Forgiveness is one sided. Why does it have to be accepted.

[bling]

Suppose you do something wrong to me and I forgive you. You can choose not accept my forgiveness but it has no consequence. You are still forgiven. My ability to forgive you of your sins against me is not in anyway whatsoever contingent upon you.

So why would G-d require belief in Jesus and acceptance to forgive sins? Why is that necessary for G-d when it is not necessary for humans?

God is not bound by the dictionary to define His words and “forgiving” is one of those words Christ gives us God’s definition and it is very different.

Under Christ’s definition forgiveness is not “one sided”. We are to do our part in forgiving everyone and anyone just as God forgives everyone, but that does not mean true (Godly type) forgiveness has taken place, because those being forgiven have a part to play and that is correctly accepting forgiveness as “charity”.

Christ’s disciples had the same problem with forgiveness and were using a similar definition as you do.

The main place to learn this is with Jesus’ parable poorly titled “Unmerciful Servant” Matt. 18: 21-35.

I have taught this parable before by asking 30 questions, which takes times and lots of other scripture knowledge.

To begin with you need to understand how Jesus addresses questions and comments. Does Jesus always address the comment or question directly or does Jesus address the “question” on the person’s heart that will help that person reach the greater spiritual understanding he needs?

In Matt. 18:22 does Jesus give a complete answer to Peter’s question?

After Peter and the others with Christ get His answer (imagine you being there as a disciple) what would be your comeback question?


Let’s start with this and move on if you would like.

 

[ForceofTime]

In Matt. 18:22 does Jesus give a complete answer to Peter’s question?

Interesting. Yes, he does.

 

[razeontherock]

Suppose you do something wrong to me and I forgive you. You can choose not accept my forgiveness but it has no consequence. You are still forgiven. My ability to forgive you of your sins against me is not in anyway whatsoever contingent upon you.

So why would G-d require belief in Jesus and acceptance to forgive sins? Why is that necessary for G-d when it is not necessary for humans?

These are good questions. It appears you need to get past some poor teaching.

Where does REPENTANCE fit into all of this?

 

[Justsomedude]

Let’s start with this and move on if you would like.

I already reached a conclusion that I believe to be perfectly valid on this thread and there is absolutely nothing in this post that would lead me to reconsider that conclusion.

Thank you anyway though.

 

[Justsomedude]

These are good questions. It appears you need to get past some poor teaching.

Merely stating that does nothing whatsoever in helping me to understand your ideas.

Where does REPENTANCE fit into all of this?

Your repentance is not a necessary condition for me to forgive. I provided an example in this thread of a case of forgiveness without repentance.

And any rate, I've already reached a conclusion that I think is perfectly valid. Unless you or someone else can demonstrate that my conclusion is flawed in some way, I'm done with this thread.

 

[razeontherock]

I really like this. I am in a relationship with Christ for the purpose of reconciliation with God.

This is an interesting observation I want to comment on but first:

Christ is part of the Godhead. I wouldn't try to separate like it is any "two parts." "G-d is One."

Next, I recently commented to my Pastor (via e-mail) that the purpose of the Gospel is to receive the promised Holy Spirit. He replied it's purpose was to be reconciled with God. Next i pointed out I can't see any way to separate the two. He didn't reply back, but most of what we had discussed wound up in the next Sunday's sermon

 

[razeontherock]

Forgiving someone means that I have cancelled their debt to me. I am not asking the guy to pay anything back. But there is nothing about that that necessitates that I actually have any more contact with him.

As someone else has pointed out, the situation is not identical to the our alleged relationship with the Christian god as the Christian god allegedly wants a relationship with us while I have no desire for a relationship with this guy.

But this brings up another question. We've already established that forgiveness is one-sided. Since Jesus died for all peoples' sins, we are all forgiven and so no one has to worry about going to Hell. But belief is required for a relationship and a relationship is required to go to heaven. Since not everyone has a relationship with Jesus and so not everyone is going to Heaven, but everyone is forgiven and so no one is going to Hell, what happens to the people that don't believe in Jesus when they die?

Whoa, back up! The part I colored is NOT part of Christian teaching, and never has been. The part you missed is "all Judgment has been given unto the Son." Notice how dissimilar this is to "we know the outcome and can take it for granted."

