Forgiveness FAQ

[Socrates4Jesus]

No, I don’t. Frankly, we are not that good at acting. If we are able to be patient, kind, not envious, not proud, not rude, unselfish, and not easily angered by my brother-in-law, then we have forgiven him. These are concrete assurances our forgiveness is not just a matter of words or a grudging obligation. (“God says I have to forgive you…”) They are the holy, practical, and substantive manifestations of what we profess with our mouths–of faith in action. They are the exact opposite of hypocrisy. Again, I say forgiveness is (like love) an act of the will. Because I am human, I really struggle with this. Frequent visits to our Adoration Chapel, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass are necessary. Thank God that as a Catholic I have these amazing resources.

I think that what you are calling forgiveness, i am calling acts of love that are ways to love other than forgiving. For example, being patient is not forgiveness, it is patience. Being kind is not forgiveness; it is kindness. If forgiveness is more than keeping no record of wrongs, then there is something wrong with this line of reasoning:

What is forgiveness?

(1) Forgiveness is an act of love.(2) St. Paul lists several acts of love in 1 Corinthians 13. (3) He says love is patient, kind, etc.(4) All of the acts of love he lists can be shown to someone who does not need to be forgiven, except one.(5) The only act of love he lists that cannot be shown to someone who does not need to be forgiven is to “keep no record of wrongs”.Therefore: Conclusion (A): Each of the other acts of love is not forgiveness. Rather, each is some other way of loving. andConclusion (B): The only act of love that is forgiveness is to “keep no record of wrongs”.Reason tells us that for the conclusions to be false, either one of the premises must be false, or the premises must not support the conclusions. Which of the premises (1 - 5) do you think is false, Udoc? or why do you think the premises do not support the conclusions?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Udoc:

When i have trouble seeing why someone believes something, i often ask them to give an example. Lets say you have forgiven your brother in law. He pays you and your husband a visit one day and you both tell him you have forgiven him. He says that is good, because he wants to ask a favor of you two. He has a business he wants to start and he would like you both to lend him a large sum of money. He says he will pay you back.

Do you loan the large sum of money to him? If not, then why not?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Now, one thing i haven’t told you is that they are a Charismatic order. Now, since i have joined CAF, i realise that *that puts off some Catholics (not me) and i just realised that i have not mentioned it to you before… So you may not *want me to ask him questions, and if that is the case, i will not be offended. …

I’ve been to some churches where people raise their hands above their heads as they sing to God, and others where no one’s hands get above their hips! I feel comfortable in both environments.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Well, we all had a good sleep, but winter is approaching and we are all coughing and sound like dogs barking. My beautiful mama is very, very sick with this flu thing and i pray she doesn’t get pneumonia as that could kill her as she is so frail, has lost weight and has a lung diseace - bronchiastatis in which she cannot cough up all the phlegm and it sits in the bottom of her lungs they have warned us that pneumonia will probably be the thing that kills her. She can cough for over an hour without stopping and that in turn gives her an asthma attack, and her heart beats so fast that i fear she may have a heart attack too…

I’ll be praying for the recovery of your health Matey, and for your mum to get better, too. Funny winter is approaching there, as summer is approaching here. Remember to embrace His grace!

Your mate,
Soc

 

[nerfherder]

I have had to think a great deal about forgiveness, for a lot of reasons - forgiving others as well as forgiving myself. The latter, perhaps, is what we would call having a guilt complex that needs to be weeded out by maturity and mindfulness.

I think there are four aspects to reacting positively to what we perceive as negative actions, with negative outcomes, by ourselves or by other people.

First, we can forgive completely and utterly. We can say that whatever you have done, or whatever I have done is forgiven in the true sense that Christ taught.

Or, there is another possibility. That is that we do not forgive and forget, but that we **forget the misdemeanour **in such a way that it does not eat away at our spiritual well-being. If it does, then we have to learn truly to forgive. But it is possible to forget and not forgive.

Or, thirdly, it is possible to say ‘poof! I have let you go’, just as we would blow the head off a dandelion seed fluffball. Poof! Gone! Not worth thinking about it ever having happened even. We can do that.

