Landmark Baptist

It is often said when helping people deal with great harm that has happened to them at the hand of someone else, like a child abandoned or abused, or a spouse cheated on etc. that the only way to get on and deal with life is to forgive that person, though that person does not admit wrong or repent in any way. I question this. Have we redefined the word forgiveness according to modern psychology and focused on it as simply a feeling toward the person instead of what forgiveness really is, which is also an act of pardoning and freeing of the person?

A girl is abused for years as a child and must now deal with the damage done to the soul as an adult. The criminal never expresses regret or confesses in any way. The first thing we do is saddle the woman with the idea that she cannot really be free from this criminal and his crime until she forgives him anyway, even though he has not confessed. In other words, we ask the woman to forgive in the absence of confession.

Is this what God did for you and me when we were saved? Is that what God does for you and me now?

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I do understand the need to not allow bitterness and an unforgiving spirit rule our lives, and the woman in the scenario needs to be free of such bitterness, but I just think we do damage to the Bible definition of forgiveness when we say she needs to forgive him even before he confesses. It seems to me there is already a Bible term describing the condition of heart that the woman needs, which is the condition of heart God has to those who have not yet confessed.

Psalms 86:5 For thou, Lord, [art] good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee.

Ready to forgive does not mean the same thing as, forgive them anyway.

There is a real heresy out there that I have run into more than once that says, “We are all already saved, based on the forgiveness and mercy of God”. They use this verse to back up their claim:

[quote]1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.[quote]

They key on the Saviour of all men phrase. You and I all know this is an incorrect understanding and a blatant heresy. However, I wonder if we have bought in to the cheapening of the word forgiveness by suggesting it is something we can or should do without the condition of confession.

Thoughts?

Bros. you are right-on!

Forgiveness without confession is like paying someone to be lazy. It is a contradiction in terms. What is always left out is the accountability factor of the offender. We are told throughout the scripture that we will give an account of our deeds as done in the flesh to God. Rom. 14: 12. When someone commits a monstrous transgression against another, it is the offender who is responsible for admitting their wrong doing, and are to repent of their actions, and ask for forgiveness. Only then are we required to forgive according to the scripture.

Luke 17: 3-4. In this reading you will note that it is the one who is the trespasser who is to say, “I repent”. The worldly counselor of today tries to place a guilt trip on the victim by demanding forgiveness, when often there is no sign of shame, guilt, or repentance on the part of the perpetrator. Children are abandoned by parents, spouse cheats on spouse and we are all just supposed to forgive and go on like no wrong has ever been done. Until sin is acknowledged and steps are taken to remedy any given situation of wrong doing, the wrong doing will continue. With no accountability there is no reason to stop.

Churches are bombarded with the message of love for the brethren. I believe this to be an appropriate message. The problem is that the message of love is not balanced with the message of personal accountability. We hear John 14: 15 quoted, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” But, then we are not told what those commandments are, the emphasis being only on love. Try this for a commandment, 11 Thess. 3: 6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.” We are to be doers of the word and not well wishers only.

Gaylor

The ultimate goal of confession and forgiveness is reconciliation.
If forgiveness happens without confession, reconciliation is incomplete.
Both parties play a role in order for true reconciliation to take place.

Confession is necessary unto salvation - God's forgiveness is a result of our confession of sin and begging for forgiveness. Without it, there is no salvation.

In these strange days of so many Landmark Baptist churches not exchanging letters or baptism, I still recommend those coming from a church we already know won't grant letters to us to go reconcile with that church if there was discipline or a problem involved in them leaving that church.
The goal is always reconciliation for the good of both parties.

I have also seen the offended party becoming the guilty party when the offender repents and apologizes and the offended party refuses to forgive.

As Bro. Coulter said, we are to always be ready and even excited to forgive; not happy to be sinned against in order to hold a grudge or to have a reason to tell everyone who will listen what a rotten person who offended them is. As soon as the offender repents and apologizes, they are off the hook - the burden then changes to the offended party to forgive - if they won't, they become the offender.

Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Is this an example of forgiveness without confession?

If not, what is being said here?

It seems to me that the prayer of Jesus for the ones who actually were resonsible for nailing Him to the /tree is that God would not withhold forgiveness from them for this great sin they had committed rather than forgiving them when they had not repented. I find no precedent for forgiving where it is not sought nor asked for.

