Forgiveness FAQ

[DrPiano]

(part 2)

I also want to point out (and here is the perfect time to do it) that offering forgiveness (or "forgiving someone) and receiving that forgiveness (being forgiven) are not the same. While you cannot be forgiven without the hurt person offering that forgiveness, you can offer forgiveness without the person who has hurt you seeking or accepting that forgiveness. In other words, I can let go of my anger, hurt, and desires for revenge and pray for my relative’s salvation and reconciliation with God without her ever even acknowledging or believing or accepting that act. I am not forcing my forgiveness on her.

A practical example. Think of forgiveness as a beautiful gift. As the giver, I wrap the gift up and give it (for example’s sake) to my sister. She may toss it aside and refuse to keep it. I have still given it - she has simply refused to accept it. In the same way, I can offer forgiveness (take care of the “me” part) while the person who has hurt me refuses to accept it.

In this way I am forgiving as God forgives. See, God offers unconditional forgiveness. He sent his Son long before any of us really repented to make a way for that forgiveness - to offer that forgiveness. In his wisdom and grace he has also given us free will - to accept or reject that forgiveness. We may or may not be reconciled to God - that is our choice. But his forgiveness is there waiting for us to accept it. See, sin (to the Catholics, mortal sin) is like saying “I don’t want your way God, I want my way. I don’t want to live in communion with you God, I want to live the way I want to live.” So God doesn’t force us to live his way. He’s given us free will. BUT the choice becomes a permanent one. If we die saying “I want to live apart from you God, in my own ways rather than yours” then he lets us live that way for all eternity - separated from him. If we choose to not reconcile to him, that is our choice - but the result of that choice is the logical opposite: living apart from him (in Hell) for all eternity.

So - as I forgive as the Lord forgave me, I offer that forgiveness to all who have hurt me. I take care of the “me” part of the equation - letting go of my anger, bitterness, and desire for revenge and giving it all to God. I repay their evil with good - the good of praying that they will be reconciled to God and his mercy.

In summary:

1. Forgiveness does NOT equal reconciliation - instead it is the act of giving my anger and hurt and bitterness to God and exchanging them for the true desire for Good for the person who has hurt me.
2. Yes, God’s gift of forgiveness is UNCONDITIONAL but we have to accept that gift. If we refuse to accept that gift and live apart from God, then we will not be reconciled to him. If we are not reconciled to him then we cannot live with him for all eternity - so we will live apart from him for all eternity.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[trogiah]

Does anyone have an answer?

* *

Q. 14. Since Jesus kept a record of wrongs when people refused to repent (e.g., Matthew 23) how can it be wrong for you and i to do the same?

I read Matthew 23 often for a number of different reasons. I think that your characterizing Jesus as keeping a “record of the wrongs” of the Pharisees as if to use that record against them is an inaccurate characterization. (Maybe I have missed some conversation here. I left this thread at page 7 and just came back)

In Matthew 23, Jesus begins by instructing his disciples about what they should and shouldn’t do with respect to following the religious leaders of the time. He is pointing out actions of some of the Pharisees as actions that the disciples should avoid. Somewhere along the way (I think about verse 13) he addresses the Pharisees directly with the intent of warning them of the errors of their ways. These motivations are not at all the same as “keeping a record of wrongs”. Wrongs are being pointed out with the intent to keep others from committing them and to possibly convince the wrong doers to give up their wrong doing.

Jim

 

[Tweety]

Did you notice, Tweety, that as soon as i raised the possibility that those who say they forgive with their thoughts but not with their actions are hypocrites people stopped posting replies to this discussion thread? Only you are left. Why? Is it not that i am hated for speaking the truth by some, but not by you?

Since i speak the truth, i am hated by many, but not by you. Why is that Tweety? Could it be because you do not hate the truth? Of course you do not hate the truth, you love Him! and Jesus said He is the truth.

So, what do you think, matey? Is it OK to love in every way you should every one that you meet? Is it OK to love them by not harboring resentment and yet still keeping a record of their wrongs and not trusting them when they refuse to stop sinning? Is it OK to pray daily that they will come to their senses and escape the trap of the devil who has taken them captive to do what he wants? Is it OK to never stop hoping that they will repent and show their repentance by their words and actions so that you can forgive them and trust them again? Do you believe, as Jesus taught, that it takes two to forgive?

If it is too personal a question to ask or one for which you need to think about and ask God for guidance, you do not have to answer.

