The Evangelical Universalist Forum

TRUE FORGIVENESS

Theology Biblical Theology
#64

Well taking into account my pantelist perspective… when you understand the absolute pinnacle Jerusalem and the Temple held in Israel’s old covenant life, that is, being the epicentre of their universe and Presence of God, then its potential doom and destruction, and one’s subsequent banishment from it, could and would be described in Paul’s terms below…

History bears witness to the fact that in the aftermath of Jerusalem’s AD70 conflagration aka ‘the Roman-Jewish Wars’ (what I understand to be John’s the lake of fire) a goodly portion of Jewish captives were actually taken back to Rome and paraded as slaves before the conquering Titus as part of his spoils of war. These captives were all still very much alive and yet, as I understand it, having had “their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” were now banished forever… permanently exiled ( = DEATH) “away from the presence of the Lord” in Jerusalem — their world lay in ruins and they were as dead-men-walking… judged and found wanting.

Nothing of their old covenant world, bar the consequences of their blasphemy (Mt 12:32; Mk 3:29), would survive into the coming new covenant age; this then equates with Jesus’ “you will die in your sins” Jn 8:24 and… “unless you repent and believe you will likewise perish” Lk 13:3-5 — thus in both cases… not knowing in life the forgiveness that was theirs. Cf Jn 3:18, 36

Further to this, I refer you back to your similar enquiry HERE.

#66

Not that I can point you to… it’s more a pantelist position. Most prêterists I’ve engaged with favour ECT so simply view the age to come as postmortem hell. And most prêterists I’ve conversed with in the past who have seen the logically inclusive ends I’ve pointed to have embraced annihilationism rather than the dreaded universalism; as they perceive my view to be, lol.

#67

FALSE. All of the texts to which your refer above depict the stronger and more frequent meaning of " ἀφεσις", that of deliverance from sin and from the power of sin. These sins are not mere blunders to be overlooked, but intentional acts from which to be delivered.

As long as a person assigns the work of the Holy Spirit to demons as did the Pharisees concerning the Spirit in Jesus casting out demons, they can never be delivered from sin. But when they repent, they can be.

All you have to do is read the account of John the Baptizer’s ministry. He NEVER said a word about forgiveness. Just go on reading. In verses 7-14, John explains to those who came to him how they must live; not how they could be forgiven [in the sense of having their sin overlooked].

EXACTLY! The word was given to all nations that they must repent and be delivered from sin.

The very purpose of Christ’s death was to be delivered from sin! “…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.” (Titus 1)

All of these passages teach the same thing—deliverance from sin. Though God overlooks blunders; He doesn’t overlook intentional sin. He has provided for us the means through the death of His beloved Son to be delivered from it.

#68

Don, with all due respect… you mentioned earlier about not being “deceived” and yet here you are introducing this notion of overlooking blunderings and making a spurious connection with the word forgiveness <ἄφεσιν> afesin, errantly claiming it (forgiveness) is a weaker translation than deliverance/release. I am maintaining ‘deliverance/release’ equates to the self-same thing AS ‘forgiveness’ AS ALL the translations of those texts given ALREADY have it. There is NO quibble amongst these translations with regards to a supposed weaker/stronger stance, that you for your own reasons have manufactured.

The forgiveness of sin as per <ἄφεσιν> afesin in ALL those texts AND the other two used in the NT, i.e., Eph 1:7 & Col 1:14 DO NOT carry your interpolated and ERRANT meaning of “blunders to be overlooked” — something you have questionably introduced into the argument; but of which anyone with an ounce of nous or shred of credibility reading along can see.

#69

Correct. ALL those texts which you offered and which I quoted do not carry the meaning of blunders overlooked. They all carry the meaning of deliverance from sin as I affirmed, as well as Colossians 1:14 to which your referred. That is also the case with MOST New Testament employment of the word “αφεσις” (this is the lexical form, not “αφεσιν”). However, Ephesians 1:7 and the other quotes to which I referred earlier DO carry the meaning of overlooking blunders. What meaning do you attach to them? Do you think that blunders are sins from which people must be delivered? If not overlooked, in what sense are blunders forgiven?

