To forgive, or not to forgive?

[spockrates]

I’ll share in the blame on that one. I’m not always the clearest in my message. I know what’s in my head, and language is a tricky thing.

I don’t think I ever said that the Father’s forgiveness wasn’t conditional. As a matter of fact, I believe in the condition that the only way you can be forgiven is through Jesus Christ. The point I have been trying to convey is that Jesus forgives unconditionally those whom He knows. I suppose you could make the argument that the condition placed on the situation is that the condition that must be met for Jesus to intercede on our behalf is that He must know us. Given those conditions, it appears that the word unconditional itself would be an illogical word and couldn’t really apply to any situation ever whether you’re talking about God or anything else for that matter.

It’s kind of like the Rush song Tom Sawyer when the lyrics say…

***He knows changes aren’t permanent, ***
But change is.

Or this these lyrics are applicable:

I never meant what you’re thinking –
That is not what I meant at all…

–Rush (Open Secrets)

I’ve always loved Rush!



What I hear you saying is that God the Father’s forgiveness is conditional, but Jesus’ forgiveness is not conditional, I’m not sure if I believe my ears, and I’m unsure if I’ve asked you this before: But isn’t that logically impossible? I mean, they are both one and the same God. If the God the Father forgave a person *conditionally *for a sin, and the God the Son forgave the *same *person unconditionally, then wouldn’t God be both forgiving conditionally and not forgiving conditionally at the same time? That’ seems to me illogical, and a contradiction, and so not at all possible! Don’t you agree?



But if you are not sure how to answer that question, perhaps it will help me if you give an example of Jesus forgiving unconditionally. For I cannot think of any, but perhaps you can. Regarding His forgiving all He knows, I’m not sure how Jesus forgives only those He knows. The reason for my uncertainty is that I’m thinking that an omniscient God knows everyone, and everything. If being fully known by the Son of God is the only condition one must meet to be forgiven, then Hell and Purgatory would be empty!



I find no absolution
In my rational point of view
Maybe some things are instinctive
But there’s one thing you could do
You could try to understand me –
I could try to understand you…

–More Rush (also from Open Secrets)

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Hey, spockrates, how’re you doing?

Nice discussion. Would you mind if I add some G.K. Chersterton to the mix?

Charity is a paradox, like modesty and courage. Stated baldly, charity certainly means one of two things – pardoning unpardonable acts, or loving unlovable people. But if we ask ourselves (as we did in the case of pride) what a sensible pagan would feel about such a subject, we shall probably be beginning at the bottom of it. A sensible pagan would say that there were some people one could forgive, and some one couldn’t: a slave who stole wine could be laughed at; a slave who betrayed his benefactor could be killed, and cursed even after he was killed. In so far as the act was pardonable, the man was pardonable. That again is rational, and even refreshing; but it is a dilution. It leaves no place for a pure horror of injustice, such as that which is a great beauty in the innocent. And it leaves no place for a mere tenderness for men as men, such as is the whole fascination of the charitable. Christianity came in here as before. It came in startlingly with a sword, and clove one thing from another. It divided the crime from the criminal. The criminal we must forgive unto seventy times seven. The crime we must not forgive at all. It was not enough that slaves who stole wine inspired partly anger and partly kindness. We must be much more angry with theft than before, and yet much kinder to thieves than before. There was room for wrath and love to run wild. And the more I considered Christianity, the more I found that while it had established a rule and order, the chief aim of that order was to give room for good things to run wild.

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

God love you.

 

[spockrates]

Here’s what I’m thinking, my Rush-minded friend: When and if God forgives unconditionally, the Father and the Son both forgive unconditionally, for they are both the same God. When and if God forgives conditionally, the Father and Son both forgive conditionally, for they are both the same God. But when one forgives unconditionally, the other cannot forgive conditionally, for they are both the same God.

What are you thinking?

 

[spockrates]

+JMJ+

Hey, spockrates, how’re you doing?

Nice discussion. Would you mind if I add some G.K. Chesterton to the mix?

