Forgiveness

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

I agree. And what would this wife be asking for at that point --the hypothetical Chaz mentioned--(if she were wrongfully accusing or not accepting the possibility she is perhaps looking at the situation incorrectly and was steeped in pride)? Just have someone with authority turn to the husband and point fingers? I think the motive is revealed by what that person is asking for as a solution. If the person just wants blame to be placed.....to me, that doesn't tell me they want restoration...they want revenge...or punishment.

And if we followed Matthew 18, it would be even more obvious to those who know her that what she is seeking is not peaceful, loving, or Christlike.

 

[Created2Write]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If a person has a what you would call a "perceived" issue with their spouse, and that "perceived" issue was brought before two or three witnesses and things were discussed, then that "perceived" issue would be seen for what it is...i.e. perceived. That's the whole point of having outsiders look into the dynamics of the relationship--so that they can figure out if the issue is legitimate or just someone making a mountain out of a mole hill. That's why Paul calls for getting "two or three witnesses" in the first place.

I suppose I didn't respond to it because to me it just seems obvious. I mean, you're not going to sentence someone with no evidence and no trial, right? Why would you condemn a married person because of what their spouse said without actually investigating the situation yourself?

Also, there's no reason why both parties can't be addressed. I would suppose that in many cases it is found that both the man and the woman contributed greatly to whatever took place and they both need to be held accountable and seek repentance.

A situation where both are at fault would work the same way.

I agree that that's why two or three witnesses is a good thing, but I believe the offending spouse(let's say it's the husband in this case) should be able to AGREE to the two or three witnesses being brought in to the situation. Why?

1. As I said before, there are always two sides to every story. A wife feels she is right in asking for their help, but doesn't mention how she has also contributed to much of her marriages issues. (NO spouse is innocent. We have ALL messed up and made our marriages worse at one point or other.) Now the husband is approached, and in his attempt to explain(which involves bringing her in), the two or three witnesses could misjudge that as him transferring the blame. Which, if he had been given a chance in the beginning to offer the info, and she was there to explain her side right after it, the witnesses wouldn't be as inclined to think he was just pointing fingers.

The offending spouse should be given the chance to offer their side of the story as well, otherwise any advice given would be only half educated guesses and rebukes.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

I agree that that's why two or three witnesses is a good thing, but I believe the offending spouse(let's say it's the husband in this case) should be able to AGREE to the two or three witnesses being brought in to the situation. Why?

1. As I said before, there are always two sides to every story. A wife feels she is right in asking for their help, but doesn't mention how she has also contributed to much of her marriages issues. (NO spouse is innocent. We have ALL messed up and made our marriages worse at one point or other.) Now the husband is approached, and in his attempt to explain(which involves bringing her in), the two or three witnesses could misjudge that as him transferring the blame. Which, if he had been given a chance in the beginning to offer the info, and she was there to explain her side right after it, the witnesses wouldn't be as inclined to think he was just pointing fingers.

The offending spouse should be given the chance to offer their side of the story as well, otherwise any advice given would be only half educated guesses and rebukes.

For sure. I agree completely. I have never advocated anything but this.

The two or three witnesses aren't the lady's biased girlfriends who would agree with her about everything even if it's not true. Instead they should be mutually respected members in the church, mutually respected pastors, or mutually chosen counselors. The three men who met with my dad were/are Godly church members and were/are highly respected by both my mom and dad. They were agreed upon by both of them.

 

[Created2Write]

agreed

agreed

You are completely adding the highlighted part to the verse. It never specifies that the believers cannot be married.

*SIGH* No, it doesn't, but it's common sense. If my husband sins against me, I'm not going to respond in the same way that I would if you sinned against me. I have never met you, I will likely never meet you, so my response and reaction would not be the same. If my husband sins against me, my reaction and my response are going to be much different, because the effect is different. I'm not going to be emotionally distraught over your sin against me(which you haven't, this is just an example. ), but I likely will be distraught over my husband sinning against me.

I would use Matt 18 if you, or any other believer(not my husband) sinned against me. I would NOT use this if my husband sinned against me.