Or, as my canon lawyer priest explained, there is the fourth possibility of ‘just cause’. That comes into play when we - or another - judge that there is nothing to forgive because the action has been so vile, so demeaning, so disgusting, that it is not necessary to forgive, forget or poof it away. In a case like this, one may grown in strenght and sensitivity, without being eaten away inside, by understanding that the act in question was truly egregious and unforgivable.

I am not sure that Christ, who lost his temper at the moneychangers in the Temple, ever forgave and forgot, ever poofed them away. I assume that he felt there was just cause for his anger.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I have had to think a great deal about forgiveness, for a lot of reasons - forgiving others as well as forgiving myself. The latter, perhaps, is what we would call having a guilt complex that needs to be weeded out by maturity and mindfulness.

I think there are four aspects to reacting positively to what we perceive as negative actions, with negative outcomes, by ourselves or by other people.

First, we can forgive completely and utterly. We can say that whatever you have done, or whatever I have done is forgiven in the true sense that Christ taught.

Or, there is another possibility. That is that we do not forgive and forget, but that we **forget the misdemeanour **in such a way that it does not eat away at our spiritual well-being. If it does, then we have to learn truly to forgive. But it is possible to forget and not forgive.

Or, thirdly, it is possible to say ‘poof! I have let you go’, just as we would blow the head off a dandelion seed fluffball. Poof! Gone! Not worth thinking about it ever having happened even. We can do that.

Or, as my canon lawyer priest explained, there is the fourth possibility of ‘just cause’. That comes into play when we - or another - judge that there is nothing to forgive because the action has been so vile, so demeaning, so disgusting, that it is not necessary to forgive, forget or poof it away. In a case like this, one may grown in strenght and sensitivity, without being eaten away inside, by understanding that the act in question was truly egregious and unforgivable.

I am not sure that Christ, who lost his temper at the moneychangers in the Temple, ever forgave and forgot, ever poofed them away. I assume that he felt there was just cause for his anger.

Well said, Herder.

I hope you will continue to help me and others think this thing through. There was a great deal of discussion earlier about what Christ meant when He said:

“So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” (Luke 17:3-4)I believe He was speaking of the first kind of forgiveness you mentioned when you said

First, we can forgive completely and utterly. We can say that whatever you have done, or whatever I have done is forgiven in the true sense that Christ taught.For, Jesus appears to be saying that if a person who wronged you or me knows he has done wrong, then you and i should wait until he repents. Only then can we “forgive completely and utterly” as you said. Forgiving completely and utterly, of course, would include (but perhaps not be limited to) the kind of love that “keeps no record of wrongs” which is St. Paul’s way of describing forgiveness.

It might be that some passages in the Bible speak of forgiving in a lesser sense, such as you said, when we forget the misdemeanour or let the person go. Jesus’ words in Luke 17 are not one of these passages, however. His words are about conditions a person should meet before you and i keep no record of wrongs. That condition, as He said, is repentance.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… First, we can forgive completely and utterly. We can say that whatever you have done, or whatever I have done is forgiven in the true sense that Christ taught…

Do you agree, Herder, that this type of forgiveness would include two acts of love: (a) keeping no record of wrongs, and (b) trusting the person (for example, restoring a relationship)?

Do you think this type of forgiveness is possible if the person you or i want to forgive in this way refuses to repent?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

* *

Q. 11b. To forgive with thoughts and words but not deeds makes us hypocrites. So, how do you and i show, by our actions (and not just by what we think and say) that we have truly kept no record of wrongs?

Q. 12. Since forgiveness is keeping no record of wrongs, and trust requires that we do not hold wrongs against someone, is it possible to forgive a person without trusting him?
My thoughts:

The answer to question 11b is that you and i forgive a person by not holding the person’s sins against her. My dictionary defines forgive as “to grant pardon to (a person)”. It defines pardon as “to release (a person) from liability for an offense” or “to remit the penalty of (an offense)”. If a governor of a state grants a pardon to a criminal, the criminal does not receive a reduced sentence. The criminal is allowed to walk out of prison, completely free of the penalty for her crimes. If i forgive, then, i treat the person as if she had never sinned. I completely free her of the penalty (or consequences) for her sins.

The answer to question 12, then, is, "No, it is definitely impossible to keep no record of wrongs and withhold trust from a person. Trusting a person means you do not count her sins against her.