Charity is a paradox, like modesty and courage. Stated baldly, charity certainly means one of two things – pardoning unpardonable acts, or loving unlovable people. But if we ask ourselves (as we did in the case of pride) what a sensible pagan would feel about such a subject, we shall probably be beginning at the bottom of it. A sensible pagan would say that there were some people one could forgive, and some one couldn’t: a slave who stole wine could be laughed at; a slave who betrayed his benefactor could be killed, and cursed even after he was killed. In so far as the act was pardonable, the man was pardonable. That again is rational, and even refreshing; but it is a dilution. It leaves no place for a pure horror of injustice, such as that which is a great beauty in the innocent. And it leaves no place for a mere tenderness for men as men, such as is the whole fascination of the charitable. Christianity came in here as before. It came in startlingly with a sword, and clove one thing from another. It divided the crime from the criminal. The criminal we must forgive unto seventy times seven. The crime we must not forgive at all. It was not enough that slaves who stole wine inspired partly anger and partly kindness. We must be much more angry with theft than before, and yet much kinder to thieves than before. There was room for wrath and love to run wild. And the more I considered Christianity, the more I found that while it had established a rule and order, the chief aim of that order was to give room for good things to run wild.

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

God love you.

Thank you for that applicable quote for the wise fellow Chesterton. Would that he were here so I could ask him questions! For he tells me I should forgive any crime, but he does not tell me what conditions one must meet to be forgiven.

He is helpful in one respect. He says that

forgiving = pardoing

Do you agree with this definition of the word, my friend Nun?

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Thank you for that applicable quote for the wise fellow Chesterton. Would that he were here so I could ask him questions! For he tells me I should forgive any crime, but he does not tell me what conditions one must meet to be forgiven.

He is helpful in one respect. He says that

forgiving = pardoing

Do you agree with this definition of the word, my friend Nun?

Actually, what Chesterton was saying is that, as Christians, we must render ALL crimes as unforgivable, and yet we must forgive ALL criminals.

Kinda stretches your mind, eh?

God love you.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

And oh yes, about pardoning. Yes that what he says. However, we must go even beyond that. You see, all sins do not just offend God, they damage some things too. Therefore, instead of just forgiving them and pardoning them for their offenses, we must also help sinners repair the damage that they have caused to themselves, others, and society by their sins. That is the main reason for the penance part of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and, ideally, the reason for the state penitentiary system.

God love you.

 

[spockrates]

+JMJ+

And oh yes, about pardoning. Yes that what he says. However, we must go even beyond that. You see, all sins do not just offend God, they damage some things too. Therefore, instead of just forgiving them and pardoning them for their offenses, we must also help sinners repair the damage that they have caused to themselves, others, and society by their sins. That is the main reason for the penance part of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and, ideally, the reason for the state penitentiary system.

God love you.

Yes, Nun, that is helpful! Let’s see. If someone sins against me, what I should do is pardon the person for that sin. Now all I have to do is understand exactly what that means. Please tell me, Nun. Which of these definitions would you use?

par·don
[pahr-dn]

–noun

1. kind indulgence, as in forgiveness of an offense or discourtesy or in tolerance of a distraction or inconvenience: I beg your pardon, but which way is Spruce Street?
2. Law .
   
   a. a release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor.
   b. the document by which such remission is declared.
   [*]forgiveness of a serious offense or offender.
   ​

**–verb (used with object)

1. to make courteous allowance for or to excuse: Pardon me, madam.
2. to release (a person) from liability for an offense.
3. to remit the penalty of (an offense): The governor will not pardon your crime.**

–interjection

1. (used, with rising inflection, as an elliptical form of I beg your pardon, as when asking a speaker to repeat something not clearly heard or understood.)

dictionary.reference.com/browse/pardon​

Specifically, what I’m asking, is this: What verb describes the action of pardoning, which is the same as forgiving? Which of the definitions, in bold font, explains how to forgive (or pardon) someone? Is it (5) or (6) or (7)?

 

[spockrates]

I’m thinking that you must mean that the act of forgiving is the same as pardoning in the sense of definition (6). Don’t you, Nun?

**6. to release (a person) from liability for an offense. **

That is, I should always forgive everyone by releasing them from any liability for their offenses against me. Is that the truth you are asking me to stretch my mind and see?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

–Rush (Open Secrets)
I’ve always loved Rush!

