The Evangelical Universalist Forum

TRUE FORGIVENESS

Theology Biblical Theology
#43

Don - good question, but no, I wasn’t trying to say that.
I was centered more on the idea of ‘repentance’ before God, that has been presented as either a ‘work’ to earn God’s forgiveness, or as unnecessary.

I think the “either-or” is a false dilemma. I could be wrong, but ‘in His light we see light’ - the actual experience of, not the theology of, God’s love for us in our particularity lights up the evil places, the dark corners, and the ‘turning away’ just happens as the things hidden there are exposed; the disgust for them as they are shown for what they are, and the realization that our coddling of those things has cost us much of our true life, is enough for us to let them go.

As to true forgiveness between persons - it takes more grace than I can conjure up on my own, to forget some wrongs until, that is, I really see what I have done, in my heart or outwardly, that I have need of forgiveness for. We not only live in a broken world, we have to see ourselves as part of the brokenness, indeed as one of the ‘breakers’; the other guy is in the same boat.

$.02

#44

Amen :smiley:

#45

Jesus forgave before repentance. I don’t feel like I need to define that anymore than I have already. He did it, so it was “true forgiveness”. He did not hold their trespass against them even as they were in the midst of trepass.

This does not mean they wil not have to face their iniquity and experience repentance(a broken and contrite heart), it simply demonstrates that from the forgivers point of view, the repentance of the trespasser is not always a prerequisite condition to their having been forgiven.

The words “always” and “never” are often given to express a concept that may be true in some instances, even sometimes a majority of instances, but is not necessarily absolute across all instances.

#46

In other words, you are defining “forgiveness of offenders” as “not holding offenders’ trespasses against them.” Doubtless that definition is ubiquitous, but that doesn’t make it correct. Jesus’ words still stand, “IF your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and IF he repents, forgive him.” Those words still imply that forgiveness is conditional upon repentance. If not, why did he insert the phrase “if he repents”? If forgiveness is NOT conditional upon repentance as you believe, then Jesus would have said, “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and then forgive him.”

#47

“IF your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and IF he repents, forgive him.” Those words still imply that forgiveness is conditional upon repentance. If not, why did he insert the phrase “if he repents”

Because the primary focus in this statement is not forgiveness but is repentance and the benefits of repentance. Forgiveness is actually the secondary focus in this statement as it is pointed out by Jesus to be a benefit of repentance as is also restoration of relationship which Jesus pointed out in other statements.
Forgiveness and fellowship are benefits of repentance and you are reading into this something different then what Jesus is saying IMHO.

#48

Once again we differ on what this is to mean. Some how you want to link :Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek, for God shows no partiality

With the Idea that: And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. The good work is His doing. I am perplexed :astonished: :astonished: :astonished:

#49

The good work is not ENTIRELY His doing. We must coöperate with Him, or the good work in us will not be accomplished.

Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2 Corinthians 6:1 ESV) :smiley:

#50

I am not defining forgiveness in any terms so limited as that. That is indeed one element of forgiveness tho. Also, I am not trying to limit the definition or set it in stone. My whole point has been that the statement “True forgiveness must be accompanied by repentance” is a limiting statement that does not take into account all the different elements and perspectives of forgiveness.

True forgiveness can be given before repentance occurs.

Jesus words still stand, “Father forgive them they dont know what they are doing”. So making your one verse a law for defining all aspects of forgiveness, instead of seeing it as a one verse addressing one element of forgiveness, is the wrong approach, imo.

#51

“IF your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and IF he repents, forgive him.”

One can read this as, “if your brother repent you should forgive him”

it seems you are reading

“do not forgive your brother until he repents”

But the nexr sentence reveals the intent of the whole context…

Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to say, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”…

Which, as several posts have addressed, is the goal of the teaching.

Forgiveness is the focus and repentance is the point at which I must forgive a brother who transgresses against me.

It in no way reads to limit giving forgiveness ONLY TO THE REPENTANT. It simply requires that one MUST OFFER FORGIVENESS TO THE REPENTANT.

The distinction is worth making because to elevate one verse above others concerning the same topic and limit them by it is hermenutically incorrect.

4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Certainly God forgave us before we repented. The awareness of that mercy is the source of repentance. “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them” - surely includes forgiveness before the fact.

But I’m not limiting forgiveness to this mode. It is simply one element of forgiveness- albeit a major one because ot reflects the attitude of God, who truly forgave us when we were yet sinners. Sometimes forgiveness cannot be of benefit and achieve reconciliation without repentance on the part of the transgressor. That is another element of the whole context of biblical conversation concerning forgiveness, which is a broad conversation.

#52

You say you are not limiting the concept of forgiveness to “not holding offenders’ trespasses against them.” I have asked you several times to tell us what you DO mean by “forgiveness” and you don’t seem to be able to respond to this question. You simply seem to avoid an answer by saying that forgiveness involves “a number of different elements.” If you do not KNOW what true forgiveness is, then how can you be so certain that forgiveness can be granted without repentance. Just WHAT IS IT that is granted without repentance?

I see forgiveness as a response to repentance leading to a restoration of relationship.