Imagine a fictional conversation between me and someone like Janet:

Janet: Forgive me, Soc.

Soc: I do forgive you, but i will not trust you.

Janet: Why not?

Soc: Because you have done me wrong! Why should i ever trust you again?

Janet: Don’t you believe that forgiveness is keeping no record of wrongs?

Soc: Yes, of course.

Janet: And are you not now keeping a record of my wrongs by holding my wrongs against me?

Soc: Yes, i suppose so.

Janet: Then, don’t be a hypocrite, my dear, deceived little man! Either say you forgive me and act like you do by trusting me, or do not trust me and honesty tell me you do not forgive me. If you trust me, then forgive me. If you do not trust me, then be sincere and tell me you do not forgive me, either.

Soc: Janet?

Janet: Yes, Soc?

Soc: Forgive me for playing the hypocrite.

Janet: I thought you’d never ask!

 

[nerfherder]

Do you agree, Herder, that this type of forgiveness would include two acts of love: (a) keeping no record of wrongs, and (b) trusting the person (for example, restoring a relationship)?

OK, for now, here is a practical example. Yesterday a guy stole my car. It was parked in my driveway. He hooked the keys off my kitchen table through the locked grill gate, fled with the keys and my car.

I have several options here and my decision to some extent depends on the context in which this event took place. (And yes, I am very very angry.)

The option I have taken is to forgive. Why? I can get another car: it was insured. I will suffer inconvenience, but police and trackers have helped.

The principal reason I have decided to forgive is that poverty in SA causes most theft. It is cold now. Unemployment is high. People have no food or blankets, many are ill with HIV, they have children but money. My car represents a fortune to its new owner. It will feed, clothe, educate and keep a family warm for a few months. I call it 'radical redistribution of wealth. It is not something that I choose to do. But it has the same effect.

I have no way of knowing whether the guy is repentant. I do know that he is a lot better off than young men who are determined not to steal, and sell newspapers etc on street corners to those driving Audis, Mercedes and BMWs. So I assume this guy, having chosen to steal, is in no way repentant. And I ask myself whether he should be. Radical redistribution of wealth.

Here is a more practical problem. I have been in an abusive relationship with a colleague and one-time beloved friend. I have tried to get closure because of the damage to both of us spiritually, mentally and professionally. He has refused: stonewalled. Where am I left? I cannot go poof!: it damaged my life too much. I cannot forget, because it ate four years of my life. But if I do not forgive, it will eat away at anything that is good in me, at my perspective on the world and other people.

I could can employ ‘just cause’: but I know I am not blameless. There were perhaps other actions I could or should have taken. But on the whole, I was right to be very angry and hurt.

That however gets me nowhere. It is a hiding to nothing. Bitterness makes a meagre feast. To right oneself, to move back to a stable and relatively happy dailiness, forgiveness was necessary. I could not know if he would, could, or did reprent. The odd thing was that ultimately I did not care.

What I finally accomplished after beating myself over the head with a croquet mallet for a long time, was to forgive. To say this has happened; this is the way I have reacted to a crisis situation; this is the way he has reacted to a crisis situation. It happened. Life is hard, and then you die. No one ever said life would be jolly. Where can one go from here but into forgiveness?

So no, I do not think that repentance is a necessary condition of forgiveness. Who are we as Christians to judge another (Judge not that ye be not judged) when we ourselves are so flawed? (Remember the log in your eye.) Who are we to expect repentance when it is sometimes so hard for us to repent when we believe that we have been right?

And for goodness sake, no, there is no point in keeping a record of grievances. Christ forgave on the cross. Forgive seven times seven, turn the other cheek, do unto others, but do not count the cost.

Do you think this type of forgiveness is possible if the person you or I want to forgive in this way refuses to repent?

You talk about trust, and you ask this question. They are both fair and tough issues. I guess the answer depends on how fair and tough we are as individuals and as Christians.

Unhappily, I think it is exceedingly hard to re-establish a sense of complete trust, even when there has been complete forgiveness in Luke’s sense.

For myself, my belief and the scriptures tell me that forgiveness is paramount if I am truly a daily Christian. On the other hand, is it possible to trust that person ever again in the same way as I might have before? For me, the answer has been generally ‘no’. The inability to trust, despite the forgiveness, is a profound and constant sorrow.