My favorite band and one of my favorite songs by them.

spockrates:

What I hear you saying is that God the Father’s forgiveness is conditional, but Jesus’ forgiveness is not conditional, I’m not sure if I believe my ears, and I’m unsure if I’ve asked you this before: But isn’t that logically impossible? I mean, they are both one and the same God. If the God the Father forgave a person *conditionally *for a sin, and the God the Son forgave the *same *person unconditionally, then wouldn’t God be both forgiving conditionally and not forgiving conditionally at the same time? That’ seems to me illogical, and a contradiction, and so not at all possible! Don’t you agree?

It’s a matter of function, not opinion. God can not have differing opinions at odds with Himself. God can hold different functions within the three Divine persons however.

spockrates:

Here’s what I’m thinking, my Rush-minded friend: When and if God forgives unconditionally, the Father and the Son both forgive unconditionally, for they are both the same God. When and if God forgives conditionally, the Father and Son both forgive conditionally, for they are both the same God. But when one forgives unconditionally, the other cannot forgive conditionally, for they are both the same God.
What are you thinking?

Signal transmitted
Message received
Reaction making impact
Invisibly

Elemental telepathy
Exchange of energy
Reaction making contact
Mysteriously

Rush (Chemistry)

The band Rush has three distinct persons with Geddy Lee on Bass, Alex Lifeson on Guitar, and Neil Peart on Percussion. Geddy Lee provides the vocals. Neil Peart provides the lyrics.

Let’s take the lyric aspect. Neil Peart is the unconditional provider of the lyrics. There are no conditions where Neil does not write the lyrics when a song requires them (Let’s ignore the pre-Neil Rush for the sake of argument ). However, a condition may exist where an instrumental is written where lyrics do not apply.

Let’s say the album Hemispheres represents the people subject to judgement in a given time period. Each song represents a person who is either saved or damned. The persons that are saved have songs that contain lyrics (Book of Life reference? ), whereas instrumentals are unsaved persons. Therefore the persons represented by the songs Hemispheres, The Trees, and Circumstances are saved whereas the La Villa Strangiato person is damned because there are no lyrics.

My point:

• Neil writes the lyrics unconditionally when there is a song that needs lyrics.
• Jesus intercedes for us unconditionally when He knows us.
• Rush has songs that does not contain lyrics. There are conditions where the lyrics are absent.
• God has created persons that are ultimately damned. There are conditions where their names are not written in the Book of Life and therefore not in Heaven.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Here’s what I’m thinking, my Rush-minded friend…

…What are you thinking?

Here’s another way of what I’m thinking…

There’s a Rush tune that contains lyrics that are sung.

Neil Peart does not sing the tune. Is this a contradiction?
Geddy Lee did not write the lyrics for the tune. Is this a contradiction?
Alex Lifeson did neither. Is this a contradiction?

Rush sings a tune with lyrics even though individually they might not. Three persons in one band. Different functions, not different opinions.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I’m thinking that you must mean that the act of forgiving is the same as pardoning in the sense of definition (6). Don’t you, Nun?

**6. to release (a person) from liability for an offense. **

That is, I should always forgive everyone by releasing them from any liability for their offenses against me. Is that the truth you are asking me to stretch my mind and see?

I would have to say yes. I know it is hard…but reflect on what we pray when we say the Lord’s Prayer: “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” The manner we pardon those who sin against us will be used by Father on us in forgiving our sins. Any leeway on interpreting this part of the prayer as anything but such is removed by the Catechism:

CCC 2838 This petition is astonishing. If it consisted only of the first phrase, “And forgive us our trespasses,” it might have been included, implicitly, in the first three petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, since Christ’s sacrifice is “that sins may be forgiven.” But, according to the second phrase, our petition will not be heard **unless we have first met a strict requirement. Our petition looks to the future, but our response must come first, for the two parts are joined by the single word “as.”

Let us also reflect on this parable by Jesus:

Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn’t pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!’ The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. "But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ “So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you!’ He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?’ His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don’t each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds.” Matthew 18:23-35

God love you.

 

[spockrates]

Here’s another way of what I’m thinking…

There’s a Rush tune that contains lyrics that are sung.

