Why should a Christian apologize to a non-Christian

[JGG]

I read the thread Why would you ever apologize to a non-Christian, and I feel like either I don't understand the responses, the responders don't understand the question, or I understand the question differently.

Let me use an example: "As a Christian you gossip and tell a lie about someone who is not a Christian. This non-Christian has stated that there is no way they are converting to Christianity, they are happy with their given non-Christian religion."

Obviously, you're gossiping about this person, and defaming them, you don't particularly care about your relationship with them. The rest of your group are pleased by these comments, so you're not endangering those relationships either. This person won't be converting to Christianity, there's no point in making a show for them. God has already forgiven your transgression, so you owe no debt to Him. Society has no laws against gossiping, and these comments aren't slanderous in a legal sense.

So, why should you apologize? Why is it even wrong at that point? What benefit is there to apologizing?

 

[paul1149]

No one, not even the person himself, knows with certainty that he will not someday receive the Lord. If that person has a divine or angelic visitation, his thinking may well change.

We are not the judge. God is, and He isn't limited by our perceptions.

As for the sin, in Christ our sins are no longer imputed to us, no longer counted against us. But relationally, the Holy Spirit indwells us, and sin therefore sets up some major dissonance of soul. Sin needs to be dealt with if we're to have any peace at all. Thus we confess, and receive forgiveness and cleansing, according to 1Jn 1.9. If we can sin without qualms, it is an indication that we need to check that we're really Christians at all.

In short, our salvation is not merely superficial and forensic. God's plan from the foundation of the world has been for a kingdom of sons who actually share in the Divine nature through Christ.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I read the thread Why would you ever apologize to a non-Christian, and I feel like either I don't understand the responses, the responders don't understand the question, or I understand the question differently.

Let me use an example: "As a Christian you gossip and tell a lie about someone who is not a Christian. This non-Christian has stated that there is no way they are converting to Christianity, they are happy with their given non-Christian religion."

Obviously, you're gossiping about this person, and defaming them, you don't particularly care about your relationship with them. The rest of your group are pleased by these comments, so you're not endangering those relationships either. This person won't be converting to Christianity, there's no point in making a show for them. God has already forgiven your transgression, so you owe no debt to Him. Society has no laws against gossiping, and these comments aren't slanderous in a legal sense.

So, why should you apologize? Why is it even wrong at that point? What benefit is there to apologizing?

Because acting like a jerk is still acting like a jerk?

Because it violates God's Law to love our neighbor?

Because Jesus instructs us to make amends with those whom we injure?

Because acting like a jerk is still acting like a jerk?

I guess my thinking goes like this: Why wouldn't I apologize to someone I've wronged? Regardless of what they believe or don't believe. It has nothing to do with them converting or not (I don't care) it has to do with the fact that I was acting like a royal donkey-headed idiot and I shouldn't do that, and I should make amends.

That my sins are forgiven in Christ doesn't change the reality that if I act like a jerk I've acted like a jerk.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[seashale76]

I read the thread Why would you ever apologize to a non-Christian, and I feel like either I don't understand the responses, the responders don't understand the question, or I understand the question differently.

Let me use an example: "As a Christian you gossip and tell a lie about someone who is not a Christian. This non-Christian has stated that there is no way they are converting to Christianity, they are happy with their given non-Christian religion."

Obviously, you're gossiping about this person, and defaming them, you don't particularly care about your relationship with them. The rest of your group are pleased by these comments, so you're not endangering those relationships either. This person won't be converting to Christianity, there's no point in making a show for them. God has already forgiven your transgression, so you owe no debt to Him. Society has no laws against gossiping, and these comments aren't slanderous in a legal sense.

So, why should you apologize? Why is it even wrong at that point? What benefit is there to apologizing?

