you seem to be advocating (or leaning toward?): he explicitly states that _between persons_ forgiveness *cannot* be contingent on repentance, but must occur whether our enemy repents or not, even as Christ forgave those which crucified him; the only type of repentance he says _is_ contingent upon repentance is reception back into the church - that is, formal, authoritative recognition that his forgiveness of God is ratified in Heaven. This is an authoritative, ministerial act, which exists _because_ the church in its authority is executing a ministerial act on behalf of Christ. This cannot be duplicated among private people. If you will read the Calvin quote closely, with his language of "being convinced his fault is wiped out before God," I think you will find him to be expressing the same idea. As to J.A. James, I cannot speak for that.
> 
> More to the issue that Ruben has been well explaining, the commandments are a reflection of God, but certainly not in the manner you are suggesting - we cannot say we are commanded to do something because it's "based on some nature of God which demands he do the same." Does not God have the right over life and death of whom he will? (But surely we do not). Why are we not to kill? Obviously not because it's rooted in God's nature not to kill, but because all men are created in the image of God and because we, unlike God, have no right over the life of another, but must humble ourselves before them; so likewise, why must we forgive? Because our brother is also a creature of God, and we are sinful creatures ourselves who have no inherent, moral right over them, but are to receive them in charity. The commands proceed from God in that they are perfectly just and a perfect representation of his wise will; but one must keep in mind that what is just for the infinite, holy Creator is not always the same as what is just for the finite, sinful creature. Yes, we are to "be holy _because_ God is holy;" but that does not mandate the same actions or imitation of all the same actions - God performs vengeance, whereas we commit vengeance unto him, etc.



Rutherford seems to be speaking of private forgiveness betwen Christians, here's the quote with bold:





> The private forgiving is a duty of charity commanded in the Law of Nature to all, even out of Church-state, and obligeth the Excommunicate, who, though they be case out of the Church, are not exempted from the Law, that bindeth all, Mat. 6.12, 14, 15; Mat. 4:44.46. but the Church-forgiving is an act of obedience to a positive Church-Law of Christ, 2. private Christians are to forgive their Enemies whether they repent, or not, even as Christ forgave those who crucified Him, Col. 3.13. Luk. 23.34. and when the party repenteth not, this forgiveness is not ratified in Heaven, yet are we obliged to forgive, and to commit vengeance to God; but the authoritative forgiveness is a thing that the Church, is not obliged unto, absolutely; nor may they, or can they forgive, except the Offender repent: and if they see that he repenteth not, they cannot lawfully forgive; but, being in God's room, must take vengeance on all disobedience, and their retaining of sin and forgiving, is valid in Heaven, because they are in God's place. Now any forgiving or retaining of sin but these two, together with God's forgiving and retaining, we know not. *But Peter's forgiving his offending brother seventy times seven times, is common to all private Christians, *even out of Church-state, and so the instance given is not to the purpose, 6. To these only are the Keys given, who having Paul's pastoral spirit, may convene and deliver to Satan, but the Church of believers without Officers, not having Paul's pastoral spirit which is a spirit official, and authoritative to preach, excommunicate, and administrate the seals of the Covenant, may not convene and do this.




Is there a different obligation of forgiveness between Christians and between a Christian and a willful, unrepentant unbeliever still seeking to harm that Christian?

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I have never put forth any more than a general argument. Everyone knows there are distinctions between the Creator and the creature, even if we bear God's image and are told to imitate Christ, the God-Man.
> ...




What is your definition of "hold something against someone" and is it the same as "forgiveness" or "reconciliation?"