Neil Peart does not sing the tune. Is this a contradiction?
Geddy Lee did not write the lyrics for the tune. Is this a contradiction?
Alex Lifeson did neither. Is this a contradiction?

Rush sings a tune with lyrics even though individually they might not. Three persons in one band. Different functions, not different opinions.

Let’s look at it a different way–the Mormon way. Neil, Geddy and Alex die and become gods. They, with their celestial wives travel the universe and find a solar system suitable to populate. They work as a team to create the planet that will be the cradle of their new race–the Xanaduan race.



So please consider this: Neil does not create the planet (turning a dead rock into a habitable garden of Xanadu) and the DNA of the Xanaduan race, but Geddy does. Is this a contradiction? No. Geddy does not design the planet and the race, but Neil does. Is this a contradiction? No. Alex neither designs nor creates. Is this a contradiction? No.

Now ask the same questions of the one true God: The Son does not create the earth and the human race; the Father does. The Father does not design the earth and the human DNA; the Son does. The Holy Spirit neither designs nor creates. Are these contradictions? Yes. Why? Because, unlike the celestial gods of Xanadu, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three beings, but one–they are one true God.

See what I’m getting at? To say that the three persons of the one God can have different rolls in the creation of the world is to say that they are different gods, as Mormons believe. So too, to say that they forgive differently (even contrary) to one another is to believe that they are separate gods.

But let’s say this is possible. The Father God always forgives conditionally, and the Son of God contradicts His Father by always forgiving unconditionally. Do you think, then that He is asking you and me to do what He Himself will never do? For He tells you and me this:

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

(Matthew 5:48)

If God the Father’s way of forgiving is perfect, and the Son of God forgives in the exact opposite way that His Father forgives, then His way of forgiving cannot be perfect. Since it is not perfect, then how can the Son be God, for isn’t God perfect? What is worse, since the Son is unwilling to do what He commands you and I to do, then doesn’t that make Him a hypocrite? What’s more, if they forgive in polar opposite ways (with the Son forgiving everyone and the Father forgiving only the repentant, penitent, or ignorant, then we find an absurd result that Hell is filled with those forgiven by God. The alternative is equally shocking: Heaven would be filled with the unforgiven who refused to repent!



For these reasons, I cannot abide by the idea that the Father forgives conditionally, and the Son forgives in a way opposite and contrary to the Father by forgiving unconditionally. Can you?

 

[spockrates]

Styl:

Consider Jesus’ words:

21 “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.”

(John 5)

Since all judgment is entrusted to the Son of God, then doesn’t that mean that Hell will be empty and Heaven filled with the most wicked the world (and Satan) has to offer, since the Son forgives everyone unconditionally? It seems to me that the results of gods forgiving in contrary ways might be true for the lost Xanadu but not for the found Heaven prepared for me and you.

I have heard the whispered tales of immortality
The deepest mystery
From an ancient book, I took a clue
I scaled the frozen mountain tops of eastern lands unknown
Time and man alone
Searching for the lost Xanadu, Xanadu

–Rush (Xanadu)

If Jesus forgives unconditionally, He must not always do so, for He is the God who judges the world, and to not forgive conditionally would be a great injustice and out of character for the one true God. Don’t you agree?

 

[spockrates]

+JMJ+

I would have to say yes. I know it is hard…but reflect on what we pray when we say the Lord’s Prayer: “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” The manner we pardon those who sin against us will be used by Father on us in forgiving our sins. Any leeway on interpreting this part of the prayer as anything but such is removed by the Catechism:

CCC 2838 This petition is astonishing. If it consisted only of the first phrase, “And forgive us our trespasses,” it might have been included, implicitly, in the first three petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, since Christ’s sacrifice is “that sins may be forgiven.” But, according to the second phrase, our petition will not be heard **unless we have first met a *strict ***requirement. Our petition looks to the future, but our response must come first, for the two parts are joined by the single word “as.”

Let us also reflect on this parable by Jesus:

Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn’t pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!’ The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. "But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ “So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you!’ He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?’ His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don’t each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds.” Matthew 18:23-35

God love you.

I see that you are one means of His love for me!