Even though God has offered forgiveness of sins, the gossiper in question has not actually repented and doesn't care to truly accept that they even sinned. So- in effect- they have refused God's forgiveness by refusing to acknowledge themselves as a sinner. As such- their soul is in danger. They have voluntarily separated themselves from God via sin. That person is not living in God's will and they are not continuing on the road to theosis/salvation- which IS a life-long journey for a Christian. One must endure to the end.

 

[JGG]

No one, not even the person himself, knows with certainty that he will not someday receive the Lord. If that person has a divine or angelic visitation, his thinking may well change.

We are not the judge. God is, and He isn't limited by our perceptions.

Okay, so you should apologize in case there's a chance they'll come around.

As for the sin, in Christ our sins are no longer imputed to us, no longer counted against us. But relationally, the Holy Spirit indwells us, and sin therefore sets up some major dissonance of soul. Sin needs to be dealt with if we're to have any peace at all. Thus we confess, and receive forgiveness and cleansing, according to 1Jn 1.9. If we can sin without qualms, it is an indication that we need to check that we're really Christians at all.

In short, our salvation is not merely superficial and forensic. God's plan from the foundation of the world has been for a kingdom of sons who actually share in the Divine nature through Christ.

Even though God has offered forgiveness of sins, the gossiper in question has not actually repented and doesn't care to truly accept that they even sinned. So- in effect- they have refused God's forgiveness by refusing to acknowledge themselves as a sinner. As such- their soul is in danger. They have voluntarily separated themselves from God via sin. That person is not living in God's will and they are not continuing on the road to theosis/salvation- which IS a life-long journey for a Christian. One must endure to the end.

So, if someone gossips and lies without remorse I should assume they're what? Not a True Christian? What if you tell a lie about a person, and then just forget and never deal with it? Is that it? Hellfire-for-you? Salvation withdrawn?

Because acting like a jerk is still acting like a jerk?

Well yeah, but that's my point. What of it? What's the penalty for being a jerk?

Because it violates God's Law to love our neighbor?

I find that questionable. Neighbour tends to mean people of the same faith, or more appropriately, from the same church, does it not?

Because Jesus instructs us to make amends with those whom we injure?

Does He?

Because acting like a jerk is still acting like a jerk?

I guess my thinking goes like this: Why wouldn't I apologize to someone I've wronged?

Because clearly, you wronged them for a reason. As I said, you don't like them.

Regardless of what they believe or don't believe. It has nothing to do with them converting or not (I don't care) it has to do with the fact that I was acting like a royal donkey-headed idiot and I shouldn't do that, and I should make amends.

But as was pointed out to me "[Christians] are not here to win points with man, but to win points with God." There are no God points in apologizing.

That my sins are forgiven in Christ doesn't change the reality that if I act like a jerk I've acted like a jerk.

Sure, but again, what of it?

Even then, can you not just reconcile with God, and know that you're still heaven bound, why the need to humble yourself before a non-Christian by apologizing?

 

[Lukaris]

Okay, so you should apologize in case there's a chance they'll come around.





So, if someone gossips and lies without remorse I should assume they're what? Not a True Christian? What if you tell a lie about a person, and then just forget and never deal with it? Is that it? Hellfire-for-you? Salvation withdrawn?



Well yeah, but that's my point. What of it? What's the penalty for being a jerk?



I find that questionable. Neighbour tends to mean people of the same faith, or more appropriately, from the same church, does it not?



Does He?



Because clearly, you wronged them for a reason. As I said, you don't like them.



But as was pointed out to me "[Christians] are not here to win points with man, but to win points with God." There are no God points in apologizing.


Sure, but again, what of it?

Even then, can you not just reconcile with God, and know that you're still heaven bound, why the need to humble yourself before a non-Christian by apologizing?

Because many of us do not assume that we have salvation until we have lived our lives to our last day according to the faith we have in Christ living by his commandments to love God & neighbor. We do not assume that God automatically fates anyone to hell and that Christ will examine everyone's conscience (see Romans 2 online if needed) and will determine between those who have done good &,those who were evil (see John.5:22-29). Many of us do not assume we got it in the bag & another is hopelessly lost. Is this not enough reason to live by the commandments & to hope for all people?

