The Evangelical Universalist Forum

TRUE FORGIVENESS

Theology Biblical Theology
#86

490 times a day! Wow! What translation are you using? The New Multiplicative Version? :wink:

This is what I read:
"…and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” (Luke 17:4 ESV)

However, I am sure you are thinking of the following text, and that your mind somehow integrated it with the text in Luke:

Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven. (Matthew 18:21,22 ESV)

But Jesus doesn’t indicate that those 490 times occur in a single day. Besides, this is probably a figurative way of saying that one should forgive a person as often as he truly repents. Hyperbole.

#87

Yeh. Go ahead and roll your eyes, Davo. There’s no conflict whatever between Paul’s statements and my own. I have upheld the concept of true forgiveness of wrongdoing as a response to repentance as Jesus taught, and Paul never contradicted Jesus’ teachings.

You have often emphasized the importance of context, Davo, and I fully agree that context is a key to understanding statements of any kind, including those made by people in our present day. In quoting the verse you quoted above, one should at least quote the rest of the sentence (vs 14):

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

As you have so clearly indicated, “trespasses” in this context is “παραπτωμα”, a word which, in its plural form, I have translated as “blunders”.
But in this context, the word may refer to “trespasses” in the usual sense. For we (Paul and both Jews and Gentiles) are forgiven “by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.” The people to whom he was writing, were uncircumcised Gentiles. They didn’t know how to keep the Mosaic law as some Jewish Christians thought they should. They may have tried—blundering around, but failed. Paul is showing that under the new order in Christ, they are under no obligation to keep the Mosaic law; Jesus’ disciples are circumcised in heart. This is true, not only for Gentiles, but for Jews, also, who have become disciples of the Anointed One, and are now no longer under the Mosaic law but under the law of Christ (the Anointed One).

The “legal demands” of the law required punishment for non-conformity, even if unintentional. But under the new order this conformity is no longer required. So God “cancels the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.” There is absolutely no obligation under the new order to keep the Mosaic law, either for Jews or Gentiles. Jesus “set aside” these legal demands “nailing it to the cross”, a figure of speech to indicate that under the new order, there was no obligation to keep them. In this way they were “forgiven”, that is “set free” from these “legal demands.” Paul said (vs 16) Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath."

In a situation like this, I can now see how you, Davo, with your understanding, can believe that “forgiveness” means “deliverance.” In this case, Christians are “delivered” from the obligation to fulfill the legal demands of the Mosaic law.

#88

Paidion wrote:

I really don’t want to get back into this debate but…
The problem is Don, you are holding that forgiveness without repentance as an absolute. I personally feel sorry for you. I myself see the grace and mercy of our one and only God as an absolute and worthy of our worship. Your (maybe anal?) responses have shown where your head is at.

I just hope that those who are reading these threads are understanding that you are not the guru that you pretend to be, and that there are other objective(and positive) possibilities to scriptural understanding.

We have a God that has totally loved us beside our faults, sins, worries, misguided steps etc… He wants us to know who He is and to know His love for us.

Love will never fail, and God is Love.

#89

… but you want to get in your share of personal attacks.

If you had read my most recent post thoroughly, you would see that I had learned something by closely examining the text that Davo quoted.
Like most people, I can learn best when people respectfully express their disagreement and justify it with scripture. It is difficult to learn while being attacked. Probably if I were humble enough, I still could, and not retaliate in kind. But I have a ways to go in that regard.

Pilgrim’s post was like a breath of fresh air, and the tenor of it helped me to consider the point he was making and appreciate it.

I am not sure why you said the above. Do you think these statements are contrary to my understanding? They exactly express my own belief.

I am a seeker after truth and reality. I post to this forum for one basic reason—in the hope that we can all learn more by sharing our thoughts. I have no idea why you are stating that I pretend to be a guru. There is no basis for such an idea. If you are trying to express hatred, just go ahead and express it, rather than use this convoluted accusation.

