Poll: The Forgiveness Thread

I still think we are getting caught up in all kinds of things that do not have to do with the biblical issue of what forgiveness is and what it means.

Perhaps we need to go back and ask for definitions of forgiveness so we can understand whether or not people have an actual grasp on the theology here, or if we are simply dealing with emotional ideas.

 

The governor is not the victim so it is not for him to forgive. In the Bible God tells us to forgive those who tresspass against us.....so that is what we are commanded to do. It is a victim to offender forgiveness.

 

Pastor Larry,
Where does it say that the offenders actions are to be like ours and that they are to ask for forgiveness? It does not say that.
God says that our forgiveness is to be like His, then that means to forgive, completely.....that is statement to the victim not a statement as to what the offender must do.

 

Which is exactly what I did in post #39.

If, as PL says, it's an attitude, how do you renew an attitude - as opposed to having to renew an action? I mean, once you have an "attitude" of forgiveness, what removes that attitude so that you need to do it again? (seventy times seven??) If, however, I have forgiven a brother (an act by me, for an offense against me), and he offends me again, then there is a renewed need for another act of forgiveness by me for a new act of offense against me.

I don't equate my forgiving of another with that of Christ simply because I do not have the power, knowledge or love that Christ does; my forgiving of another is on a human to human basis for imagined or actual offenses against me or those I love - nothing spiritual other than it's what Christ has done for me in the mega range, so I feel obliged to do to another in the uni range.

I'm through with this thread, and I plan to continue to forgive as I understand it (post 39) until His return, my departure, or He shows me something different
.:godisgood:

 

The passage doesn't say anything about the man asking for forgiveness. That is the point.

You are reading into the text that the man asked for forgiveness. The text doesn't say that. The context doesn't demand it or even suggest it. You are arguing from silence and that is a losing argument.

Of course we know why they brought him. Jesus had been healing people, and they wanted their friend to be healed. They believed Jesus could heal him of being a paralytic. They didn't come to get forgiveness, they came to get the man healed.

The passage says the men who brought the paralytic had faith. It doesn't say the paralytic had faith.The paralytic is clearly distinguished from the others. The account from Mark 2 is even clearer, though the Matt account is clear.

The "faith" referred to is faith that Jesus could heal the paralytic, not that Jesus could forgive sins. The passage doesn't say the man or those that brought him to Jesus asked for forgiveness. You are reading that into the passage because it contradicts your views. In fact, from the passage in Mark, it is clear they couldn't get close enough to Jesus to ask for anything. They lowered him through the roof, hoping Jesus would heal him.

I agree with much of what you post Pastor Larry, but you are wrong on this one.

I respectfully suggest you take your own advice and accept what scripture says, without reading into the passage something that isn't there.

peace to youraying:

 

Good thing ole Carl didn't wait for the young punk to ASK for forgiveness ain't it??

 

I think the point is that the text doesn’t tell us everything that happened.

So you are saying that Christ saves people who do not repent and believe? Doesn’t that contradict everything the Bible teaches about salvation?

Do we? You talk about arguing from silence and the losing nature of it, and then do exactly that. Please tell us what conversations this man had with his friends before going. Please tell us exactly the conversation between Jesus and the man. You can’t do it.

And where does it say this? My Bible says “their faith.” It doesn’t say that the paralytic was not included there. Again, you are arguing from silence, and you are arguing against the unanimous testimony of the NT that Christ saves only those who believe and repent.

Perhaps, but it will take a better argument than what you have made here to convince me.

I think I have done that, and have pointed out where the other side has not.

If you think this man didn’t have faith, then you have to answer why Jesus saves people who do not have faith and repentance when the unanimous testimony of Scripture is that Jesus saves only those who repent and believe.

 

This will be my last here unless there are specific questions.

I didn’t say it’s an attitude. I said there is an attitude of forgiveness that we all must have, and an act of forgiveness that reconciles the relationship. The act of forgiveness apart from confession minimizes sin.

As far as renewing an attitude, anyone who has ever been hurt knows that the old things still come up, and there must be a constant renewal of the mind to live in forgiveness.

I do because it is what I am commanded to do. We make a grave moralistic mistake when we separate our forgiveness from the forgiveness of Christ, IMO.

I am not sure this is true. It is true that things will not be the same, but I am not sure why it could not be reconciled, apart from human pride and unwillingness to live God’s way. Perhaps here we are talking about different things.

Exactly.

I am not sure you could pick this up from my viewpoint and answers. I to this day have to live with a forgiving spirit towards those who have hurt me and have never apologized or confessed it. Two years ago I had the privilege of restoring a relationship that had been broken for three years. So I have been on both sides more often than I like to acknowledge. Remember what I have said from the beginning – we must have a forgiving attitude regardless of whether the person confesses or not.

Remember, I have never disputed that we are to forgive others.

If you have been wrong, then I have as well. But what you say here is not even remotely related to my point.

That is most certainly not what you hear me saying. I have never said anything about eye for eye. Come on … This whole thread started because my original post was misread, and I corrected it seven pages ago, and yet you are still misreading what I have said. It is difficult to carry on a conversation when people repeatedly refuse to read what is being said.