 

[Harry3142]

JGG-

A nonchristian's lifestyle is to be seen as none of our business as Christians. But as Christians our own lifestyle is to reflect our faith:

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers,or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. (I Corinthians 5:9-13a,NIV)

 

[oi_antz]

It might not benefit the victim to apologise to him. It would definitely be right to correct the false statements that have been made. However slanderous gossip is a strange example to use, I can't remember ever having done that actually. I have expressed opinions that later I have changed my mind about, but I am not certain that is wrong. Incorrect opinions are just ignorance because of misinformation.

How about a different example, something we all tend to do sometimes that we must apologise for. How about when we hate someone? You know, when they just irritate us in a way that makes us despise them. Even if we don't express this to them, even if we suppress it. Jesus said that when we hate someone it is the same emotion that causes a murderer to murder. Therefore it is sin. Do we apologize to people when this happens? Should we? Does it make a difference if the person is Christian or otherwise? Personally I don't. I think it would be better to not tell them that I have felt that way about them. It isn't something they need to be aware of, it is my problem that I need to be aware of, and the only good will come about from me changing rather than them. Of course, this can sometimes reveal itself in anger, in which case it is good to apologize, regardless of their religion. Just to be nice to that person, because that helps to make the world a nice place for that person. Hating people does not make the world a nice place for those people.

So, I would apologize to someone if I think it is something they deserve and need, and if doing so will not make things worse. Religion only comes into it as far as it would influence their reaction.

 

[oi_antz]

Your perception of Christianity is inaccurate again:

I find that questionable. Neighbour tends to mean people of the same faith, or more appropriately, from the same church, does it not?

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

Jesus replied with a story (it is not whoever you think belongs to your group, it is those who have shown us mercy).

I have told you this before, why did you not accept it?

There are no God points in apologizing.

There might be. Our actions can impact others, and in such an example where our actions have impacted another's self esteem, may cause problems.

But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.

“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’ <<-- These are "God points".

 

[paul1149]

Okay, so you should apologize in case there's a chance they'll come around.

So, if someone gossips and lies without remorse I should assume they're what? Not a True Christian? What if you tell a lie about a person, and then just forget and never deal with it? Is that it? Hellfire-for-you? Salvation withdrawn?

I find that questionable. Neighbour tends to mean people of the same faith, or more appropriately, from the same church, does it not?

can you not just reconcile with God, and know that you're still heaven bound, why the need to humble yourself before a non-Christian by apologizing?

Apologizing in case they'll come around, as you say, is one reason, but it may lend itself to superficiality. God so loved "the world" - the entire world. Jn 3.16 could have said "God so loved believers", or "God so loved His children", but didn't. And Christ died for the sins of the whole world, including the unbeliever. Jesus lamented that Jerusalem would not listen to Him. The whole enterprise is driven by an embracing love, not mere numbers. I'm not trying to negate your statement, but to add perspective to it.

It's not that Christians don't miss the mark. We do. We are works in progress. Most translations of 1Jn 3.6 have that the true Christian does not practice or keep on sinning, not that he never sins. This is more accurately conveys the author's intent, because he had just stated earlier (1.8) that "if we say we are without sin we lie and the truth is not in us". And if we really are "abiding in Him", as 3.6 specifies, and as the believer should well be doing, it becomes all the more harder to sin.

As for who our neighbors are, that question was explicitly asked of Jesus at Luke 10.29-. Jesus' answer is amazing. He replied with a story in which a Samaritan, who were detested outcasts from Israel, showed kindness to an unfortunate, while some ultra holy Jewish religious figures didn't want to get involved. Jesus then turned the question around on the questioner: who acted more neighborly? This question gets down to the true nitty gritty. Love shows itself by action, not classification. The questioner could barely spit out "the one who showed mercy" - he could not bring his lips to utter the word "Samaritan". Jesus then tells him, "go and do likewise".

