We must learn to forgive God

[Robyn Banks]

We must learn to forgive God. This thought is woven throughout these quotes, from diverse sources. What is the reason for forgiving God? That is what is to be learnt...

. . . . My piano teacher told me about a theology
called theism. 'The idea is that the final determi-
nation of where you go depends on whether you can
stand in front of God, look him in the eye, and
forgive him.' . . . . Maybe one day I will stand
before God and be asked to forgive him. Maybe I
will just die, cease to exist. Maybe I will go to
Hell. But I pray that, if that day comes, I will
be able to say 'I forgive you.' . . . .
--Sara K. Penrod, "Theism"

We will offer a theoretical model of Creator and
creation as ONE. The universe, we will assert, is
a Game of God. We hold that this model allows us
to absolutely forgive, and thus absolutely love,
God. Loving God is the only way to win the Game.
--Arthur B. Hancock and Kathleen J. Brugger,
"The Game of God: Recovering Your True
Identity"

I think as these people die, the resentment is so
great, that they would choose to go to hell rather
than forgive God for whatever pain they ascribe to
him, and let their anger towards him go. God respects
our choices, even if it is rejection of him in toto.
I guess these people get what they want.
--Gregory Garland, FidoNet RCatholic Conference
(3 April 1996)

Before we can ask forgiveness of God, we must first
forgive God, who should know better, for all the
hurts we have suffered in this life--we must first
forgive Him and keep loving Him--with all our hearts
and souls--even when what He does drives us crazy.
--Dov Taylor, Rabbi, Congregation Solel, Highland
Park, Illinois, Founder and Director of the
International Torah Corps, 1965-84, Visiting
Scholar at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and
Jewish Studies in 1992, Daniel Jeremy Silver
Fellow at Harvard in 1999.

Sometimes God's ways seem very unfair and unjust,
but to be able to forgive God opens the door to
possibly seeing that there is something else going
on here that doesn't quite meet the eye. If we
fail to forgive God we can cut ourselves off from
grace, which is God's way of making some type of
difference in our lives, a difference that opens
to the way of faith and trust that those people,
those innocents, have more to say than just plain,
empty death. . . . I wish you the peace of Christ.
Maybe if we can forgive God, we will be better
able to experience total and everlasting forgive-
ness ourselves, even in our heart of hearts, and
thus be better able to forgive others too. Jesus
couldn't have given us anything better.
--Fr. Wayne Maro (San Jose State Univ., CA (BA
in Philosophy)/ Franciscan School of Theology,
Berkeley, CA (M.Div.)/ Ordained 1986. Member
-- Society of the Precious Blood (C.PP.S.)
Former Vocation Director; Formation Team Member;
Social Justice Committee/ Parish Priest 1986-
1990/ Chaplain & Faculty: College of Notre Dame,
Belmont, CA 1989-1996/ Catholic Chaplain, The
Claremont Colleges, Claremont, CA 1996-present)

"This piece of infinity, as we live it now, I can carry it all on my shoulders without being crushed by the weight and I can now forgive God that the situation is no doubt the one that it should be. That one can have so much love as to be able to forgive God!"
- Etty Hillesum, Westerbork Concentration Camp (July 1942, died Auschwitz 30 Nov 1943)

"If we stand on trial today, why isn't God on trial for all that is wrong in our world? The answer is that we need to forgive God, just as God prays that God needs to forgive us."
- Rabbi Shelton J. Donnell, Yom Kippur 5763

"If we do not forgive God will withhold forgiveness from us - it will be measured out accordingly (See Matthew 6:15)."
- George Davis, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is..."

"When asked to forgive others we are, in a certain sense, being asked to forgive God himself. . . ."
--Cardinal O'Connor, St. Patrick's Cathedral
(28 Feb 1999)

'Forgiveness' is primarily an internal concept. It involves repenting of any grudges one has. As such, 'forgive' applies as much to God as to your neighbor. It is only the secondary meaning of forgive that includes forgiveness of someone's offense or sin.

"Forgiveness then becomes a process of letting go of whatever we thought others have done to us, or whatever we may think we have done to others."
- John Kessel, "Hearts Do Not in Eyes Shine" Asimov's SF Magazine (Oct 1983)

Forgiveness is internal, subjective, a change of 'attitude.'

"Now I turn to the phrase 'forgiving God'. We know
that we, especially the Jews, often make God appear
before a court. After the Shoah [holocaust], there
were scenarios in which some Jewish communities called
upon God to appear and to respond, to account for his
misdeeds. But even without these theatrical and
sometimes unbelievable scenarios, we are constantly
trying to judge God. Even if we forgive him, even if
we think finally that we cannot judge God,
nevertheless the movement to evaluate God ethically,
trying to understand the will and the strategies and
designs of God, is a way of judging him. Finally, the
believers are those who think that they do not have
the right to judge, that 'a priori' they forgive God
for whatever God does. I am not sure that all the
believers do that constantly. The people who have
faith in God - since faith is not certainty and since
faith is a risk - are also the people who are
constantly tempted not to forgive God, tempted to
accuse or to denounce God. That is part of the risk
of faith. I am sure that we are constantly struggling
with the temptation to judge God, constantly."
- Jacques Derrida

Hope that helps.

- Robyn

[smilax]

Harold Kushner, anybody?

[Robyn Banks]

smilax:
Harold Kushner, anybody?
Hmmmm. An obtuse reference. And obtuse references aren't conducive to great conversation. :)

Maybe you were referring to the problem of evil. However, the collection of quotes was less about this theme, than about an individual's interior attitude.

But maybe you'd like to expand. A lot.

Robyn

[smilax]

I had these two quotes in mind, both from When Bad Things Happen To Good People.

