True Forgiveness

Post by **_Rick_C** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:08 am

Paidion wrote:It doesn't make sense to look up an English word in an English dictionary, and assume that that was the Biblical meaning.

That's what the article pointed out, etc.

Anyway, I can't get those "umlauted vowels" to work (whatever those are).
I need a dictionary to find out, jk

Post by **_Homer** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:42 am

Paidion,

You wrote:

When used in the sense of forgiving a person's wrongdoing, one "leaves behind" the wrongdoing. It is never held against the person again. Relations with the person are just as if they had never done it.

What you are saying, unless I misunderstand you, is that in true forgiveness, a person will "trust" the forgiven person exactly as before the offense. However, to trust someone means a confidence that they will act in a certain way. It essentially means to have faith in the other person.
If this is correct, how does one trust (have faith in) the person who has a demonstrated past failure, perhaps repeatedly? Is not faith, in the Christian sense, based on fact? Facts are basically things that have been done, that which has happened.

The person who has failed repeatedly leaves the forgiving party precious little in the way of facts to base trust upon. It takes time to demonstrate that one is truly changed, that repentance is real.

Not far from here a Pastor at a fairly large church was caught, in his office, looking at porn on the internet. Those in authority in the church gave him a six month time out for rehab. Half the congregation left because of him being allowed to return as though nothing happened. Were they wrong according to your position? Should he have been restored to his former position after such a short time, or ever? Why not if he is forgiven as you say? Or what about being "above reproach? Does being above reproach come immediately upon repentance?

Post by **_Rick_C** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:07 am

Homer,

Do you know if this pastor went to a "12 Steps" or a Christian type of rehab? (I know it's off-topic but my cousin's son has been offered Teen Challenge for alcoholism...and I could get him some 12 Step stuff...though I don't especially like or want to, as AA is not a Christian organization. I can handle the differences, myself, but it's a tough call. I'd rather see him go to AA than die). Sorry if this disrupted the thread: Keep going, Thanks, Rick

Post by **__id_1679** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:37 am

Hello Paidion,

Quote:

"I understand the word “justice” as a synonym for “fairness”. Sometimes correction is a necessary element of justice, and you might be using “justice” in that sense. But if a person has truly repented, he does not require correction, for he has already been corrected. However, if you mean he “ought to be punished” because he “deserves” the punishment for what he has done [C.S. Lewis’s theory of punishment], I can’t go along with that. I do not believe that God punishes in that way, and neither should we. "

I am not sure your belief covers every circumstance. The exercise of "justice" in the bible seems less about a corrective measure and more about a specific removal of evil from among the believing community. A case in point would be a brother who commits murder. He may truly repent of his deeds. He may not lose his salvation, but may suffer loss of physical life for his "sin that has lead to death". I Jn 5:16-17. Also Paul's
handling of the case about the man "having his fathers wife"; he was put out of the congregation, handed over to Satan for the "desruction of his flesh", etc. I Cor 5,; then restored to fellowship after he was "punished" by the congregation; II Cor 2. (for what he did). He was forgiven after he was punished.
Also as believers in Christ, we all still die (physically) as a result of our sins. There is nothing "corrective" about it IMO. It is the just punishment
of a holy God "visiting our iniquities" upon us, isn't it ?

Peace in Him,
Bob

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:07 am

What you are saying, unless I misunderstand you, is that in true forgiveness, a person will "trust" the forgiven person exactly as before the offense. However, to trust someone means a confidence that they will act in a certain way. It essentially means to have faith in the other person.
If this is correct, how does one trust (have faith in) the person who has a demonstrated past failure, perhaps repeatedly? Is not faith, in the Christian sense, based on fact? Facts are basically things that have been done, that which has happened.

Homer, I agree with you that a person who has forgiven the repeat offender would not and should not trust him.

If a person claims to have repented but continues with the specific failure, then I cannot truly forgive him until he "bears fruit worthy of repentance" as John the baptizer put it.

Howerve, if I have already forgiven him because I thought he had truly repented (changed his mind and heart concerning his sin, turned from it and abhorred it), then I will now probably forgive my forgiveness (that is, leave it behind or let it go). I will be restored to my previous position of not trusting the person.

