Must we forgive the unrepentant?

[clem456]

Perhaps we are talking past eachother here.
How about this statement. God offers his forgiveness to all. To accept it and be forgiven we must repent.

Yes. Sort of. To accept forgiveness and be absolved, to be justified, to attain salvation, all these require our response; our repentance, or to “turn around our way of thinking”.


Forgiveness is not the same thing as absolution, salvation, justification, etc…

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I listened to a man tell his story, he was about to be signed up to play football with David Beckham at Layton Orient, he had a promising career ahead of him, but he was stabbed in the back. He has been paralyzed from the waist down for the last twenty seven years, his prison is a wheel chair which he will never escape from. They caught the man who did this, he served four years in prison, then was able to walk out of prison on his own two feet. In the eyes of the law, justice had been served, and punishment handed out. But from the confines of a wheelchair, even if the man repented, this would not be true justice,

He said he fights two diseases; being paralyzed and the greater disease; was the anger he held against this man for many years. His thoughts were on crippling this man and getting even. He learned to drive an adapted car, he found out where his assailant lived, then stalked him with the intention of running him down. He only started to find some peace when he started to forgive and let go of the anger that was eating away at him. This is a process he has to come to terms with every day being trapped in a wheelchair.

He now gives lectures around the UK on the power of forgiveness.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I listened to a man tell his story, he was about to be signed up to play football with David Beckham at Layton Orient, he had a promising career ahead of him, but he was stabbed in the back. He has been paralyzed from the waist down for the last twenty seven years, his prison is a wheel chair which he will never escape from. They caught the man who did this, he served four years in prison, then was able to walk out of prison on his own two feet. In the eyes of the law, justice had been served, and punishment handed out. But from the confines of a wheelchair, even if the man repented, this would not be true justice,

He said he fights two diseases; being paralyzed and the greater disease; was the anger he held against this man for many years. His thoughts were on crippling this man and getting even. He learned to drive an adapted car, he found out where his assailant lived, then stalked him with the intention of running him down. He only started to find some peace when he started to forgive and let go of the anger that was eating away at him. This is a process he has to come to terms with every day being trapped in a wheelchair.

He now gives lectures around the UK on the power of forgiveness.

I heard this story at the Street Pastor Conference last year, there was a time of worship afterwards, led by Graham Kendrick. We sang one of his hymns, ‘May the peace of the Lord be with you’ before we sang, he said think of all those you love and care for, there is only the one verse and we sang it a couple of times.

He then said, think of all those people who have hurt us, and the ones we need to forgive, then he made us sing the same verse another half dozen times, reminding us to pray for our enemies before singing each verse. These are the words, and I can only say, when I looked around there were a lot of tears as we sang…

Now may the peace of the Lord be with you, be with you
Now may the peace of the Lord be with you, be with you
Now and always

May the Lord bless you
May the Lord keep you
And may God’s face shine upon you always
And give you peace
And give you peace

Try the same, you can hear him sing at.
youtube.com/watch?v=7dTmdu_8yMM

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I have been questioning the benefits of honest and sincere repentance, .

I listened to a man of about sixty years tell his story. When he was about ten years old, he lived on a farm; he was waiting for his dad to come home with a truck load of wood. His dad reversed down the drive, and he ran out to meet him, he hadn’t noticed his baby brother crawling after him. His Father reversed over his little brother and he died. Clearly it was a horrific accident, a moment’s relapse.

He blamed himself, his father blamed himself and his son, the mother blamed the pair of them, it tore the family apart. This man has lived about fifty years with the knowledge that he was partly responsible for the death of his brother.

I guess that no matter how many people tried to reassure him, by saying it was an accident, No matter how much he repented, deep down he has to live with it. He said it has been on his mind daily, I can’t imagine what it must feel like to go through so much grief,

Again, only by forgiving other people, will it help us understand that we can also be forgiven.

In the end we are told that we stand before a just, merciful and forgiving God.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

This is a very interesting theoretical discussion, but what I really want to know is what this supposed forgiveness looks like in reality.

We have agreed that letting go of hatred towards the unrepentant abuser is crucial, that we must not desire revenge and that we should pray for their repentance and conversion, and ultimately their salvation We have also agreed that people are not required to go back to the relationship they had with that person.