'If God can't make my sickness go away, what good is he? Who needs him?' God does not want you to be sick or crippled. He didn't make you have this problem, and he doesn't want you to go on having it, but he can't make it go away. That is something which is too hard even for God."

"Are you capable of forgiving and loving God even when you have found out He is not perfect, even when He has let you down and disappointed you by permitting bad luck and sickness and cruelty in His world, and permitting some of those things to happen to you? Can you learn to love and forgive Him despite His limitations, as Job does, and as you once learned to forgive and love your parents even though they were not as wise, as strong, or as perfect as you needed them to be?"

But yes, I agree that his attitude was more geared towards theodicy. On the other hand, as a Calvinist, I do not believe God needs forgiving; I believe we simply need repentance.

[phantaz sunlyk]

if God is in the dock, whose the judge?

[Gavin]

We don't need to forgive God. God has done nothing wrong.

The Bible clearly teaches that God is holy and just and blameless in all his doings.

It is we who need to be forgiven, not God.

It honestly grieves my heart to see someone post something so outlandish.:argh:

[smilax]

Let me clarify...

I think it's laughable idiocy to think that God needs our approval, let alone our forgiveness.

[Robyn Banks]

Gavin:
We don't need to forgive God. God has done nothing wrong.
You make the mistake of assuming that 'forgiveness' includes a wrongdoer. However, this is not necessarily so. The primary meaning of forgiveness has to do with the forgiver's attitude towards another. An attitude is entirely internal, nothing to do with that Other.

"Forgiveness then becomes a process of letting go of whatever we thought others have done to us, or whatever we may think we have done to others."
- John Kessel, "Hearts Do Not in Eyes Shine" Asimov's SF Magazine (Oct 1983)


Gavin:
It honestly grieves my heart to see someone post something so outlandish.:argh:
Then it is time to appreciate the primary thread of the quotes: that forgiveness is something that happens within.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

smilax:
Let me clarify...

I think it's laughable idiocy to think that God needs our approval, let alone our forgiveness.
Me too. That is absurd.

Robyn

[Patroclus]

I do not think that forgiveness is internal. It seems to me that forgiveness is an act of power with eternal consequences.

When Jesus forgave the paralytic that was lowered through the roof, was that Jesus conquering his own grappling with some internal grudge against this man? I highly doubt it. Futhermore, Jesus tells his Disciples, in John chapter 20, that if they forgive, their sins are fogiven in heaven, but if not, they are retained in Heaven.

Sure, in many cases, forgiveness involves an internal struggle, however, that is not the limit of it. If forgiveness is just a psychological hurdle, what is the purpose of atonement?

If a debt is forgiven, it means that no debt needs to be paid. If one person forgives another, it means that the offender need not pay any compensation to the offended. In a sense, it is a repudiation of a weregild.

If forgiveness is a method of absolvence, then it cannot be applied to God, for God has nothing to be be absolved of.

[Robyn Banks]

Patroclus:
I do not think that forgiveness is internal. It seems to me that forgiveness is an act of power with eternal consequences.
Hmmmm.

Forgive v. "stop feeling angry or resentful towards (someone)"

It would be an anthropomorphism for God, wouldn't it. ie. God is not really 'angry' and 'upset', but can be described that way. Likewise, when God 'forgives', he removes the anger he feels towards a sinner.

Patroclus:
When Jesus forgave the paralytic that was lowered through the roof, was that Jesus conquering his own grappling with some internal grudge against this man?
'Anger' and 'internal grudges' are true as anthropomorphisms.

Patroclus:
I highly doubt it. Futhermore, Jesus tells his Disciples, in John chapter 20, that if they forgive, their sins are fogiven in heaven, but if not, they are retained in Heaven.
Yes! And this is exactly relevant. It is only the person who has changed inside (ie. forgiven others, or forgiven God) who is forgiven in heaven (ie. not held responsible for their sin).


Patroclus:
Sure, in many cases, forgiveness involves an internal struggle, however, that is not the limit of it. If forgiveness is just a psychological hurdle, what is the purpose of atonement?
To remove a barrier. To remove God's "anger" [anthropomorphism].

It applies quite well.

Robyn

[Patroclus]

I don't know where you got your definition. Oxford has this to say:

1. To give, grant
2. To give up, cease to harbor (resentment, etc.)
3. To remit (a debt); to give up claim to requital for, pardon (an offence). Sonst. with simple obj.; also with the thing in the axxus. and person in the dat. OE.
4. To give up resentment against, pardon (an offender). Also (now rarely to abandon one's claim against a debtor.

Sure, some of these definitions may have something to do with inward feelings, but these are still active.

The problem with anthropomorphising God is that you come out with an object to worship, which is just shy of idolitry (in my opnion).

[Robyn Banks]

Patroclus:
2. To give up, cease to harbor (resentment, etc.)
Exactly!

Patroclus:
4. To give up resentment against ... (an offender).
Bingo!

Patroclus:
Sure, some of these definitions may have something to do with inward feelings, but these are still active.
No - 2 & 4 are primarily internal. The very concept of 'forgiveness' must be understood as internal, if it is to be understood at all. If forgiveness depends on anything external, then it is no longer forgiveness.

Patroclus:
The problem with anthropomorphising God is that you come out with an object to worship, which is just shy of idolitry (in my opnion).
Not at all, if you know you are doing it.
:)

Robyn

[geebob]

The problem with anthropomorphising God is that you come out with an object to worship, which is just shy of idolitry (in my opnion).

so much for scripture.

[Sozo]

Robyn...

We should stop judging God, not forgiving.

You cannot forgive God.

You are turning "judging" God into "forgiving" God

[geebob]

Sozo, I seem to recall that you you have stated that you been angry with God.