#90

Don said

No not personal attacks, but just my few cents worth. This is what a forum is about. I have no reason to personally attack you. I have never met you. I have tried in this very forum to tell you I love you and though we disagree, I am fine with it. You continually mock the redemptive work of Christ’s forgiveness of sin by placing a necessary need for repentance. Simple as that. All of your contortions may be fine for others, but brother, at the end of the day, I believe forgiveness is deliverance without repentance. :open_mouth:

I said: We have a God that has totally loved us beside our faults, sins, worries, misguided steps etc… He wants us to know who He is and to know His love for us. Love will never fail, and God is Love.

You said: I am not sure why you said the above. Do you think these statements are contrary to my understanding? They exactly express my own belief.

You are continually mixing it up. You make it hard…

#91

:laughing: :laughing: You crack me up Don… seriously!! Apart from maybe flipping a coin, by what means do you make these determinations of convenience in deciding between your arbitrary blunders and Paul’s trespasses/transgressions — like on WHAT BASIS does your shifting sand of “the word may refer to” stand? Unbelievable… and yes, rolling eyes! :unamused:

Words are words Don and I have NOT taken you nor Paul out of context…

Logic and common sense dictates that your rendition of παράπτωμα equating to an unintentional blunder of which there is no deliverance strains the gnat and stretches credulity, i.e., it is in error and false; and the rest of your post above did naught to resolve this.

Time to back up Don…

In objection to my presenting Eph 1:7 & Col 1:14 as Scriptural evidence that God’s forgiveness DOES indeed extend to and covers BOTH “sins” AND “trespasses/transgressions” that is, they are on the SAME level or plane, and this irrespective of repentance — such is NOT a factor in either text, period. You have sought to downplay and minimise this in a vain attempt to negate such BECAUSE it cuts right across your premise that… forgiveness does not apply to παράπτωμα because it is but a mere unintentional misdemeanour for which, as you declare… no forgiveness is needed — THIS the likes of Eph 1:7 Col 1:14 shows to be patently false! You cannot just get around this nor cavalierly wave it away.

Don… that I vociferously disagree with you on some issues does not equate to an “attack” — you’re sounding more like Eusebius who used to complain the same when some of his ideas were challenged.

#92

The point I was making remains the same, despite my misquote. But kudos to you for continuing to divert the substance of the discussion into minutae. Citing hyperbole in this case is a cop -out. 7 times 70 is 490 and and whether in a day or a month or a year, it doesnt change the substance of what I was saying one iota.

Forgiveness can be extended regardless of the state of the forgiven, and the extension of forgiveness is the source of deliverance. Repentance provides full access to the benefits that are already available because of forgiveness, grace, mercy.

#93

Eaglesway said:

Yepper :smiley:

#94

I definitely agree with maintenance and eaglesway on this topic. But more than that, I am confused as to why Paidion wants to make a huge distinction? If I didn’t know better, I would think it had to do with his desire NOT to forgive. But, I know Paidion and I don’t believe that is the case at all, which makes me question: Why draw the line in the sand with something so trivial? I say trivial because Paidion maintains it is his duty to be kind and let go of of the anger/hatred of the offender. Then, tell me, what is your hangup? Whether you call that forgiveness or not is of NO consequence, because the end result is the same. Extending grace and kindness to those with faults… And, if you really step back to think about it, who here does never offend? We offend in many ways and sometimes we don’t even KNOW we offended people. Do pray tell, if I run into someone no the street, accidentally offend him without knowing and never meet him again. Am I now unforgiven? What kind of a strange world would that be if every offense could only be forgiven by sniveling our way to the offended? This seems to be a kind of legalism.

#95

Does everyone anyone recall a time when a friend offended you? Then you decided instead to get him back with either the silent treatment, or saying something rude or whatever it was? Maybe you did it in a way that the other person didn’t even really perceive. But, that person then apologizes for what they did to you and you, instinctively apologize back? Why? Because you knew that you did wrong yourself. You held it over him. And so both so both acknowledge wrongdoing.

I suspect that most feuds in a friendship go quite a bit like this -> Action - Reaction -> Reaction -> Reaction, etc… While someone ‘started’ it, it is perpetuated by the lack of forgiveness of the offended. Hence, I think it is very practical that forgiveness is mandatory if we are going to restore the friendship. I think Jesus is merely being practical when he addresses this and isn’t trying to write an equation like Paidion is turning it into.