As for the examples you provide which purportedly indicate forgiveness without repentance, I have already explained how each one of them DOES involve repentance.

#53

I think this says it well:
youtube.com/watch?v=zV2UWyGEYwY

( for a definition start at 12:10 )

#54

So what happens when we do not cooperate with him? :astonished:

#55

Then the good work that He began in us will not be brought to completion.

#56

Sick dude :open_mouth:

#57

As always when something gets broken down to an ‘either-or’ ‘black or white’ type scenario it can become a divisive dogma aka law and inevitably gets applied carte blanch across all else, the end result being, in this case, one suffers UNTIL one repents… and thus this notion then gets carried across to postmortem in terms of God’s burning in a lake of fire (how does THAT work??). But this is smoothed over by claiming it is really God’s love and said burning is ultimately* restorative.* BUT to create that position one needs to be dogmatic on so-called “true forgiveness”—it’s an interpretation, not scripture.

The fact is forgiveness with or without repentance can be seen according to given contexts, thus both can be true… neither contradicts the other, BUT rather shows differing applications dependant again on the situation at hand. Typically this is seen in terms of God’s unilateral vertical move TOWARDS man, or, mans’ horizontal move towards man, as in the case of brother to brother… there is a difference.

The imposition of so-called “true” with regards to forgiveness seems to portray a more dogmatic stance that isn’t useful, but rather IMO muddies the water. God in Christ UNILATERALLY forgave humanity, period! No more no less. What is redemption? Answer—“the forgiveness of sins” Eph 1:7; Col 1:14 regardless of repentance.

As to the key text initiating this discussion…

Something overlooked here is your brother… wherein “if he repents” one must let go from being offended to being forgiving; THAT can be more of a challenge, and yet Jesus always pushed the boundaries for the greater good. Again… confession of sin, typically understood between brother and brother facilitates healing (Jas 5:16) of which quite naturally repentance IS a key… again CONTEXT helps clarify these things.

#58

Davo, as you understand “forgiveness” what did Christ actually do when He “UNILATERALLY forgave humanity, period!” Did He accept all people just as they are, without any necessity for change in their ways of living? For example, does God joyfully accept men who continue to torture and rape little girls with no intention or desire to change their ways? Or on the other hand does He think, “I don’t really like men doing that, but I still fully accept such men just as they are whether or not they change their behaviour”?

The apostle Paul certainly didn’t take that position. He taught that a life of “well-doing” is NECESSARY for receiving lasting (or “eternal”) life from God.

*For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by perseverance in well‑doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give lasting life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil … but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good … For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-11)*

Paul also wrote:
For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Ephesians 5: 5,6 ESV)

So I, for one, will not let anyone deceive me by telling me that repentance and change in one’s way of life is unnecessary in order to be acceptable to God.

The Greek word “αφηεσις” does not necessarily mean “forgiveness”. It often means “deliverance” or “release.” For example in Luke 4:18, Jesus quotes a passage that He applies to Himself. He said, “The spirit of the LORD is upon me … He has sent me … to proclaim αφηεσις to the captives…to send away those who have been crushed in αφηεσις.”

Did Jesus proclaim forgiveness to the captives? Did he send away the crushed ones in forgiveness? No! The captives did not need forgiveness; they need deliverance from captivity! The oppressed ones did not need forgiveness; they needed release from oppression!
No translator renders the word “αφηεσις” as “forgiveness” in THIS verse.

Similarly in Eph 1:7 and Col 1:14 “αφηεσις” may well mean “deliverance from sin” or “release from sin.” After all, that is exactly the purpose of Jesus’ death—to deliver us from the power of sin so that we might live righteous lives. Paul wrote to Titus:

[size=120]For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)[/size]

#59

Don, you’re conflating and thus confusing two separate issues… Jesus’ focus was Israel and her covenantal restoration to God, i.e., covenant renewal, aka resurrection (Ezek 37:1-14). The Father’s intention from this was the broader inclusion of humanity into his favour. Behavioural modification (the catchcry of religianity) was NOT the means of redemption, but rather a reflection of it. Humanity did NOT need to confess, repent or believe in the first Adam to be ascribed as being in him. Likewise, humanity did NOT need to confess, repent or believe in the last Adam to be ascribed as being in him; the latter was the UNILATERAL work of the Father via Christ (1Cor 15:22; 2Cor 5:19).

Now with regards to the sin condition that engulfed humanity, God through the agency of Christ forgave said guilt… by removing Israel’s sin of disobedience, whereby then the wider world became reconciled. It is not what I think BUT what Paul says…

That humanity in toto HAS been reconciled “WHEN we were enemies” (Rom 5:10) does not give a green light to “men who continue to torture and rape little girls with no intention or desire to change their ways?” no. What you are not realising is that repentance is linked with salvation BUT salvation has NAUGHT to do with escaping a supposed postmortem ‘lake of fire’ as you would have it. No, salvation (of which repentance plays its part) is all about coming into the service of God, thus are we saved to serve — NOT everyone is called into this service.