I believe Robyn's point is along those lines.

[Sozo]

geebob:
Sozo, I seem to recall that you you have stated that you been angry with God.



But that was not because I needed to forgive Him. It was because I judged Him.

Do you really think that I would think that God could be at fault for anything?

Just because we let God know how we feel about something, doesn't mean we think He is wrong. I would rather let off steam towards Him, than people.

[geebob]

Do you really think that I would think that God could be at fault for anything?

Banks has denied that this is about finding fault with God. Forgiveness of God he says is a something internal to you where you cease to hold something against him.

[Sozo]

geebob:


Banks has denied that this is about finding fault with God. Forgiveness of God he says is a something internal to you where you cease to hold something against him.

I understand that. But in order to hold something against God we would have to believe that God had "done" something that we were holding against Him.

As Robyn states and quotes...
You make the mistake of assuming that 'forgiveness' includes a wrongdoer. However, this is not necessarily so. The primary meaning of forgiveness has to do with the forgiver's attitude towards another. An attitude is entirely internal, nothing to do with that Other.

"Forgiveness then becomes a process of letting go of whatever we thought others have done to us, or whatever we may think we have done to others." (Italics and emphasis mine)

The "thought" is the judging of God, of what He has "done".

"Whatever we may think we have done to others" is judging that God has refused to forgive us! It is accepting forgiveness, not forgiving ourselves.

[Gavin]

Robyn:

If all you mean by "forgive God" is "stop resenting him", then of course nearly everyone would agree.

But phrasing it as "forgiving God" is misleading because it may lead people to think that God has actually done something that needs to be forgiven. And I am pretty sure that what you mean by "forgiving God" is a good deal different from what a lot of those sources you quoted meant.

INO, you should have made more clear what you meant by "forgivin God".

Blessings.:)

[Iceman]

Gavin:
Robyn:

If all you mean by "forgive God" is "stop resenting him", then of course nearly everyone would agree.

But phrasing it as "forgiving God" is misleading because it may lead people to think that God has actually done something that needs to be forgiven. And I am pretty sure that what you mean by "forgiving God" is a good deal different from what a lot of those sources you quoted meant.

INO, you should have made more clear what you meant by "forgivin God".

Blessings.:)

I agree with Gavin wholeheatedly.

Those who know me know that often I am the first to point out issues of symantics -- often two people are fighting for the same point and are just using different words.

But this is not a case of that. I understand the points that Robyn and the authors she quoted are trying to say, but there has been a very poor choice of wording on this issue.

We are forgiven by God. Indeed, we learn how to forgive others because God has forgiven us. You cannot forgive someone who has not wronged you. You can only get off your high horse and admit that nothing wrong was ever done in the first place.

Therefore, I believe that the point stands -- we should not be angry at God or hold things against him. However, the choice of words is disturbing, and I would venture to say perhaps it cheapens the Gospel.

[geebob]

Therefore, I believe that the point stands -- we should not be angry at God or hold things against him.

Whether Banks is right or wrong on this (I don't know what to think of this issue), I have to disagree here. It is important to be honest with God and that may entail coming to terms that one may be that we are angry at him. David got angry with God. Even Sozo was angry with God!

psycologically speaking, I've heard that an intense relationship of love may also entail intense emotions one way or the other. So it could very well be that those who love God the most are also people who may get very angry with God.

[Sozo]

geebob:
It is important to be honest with God and that may entail coming to terms that one may be that we are angry at him.

...it could very well be that those who love God the most are also people who may get very angry with God.

I agree with this 100%. But, I stand by the fact that it is not forgiving God that is required when we get angry, but rather recognizing that God is always right, and that we are always wrong.

I wrestle with God until He changes me, and I get mad at Him for not changing me in my time, even though I know that it is His time that is perfect. As children of God, we are constantly changing our minds about God, because we are accustomed to mis-judging Him.

[Robyn Banks]

Patroclus:
The problem with anthropomorphising God is that you come out with an object to worship, which is just shy of idolitry (in my opnion).
geebob:
so much for scripture.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Robyn

[Robyn Banks]

Gavin:
INO, you should have made more clear what you meant by "forgivin God"
And Jesus should have been a whole lot clearer, too. What was he thinking - always challenging people with parables, when it would have been better for Systematic Theology Writers if he had just said things in plain words.

Robyn

[geebob]

But, I stand by the fact that it is not forgiving God that is required when we get angry, but rather recognizing that God is always right, and that we are always wrong.


I believe that God is always right, but sometimes God doesn't change us to see that his intentions are okay even if they are but rather meets us where we are at. God didn't try to change Moses' opinion that He shouldn't wipe out the israelites. God changed his plans on account of Moses' arguements (Ex. 32:14)

There are times though when God will still proceed with his plans but not untill his servant is satisfied that it is the right thing to do. This happened with Amos.

[Robyn Banks]

Sozo:
I agree with this 100%.
I forgive you.

[Thomas2003]

Divine "forgiveness" is a judicial act, it is an adjudication of a wrong in the law being fulfilled in Jesus Christ's blood. Without this there is no forgiveness.

To claim to "forgive God" is the supreme blasphemy recorded in Scripture for it necessitates that God is a sinner.

"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. Luke 12:10"

"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. Mark 3:29"

Romans also explains the unbelief that would sit as a judge over God and His Word saying,

"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." Romans 3:3-4

[The Laughing Man]

So...

We need to "forgive God" for things we imagine/fantasize/fabricate Him doing wrong? That is about the stupidest concept I've ever heard of. We should not be trying to forgive God for such a thing. Indeed, we should be seeking forgiveness from God for our own arrogance, anger, spite, etc. for erroneously thinking He has wronged us and (if necessary) for thinking that He needs forgiveness from us.

