Should Forgiveness be "Unconditional"?
The forgiveness controversy
Back in 1999, I preached a series on the subject of forgiveness. Many folks in our congregation had never heard the approach I took. A number commented that they heard Christian leaders on the radio or in magazines take the opposite position during the weekdays between my sermons.
The world and much of evangelicalism believe that we should forgive unconditionally. Secular psychologists and popular preachers have formed an alliance that intimidates many of us from even considering the alternatives. Yet many Bible teachers believe that forgiveness is conditioned upon repentance. I am in the latter group.
Bible-believing Christians agree that we are to forgive others as God forgives us. If you believe God forgives unconditionally, this would logically lead you to Universalism, the belief that everyone is saved; no one is under the wrath of God because God’s wrath is not directed toward those who are forgiven. If God forgives unconditionally, then none are unforgiven. Most evangelicals recognize that multitudes are lost, yet many say that God forgives unconditionally. Do you see the contradiction here?
That the Lord does not forgive unconditionally is clear in Scripture: “Surely at the command of the LORD it came upon Judah, to remove them from His sight because of the sins of Manasseh… and the LORD would not forgive…” (NIV: 2 Kings 24:3-4).
So lets set aside our preconceptions and consider what the Bible actually teaches about forgiveness. See if my points are validated by God’s Word.
The manner of forgiveness
First, we are to forgive others in the same manner God forgives us. Ephesians 4:32 reads, “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”
God’s condition for forgiveness
Second, God’s manner of forgiveness requires our repentance. Acts 3:19 gives us a taste of Apostolic preaching: “Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord….” Note that repentance (a change of mind, including regret for sin) is the required condition for God’s forgiveness. God does not hold us to a higher standard than He holds Himself. His grace extends only to those who repent; He does not expect us to be more gracious than He is.
In Acts 8:22, after Simon had sinned by seeking to buy the Holy Spirit, Peter rebuked him with these words: “Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you.” Note that forgiveness is neither presumed nor assumed. It is conditioned upon repentance.
So if we forgive as God forgives, and God forgives in response to repentance, logically we are to forgive others when they repent.
Levels of forgiveness
Third, we must ask the question, “Forgiveness at what level?” When we turn from our sins (repent) and turn to Christ, all our sins are forgiven: past, present, and future—at least, as far as salvation goes. Nothing can take us out of God’s hand. We are given the righteousness of Christ and the seal of the Holy Spirit, and we are already legally seated in heaven (Ephesians 1-2).
Even though we cannot lose our salvation, we can lose our fellowship with God. When the believer lives in rebellion against God, sin blocks his ability to communicate with God (Psalm 66:18) and places him in a position to be disciplined by the Lord (1 Cor. 11:32). If we grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30)—the One who assures us of our salvation (Rom. 8:16)—we could logically lose our sense of assurance as we quiet His voice.
How do we remedy this situation? 1 John 1:9 makes it clear: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” To my way of thinking, this implies that if we do NOT confess our sins, he will NOT forgive us our sins. If God forgives us unconditionally, the verse becomes meaningless.
Sometimes forgiveness involves God not zapping people physically here on earth. I think that when Jesus asked the Father to forgive those who crucified Him, He meant, “Don’t zap them.” His example clearly makes a distinction between sinning in ignorance (“for they know not what they do”) and sinning with full knowledge.
Forgiveness in relationships
Fourth, we must boldly apply these concepts to our relationships. If others confess how they have sinned against us, we are obligated to initiate the forgiveness process. That does not mean we immediately trust them, for credibility can only be restored through faithful behavior over time. Sometimes credibility can never be fully restored. In such a case, forgiveness (a restoration of relationship as if the offense had never occurred) can never be complete.
Jesus put it this way: “So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him” (Luke 17:3). Although shorter accounts of Jesus’ teaching could be wrongly interpreted to suggest unconditional forgiveness, the longer passage in Luke presents a more detailed truth and qualifies our obligation to forgive.
We cannot always simply choose to forgive; forgiveness can be a struggle that may take a long time; it sometimes involves a process of sorting through emotions and moving gradually toward forgiveness (complete reconciliation). Sometimes we might need to say, “With God’s help, I will try to forgive you, but I am not there yet.” Honesty is crucial at this point. Christians who believe they must immediately forgive an offense often become good liars—to themselves first, and then to others.