Hi Soc,

Mate, i don’t hate anybody - i don’t really ‘know you’. I don’t think anyone hates you - they just don’t agree with you maybe…

Found out a lovely elderly friend of mine passed away on Tuesday at the ripe old age of 96 and we had her service this afternoon so i am a bit flat. She was a customer of mine, and we developed a friendship over the years. She came to our wedding and our son’s Baptism. Her husband passed away before we got married. Jack was a prisoner of war in Japan for 3 years in WW2. She was standing in line in the bank and just collapsed and that was it - woosh, straight up to heaven. One of the most faithful Protestants you could ever meet - all her friends and neighbours were Catholic and i would tell her “Elsie, don’t you think God is trying to tell you something - jump the fence!” Her dearest friend was a Catholic Nun. Such a bright spark, still driving too! Would have thought she was in her early 80’s.

We have a wedding to attend tomorrow, so it is another busy weekend, but we are lucky that Monday is a public holiday for the Queen’s birthday - which by the way, is NOT even in June! Go figure? At least if we stay with the UK and don’t become a republic - we get the day off! hee hee hee But i get every day off! I love being a stay at home mummy to Braden.

Friday night football is on, but my team aren’t playing tonight or this weekend as they have this week off.

Have a great night… Will respond to what you asked me i promise… just not tonight if that’s ok, i’ve got a headache…

Have a good one as we say down under…

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hi Soc,

Mate, i don’t hate anybody - i don’t really ‘know you’. I don’t think anyone hates you - they just don’t agree with you maybe…Have a good one as we say down under.

Hey, matey. Yeah, hate is a strong word. That some dislike hearing the truth might be a kinder way of putting it. Hope i did not offend anyone. Sorry for the loss of your friend. My son plays football (what we call soccer) and enjoys it. He especially likes stealing the ball from other players and also chatting with the girls on the field! Have a good one is an expression i like to use too.

Talk at ya’ later,
Soc

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I read Matthew 23 often for a number of different reasons. I think that your characterizing Jesus as keeping a “record of the wrongs” of the Pharisees as if to use that record against them is an inaccurate characterization. …he addresses the Pharisees directly with the intent of warning them of the errors of their ways. These motivations are not at all the same as “keeping a record of wrongs”. Wrongs are being pointed out with the intent to keep others from committing them and to possibly convince the wrong doers to give up their wrong doing.

Jim

Hey Jim,

Welcome back to the discussion! I’m not sure i understand why you think rebuking people for their sins is not the same as keeping a record of wrongs. Will you explain the difference?

Also, do you think Jesus forgave the hypocrites He addressed in Matthew 23? I don’t see Him saying He forgave them. For example, He says:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”(vv. 13-14)

and"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." (v. 15)

and"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. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." (vv. 27-28)

and"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (v. 33)He calls them hypocrites, sons of hell and wicked. He compares them to rotting corpses and a deadly mass of venomous snakes. He tells them they will be condemned to hell.

I agree that these are words of love, for it is loving to warn someone to repent before they face judgement. But please explain, Jim, how these are words of forgiveness.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… So I got to about post 200 then skipped to the end because I really couldn’t take any more of the linguistic nitpicking. I’ve read Socrates (the real one) and I didn’t like his style much either (it isn’t really looking for answers, it is trying to trip other people up by making them contradict themselves) - but that is beside the point…

Doc,

It appears you have not read Socrates with the same eyes as i have. Perhaps you have misread him?

Soc

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

First - What is Forgiveness? Forgiveness is letting go of your personal “right” to revenge or retribution and giving it to God, who is truly the only one who can exact it. It is human nature to want to get back at someone who has hurt you - to repay them evil for evil. Forgiveness is letting go of that and giving it to God. (see, for example, Rom 12:19-21). So Forgiveness begins with an act of the will - an inner decision.

As you pointed out early on, however, words (and thoughts) require fruit - so what is the fruit (the actions) of forgiveness? I think these start at their utmost with prayer for the other person. This can take a variety of forms but at their core ought to be to pray for their soul - that they will be reconciled to God. Ultimately forgiveness results in praying for good for the person who has hurt you.

Forgiveness is NOT reconciliation. Letting go of my anger, my resentment, my desire for revenge and replacing them with a true desire for the good of the other person does not require that I allow an unrepentant person (or an unchanged person) into a place where he or she can hurt me again. However, forgiveness results in the willingness to go through the process of reconciliation with the person who has hurt me if that person wishes to do so and if that person comes and repents.

…So - as I forgive as the Lord forgave me, I offer that forgiveness to all who have hurt me. I take care of the “me” part of the equation - letting go of my anger, bitterness, and desire for revenge and giving it all to God. I repay their evil with good - the good of praying that they will be reconciled to God and his mercy.