W. A. Dillard wrote:It seems to me that the prayer of Jesus for the ones who actually were resonsible for nailing Him to the /tree is that God would not withhold forgiveness from them for this great sin they had committed rather than forgiving them when they had not repented. I find no precedent for forgiving where it is not sought nor asked for.

Yes this is what I have seen in this passage as well. Immediate judgment resulting in death could have been theirs and Jesus was praying for mercy so they could eventually be forgiven.

What of this passage?

Acts 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

----- wrote:Is it unwarranted forgiveness to "turn the other cheek"? I have always looked at that as a form of forgiveness to let it go and not hold a grudge or retaliate.

I have not seen this as a form of forgiveness, just not rendering evil for evil. To me, to "let it go", or "not hold a grudge", or "not retaliate", none of these equal forgiveness, they speak of the condition of the mind and heart and restraint of action. Ready to forgive. Not licking the lollipop of bitterness. But it is not the same as pardoning or lifting from the person the weight of their action.

This is the whole point, modern usage of the word has limited forgiveness to a feeling instead of an action. So being ready to forgive, but not forgiving is seen as harboring bitterness. Yet if we allow that kind of logic, why not accept a wayward member which we have rightfully withdrawn fellowship from immediately, based not on their confession but on our "forgiveness" alone? Why would a good and "forgiving" God stand there, loving us and wanting us to be in heaven with Him, yet witholding forgiveness?

See what I mean? Forgiveness is not a feeling, it is an action. For us to urge people to forgive based on the feelings in our heart instead of their act of confession is unbiblical and certainly ungodly. The act or forgivness has a foundation of justice. Could God be just if He forgave without confession? Do we do damage to justice when we require it of others or ourselves? God does not forgive without confession, even though he is not bound up with bitterness. He is ready to forgive.

When forgivness it watered down to just a feeling, there are harmful results just like when love is watered down to just a feeling. We need the old strength of Bible words again.

Thanks for engaging brother. You bring up some real thoughts. Here is my response to them.

----- wrote:You do not want to go too far the other way. Where it is all action and no feeling.

The act of sincere forgiving is not performed in a vacuum. It is not a stand-alone thing. It carries with it heart conditions that make it possible in the first place. Humility, mercy, charity, etc. We might describe someone as a "very forgiving person". In reality we are describing the heart conditions, which accompany forgiveness. We are describing the quality of their readiness to forgive and resistance to bitterness and grudge holding. So yes, there is feeling involved if it is sincere forgiveness, thank you for noting that. My concern is the blurring of the action with the heart condition and/or feelings. The Bible presents forgiveness as an action taken in response to confession. There are feelings involved on both sides because we are not robots; we are people with emotional packages. However, no matter how badly we wish for the chance to forgive someone, we step outside the bounds of following God's Word by statement and example if we forgive them in the absence of their confession. Our heart may be ready, hopefully it is, and when we are able to give the forgiveness, it should be joyous for us to do so.

----- wrote:People can go through the motions in action and not mean a thing about it. What of the guy who goes through the motion of confessing and you forgive, but he only did it get out of trouble, yet continues in the offence against you. Do we then take back our forgiveness? You have already pardoned him based on his confession, freeing him. Or if he really did mean it when he confessed and fell back into a state of sin and his previous actions occured. Is the forgiveness now void, because he is back at it again? God is truly the only one who can know our intentions and true heart when we come to Him. He is the only one who can truly be just in the matter.

You are right, only God can know the true state of the heart. Still though, forgiveness is seen as a response to confession, and I think repentance is part of it. I think the two go together, and 1John 1:9 is speaking of genuine confession, which will also carry repentance with it, not just a formula of words that mean nothing, yet obligate God to let us off the hook. Of course, God can see through our words and know whether they are sincere or not. We can’t. But our responsibility I think is summed up in the following passage:

Luke 17:3-4 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

Will we be fooled sometimes? Sure. But we also have a Bible description of what true repentance produces:

2 Corinthians 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, [what] clearing of yourselves, yea, [what] indignation, yea, [what] fear, yea, [what] vehement desire, yea, [what] zeal, yea, [what] revenge! In all [things] ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

----- wrote:We must be willing to turn the other cheek in Christian love or we will never find ourselves truly forgiving anybody.