Robyn, you've taken the cake with this one.

[Robyn Banks]

Thomas2003:
Divine "forgiveness" is a judicial act, it is an adjudication of a wrong in the law being fulfilled in Jesus Christ's blood. Without this there is no forgiveness.
No. Forgiveness is a non-judicial act. Judicial acts require a balancing of act with punishment. Forgiveness ends this cycle.


Thomas2003:
To claim to "forgive God" is the supreme blasphemy recorded in Scripture for it necessitates that God is a sinner.
No. Forgiveness does not require one to judge the forgivee. It can involve that in certain circumstances, but it is not a necessary part of "forveness". Forgiveness must involve the forgiver ceasing to feel resentment against (the forgivee).



Thomas2003:
"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. Luke 12:10"

"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. Mark 3:29"
"Whoever shalt misunderstand me shall come to a wrong conclusion."
- Robyn 1.1



Thomas2003:
Romans also explains the unbelief that would sit as a judge over God and His Word saying,

"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." Romans 3:3-4
Job says much the same thing.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

Jinx72:
So...

We need to "forgive God" for things we imagine/fantasize/fabricate Him doing wrong?
That's quite right.



Jinx72:
That is about the stupidest concept I've ever heard of.
There is nothing "stupid" about the concept. The many people who I quoted in the initial post all agree with the concept.



Jinx72:
We should not be trying to forgive God for such a thing. Indeed, we should be seeking forgiveness from God for our own arrogance, anger, spite, etc. for erroneously thinking He has wronged us and (if necessary) for thinking that He needs forgiveness from us.
Who said God "needs" forgiveness from us? This is a strawman.

To the contrary, we need to forgive God.




Jinx72:
Robyn, you've taken the cake with this one.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[geebob]

No. Forgiveness does not require one to judge the forgivee. It can involve that in certain circumstances, but it is not a necessary part of "forveness". Forgiveness must involve the forgiver ceasing to feel resentment against (the forgivee).

THis is a bit of a different situation but I recall that on NPR, in the context of discussing corporate corruption they spoke of the difference between American's and Japanese companies in that an American company or individuals within that company are almost never going to apologize for anything as we feel an apology is an admission of guilt. Not so in a Japanese culture. There corporations are more likely to issue apologies but they don't necessarily consider that an admission of guilt.

The topic here, I suppose would be sort of the flip side in that the claim is tha forgiveness need not accompany an accusation.




on another note, Robyn, are there any scriptures you could point to that support what you are saying.

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
No. Forgiveness does not require one to judge the forgivee. It can involve that in certain circumstances, but it is not a necessary part of "forveness". Forgiveness must involve the forgiver ceasing to feel resentment against (the forgivee).
geebob:
THis is a bit of a different situation but I recall that on NPR, in the context of discussing corporate corruption they spoke of the difference between American's and Japanese companies in that an American company or individuals within that company are almost never going to apologize for anything as we feel an apology is an admission of guilt. Not so in a Japanese culture. There corporations are more likely to issue apologies but they don't necessarily consider that an admission of guilt.

The topic here, I suppose would be sort of the flip side in that the claim is tha forgiveness need not accompany an accusation.
Right. Although, the Western concept of forgiveness begins with an individual ceasing to feel resentment.



Robyn:
on another note, Robyn, are there any scriptures you could point to that support what you are saying.
Job.

Robyn Banks

[Thomas2003]

Re: Scripture provides the answer....

Thomas2003:

Divine "forgiveness" is a judicial act, it is an adjudication of a wrong in the law being fulfilled in Jesus Christ's blood. Without this there is no forgiveness.

No. Forgiveness is a non-judicial act. Judicial acts require a balancing of act with punishment. Forgiveness ends this cycle.


I believe man is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), that sin entered (Genesis 3:7) and God's adjudication of that sin brought death (Genesis 2:17). To avoid the adjudication of death one must be forgiven, the cycle of sin ends and only ends in Jesus Christ sacrafice. The election of God is based in His adjudication of sin in Jesus Christ's blood - no such concept of "forgiveness" exists outside of this. It is not an emotional response about "feelings", it is a matter of law. Any attempt to claim man "forgives" or even can "forgive" anyone outside of this is the creation of another Christ and another Gospel.

In your case you are simply creating yourself in a messianic character whereby your "forgiveness" is the means of salvation. That is to say, you've redefined forgiveness as the means whereby man administrates Grace through personal adjudication.

This results in your conclusion of a dialetical tension in the Godhead, or as you said, a "balancing act" between adjudication and punishment. Hence you are re-creating God in your image and attempting to disavow the dialetical tension between life and death in this recreation - all balance then is in man's creative act and self salvation. It's simply an eastern mythology.

However, there is no dialetical tension in the Godhead, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, in true union without division, without mixture, without confusion and without change as the Scripture teaches and the creeds hand down to us.

I haven't misunderstood you at all, you are simply playing games with words and are engaged in an implicit denial of Christianity and a self-evident denial of the Trinity.

[The Laughing Man]

The idea that we need to forgive God for something He didn't do is stupid, no matter who supposedly supports it.

Robyn, do I need to forgive you for jumping up and down on my head for 10 minutes, kicking me in the groin, giving me a severe wedgie, then calling me a "dippy doodle booger eater" 50 times in a row? You never actually did those things, but I just imagined you did.

:whack:

[geebob]

Robyn, do I need to forgive you for jumping up and down on my head for 10 minutes, kicking me in the groin, giving me a severe wedgie, then calling me a "dippy doodle booger eater" 50 times in a row? You never actually did those things, but I just imagined you did.

good for you jynx. I know that must've been hard for you to let go.