#70

…and thus deliverance = forgiveness, period!

Quibbling Don… <αφεσιν> afesin is the Greek rendering in both texts for Eph 1:7 & Col 1:14. And in BOTH texts REDEMPTION is what is secured OVER BOTH “trespasses” and “sins” thus demonstrating said forgiveness covers all, as in BOTH, and thus has NO WEAK OR SOFT OPTION you are advocating.

Your translated “overlooking blunders” from the texts = forgive transgressions. Your blunder is you are overlooking this — see above.

In what sense forgiven… in TOTALITY; and if not in totality then said forgiveness is conditional i.e., NOT TRUE FORGIVENESS!

Don… you have made a mountain out of a molehill, and in all honesty, I suspect simply to jack-up certain other doctrinal presuppositions.

#71

I am not quibbling. I have no desire to quibble. Of course, the noun appears as “αφεσιν” in these two texts since it is an accusative singular in both instances. I just thought some information would be helpful to you—that a Greek noun is usually quoted in its lexical form (the nominative singular). Apparently I was mistaken in that thought.

#72

Well ok… thanks for the information Don.

#73

Oh, so you now agree that “forgiveness” is tantamount to “deliverance”? If so, we are getting closer to a common understanding.

I am not sure to what your refer as “the above”. Anyway, you seem to think “overlooking blunders” and “forgiving transgressions” are two different activities. I say they are not. First let’s examine the Greek nouns usually translated as “transgression.” There are two distinct nouns, and they do NOT have the same meaning.

One of the nouns is “παραβασις” (parabasis). This word literally means “an overstepping” of some boundary. It means “the intentional transgression or violation of a command.” A person who does this needs to repent, and change his ways. Then the offense may be forgiven, and the relationship be restored with those whom he has offended. If his offense is against another person, he can demonstrate to that person that he has truly had a change of heart and mind about his actions by ceasing to offend. If his offense is against God, he can receive enabling grace from God to be delivered from his wrongdoing. (Titus 2:11-15). God doesn’t overlook these trespasses, but delivers offenders from them when they repent (have a change of heart and mind).

The second noun is “παραπτωμα” (paraptōma). This word literally means “a side slip” or “a fall beside someone or something.” It is unintentional; that’s why I translated the word as “blunder.” If a landowner in a countryside has “no trespassing” signs around his property, there is a great difference between someone who blunders onto his property at a place where the signs are not obvious, and someone who sees the signs, but ignores them in order to hunt deer on the man’s property. In the first case, the landowner may “forgive” the man in the weak sense of “forgive.” If the blunderer explains that he didn’t see the signs and was unsure of the boundary, the landowner may overlook the blunder, and merely say to him, “Be more careful next time” instead of taking him to court for trespassing. However, the same landowner would not overlook the deliberate trespasser. He might well file trespassing charges.

In each of the verses Eph 2:11, Matt 6:14,15, and Mark 11:25, the word is the accusative plural of “παραπτωμα” which I appropriately translated as “blunders.” A person can repent and be delivered from intentional wrongdoing. But how can a person repent of blunders? Can he say, “I am sorry for this blunder; I will never commit a blunder again!” :unamused: God delivers people from intentional wrongdoing—not from unintentional blunders.

“In totality” is not a sense of forgiveness; it is but the conjunction of two words that are meaningless—unless you explain what you mean by them.
And yes, true forgiveness is in totality, in consequence of repentance. What is there about true forgiveness in response to repentance and deliverance, and leading to restoration of relationship that makes it “not true” in your mind? I can think of no concept of forgiveness that could be any “truer”.

if the object of our discussion has been a mere molehill, then why have you so adamantly opposed such a molehill? Or is it the mountain that you have been opposing?

In your mind, what might those “doctrinal presuppositions” be?

#74

Don… “IMO” you are deliberately obfuscating. You cannot possible think I’m waxing lyrical in two opposite directions at the same time… but these two quotes of yours suggest just that. I should imagine it would also be clear to anyone reading along that you are either NOT reading my posts properly, or you are just playing fast and fancy to muddy the waters. Examples:

You say… “Oh, so you now agree that “forgiveness” is tantamount to “deliverance”?” Let me quote myself from previous posts — hence my last see above that somehow conveniently has you flummoxed…

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.