Point being, the relationship between the offended believer and the offending believer effects whether or not this verse applies, imo. If your Pastor sinned against you, would you use this process? If your father sinned against you, would you use this process? If your boss sinned against you, would you use this process? If the President of the United States sinned against you, would you use this process? (Assuming they are all believers.)

You see what I'm saying?

I don't necessarily agree with the highlighted part.

Agree to disagree.

This may be a bit uncouth, but after thinking about it further and reading this thread over, I'm going to recant some of my wishy-washy statements on the third part of the verse. I'm going to go back to my original stance that it applies to ALL believers, married or not. Every part of it applies, not just the first and the second but also the third. I originally compromised because I thought "man, bringing the sin to the congregation almost seems cruel and mean" but to be honest, we need to expose sin for what it is. That practice would certainly separate the wheat from the chaff. I wouldn't pass the test .

That's your prerogative. I completely disagree.

If, even when going through the first and second, the sin is serious enough to warrant the third, then so be it. It is supposed to be done for all believers so let us not exclude anyone. Honestly though, I've never seen a church that actually consistently used the kind of church discipline that Paul talks about, so I really don't have much hope for it. Maybe that's why the United States church is so wishy-washy?

You're right, as hard as it is for me to admit it, the entire verse does apply.

At least you're consistent. lol. I am baffled at your decision, but okay.

Honestly not sure. I think he was given an ultimatum by my mom. The ultimatum being basically break off with the girlfriend and get some help or I'm gone. He chose the first option.

But did he make the decision to go the church himself, or did she force him, or did she go without him? I guess it doesn't really matter, I just think a person has a right to choose whether or not such personal info goes before their entire church.

Eh, your thinking would have to be my thinking to be perfect .

 

[Created2Write]

If Jesus thought it was important enough for what he said not to be applied to marriage than he would have said so. The fact of the matter is that he didn't say anything excluding married people.

Jesus also said the only reason to divorce was infidelity. So does that mean a spouse should stay in an abusive marriage where either they are the children, or both, are in danger?

There are MANY things Jesus didn't give exactness to, which is why he gave us common sense.

So my conclusion is that it applies. There's nothing there that would exclude it except our own preconceived notions that bringing a sin before the congregation would be mean or cruel.

Well, there's always the context of the verse, and who Jesus was referring to when He said it. If you look at who he was talking to earlier in the passage, He was talking to His disciples, and I assume there were others around and He made mention of the children around them. The other things said in the verse are not about marriage, they are about the basics of our belief; "the greatest of heaven will be the least", "not causing another believer to stumble", "the parable of the wandering sheep", etc. While many aspects of all of those could, in some ways, apply to marriage, many of them don't directly apply.

My conclusion is that it doesn't apply, based on the context and who He was talking to.

Maybe it would be beneficial to bend our notions to the word of God instead of the other way around?

Maybe it would be best not to assume that those of us who disagree AREN'T doing that?

 

[Created2Write]

For sure. I agree completely. I have never advocated anything but this.

The two or three witnesses aren't the lady's biased girlfriends who would agree with her about everything even if it's not true. Instead they should be mutually respected members in the church, mutually respected pastors, or mutually chosen counselors. The three men who met with my dad were/are Godly church members and were/are highly respected by both my mom and dad. They were agreed upon by both of them.

And therein lies the rub. That scripture says nothing about the offending spouse offering their side, it says nothing of the two or three witnesses being mutually respected, it says nothing about the offending spouse agreeing to the meeting. So, Scripturally, a wife could go to any two or three people within their church without telling her husband, she could tell them everything(and they could be her biased girlfriends. Nothing says they can't be.), etc.

You are adding things that, simply, are not there. It doesn't say this applies to marriage, it doesn't say it doesn't; it doesn't say to take a year or two between the steps; it doesn't say the two or three witnesses should be mutually respected/agreed upon; it doesn't say the witnesses should be leaders; it doesn't say the "sinning" believer should even give their side.