In summary:

1. Forgiveness does NOT equal reconciliation - instead it is the act of giving my anger and hurt and bitterness to God and exchanging them for the true desire for Good for the person who has hurt me.
2. Yes, God’s gift of forgiveness is UNCONDITIONAL but we have to accept that gift. If we refuse to accept that gift and live apart from God, then we will not be reconciled to him. If we are not reconciled to him then we cannot live with him for all eternity - so we will live apart from him for all eternity.

I hope that makes sense.

Yes, Elisa, it makes perfect sense. Thank you!

I think you and St. Paul have a different idea of what forgiveness is. Please consider the logical argument:

(1) Forgiveness is an act of love.(2) St. Paul lists several acts of love in 1 Corinthians 13. (3) In 1 Corinthians 13, he says love is patient, kind, etc.(4) All of the acts of love he lists can be shown to someone who has done nothing for which he needs to be forgiven, except one.(5) The only act of love he lists that cannot be shown to someone who has done nothing for which he needs to be forgiven is to show love that “keeps no record of wrongs”.(6) Therefore, each of the other acts of love are not forgiveness. Rather, they are some other way of loving. Conclusion: The only act of love that is forgiveness is the love that “keeps no record of wrongs”.St. Paul teaches that forgiveness is the specific act of love that “keeps no record of wrongs”:

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.(1 Corinthians 13)

You, however, are saying that “forgiveness is letting go of your personal ‘right’ to revenge or retribution and giving it to God, who is truly the only one who can exact it.” You cite as as proof these words of St. Paul:19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. 20On the contrary:

"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

(Romans 12)
Do you think you are confusing mercy with forgiveness?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…To be clear, the main problem I have with your position is that it requires you to assume you can, seemingly always, rightly discern the sufficiency of another person’s repentance and/or culpability enough to withhold your mercy …

Yes, Jane, if that was what i believed i’d have a problem with me, too! However, you misunderstand me. I’m not talking about withholding mercy, rather, i’m talking about withholding forgiveness. Isn’t it true that there is a difference between mercy and forgiveness?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Q. 17. Is it true that all forgiveness is mercy but not all mercy is forgiveness?

 

[Nepenthe]

I do not pretend to help as a theist, but the scriptures quoted are pretty good, OP.

And is your life and mind so short, so special, so small, that you cannot forgive, even in the unlikely circumstance that you are entirely blameless? If you see the world from such a lofty height, it is not my place to condemn – though it may be mine to mock, perhaps, if you reject human failings.

 

[davidv]

Conclusion: The only act of love that is forgiveness is the love that “keeps no record of wrongs”.

Why do you assume that Paul’s list is an exhaustive list of what love is?

 

[JaneFrances]

Yes, Jane, if that was what i believed i’d have a problem with me, too! However, you misunderstand me. I’m not talking about withholding mercy, rather, i’m talking about withholding forgiveness. Isn’t it true that there is a difference between mercy and forgiveness?

No problem and no misunderstanding. I offer an edit (in bold) to clarify:

To be clear, the main problem I have with your position is that it requires you to assume you can, seemingly always, rightly discern the sufficiency of another person’s repentance and/or culpability enough to withhold your forgiveness until someone comes to you with his tail between his legs begging for your forgiveness.

As you rightly pointed out, mercy and forgiveness are not identical Biblical terms, therefore, I happily amend my wording to reflect what I meant.

On that note, it would be profitable if you could demonstrate an instance in Scripture when a spiritual work of mercy between men is separate from an act of forgiveness.

You have repeatedly and tediously asserted that you needn’t forgive another human being unless 1) they are repentant and/or 2) they are not culpable for their trespasses.

My question is simple one and one that you have continually avoided:
As you are not God, having all knowledge and right judgment of a person’s heart and mind, how do you determine the sufficiency of another person’s repentance and/or culpability enough to withhold your forgiveness from them?

 

[DrPiano]

Socrates,

I think you are conflating the idea of Forgiveness being an act of love (encompassing only one part of what it means to love) with the idea that Forgiveness is love (encompassing the entirety of love in a single act).

To use a material world example, it is like saying “An udder is a Cow” Or “Running is Baseball” - rather than saying “Running is an act of Baseball.”

Also, nowhere did my definition of forgiveness require that I keep a record of wrongs. If I don’t reconcile with my relative, it is not because I am ticking off a list of all that she did wrong, especially not to hold it against her. Even now I do not remember every specific thing that she has done against me or my family.