So what do we exactly mean by forgiveness? Fuzzy, happy feelings when we think about the person who hurt us? No feelings at all because the memory has been erased and we are capable of discussing the problem with serene detachment?
How can we know we have really forgiven someone? If feelings of anger return and we burn with rage, is that a sign that we have not really forgiven them?

These are very real questions for me and my concrete situation. People say that forgiving is for my sake but can’t really explain what it means to forgive. I now think that most people do actually believe that going back to the relationship with the offender is the surest sign of forgiveness. My conclusion is that such people have not been hurt properly.

 

[davidv]

This is a very interesting theoretical discussion, but what I really want to know is what this supposed forgiveness looks like in reality.

We have agreed that letting go of hatred towards the unrepentant abuser is crucial, that we must not desire revenge and that we should pray for their repentance and conversion, and ultimately their salvation We have also agreed that people are not required to go back to the relationship they had with that person.

So what do we exactly mean by forgiveness? Fuzzy, happy feelings when we think about the person who hurt us? No feelings at all because the memory has been erased and we are capable of discussing the problem with serene detachment?
How can we know we have really forgiven someone? If feelings of anger return and we burn with rage, is that a sign that we have not really forgiven them?

These are very real questions for me and my concrete situation. People say that forgiving is for my sake but can’t really explain what it means to forgive. I now think that most people do actually believe that going back to the relationship with the offender is the surest sign of forgiveness. My conclusion is that such people have not been hurt properly.

I believe that forgiveness means giving up on any claim against the offender. It is not a feeling. It is a conscience choice to not require anything from the offender. It does not require reconciliation.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I believe that forgiveness means giving up on any claim against the offender. It is not a feeling. It is a conscience choice to not require anything from the offender. It does not require reconciliation.

Thank you for the reply.

In other words, letting go with a sense of peace and without any expectations, leaving the person to God to deal with? Am I interpreting your words correctly?

 

[clem456]

Thank you for the reply.

In other words, letting go with a sense of peace and without any expectations, leaving the person to God to deal with? Am I interpreting your words correctly?

Forgiveness is animated by love. In love, I will the good of another person, in union with the will of God.

It is God’s will that “none of these should be lost”. If we will the good of another person in union with God, we act such that this person does not die for his transgressions. This is the way God acts. He extends himself to sinners (all of us!) with his whole being, to save us from sin and death. He has treated all of us with gracious abundance. He does not inflict justice, he elevates it for the good of every person. He pays the price for the debt we owe. He alone fully satisfies justice. He does not pretend the debt doesn’t exist, and neither should we, but he pays the price for that debt. We should rejoice that he does this for transgressors (all of us!), and we should be the reflection of that reality to those who hurt us. If we have a deep sense of God’s abundance in our own sinful lives, then we have it to give to others. And if we give it to others we will experience it from God. It is like a current that works when the circuit is open.

I personally find this to be a hugely difficult and radical way to live. But this way to live brings joy and peace.

We are not capable of this kind of fulfilled justice without Christ. It does not belong to us. It is God’s business, not ours.
If we take justice upon ourselves, we separate ourselves from each other. We put ourselves above others. We say to ourselves and others “we are not part of the same human family. I am like God, and it is my job to inflict justice on you”. But that’s a lie.

(none of this is to diminish the requirements of civil society…peace, security, safety, rehabilitation. The kind of forgiveness we are talking about is a whole other matter)

 

[DonCampbell]

Thank you all again for your very helpful comments. I come back to par 1864 of the Catechism. It works if you consider “forgiveness” and “mercy” to be equivalent. I have not seen, in the comments here, a better Scriptural or Magisterial reference than this:

“There are no limits to the mercy * of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy * by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.” [Cf. John Paul II, DeV 46]

So here is where I think I have come out:
God offers forgiveness to everyone. The offer must, however, be “accepted” for the forgiveness to take effect. No one actually enters a state of “forgiven-ness” until he accepts God’s offer of forgiveness by repenting.

Therefore, we likewise we must offer forgiveness to everyone. I can, therefore, say to someone who has gravely injured me, “I offer you my forgiveness; I pray that you will accept my offer by repenting of what you did to me and thereby actually be forgiven.” Although I have offered them my forgiveness, they are not actually forgiven unless they accept it. And the only way to accept it is to repent.