For only you, and perhaps one other, in this dialog agrees with me that forgiveness can be pardoning someone completely. You see, most of the thoughtful people in this discussion thread insist that forgiving is merely not being angry. You are saying what I was wondering–that forgiving should be so much more than not holding a grudge; it’s should be not holding the sins themselves against the one forgiven.



But I find you have taken this noble truth and paired it with a strange bedfellow of absolute unconditional forgiveness. For you are saying that forgiving is this:

**6. to release (a person) from liability for an offense. **

And you are of the fascinating opinion that this releasing a person form liability for an offense should be done for everyone, every time, regardless of what they say, think, or do! Still this might be fascinating, but true. Let’s put the idea to the test to see. Please consider this example:

You are in an automobile accident that totals your car, puts you in the hospital for months, and kills your passenger, whom you love very much. As a result of your hospital stay, you lose your job, and cannot pay your mortgage, and lose your home.

It turns out that the one who cause the accident escaped unscathed. He loses his driver’s license, for he was driving under the influence of alcohol, and this was his third offense for drunk driving. He comes to the hospital to visit you, and is irate. He angrily threatens to sue you for losing his license, blaming you for the wrongs you committed against him! Not only that, but he tells you he is going to continue to drink and drive, even without a license, because he did nothing wrong!



Do you forgive him by pardoning him? Do you not hold him liable for the sins he has committed against you? Do you not seek to have him arrested, nor hire a lawyer and counter sue him for the great harm he did? Do you not hold him liable for the sin that he committed, and will likely continue to commit since he is unrepentant? Or do you hold him liable for this sin for which he refuses to repent in hope that he will change his mind before he does to another what he has done to you? In this case, should you not demand repentance before you don’t hold him liable for his sins?



After all, Jesus said:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and*** if he repents***, forgive him."

(Luke 17:3)

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

spockrates:

Now ask the same questions of the one true God: The Son does not create the earth and the human race; the Father does. The Father does not design the earth and the human DNA; the Son does. The Holy Spirit neither designs nor creates. Are these contradictions? Yes. Why? Because, unlike the celestial gods of Xanadu, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three beings, but one–they are one true God.

Why is it so critical as Christians that we understand God as three persons in one God? You seem to have created a scenario that the three persons are irrelevant. Don’t you accept the premise that each person has a different function? You seem to be implying that each function is ultimately done by all.

Consider Jesus’ words:
21 “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.”

(John 5)
Since all judgment is entrusted to the Son of God, then doesn’t that mean that Hell will be empty and Heaven filled with the most wicked the world (and Satan) has to offer, since the Son forgives everyone unconditionally? It seems to me that the results of gods forgiving in contrary ways might be true for the lost Xanadu but not for the found Heaven prepared for me and you.

No it doesn’t mean that hell will be empty. My point (expressed in yet another way ) is that those who know Jesus, will be saved. If you don’t know the Son, the Son will not know you. If He knows you, He will advocate for you.

spockrates:

If Jesus forgives unconditionally, He must not always do so, for He is the God who judges the world, and to not forgive conditionally would be a great injustice and out of character for the one true God. Don’t you agree?

It seems to me that you believe that the word unconditional is not a good word under any circumstance. What do you think of this statement?

 

[jay29]

“If your brother sins against you AND HE REPENTS, forgive him.”

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I see that you are one means of His love for me!



For only you, and perhaps one other, in this dialog agrees with me that forgiveness can be pardoning someone completely. You see, most of the thoughtful people in this discussion thread insist that forgiving is merely not being angry. You are saying what I was wondering–that forgiving should be so much more than not holding a grudge; it’s should be not holding the sins themselves against the one forgiven.



But I find you have taken this noble truth and paired it with a strange bedfellow of absolute unconditional forgiveness. For you are saying that forgiving is this:

**6. to release (a person) from liability for an offense. **

And you are of the fascinating opinion that this releasing a person form liability for an offense should be done for everyone, every time, regardless of what they say, think, or do! Still this might be fascinating, but true. Let’s put the idea to the test to see. Please consider this example:

You are in an automobile accident that totals your car, puts you in the hospital for months, and kills your passenger, whom you love very much. As a result of your hospital stay, you lose your job, and cannot pay your mortgage, and lose your home.

