Posted on 07/20/2015 9:52:09 AM PDT by DWW1990
Sorry, but Jesus didn’t forgive them, he asked God to sometime in the future. That is not the same.
Why didn’t Jesus say that both of the men that hung on crosses with Him would be in Heaven that very day, if he instantly forgave the second of his unrepentant impertinence?
As I keep saying, the very connotation of forgiveness is that it is a reciprocal action that is proceeded by another action.
What you are in fact saying is that I can accept your apology for being totally wrong on this subject, even though you haven’t offered me any such apology. That is quite different than having the capacity and in fact obligation to accept any forthcoming apology, which is the only biblical guidance I see in scripture.
There is a difference between carrying no ill will or malice toward someone and the act of forgiveness.
You cannot accept an apology that is not given.
I can feel sorry for someone that has done wrong without forgiving them. I can really, really pray that they change their ways and find forgiveness.
But if forgiveness is simply unconditional amnesty, then it really has no value. In fact, I think that offering forgiveness to people that do not desire it is presumptuous at best and sinful at worst, a form of self-aggrandizement.
In every instance where forgiveness is at issue someone has to pay the price.
Please refer back the parable spoken by Jesus in Matthew 18
...There was a debt that was unpayable
...the debtor wasn’t even aware of how GREAT the debt he owed.
Even though the debt is monetary in the parable, the things owed were far greater than the money. Neither servant was ABLE to pay the debt. Additionally the further debts owed are implied...trust is damaged, relationship is damaged, fellowship is damaged. and SOMEONE has to pay the price for this damage.
In EVERY instance the one forgiving pays the real price. God forgives our sins because Jesus paid the price. We are not forgiven because we repented. By His stripes we are healed. He paid
Repent, as defined in the NT word is “to turn around in the opposite direction”. The repenting doesn’t forgive anything, or unlock forgiveness. Repenting is the change in attitude, perspective, or behavior. The one who forgives ALWAYS pays the price.
Forgiveness…
“The action of releasing another from the obligations, debt and damages they caused to you and choosing to never hold it against them again.”
CHOOSING to never bring it up to them never bring it up to others never bring it up to yourself. ...this is forgiveness.
We are forgiven because Jesus paid the price. Not because we repented (changed) ...not because we “confessed” (the Gk word means “to agree with”) Forgiveness is an action, not a feeling. ...maybe this is where the confusion lays.
A story... Someone I loved dearly severely violated my love and trust through infidelity. The personal damage was severe in many ways, including loss of friends, loss of family, loss of money, loss of trust. loss of ability to trust like this again.
To the casual observer, all she need to do was repent of her actions and then I could forgive her? Not so fast though…
She owes me a debt far and beyond what she will ever be aware of. She owes me a debt that she can never repay. The damages caused to me are simply beyond her comprehension. It is I who must pay this debt.
It is I who pay the full price she owes me, by choosing to release her from the debt she can’t even comprehend nor ever possibly repay, or ever “;make right” And I do pay this price. I pay it every time I choose to not mention it. (I sadly only mention it for your edification now) I pay it every time my trust wavers in another human, but chose to not hold her actions as the standard by which others are measured.
And now the rest of the story...
Matt 18:21-35 ends by telling us happens when wedon’t forgive...
”Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you”;
34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
35 :;This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart”.
Notice who went to prison... The one who didn’t forgive.
The truth is that when we do not forgive, we are in a prison of self-torture and anger. All the while, the one who offended us roams free in the world, oblivious to the prison we are in and the torture we endure in our self-righteous anger.
Again, I pray you are blessed.
Although Jesus used financial debt in parables, the presumption in them was that the person in debt really, really wanted to be free of that debt. You twist the parable quite a bit to presume that the said debtors wanted remain in debt.
And again, those parables addressed capacity to forgive, not obligation to forgive. Of course there are a multitude of reasons why forgiveness of debt and forgiveness of transgressions are not the same thing, but if you insist that they are, then I do hope that you've never sent anyone a bill or expected payment for your labors, as those would be things that by your logic, you should have immediately forgiven.
“Sorry, but Jesus didn’t forgive them, he asked God to sometime in the future. That is not the same.”
So, you contend that Jesus was asking the Father to do something that Jesus Himself refused to do? That would seem to contradict John 5:19: “... the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”
I submit, on the contrary, the only interpretation that is consistent what we know of Jesus, is to take the fact that He asked the Father to forgive as direct evidence that Jesus had already forgiven them.