Even when someone does not repent, it is often in our best interest to let a hurt go, if we can. We should do so because we know that bitterness drains us and keeps us from enjoying the life God has given us. We should not do so out of false guilt, but for our own benefit. Do not confuse this with genuine forgiveness, which brings complete relational restoration.
I have seen people horribly victimized and then plagued by guilt because they cannot seem to forgive the one who abused them. This guilt adds to their heavy burden. Often such guilt is unwarranted because the offender has not even requested forgiveness or evidenced genuine repentance. Sometimes people simply do not want to forgive because they are grasping for control—withholders of grace. Forgiveness evens the score, and some of us want the advantage and excuse of being a wronged person.
God recognizes that some situations are so evil that it is natural for us to want to get even. God Himself is a God of justice, so since we are in His image, we desire justice. Paul wrote: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil…. Do 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. On 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.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:19-21). Find consolation in knowing that God will hold everyone accountable; none can evade Him.
I have presented what I believe to be the correct teaching of Scripture about forgiveness. My challenge to you is to study the Scriptures and test the above, especially since my understanding is the minority viewpoint. If you disagree with me, I’ll forgive you!
Ed Vasicek was raised as a Roman Catholic in Cicero, Illinois. During his senior year in high school (in 1974), Cicero Bible Church reached out to him, and he received Jesus Christ as his Savior by faith alone. Ed later felt a call to ministry and enrolled at Moody Bible Institute (B.A., Pastoral Studies/Greek). After graduating, he served as pastor of Victory Bible Church of Chicago (a branch work of Cicero Bible Church) and married Marylu Troppito. In 1983, the couple moved to Kokomo where Ed began pastoring Highland Park Church, where he still serves. Ed and Marylu have two adult children, Hannah and Luke. Ed loves to write. He has written over 500 weekly columns for the opinion page of the Kokomo Tribune, published articles in Pulpit Helps magazine, and populated his church’s website with an endless barrage of papers. You can access them at www.highlandpc.com.
- 515 views
This link http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2007/06/09/didnt-jesus-pray-forgive-them-fat… http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2007/06/09/didnt-jesus-pray-forgive-them-fat… points to a post on my blog related to Jesus prayer on the Cross.
One of the first things I think we need to talk about regarding forgiveness is this. Is forgiveness essentially a feeling? Or, is it a relationship? Many in our culture describe it as a feeling - - so when they say forgiveness is automatic, what they mean is that we ought not to be consumed by bitterness.
Of course, we shouldn’t be consumed by bitterness! I plan to preach on that at Peacemakers National Conference in a couple of weeks.
But - - biblical forgiveness is about more than just feelings. When God forgives, it does not mean his feelings change for his benefit. It is all about our relationship with Him.
I could write lots more - - and have! But, this is a blog so I’ll stop there for now.
[cdbrauns] Hi everyone. I wish my schedule allowed me to interact with this extensively.Having read Chris’s book, I highly recommend it. It’s helped me come to see “conditional forgiveness” as a waypoint in the journey from sin & estrangement to restoration. The popular concept sees forgiveness as a therapy for personal emotional health. Instead, forgiveness should be seen as more of a forensic step in the process of relational health. Utilizing a simple relationship between two individuals, I’ve laid it out this way:
This link http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2007/06/09/didnt-jesus-pray-forgive-them-fat… http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2007/06/09/didnt-jesus-pray-forgive-them-fat… points to a post on my blog related to Jesus prayer on the Cross.
One of the first things I think we need to talk about regarding forgiveness is this. Is forgiveness essentially a feeling? Or, is it a relationship? Many in our culture describe it as a feeling - - so when they say forgiveness is automatic, what they mean is that we ought not to be consumed by bitterness.
Of course, we shouldn’t be consumed by bitterness! I plan to preach on that at Peacemakers National Conference in a couple of weeks.
But - - biblical forgiveness is about more than just feelings. When God forgives, it does not mean his feelings change for his benefit. It is all about our relationship with Him.
I could write lots more - - and have! But, this is a blog so I’ll stop there for now.