That is one example of why no one could stand up to Jesus in debate. He understood spiritual matters perfectly and always revealed the real issue at play. The underlying issue is that we fall short of God's standard of absolute perfection, while Jesus doesn't. That is why we need a savior. Jesus is that Savior, and He lovingly invites us to Himself and His grace.

 

[theophilus777]

Even though God has offered forgiveness of sins, the gossiper in question has not actually repented and doesn't care to truly accept that they even sinned. So- in effect- they have refused God's forgiveness by refusing to acknowledge themselves as a sinner. As such- their soul is in danger. They have voluntarily separated themselves from God via sin. That person is not living in God's will and they are not continuing on the road to theosis/salvation- which IS a life-long journey for a Christian. One must endure to the end.

Yes, this is the way I see it

 

[JGG]

Because many of us do not assume that we have salvation until we have lived our lives to our last day according to the faith we have in Christ living by his commandments to love God & neighbor. We do not assume that God automatically fates anyone to hell and that Christ will examine everyone's conscience (see Romans 2 online if needed) and will determine between those who have done good &,those who were evil (see John.5:22-29). Many of us do not assume we got it in the bag & another is hopelessly lost. Is this not enough reason to live by the commandments & to hope for all people?

I suppose, but this is not universally true, and in fact not the norm. There are those who make a point of differentiating between citizens of Heaven and citizens of the world. Those who deserve heaven and those who do not. Those who are in the world, and those who are of the world. These people could not be more different as Citizens of Heaven are not to act "worldly".

Mainline Christianity tells us that Christians are already saved by virtue of belief, not by what actions have been taken, or may be taken.

A nonchristian's lifestyle is to be seen as none of our business as Christians. But as Christians our own lifestyle is to reflect our faith

That does not ring true. In fact, the lifestyle of non-Chrisitans seems to be a focus of Christianity.

It might not benefit the victim to apologise to him. It would definitely be right to correct the false statements that have been made. However slanderous gossip is a strange example to use, I can't remember ever having done that actually. I have expressed opinions that later I have changed my mind about, but I am not certain that is wrong. Incorrect opinions are just ignorance because of misinformation.

So, if Bob the Christian tells his co-workers that Sam the Jew regularly solicits prostitutes (when he does not), it makes a difference whether Bob thinks that he does, and whether he knows that he does not?

How about a different example, something we all tend to do sometimes that we must apologise for. How about when we hate someone? You know, when they just irritate us in a way that makes us despise them. Even if we don't express this to them, even if we suppress it. Jesus said that when we hate someone it is the same emotion that causes a murderer to murder. Therefore it is sin. Do we apologize to people when this happens? Should we? Does it make a difference if the person is Christian or otherwise? Personally I don't.

I chose this example because it does require conscious thought. It requires a choice. One can choose to tell the lie, or not. I also chose it because I see it happen, almost literally, every single day. I have never ever seen anyone apologize for it.

Your perception of Christianity is inaccurate again:

Maybe of your particular brand, but you can't say that of Christianity on the whole.

Apologizing in case they'll come around, as you say, is one reason, but it may lend itself to superficiality. God so loved "the world" - the entire world. Jn 3.16 could have said "God so loved believers", or "God so loved His children", but didn't. And Christ died for the sins of the whole world, including the unbeliever. Jesus lamented that Jerusalem would not listen to Him. The whole enterprise is driven by an embracing love, not mere numbers. I'm not trying to negate your statement, but to add perspective to it.

I love the world too. I still hate mosquitos.