It gets a bit confusing to me because the offer of forgiveness is “unconditional” in the sense that the offender does nothing to merit or deserve it and God will never withdraw or revoke it up until the moment of death. Yet, the offer is “conditional” in the sense that repentance is the “price” of acceptance of the offer.

Perhaps the language gets sloppy. I have often heard it said that “God forgives everyone.” Or that “We must forgive everyone.” Perhaps a better way to say it would be “God offers forgiveness to everyone.” Or that “We must offer forgiveness to everyone.”

Thoughts?**

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Thank you all again for your very helpful comments. I come back to par 1864 of the Catechism. It works if you consider “forgiveness” and “mercy” to be equivalent. I have not seen, in the comments here, a better Scriptural or Magisterial reference than this:

“There are no limits to the mercy * of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy * by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.” [Cf. John Paul II, DeV 46]

So here is where I think I have come out:
God offers forgiveness to everyone. The offer must, however, be “accepted” for the forgiveness to take effect. No one actually enters a state of “forgiven-ness” until he accepts God’s offer of forgiveness by repenting.

Therefore, we likewise we must offer forgiveness to everyone. I can, therefore, say to someone who has gravely injured me, “I offer you my forgiveness; I pray that you will accept my offer by repenting of what you did to me and thereby actually be forgiven.” Although I have offered them my forgiveness, they are not actually forgiven unless they accept it. And the only way to accept it is to repent.

It gets a bit confusing to me because the offer of forgiveness is “unconditional” in the sense that the offender does nothing to merit or deserve it and God will never withdraw or revoke it up until the moment of death. Yet, the offer is “conditional” in the sense that repentance is the “price” of acceptance of the offer.

Perhaps the language gets sloppy. I have often heard it said that “God forgives everyone.” Or that “We must forgive everyone.” Perhaps a better way to say it would be “God offers forgiveness to everyone.” Or that “We must offer forgiveness to everyone.”

Thoughts?**
I like the way you have described that. I like it a lot.

 

[davidv]

Thank you for the reply.

In other words, letting go with a sense of peace and without any expectations, leaving the person to God to deal with? Am I interpreting your words correctly?

Yes you have.

 

[clem456]

Thank you all again for your very helpful comments. I come back to par 1864 of the Catechism. It works if you consider “forgiveness” and “mercy” to be equivalent. I have not seen, in the comments here, a better Scriptural or Magisterial reference than this:

“There are no limits to the mercy * of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy * by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.” [Cf. John Paul II, DeV 46]

So here is where I think I have come out:
God offers forgiveness to everyone. The offer must, however, be “accepted” for the forgiveness to take effect. No one actually enters a state of “forgiven-ness” until he accepts God’s offer of forgiveness by repenting.

Therefore, we likewise we must offer forgiveness to everyone. I can, therefore, say to someone who has gravely injured me, “I offer you my forgiveness; I pray that you will accept my offer by repenting of what you did to me and thereby actually be forgiven.” Although I have offered them my forgiveness, they are not actually forgiven unless they accept it. And the only way to accept it is to repent.

It gets a bit confusing to me because the offer of forgiveness is “unconditional” in the sense that the offender does nothing to merit or deserve it and God will never withdraw or revoke it up until the moment of death. Yet, the offer is “conditional” in the sense that repentance is the “price” of acceptance of the offer.

Perhaps the language gets sloppy. I have often heard it said that “God forgives everyone.” Or that “We must forgive everyone.” Perhaps a better way to say it would be “God offers forgiveness to everyone.” Or that “We must offer forgiveness to everyone.”

Thoughts?**
Yes the problem is the language does get sloppy.
It’s a fine point but an important one.
Forgiveness is an initiative on the part of the one offended. Response is required for the other party to experience the grace offered. But forgiveness is a powerful reality independent of the response.

*Forgiveness is an objective reality independent of the response of the offender.
*
The cross is durable proof of that. Christ offered us reconciliation with God, and we responded “non-serviam”. And still, he paid our debt in the midst of our refusal. His action, and his offer, is real and enduring despite our response.

That is really, really, important to keep in mind.
Habitual sin can cause us to despair of God’s forgiveness.
Habitual sin on the part of others can cause us to fatigue of forgiving others.

If we are going to be forgiving as our heavenly Father forgives us, we have to let go of the demand for a just response on the part of the offender.
We can encourage a response, but we can’t enforce conditions on forgiveness.