I do not have a scriptural text here, and would be grateful if anyone could supply it.

Hope this helps!

 

[nerfherder]

I think I would disagree that the element of trust is the same thing as keeping a record.

If I trust someone, that is because I have a sense of the other person’s character which I admire and even love. It may be my brother, my sister, or my spouse or friend. I give part of myself in trust to that person.

If there is a break in that trust, my perception of the character of that person is shifted, changed. I may understand that my knowledge of that person was flawed, or that it was undermined by other events, or that we have both grown in different and perhaps antithetical ways.

Broken trust is therefore not the same as record keeping. One has to do with character, the other with elephants remembering, and in truth, not forgiving. It is possible to forgive someone who has breached a trust, but to determine not to trust them again.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

OK, for now, here is a practical example. Yesterday a guy stole my car. It was parked in my driveway. He hooked the keys off my kitchen table through the locked grill gate, fled with the keys and my car. …So no, I do not think that repentance is a necessary condition of forgiveness. Who are we as Christians to judge another (Judge not that ye be not judged) when we ourselves are so flawed? (Remember the log in your eye.) Who are we to expect repentance when it is sometimes so hard for us to repent when we believe that we have been right? And for goodness sake, no, there is no point in keeping a record of grievances. Christ forgave on the cross. Forgive seven times seven, turn the other cheek, do unto others, but do not count the cost…

Herder:

Lets say you learn who stole your car. Would you call the police? If you did, you would be keeping a record of wrongs, because you would tell the police that he did this wrong and he deserves to be arrested. You might, however, not call the police, which would be an extremely forgiving thing to do indeed!

So, lets say you buy a new car. Lets say you discover who stole your car, and he is not poor but wealthy and lives in your neighborhood. Seeing that you have forgiven him by not calling the police, he asks if he can borrow the keys to your new car. Do you trust your keys to him? If you do not give your keys to him, then why not? The answer, i believe, will be something like, “Because he took my last car!” Therefore, you have not forgiven him, as you are keeping a record of his wrongs.

“No,” you might say, “I am keeping no records of wrongs because I am not feeling bitter about what he did any longer.” However, to say you are keeping no record of wrongs with your words and to show the opposite with your actions is not sincere love, it is (please forgive me for being so blunt) hypocrisy.

You are no doubt loving him by harboring no bitter feelings. But this kind of love is not forgiveness. Forgiveness is an extremely specific kind of love. It is the kind of love that demonstrates that one keeps no record of wrongs with one’s actions, and not merely with one’s thoughts and words. It is also the kind of love that always results in trust, for keeping no record of wrongs is what restoring trust is all about. You might never trust the man who stole your old car to borrow your new car. I see nothing wrong with that, for the man has not earned your trust nor forgiveness by showing he has repented. Only, don’t say you forgive the man when you are still holding his wrongs against him.

When you find the man who stole your car, rather than forgive him by not keeping a record of his wrongs, you should point out his wrongs by rebuking him for his sin. Jesus would agree, for He said:

If your brother sins, rebuke him …"(Luke 17:3)and rebuking (or pointing out the sin) of a person is the opposite of forgiveness, which keeps no record of wrongs.

If, after you rebuke the man, he repents and shows his repentance by giving your car back to you or doing something else to make up for his wrong, then you have no choice but to forgive him. For Jesus said:

“…and if he repents, forgive him.”(Luke 17:3)How do you know when a person has genuinely repented? You cannot know with certainty, but you must use your best judgement by observing the offender’s words and deeds. There is a risk in forgiving and trusting a person by keeping no record of his past wrongs. But it’s a risk God is willing to take with you and me, isn’t it? For He forgives as He wants us to forgive, which is often:

“If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” (Luke 17:4)If you and i do not trust God enough to take the risk to forgive in such a complete way, then it might be best to respond to Jesus’ command in Luke 17 the way His disciples did by asking:

“Increase our faith!” (Luke 17:5)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Broken trust is therefore not the same as record keeping. One has to do with character, the other with elephants remembering, and in truth, not forgiving. It is possible to forgive someone who has breached a trust, but to determine not to trust them again.