1) ORIGINAL RELATIONSHIP: marked by intimacy/fellowship/oneness/unity. The level depends on the type of relationship (marriage/parent-child/sibling/friend/church/work/etc.)
2) SIN/TRESPASS: one party in the relationship “offends” the other (Matt. 18:15). The may lead to…
3) ESTRANGEMENT: the relationship is injured, perhaps broken. Intimacy, fellowship, etc. dissipates. Estrangement is marked by avoidance, breakdown in communication, hostility, etc. This will likely require…
4) CONFRONTATION: either the offended confronts the offender (Matt. 18) or the offender seeks forgiveness from the offended (Matt. 5:23-24). If the former, this may lead to…
5) REPENTANCE: the offender is truly and demonstrably sorry for his sin, desiring to set right the wrong done. His repentance demands…
6) FORGIVENESS: the penalty of sin (estrangement) is forgiven (Matt. 18:21-22, but cf. unrepentant, v. 17b — vv. 23-25 illustrate these dynamics). Forgiveness always results in….
7) RECONCILIATION: A relationship is re-established (cf. unrepentant — Mt. 18:17b). Hostilities are removed so that the parties communicate at some level; there’s no more avoidance. This makes possible a return to the former depth of relationship. Reconciliation, resulting from forgiveness to the repentant, enables the possibility of…
8) RESTORATION: a return to the depth of intimacy, etc. before the transgression. Restoration occurs through a process of time, the length of which depends on several factors, including level of prior intimacy, gravity of sin, cooperation of both parties, and the level of trust to be restored.
Mapping out the “journey” in this way has helped me avoid the fallacy of therapeutic forgiveness. Furthermore, it recognizes that forgiveness doesn’t equal or demand restoration.
M Shep said:
Also, it is important to follow the Biblical forgiveness process in cases where someone has sinned for the sake of the forgiver and the forgivee: 1. offender sins; 2. person offended confronts this person; 3. offender repents of sin and apologizes; 4. the offended person then forgives him (verbally). This last step is very important for the forgiver since it marks his obligation to forgive someone who truly repents. Some, when they are asked, “Will you forgive me,” will say something like “no need for forgiveness,” “oh, I’ve already forgotten about that,” or “I have already forgiven you.” This breaks the forgiveness process and does not produce the true reconciliation demanded by the Bible (2 Cor. 5:18-19).I agree with you, Jay Adams has done a good job on this, impressing us with the importance of saying, “What I did was wrong. Will you forgive me?” It really aids to have clear, direct communication in contrast to the weasel-like cop out, “IF I did anything wrong.” That is not an apology or even an admission of guilt. It puts the burden on the one offended to forgive, though no apology has been given. If the offended says, “I don’t forgive,” he looks like a jerk. He should respond, “If you admit you did wrong and ask my forgiveness, I will do so. But as long as you are uncertain that what you did was wrong, there can be no apology.”
D.Hazen87 has some good points. When you ask for forgiveness, the burden is on the other person. He has to decide if he is willing to forgive. But the establishment of credibility is a different matter. When we forgive, we give the offender a chance to re-earn our TRUST. Our trust is not immediate.
. The Issue of Credibility means you don’t need to immediately trust someone you have forgiven.. Restitution should be made when possible (Luke 19:8; Proverbs 14:9, 2 Corinthians 7:10) In Luke 3:7-8, we read:
7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.”Daniel asks some HARD questions:
Psalm 51 is tough to interpret; no one doubts that David sinned against God, but ONLY God? I do not have an answer to that one, but the answer your Hebrew prof suggested is worse than no answer, IMO :) The second question is answered by the fact that we can only look on the outward appearance, and we know people by their fruit. We can forgive the repentant, but, as cited above, we have to give them a fair chance to re-establish credibility. If we can no longer honestly believe that the offender is sincere because of repeated patterns, we would be fools to trust that person. WE should then stand ready to consider viewing him as credible when the repeat offender has walked the walk for a significant period of time. There is a status of “forgiveness is initiated, but it is forgiveness with one’s eyes open.”
Hey Ed. I agree with Ted that I always appreciate your insight. A few questions though.
How does Psalm 51 fit in where David says, ‘against you, you only have I sinned’. If I remember correctly, my Hebrew prof at college had said the OT frame of thought was that we sin against God, but ?offend? people. (I cannot remember the word he used in reference to other people, so don’t quote me on that.)
