I think that is a narrow definition based on the example I gave- which is Christ on the cross, but I am not disputing that repentance is necessary for reconciliation and restoration. I am saying God’s forgiveness was wide and deep before the foundation of the world, manifest in the Logos, who is the Lamb slain, and already given before creation. Forgiveness clearly “does not count trespasses against” the transgressor, setting such a one free, once they avail themselves of it- not by “paying for it with repentance”, but by becoming aware of them selves before the greater love of a forgiving God, which causes a change within, a change in which repentance is only one element, along with faith and revelation.

It is ok that forgiveness is given before repentance. This is what disarms the principalities and powers, destroying the elementary principles of the world, and draws men to Christ crucified. Nothing by any means can “let anyone off” because the only way out is the revelation of the love of God in Jesus Christ(imo that is the fire of His presence, overwhelming perfect love).

“For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him might not perish”

The forgiveness was implicit in the sending and the sacrifice. The deliverance comes when one believes, which, imo, includes repentance.

It is the wisdom that none of the rulers of this world did not understand, or else they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

I dont see how anyone can minimize the intrinsic value in the words “Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing”, breathed out in the midst the greatest act in all of time and consciouness- as a manifestation of the heart of God, “For He is the radiance of the Father’s glory and the exact representaion of His nature”. Forgiveness given to the perpetrators in the midst of the act, before repentance, which will eventually come to all with the revelation of Christ crucified, so that all will be reconciled and restored.

If someone desires to emulate that forgiveness, and not “count transgressions” against someone, it does not mean they do not speak the truth in love to that person, or are just releasing them from a loan. It is love, if it is true and not just religiosity, and it will have power in that persons life- even if it is not presently received. The forgiveness itself IS the power that brings repentance, which is why(imo) Paul says, “I am determined to kno nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified” and also why Jesus said, “If I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me”.

When God’s agape love is made real to a person, it just seems to dissolve so many pre-existent ideas about retributive justice, fear, and self-righteousness. It can lay us low even more than a threat of punishment; not in fear, but with the un-raveling of a lifetime’s defenses and sins and false hope.Those things fall away, leaving us exposed.
Seeing ourselves as we are, and yet as unconditionally loved by the God who is Agape - even if we’d never heard the term ‘repent’, we do it anyway. With gladness

If it is a narrow definition of forgiveness, please provide a broader one. I read your last post above, and I still have been unable find from your words a clear definition of forgiveness as you understand it.

Dave, I agree with your post above. But how does it relate to the meaning of true forgiveness? Are you saying that unconditional love is tantamount to forgiveness?

Don - good question, but no, I wasn’t trying to say that.
I was centered more on the idea of ‘repentance’ before God, that has been presented as either a ‘work’ to earn God’s forgiveness, or as unnecessary.

I think the “either-or” is a false dilemma. I could be wrong, but ‘in His light we see light’ - the actual experience of, not the theology of, God’s love for us in our particularity lights up the evil places, the dark corners, and the ‘turning away’ just happens as the things hidden there are exposed; the disgust for them as they are shown for what they are, and the realization that our coddling of those things has cost us much of our true life, is enough for us to let them go.

As to true forgiveness between persons - it takes more grace than I can conjure up on my own, to forget some wrongs until, that is, I really see what I have done, in my heart or outwardly, that I have need of forgiveness for. We not only live in a broken world, we have to see ourselves as part of the brokenness, indeed as one of the ‘breakers’; the other guy is in the same boat.

$.02

Amen

Jesus forgave before repentance. I don’t feel like I need to define that anymore than I have already. He did it, so it was “true forgiveness”. He did not hold their trespass against them even as they were in the midst of trepass.

This does not mean they wil not have to face their iniquity and experience repentance(a broken and contrite heart), it simply demonstrates that from the forgivers point of view, the repentance of the trespasser is not always a prerequisite condition to their having been forgiven.

The words “always” and “never” are often given to express a concept that may be true in some instances, even sometimes a majority of instances, but is not necessarily absolute across all instances.

In other words, you are defining “forgiveness of offenders” as “not holding offenders’ trespasses against them.” Doubtless that definition is ubiquitous, but that doesn’t make it correct. Jesus’ words still stand, “IF your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and IF he repents, forgive him.” Those words still imply that forgiveness is conditional upon repentance. If not, why did he insert the phrase “if he repents”? If forgiveness is NOT conditional upon repentance as you believe, then Jesus would have said, “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and then forgive him.”

“IF your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and IF he repents, forgive him.” Those words still imply that forgiveness is conditional upon repentance. If not, why did he insert the phrase “if he repents”

Because the primary focus in this statement is not forgiveness but is repentance and the benefits of repentance. Forgiveness is actually the secondary focus in this statement as it is pointed out by Jesus to be a benefit of repentance as is also restoration of relationship which Jesus pointed out in other statements.
Forgiveness and fellowship are benefits of repentance and you are reading into this something different then what Jesus is saying IMHO.

Once again we differ on what this is to mean. Some how you want to link :Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek, for God shows no partiality

With the Idea that: And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. The good work is His doing. I am perplexed

The good work is not ENTIRELY His doing. We must coöperate with Him, or the good work in us will not be accomplished.

Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2 Corinthians 6:1 ESV)

I am not defining forgiveness in any terms so limited as that. That is indeed one element of forgiveness tho. Also, I am not trying to limit the definition or set it in stone. My whole point has been that the statement “True forgiveness must be accompanied by repentance” is a limiting statement that does not take into account all the different elements and perspectives of forgiveness.