It turns out that the one who cause the accident escaped unscathed. He loses his driver’s license, for he was driving under the influence of alcohol, and this was his third offense for drunk driving. He comes to the hospital to visit you, and is irate. He angrily threatens to sue you for losing his license, blaming you for the wrongs you committed against him! Not only that, but he tells you he is going to continue to drink and drive, even without a license, because he did nothing wrong!

We must not forget that the petition to God for mercy in the Lord’s Prayer says, “Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.” Each sin against us actually affects not one party (us) but five: (1) us, (2) God, (3) other people, (4) society in general, and (the most important of all, in my opinion, 5) the sinner himself. The petition to God pertains to the offense to us only. That’s why G.K. Chesterton says the Church “came in startlingly with a sword, and clove one thing from another. It divided the crime from the criminal.” The Church recognized the truth that every offense to you not only affects you, but everyone else. By recognizing this truth, we can be loving to the criminal and forgive him and completely pardon him of his crimes to ourselves, but hating the crimes, damning each crime to the lowest levels of hell, because we recognize the harm of each crime not only to ourselves, but to God, other people, society, and especially the sinner himself, all whom we love, since we hate all that harm our loves.

Now that we got that out of the way, we can consider your scenario better.

Do you forgive him by pardoning him?

Yes.

Do you not hold him liable for the sins he has committed against you?

No, because I have completely forgiven him for his offenses to me.

Do you not seek to have him arrested, nor hire a lawyer and counter sue him for the great harm he did?

Yes I will have him arrested, hire a lawyer and seek to send him to jail, because

1. it will be a great mercy to the unrepentant driver (the sinner) that he would be given a chance to repent, reform his life, and pay the debt to society for his crimes in jail, since this, ideally, is the reason for the state penitentiary system.
2. it will be a great mercy for the rest of my family (other people). Because of my prolonged stay in the hospital, my family lost our home, went into debt, and had no income. It is only just that I demand recompense for the offense to my family, as I am also demanded of such by God, too, to those I have sinned against.
3. it will be a great mercy for other people that will be accidentally hit by this unrepentant driver if he remains free and unrepentant (society in general).

Do you not hold him liable for the sin that he committed, and will likely continue to commit since he is unrepentant? Or do you hold him liable for this sin for which he refuses to repent in hope that he will change his mind before he does to another what he has done to you?

When we talk about sin, it is left to God and the sinner himself, for no one but God can forgive sins (offenses to God: Luke 5:21), and the sinner can only be forgiven by God if the sinner asks for mercy.

In this case, should you not demand repentance before you don’t hold him liable for his sins?



After all, Jesus said:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and*** if he repents***, forgive him."

(Luke 17:3)

I would not demand repentance in relation to myself, for Jesus even prayed on the Cross for the unrepentant, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

I will however, implore him, and pray to God, that he would be repentant of his sins to God and others.

God love you.

 

[spockrates]

Why is it so critical as Christians that we understand God as three persons in one God? You seem to have created a scenario that the three persons are irrelevant. Don’t you accept the premise that each person has a different function? You seem to be implying that each function is ultimately done by all.

Sorry for being unclear. I’m not thinking that there are three persons in one God–I’m thinking that there is one God in three persons. Why this is important, I think, is because of something Saint Paul the Apostle wrote:

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love…

(Ephesians 5:1-2)

You see, how can I imitate God in the way God forgives if I don’t know how God forgives? If I determine that what you say is true and God the Son forgives differently than God the Father, then how do I know who to imitate when I forgive? If the Son forgives, but the Father does not, then whose example do I follow? You, my new friend, seem to be saying that I should follow the Son of God’s example and forgive unconditionally, but should never follow the Father God’s example by forgiving conditionally. What I don’t yet understand is why. Why should I imitate the Son but never imitate the Father?

No it doesn’t mean that hell will be empty. My point (expressed in yet another way ) is that those who know Jesus, will be saved. If you don’t know the Son, the Son will not know you. If He knows you, He will advocate for you.

Not sure I understand. Are you saying this?