Second, yes, we need to forgive as Christ forgave, but are there points at which this breaks down?(forgiving unconditionally) For example, if Christ forgives conditionally on our repentance (I would assume true repentance), then I would need to know if the transgressor is truly repentant, would I not? Or is this where it breaks down?
SSuter said:
“How many times should I forgive my brother”? Peter was expecting an answer like yours… but Jesus doesn’t answer “well, it depends if he’s repentant or not”. or “well, if he keeps having to ask forgiveness clearly he hasn’t really repented” - I’m really hesitant to write off Matthew as a misinterpretation.We should interpret shorter Gospel portions in light of longer accounts. Luke 17 says,
“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”The Gospel accounts are summaries and are brief minute or two statements from teachings that may have lasted hours. The more context we get, the better.
Hopefully this will answer most questions. But if you disagree, relax: I forgive you :)
"The Midrash Detective"
Duane said:
I can, and I believe should forgive my brother, 70 x 7 times, with that being basically every time. I am not required to restore the relationship without their repentance. This is a very over simplification, but it is a blog, not a disertation.I think you are lessening the meaning of forgiveness at this point. It is sort of like someone who is worried saying “I am concerned.”
But do you leave room for wanting God to take revenge with your approach, as Romans 12:17-21 states? It sounds to me like your view would be incompatible with this attitude that Paul not only affirms, but presents as an option.
Notice the holy souls under the altar in heaven desire revenge, and they are not condemned for it, but their desire is affirmed:
9When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed.How do you integrate those verses into your paradigm?
Matt brought up Eph. 4:32. Again, I would say that the Christian is always to be ready to forgive. Minor infractions are “covered in love,” as Peter mentions in I Peter 4:8. More serious offenses need confrontation, Matthew 18:15-17. You would never confront a forgiven brother, IMO. But this delves into hermeneutics. Do you base your long views on short passages, or do you approach matters using the analogy of faith? Perhaps you base your view of divorce and remarriage on Romans 7:1-3 and ignore the rest. Or your view of salvation on John 3:16 but ignore the matters of repentance and understanding the atoning work of Christ. Same sort of thing here, IMO.
D.Hazen 87 said
But, I do have a genuine question (that hopefully won’t come off as arrogant) - so what do we do with that?? What difference do you see it making practically, in day to day living, if we do not forgive those who do not repent? It may be the guilt of not being able to forgive people that you mentioned, but I’d love to hear you flush that out yet, and maybe we can all see how, Biblically, we should be dealing with hurt and forgiveness and our own hearts, and see how it relates to God.I have helped so many people see that they are not wrong to have ill feelings toward someone who hurt them badly (child molesting, gang rape, unfaithful spouse, druggies, a father who murdered a girl’s best friend and stalked her, etc., etc.). These victims have suffered so much, and then they bear the burden of feeling even more sinful because they cannot forgive the (non-repentant) offender.
According to Exodus 23:21, sometimes God will not forgive. We do not have that option, upon repentance. I may have another post on developing a Christian theology of hatred. How do we handle it? Obviously, we are better off if we can release our bitter feelings to God, but this is often a struggle, like we see in Psalm73. We are not machines that can turn on or off like a light-switch. We are better off being HONEST about how we feel and dealing with it than disguising the truth and telling ourselves we have forgiven when in fact we have not.
Bob T. commented:
We are to turn the other cheek and love our enemies.Have you ever noted the MODERATION in the Sermon on the Mount? You walk the extra MILE, NOT an extra 10 miles. A slap in the face is an act of insult, but you turn the other cheek once (again, like walking an extra mile). You go beyond, you give room — within boundaries. Most people never catch that. I think it means we give people the benefit of the doubt — but within reasonable limits.
"The Midrash Detective"
NET: Against you — you above all — I have sinned; I have done what is evil in your sight. So you are just when you confront me; you are right when you condemn me.
CEV: You are really the one I have sinned against; I have disobeyed you and have done wrong. So it is right and fair for you to correct and punish me.
Concerning the word “only,” Strong notes: “properly separation; by implication a part of the body, branch of a tree, bar for carrying; figuratively chief of a city; especially (with prepositional prefix) as adverb, apart, only, besides….”