I guess the first question i should ask is why you do not trust some people. I agree with the answer you gave, that is, that you do not trust a certain people because they each have the kind of character that is untrustworthy. How do you know a person’s character is untrustworthy? By his actions. The wrongs (or sins) he commits against you reveal the true nature of his character. However, isn’t holding a person’s character against him the same as holding a person’s wrongs against him? I think so, because a person’s character is demonstrated by his deeds. Now, there is nothing wrong with withholding trusting from those who have wronged you, for people must earn your trust. In fact, withholding trust to convince a person to change his actions might be the most loving thing you do for him.

The second question i should ask is what do such untrustworthy people have to do to regain your trust? The answer might be found in St. John the Baptist’s advice:

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”(Matthew 3:2)and
“Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.”(Matthew 3:8)
and in the next chapter St. Matthew writes of Jesus saying the same:
From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
(Matthew 4:17)
By repenting, and showing one has repented with his actions, the person demonstrates a change of character. If the repentance is genuine, you should trust the person again; perhaps not all at once but in varying degrees of trust over time? Only then might you cease to hold the wrongs against the person, and trust him once more. And if you no longer hold the wrongs against a person you will no longer withhold forgiveness from him, either.

Rather than being unloving, withholding forgiveness and trust, when appropriate, is the most loving thing one might do, if it convinces the offender that he must repent to be forgiven and to restore the relationship. St. Peter said:
God exalted [Jesus Christ] to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.
(Acts 5:31)
and Jesus also said that
… repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
(Luke 24:47)
Is not doing what encourages people to repent a good thing and that which pleases the Lord we love?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Q. 13. Is not doing what encourages people to repent a good thing and that which pleases the Lord we love? If withholding forgiveness and trust convinces a person to stop sinning and seek forgiveness from you and God, how can this be wrong?

 

[nerfherder]

Herder:

Lets say you learn who stole your car. Would you call the police? If you did, you would be keeping a record of wrongs, because you would tell the police that he did this wrong and he deserves to be arrested.

You set tough questions, and some of them of course are rhetorical.

One of our Zambian adoptive sons stole my car when he was 15. It was found in a village where he ended up after his joyride. I forgave him - of course. But we called the police and left him at the station because he had to learn a lesson. This was not keeping a record, but a matter of discipline, of learning the law so that he could understand as he matured that there were consequences. One still trusted and loved, hoped he had learned. But does one keep a record of every misdeed of one’s beloved children? Whether they repent or not?

You might, however, not call the police, which would be an extremely forgiving thing to do indeed!

Not necessarily forgiving: there are a number of reasons for doing what we do (as above). Forgiving is but one element surely.

So, lets say you buy a new car. Lets say you discover who stole your car, and he is not poor but wealthy and lives in your neighborhood. Seeing that you have forgiven him by not calling the police, he asks if he can borrow the keys to your new car. Do you trust your keys to him? If you do not give your keys to him, then why not? The answer, i believe, will be something like, “Because he took my last car!” Therefore, you have not forgiven him, as you are keeping a record of his wrongs.

Another of our Zambian adoptive sons, who was a successful chartered accounted, stole our car and used it to earn more money. He gave it back. Did I forgive him? No, because it came on top of too many other things that said to me that his character had gone askew (We later realised it was HIV, which causes early onset dementia, and from which he subsequently died).

“No,” you might say, “I am keeping no records of wrongs because I am not feeling bitter about what he did any longer.” However, to say you are keeping no record of wrongs with your words and to show the opposite with your actions is not sincere love, it is (please forgive me for being so blunt) hypocrisy.

This is unnecessary sophistry, as I think the three cases of car theft above demonstrate. Behaviour takes place within a context, within a set of circumstances, based on a foundation of experience.

I explained my understanding of the dichotomies between trust, forgiveness (various kinds) and just cause. One makes a choice about the individual concerned, the question of forgiveness, and beyond that the trust on which future relations will be based.

As far as trust is concerned, surely one would be rather stupid to say that if a tiger bit me once it would not bite me again. I can forgive the tiger, but I would not trust it. I would try to understand why it bit me (there are various reasons clearly). And yes, I suppose I would be wise to remember that it bit me last time. Does that change my trust? Does that change my love? Does that make me hypocritical or smart?