For an example of where I have forgiven but not reconciled: I had a friend (male) who I started dating several years ago. Near the end of our 1-month relationship and for several months after, things did not go well. He said (and wrote) some very very hurtful things that both pained me deeply and made me very angry. When I had not gotten to the point of forgiving him, I held on to all the hurtful emails he sent me and reminded myself of every hurtful phrase that he used. I rehearsed them in my mind and when I did pray about him, it was more like David’s prayers in the Psalms about his enemies (something along the lines of “Lord, strike him down.”). Since then, despite the fact that his only “apologies” were more hurtful words masked as apologies, I have let go of that record of wrongs I kept. I no longer hold onto the emails. I no longer rehearse the phrases he used. I don’t remember what he said that hurt me. I have given all of that to God and now I pray for God’s grace to illuminate his life. However, we still have not reconciled. Why? Not because I have “not forgiven him” (which I have), not because I am “keeping a record of his wrongs” (which I am not), not because I “don’t love him” (I do - at least in the way I ought to love my fellow human being and fellow Christian), but because he has no wish to reconcile and he has no wish to apologize for the hurtful things he said. I don’t need his apology to forgive him (or cease keeping a record of wrongs), I would need his apology (his acknowledgement that what he said was hurtful and wrong, and his humility to admit it) to be able to reconcile.

So no, I don’t see my statement of what forgiveness is as conflicting with St. Paul’s thoughts on what love is - even if love = forgiveness rather than love includes forgiveness.

 

[trogiah]

Hey Jim,

Welcome back to the discussion! I’m not sure i understand why you think rebuking people for their sins is not the same as keeping a record of wrongs. Will you explain the difference?

Jesus told his disciples “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him, if he repents, forgive him.”

I would say the difference between rebuking and record keeping is the rebuking is done once, with the hope that the offender will repent. Whether or not the offender does repent, After rebuking someone, the appropriate action would be to get on with ones life and not dwell on the fact that someone did you wrong.

Record keeping means you hold on to the fact that someone did you wrong, and still use that against the offender - even if they do repent.

Also, do you think Jesus forgave the hypocrites He addressed in Matthew 23? I don’t see Him saying He forgave them. For example, He says:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”(vv. 13-14)

and…(Edited so I wouldn’t run out of space)

and…

and…He calls them hypocrites, sons of hell and wicked. He compares them to rotting corpses and a deadly mass of venomous snakes. He tells them they will be condemned to hell.

I agree that these are words of love, for it is loving to warn someone to repent before they face judgement. But please explain, Jim, how these are words of forgiveness.

He also says, at the very end.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!

Except for that last statement, Jesus does not make any obvious offer of forgiveness because he knows such an offer would be pointless. They have not the slightest sense that they need forgivenss. The Pharisees are not condemned because Jesus fails to forgive them. They are condemned because they practice condemnation of others on a regular basis.

Read the parable of the unforgiving servant. Read the Lord’s prayer and immediately afterwards. “If you forgive others, your heavenly Father will forgive you. If you do not forgive others, your heavenly Father will not forgive you.”

This isn’t a rule Jesus made up. This is the way God the Father has ordered the world and Jesus is just pointing it out in clear terms so that there will be no misunderstanding.

In John’s Gospel Jesus says to the Pharisees:

“Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father: the one who will accuse you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope.” The Pharisees who are using the Law of Moses to condemn others are the ones who will be condemned on their own failure to follow Moses’s teaching - they will not be condemned by Jesus.
peace

Jim

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I do not pretend to help as a theist, but the scriptures quoted are pretty good, OP.

And is your life and mind so short, so special, so small, that you cannot forgive, even in the unlikely circumstance that you are entirely blameless? If you see the world from such a lofty height, it is not my place to condemn – though it may be mine to mock, perhaps, if you reject human failings.

Good point, Nep!

I think even many agnostics and even atheists agree that Jesus taught some extremely good things about how people should treat one another and avoid hypocrisy. I’m not sure if you agree. Regarding forgiveness, it’s important to understand that Jesus did not teach that repentance is the only condition that a person might meet in order to be forgiven. While it is true that 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.”

(Gospel of Luke, chapter 17)

It is also true that He prayed"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

(Gospel of Luke, chapter 23)
In the latter case, Jesus is clearly asking God to forgive those who are not culpable for their sins because they do not know that what they are doing is wrong.

However, do you not agree that those who do what is evil by making others suffer, and know it is evil, and just don’t give a damn should not be pardoned for their sins until they change their behavior?

What is your perspective as a non-theist?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Why do you assume that Paul’s list is an exhaustive list of what love is?

He, David, welcome back! I do not assume that it is. I do assume that the kind of love that “keeps no record of wrongs” is forgiveness. Do you think my assumption is wrong?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Jesus told his disciples “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him, if he repents, forgive him.”