Which is why it makes sense to me that this verse not apply to marriage. If you sin against me, I don't have to find mutually respected believers to go with me to talk to you. My relationship with you is not like my relationship with my husband. If our worship leader sins against me, and I go to him first and he refuses to repent, I don't have to ask his permission before telling the offense to two or three witnesses, nor do those witnesses have to be mutually respected. If he doesn't repent, still, then there is a division issue that is now going to effect the whole church, therefore, it is brought before the whole church.

However, in a marriage, things are much different. Please not that marriage is the only relationship that I believe doesn't apply to this verse. Why? Because it is SO different from ANY AND ALL other relationships. No other relationship mirrors our relationship with Christ, which is why I believe sin in marriage should be handled better than this. And yes, I do think Matt 18 is a very poor way to handle marriage issues. My husband knows more about me than anyone. I have a right to know that he's telling someone things about me, and I have a right to ask him not to. The reason I have that right, is because we are one flesh. What happens to him, effects me and vice versa. You and I are not one flesh, though we are of the same body. If you look at the verses, they are about unity within the church/body of Christ. That's the point of Matt 18, in my opinion. While divided marriages certainly effect the body, I don't believe that Matt 18 suddenly applies because marriage is different than my relationship with other believers.

 

[mkgal1]

And therein lies the rub. That scripture says nothing about the offending spouse offering their side, it says nothing of the two or three witnesses being mutually respected, it says nothing about the offending spouse agreeing to the meeting. So, Scripturally, a wife could go to any two or three people within their church without telling her husband, she could tell them everything(and they could be her biased girlfriends. Nothing says they can't be.), etc.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, C2W....you just said this:

Jesus also said the only reason to divorce was infidelity. So does that mean a spouse should stay in an abusive marriage where either they are the children, or both, are in danger?

There are MANY things Jesus didn't give exactness to, which is why he gave us common sense.

And THAT I agree with. If everything were laid out in a step by step manner....we wouldn't need to even seek God, would we?

 

[chaz345]

Can someone please explain to me what anything on the last several pages has to do with forgiveness?

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

And therein lies the rub. That scripture says nothing about the offending spouse offering their side, it says nothing of the two or three witnesses being mutually respected, it says nothing about the offending spouse agreeing to the meeting. So, Scripturally, a wife could go to any two or three people within their church without telling her husband, she could tell them everything(and they could be her biased girlfriends. Nothing says they can't be.), etc.

I posted earlier basically saying that if scripture covered every loophole imaginable it would be a million pages long. I think common sense and other scripture covers all the other problems that you mention.

One cannot take a few isolated verses and let it stand by itself without the rest of scripture taken into consideration. Doing so violates legitimately Biblical exegesis. For instance, we are taught that to love one another as we love ourselves and to do unto others what we would want them to do to us. These and other guidelines given in scripture cover the problems you present there. I would want to be able to give my side of the story, so I should let my wife do the same, I would want to have the witnesses be agreed upon so I should give my wife the same courtesy. Basically, whenever you look at scripture, don't just see those verses, think of them in the context of the whole Bible. How does the Bible instruct you to treat others?

You are adding things that, simply, are not there. It doesn't say this applies to marriage, it doesn't say it doesn't; it doesn't say to take a year or two between the steps; it doesn't say the two or three witnesses should be mutually respected/agreed upon; it doesn't say the witnesses should be leaders; it doesn't say the "sinning" believer should even give their side.

I'm not adding things that aren't there. They are not there because the rest of the Bible teaches us how to treat other believers, our parents, wives, brothers, etc. Given what we've already been taught from the rest of scripture, how would we apply these verses? The problems you present, given what scripture has taught us, are not problems.

Which is why it makes sense to me that this verse not apply to marriage. If you sin against me, I don't have to find mutually respected believers to go with me to talk to you. My relationship with you is not like my relationship with my husband. If our worship leader sins against me, and I go to him first and he refuses to repent, I don't have to ask his permission before telling the offense to two or three witnesses, nor do those witnesses have to be mutually respected. If he doesn't repent, still, then there is a division issue that is now going to effect the whole church, therefore, it is brought before the whole church.