True forgiveness can be given before repentance occurs.

Jesus words still stand, “Father forgive them they dont know what they are doing”. So making your one verse a law for defining all aspects of forgiveness, instead of seeing it as a one verse addressing one element of forgiveness, is the wrong approach, imo.

“IF your brother sins against you, rebuke him, and IF he repents, forgive him.”

One can read this as, “if your brother repent you should forgive him”

it seems you are reading

“do not forgive your brother until he repents”

But the nexr sentence reveals the intent of the whole context…

Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to say, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”…

Which, as several posts have addressed, is the goal of the teaching.

Forgiveness is the focus and repentance is the point at which I must forgive a brother who transgresses against me.

It in no way reads to limit giving forgiveness ONLY TO THE REPENTANT. It simply requires that one MUST OFFER FORGIVENESS TO THE REPENTANT.

The distinction is worth making because to elevate one verse above others concerning the same topic and limit them by it is hermenutically incorrect.

4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Certainly God forgave us before we repented. The awareness of that mercy is the source of repentance. “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them” - surely includes forgiveness before the fact.

But I’m not limiting forgiveness to this mode. It is simply one element of forgiveness- albeit a major one because ot reflects the attitude of God, who truly forgave us when we were yet sinners. Sometimes forgiveness cannot be of benefit and achieve reconciliation without repentance on the part of the transgressor. That is another element of the whole context of biblical conversation concerning forgiveness, which is a broad conversation.

You say you are not limiting the concept of forgiveness to “not holding offenders’ trespasses against them.” I have asked you several times to tell us what you DO mean by “forgiveness” and you don’t seem to be able to respond to this question. You simply seem to avoid an answer by saying that forgiveness involves “a number of different elements.” If you do not KNOW what true forgiveness is, then how can you be so certain that forgiveness can be granted without repentance. Just WHAT IS IT that is granted without repentance?

I see forgiveness as a response to repentance leading to a restoration of relationship.

As for the examples you provide which purportedly indicate forgiveness without repentance, I have already explained how each one of them DOES involve repentance.

I think this says it well:
youtube.com/watch?v=zV2UWyGEYwY

( for a definition start at 12:10 )

So what happens when we do not cooperate with him?

Then the good work that He began in us will not be brought to completion.

Sick dude

As always when something gets broken down to an ‘either-or’ ‘black or white’ type scenario it can become a divisive dogma aka law and inevitably gets applied carte blanch across all else, the end result being, in this case, one suffers UNTIL one repents… and thus this notion then gets carried across to postmortem in terms of God’s burning in a lake of fire (how does THAT work??). But this is smoothed over by claiming it is really God’s love and said burning is ultimately* restorative.* BUT to create that position one needs to be dogmatic on so-called “true forgiveness”—it’s an interpretation, not scripture.

The fact is forgiveness with or without repentance can be seen according to given contexts, thus both can be true… neither contradicts the other, BUT rather shows differing applications dependant again on the situation at hand. Typically this is seen in terms of God’s unilateral vertical move TOWARDS man, or, mans’ horizontal move towards man, as in the case of brother to brother… there is a difference.

The imposition of so-called “true” with regards to forgiveness seems to portray a more dogmatic stance that isn’t useful, but rather IMO muddies the water. God in Christ UNILATERALLY forgave humanity, period! No more no less. What is redemption? Answer—“the forgiveness of sins” Eph 1:7; Col 1:14 regardless of repentance.

As to the key text initiating this discussion…

Something overlooked here is your brother… wherein “if he repents” one must let go from being offended to being forgiving; THAT can be more of a challenge, and yet Jesus always pushed the boundaries for the greater good. Again… confession of sin, typically understood between brother and brother facilitates healing (Jas 5:16) of which quite naturally repentance IS a key… again CONTEXT helps clarify these things.

Davo, as you understand “forgiveness” what did Christ actually do when He “UNILATERALLY forgave humanity, period!” Did He accept all people just as they are, without any necessity for change in their ways of living? For example, does God joyfully accept men who continue to torture and rape little girls with no intention or desire to change their ways? Or on the other hand does He think, “I don’t really like men doing that, but I still fully accept such men just as they are whether or not they change their behaviour”?

The apostle Paul certainly didn’t take that position. He taught that a life of “well-doing” is NECESSARY for receiving lasting (or “eternal”) life from God.

*For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by perseverance in well‑doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give lasting life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil … but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good … For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-11)*

Paul also wrote:
For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Ephesians 5: 5,6 ESV)

So I, for one, will not let anyone deceive me by telling me that repentance and change in one’s way of life is unnecessary in order to be acceptable to God.

The Greek word “αφηεσις” does not necessarily mean “forgiveness”. It often means “deliverance” or “release.” For example in Luke 4:18, Jesus quotes a passage that He applies to Himself. He said, “The spirit of the LORD is upon me … He has sent me … to proclaim αφηεσις to the captives…to send away those who have been crushed in αφηεσις.”

Did Jesus proclaim forgiveness to the captives? Did he send away the crushed ones in forgiveness? No! The captives did not need forgiveness; they need deliverance from captivity! The oppressed ones did not need forgiveness; they needed release from oppression!
No translator renders the word “αφηεσις” as “forgiveness” in THIS verse.

Similarly in Eph 1:7 and Col 1:14 “αφηεσις” may well mean “deliverance from sin” or “release from sin.” After all, that is exactly the purpose of Jesus’ death—to deliver us from the power of sin so that we might live righteous lives. Paul wrote to Titus:

[size=120]For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)[/size]