 

[razeontherock]

My Conclusion at this time: Forgiveness and reconsiliation are two seperate states. One can be forgiven without being reconciled.

To apply this Christian theology, there are three possible correct Christian stances.

1. Limited Salvation - Jesus died only for the sins of those that would accept his sacrifice. He did not take on the sins of those that would reject him and so they can't be forgiven.

2. Universal Salvation, Limited Reconsilliation - Jesus died for everyone's sins and so everyone is saved from Hell. But only believers go to Heaven. Nonbelievers just die.

3. Universal Salvation and Reconsilliation - Jesus died for everyones sins and everyone will be reconciled. Belief is irrelevent.

All other possibilities are logically inconsistent and so invalid.

These 3 positions have all been espoused by various groups within Christianity who liked to think of themselves as "Orthodox;" however, this IN NO WAY supports your final statement! It merely expresses human limitations.

I think more weight is deserved to Ebia's statement, and also the fact that none of this is a foregone conclusion. Instead ... "all Judgment has been given to the Son." A living, breathing, human. (Albeit in a Glorified state)

 

[razeontherock]

Merely stating that does nothing whatsoever in helping me to understand your ideas.

My ideas are not what will help you. I didn't merely state that you've (obviously) been exposed to poor teaching posing as Christianity, and that you need to get past that. Even if it means via conversion to Judaism. I asked you to consider how repentance fits into all this, and ...

you're not ready to do that. Instead you're insistent upon merely considering the mortal POV.

 

[zaksmummy]

Forgiving someone means that I have cancelled their debt to me. I am not asking the guy to pay anything back. But there is nothing about that that necessitates that I actually have any more contact with him.

As someone else has pointed out, the situation is not identical to the our alleged relationship with the Christian god as the Christian god allegedly wants a relationship with us while I have no desire for a relationship with this guy.

But this brings up another question. We've already established that forgiveness is one-sided. Since Jesus died for all peoples' sins, we are all forgiven and so no one has to worry about going to Hell. But belief is required for a relationship and a relationship is required to go to heaven. Since not everyone has a relationship with Jesus and so not everyone is going to Heaven, but everyone is forgiven and so no one is going to Hell, what happens to the people that don't believe in Jesus when they die?

I have learned that forgiveness is about being set free from anger, and is to help prevent bitterness, even if it is one sided it still has an effect.

In the Torah God says that anyone who disobeys the commandments will be cut off from their people, Israel, this is exactly what happens to the rest of us if we reject Jesus as Messiah - we will be cut off from God forever.

 

[bling]

Interesting. Yes, he does.

Good.

So what would you be thinking about after being given this answer?

 

[Joveia]

A relevant question is: is heaven a place? So if God let someone into heaven who was a very bad person, then would they enjoy eternal life? Or is heaven something else?

I believe that heaven is not really a place per se but part of what makes heaven heaven is being connected to God.

Romans 14:17: For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit

This requires two people - God and the person, so it really is reconciliation that needs to happen.

 

[ForceofTime]

Good.

So what would you be thinking about after being given this answer?

Cain and Lamech.

 

[chris4243]

Suppose you do something wrong to me and I forgive you. You can choose not accept my forgiveness but it has no consequence. You are still forgiven. My ability to forgive you of your sins against me is not in anyway whatsoever contingent upon you.

So why would G-d require belief in Jesus and acceptance to forgive sins? Why is that necessary for G-d when it is not necessary for humans?

When one person wrongs another, there are many people involved. The person who was wronged perhaps has the major complaint, but perhaps the family and friends of the person who was wronged, or society in general, or God, gets offended by that offense as well. In addition, the person who wronged the other may have done so against his own moral rules, and so wronged himself as well. Even when everyone else forgives someone, sometimes that person never forgives himself.

In addition, any of these might have a moral system where what was done is not considered wrong, so have nothing to forgive.

 

[paul1149]

1. Jesus died for everyone's sins but only believers are saved. - If Jesus died for everyone's sins, then the debt was paid for everyone, including nonbelievers. Nonbelievers can't be forgiven and not forgiven at the same time and so this is position is invalid.