I’ve interpreted the “only” as “ultimately” (rather than “exclusively”) in the sense that, were it not for the fact that God established moral law, there would be no transgression against another human being. In other words, all sin against my neighbor derives from my sin against God, who has established the moral framework for human relations.
Do we get a hint that this is the sense when later David acknowledges he’s violated another human being by begging, “Deliver me from bloodguiltiness…”? He couldn’t be guilty of blood if his sin was exclusively against God, since man can’t shed God-as-spirit’s “blood.” But in shedding another man’s blood—an obvious transgression against the victim—he has ultimately sinned against God.
I think that if we boldly applied this to our own situation we would be more apt to forgive…even those who would rather die than say “I’m sorry.”You know, Matt, this comment got me thinking. It is the idea of “unconditional forgiveness” that encourages people not to learn how to ask forgiveness. When I do premarital counseling, I try to train couples to do just that. Every Christian needs to learn how to ask forgiveness. We cannot view those resistant to the idea as just people of a certain temperament. There is no excuse for someone not saying, “I was wrong. Will you please forgive me.” In a way, this is what starts the Christian life in the first place!
Here is part of the material I use in premarital counseling. People who have a hard time doing this need to practice in an empty room and then (if they sincerely agree that this is what they should do) must mouth the words to the offended party.
“I have sinned by ______________. I regret what I did because it was wrong, and that wrong hurt you. I will try to guard against sinning this way in the future. I ask you to forgive me. Will you do so?”
1. Personal responsibility for our sin is a must. If we excuse it or qualify it, we are not sincerely repentant for it. It is helpful to limit an apology to the above statement so as not to cloud the issue.
2. For mistakes, we can say, “I’m sorry.” That’s okay if a burp escapes from your mouth or you spill a cup of coffee. Mistakes are blunders without sinful intent. Sins are moral issues. Lying, swearing, fits of rage, etc., are sins, not mistakes. A mistake is a social impropriety, a sin is a thought or action contrary to God’s revealed will. Never call a sin a mistake.
3. Asking forgiveness means focusing on the one we hurt rather than saving face and focusing on our pride. Men or women who are slaves to pride find it nearly impossible to ask forgiveness.
4. Asking for forgiveness means expressing repentance. “I will try not to sin in this way again.” We can never guarantee—only express sincere intent.
5. A request to forgive puts the ball in the offended person’s court. If the offended person refuses to forgive, that is their choice.
It seems like the idea of “humbling ourselves” runs contrary to our ego-driven western values. We cannot accept that, IMO.
"The Midrash Detective"
The statement was then made that upon repentance one should forgive. The question then came up: what if one does not repent after sinning against you, do you forgive anyway? I said no. Then the fireworks started. You might think I denied the virgin birth of Christ. We spent the next two weeks going through this subject but I pointed out that forgiveness is based upon repentance. Nowhere in scripture do you see forgiveness without repentance. When Jesus said:
Forgive them for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34), He meant that this sin (of crucifying Jesus) be not held against them so that forgiveness could be obtained by the repenting sinner at a future date. Notice also Stephen: Lay not this sin to their charge (Acts 7:60). But that did not immediately forgive them ones stoning him, including Paul (then Saul). He would say later: I obtained forgiveness because I did it ignorantly in unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13).
Interestingly enough we are to seek the persons restoration. This involves confronting the unrepentant person. This work can be messy and gritty. We are commanded to do that. I’m afraid that some may use unconditional forgiveness as a cloak to avoid the process of restoring the sinning saint (Galatians 6:2).