“Why didn’t Jesus say that both of the men that hung on crosses with Him would be in Heaven that very day, if he instantly forgave the second of his unrepentant impertinence?”
You’re confusing personal forgiveness with other matters again. If either of the men had personally done some wrong to Jesus, then that would be something Jesus could choose to forgive as a personal matter, but that isn’t the case with either of those men.
“As I keep saying, the very connotation of forgiveness is that it is a reciprocal action that is proceeded by another action.”
But it isn’t. There is no reciprocation required at all. If I forgive a debt that is owed to me, absolutely no action is required of the debtor, and so it is with our spiritual debts as well.
“What you are in fact saying is that I can accept your apology for being totally wrong on this subject, even though you haven’t offered me any such apology.”
No, I am not saying that. I am saying you can forgive someone without them asking for an apology, and that forgiveness is not the same thing as accepting an apology.
15 “If your brother or sister sins,go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Now in the portions of Matthew 18 you quoted, note that the servant and the servant's fellow servant both asked for forgiveness. The issue in those passages was to demonstrate the need to ACCEPT that desire and in doing so forgive. The issue of seeking forgiveness as a precursor to being forgiven (or in the bad example, not forgiven) is rather prominent in the parable.
Yes, Christians should forgive and be ready to do so, but forgiveness is an acceptance, and there must be something to accept.
As Jesus was speaking in the present about a future action, and God forgives sins, Jesus wasn't refusing to do it, He couldn't do it, because no desire for forgiveness yet existed. Jesus could not accept what wasn't being offered and asked God His Father to accept it, should it be offered in the future. If Jesus could have accepted and forgiven them He would have, as He did with the thief on the Cross.
There is no biblical basis for the assertion that Jesus forgave in separate capacities.
“The issue in those passages was to demonstrate the need to ACCEPT that desire and in doing so forgive. The issue of seeking forgiveness as a precursor to being forgiven (or in the bad example, not forgiven) is rather prominent in the parable.
Yes, Christians should forgive and be ready to do so, but forgiveness is an acceptance, and there must be something to accept.”
“The issue in those passages was to demonstrate the need to ACCEPT that desire and in doing so forgive”
I disagree with your assumption.
The issue is th heart of Peter’s question.Nowhere in the Bible do ai see the forgiveness is “acceptance”. God doens’t “accept” our sin.
Rather, He CHOOSES not to hold us to accout for it due to His sin paying the prce for us
So Christianity is a sham? All sins are forgiven the moment they occur and no repentance is necessary? We'll all go to Heaven fully forgiven, no matter what?
Or are you stating that God holds us to a higher standard than He does Himself on the matter of forgiveness?
“Although Jesus used financial debt in parables, the presumption in them was that the person in debt really, really wanted to be free of that debt.”
Not simply in parables. Sin is referred to in the Bible as a quite literal debt that we owe to God. How else would we be able to talk about Christ’s blood ransoming us if we did not have that concept of a debt firmly in place already?
“You twist the parable quite a bit to presume that the said debtors wanted remain in debt.”
I’m not saying one way or the other what the debtors want, because it’s immaterial. I can forgive a debt whether the debtor wants me to or not, so it doesn’t matter what they want. If I do not have to wait for them to ask, then I have the prerogative.
“And again, those parables addressed capacity to forgive, not obligation to forgive.”
No, but other passages address our obligation to forgive, and none of them qualify it by saying we are only obligated to forgive those who ask forgiveness.
“Of course there are a multitude of reasons why forgiveness of debt and forgiveness of transgressions are not the same thing...”
Of course they are not exactly the same, but in terms of the mechanics of forgiveness, they are identical. Since we are talking only about the mechanics of forgiveness, then focusing on the other differences is just a red herring argument.
That's twisting things a bit. God doesn't accept our sin, He accepts our apology for it. And the Bible is start to finish about offerings and acceptance of those offerings. How did you miss that? In the beginning sacrifices are offered as atonement and in the end prayers asking for forgiveness are offered, as in "Forgive us our sins..."
Why does God remove His favor from men like David until they seek atonement? He does so because that is the prerequisite by which His favor (forgiveness) is given.
“So Christianity is a sham? All sins are forgiven the moment they occur and no repentance is necessary? We’ll all go to Heaven fully forgiven, no matter what?”
No. However, if God wanted to forgive all of our sins, if that was His will, I’m sure that He could do it without waiting for any action on our part.