I would say the difference between rebuking and record keeping is the rebuking is done once, with the hope that the offender will repent. Whether or not the offender does repent, After rebuking someone, the appropriate action would be to get on with ones life and not dwell on the fact that someone did you wrong.

Record keeping means you hold on to the fact that someone did you wrong, and still use that against the offender - even if they do repent. …

What if the offender continues to do wrong, and refuses to listen to your first rebuke? Do you bring up his sin again or just over look it? Here’s what Jesus says, Jim:

15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (Matthew 18)Here, a record of sins is kept as the person (1) rebukes the offender, then (2) brings one or two friends along to rebuke the offender again, then (3) brings the offender’s sins to the attention of the leadership of the parish or diocese. Not only is Jesus advocating that one person keep a record of wrongs, He is also advocating that the one person then have one or two others also keep the same record of wrongs; He then advocates that the leadership of the church keep a record of the wrongs the person had committed.

Jesus also gives the condition the offender must meet before one stops keeping a record of wrongs: “If he listens to you” He says, then there is no need to hold his sins against him and continue to bring them up and urge the person to change his behavior. Why? Because he has listened to you, taken your words to heart, and made a change in his words and deeds. You stop keeping a record of wrongs because “you have won your brother over.”

“But if he will not listen,” Jesus says, and “if he refuses to listen” then you continue to get others involved in remembering his sin and bringing it up again and urging him to repent. You perhaps might have to go so far as to bring it to your priest, Monsignor or bishop so that this man of God can also keep a record of the offender’s wrongs and urge him to listen to all of you and repent or face the consequences. What are the consequences? The least might be a loss of relationship; the most severe might be excommunication.

---

Jim:

Please, before you reply, answer two questions for me:

• What is forgiveness?
• How do Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:15-17 describe forgiveness?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… As you rightly pointed out, mercy and forgiveness are not identical Biblical terms, therefore, I happily amend my wording to reflect what I meant.

On that note, it would be profitable if you could demonstrate an instance in Scripture when a spiritual work of mercy between men is separate from an act of forgiveness. …

Jane:

I know what you believe (that mercy is not identical to forgiveness) but i do not know why you believe this. I’m not sure what you mean when you write the word mercy and when you write the word forgiveness. If i were to give you an example of mercy shown without forgiving, you might say i’m wrongs, when the reality is i misunderstand. However, if i knew how you define mercy and forgiveness, then i will know how to comply with your request.

So, before i give you the example you want, will you do something for me? Please tell me:

• How do you define forgiveness? and
• How do you define mercy? and
• How is forgiveness different from mercy?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates,

I think you are conflating the idea of Forgiveness being an act of love (encompassing only one part of what it means to love) with the idea that Forgiveness is love (encompassing the entirety of love in a single act).

To use a material world example, it is like saying “An udder is a Cow” Or “Running is Baseball” - rather than saying “Running is an act of Baseball.”

…So no, I don’t see my statement of what forgiveness is as conflicting with St. Paul’s thoughts on what love is - even if love = forgiveness rather than love includes forgiveness.

I really do not understand what you are saying, Doc. What i am saying is the conclusion that the only act of love that is forgiveness is the love that “keeps no record of wrongs”. The logical argument that supports this follows.

(1) Forgiveness is an act of love.(2) St. Paul lists several acts of love in 1 Corinthians 13. (3) In 1 Corinthians 13, he says love is patient, kind, etc.(4) All of the acts of love he lists can be shown to someone who has done nothing for which he needs to be forgiven, except one.(5) The only act of love he lists that cannot be shown to someone who has done nothing for which he needs to be forgiven is to show love that “keeps no record of wrongs”.(6) Therefore, each of the other acts of love are not forgiveness. Rather, they are some other way of loving. Conclusion: The only act of love that is forgiveness is the love that “keeps no record of wrongs”.The only possible way the conclusion can be wrong is if one of the premises is false or the premises together do not support the conclusion. Please tell me:

• Which of the six premises is not true and why is it false? or
• How do the premises fail to support the conclusion? or
• Is there a 7th premise you can add that will cause the logical argument to lead to a different conclusion?

 

[Philthy]

Q. What conditions must someone meet before i should forgive her?

The condition to be met is that the someone be a human being whom you recognize as needing your forgiveness. If you attempt to add to this simple statement, you are attempting to justify your hardness of heart. As always, turn to our Lord for the strength to do what seems impossible - to forgive someone who doesnt “deserve” it.

“If you do not forgive others… neither will your heavenly Father forgive you…” J Christ