It appears that where there is a wicked unbeliever who is unrepentant, there can be no reconciliation. There can be a readiness and a willingness, but no actual reconciliation until the offender repents and desists from the offense.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 12, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Rutherford seems to be speaking of private forgiveness betwen Christians, here's the quote with bold:



Perg, speaking bluntly, the passage says nothing of what you're trying to see in it. First, Rutherford says "Private Christians must forgive their enemies even when they don't repent;" second, he says, "The church, in its ministerial function, authoritatively announces forgiveness and restores one to church fellowship upon repentance;" and then, thirdly (the part you made bold above), Rutherford is answering an objection, that a church without officers may authoritatively forgive based on Matt. 18:21, which Rutherford answers here by stating that the verse pertains only to the private forgiveness of Christians. Even if that were not the case, you cannot ignore Rutherford's explicit statement at the start of the passage that Christians are obliged to forgive even without repentance. If you would like to read the passage in its entirety, it is found in either the first or second chapter of Rutherford's _Due Right of Presbyteries_.

Secondly, just in case there is any confusion, by "a reflection of God," I mean simply that they reflect the holiness and righteousness of God, and that they are a reflection of God's will for man. Not that they are ontologically dependent upon some "nature" to which also the will of God is subservient.

Ruben,
That's a shame; perhaps we could work out some alternative deal where I'll write your posts for you, if you write mine for me.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 12, 2011)

In case my present position is not clear, here is a summary of what I currently believe about forgiveness if you want to address that:



> To outwardly forgive sin under all circumstances, unconditionally, and to reconcile with the unrepentant offender is NOT a must. This is not what God does, nor is it what He commands us to do.
> 
> However, we are to always be ready to forgive upon the condition of repentance and we are never to seek vengeance.







> "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. 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" (Lk. 17:3-4)





> Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.




The Bible says we are to forgive as God forgave us, i.e., there is a measure of same-ness in the nature of our forgiveness compared with God's. 

Ephesians 4:32, 



> "And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you," and Colossians 3:13 states, "Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye."



So it seems that outward reconciliation (forgiveness) is not always demanded of us, even if inward willingness to forgive and prayers for all are to be given. And in the case of repenting brothers, we are to be extravagant and never-ceasing in our forgiveness of a repenting brother.

---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

-----


p.s. the thing that prompted this OP was mainly the comment by an evangelical missionary to Muslims. He basically stated that "We MUST forgive Osama Bin Laden and love him." [this was prior to OBL's death...but the comment resurfaced, so I am not sure if this person believes that we must be forgiving to past dead evil perpetrators as well or only live ones]. My response was that we ought to act lovingly towards him by telling him to repent if we were able to do so without endangering ourselves or servicemen, but that our first priority was to kill or neutralize him first.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2011)

Ephesians 4:32
_And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you._

Psalm 130:3
_If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?_


----------



## JoannaV (Nov 12, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> p.s. the thing that prompted this OP was mainly the comment by an evangelical missionary to Muslims. He basically stated that "We MUST forgive Osama Bin Laden and love him." [this was prior to OBL's death...but the comment resurfaced, so I am not sure if this person believes that we must be forgiving to past dead evil perpetrators as well or only live ones]. My response was that we ought to act lovingly towards him by telling him to repent if we were able to do so without endangering ourselves or servicemen, but that our first priority was to kill or neutralize him first.



As a private individual, no-one can forgive Bin Laden for his offences against God and other men.
Equally, those who killed him did not do so to exact personal vengeance, but under higher authority.
So yes the evangelical missionary's comment was not a useful one, but the discussion in this thread is not really about such a situation as he commented on.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 12, 2011)

Joanna;

Should the families of the victims of the Twin Towers tragedy forgive the hijackers for what they did?


----------



## TimV (Nov 12, 2011)

> My response was that we ought to act lovingly towards him by telling him to repent if we were able to do so without endangering ourselves or servicemen, but that our first priority was to kill or neutralize him first.