It's not that Christians don't miss the mark. We do. We are works in progress. Most translations of 1Jn 3.6 have that the true Christian does not practice or keep on sinning, not that he never sins. This is more accurately conveys the author's intent, because he had just stated earlier (1.8) that "if we say we are without sin we lie and the truth is not in us". And if we really are "abiding in Him", as 3.6 specifies, and as the believer should well be doing, it becomes all the more harder to sin.
As for who our neighbors are, that question was explicitly asked of Jesus at Luke 10.29-. Jesus' answer is amazing. He replied with a story in which a Samaritan, who were detested outcasts from Israel, showed kindness to an unfortunate, while some ultra holy Jewish religious figures didn't want to get involved. Jesus then turned the question around on the questioner: who acted more neighborly? This question gets down to the true nitty gritty. Love shows itself by action, not classification. The questioner could barely spit out "the one who showed mercy" - he could not bring his lips to utter the word "Samaritan". Jesus then tells him, "go and do likewise".
That is one example of why no one could stand up to Jesus in debate. He understood spiritual matters perfectly and always revealed the real issue at play. The underlying issue is that we fall short of God's standard of absolute perfection, while Jesus doesn't. That is why we need a savior. Jesus is that Savior, and He lovingly invites us to Himself and His grace.

Okay, but faith without works and all that, what difference does it make if they miss the mark? They still believe, and that's all that matters.

 

[oi_antz]

So, if Bob the Christian tells his co-workers that Sam the Jew regularly solicits prostitutes (when he does not), it makes a difference whether Bob thinks that he does, and whether he knows that he does not?

No, in my mind it makes a difference if Bob tells his co-workers that he thinks Sam does instead of saying that he knows he does. One is a lie, the other is an opinion. In your example, the word "regularly" suggests that Bob is promoting his claim as a fact. What difference would it make to your example if Bob's information was reliable? What difference would it make if Bob did not have reliable information, but his suspicion was correct?

I chose this example because it does require conscious thought. It requires a choice. One can choose to tell the lie, or not. I also chose it because I see it happen, almost literally, every single day. I have never ever seen anyone apologize for it.

Why do you think people do not apologize for it? Do you see Christians as being more prone to not apologize for it, or do you think they have more responsibility to do it? Or is it something else?

Maybe of your particular brand, but you can't say that of Christianity on the whole.

I am talking about the commission, not a culture.

 

[JGG]

No, in my mind it makes a difference if Bob tells his co-workers that he thinks Sam does instead of saying that he knows he does. One is a lie, the other is an opinion. In your example, the word "regularly" suggests that Bob is promoting his claim as a fact. What difference would it make to your example if Bob's information was reliable? What difference would it make if Bob did not have reliable information, but his suspicion was correct?

It would make no difference to me if he was making a factual claim on suspicion or hearsay. Would it to you?

Why do you think people do not apologize for it? Do you see Christians as being more prone to not apologize for it, or do you think they have more responsibility to do it? Or is it something else?

There was a thread on here that I wanted to follow up on. But now that you mention it, since Christians kind of hold themselves up above others as the beacon of morality, I would expect a little more responsibility to go with that.

I am talking about the commission, not a culture.

I am talking about the culture.

 

[oi_antz]

It would make no difference to me if he was making a factual claim on suspicion or hearsay. Would it to you?

I don't understand the question, can you rephrase it?

Edit: I think I understand what you are asking, though it threw me because it is not really what I asked you. You are saying that Bob is lying or repeating a lie that someone else has given him. If you are saying that Bob is making this statement of fact without knowing that his information is reliable, then it is a lie and he clearly should not be presenting it as a fact. If he is repeating that he has heard a rumour to that effect, then he is just gossiping, which is stupid anyway but I don't know if it is necessarily harmful. The harm comes from the person who took their suspicion and turned it into an accusation. I have to admit, I don't really understand this much, I am not keen on gossip and I don't really enjoy it. However, I have during political conversations mentioned my hunch of a politician's motive, which I have later come to regret. This is what I was meaning, though I don't know if the context or content of what I said could be considered slander. More an idealogical opposition to an incorrect impression of the political agenda, due to not having sufficient information to be correct. Note that I have regretted making both positive and negative commentaries about politicians, I'm not sure if your topic is concerned with the opposite, ie if a Christian is to recommend a non-Christian without having reliable information. Is that something they should apologize for too?