[Thomas2003]

The idea that we need to forgive God for something He didn't do is stupid, no matter who supposedly supports it.

Ah, but what this fellow is proposing is that death is what you need to forgive God for.

In other words, once you "forgive God", meaning overcome your resentment toward Him for judging sin and imposing death upon you, then you can truly accept Him as your equal.

Cordially,


Thomas

[Robyn Banks]

Jinx72:
The idea that we need to forgive God for something He didn't do is stupid, no matter who supposedly supports it.
No. The idea is coherent and Biblical.



Jinx72:
Robyn, do I need to forgive you for jumping up and down on my head for 10 minutes, kicking me in the groin, giving me a severe wedgie, then calling me a "dippy doodle booger eater" 50 times in a row? You never actually did those things, but I just imagined you did.
If you imagine I did those things, you certainly should forgive me.

Now you're getting it.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

Thomas2003:
Ah, but what this fellow is proposing is that death is what you need to forgive God for.
No, I am not.



Thomas2003:
In other words, once you "forgive God", meaning overcome your resentment toward Him for judging sin and imposing death upon you, then you can truly accept Him as your equal.
Strawman.

[Robyn Banks]

geebob:
Robyn, do I need to forgive you for jumping up and down on my head for 10 minutes, kicking me in the groin, giving me a severe wedgie, then calling me a "dippy doodle booger eater" 50 times in a row? You never actually did those things, but I just imagined you did.
geebob:
good for you jynx. I know that must've been hard for you to let go.
:rofl: The catharsis must have been huge.

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 08:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154142#post154142)
Robyn Banks:

No. The idea is coherent

Hardly. The idea of forgiving someone for something they never did is about incoherent as things get. The only way to be less coherent is to spout off gibberish like "fleezle gobit harb toink."

and Biblical.

Prove it. I have yet to see you provide one bit of biblical evidence for this idiotic concept. All you do is quote (possibly misquote) a bunch of Joe Shmoes. Let's hear something from God's Word that backs up your absurd claims.

If you imagine I did those things, you certainly should forgive me.

Why? You didn't actually do them. You don't need to be forgiven for things you did not do. In fact, had I been serious and felt some sort of resentment or anger towards you for the imagined wrongs, I would be the one needing forgiveness from you, not vice versa.

Now you're getting it.

The only thing I "get" is that this "forgiving God" idea is UN-biblical, evil, stupid and a bunch of other things I can't mention here. But you just don't get that.

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
No. The idea is coherent ”
Jinx72:
Hardly.
You are confusing your lack of understanding of the concept with its inherent coherence. You should say "I do not understand" instead of "that does not make sense".



Jinx72:
The idea of forgiving someone for something they never did is about incoherent as things get.
No. It all depends on what one means by "forgive". And this has already been explained above.




Jinx72:
The only way to be less coherent is to spout off gibberish like "fleezle gobit harb toink."
You should learn to say "I do not understand" instead of "that does not make sense".



Robyn:
and Biblical.
Jinx72:
Prove it.
See Job.




Jinx72:
I have yet to see you provide one bit of biblical evidence
Incorrect. I have already cited Job.

Have you ever read Job (I mean, all of it, not just a few verses here and there)? There is no other Biblical book as well written as Job.




Jinx72:
All you do is quote (possibly misquote)
There was no misquotation. Your "possibly misquote" was a red herring and ad hominem.




Jinx72:
a bunch of Joe Shmoes. Let's hear something from God's Word that backs up your absurd claims.
A bunch of Joe Shmoes wrote the Bible.




Robyn:
“ If you imagine I did those things, you certainly should forgive me. ”
Jinx72:
Why?
Ah - now you're saying "I do not understand" instead of "that does not make sense". Very good!

Why?... because you would have resentment in your heart.

Jinx72:
You didn't actually do them.
This is irrelevant. You had anger in your heart, whether the wrong was actual or your fantasy.

Jinx72:
You don't need to be forgiven for things you did not do.
I don't "need" forgiveness at all. Likewise, God does not "need" fogiveness.

You need to forgive.



Jinx72:
In fact, had I been serious and felt some sort of resentment or anger towards you for the imagined wrongs, I would be the one needing forgiveness from you, not vice versa.
You would need to forgive me. I would not "need" your forgiveness. Forgiveness is never owed. Forgiveness is a term outside juridical concepts.




Robyn:
“ Now you're getting it. ”
Jinx72:
The only thing I "get" is that this "forgiving God" idea is UN-biblical,
It is the main message of Job. It is "Biblical".

Jinx72:
evil,
Not forgiving God is "evil".

Jinx72:
stupid
You should say "I do not understand" instead of "that does not make sense".

Jinx72:
and a bunch of other things I can't mention here.
Can't, or won't? :smile:

Jinx72:
But you just don't get that.
That's because I already understand the meaning of the thread running through the quotes.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

Hmmmmmm. Another thought. I was considering that forgiveness has no place in juridical concepts. In fact, it cuts right across them.

Now, it has been shown above that the person who needs forgiveness is not the forgivee, but the forgiver. That is, we have no necessity for God to forgive us, but it is a pure act of grace, cutting across juridical demands. I do not need Jinx's forgiveness. I do not need God's forgiveness. I can ignore both. (I might 'need' it in the limited sense of restoring a relationship with Jinx, or with God - but this is a conditional 'need'. I can choose whether or not to accept the forgiveness and restore the relationship - so it is not a necessity).

But, the person who forgives needs to forgive in order to rid themselves of the necessity of existing laws. Jinx needs to forgive me to rid himself of the law of resentment and anger. God needs to forgive me in order to rid Himself of the law of condemnation and death. God needs to forgive us, or must pour out his anger on us.

