The Evangelical Universalist Forum

If You Don't Repent, Can/Must I Still Forgive?

Thanks Jonny :smiley:

Coleā€¦ AND!??

Divine pardon or more appropriately FORGIVENESS relates to SIN, NOT to punishment. And THIS distinction and understanding is important to grasp: Jesus was announced as the one who would ā€œsave his people from their SINSā€ Mt 1:21, NOT from punishment. Godā€™s judgment was a two-sided coin ā€“ after the just consequences of their rebellious sin was experienced ā€“ example, AD66-70 Mt 23:31-36] i.e., ā€œyou shall die in your sinsā€ Jn 8:24, Godā€™s equally JUST, MERCIFUL and pardoning forgiveness Rom 4:7-8; 2Cor 5:19b] wrought Israelā€™s restoration, as promised in the Scriptures and testified by the inspired Paul Rom 11:26-27]. The following Scriptures show this perfectly:

Psa 99:8 O LORD our God; You were to them God-Who-Forgives, THOUGH You took vengeance on their deeds.

Lam 3:31-32 For the Lord will not cast off forever. Though He causes grief, YET He will show compassion according to the multitude of His mercies.

As a pantelist I understand Israelā€™s punishment to be the temporal outworking of their temporal actions i.e., their actions had real consequences in this life. Their fiery situation of AD70 was the fruit of their trespass, thus their judgment.

Isa 54:8 With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you,ā€ says the LORD, your Redeemer.

Isa 60:10b For in My wrath I struck you, but in My favor I have had mercy on you.

Jer 10:24 O LORD, correct me, but with justice; not in Your anger, lest You bring me to nothing.

Godā€™s ā€œjusticeā€ was met in Christ at Calvary, met fully in LOVE.

And so it is that the power and mercy of Godā€™s grace is NOT limited to manā€™s ability to comprehend it, or the lack thereof.

It helps aid us as believers NOT fall into the trap of bitterness and resentmentā€¦ when we have the opportunity to forgive itā€™s the better move ā€“ better NOT bitter.

From the unrepentant sinnerā€™s perspective he probably couldnā€™t give a toss, but then again grace has a funny way of making a way for a softening of the heart, so NEVER discount letting go of so-called righteous indignation.

Michael, I have absolutely no problem with praying, ā€œForgive me my trespasses as I forgive those who trespass against me.ā€
For I know that is the way the Lord forgives. He forgives only upon repentance.

Now I am not suggesting that in not forging the unrepentant person (and I emphasize that to repent does NOT mean saying ā€œSorry!ā€ but in having a change of heart and mind concerning the issues), that I am harbouring anger at the offender or bearing a grudge against him. Indeed, by the enabling grace of God, for the last 20 years, I have not ever begun to get angry with people who have sinned against me.

By the way, Cindy, reconciliation is indeed, an important element of forgiveness, but it is not a synonym for the word.

If forgiveness of the unrepentant ā€œhelps aid us as believers NOT fall into the trap of bitterness and resentmentā€, then youā€™re not talking about ā€œforgivenessā€ as I understand the word to be used in scripture.

If ā€œforgivenessā€ for you means to let go of your ill feelings toward an offender, why not just say that. It would be better not to have ill feelings toward the offender to begin with, but if you have them, by all means let them go!

I understand ā€œforgivenessā€ to be a RESPONSE to repentance.

I donā€™t think ANYONE here even imagines that the Father ignored the Sonā€™s asking Him to forgive his murderers.
The father did forgive them, but not just then. He forgave them when they repented.

Here is the last sentence of Peterā€™s address to the Jews when they heard the Christians speaking in tongues, and thought they were drunk:

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.ā€

This is when those who were responsible for Christā€™s death were convicted concerning what they had done, and were ready to do anything to make up for it in some way:

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ā€œBrothers, what shall we do?ā€

Peter then gave them in a nutshell, the good news of Jesus the Messiah:

And Peter said to them, ā€œRepent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness (or forsaking) of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:37-38 ESV)

Many of them acted according to Peterā€™s words:

So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)

This was the time when the Father forgave them.

I am very much in agreement with davo above about not really understanding or even being able to really conceive of the Father not accepting the entry of the Son, particularly at the cross of all places, where God was in the Messiah reconciling the world to Himself. I canā€™t really conceive of the Father and the Son not being in accord at all in fact, and since to see Jesus is to see the Father, most supremely in his self-giving and self-sacrificial love on the cross, I canā€™t really conceive of Jesus asking and wanting the Father to do something He wasnā€™t doing or willing to do Himself (ie forgive those brutalizing, torturing, mocking, abandoning and killing Him). This doesnā€™t really make sense to me personally, Jesus didnā€™t pray for things He didnā€™t mean or desire, I canā€™t really get my head around the idea that He wanted the Father to forgive them but He wasnā€™t doing it Himself, or that the two Persons were not in agreement, it just causes much deeper problems from my perspective. Others clearly see it differently, but that is where I am on that personally.