Francis Lerro
I’m somewhat concerned by the inference drawn from 2 Corinthians regarding the man who committed incest and was subsequently disciplined from the church. The forgiveness that Paul is referring to in 2 Corinthians is actually restoration to the church, not forgiveness over an offense. To infer that this situation somehow creates a process by which we are to forgive those who wrong us is a flying leap in logic…right? :)
[Matt Walker] The conclusion that “unconditional forgiveness” has resulted in people not properly asking for forgiveness should not be used as an argument against it any more than the fact that people drive cars sometimes results in accidents. I had a similar conversation with a friend this summer who said that because of unconditional repentance Christians were prone to let the offense against them go instead of confronting the offending party. I don’t think that is the real reason they let it go. I think it is because they hate confrontation. They would rather “let it go” than confront someone. To blame unconditional repentance is to put the blame on the wrong thing, IMO.I agree that these are not arguments against that unconditional viewpoint. But I would argue that it is easier to justify failing to confront or learning how to ask for forgiveness as a consequence of such a view because it weakens the necessity for these. Still, many who believe in unconditional forgiveness do ask for forgiveness and do confront. It is kind of like election (which I believe in). One possible consequence of such a view is failure to evangelize. That doesn’t mean those of us who believe in sovereign grace are wrong or don’t believe in evangelism. But it is a possible consequence (and I do think that Arminians are typically more prone to witness, IMO). But one should not arrive as his convictions for pragmatic reasons, but rather on the basis of what he believes the Bible teaches. So I hear you on this.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Matt Walker] Francis,On this one, I don’t know that I fully agree. The pattern for forgiveness is God, and the church and the individual Christian are to follow that same pattern, I believe, based on Ephesians 4:32. Also, in the Lord’s Prayer, the (fellowship) forgiveness God gives us is conditioned upon our willingness to forgive others (that is the condition). I think it is all tied in, IMO.
I’m somewhat concerned by the inference drawn from 2 Corinthians regarding the man who committed incest and was subsequently disciplined from the church. The forgiveness that Paul is referring to in 2 Corinthians is actually restoration to the church, not forgiveness over an offense. To infer that this situation somehow creates a process by which we are to forgive those who wrong us is a flying leap in logic…right? :)
"The Midrash Detective"
In 2Corinthians 2:7 Paul states to the people of the church to forgive this one. I do believe it involves restoration to the church but also forgiveness of the people toward the repentant person. I wanted to point out that forgiveness was not mentioned when Paul, a year earlier told the church to discipline the member from the church. But you are correct, this was not a good example.
Also see Luke 17:3 and Matthew 18:15. These verses show forgiveness upon repentance and even the command to confront someone who sins against you.
Now I know that love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8) and if someone wants to forgive an offense against them that is great. But the forgiveness must be real. They need to let it drop and not bring it up in conversations with their friends.
If someone sins against you and it seems that you are offended in that you see this as something that is not going away, scriptures point to you going to confront the offending party. I know it is unpleasant (I myself hate confrontation) but the scriptures command it. The statement: I’m afraid that some may use unconditional forgiveness as a cloak to avoid the process of restoring the sinning saint implies that some may forgive but after the offense things are not the same. The offense comes up in conversations with their friends. You must ask the question: Did they really forgive??
Hope this helps. Have a blessed day.
Francis Lerro
“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”
Hi Ed, I join the chorus to say that I, too, am greatly edified by your articles and have even circulated some around our local church body (women). I have a quick question: What does the “repent” look like here? Are we looking for only speech, or are we also looking for other indicators such as time lengths, sincerity, patterns, etc.? I’m sorry if I missed this explanation in your article or comments. I’ll go back and read it if I’m duplicating efforts. Thanks!
Can I also offer a practical application here from my own experience? I’ve often found that it’s useful when I’m the offender and adds to (my) sincerity, if, after the forgiveness process has been worked out to full reconciliation/resolution—I ask that person to hold me accountable in that area. I realize there are some qualifiers here, but for the most part, I’ve found it’s good for my practical Christian life within my home! and church life and also good for the soul (very humbling). I hope this isn’t too much of rabbit trail because I know this wasn’t the original intent of the article, but thought it might be useful to some.
Thanks, Kim Noble
One of the questions that always comes up when we talk about repentance is sincerity. On the one hand, I have no problem attempting to demonstrate my sincerity by making restitution that I believe is consistent with the offense, but I have problems with people holding out hoops for others to jump through. Personal anecdote- I once sent a card to apologize to someone (who I didn’t see very often) and ask for their forgiveness. When 3 weeks later there was still no response, my dh called to ask what the problem was- apparently sending a card was tacky, and ‘proof’ of my lack of sincerity. And here I was thinking that putting my apology in writing, being very specific and I thought thoroughly repentant, would actually serve as evidence of my sincerity. No dice- apparently they are still holding out for sackcloth and ashes.
Discussion