I see it like Joanna. "We" aren't allowed to kill anyone, even a person who break into our house if the "sun rises" on him, i.e. if he isn't caught during the commission of the crime. It becomes the magistrate's duty, and after all the principles of just war are satisfied, then love or any other emotions don't apply. In fact, the Scriptures say "Your eye shall not pity him". And I agree the lovey dovey talk by the guy you quoted is irrelevant as well as silly, except for the general principle of not allowing a root of bitterness to take hold in your heart, since it's not in the sphere of the church to do anything about him.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 12, 2011)

Yes, TimV, I agree, by "we" I meant collectively the US and its forces (soldiers sent out by the civil magistrate).


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Nov 12, 2011)

Here is another corollary - what is "forgiveness"? If we forgive someone who sins repeatedly a certain sin, but no longer "trust" them - i.e., a wife "forgives" a husband who cheated on her but doesn't remarry him, or one who "forgives" a friend who lies to them repeatedly but then no longer believes them or wants to have the same friendship as before, is this a "holding against them" that isn't true forgiveness? When we forgive someone, do we have to pretend that the sin never happened or damaged the relationship?


----------



## JoannaV (Nov 12, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Joanna;
> 
> Should the families of the victims of the Twin Towers tragedy forgive the hijackers for what they did?



The hijackers were dead before the families even learnt of the events, correct? So I suppose this comes under what you mentioned earlier:



Pergamum said:


> this was prior to OBL's death...but the comment resurfaced, so I am not sure if this person believes that we must be forgiving to past dead evil perpetrators as well or only live ones



I suppose I would say that forgiveness as such is not relevant after death. They have passed entirely out of our sphere. It would seem wrong to continue to harbour anger (though understandable initially) after God has already dealt with them.
Perhaps this topic is confused because nowadays we seem to simply equate the _feeling _of resentment with unforgiveness.
The condition of our heart is not the same thing as our dealing with another individual.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2011)

I accidentally copied Patrick's excellent post to the beginning of this thread. I think attending to it carefully will clarify much confusion.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/must-we-always-forgive-even-if-god-doesnt-66693/#post855875


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 12, 2011)

Perg:

Much has been said here, but let me take a stab at your last question--"Should the families of the victims of the Twin Towers' tragedy forgive the hijackers for what they did?"

The hijackers are dead. What would it mean to forgive them? For someone to say "we need to forgive the hijackers" is fundamentally misguided and a category mistake (not to mention the fact that what the hijackers did was not a personal attack as such on those in the building--it could have been any of us in there--but an attack on the US; thus forgiveness in the broadest sense, even if it was otherwise applicable in such a case, would not belong to any single person as this was a public and not a private tragedy).

Forgiveness is, in part, something that I minister to another. It is not limited to, but usually involves, my saying to another who has sought such, "I forgive you for...." This is why the qualifications that we find in Luke 17 and Matthew 18 are relevant. The ordinary outward ministering of forgiveness involves repentance on the part of the offender and the ministered word of forgiveness on the part of the offended. But this is not the whole story.

I agree with our dear, and wise, brothers Ruben and Paul in so much that they remind us of with respect to the disproportion between ourselves and God. Our Lord Himself did say, in Mark 11:25, "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone..." This is to be taken, I think, as part of the command to love others and to do to them as we would have them do to us (Matthew 7:12). We are to let love cover a multitude of sins, not to be bitter, and even to love our enemies.

All that being said, we may perhaps distinguish an inner forgiveness and the outward ministering of the word. To say to a brother who does not believe that he has sinned against me, "I forgive you" is arrogant presumption and to say it to an enemy is definitely not love but simple antagonism. 

We are to forgive from the heart both friend and foe, the former being those saints to whom we minister such upon repentance and the latter being those whom we love despite their hatred. Do I forgive Mr. Bin Laden (when alive)? Well, yes, insofar as I am not eaten up with anger, bitterness, and so forth toward such parties and can say that I wish good for them eternally (which would mean them repenting now). That is not at odds with my wishing him to be brought to justice and my recognition that it is not mine to forgive him in any outward way, not only because he has not sought it, but because his atrocities are public (even if involving my family) and I alone am not empowered to speak for the entities that properly judge him. 

