When must we ask forgiveness?
Forum category
Simple question, when do we have to ask forgiveness from other people?
For long past sins, recent sins, minor sins, major sins? Sins only, or also transgressions? What if the other person isn’t angry? What if you don’t remember the offense? What if you have committed many offenses, can you ask forgiveness for all with a single sentence (as a cluster)? Hopefully you can think of more scenarios, but you get the idea.
For long past sins, recent sins, minor sins, major sins? Sins only, or also transgressions? What if the other person isn’t angry? What if you don’t remember the offense? What if you have committed many offenses, can you ask forgiveness for all with a single sentence (as a cluster)? Hopefully you can think of more scenarios, but you get the idea.
I would encourage one, in considering their reconciliation, to first confess their offense and secondly, seek their pardon. But when and how to do it is a necessary question.
There are a multitude of scenarios.
In the case of a person being offended there must be an evaluation. That is, their judgment isn’t the only criteria. If a person is offended and they believe you have done something to offend them this does not mean the process of determination is over. They may indeed be right or they may indeed be wrong. They could be offended over perfectly legitimate behavior, therefore a discussion must ensue where each person discusses their behavior, their reaction and the binding principles. This requires maturity. So sometimes, if someone believes they have been offended but are reacting immaturely and are unwilling to objectively approach the matter, you sometimes cannot even begin the process of corporately identifying whether you have truly done something that needs admitted to or not. At that point you can only keep open an offer to reconcile but of course it must be based on mutual interest and within certain bounds.
or
Let’s say you have done something of which the other person is not aware but it is an offense against his or her person. There is a temptation to equate our relationship with humans with that of God in such a case and believe we must confess to that person something of which they are not aware whereas with God, he is always aware. There may be wisdom in silent repentance with humans. But then, maybe it is a case that the one who is unaware may become aware at some point. Again, humans are not God. We must be ready to confess and reconcile if such a process is necessary but where a person is unaware of your offense there may be many cases where your silent repentance is much more wise than creating an unnecessary wound.
or
Suppose you do have a long list of offenses that you and the person against whom you have perpetrated the sins are aware. Then you should sit down and recall, if necessary write down, all the sins of which you are guilty and confess them in detail, that is, assuming this person is interested in receiving your confession. That does not mean, even here, that person is willing to forgive you but they may be willing to let you confess them. What do I mean? There are people that love to nurse a grudge but do not want to be guilty of not letting the sinner confess their sins. They go half way. It is a selfish act, yes, but what it does do is relieve you of your responsibility. You are not responsible for what they do afterward. If, after you have confessed what you know to be sins and even if they have some to add that are legitimate that you did not recall but now you agree, after all this is done, the only thing left is to say, “and so, ________ (fill in the name) I ask your forgiveness” or “I seek your pardon”.
They may not pardon you. They may, indeed, nurse those confessed sins or they may lie and say they forgive you but do not forgive you. I have no doubt you and most readers know this so I am stating the obvious, but with necessity, which is after you have admitted what you are guilty of and recognized their right to pardon or not, you are no longer bound to them by way of guilt. If they do not pardon you that is their right but you are not their prisoner unless of course there is a matter of restitution, and in that case you are their prisoner until such a debt is paid.
But in the case of non-restitutional sins, you are free to go about with all liberty after the process of confessing and requesting forgiveness. So as you noted and clearly true, there are many scenarios that require discretion and a one-size-fits-all approach for reconciliation is quite unwise, both practically and with regard to biblical prescription.
There are a multitude of scenarios.
In the case of a person being offended there must be an evaluation. That is, their judgment isn’t the only criteria. If a person is offended and they believe you have done something to offend them this does not mean the process of determination is over. They may indeed be right or they may indeed be wrong. They could be offended over perfectly legitimate behavior, therefore a discussion must ensue where each person discusses their behavior, their reaction and the binding principles. This requires maturity. So sometimes, if someone believes they have been offended but are reacting immaturely and are unwilling to objectively approach the matter, you sometimes cannot even begin the process of corporately identifying whether you have truly done something that needs admitted to or not. At that point you can only keep open an offer to reconcile but of course it must be based on mutual interest and within certain bounds.
or
Let’s say you have done something of which the other person is not aware but it is an offense against his or her person. There is a temptation to equate our relationship with humans with that of God in such a case and believe we must confess to that person something of which they are not aware whereas with God, he is always aware. There may be wisdom in silent repentance with humans. But then, maybe it is a case that the one who is unaware may become aware at some point. Again, humans are not God. We must be ready to confess and reconcile if such a process is necessary but where a person is unaware of your offense there may be many cases where your silent repentance is much more wise than creating an unnecessary wound.
or
Suppose you do have a long list of offenses that you and the person against whom you have perpetrated the sins are aware. Then you should sit down and recall, if necessary write down, all the sins of which you are guilty and confess them in detail, that is, assuming this person is interested in receiving your confession. That does not mean, even here, that person is willing to forgive you but they may be willing to let you confess them. What do I mean? There are people that love to nurse a grudge but do not want to be guilty of not letting the sinner confess their sins. They go half way. It is a selfish act, yes, but what it does do is relieve you of your responsibility. You are not responsible for what they do afterward. If, after you have confessed what you know to be sins and even if they have some to add that are legitimate that you did not recall but now you agree, after all this is done, the only thing left is to say, “and so, ________ (fill in the name) I ask your forgiveness” or “I seek your pardon”.
They may not pardon you. They may, indeed, nurse those confessed sins or they may lie and say they forgive you but do not forgive you. I have no doubt you and most readers know this so I am stating the obvious, but with necessity, which is after you have admitted what you are guilty of and recognized their right to pardon or not, you are no longer bound to them by way of guilt. If they do not pardon you that is their right but you are not their prisoner unless of course there is a matter of restitution, and in that case you are their prisoner until such a debt is paid.