(The next is very much my view I realize, and Iā€™m not trying to talk down or get at anyone, I am just summing up my views on forgiveness and just why I think as I do on it and my it is so central to my view on things, not that I think itā€™s some final word on things by any means even if it sounds like it. So I hope no one thinks I am trying to attack or impose on them, but it is something I am very passionate about, so read it in that spirit I pray.)

As for what good does forgiveness do for the unrepentant sinner, well I know that Godā€™s offered forgiveness and His pursuit of me as a unrepentant sinner and enemy of God did me allot of good, and the knowledge of His forgiveness in Christ keeps doing me good and I am every grateful of His infinite love, total forgiveness and grace to me, struggling with scrupulosity has had the deep benefit of making me acutely aware of this and just how precious beyond compare it really is. And I see the same pattern repeated elsewhere, it wasnā€™t for no reason I gave the example of the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation from my homeland of South Africa, for those who didnā€™t live there around that time, everyone expected a bloodbath to result on all sides. That it did not is in large part to that Commission, victims were prepared to meet those who did horrific evils to them, beatings, illegal imprisonments without end, rapes, torture, murder of family members, tribal violence, without the offer of forgiveness by many peace would not have been made, justice could not be achieved and evil of those days would have continued to crush victim and perpetrators alike and swallowed the land in civil war. Itā€™s success was such that itā€™s model was used in Rwandan, were it was vital in bring peace and justice, true justice out of the most terrible carnage imaginable, it allowed child soldiers to return to be embraced by their home villages once more.

Without the offer of forgiveness none of this is possible, and this follows the imperative as I see it at the heart of the Lordā€™s prayer and elsewhere in the NT, we are to forgive others as He has forgiven us, itā€™s even a criteria that we might be children of our Father, as He holds out forgiveness for us, and pursues us with it, so are we to be to our enemies. With the great and final Jubilee having released us from our debts completely, we are to live in that Jubilee, to exemplify that life, and was likewise hold no debts against anyone but forgive them all, and be to the world what Jesus was to Israel. This forgiving for me is tied into the command to love our enemies, to bless, pray and actively do good rather then curse those who hurt us, abuse and despise us (and I donā€™t see how we can really do good and bless our enemies if havenā€™t already forgiven them personally), this is much more then not just feeling ill will towards such people in such events, no the command is much harder and tougher then that, itā€™s not a passive suggestion but an active imperative, we are to actively seek to bless them and do good for them, to pray for their true best, and seek reconciliation. We are called to be the peace-makers in all situations, unlike the nations we are called to like our King, and serve all, in self-sacrificial love, even when it hurts, even when we must risk injury or death, that is how Godā€™s Kingdom comes, through that self-less love and no other. Some might think that such forgiveness lets the evil the person committed go, but in fact itā€™s the exact opposite, forgiveness, unlike a kind of uncaring tolerance that ignores evil that continues rampant in itā€™s midst, is by itā€™s nature confrontational, as is the whole act of actively loving them and returning blessing for cursing, good for evil, but in a way completely unlike the nations do it, it doesnā€™t accuse but stands fearlessly for justice in love and service. By itā€™s very nature, in word and deed it confronts the evil-doers on the evil they have done, that such a thing is evil, it does matter and it did hurt, and that it is unacceptable, that the very reconciliation we are offering and seeking with forgiveness requires they renounce their evil actions and patterns, and turn from such paths and acts, and commit instead to living for justice and being committed to do working to restore what has been lost before normal relations can resume through reconciliation. It is a revolutionary thing, and it is one of things that is at the very heart of the calling of being a Christian, we are ministers of reconciliation, we are the peace-makers, this is the love that can turn nations upside down, bring down the proud and rise up the humble, and is the one thing that break the impasse of corrupting grudges and pain which holds victim and perpetration locked in a continuous cycle of destruction. It alone breaks that lethal deadlock, and releases both from the slavery of holding onto that debt, and frees all to become workers of righteousness and justice, bringing true justice, peace and restoration out of that situation, anticipating how things will be in the end when all is healed and restored and Godā€™s saving justice is brought in full to the world.

We are called to a much higher calling then trying not to bear ill will to others, rather we are actively called to be the peace-makers, the people who stand and bring justice, and to be the ones reconciling people, families, communities and nations. When the church as a whole world-wide runs with that idea once again, then we will shake the whole world again.