"What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were. Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be." Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead--since he was about a hundred years old--and that Sarah's womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification."
- St. PaulThere must be either anger/punishment or forgiveness - both for man and for God.
"The alternative to forgiveness, but by no means its opposite, is punishment, and both have in common that they attempt to put an end to something that without interference could go on endlessly."
- Hannah ArendtHope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

Thomas2003:
Divine "forgiveness" is a judicial act, it is an adjudication of a wrong in the law being fulfilled in Jesus Christ's blood. Without this there is no forgiveness.
Robyn:
No. Forgiveness is a non-judicial act. Judicial acts require a balancing of act with punishment. Forgiveness ends this cycle.
Thomas2003:
To avoid the adjudication of death one must be forgiven
Right - to avoid the Law, one must receive the forgiveness of God. Either we are judged under the Law, or we avoid the Law altogether and are forgiven outside the Law. Once forgiven, there is no place for the Law! It is an either-or. "For if the inheritance comes from the Law, it no longer comes from the promise" (Galatians 3.18).

Immanuel Kant, in his Doctrine of Right (the first part of the Metaphysics of Morals) discusses the right of a King to punish and grant clemency. Kant notes that the right to grant clemency (ius aggratiandi, Begnadigungrescht), the right to lessen or remit the penalty of a criminal, is, of all sovereign rights, the most delicate, the slipperiest and the most equivocal. It gives the most splendor to the greatness and majesty of the King, but the King thereby runs the risk of being unjust, of acting unjustly in the highest decree.
"Nothing can be more unjust than clemency."
- Jacques DerridaAnd in the same vein, this is why, after Paul explains that salvation is outside the Law, his (imaginary) interlocutors in Romans protest that "that God is unjust" (Ch3).



Thomas2003:
the cycle of sin ends and only ends in Jesus Christ sacrafice.
Nonsense. The cycle of sin continues in one who is forgiven. Paul acknowledges that those who have accepted the gift continue in the cycle of sin. But the difference is that they are outside the consequences of sin: the judgment of the Law. "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life" (Romans 6.22).

Forgiveness is non-juridical, outside the law and mutually exclusive from the Law. To try to earn forgiveness trough the Law after freely having received forgiveness outside the Law repeatedly earns Paul's scorn.




Thomas2003:
The election of God is based in His adjudication of sin in Jesus Christ's blood - no such concept of "forgiveness" exists outside of this.
Incorrect. The concept of forgiveness 'exists' outside of the concept of God's forgiveness of man.
"be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you."
- Ephesians 4.32



Thomas2003:
It is not an emotional response about "feelings", it is a matter of law.
Forgiveness is neither merely emotional, nor is it a matter of Law. It is a non-juridical concept.



Thomas2003:
Any attempt to claim man "forgives" or even can "forgive" anyone outside of this is the creation of another Christ and another Gospel.
"be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you."
- Ephesians 4.32



Thomas2003:
In your case you are simply creating yourself in a messianic character whereby your "forgiveness" is the means of salvation.
No. I make an ethical point, not a soteriological one. Only God's forgiveness of us (dealing with his 'anger') has soteriological efficacy, for it is dealing with that which stops our salvation: the Law of Death.




Thomas2003:
That is to say, you've redefined forgiveness as the means whereby man administrates Grace through personal adjudication.
No, I haven't. I have shone a light on this concept of 'forgiveness'. In this case, a quite orthodox one. Some of the quotes weren't entirely orthodox, of course. But as a whole - and read together to discover the silver thread - they were.



Thomas2003:
This results in your conclusion of a dialetical tension in the Godhead, or as you said, a "balancing act" between adjudication and punishment.
God must punish sin that he has not forgiven. This is the condition He imposes on himself because of His nature. This is not a balance between adjudication and punishment - which are each juridical concepts. This is a divine choice between the Law and Forgiveness.



Thomas2003:
Hence you are re-creating God in your image and attempting to disavow the dialetical tension between life and death in this recreation - all balance then is in man's creative act and self salvation.
No. Strawman.



Thomas2003:
It's simply an eastern mythology.
Forgiveness is Western mythology, not Eastern.



Thomas2003:
However, there is no dialetical tension in the Godhead, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, in true union without division, without mixture, without confusion and without change as the Scripture teaches and the creeds hand down to us.
This is off-topic and does not follow.



Thomas2003:
I haven't misunderstood you at all,
You have completely misunderstood me.



Thomas2003:
you are simply playing games with words
No. I am exploring the very concept of 'forgiveness', with some very important conclusions.



Thomas2003:
and are engaged in an implicit denial of Christianity and a self-evident denial of the Trinity.
Your discussion of the Trrinity is non sequitur. You still have not understood the basic point. Geebob has, though.

Hope that helps you understand.

Robyn Banks

[Thomas2003]

Right - to avoid the Law, one must receive the forgiveness of God. Either we are judged under the Law, or we avoid the Law altogether and are forgiven outside the Law. Once forgiven, there is no place for the Law! It is an either-or. "For if the inheritance comes from the Law, it no longer comes from the promise" (Galatians 3.18).

No, sir, your interpretation is completely incorrect. We do not avoid the law altogether - Jesus Christ suffers that penalty, we establish the law through faith. (Romans 3:31)

It is not an either-or, grace and law are so inseparably connected that they cannot be divided. It is an absolute - Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God the Son into human flesh, it is eternal.

The history of modern criticism, just as your philosophical syncretism of Scripture is post Kantian history, a philsophical abstraction. Not the real history of man the creature in a God-created world. The real Jesus of history is set forth in Scripture and defined by Chalcedon.