There was a thread on here that I wanted to follow up on. But now that you mention it, since Christians kind of hold themselves up above others as the beacon of morality, I would expect a little more responsibility to go with that.

Yes, I agree with your observation that often Christians are not as responsible as they ought to be, but I don't agree that someone's belief or lack of should give them less moral responsibility.

I am talking about the culture.

Then your perception of Christianity is in fact wrong.

 

[JGG]

I don't understand the question, can you rephrase it?

Yes, I agree with your observation that often Christians are not as responsible as they ought to be, but I don't agree that someone's belief or lack of should give them less moral responsibility.

Generally I wouldn't either. However, since Christians tell us how wicked and morally bankrupt we are, I feel they should put their money where their mouth is.

Then your perception of Christianity is in fact wrong.

I don't think so. My perception is based on my experience. Are you suggesting my experience is wrong?

 

[Sketcher]

I read the thread Why would you ever apologize to a non-Christian, and I feel like either I don't understand the responses, the responders don't understand the question, or I understand the question differently.

Let me use an example: "As a Christian you gossip and tell a lie about someone who is not a Christian. This non-Christian has stated that there is no way they are converting to Christianity, they are happy with their given non-Christian religion."

Obviously, you're gossiping about this person, and defaming them, you don't particularly care about your relationship with them. The rest of your group are pleased by these comments, so you're not endangering those relationships either. This person won't be converting to Christianity, there's no point in making a show for them. God has already forgiven your transgression, so you owe no debt to Him. Society has no laws against gossiping, and these comments aren't slanderous in a legal sense.

So, why should you apologize? Why is it even wrong at that point? What benefit is there to apologizing?

Because you still sinned against the person by gossiping about him. Whether he becomes a Christian or not is irrelevant towards whether or not we keep our noses clean in matters like this.

 

[Harry3142]

[That does not ring true. In fact, the lifestyle of non-Chrisitans seems to be a focus of Christianity.]


____________________________________________________________________

The focus of orthodox Christianity is that we are all sinners who have been given the gift of salvation. If we were required to stand before him solely on our own merits, heaven would be one empty place. But as a result of his own work successfully accomplished through his Son, Jesus Christ, God has seen to it that we have assurance of salvation through our accepting it as a gift, rather than our attempting to earn it as if it were a salary:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:19-26,NIV)

There is the means whereby any of us can obtain eternal life. We cannot earn it as if it were a salary, nor can we buy it as if it were an asset. We can only accept it as a free gift, totally unearned and undeserved, but given to us freely due to God's compassion for us.

 

[oi_antz]

Generally I wouldn't either. However, since Christians tell us how wicked and morally bankrupt we are, I feel they should put their money where their mouth is.

That proves what Jesus has said, and I think you are both right:

The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.

You are supporting my argument that when you are observing this culture that you call 'Christian', you are not observing the nature of Christianity.

I don't think so. My perception is based on my experience. Are you suggesting my experience is wrong?

I am saying that your perception of Christianity is wrong. You are not observing what Christianity is, you are observing a culture of conceit. Conceited people can be proud of whatever identity they promote, therefore you will find conceited people of every type. When people are conceited they are behaving in a way that Christianity is against. So, what you are observing to be Christianity is not an accurate view of what Christianity is.

 

[seashale76]

I suppose, but this is not universally true, and in fact not the norm. There are those who make a point of differentiating between citizens of Heaven and citizens of the world. Those who deserve heaven and those who do not. Those who are in the world, and those who are of the world. These people could not be more different as Citizens of Heaven are not to act "worldly".

Mainline Christianity tells us that Christians are already saved by virtue of belief, not by what actions have been taken, or may be taken.

Catholics and Orthodox make up the majority of Christians in this world and we don't believe what you're claiming is the majority belief. Mainline and Evangelical may be the majority in your neck of the woods, but don't make the mistake of thinking that speaks for all of Christianity or even the majority. It doesn't. Perspective- it does matter.