Amen to that. Fantastic post, NightRevan.

J

Very well said.

:smiley:

Yes Paidion I think youā€™ve made your perception of ā€œforgivenessā€ abundantly clearā€¦ I have to simply and respectfully disagree.

Of course forgiveness ALWAYS has room for repentance, as per the texts you furnish, BUT biblical forgiveness is NOT solely contingent upon it. You are advocating a fully conditional-forgiveness, which as I understand it, is not genuine at all in that such forgiveness APART FROM said required-repentance is a vacuum.

Such conditionality is seen for what it is when someone says ā€œIā€™ll love you WHEN/IF _____ (fill in the condition)ā€. THAT is NOT real or genuine love. Itā€™s like the dubious advertising you see at the petrol station when it saysā€¦ ā€œFREEā€¦ (small print) [size=70]with every purchase over $__[/size]ā€. Whatever the promised object is it is NOT really ā€œfreeā€ ā€“ itā€™s conditional i.e., you have to meet a prescribed requirement. IOW, donā€™t call it ā€œFREEā€ (or forgiveness) when itā€™s NOT.

One did not need to acknowledge, believe in nor confess the first Adam to be ascribed under him; likewise, one does not need to acknowledge, believe in nor confess the last Adam to be ascribed under him. YES there is marvellous blessing when one DOES realise [and I mean that in both senses] the reality of reconciliation, BUT the conditionality of it LIKE FORGIVENESS has already been established and met in Christ.

:smiley:

Cole how would you deal with the aftermath with the Rwandan Genocide or post Apartheid South Africa in terms of forgiveness (very appropriate examples given by NightRevan. Do you think the Truth and Reconciliation strategy is a bad idea?

Dick,

Remember that the Biblical view is that we can forgive even though there is no repentance. But we are not obligated to. The only time we are obligated to is if there is repentance.

How so?

R.C. Sproul:

R. C. Sproul is not the mediator of sound biblical doctrine Cole - he is not an authoritative voice in the wider Church (and it contributes nothing to quote him as a paper Pope to people who arenā€™t Calvinistsā€™). What cansā€™t thou say? How do you relate forgiveness not to your own personal stuff with your Dad (for which I have every sympathy with you) but to the Rwandan Genocide and the Truth and Reconciliation commission in South Africa? That was my question. :slight_smile:

Dick,

Sproul gave the scripture. I can forgive my dad if I want to. But since he hasnā€™t repented and is abusive Iā€™m not obligated to.

So Dick, and others . . . I agree that we are obligated to at the least let go of resentment and the right to vengeance with regard to others whoā€™ve hurt us. That doesnā€™t mean we let go the right to have crimes against us prosecuted, btw. Vengeance in the middle east (or hilly parts of the eastern US at times :laughing: ) is another thing altogether. Whatā€™s more, our ā€œforgivenessā€ (or if youā€™re being more nuanced, our refusal to forgive although we refrain from retribution/anger/vengeance) doesnā€™t keep the offender from suffering natural consequences of his sin/crime. I also believe that while Father does forgive His children when we genuinely repent, we may have to undergo some potentially unpleasant chastisement for, though we ARE forgiven, we must also be made better than we are. We may still need to be cured of the tendency and the desire to commit that particular sin again.

I confess Iā€™m uncomfortable with the notion that, for example, a man who forgives his wife for unfaithfulness when she begs him, must take her back again and again and again. Of course, thatā€™s what Hosea did, but it does seem hard ā€“ and harder still for a woman in such a situation ā€“ as she usually wonā€™t have the personal power, physical strength, and often financial means that her husband is likely to have. Thatā€™s not always the case of course, but often it IS the case. She, for example, may have a more difficult time telling her husband there will be no more physical relations until sheā€™s sure of him, as Hosea apparently did with Hagar.

The passage thatā€™s troubling me at the moment is this ā€“ that Jesus told Peter (and presumably by extension the church, or if you take the RC view I suppose that would be the Pope and his delegates), ā€œIf you forgive anyoneā€™s sins they are forgiven, and if you retain anyoneā€™s sins, they are retained.ā€

Iā€™ve never heard a satisfactory (to me) explanation of what precisely this means, and itā€™s always puzzled me. Anyone have any ideas?

[tag]JasonPratt[/tag], Dick and Don (Paidion) have already weighed in on my question, but Iā€™d really like to hear what you have to say about the topic too, if youā€™ve got the time and inclination. Thanks!

Paidion, what is your reponse to this:
youtube.com/watch?v=EIkywrKVWAo

Do you think that our forgivness can be the beginning of the other personā€™s repentance?
Greetings and blessings
dani

Dani, since I believe forgiveness is a response to repentance, therefore it is impossible to forgive without repentance.