Nonsense. The cycle of sin continues in one who is forgiven. Paul acknowledges that those who have accepted the gift continue in the cycle of sin. But the difference is that they are outside the consequences of sin: the judgment of the Law. "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life" (Romans 6.22).

This is absolute self delusion, I haven't seen such an intentional perversion of Scripture in years.

Forgiveness is non-juridical, outside the law and mutually exclusive from the Law. To try to earn forgiveness trough the Law after freely having received forgiveness outside the Law repeatedly earns Paul's scorn.

Forgiveness is completely juridical, cannot exist outside of Divine Jurisprudence - Grace flows from God's Adjudication and no place else.

Paul is never scornful to the law, he is scornful to the law as mediator - he fully supports the law as law.

Incorrect. The concept of forgiveness 'exists' outside of the concept of God's forgiveness of man.

"be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you."
- Ephesians 4.32

No, you need to re-read that Scripture. Grace manifests itself in repentance and results in forgiveness.

Without Christ there is no reason to forgive anybody for anything, and without repentance it is generally not wise.

Forgiveness is neither merely emotional, nor is it a matter of Law. It is a non-juridical concept.

Not in Scripture or reality.

No. I make an ethical point, not a soteriological one. Only God's forgiveness of us (dealing with his 'anger') has soteriological efficacy, for it is dealing with that which stops our salvation: the Law of Death.

Oh my...I honestly don't know what to say. This is beyond heretical.

No, I haven't. I have shone a light on this concept of 'forgiveness'. In this case, a quite orthodox one. Some of the quotes weren't entirely orthodox, of course. But as a whole - and read together to discover the silver thread - they were.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....maybe a comedy is more appropriate.

God must punish sin that he has not forgiven. This is the condition He imposes on himself because of His nature. This is not a balance between adjudication and punishment - which are each juridical concepts. This is a divine choice between the Law and Forgiveness

No such dichotomy exists in the Godhead. He either elects a man or He doesn't, and if you are elect it's by His Law and by His Law that you are forgiven through Christ.

Again, law and grace are inseparable.

Thomas2003:
However, there is no dialetical tension in the Godhead, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, in true union without division, without mixture, without confusion and without change as the Scripture teaches and the creeds hand down to us.

This is off-topic and does not follow.

No, it's completely on topic and follows exactly what you are saying or rather denying.

You have completely misunderstood me.

I don't think so, it is difficult to misunderstand that foregivness is a non-jurdical concept.

You are simply denying the eternal decree of the Triune God in philosophical terms.

No. I am exploring the very concept of 'forgiveness', with some very important conclusions.

Not at all, you are redefining words with very heretical conclusions.

Your discussion of the Trrinity is non sequitur. You still have not understood the basic point. Geebob has, though.

My conclusion on the Trinity is completely relevant to your implicit denial of orthodoxy in redefining "forgiveness" in a man-centered and reductionist concept.

I've understood your point perfectly, salvation is a man centered and attainable act. Your ethics are unethical.


Hope that helps.

Thomas

[Robyn Banks]

Robyn:
Right - to avoid the Law, one must receive the forgiveness of God. Either we are judged under the Law, or we avoid the Law altogether and are forgiven outside the Law. Once forgiven, there is no place for the Law! It is an either-or. "For if the inheritance comes from the Law, it no longer comes from the promise" (Galatians 3.18). ”
Thomas2003:
No, sir, your interpretation is completely incorrect.
My interpretation is completely correct. See Galatians 3.18, quoted above.

Thomas2003:
We do not avoid the law altogether - Jesus Christ suffers that penalty, we establish the law through faith. (Romans 3:31)
I am saying that there is no place for the Law at the time of forgiveness. Or, to use EP Sanders' terms, for 'getting in' there is no place for the Law. Forgiveness/grace is exclusive of the Law. Only in 'staying in' is there a place for the Law.

Insofar as people still regard the Law as the method for attaining righteousness, Paul objects strongly that they have missed the boat – stumbled over the prophesised stumbling block of faith in Christ (Rom 9:32-33) - and are burdened again by a yoke of slavery (Gal 5:1).

Insofar as people have faith in Christ, Paul exhorts them to keep in step with the Spirit which they are a people of (Gal 5:25) by fulfilling the Law (Gal 6:2).

As for attaning righteousness, this is no longer done under the Law at all - but only by forgiveness (outside of the Law). Forgiveness is non-juridical. There is no (juridical) balance of crime necessitating punishment. Instead, there is a underserved gift which breaks the necessity of balancing the crime with the punishment.

If forgiveness involved the Law at all, the person forgiven would be obliged to follow the whole Law. Gal 5:3-12: “Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law."

Forgiveness is non-juridical.



Thomas2003:
It is not an either-or, grace and law are so inseparably connected that they cannot be divided.
This is not Biblical. After Christ, righteousness is completely exclusive of the Law.

"now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known."
- Romans 3.21

Forgiveness is non-juridical.



Thomas2003:
Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God the Son into human flesh, it is eternal.
Relevance?

Thomas2003:
The history of modern criticism, just as your philosophical syncretism of Scripture is post Kantian history, a philsophical abstraction.
This sentence is ungrammatical and nonsensical.

Thomas2003:
Not the real history of man the creature in a God-created world. The real Jesus of history is set forth in Scripture and defined by Chalcedon.
You confuse my use of Kant's one idea with his entire philosophy. I was interested in his one idea, not his entire philosophy. What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?



Robyn:
“ Nonsense. The cycle of sin continues in one who is forgiven. Paul acknowledges that those who have accepted the gift continue in the cycle of sin. But the difference is that they are outside the consequences of sin: the judgment of the Law. "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life" (Romans 6.22). ”
Thomas2003:
This is absolute self delusion, I haven't seen such an intentional perversion of Scripture in years.
This is Biblical. If you deny the Bible, please provide reasons.