Reconciliation and restoration can only properly occur between two who love the Savior and repent of that which is an offense between them. That would not be at issue with the hijackers or BL. Am I to love the hijackers or BL? Yes, as I do enemies, praying for their conversion. What of forgiveness? It's not an issue outwardly; inwardly, I am not to be bitter or full of rage against them, recognizing that, in the flesh, I am no different from them. I should pray, with love, for both friend and foe.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 12, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> If we are wronged and the wrong-doer is unrepentant, then must we forgive them?
> 
> And if so, why does God demand this if He Himself is not bound to this law but sends the unrepentant to hell. Morality is a reflection of the character of God, after all.
> 
> ...



Many evan-jelly-cals talk about forgiveness in a rather glib and simplistic way, forgetting how difficult and painful it is to forgive when something _really bad_ is done to you.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 12, 2011)

I have been thinking of the verses to 'bless our enemies, bless and curse not' -- 'do good to those who hate us, pray for those who despitefully use us'.

I just wanted to add to the thread something I remember in a bulletin from a church in an area of persecution: they had rightfully sought legal action against the murderer of their pastor (it had failed); and one of their main requests for prayer was to be able to forgive this murderer from their hearts. Another was that this murderer would come to know the mercy and forgiveness of God. However difficult and 'unglib' the reality, I wonder if these matters are actually less complicated out of the realm of theory. For the legal action, and certainly any formal action of the church to ever receive such an individual into membership as one who had indeed been forgiven of God, was quite easily distinct in their experience from the Christlike attitude they strove to bear towards this man as individuals, and the way they -- as recipients of mercy -- petitioned the Highest Judge for one who had offended against them. 


It seems to me that this Christlikeness of His people, in seeking to bless those who curse them, is part of how God continues to make His people a blessing to all families and nations of the earth. It is certainly a great comfort to me personally that God instructs us to behave this way towards another. I have a more practical and personal idea of the ungrudgingness of His mercy to me.


----------



## moral necessity (Nov 12, 2011)

Perhaps this is applicable with regard to Mr. Bin-Laden and others who do evil unto us:

"Is a man a rogue, a thief, or a liar? I cannot love his roguery, or I should be a rogue myself. I cannot love his lying, or I should be untrue; but I am bound to love _him_ still, and even though I am wronged by him, yet I must not harbor one vindictive feeling, but as I would desire God to forgive me, so I must forgive him. And if he so sins against the law of the land, that he is to be punished (and rightly so,) I am to love him in the punishment; for I am not to condemn him to imprisonment vindictively, but I am to do it for his good, that he may be led to repent through the punishment; I am to give him such a measure of punishment as shall be adequate, not as an atonement for his crime, but to teach him the evil of it, and induce him to forsake it. But let me condemn him with a tear in my eye, beause I love him still. And let me, when he is thrust into prison, take care that all his keepers attend to him with kindness, and although there be a necessity for sternness and severity in prison discipline, let it not go too far, lest it merge into cruelty, and become wanton, instead of useful. I am bound to love him, though he be sunken in vice, and degraded. The law knows of no exception. It claims my love for him. I must love him. I am not bound to take him to my house; I am not bound to treat him as one of my family. There may be some acts of kindness which would be imprudent, seeing that by doing them I might ruin others, and reward vice. I am bound to set my _face_ against him, as I am just, but I feel I ought not to set my _heart_ against him, for he is my brother-man, and though the devil has besmeared his face, and spits his venom in his mouth, so that when he speaks he speaks in oaths, and when he walks, his feet are swift to shed blood, yet he is a man, and as a man he is my brother, and as a brother I am bound to love him, and if by stooping I can lift him up to something like moral dignity, I am wrong if I do not it, for I am bound to love him as I love myself." - Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 4: Love Thy Neighbor, p.431-2.

Blessings!


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2011)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Our Lord Himself did say, in Mark 11:25, "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone..."