I am maintaining ‘deliverance/release’ equates to the self-same thing AS ‘forgiveness’ AS ALL the translations of those texts given ALREADY have it. There is NO quibble amongst these translations with regards to a supposed weaker/stronger stance, that you for your own reasons have manufactured.
Don… I have NOT just NOW come to “agree that “forgiveness” is tantamount to “deliverance”?” — it has been my stated position all along. You however in your zeal to prove some point have missed the wood for the trees… hence your own blunder.

It is ONLY YOU Don who is making this all meaningless by your butchering of the text… BOTH English AND Greek!

I gave you two NT examples (Eph 1:7 & Col 1:14) where redemption equates to the unilateral FORGIVENESS of God via Christ that encompasses and encapsulates BOTH “transgressions and sins” — something you keep framing as either “intentional” or “unintentional” — that claim in itself is over the top, BUT regardless… let me repeat:

Redemption equates to the unilateral FORGIVENESS of God — nothing in these texts mentions nor requires repentance for forgiveness to be effective and TRUE. God’s forgiveness is NOT dependant on man’s repentance. THAT doesn’t negate repentance, BUT where repentance IS mentioned, and I’ve previously given those texts too, there are context driven factors in play; you however have made repentance a carte blanch condition for forgiveness to be TRUE… as I have shown, that is overreach.

#75

Well, Davo, you still haven’t stated what you mean by “forgiveness without repentance” so there’s no way for me to show that it is not the case, for “forgiveness” is just a word you are using. If it has a meaning you should be able to provide that meaning.

However if “forgiveness”=“deliverance” has been your position all along, then you HAVE provided a meaning (with which I agree).
But if that is the meaning that you have recognized all along, problems arise for which you have not yet expressed solutions.

  1. From what is an unrepentant man delivered?

  2. If forgiveness of a blunder is deliverance, from what has the blunderer been delivered?

You keep posting—you keep attacking me (you seem very gifted in that regard), but you give no explanations that I can understand.

#76

From such as whatever hitherto beforehand had been held to his charge… from such he has been released, delivered and redeemed, i.e., FORGIVEN! I’d be fairly confident others reading along can see and understand this basic truth WITHOUT having to make up uncle-Tom type scenarios in a vain attempt at explaining this away.

Again Don, you can equivocate all you like, but in my initial foray into this convoluted conversation (3rd paragraph down) I answered this… you simply didn’t like the answer given and have created all manner of suspect deviations and boundaries yourself not to deal with it.

For sake of your own argument, you retranslated “transgression/s” to “blunder/s”… that was not needed, other than to prop up this weaker or stronger argument you were peddling with regards to forgiveness… I said it then and I’ll say it now — you’ve simply muddied the waters.

Let me reiterate…

Paul makes NO distinction with regards to God’s redemptive forgiveness between SINS or TRANSGRESSIONS. Both are fully dealt with and covered and nowhere is “repentance” said to be a requirement for such to be effective and true, i.e., forgiveness is an established reality which carries much grace, of which repentance can have its place in unlocking some of that blessing. Thus regardless of your grammatical interpolation, Paul makes plain from Eph 1:7 & Col 1:14 that said transgressions (unintentional blunders) have been unilaterally dealt with on the same plane as sin — it’s right there in the text i.e., I’m not making stuff up.

Sorry Don if I’ve been a little caustic or blunt in some of my answers, but someone with your apparent acumen you should be able to see this, regardless of agreeing or in your case not. Not only this… but if you have chosen to hold unforgiveness in your heart simply because you have determined that someone in your estimation has lacked repentance towards you then YOU could be in need of searching your own heart.

