There have been a few instances in which a person will tell another "this is the second time you do this mistake (swear, embaress them etc) to me, when I've forgiven you for it the last time". My question is : has the person that is not at fault and who claims that he forgave the other on numerous ocassions, has he really 4given him? I ask this since he was able 2 recall the other person's mishaps yielding to the probability that he really hasnt 4given; for it is still playing in the back of his mind. I'm using this as an example to show that as humans we may claim to have 4given the next person who trespassed against us, yet have we really(considering we havent 4gotten)? The equation then becomes that in order to sincerely 4give, we need 2 omit or forget about the situation. share your views plz
Comments
Also, remember that you are dealing with human beings. Even though you could be really really sorry, this person still has a weakness which everyone holds. Unlike God, it is hard for humans to forgive someone who has sinned against them.
In my opinion, if you are focusing more on why this person is not forgeting, and not on how to show that you won't commit the sin again, this person has a right to not forget.
I am not sure but I think remembering is okay sometimes as long as there is no bad feelings and you are not thinking about it alot .. if you meet that person a week later and you remember what happend.. perhaps you have not forgiven.. unless you are longing to make things better with that person and you expect that person to have remembered..some very small offenses should be forgotten completely.. sometimes anxiety will be present between two people if you sense that person still does not like you after you have forgiven and it seems they don't care to do it again.. I don't know if that is okay.. a stronger person is not afraid from getting hurt from his friends who he knows is weak and is prepared to forgive..
Jesus said forgive 70 times 7
but if it was long ago and you remember the times you were hurt by that person as soon as you meet him/her..you should think whether it is because you have bad feelings towards that person.
Matthew 18 (King James Version)
15Moreover 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.
16But 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.
17And 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.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew 18&version=9
God help us
If someone does someone wrong, and you forgive them, it means that you treat them as IF they havent done anything before.
For example, if your friend steals money from you, and you forgive him; then you should treat them as if they havent ever stolen. The word "forget" means that you should NEVER raise their fault again.
So, in effect, you are treating them as if they have never stolen, and you are never mentioning this sin again, so it all LOOKS like you've forgotten. But you havent forgotten. There's no need to forget. In fact, it's the rememberance of what you are forgiving that makes your friend love you even more.
Even us, when we remember our sins that we have repented and confessed, our Love for God should grow, because of that. Even the psalmist says: "My sins are ever before me" .. David never forgets his sins. You have no right to either forget your sins. If the memory of them disturbs you, then it probably means the devil could be attacking you. But that's another issue.
Forgiveness results in the person not harboring evil or angry thoughts towards the person- it does not mean a renewal of trust. More likely, however, it is a prerequisite for establishing trust. But I don't think that the forgiveness in which are called to do to our brothers is one with a re-establishment of trust. That is forgive and forget. This is not something we should do- it is unwise. I don't see any Scriptural exegesis that can support such a notion.
nO.. it does mean a renewal of trust. THat's where we differ. For me, when I forgive, I treat the person in a way that doesnt hold his sin against him. If there is a "lack of trust" afterwards it means that Im still holding his sin against him.
Now, let's say that he repents and feels bad for it. Then NO WAY will i hold his sin against him.
If he doesnt repent for it, and has no remorse for it, then YES, i will have no other choice BUT to treat him as someone who's level of trust has been lowered.
[quote author=Doubting Thomas link=topic=5602.msg74836#msg74836 date=1185355955]
Forgiveness results in the person not harboring evil or angry thoughts towards the person- it does not mean a renewal of trust. More likely, however, it is a prerequisite for establishing trust. But I don't think that the forgiveness in which are called to do to our brothers is one with a re-establishment of trust. That is forgive and forget. This is not something we should do- it is unwise. I don't see any Scriptural exegesis that can support such a notion.
nO.. it does mean a renewal of trust. THat's where we differ. For me, when I forgive, I treat the person in a way that doesnt hold his sin against him. If there is a "lack of trust" afterwards it means that Im still holding his sin against him.
Now, let's say that he repents and feels bad for it. Then NO WAY will i hold his sin against him.
If he doesnt repent for it, and has no remorse for it, then YES, i will have no other choice BUT to treat him as someone who's level of trust has been lowered.
wow. 2 views. i'll wait for John or Κηφᾶς to answer before i say what i have.
You are being a bit inconsistent:
Your idea of forgive and forget is not to hold the person to the trespass and treat them as before. And in the next post, you say if they repented, you renew trust.
If they don't repent, you forgive (not forget???) because they have not repented, trust is lowered.
Hence, in effect you show that "forgetting" is related to "trust renewal"- which is what I have been saying!
The latter case, forgiving, is not harbouring evil thoughts of the person, but it does not mean trust renewal.
I do not see the difference!
[quote author=Silent.Monk link=topic=5602.msg74873#msg74873 date=1185463099]
Guys the focus of my question was not about the individual but the concept of forgiveness itself.
I'm not sure I see how it is possible to speak about the 'concept of forgiveness' without speaking about the individual who performs the act (of forgiving). The action, and thus the concept, are so intertwined with the individual that you cannot separate the two. I found this definition of forgiveness to be fairly decent on Wikipedia (I know there are some who may object): Your example relies on the reactions and personality of the individual. At our core, we respond, as any other living creature, to cause and effect. A certain cause will elicit a certain effect. For a person to react to an offense is natural and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. If a person is shocked/embarrassed/angered by a trespass, that is a natural response to that trespass and does not somehow negate any sort of 'forgiving' the person does. The fact that this incident is stored in a person's long term memory, is again, a very natural response and does not negate any sort of 'forgiving' the person does. The fact that the person responded with shock/embarrassment/anger after the initial insult (without any prior similar act) goes to show that this is in fact the result of a cause/effect relationship. So, if the act is committed again, one should expect the same response.
Forgiveness does not hinge upon the act of forgetting. On the contrary, it would be foolish to forget, because then we would never learn, grow and develop in our relationships with others. Even if a person reacts in the exact same fashion over an identical insult, if that person does not retaliate or bring up the previous insult in a heated argument, then it is still safe to say that the initial insult was forgiven. Every trespass is to be viewed in isolation (even if it is the same trespass as before). That is what forgiveness is about.