Forgiving someone = praying for someone

It seems to me that you believe that the word unconditional is not a good word under any circumstance. What do you think of this statement?

I’m thinking that

unconditional = arbitrary

And I’m thinking that

forgiving someone = pardoning someone

So to arbitrarily pardon someone means to not hold her accountable or liable for her sinful behavior, regardless of what she says, thinks, or does. An example would be someone who commits the mortal sin of murder. If the Son of God forgives unconditionally, then He pardons arbitrarily. It would not matter if the murderer killed with premeditation, or in ignorance. It would not matter if the person repented of the wrongful killing of an innocent human being, or was a serial killer who had no intention of repenting and even enjoyed making others suffer and die. Awareness, or unawareness; repentance, or unrepentance; sorrow for the sin, or joy in sinning; good or evil; nothing would make a difference to the God who forgives unconditionally. They would all be arbitrarily pardoned, for that’s what unconditional forgiveness is.

Unconditional mercy, on the other hand, is not a detriment, but a virtue. God can unconditionally be merciful (or lenient) to all. Regardless of how wicked they are, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can all treat those who do wrong better than they deserve to be treated. Mercy, then can be unconditional, without God sacrificing the virtue of justice, but I hope you can appreciate why I don’t yet understand how unconditional forgiveness can be just.

 

[spockrates]

“If your brother sins against you AND HE REPENTS, forgive him.”

Hi, Jay! Would you say (at least in this example) the Son of God is advocating conditional forgiveness. That is, He is suggesting that we forgive when the forgiven meet the condition of repenting of their wrongs?

 

[spockrates]

+JMJ+

We must not forget that the petition to God for mercy in the Lord’s Prayer says, “Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.” Each sin against us actually affects not one party (us) but five: (1) us, (2) God, (3) other people, (4) society in general, and (the most important of all, in my opinion, 5) the sinner himself. The petition to God pertains to the offense to us only. That’s why G.K. Chesterton says the Church “came in startlingly with a sword, and clove one thing from another. It divided the crime from the criminal.” The Church recognized the truth that every offense to you not only affects you, but everyone else. By recognizing this truth, we can be loving to the criminal and forgive him and completely pardon him of his crimes to ourselves, but hating the crimes, damning each crime to the lowest levels of hell, because we recognize the harm of each crime not only to ourselves, but to God, other people, society, and especially the sinner himself, all whom we love, since we hate all that harm our loves.

Now that we got that out of the way, we can consider your scenario better.

Yes.
No, because I have completely forgiven him for his offenses to me.
Yes I will have him arrested, hire a lawyer and seek to send him to jail, because

1. it will be a great mercy to the unrepentant driver (the sinner) that he would be given a chance to repent, reform his life, and pay the debt to society for his crimes in jail, since this, ideally, is the reason for the state penitentiary system.
2. it will be a great mercy for the rest of my family (other people). Because of my prolonged stay in the hospital, my family lost our home, went into debt, and had no income. It is only just that I demand recompense for the offense to my family, as I am also demanded of such by God, too, to those I have sinned against.
3. it will be a great mercy for other people that will be accidentally hit by this unrepentant driver if he remains free and unrepentant (society in general).

When we talk about sin, it is left to God and the sinner himself, for no one but God can forgive sins (offenses to God: Luke 5:21), and the sinner can only be forgiven by God if the sinner asks for mercy.

I would not demand repentance in relation to myself, for Jesus even prayed on the Cross for the unrepentant, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

I will however, implore him, and pray to God, that he would be repentant of his sins to God and others.

God love you.

God love you too, Nun! Please forgive me, but I still don’t understand. You say that forgive means to pardon, and that you and I should pardon everyone, without exception. You also agree that yes, pardoning means to release a person from liability (or responsibility or penalty) for her sin. You then say that no, you would NOT release the person in the example from the liability (or responsibility or penalty) for her sin. But what I don’t comprehend is this: If you don’t release her from the liability (or responsibility or penalty) for her sin, then how can you say you have pardoned (or forgiven) her? To me it seems a contradiction, but perhaps I’m blind to the truth you see? If so, please open my eyes. In what way, exactly would you release her from the deserved liability, responsibility and penalty for her sinful actions?