It would be difficult to apply these verses to me if I sinned against you. Just the logistics of it would be next to impossible. You don't know my real name, I don't know yours, you don't know where I live, I don't know where you live. We don't know each other at all except for what we've written on this forum. Basically, a better comparison would be to think of someone that you know in real life. What if they sinned against you? How would it be handled? I think, even if you're married to that person, it should be handled how Jesus laid it out in Matthew 18.

However, in a marriage, things are much different. Please not that marriage is the only relationship that I believe doesn't apply to this verse. Why? Because it is SO different from ANY AND ALL other relationships. No other relationship mirrors our relationship with Christ, which is why I believe sin in marriage should be handled better than this. And yes, I do think Matt 18 is a very poor way to handle marriage issues. My husband knows more about me than anyone. I have a right to know that he's telling someone things about me, and I have a right to ask him not to. The reason I have that right, is because we are one flesh. What happens to him, effects me and vice versa. You and I are not one flesh, though we are of the same body. If you look at the verses, they are about unity within the church/body of Christ. That's the point of Matt 18, in my opinion. While divided marriages certainly effect the body, I don't believe that Matt 18 suddenly applies because marriage is different than my relationship with other believers.

Agree to disagree then because I believe it does apply. What MK said earlier is spot on and sums what I believe up beautifully:

I think the main point is....that if the first attempts at showing a person they are sinning are ignored...and rejected...and others have been able to observe the issue and objectively arrived at the conclusion that the person IS in sin and that is still rejected.........then the issue is NOT a marriage issue...it isn't about a miscommunication....misunderstanding...etc....it is a sin issue and a resistant and hardened heart. That does become the business of the church leadership. That is the whole purpose of the church to come along side believers for the purpose of sanctification.

Sin issues, whether it's your spouse, your believing friend, or otherwise, should be handled this way. Jesus didn't have an exceptions. He just said if your brother or sister sins. Brother or sister means Christian male or females.

 

[Created2Write]

drshore, we aren't going to agree. I simply don't see things the way you see them.

MK, I didn't see a contradiction there at all, but I'm not going to discuss it further in this thread.

chaz, while I could find a correlation to forgiveness, I won't as the last few pages don't directly apply. I apologize for adding to the derail.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Can someone please explain to me what anything on the last several pages has to do with forgiveness?

Don't worry, I forgive you

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Point being, the relationship between the offended believer and the offending believer effects whether or not this verse applies, imo. If your Pastor sinned against you, would you use this process? If your father sinned against you, would you use this process? If your boss sinned against you, would you use this process? If the President of the United States sinned against you, would you use this process? (Assuming they are all believers.)

Yes on all points... We're not getting anywhere, are we? We really do just disagree.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Jesus also said the only reason to divorce was infidelity. So does that mean a spouse should stay in an abusive marriage where either they are the children, or both, are in danger?

There are MANY things Jesus didn't give exactness to, which is why he gave us common sense.

Well, my view on this is controversial, but I think that divorce except for in the case of adultery is a sin. Now, having said that, if I were in a marriage where I was severely abused, I would pray to God "Lord, I can't handle this anymore. I know that you hate divorce. In my human weakness I am at the end of my rope. I cannot take it anymore. Please forgive me." And I would divorce. I'd be sinning but I would divorce.

Fortunately, the grace of our Lord covers all our sin.

 

[mkgal1]

Can someone please explain to me what anything on the last several pages has to do with forgiveness?

Matthew 18 and 1st Corinthians 5 were brought up when the disagreement was brought up about the question as to whether or not repentance is necessary for forgiveness.

 

[Conservativation]

For sure. I agree completely. I have never advocated anything but this.

The two or three witnesses aren't the lady's biased girlfriends who would agree with her about everything even if it's not true. Instead they should be mutually respected members in the church, mutually respected pastors, or mutually chosen counselors. The three men who met with my dad were/are Godly church members and were/are highly respected by both my mom and dad. They were agreed upon by both of them.