“Or are you stating that God holds us to a higher standard than He does Himself on the matter of forgiveness?”
No, it’s incorrect to make such direct comparisons between man and God. That is a theological error, because you would anthropomorphizing God in order to do it.
“There is no biblical basis for the assertion that Jesus forgave in separate capacities.”
Jesus was a man, and every man forgives in a different capacity from how God forgives. If you sin against me, I can forgive you for the harm you did to me, but I cannot forgive you for trespassing against God’s law. And yes, there is Biblical basis for this assertion in regards to Jesus, because Jesus spoke the Lord’s Prayer as an example to us, which contains the following, explicitly speaking of personal forgiveness:
“Lord, forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
Jesus spoke those words, showing that Jesus also recognized and practiced the two separate forms of forgiveness, the public (the Lord forgiving us) and the private (we ourselves forgiving others).
“... forgiveness is one of the works... Hate to mention that dirty word works which has nothing to do with religious rituals which has given works a bad name”
Well said - forgiveness is an example of a work. This is exactly what a work is.
Works need not have a bad name for any Christian because the concept that you stated above is the interpretation that all Christians give to works - a ritual is not considered a “work”.
This conversation is now circular.
While I wish you the very best, I must leave you with Proverbs 18:2
Blessings to you
Thank you! I agree. My own flesh may revolt, but my spirit seems to know the righteous path in spite of myself. I must forgive. I don’t find it that difficult.
Maybe I am wrong, but I see forgiveness in certain circumstances as not every time meaning I must then give occasion for the offender to continue sinning against me. Removing one’s self from within further reach of an offender is not a foolish thing, though he goes on his way with my blessing of forgiveness, just not my overt friendship.
It is different of course for different relationships. We cheerfully forgive spouses and children with regularity.
“As Jesus was speaking in the present about a future action, and God forgives sins, Jesus wasn’t refusing to do it, He couldn’t do it, because no desire for forgiveness yet existed.”
You keep hinging your arguments on the assertion that forgiveness requires a prior request. So, a single example of forgiveness without a request from the Bible should serve to show you the flaw in those arguments. I offer the example of the woman who bathed Christ’s feet in Luke chapter 7. He tells her, in verse 48 “... Thy sins are forgiven.” Yet, she never asked Jesus for forgiveness.
According to your argument, it would have been impossible for Jesus to forgive her, yet we know that He did, so the flaw can only lie with your argument.
Jesus spoke those words, showing that Jesus also recognized and practiced the two separate forms of forgiveness, the public (the Lord forgiving us) and the private (we ourselves forgiving others).
You are bit all over the place, stating we should be Godly where its convenient and then that we shouldn't be Godly, when it not convenient to your argument.
In the Lord's prayer, Jesus was either a sinner or He was giving an example of how to pray to those present. I'll go with the latter, and also state that He was providing an example on forgiveness. The "forgive us, as we forgive those trespass against us" is as direct a comparison as you can get to God's forgiveness vs. our own. Jesus is literally saying, give us Your forgiveness in the exact same manner that we provide our forgiveness to others. There is absolutely no biblical support for believing that the methodology of forgiveness is different. Only the magnitude is different.
I want God to forgive me when I am truly sorry for a sin and ask Him to forgive me. And that is the standard by which He wants me to forgive others. The only other way to read the Lord's prayer is to assume that God has given me freelance option to create new rule by which He must abide, e.g. I forgive people after they hop around three times on one foot every year, therefore, if I hop around three times on one foot.... No, I must abide by God's standard of forgiveness, not vice versa.
Although you can make angel and pin arguments about what God is capable of doing, should He so choose, it is a pointless tactic predicated on the notion that the nature of God is changeable, that at one moment He is the God of Abraham and in the next He could be a giant humorous, blue genie. But the truth is that the God of Abraham is not subject to change, so its a moot point. God forgives sin after forgiveness is sought, therefore THAT is the law. To start saying "well if God wanted to" is silly and brings into question the fundamental nature of our covenant with Him.
That's quite a leap. I always presumed that she was in a state of remorse and repentance for her sins, she was certainly humbling herself greatly, I'm not sure what other demonstration of that you would require.
Jesus demonstrated that being in state of remorse, humility, and repentance was enough for her to be forgiven and that she did not have to offer an animal sacrifice at the Temple for that to happen. There is also the matter of breaching Jewish social norms. The entire episode served to show the Disciples that this woman, whatever her sins, was a new person after forgiveness, and to be treated as such. This was quite different from current practice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.