By the way, I am not sure who invented the idea of ‘keeping a record’. It is not a concept I am familiar with. It sounds a bit like a playground game: oh ya, I’ll get you next time!

You are no doubt loving him by harboring no bitter feelings. But this kind of love is not forgiveness… Only, don’t say you forgive the man when you are still holding his wrongs against him.

I don’t think I said or implied that although I forgave someone who did a bad against me I still held his wrong against him. I think what I said was that it was possible to forgive, **not to keep account **(which is for the most part a meagre feast, unless my life is in danger), but that an **adjustment of trust **might be necessary or inevitable.

Forgiveness can be unconditional; it does not have to require repentance by The Other. That is our right; that is our obligation; that is our Christian duty; that is taking the extra step.

It seems to me we are coming into the arena of the foremost parable: that of the Prodigal Son. I must admit that I am the older brother, the Pharisee. We look at his actions (with which I -sadly- identify), at the actions of the father, and those of the returning son. This is THE story about forgiveness.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You set tough questions, and some of them of course are rhetorical…

Actually, the questions are philosophical. The philosopher’s goal is unlike that of the rhetorician, for Socrates said of lawyers and politicians and others who practice the art of rhetoric… whoever wishes to become a skillful rhetorician has no need of truth – for in courts of law, men literally care nothing about truth, but only in about credibility… and that always in speaking, the orator should keep the probable always in view, and bid the truth a hearty farewell. And doing this throughout a speech, they say, is what confers the whole art.

(Phaedrus, 272)

But about those who seek the truth he saidWise, i may not call them; for that name is too great and belongs to God alone – “the lovers of wisdom,” or philosophers, would be a more harmonious and befitting the title.

(Phaedrus, 278)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Herder:

You make some extremely good points. At the moment, i do not have the time to respond to them with the thoughtful answers they deserve. I’ll try to do so by this time tomorrow.

One question i have is this: It appears you saying that sometimes it is OK to withhold forgiveness, which is different from what most have told me in this discussion. Will you elaborate by telling me under what conditions you would not forgive someone?

Take it easy,
Soc

 

[guanophore]

Whether Jesus taught to forgive unconditionally, or whether he taught us to require conditions, such as repentance, is what we are considering, Guano. Is there any time when love must be conditional? The answer, i believe, is yes.

I think there may be conditions in order for relations to be restored to their previous state, but not for forgiveness.

Take trust, for example. St. Paul tells us that “love…always trusts” (1 Corinthians 13). I’m sure you and i agree that we must always trust those who have earned our trust. To fail to trust those who deserve our trust is not loving, and restoration of relationships might be impossible without the type of love called trust.

When you get down to it, not trusting others is not trusting God.

Is there ever a time when we should not love someone by trusting them? and are there conditions people must meet before we should trust them again? The answer to both questions, i think you will agree, is yes.

I do not agree. There is no place in scripture that would support a failure to love someone. Yes,there are conditions that must be met for restoration, but one can trust another according to that trust they have earned. If they have demonstrated themselves to be faithless, then they can be trusted to be faithless.

Take the example of the wife beater. Lets say he asks his battered wife who wants to divorce him to trust him again. She wants to trust him and reconcile their relationship, so she asks, “Are you going to beat me again?”

“Beat you?” he says. “No. If you get out of line i’ll just slit your throat!” and he pulls out of his jacket an ominous looking hunting knife. Should she trust him again? Of course not! Why not? Because he has failed to repent.

Of COURSE she should trust him! She should trust that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and she should trust her discernment that, having failed to repent, she can absolutely expect that he will continue to behave in an unrepentant manner.

Now, forgiveness, as Chuck and i agree, is only that kind of love that keeps no record of wrongs. Does not trust require that the one who trusts no longer holds the wrongs against the person who wants to be trusted? I believe it does.

Again this gets back to the meaning of “record”. If it is a ledger by which one considers the other is indebted to him for their wrongdoing, then one is not at liberty to keep this record. However, having a right appraisal of the level at which the wrongdoer is to be trusted is to “judge with right judgement” and is entirely loving.

The question then that should be asked is this:

Is it possible to forgive a person without trusting him?

Imperative, in fact.