But in the case of non-restitutional sins, you are free to go about with all liberty after the process of confessing and requesting forgiveness. So as you noted and clearly true, there are many scenarios that require discretion and a one-size-fits-all approach for reconciliation is quite unwise, both practically and with regard to biblical prescription.
‘There may be wisdom in silent repentance with humans. But then, maybe it is a case that the one who is unaware may become aware at some point. Again, humans are not God. We must be ready to confess and reconcile if such a process is necessary but where a person is unaware of your offense there may be many cases where your silent repentance is much more wise than creating an unnecessary wound.”
–-
Any verses for this situation?
Thanks.
–-
Any verses for this situation?
Thanks.
It would be nice if every time there was an issue the Bible succinctly provided a specific chapter and verse addressing all unique scenarios and conditions, however that is not the case and is such cases we have to look at, as we always do in theological development, the treatment and development of related issues to find out what is prescriptive, descriptive, binding and a matter of liberty.
And in this matter it is important to discover the various texts that deal directly or indirectly on the matter and understand that if something is not being required of us in Scripture, then we are not bound by requirements issued by Bible Teachers or Pastors no matter how sincere they are and often this can be the case.
Your conscience must be exercised toward the liberties God gives you and not just his commands. And if God does not require you to go to everyone you believe you have sinned against and name those sins, then exercise your faith in his Word that he has given you the liberty to not have to do it in those cases where you really do not think it necessary or wise. False guilt may tempt you otherwise but over time as your conscience is exercised toward God’s Word and his integrity and not false guilt I believe you will find great freedom and much more effectiveness in determining who and who is not appropriate for such cases.
Let me look at one passage that may deal with a related issue:
Matthew 5:23-24 teaches (some take the view that this as an OT regulation of temple offerings only but even in this context we find may use it to observe and derive principles) that if our brother has something against us we must be reconciled with them before we should complete our worship.
And it is from this text much in the way of Christian instruction stems with regard to the issue you have raised, sins against one another and dealing with them. Unfortunately I believe this text has been misused and clearly to the damage of our understand regarding what God requires for believers.
Here are some things to notice both what is and is not present:
1. It does not deal with offenses of which the other is unaware.
2. It does not necessarily mean by leaving them out that there will not be times when we will have to admit to something though others are unaware.
3. But it also does not mean that we must confess to all things of which others are unaware.
4. Rather in this case we see someone aware of an act by another that they claim is an offense by another against them and that before offering a gift at the altar (or before worshiping with the church as some Christians use this since this is in the context of OT temple altars) that person must go and be reconciled.
Now one might then proceed from there and determine what is necessary for reconciling. And then we come upon other verses such as “confess your sins one to another” which means we confess those things to the individual we believe we have done to injure them. As well we must consider certain kinds of restorative acts if we have stolen from them social standing, personal property and so on. And there is more on the matter than simply this to which I refer.
But to the issue of silent repentance. I would ask someone, first, why do you believe you need to go to someone who is unaware of your offense against them if they do not know and likely will never know?
I believe it is a selfish act. Because such an act seeks to relieve the one with the burden (the offender) and burden another with an injury they did not previously sustain.
And I believe the Scripture teaches us that in such cases we must bear these burdens ourselves. It is in keeping with the cross we must bear. It is the divine order of the saint that seeks the greater good of their brother rather than self.
And in this matter it is important to discover the various texts that deal directly or indirectly on the matter and understand that if something is not being required of us in Scripture, then we are not bound by requirements issued by Bible Teachers or Pastors no matter how sincere they are and often this can be the case.
Your conscience must be exercised toward the liberties God gives you and not just his commands. And if God does not require you to go to everyone you believe you have sinned against and name those sins, then exercise your faith in his Word that he has given you the liberty to not have to do it in those cases where you really do not think it necessary or wise. False guilt may tempt you otherwise but over time as your conscience is exercised toward God’s Word and his integrity and not false guilt I believe you will find great freedom and much more effectiveness in determining who and who is not appropriate for such cases.
Let me look at one passage that may deal with a related issue:
Matthew 5:23-24 teaches (some take the view that this as an OT regulation of temple offerings only but even in this context we find may use it to observe and derive principles) that if our brother has something against us we must be reconciled with them before we should complete our worship.
And it is from this text much in the way of Christian instruction stems with regard to the issue you have raised, sins against one another and dealing with them. Unfortunately I believe this text has been misused and clearly to the damage of our understand regarding what God requires for believers.
Here are some things to notice both what is and is not present:
1. It does not deal with offenses of which the other is unaware.
2. It does not necessarily mean by leaving them out that there will not be times when we will have to admit to something though others are unaware.
3. But it also does not mean that we must confess to all things of which others are unaware.
4. Rather in this case we see someone aware of an act by another that they claim is an offense by another against them and that before offering a gift at the altar (or before worshiping with the church as some Christians use this since this is in the context of OT temple altars) that person must go and be reconciled.
Now one might then proceed from there and determine what is necessary for reconciling. And then we come upon other verses such as “confess your sins one to another” which means we confess those things to the individual we believe we have done to injure them. As well we must consider certain kinds of restorative acts if we have stolen from them social standing, personal property and so on. And there is more on the matter than simply this to which I refer.
But to the issue of silent repentance. I would ask someone, first, why do you believe you need to go to someone who is unaware of your offense against them if they do not know and likely will never know?
I believe it is a selfish act. Because such an act seeks to relieve the one with the burden (the offender) and burden another with an injury they did not previously sustain.
And I believe the Scripture teaches us that in such cases we must bear these burdens ourselves. It is in keeping with the cross we must bear. It is the divine order of the saint that seeks the greater good of their brother rather than self.
Discussion