I don't believe that is accurate. Jesus, being very God, had enough virtue to reconcile all of Creation into heaven. God, being infinite, is far greater than all created things massed together. So Christ's holy sacrifice is sufficient for all (just as scripture attests).

But that does not necessarily mean that all are saved. Christ laid the legal foundation for the offer of salvation. But that offer must be accepted, or it lies dormant, is of no effect and ultimately goes to waste.

Human forgiveness is a reflection of divine forgiveness. When we forgive someone, if it's met with acceptance and repentance then reconciliation can occur. If not, though he is forgiven, the transgressor doesn't benefit at all; he still has unrepented sin that is going to affect his life, his soul and his relationship to God. In such a case, our forgiveness does not preclude justice being served on the perpetrator, perhaps including eschatological justice. But on our side of the equation, we free ourselves from the bondage of unforgiveness and bitterness, our peace returns to us, and we remain in good standing with God.

 

[Justsomedude]

My ideas are not what will help you. I didn't merely state that you've (obviously) been exposed to poor teaching posing as Christianity, and that you need to get past that. Even if it means via conversion to Judaism.

I've been exposed to a number of different Christian doctrines. Some of which were very poor, some of which made more sense and were more useful.

I asked you to consider how repentance fits into all this, and ...

you're not ready to do that.

I did consider it and have come to the conclusion that repentence is not necessary for forgiveness to take place. Just because you don't like my conclusion doesn't mean I didn't consider it.

Instead you're insistent upon merely considering the mortal POV.

For a very brief moment after reading this sentence, I tried considering the immortal POV but the fact that I am a mortal kept getting in the way.

Go figure.

 

[Justsomedude]

These 3 positions have all been espoused by various groups within Christianity who liked to think of themselves as "Orthodox;" however, this IN NO WAY supports your final statement! It merely expresses human limitations.

Someone else asked about other possibilities and so I listed them and explained why they are logically inconsistent.

As for human limitations, I am limited in that I can't make sense out of statements that are logically inconsistent. For example, someone can say "Jesus paid the price for everyone's sins so that everyone can be forgiven but some people are still unforgiven." The first part of the statement says that Jesus paid the price for everyone so it would appear that the price is paid for everyone and so I would think that it logically follows that everyone is forgiven. The second part of the statement contradicts the first, saying some people are still unforgiven. This does not logically follow and so I have no idea what meaning the statement is trying to convey. Either Jesus paid the price for everyone or he didn't. If some people are still unforgiven, then what meaning could it possibly have to say that Jesus paid the price for everyone's sins?

I think more weight is deserved to Ebia's statement,

Ebia's statement was:

Forgiveness can be reduced to a one-sided thing, but reconciliation is a two sided thing, and that's what is required.

I did consider the statement but appearently you didn't understand it and so I will try to make it clear.

In Christianity it is asserted that repentence and belief is needed for reconciliation. Since not everyone is going to repent and/or believe then it logically follows that not everyone will be reconciled.

If we assume Jesus died for everyone's sins, but not everyone believes or repents, then it logically follows that everyone is forgiven but only a limited number of people are reconciled.

and also the fact that none of this is a foregone conclusion. Instead ... "all Judgment has been given to the Son." A living, breathing, human. (Albeit in a Glorified state)

And this means what?

 

[razeontherock]

For a very brief moment after reading this sentence, I tried considering the immortal POV but the fact that I am a mortal kept getting in the way.

Touche

 

[Justsomedude]

I have learned that forgiveness is about being set free from anger, and is to help prevent bitterness, even if it is one sided it still has an effect.

Agreed. Never argued otherwise. In fact that is my entire point. One side is all that is needed.

 

[Justsomedude]

When one person wrongs another, there are many people involved. The person who was wronged perhaps has the major complaint, but perhaps the family and friends of the person who was wronged, or society in general, or God, gets offended by that offense as well. In addition, the person who wronged the other may have done so against his own moral rules, and so wronged himself as well. Even when everyone else forgives someone, sometimes that person never forgives himself.

In addition, any of these might have a moral system where what was done is not considered wrong, so have nothing to forgive.

I agree with every you have to say here. I just don't know what this has to do with this thread.