MUST we forgive?

[Pergamum]

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 ----------

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?

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]

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]

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]

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 ----------

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Joanna;

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

 

[TimV]

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]

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

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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.

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 ----------

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

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 ----------

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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!