 

[davidv]

Thank you all again for your very helpful comments. I come back to par 1864 of the Catechism. It works if you consider “forgiveness” and “mercy” to be equivalent. I have not seen, in the comments here, a better Scriptural or Magisterial reference than this:

“There are no limits to the mercy * of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy * by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.” [Cf. John Paul II, DeV 46]

So here is where I think I have come out:
God offers forgiveness to everyone. The offer must, however, be “accepted” for the forgiveness to take effect. No one actually enters a state of “forgiven-ness” until he accepts God’s offer of forgiveness by repenting.

Therefore, we likewise we must offer forgiveness to everyone. I can, therefore, say to someone who has gravely injured me, “I offer you my forgiveness; I pray that you will accept my offer by repenting of what you did to me and thereby actually be forgiven.” Although I have offered them my forgiveness, they are not actually forgiven unless they accept it. And the only way to accept it is to repent.

It gets a bit confusing to me because the offer of forgiveness is “unconditional” in the sense that the offender does nothing to merit or deserve it and God will never withdraw or revoke it up until the moment of death. Yet, the offer is “conditional” in the sense that repentance is the “price” of acceptance of the offer.

Perhaps the language gets sloppy. I have often heard it said that “God forgives everyone.” Or that “We must forgive everyone.” Perhaps a better way to say it would be “God offers forgiveness to everyone.” Or that “We must offer forgiveness to everyone.”

Thoughts?**
I believe you have explained well the way God forgives. I don’t think our forgiveness is done in the same way. Our forgiveness does not depend on repentance. To me the difference is related to the fact the God is also the judge, but we are not.

 

[DonCampbell]

Yes the problem is the language does get sloppy.
It’s a fine point but an important one.
Forgiveness is an initiative on the part of the one offended. Response is required for the other party to experience the grace offered. But forgiveness is a powerful reality independent of the response.

*Forgiveness is an objective reality independent of the response of the offender.
*
The cross is durable proof of that. Christ offered us reconciliation with God, and we responded “non-serviam”. And still, he paid our debt in the midst of our refusal. His action, and his offer, is real and enduring despite our response.

That is really, really, important to keep in mind.
Habitual sin can cause us to despair of God’s forgiveness.
Habitual sin on the part of others can cause us to fatigue of forgiving others.

If we are going to be forgiving as our heavenly Father forgives us, we have to let go of the demand for a just response on the part of the offender.
We can encourage a response, but we can’t enforce conditions on forgiveness.

Could you flesh this out a bit more, particularly regarding the cross? Jesus did die for our sins and by doing so he paid our debt. Yet, we are not saved unless we repent.

Or, per Jimmy Akin’s recent book The Drama of Salvation: We are not saved until we a) believe, b) repent, and c) are baptized. Then, if we sin mortally, we must again we must be reconciled through sacramental confession. At least, in this is the “normal” or “ordinary” way to salvation.

But then Jimmy is the one who got me started down the path of this question when he challenged my existing belief (indirectly - he was responding to someone else’s question on Catholic Answers Live) when he said we are not required to forgive the unrepentant because that would require us to do more than God.

It seems to me that Jesus sacrifice on the cross made forgiveness / salvation possible for us but did not accomplish it. He opened the door to heaven but isn’t it up to us to walk through (by the prompting of God’s grace)? I see your point that God’s offer of forgiveness is a REAL thing. But is the fact forgiveness actually ACCOMPLISHED - i.e., have we entered into the state of “forgiven-ness” prior to our repentance?

So, is “forgiveness” accomplished by a unilateral act or is it a bilateral act such that the state of forgiven-ness never arises unless there is a response to the offer.

 

[clem456]

Could you flesh this out a bit more, particularly regarding the cross? Jesus did die for our sins and by doing so he paid our debt. Yet, we are not saved unless we repent.

Or, per Jimmy Akin’s recent book The Drama of Salvation: We are not saved until we a) believe, b) repent, and c) are baptized. Then, if we sin mortally, we must again we must be reconciled through sacramental confession. At least, in this is the “normal” or “ordinary” way to salvation.

But then Jimmy is the one who got me started down the path of this question when he challenged my existing belief (indirectly - he was responding to someone else’s question on Catholic Answers Live) when he said we are not required to forgive the unrepentant because that would require us to do more than God.