#96

But more than that, I am confused as to why Paidion wants to make a huge distinction? If I didn’t know better, I would think it had to do with his desire NOT to forgive.

I’ve seen Paidion argue like this on another forum about the same topic and i think he has strong beliefs about a couple of things. He believes that Christ’s death delivers us from sin and God’s enabling grace helps us continue to be righteous. But the kicker is that Paidion thinks unconditional forgiveness either contradicts or undercuts this vision of salvation. Just my opinion from observation though.

#97

What is, at bottom, the one basic bone of contention here? Can it be put simply by someone, please?
Thanks

#98

What is, at bottom, the one basic bone of contention here? Can it be put simply by someone, please?
Thanks

Does forgiveness require repentance from the offender or can it be unconditional?

#99

Thanks Steve.
For a rather innocuous question, there seem to be earth-shaking consequences hanging on the answer.
If you could kinda simply lay out what is at stake here?
Thanks

#100

Thanks Steve.
For a rather innocuous question, there seem to be earth-shaking consequences hanging on the answer.
If you could kinda simply lay out what is at stake here?
Thanks

I think it’s about God’s character and whether his love and grace is unconditional or conditional. If it’s conditional then it’s limited and what are the ramifications but if it’s unconditional then what is it worth if it’s for free and doesn’t require a change of behavior?
I’m sure others can add to this.

#101

The bottom line—the basic bone, Dave, is that “forgiving” an unrepentant person sends him the message that what he did was acceptable, and that he is free to repeat his offense as often as he wishes—whether he is a murderer, a rapist and/or a torture or little girls, etc.

The position I hold that repentance (a change of mind and heart) is required in order to grant true forgiveness of wrongdoing was inspired by Denis Prager’s article in the Reader’s Digest. I think it was the March issue in 1998. His article was entitled “When Forgiveness Is a Sin.”

After an extensive search I think I may have found that article or one that is very similar. Please check out the following site:

lukeford.net/Dennis/indexp29.html

Here’s another article about that article (or perhaps it’s about a similar article) by Prager, that you might find well worth pondering:

str.org/articles/the-sin-of-forgiveness#.WS81rdy1vAU

#102

I’d add that this is really more a case of true repentance (something Jesus DID speak to Lk 3:8 et al), BUT that’s a different kettle of fish.

IF God’s forgiveness is NOT unilaterally inclusive and embracing of humanity in toto, BUT rather… dependent fully upon an individual’s actions to be true THEN none can have peace of heart/mind as to the grace of God because each repetitious repentance for each repetitious infraction draws into question the efficacy of God’s forgiveness thus cheapening forgiveness and making IT reliant on human behaviouralism for IT to be true and efficacious — THAT is the cart before the horse.

IF one takes note of this OT principle it can be seen that Israel’s position was one of being redeemed, i.e., having been FORGIVEN her transgressions/trespasses/blunders… as a result she was called to RETURN or turn again to Yahweh. Thus repentance was possible BECAUSE OF the pre-existing condition set and established by God… their actions (behaviour reflecting repentance) being ENABLED by divine grace.

#103

Isa 44:22 I have blotted out, like a thick cloud, your transgressions, and like a cloud, your sins. Return to Me, for I have redeemed you.”

Yes Paul said it’s the goodness of God that leads men to repentance.Rom 2.4

#104

I agree with those articles that it is quite wrong of me to forgive someone who has wronged a third party. Who am I to offer forgiveness when it is not I who has been wronged? But I don’t think the articles dealt sufficiently with the power/consequence of forgiveness for the one who is doing the forgiving.
Much has been said about the recipient of the forgiveness but what about the donor? If I have been wronged and I do not forgive, then I carry an albatross around my own neck. But if I can forgive, then I find freedom. Isn’t this a spiritual truth we learn as Children of our heavenly Father and doesn’t it point towards unconditional forgiveness?

#105

Indeed!!