The whole point of forgiveness is that it isn’t eye-for-eye. It is reconciliation for the undeserving. In forgiveness, I have a claim but I refuse to exercise it. I release that claim and absorb the cost of sin into myself.

Forgiveness is a choice to treat the offender like they had never offended you. It is a commitment to refuse to bring it up to you, me, or anyone else ever again.

Thanks for the conversation all ... May we all be committed to forgiving others, just as God in Christ forgave us.

 

God told us in scripture, everything we need to know. If there were other instructions we needed then He would have told us. All we can go by is what it actually says.

 

PL: We are not talking about salvation. We are talking about forgiving one another like the Lord told us to do in the Lord's Prayer.

He did not tell us to wait until someone asked for forgiveness. He simply stated..."forgive them their trespasses".

Also He tells us that, before we partake of the Lord's Supper, if we have ought against our brother, we are to go to him and make it right. Here again, He says nothing about anyone asking for forgiveness. He simply stated "make it right" (forgive).

 

I know I said I was done. Please forgive me for continuing ...

The paralytic man was brought up and that appears to be a salvation issue. Furthermore, our salvation in Christ is the basis for our forgiveness of others (Eph 4; Col 3).

But if I am correct, "forgive them" means "when they confess." You say that he does not tell us to wait until they ask, but if I am correct, the command to forgive assumes confession to begin with. You are trying to win the issue without addressing the definitions.

So why would you assume that confession is not a part of this? Again, notice how much you are reading into the text. Perhaps the person has already confessed, or part of what you need to do is go to him and let him know he has sinned against you so that he might confess.

A doctrine of forgiveness cannot be drawn from these isolated passages but from the whole thing put together. No one passage addresses it all, and throwing out proof texts that address parts of it doesn't really help.

 

Can we just agree to disagree?

Lack of forgiveness breeds bitterness and gives Satan a foothold in my life, therefore, I forgive immediately when I am wronged. If I had to wait for some of the people to ask for forgiveness, I would be waiting forever...

Some of the offenders are not saved, others may be dead. I believe I can forgive them for MY sake, if not for theirs.


(Edited to correct what I meant to say instead of what I said. )

 

I have been unable to post on this thread for a day or so, but I wanted to clarify some of my own comments and deal with the questions I raised.

Here is the story I told:

Let me repeat the questions I asked, in reverse order.

God does not unconditionally forgive this man for murder. If God forgave unconditionally, no one would ever go to hell because everyone's sins would be forgiven. God fogives sins based upon the atonement of Jesus Christ. Those who repent and receive Christ by faith have their sins forgiven. Those who do not are sent to hell. Surely, everyone who has posted on this thread agrees with this. God's forgiveness is thus the pattern for our forgiveness.

So we come to this statement that I made:

How could I forgive this man if God has not forgiven him? I cannot. Otherwise I would be greater than God! Therefore, my forgiveness benefits this man not at all and my forgiveness certainly does not aid the family of the slain officer. Don't get me wrong. God stands ready to forgive this man. God is absolutely satisfied with the Son's offering for sin and any man who repents and puts faith in Christ is clothed in the righteousness of Christ and is cleansed from his sin. Since God stands ready to forgive, I stand ready to forgive as well. But, just as the actual transaction of forgiveness on God's part is based upon repentance, my willingness to forgive the man cannot actually be transacted unless and until he repents. And when willingness to forgive intersects with willingness to repent reconciliation is always the result: reconciliation between God and man and reconciliation between man and man.

 

What about Apostle Paul. If he never actually did the killing, he was the one who gave the orders.

BBob,

 

Sure.

I think you mean "lack of forgiveness," but what you are talking about here is a forgiving spirit, I think.

I think you have a forgiving spirit for Jesus' sake. Most of the time when I forgive, I don't get any benefit out of it. It actually hurts me because I give up my rights. But I think the gospel benefits.

 

I agree with Pastor Larry, some demonstration of repentance is required in forgiveness...

From the Scripture Jesus teaches this principle:

Matthew 18:

15 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.
16 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.
17 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.​

Now I know the word forgiveness is not used in this passage (which directly precedes the 70X7 passage) but if you have forgiven someone you don't treat that person like a "heathen" or a "publican".​

Well, we might say that "church" in this passage might simply mean "assembly" and that this is not an instruction to the New Covenant Church.​

If that is so and we disclaim this principle then we need also to throw out the 70X7 principle because it flows out of this passage.​

This principle is also taught in the NT epistles, we are to separate ourselves from sinning brethren and offer the expression of our forgiving spirit upon their repentance, welcoming them back into fellowship.​

Forgiveness-reconciliation seem so intermingled that personally, I don't believe we can have one without the other.​

There is also another condition (perhaps the most difficult of all for us) that the Lord makes concerning human-to-human forgiveness.​

Matthew 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.​

HankD​

 

I think this is a key concept in this discussion. Is there a difference in the process of forgiveness among the Christian family compared to forgiveness to outsiders?