It seems that turning the other cheek is the ultimate action form of forgiveness if all you are after is action. As well as lifting the person from the weight of their action and pardoning them.

I would say that the same heart conditions that provide for turning the other cheek also provide for forgiving. The retaliator will not likely do either. However, I do not see turning the other cheek as an act of forgiveness. It may qualify as suffering for Christ, being patient in affliction, not rendering evil for evil but overcoming evil with good, longsuffering, compassion, etc. But I certainly don’t see it as pardon or lifting from them the weight of their sin. That sin still stands between you and them, it has not been lifted by you refraining from retaliation and opening yourself up to further abuse.

Matthew 5:44-45 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

No forgiveness in this list. How is it possible to love your enemy, yet still put a condition of confession upon forgiving them?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Love for the enemy, yet forgiveness only for the repentant.

Another connected thought. When we view forgiveness primarily as a way to feel better about ourselves, (self-esteem building), instead of the door to being cleansed from unrighteousness, we may claim the right to never feel bad about that sin again. Yet Paul spoke of the feeling of shame for past sins:

Romans 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death.

When I look back on a past sin that I have committed, am I wrong to feel shame about it? I don’t think so. If I confessed and repented, then am I wrong to consider myself still chained to that sin and still carrying around its stain of unrighteousness? Yes. If I discount the forgiveness of God like that, I give the sin the opportunity to rule my life and I belittle, (disbelieve), the words of God. The focus is more on righteousness than on feelings, in my opinion, though feelings are certainly involved. I certainly feel much better when I know I am right with God Belief is more than a feeling.

Romans 6:11-12 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

Also, there are times when the results of a sin live on, even if forgiveness has taken place.

Proverbs 6:32-33 [But] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he [that] doeth it destroyeth his own soul. A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.

I think of the convicted sex offender. My opinion is that if he is truly repentant, and has the sense of “ …yea what clearing of yourselves…”, he will not be fighting to do children’s ministry but will fully understand that he will be denied certain ministry opportunities.

Here is an article of interest in this area.

http://onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=678596

Hello Brother,

Yes you point out something very important. I could have worded it better. I was not trying to imply that one person can cleanse another from unrighteousness like God does. (1Jhn 1:9) I see how it could be taken that way.

The sin committed stands as a barrier between two people. Reconciliation is blocked by its presence. Both sides play a part in the reconciliation happening. One confesses, and one forgives. When the one confesses, he is not to be expecting that the other has power to clean that sin from his heart, only God can do that. The forgiver then is not seeing his act of forgiving as cleaning the other's heart, only God can do that, he is simply seeing it as a removal of the barrier to reconciliation. He does not lift from the other person the sin off of his heart. He is simply removing the barrier between them. The barrier cannot be removed unless there is confession and forgiveness. However, if forgiveness is granted without confession, the barrier has not really been lifted, one just chooses to sweep it under the rug. It is not really gone, and the forgiveness was not given after the fashion of God's example. Clearly, the results of God to person forgiveness is much more pwerful than person to person forgiveness. Yet the proccess is the same.

Here is a question. What of the difference between forbearance and forgiveness?

Have a good day.

Not exactly sure what you are getting at.

----- wrote:It seems to me that the barrier is made up in our mind and in perception alone, maybe. There are things that do not offend me, but do others and vice versa.

Matthew 18:15-17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Something stands between the trespasser and the one trespassed against. What is it? The trespass. The command given here is not to rearrange your perception of what was done. The passage assumes that the action done was indeed a trespass. This indicates that we can know that certain things are for sure a trespass.

Redefining sin is not the answer.

----- wrote:Also what of this. I have gone to people to offer an apology many times. (Really it is true).
But especially among church members they will say "dont worry about it" or "It is fine", " no problem" without ever really accepting the apology. it there still a barrier?

I see these phrases as accepting the apology. Of course, one could utter them without meaning them that way, but I see these phrases as typical words used when accepting apologies.

Of course now we have the thought of what warrants an addressing as a trespass and what doesn’t. It seems the answer is in the same ball field as the difference between forbearance and forgiveness.