You must have in mind something other than forgiveness.

If you have the idea of overlooking the otherā€™s offence, this would but tell him his actions are acceptable, and he would be LESS likely to repent.

But perhaps you have in mind letting go of your ill feelings concerning the offence, or maybe still relating to the man in a courteous and/or respectful way, I would agree that this behaviour could help the person to repent. For he may know in his heart that he doesnā€™t deserve such treatment from you.
This would be following the spirit of our Lordā€™s instruction, ā€œDo good to those who despitefully use you.ā€

Cindy, good post! I will suggest an explanation of the passage about which you were enquiring at a later time. Right now I just donā€™t have the time.

For all of you who believe you can forgive without the repentance of the offender, please let us know how this is working for you! Let us know also, what effect it had on the offender, especially if you TOLD him that you forgave him. Please tell us also exactly what you did when you forgave him. Did you change some sort of attitude toward him? Did you relieve him of the debt he owed you? Did you let go of your ill feelings?

To be precise, what did you do or think or feel, that you would NOT have done or thought or felt, if you had not forgiven him?

Sorry Paidion :slight_smile: - we having separate conversations here (but thatā€™s cool)

Hi Cindy ā€“ yes the keys opt the kingdom is a text that has been used in Catholicism to invest the Pope and cardinals and priests by extension with absolute power (and has been a key text for those justifying the abuse of power ā€“ including the attempted cover up of the crimes of paedophile priests). Itā€™s never bothered me because Iā€™ve never viewed the text isolation form everything else we know about Peter, what Peter represents, and the other things that or Jesus said to Peter. Here is a very good Catholic blog that considers these issues

enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.b ā€¦ om-of.html

Regarding crime and punishment Cindy this is a separate issue I think from the overall question of what forgiveness means in the life of Christians (which is not an easy subject - Iā€™ll grant you ā€“ and to which there are no easy answers; Iā€™m clear about this ā€“ and is not amenable to proof texting). The civil authorities are responsible for punishing actual crimes (rather than sins); and it would be a separate debate to discuss how Christian informed law should be framed (and it would be a topic on which we would disagree a great deal I reckon).

Hi Cole regarding the Rwanda genocides and Apartheid in South Africa - the issues in both cases is how can the message of Jesus help to end a cycle of violence and retribution which threatens to turn society into a bloodbath? In both cases Sproul and Piper would not be of help ā€“

The genocides in Rwanda were in part stirred up by a tribal appropriation of the genocide texts in Joshua and Judges. All Christian traditions apart from hard Calvinism have consigned the genocide texts in different ways to the sidelines as irrelevant/abrogated in the light of the Gospel. The one tradition that keeps them alive is hard Calvinism ā€“ and Iā€™ve watched a very disturbing video with John Piper shrieking about his God being a God of steel and affirming these texts as examples of what God is permitted to do and we have no right to question. This is in poor taste considering the history of how Calvinists have used these texts to justify massacre and genocide done by the godly in Godā€™s name. HE should be critical of the dark side of his heritage as other Christina Churches are of theirs ā€“ rather than shrieking affirmation.

Likewise apartheid in South African that caused so much terrible discrimination and suffering was a development of Kuyperian Calvinism. Granted there were honest difficulties in opposing the apartheid regime that conservative Americanā€™s had during the Cold War ā€“ because the ANC were supported partially by Communists. Nonetheless apartheid was a heresy and a terrible one. Armenian evangelicals such as Billy Graham were forthright in their opposition to it. Reformed evangelicals in America had absolutely no critique to give of apartheid or itā€™s so called ā€˜biblicalā€™ credentials.

What I find so difficult about Neo Calvinism is not that it has colluded in evil ā€“ the Church has often done this. The stumbling block is rather that it would always cloak itself in innocence. Sproul and Piper have authority in neo Calvinism far in excess of Thomas Aquinasā€™ authority in Catholicism. Aquinas justified the subjugation of women, slavery, and the burning of heretics ā€“ most Catholics will fess up to this today. However, Iā€™ve watched Piper preside over a symposium regarding the killing of Michel de Servetus in Geneva by burning over green wood. Whatever can be said in mitigation of Calvin today ā€“ and much can be said ā€“ I found it very distasteful to see him simply exonerated and for one of the speakers make the joke ā€˜Michel de Servetus was a very bad man and he got burned a the stake; end of story. Next questionā€™, and there was much laughter from the audience and from John Piper as a response. These guys are not serious about coming to terms with their history. I cannot respect this. I simply cannot.