Robyn:
“ Forgiveness is non-juridical, outside the law and mutually exclusive from the Law. To try to earn forgiveness through the Law after freely having received forgiveness outside the Law repeatedly earns Paul's scorn. ”
Thomas2003:
Forgiveness is completely juridical,
Nope: "now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known."
- Romans 3.21

Forgiveness is non-juridical.

Thomas2003:
cannot exist outside of Divine Jurisprudence
Forgiveness exists completely outside of Divine Jurisprudence. It exists within Divine Grace.

Thomas2003:
Grace flows from God's Adjudication and no place else.
Nope. Grace flows from God's refusal to let man receive the natural consequences/punishment for his sin.

Death is the natural consequence of sin:

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die."
- Romans 1.28-32All who have sinned will be judged under the Law:
"God shows no partiality. All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law."
- Romans 2.11-12But God's forgiveness comes "apart from the Law", as a gift:

"But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith."
- Romans 3.21-25



Thomas2003:
Paul is never scornful to the law, he is scornful to the law as mediator - he fully supports the law as law.
Quite right. That is why I said: "To try to earn forgiveness through the Law after freely having received forgiveness outside the Law repeatedly earns Paul's scorn."

Forgiveness comes outside of the Law. It is non-juridical.



Robyn:
Incorrect. The concept of forgiveness 'exists' outside of the concept of God's forgiveness of man.

"be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you."
- Ephesians 4.32 ”
Thomas2003:
No, you need to re-read that Scripture. Grace manifests itself in repentance and results in forgiveness.
You need to reread that scripture. Where there is salvific grace, there is God's forgiveness. Where there is a spiritual life, there is man's forgiveness of man.

And it is human forgiveness that the quotes in the original post consider, not God's forgiveness of man. Your discussion of divine salvific forgiveness is largely irrelevant. What keeps it relevant to my original point is that God also needs to forgive, to avoid the consequences of the Law. And God needs to forgive to quench his anger.



Thomas2003:
Without Christ there is no reason to forgive anybody for anything, and without repentance it is generally not wise.
Human forgiveness, for Paul, is something to be done by someone who has already accepted God's grace.



Robyn:
“ Forgiveness is neither merely emotional, nor is it a matter of Law. It is a non-juridical concept. ”
Thomas2003:
Not in Scripture or reality.
In Scripture, as has already been shown, God's forgiveness is "apart from the Law."

Robyn:
“ No. I make an ethical point, not a soteriological one. Only God's forgiveness of us (dealing with his 'anger') has soteriological efficacy, for it is dealing with that which stops our salvation: the Law of Death. ”
Thomas2003:
Oh my...I honestly don't know what to say. This is beyond heretical.
No - it is orthodox. Why are you doubting, Thomas?



Robyn:
“ No, I haven't. I have shone a light on this concept of 'forgiveness'. In this case, a quite orthodox one. Some of the quotes weren't entirely orthodox, of course. But as a whole - and read together to discover the silver thread - they were. ”
Thomas2003:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....maybe a comedy is more appropriate.
If you cannot translate the ideas in the Bible to other cultures, you kill the word.

"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."



Robyn:
“ God must punish sin that he has not forgiven. This is the condition He imposes on himself because of His nature. This is not a balance between adjudication and punishment - which are each juridical concepts. This is a divine choice between the Law and Forgiveness ”
Thomas2003:
No such dichotomy exists in the Godhead.
This is not a "dichotomy". This is a divine choice.

Thomas2003:
He either elects a man or He doesn't, and if you are elect it's by His Law and by His Law that you are forgiven through Christ.
This is Unbiblical.

"you are not under law but under grace."
- Romans 6.14

Thomas2003:
Again, law and grace are inseparable.
This is unbiblical.




Thomas2003:
However, there is no dialetical tension in the Godhead, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, in true union without division, without mixture, without confusion and without change as the Scripture teaches and the creeds hand down to us. ”
Robyn:
This is off-topic and does not follow.
Thomas2003:
No, it's completely on topic and follows exactly what you are saying or rather denying.
No - you do not yet understand what I am saying.

Robyn:
“ You have completely misunderstood me. ”
Thomas2003:
I don't think so, it is difficult to misunderstand that foregivness is a non-jurdical concept.
So do you admit that forgiveness is a non-juridical concept?

The point you misunderstood is what it means to forgive God.




Thomas2003:
You are simply denying the eternal decree of the Triune God in philosophical terms.
To the contrary, I am affirming the eternal decree of the Triune God in many terms, only a minority of which are 'philosophical', the majority of which are scriptural.

Robyn:
No. I am exploring the very concept of 'forgiveness', with some very important conclusions.
Thomas2003:
Not at all, you are redefining words with very heretical conclusions.
No. You confuse words with ideas.



Robyn:
“ Your discussion of the Trrinity is non sequitur. You still have not understood the basic point. Geebob has, though.
Thomas2003:
My conclusion on the Trinity is completely relevant to your implicit denial of orthodoxy in redefining "forgiveness" in a man-centered and reductionist concept.
This is a strawman. This is why your discussion of the Trinity is non sequitur.
Robyn:
I've understood your point perfectly, salvation is a man centered and attainable act.
Nonsense. Salvation is a God-centred act, completely unattainable by man. You have trouble distinguishing divine soteriological forgiveness with human forgiveness.
Thomas2003:
Your ethics are unethical.
That statement is illogical, and non sequitur.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Nicky]

Yes - we must forgive God.

[Nobby Snark]

Good point.