It seems to me that Jesus sacrifice on the cross made forgiveness / salvation possible for us but did not accomplish it. He opened the door to heaven but isn’t it up to us to walk through (by the prompting of God’s grace)? I see your point that God’s offer of forgiveness is a REAL thing. But is the fact forgiveness actually ACCOMPLISHED - i.e., have we entered into the state of “forgiven-ness” prior to our repentance?

So, is “forgiveness” accomplished by a unilateral act or is it a bilateral act such that the state of forgiven-ness never arises unless there is a response to the offer.

Forgiveness is not an accomplishment. It is an act of love, a disposition of the will. This good will is offered to the other person. Accompanied by acts in some cases.

God wills that all people be reconciled to him. He wills it but he doesn’t force. He desires it and offers it. When we sin, we do not change his will. He does not cease to forgive when we sin. In his good will and his saving action on the cross, he forgoes the justice we deserve and elevates it to love.
If we do not attain salvation, it is because we choose not to accept it. It is not because God’s will for us was not loving enough.

I love Jimmy Akin and I did not hear or read this particular thing. But this:

we are not required to forgive the unrepentant because that would require us to do more than God.

is probably a case of what we are talking about with imprecise wording. Is it possible you heard it wrong?
We cannot do more than God, obviously, but we are called to forgive as he forgives. And God forgives to the death, with all his being. He doesn’t save the unrepentant, but he accepted death for a people who deserve to fry. That is a complete and total offer. If he was merely just, we would all fry, each and every one of us.

I think in short
Forgiveness is one thing.
Absolution is another.
Salvation is another.
Justification.
Expiation.
all intimately related but not expressing the exact same thing.

 

[clem456]

Actually I may be the one using the word forgiveness improperly. hmmm
They just addressed this question on Catholic Answers live and the apologist stated “we do not forgive the unrepentant”.

But I just do not think that is correct.
I dunno.

It’s a matter of words, but it has huge pastoral and spiritual implications.

 

[clem456]

From Dives in Misericordia:

Mercy in itself, as a perfection of the infinite God, is also infinite. Also infinite therefore and inexhaustible is the Father’s readiness to receive the prodigal children who return to His home. Infinite are the readiness and power of forgiveness which flow continually from the marvelous value of the sacrifice of the Son. No human sin can prevail over this power or even limit it. On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit it, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth, especially in the face of the witness of the cross and resurrection of Christ.
…
Christ emphasizes so insistently the need to forgive others that when Peter asked Him how many times he should forgive his neighbor He answered with the symbolic number of "seventy times seven,"131 meaning that he must be able to forgive everyone every time. It is obvious that such a generous requirement of forgiveness does not cancel out the objective requirements of justice. Properly understood, justice constitutes, so to speak, the goal of forgiveness. In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness.

Even this seems to leave room for ambiguity in using the term forgiveness.

 

[DonCampbell]

Actually I may be the one using the word forgiveness improperly. hmmm
They just addressed this question on Catholic Answers live and the apologist stated “we do not forgive the unrepentant”.

But I just do not think that is correct.
I dunno.

It’s a matter of words, but it has huge pastoral and spiritual implications.

Which apologist was it? It was Jimmy Akin last week who set me off on this exploration of the issue when he said it, which challenged my prior understanding of the issue. That makes 2 times that this position has been stated on Catholic Answers in the last week or so. Yet, I am surprised that I cannot find more written about it.

Thanks.

 

[DonCampbell]

Clem 456 -

“Forgiveness is not an accomplishment.” That’s not the sense in which I was using the word “accomplished”. I meant it like “completed” or “consummated.”

It seems like Akin and the other apologist you heard on Catholic Answers are even a step removed from my hypothesis. My hypothesis is that God offers forgiveness but we must accept it by repenting in order to enter the state of forgiven-ness. If it works differently from that then what’s the point of the sacrament of Reconcilitation, where our sins are absolved by the priest (in persona Christe) only after we repent. Therefore, we too must offer forgiveness even to the unrepentant, but they do not enter into the state of forgiven-ness until they repent.

But Akin seemed to me to say that we are not even required offer forgiveness to the unrepentant. That’s an entirely different statement that I find hard to get a handle on.

Peace.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Only if you wish to be forgiven as well. If you don’t care if you are forgiven for your many faults, then hey do as you wish. Remember we all have been unrepentant (or not quickly repentant) sinners ourselves.