Again… such “well-doing” WAS pertinent to the saints, i.e., those called into service. In the OT (of which you are on record as holding in low esteem) Israel the nation was called/created of God to be his servant-priests… they failed continuously and as a result experienced divine wrath, UNTIL they repented and restoration came, BUT THAT was because they were ALREADY in covenant — when they broke covenant they suffered covenant sanctions BECAUSE they were in the service of God. Thus obedience brought “lasting life” — what Paul reiterates and which was from henceforth, via the Gospel, now also open to the Greeks (Rom 2:9-10).

I think you might be equivocating… IF my debt has been delivered or released it has been forgiven and NOT “necessarily” BUT definitely, period! Even so, using your “not necessarily” angle Paul STILL reads and MEANS the same, i.e., “*In Him we have redemption through His blood, the deliverance or release of sins, according to the riches of His grace *” etc. Same house different street.

Israel was captive to SIN and thereby crushed by SIN and so needed deliverance FROM SIN… and THAT came via the forgiveness of sin i.e., redemption (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14) — Jesus and Paul were on the same page.

Again Don… repentance is that which helps facilitate change and is obviously not a bad thing, but this is in relationship to acceptance in terms of godly service — that ultimately is the context of many of the texts to which you defer.

#60

Paidon, I have written at great length what I believe forgiveness is. If you want me to put it in a sound bite, for you, that will not happen, because it is too broad a subject for that. If you do not grasp what I have written so far, then it is because we just disagree.

Forgiveness can be a response to repentance. It is not always a response to repentance, and I have demonstrated that to the furthest extent I care to. IMO you have not addressed to a single one of the examples I have given that God, in Christ, has extended forgiveness to the unrepentant, and that we may do the same when we feel led to.

As far as “involving repentance” is concerned, everything God does eventually involves repentance. That has no bearing on whether or not God or man may forgive before repentance occurs, which has been my point, not to deny the need for repentance, but to qualify your too broad statement that there can be no true forgiveness without it.

True forgiveness can be extended before repentance, the benefit may not penetrate the transgressor until they repent, but then, sometimes the benefit will effect even the unrepentant one because God is not like man and wins us with kindness and benefits even before we yield to Him). But in any case, I guess there is no use beating it to death. I would rather chalk it off as an issue of crossways semantics :laughing:

IMO, the crucifixion of Christ was an act of forgiveness extended to the whole creation before the foundation of the world.

#61

Not at all!

It’s not a matter of your debt of sin being cancelled. I claim that “αφεσις” OFTEN mean “forgiveness” in the sense that I have understood and defined the word. If John forgives George for his offense against him in response to George’s repentance, the relationship has been restored. George has been delivered or released from the that alienation that has arisen between him and John. But if John has not repented, that alienation continues.

However, having said this, I do admit that “αφιημι” is sometimes used in the New Testament in a weaker sense of “forgive”—to let go of one’s ill feelings toward a person or to overlook what a person has done. I didn’t want to admit this too soon until we had properly dealt with forgiveness as a response to repentance. Here is a famous example of the weaker sense:

For if you forgive people their blunders, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your blunders. (Matthew 6:14,15)

These are blunders not sin or wrongdoing for which the person must repent. The Greek word literally means “a tripping over something (or beside something).” Sometimes a person’s blunders can get under our skin. We need to “forgive” or overlook his blunders or the Father will not overlook ours. Another example:

  • And whenever you stand praying, if you have something against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your blunders. (Mark 11:25)*

Sometimes a person’s blunders can be irritating. “How can he be so stupid?” We need to let go of these feelings and overlook people’s blunders, so that the heavenly Father may overlook our blunders. Again, blunders are not something about which one can repent or change his mind. They are blunders. They were not intentionally carried out.

So I trust, Davo, that this explains why I said that “αφεσις” doesn’t NECESSARILY mean “forgiveness” (in this weak sense). It often means “deliverance from intentional wrong doing” as a result of repentance.

#63

Yes this is true on the level playing field of brother to brother where repentance, according to Jesus, is involved… even though your subsequent examples (Mt 6:14-15; Mk 11:25) make no case for or mention of “repentance”. With regards however to humanity’s position of being reconciled to God, such is not, to use your vernacular, NECESSARILY the case specifically with repentance… as I’ve already explained in my post above.

So yep Don I get where you’re coming from with regards to how you understand <ἄφεσιν> afesin… my only contention here would be your notion of “weaker” in regards to this word as used in the texts defining forgiveness — as I’ve shown according to Eph 1:7 & Col 1:14, to which your post replied. The trouble with your “weaker” position for <ἄφεσιν> afesin is that the texts wherein it is used don’t really support your supposition and in fact completely undermine it, for example:

As you’ll see from this list Don forgiveness IS far and wide the “stronger” rendering for <ἄφεσιν> afesin… not only that, the bulk reference “repentance” towards forgiveness of sins, NOT your lesser or weaker “deliverance from intentional wrong doing” as a result of repentance. Such was full-on forgiveness and here you are arguing for a lesser and “weaker” position.

So I trust, Don, you can see what I’m saying… repentance IS often associated with forgiveness BUT forgiveness is NOT always NECESSARILY dependent upon repentance — it CAN be both.