#77

Once again, Davo, I made no distinction between “sins” and “transgressions” when the latter was a translation of “παραβασις” (parabasis)—only when “transgressions” is a translation of “παραπτωμα” (paraptōma). I have explained that the first is a deliberate violation and the second unintentional—that the second could be correctly translated as “blunder”. Here is what I wrote about the two different nouns that have been translated as “transgressions”:

Again, a person cannot be delivered from a “παραπτωμα” (paraptōma), a blunder, because it is unintentional so that there is nothing from which to deliver him. Blunders are overlooked; intentional wrongdoing is corrected so that the sinner is delivered.

Rather than having “muddied the waters” as per your accusation, I have offered clarification. This you have rejected, and so I see no purpose in repeating myself nor in you repeating yourself. Thus, unless you offer some fresh argument that actually supports your position, I propose that we terminate this exchange.

#78

A person certainly can…

I inadvertently and unintentionally “blunder” (transgression) onto publically restricted land. The powers-that-be become furious at my offence (sin), unwitting and ignorant though I was of such a contravention until such time of my apprehension.

An offence remains an offence regardless of my ignorance, and yet when confronted with my “unintentional blunder” I apologise profusely for my “unintentional blunder” and say… “I am sorry for this blunder; I will never commit such a blunder again!” — my ACTIONS in NEVER offending in kind again will show I have repented of said “unintentional blunder”.

Your whole rationale is a sieve… will I continue filling this hole? Bottom line is… forgiveness from God sometimes involves repentance on man’s part and sometimes not; His grace is sufficient for both.

#79

Two scenarios:

  1. I’m driving along when a large spider jumps onto my face and distracts me. Whilst distracted I unintentionally kill a girl on a zebra crossing. I am sorry and feel guilt for what I have unintentionally done. Forgiveness from the child’s parents may help me.

  2. This time I am speeding (no distracting spider) and I unintentionally kill a child on a zebra crossing. The child’s parents are Christian and forgive me.

Are both of these scenarios describing “παραπτωμα” because in both cases I would imagine that forgiveness might bring some deliverance?

#80

Who you gonna believe… Paidion or Paul? :unamused:

#82

This is what happens when context is ignored… I said that in regards to Eph 1:7 & Col 1:14.

#83

Those are excellent examples, Pilgrim. I agree that in both cases your acts of killing a child would be unintentional, and therefore qualify as “παραπτωμα”. The parents may “forgive” you in the sense that they do not hold your unintentional act against you. They don’t require you to “pay” by bringing you to a court of law in order to force you to make heavy recompense. Certainly this “forgiveness” would bring some deliverance to you in the sense of delivering you from an obligation that you could never fully meet. As a consequence you might also be delivered from the emotional guilt you would probably feel in never being able to “make it up” to the parents—for you can never restore the lives of the children.

When I said, in the case of a blunder, that there is nothing from which you can be delivered, I meant that there was no WRONGDOING from which you could be delivered, since your deed was not intentional. In rethinking the matter after having read your post, I believe I went too far when I said that this kind of “forgiveness” is “overlooking the blunder.” Your blunder resulted in the death of children, and such a serious consequence would not be overlooked. Yet, the parents didn’t require you either to “pay for your mistake” or hold it against you forever. If THIS is the meaning of “forgiveness without repentance” that is being considered, then I agree that such “forgiveness without repentance” is possible and often occurs.

You can feel sorry for what you have done and express your sorrow to the parents. But sorrow is not repentance. “Repentance” is “having a change of heart and mind.” One can repent only of intentional wrong doing. And you can be delivered from the practice of intentional wrongdoing, if you repent of it.

#84

Yet Jesus says if your brother repents 490 times a day, forgive him, so “a change of heart and mind” is hard to discern and define by outward evidence. Most people would say, on about the 20th time-“You have not repented at all”, yet, our Lord presents a different, more complex possibility. So in some cases, repentance begets forgiveness. In some cases, forgiveness begets repentance. IMO, All deliverance can be traced to the forgiveness offerred by Jesus Christ on the cross.

For instance, where is the line between grace, mercy and forgiveness. These are different words, in any language, but are they different things? Or are they elements of one thing. All apsects of love certainly, and all express the imparation of love to the unworthy.

All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 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. Eph 2

But God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Ro 5:8

#85

That is the bottom line!