Thank you, Professor Strange. That statement should be enough to settle the issue.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 12, 2011)

JoannaV said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Joanna;
> ...




Joanna, you wrote:



> Perhaps this topic is confused because nowadays we seem to simply equate the feeling of resentment with unforgiveness.
> The condition of our heart is not the same thing as our dealing with another individual.



and I think you are onto something there.

---------- Post added at 02:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------




Alan D. Strange said:


> Perg:
> 
> Much has been said here, but let me take a stab at your last question--"Should the families of the victims of the Twin Towers' tragedy forgive the hijackers for what they did?"
> 
> ...




Thank you,

It sounds like many people, including you, are classifying forgiveness as both having an inward and also an outward element ("holding it against someone" in your heart versus the outward act of reconciliation). Most people speak of the necessity of inward forgiveness and lack of vengenace-seeking or grudge-bearing, but not all speak of the necessity of outward reconciliation or restoration of relationship. I believe that the former is a must, but the latter (seeking reconciliation) only comes after repentance of the offender.

---------- Post added at 02:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 AM ----------




moral necessity said:


> Perhaps this is applicable with regard to Mr. Bin-Laden and others who do evil unto us:
> 
> "Is a man a rogue, a thief, or a liar? I cannot love his roguery, or I should be a rogue myself. I cannot love his lying, or I should be untrue; but I am bound to love _him_ still, and even though I am wronged by him, yet I must not harbor one vindictive feeling, but as I would desire God to forgive me, so I must forgive him. And if he so sins against the law of the land, that he is to be punished (and rightly so,) I am to love him in the punishment; for I am not to condemn him to imprisonment vindictively, but I am to do it for his good, that he may be led to repent through the punishment; I am to give him such a measure of punishment as shall be adequate, not as an atonement for his crime, but to teach him the evil of it, and induce him to forsake it. But let me condemn him with a tear in my eye, beause I love him still. And let me, when he is thrust into prison, take care that all his keepers attend to him with kindness, and although there be a necessity for sternness and severity in prison discipline, let it not go too far, lest it merge into cruelty, and become wanton, instead of useful. I am bound to love him, though he be sunken in vice, and degraded. The law knows of no exception. It claims my love for him. I must love him. I am not bound to take him to my house; I am not bound to treat him as one of my family. There may be some acts of kindness which would be imprudent, seeing that by doing them I might ruin others, and reward vice. I am bound to set my _face_ against him, as I am just, but I feel I ought not to set my _heart_ against him, for he is my brother-man, and though the devil has besmeared his face, and spits his venom in his mouth, so that when he speaks he speaks in oaths, and when he walks, his feet are swift to shed blood, yet he is a man, and as a man he is my brother, and as a brother I am bound to love him, and if by stooping I can lift him up to something like moral dignity, I am wrong if I do not it, for I am bound to love him as I love myself." - Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 4: Love Thy Neighbor, p.431-2.
> 
> Blessings!




Thanks, excellent!


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> What is your definition of "hold something against someone" and is it the same as "forgiveness" or "reconciliation?"



Holding something against someone is retaining their offense in your heart; refusing to release them. That is forgiveness, and it does not depend on them. Reconciliation is a return to fellowship, and of course both parties have to be willing for that to happen. It does take two to argue, but it also takes two to get along.

I like how Patrick explained this last time:


> 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.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 13, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > What is your definition of "hold something against someone" and is it the same as "forgiveness" or "reconciliation?"
> ...



Yes, I like Patrick's quote as well. Thanks.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 13, 2011)

py3ak said:


> I accidentally copied Patrick's excellent post to the beginning of this thread. I think attending to it carefully will clarify much confusion.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/must-we-always-forgive-even-if-god-doesnt-66693/#post855875


Whew! I have been racking my brains trying to figure out why I started this thread and never gave it my due care and feeding afterwards. Mystery solved!


----------