Bob, you have raised matters that need to be answered. I intend to do so. I will need some time.

Post by **__id_1679** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:03 am

Brothers,

I cannot think of a more "weighty" subject in all God's Word than our understanding of what "true forgiveness" means for us. Through this discussion, I have to admit my own ignorance. I have not deeply pondered what Jesus told Peter in answer to his question; "how many times must I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times"? Matt 18 21-22; and that our forgivness of others is tied to our God forgiving us;, Matt. 6:14-15. The implications are staggering! I "tremble" at the notion of getting this wrong. My salvation in Christ appears to be at stake. If I withold forgivness from my brother for whom Christ died, I am in danger of "eternal torment" at the hands of a Holy Judge. I pray the Lord will truly lead us here. May we tread this issue with care.

In Christ our Hope,
Bob

Post by **_Homer** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:07 pm

Bob,

I agree. As J. W. McGarvey commented, there is nothing Jesus said, nothing in scripture, more plainly stated than that we must forgive others or we will not be forgiven. Arguments about Calvinism pale in comparison to the need "to go and learn what this (forgiveness) means", and to practice what it means.

May God grant us to know and do.

Post by **_Michelle** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:27 pm

Bob and Homer,

I agree! While this topic has been going on, another asked if we've mixed up the milk and the meat. In my opinion, this is one of the meaty matters. I'm so glad that everyone who has participated in this discussion has done so respectfully and thoughtfully. You've given me a lot to think about the past couple of weeks.

Sisters need to think about this too,
Michelle

Post by **_Rick_C** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:52 pm

Hi Michelle,

I agree that for us today, in our Western culture, understanding what biblical forgiveness is, is a "meat" topic (see Romanticism, (Secular) Existentialism, and, especially, Situational Ethics).

But when the Bible was written -- to the people of the Bible -- in their Oriental culture and setting; I don't think they had much, if ANY, trouble understanding what (biblical) forgiveness is back then....

Why it's important to understand the biblical worldview (theirs and ours).

They had questions about how often (how many times) and wondered who in particular they were required to forgive. But they knew what forgiveness is (and sometimes we really don't...I know I didn't till I really studied the Bible on it).

One thing about forgiveness is: sometimes it takes time as it always requires human interaction....
Rick

Post by **_Michelle** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:25 pm

I agree, Rick, that we need to understand what forgiveness meant to the original hearers/readers of the scripture to come to a full understanding of what is required of us. However, the wording of the warnings and the seeming absurdity of Peter's question(s)(?), makes it seem that it was a very important concept even for those early believers to get, and that the concept was apparently one which could be easily misunderstood, even then.

I guess it's valuable to note how certain words are used in certain places in the Bible and so forth, but I'm more interested in knowing what Jesus' teachings mean to a follower of Christ, like, say, me. I think that's why the most thought-provoking post, for me, has been when Paidion reworked the believers' acceptance of Saul/Paul into their homes and lives. I want to know what forgiveness is like, not just a definition.

If that sounds anti-intellectual, I didn't mean it that way. I really enjoy looking at etymology and thinking about the complexity of languages and the difficulties of translation. But...I need it to make a difference in my life.

The reason I referenced the "milk and meat" thread is that I believe there is a danger of serving "milk" in more than one way. As Bob said, forgiveness seems to be a big deal, yet I can't remember very many sermons about it. The ones that do come to mind seemed to be Dr. Philish; more concerned that you avoid the toxic nature of hanging on to your hurt, anger, and resentment which lead to ulcers and headaches and whatever else. I don't think I've really heard much what forgiveness really means and how it impacts the kingdom and the individuals spiritually. I wish that someone had done the background that you, Rick, have provided earlier in this thread for me at some point, that might have helped my understanding. But, there's also a danger of getting so far into what the word means, "isn't that interesting that sometimes it has to do with 'leaving'," etc., that the application, the kingdom aspect, is once again overlooked.

Anyway, I hope we carry on with this discussion. I'm loving it.