 

[guanophore]

I have had to think a great deal about forgiveness, for a lot of reasons - forgiving others as well as forgiving myself. The latter, perhaps, is what we would call having a guilt complex that needs to be weeded out by maturity and mindfulness.

I think there are four aspects to reacting positively to what we perceive as negative actions, with negative outcomes, by ourselves or by other people.

First, we can forgive completely and utterly. We can say that whatever you have done, or whatever I have done is forgiven in the true sense that Christ taught.

Or, there is another possibility. That is that we do not forgive and forget, but that we **forget the misdemeanour **in such a way that it does not eat away at our spiritual well-being. If it does, then we have to learn truly to forgive. But it is possible to forget and not forgive.

Or, thirdly, it is possible to say ‘poof! I have let you go’, just as we would blow the head off a dandelion seed fluffball. Poof! Gone! Not worth thinking about it ever having happened even. We can do that.

Or, as my canon lawyer priest explained, there is the fourth possibility of ‘just cause’. That comes into play when we - or another - judge that there is nothing to forgive because the action has been so vile, so demeaning, so disgusting, that it is not necessary to forgive, forget or poof it away. In a case like this, one may grown in strenght and sensitivity, without being eaten away inside, by understanding that the act in question was truly egregious and unforgivable.

I am not sure that Christ, who lost his temper at the moneychangers in the Temple, ever forgave and forgot, ever poofed them away. I assume that he felt there was just cause for his anger.

This is a good example to bring to this discussion, nerf. Was Jesus “loving” to the moneychangers? God disciplines all whom He loves. Therefore, we must conclude that, while he was not willing to tolerate their desecration of the Temple, He was loving them. Did He forgive them? Did He require them to repent first?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

This is a good example to bring to this discussion, nerf. Was Jesus “loving” to the moneychangers? God disciplines all whom He loves. Therefore, we must conclude that, while he was not willing to tolerate their desecration of the Temple, He was loving them. Did He forgive them? Did He require them to repent first?

Rather than asking, “Did He forgive them?” it might help to reword the question, Guano, and ask, “Did Jesus keep a record of their wrongs?” Forgiveness, we agree (but perhaps you disagree with us?) is that act of love that “keeps no record of wrongs” (1 Corinthians 13:5). If Jesus kept a record of their wrongs, then He did not forgive them at the moment He judged them and drove them out of the Temple area.

What did Jesus say to them?

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, " ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.’" (Matthew 21:12-13)Rather than keeping no record of their sins, He recalled that some had done this before (John 2:14-16). Instead of not holding this sin against them, He rebuked them for it and said that they were robbing the people who came to worship His Father. I believe this is keeping a record of their wrongs. Isn’t that what pointing out the sin of another is? If not, please explain. Maybe i’m missing something.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Another good example of Jesus withholding forgiveness (that is, keeping a record of wrongs) is given to us by St. Matthew, where he records how Jesus rebukes the hypocritical religions leaders:

13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! 14You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. 16"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’ 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it. 23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. 25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. 27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. 29"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! 33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:13-36)Lets look at the record of wrongs Jesus kept. He said:

1. 
   *]They refuse to enter enter heaven (v. 14)
   *]They keep others from entering heaven who are trying to enter heaven (v. 14)
   *]They make their converts greater sons of hell than they themselves are (v. 15)
   *]They are blind guides (v. 16)
   *]They encourage people to lie and cheat by breaking their oaths (vv. 16-22)
   *]They care more about getting rich than keeping their promises to God (vv. 16-22)
   *]They put great importance on little things like giving 10% of what they have and neglect greater things like being fair, merciful and faithful (vv. 23-24)
   *]They are greedy and self-indulgent (v. 25)
   *]They are hypocritical and wicked (v. 28)
   *]They care more about what people think than about what God thinks (vv. 25-28)
   *]They are murderers who will murder Jesus the way their ancestors murdered the prophets God sent long ago (vv. 29-36)
   *]If they continue without repenting, they will not escape being condemned to hell (v. 33)
   I would say Jesus is stating for the public record His record of the wrongs these evil men committed. When i read these words of Jesus, i’m struck by how loving a lack of forgiveness can be. There is no forgiveness in His words, but there is love. Twice He warns them that their lack of repentance will condemn them to hell. He is trying to rescue them from damnation.