With due respect, your dads situation has less than nothing to do with the points we (chaz C2W and I) are making, and I still think we are talking past each other. While you and mk keep using those examples we agree with, we keep trying other things.
Its EASY to find these "mutually respected" folks on a matter like your dads, its a DUH, everyone agrees what to do.....but you neednt choose her GF's to find confusion and pro and con biases and MUCH technique.

Maybe you need some experience yourself to get this, I really think thats it, where you sit, mouth agape, and listen to yourself being described back at you in a way that you KNOW, objectively and subjectively is wrong, and you know lots of folks know it as well, but here you sit with "mutually respected" people caught in the rip tide of misperception and misconception. You then are placed in a really bad situation, where, if you say oh please I ask for your help thats right Im that way, well thats just not true, but if you try and explain or dare deny or mitigate, you know how thats gonna come across....so....rock meet hard place, when neither should be in play, and its not anyones fault it just happens....A LOT

You have a somewhat idealized view of this process, and more, of people and their benevolent and altruistic intent I think. Ive seen counselors fall into the same trap and they are trained NOT to. Ive seen an entire church fall so heavily under the stories of my neighbors wife that they ended up circling her with love and assistance while she ran away from her husband and walked away from her children, choosing to be the visiting parent, to run off with (this is not made up) her salsa dance teacher. They were leaders in that church and everyone KNEW that woman was dumping her family for this "latin lover" yet they organized rides and meals for her during the times she had the kids, so she could work and have more tim with them, meanwhile dad, primary custody, still caring for their house and the kids 80% of the time....NADA....

Its an extreme example, but since you keep referring specifically to your dads situation I will now refer specifically to THIS situation. Both represent the extremes, your example the straighforward way it should work (as far as we know)....and mine the way it can be perverted. Most are gonna lay in between, not on the ends. And in between is not good enough for me

 

[Conservativation]

Can someone please explain to me what anything on the last several pages has to do with forgiveness?

Yes, I can explain how the topic got here, and loosely how it relates to forgiveness, but, in the interest of my own sanity I will leave that pandoras box unopened

 

[chaz345]

For sure. I agree completely. I have never advocated anything but this.

The two or three witnesses aren't the lady's biased girlfriends who would agree with her about everything even if it's not true. Instead they should be mutually respected members in the church, mutually respected pastors, or mutually chosen counselors. The three men who met with my dad were/are Godly church members and were/are highly respected by both my mom and dad. They were agreed upon by both of them.

While I agree that the witnesses should be mutually agreed upon members of the church, the Scripture doesn't say that, does it? It just says witnesses. What you do here is exactly the same thing you accuse me of when you say that I'm bending Scripture when I suggest that the process in Mt 18 may not have been intended for marriage situations. There you say that Christ never said anything different for marriages so it must apply and I, applying common sense, suggest that because marriage is a different relationship, that different rules may apply. Here, Christ never said that the witnesses need be mutually agreed upon, and you, applying common sense, say that they should be.

Like I said, I agree with you that they should be, but it doesn't actually directly say so in Scripture, does it?

 

[chaz345]

Matthew 18 and 1st Corinthians 5 were brought up when the disagreement was brought up about the question as to whether or not repentance is necessary for forgiveness.

Oh, back to that point.

Repentance is required for forgiveness if we're talking about forgiveness from God. But He is able to read our heart and know if repentance has occured so that is a different situation than repentance between two believers where we really have no way that is accurate enough for such a serious thing, to know if they've repented or not.

 

[chaz345]

MK,

Forgiveness from one believer to another absolutely positively does not require repentance. In fact it doesn't even require a change of behavior. Take a look at Mt18:21-22 .

 

[Conservativation]

I mentioned that way back awhile in the thread, the 70x7 part. All they did was ASK....nothing more, period. They guy didn't promise to not do it again, he didn't let time pass to back-check the guys sincerity, he made ZERO intimation of future accountability whatsoever....he JUST forgave, and as is said, he is told to do it infinitely.

How can you, in light of this passage, which is not exactly obscure, place all these conditions on forgiveness. The person is forgiven, by me, when I forgive them...full stop