i have a crazy idea that man’s forgiveness has to be premised by god’s because sin is a violation against god’s order but the traditional theologians only went in that direction with the church and avoided doing it with interpersonal forgiveness which is a real shame because it has really beautiful implications. might be impactical and not sufficently mimetic but boy do i think it is the only thing that makes sense.
Yes because the mob that agreed with the crucifixion of Christ did not know he was an innocent man. But his words did not apply to Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees, of them he said “It would be better that they would not have been born” Why? Because no one can escape judgement for sin. Christs sacrifice only applies to truly repentant sinners, not those who claim to be Christians but live in sin.
Well, as in The Paralytic Man (Matthew 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20) and The Sinful Woman (Luke 7:48), Jesus directly forgives, whereas in Luke 23:34 of course Jesus makes an intercessory prayer (on behalf of his persecutors) appealing to the Father. And then from the Sermon on the Mount and beyond, there are loads of passages when Jesus clearly states that His followers have the power to forgive act in His name (Matthew 5:43-44, Luke 6:27-28, Matthew 6:12-15). Furthermore, Jesus welcomes his disciples to perform miracles (John 14:12; Mark 16:17-18), or at least reassures bystanders not to reprimand those who act as Jesus does, as in Mark 9:38-40; see also Luke 9:49-50.
Just to reiterate what I referenced above in plain:
"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matthew 6:14-15).
Agreed! To forgive is to open a path to reconciliation by the offender, should they choose to walk it; but walk it they must, in a manner becoming the nature of the transgression they committed.
Very interesting references and timely topic sir! But I'll never forgive you for not capitalizing your sentences. Repent for your mechanical errors, or forever scriven like an insouciant Substacker.
I was wondering how many others would find it ironic that a supporter of the traditional view supports the modernist and extremely annoying affectation of deleting capitalisation and employing distinctly sketchy punctuation. The microseconds this might save in typing is outweighed by the delay in reading, plus the effort in stilling my grinding teeth. Please desist with this fad forthwith!
It is very rational to include God when a person forgives someone who harmed them, when the Lord's prayer is in view. We are required to forgive by God's command and our refusal to forgive results in God's not forgiving us. So, our forgiveness of others does rest on God's prior forgiveness of that same person. To Kevin's point, reconciliation with God happens when a person confesses (agrees with God about the true nature of their actions), repents (turns from their harmful actions replacing them with actions that build the other person up), and faith (trusting that the promise of forgiveness is real and trusting that the person forgiving really wants to reconcile).
I'm encouraged to see more and more writing about virtue and ethics. I realized a few years ago that our civilization had almost completely excised the concept of 'virtue.' We need to bring it back, and I don't trust our elites to formulate anything original on this score. Bonhoeffer and Lewis shouldn't just be read and discussed on Substack - they should be integrated into teacher education and therapy training programs and HR events. Society needs norms, and they must be based upon tradition and the common good (and not personal whim or impulse). I suspect that most every successful human culture knew this intuitively. Somehow we've nearly forgotten it.
Forgiveness in any traditional religious context was always in the context of the shared understanding of error or fault by the individual and the community.
Forgiveness was always contingent upon repentance by the individual for the error and a commitment to change the behaviour which gave rise to the error or fault. Failure to do so had consequences, social and spiritual.
The current degraded and anaemic view of forgiveness or compassion, is that it is given to everyone no matter what the error, or sin is that they commit. It requires no commitment to change on the part of the person who erred and there are no consequences for continuing the same behaviour, no matter how degenerate or socially harmful, indeed it is considered that this is all part of and parcel of their “unique individuality”.
Such a totally amoral view is considered “compassionate” and humane. It is of course no such thing and simply encourages all sorts of degenerate behaviours. Unfortunately erroneous thinking such as this has insinuated itself into all religions to some extent, but particularly Christianity, as it enables fools to feel “compassionate” and therefore “virtuous”.
To paraphrase Chesterton “Tolerance is the only possible virtue for people who have no values.”
This take is immensely better explained than previous posts and quite solid in its thought. I am overjoyed at the marked refinement of the idea at the same time I mourn the loss of your SHIFT key. Well done.
I'm curious, however, how you would respond to the protest I've OFTEN received: "When Jesus was on the cross, He said, 'Father, forgive them.' He didn't require that they repent first!"
My typical response has been: "Jesus asked the Father to forgive them; but we have no explicit record of the Father's response. It seems to me that if He had already forgiven them, there isn't much reason for Peter's response in Acts 2:38. When the crowd cries, "What shall we do to be saved?" Peter doesn't say, "Nothing. Jesus already asked the Father to forgive you, so you're good." There IS a definitive answer given. Two steps prescribed and a result. (1) Repent, (2) be baptized, and (3) you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Didn't mean to ramble that much, sorry. I'm really just interested in how you respond to the "But Jesus on the cross..." argument for therapeutic forgiveness.
The "modern" evangelical sense to say "I forgive" is more a statement to say, "We will not respond in rage or revenge. Rather, we will follow the example of our Savior hanging on the cross, saying, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'"
Jesus didn't wait for those who crucified him to repent.
I have heard about countless cases where people were prayed for a healing, and nothing would happen - until they chose to forgive someone who had seriously hurt them years before. The poison of unforgiveness eats away at us not only in our hearts and spirits, but in our bodies as well. When you hold on to unforgiveness you're also holding onto that poison.
Saying you forgive someone though does NOT mean they are free of consequences. They still must face the law and pay for their crimes.
Jesus said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy."
We have two sides in this country getting ever closer to some form of civil war. We can well use mercy, grace, and forgiveness before things get uglier.
I don’t understand why Charlie Kirks wife would “forgive” the man who murdered her husband when he has not asked for forgiveness nor repented. This isn’t what God teaches at all. Pope John Paul forgave the man who tried to kill him, but as all may recall, this man repented and asked for forgiveness. And as far as Judas Iscariot is concerned, Jesus did not “forgive “ him, he simply said “it would be better that he not have been born” That is my opinion of Charlie Kirks killer and those who praise him.
For real-world applications of Catholic doctrine, I often reference Grisez's "Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2: Living a Christian Life." Here is the section of Forgiveness: Chapter 6, Question A, Section 2(e), "Love of enemies should not be conditioned on their repentance."
"It might seem that enemies cannot be loved while they remain enemies, so that a person need only be prepared to love them should they ever seek reconciliation; for, it is argued, not even God can forgive sinners unless and until they repent. Against this argument: “God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5.8).
"A person can forgive enemies, and, in doing so, try to serve as a channel of God’s grace, evoking their repentance—assuming they really are guilty—by gently offering them forgiveness, just as God in Christ does with every sinner: “Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (Col 3.13). Therefore, people do not live by Jesus’ teaching concerning love of enemies by waiting for them to ask forgiveness or show other signs of repentance, meanwhile refusing to love them. Rather, Jesus’ teaching is lived only by following his example, as St. Stephen did in praying for those who were stoning him (see Acts 7.60).
"Even when enemies reject one’s offer of forgiveness, it is possible to live in peace with everyone, insofar as it depends on oneself, and not try to avenge any wrong (see Rom 12.17–19, 1 Pt 3.8–14). It is true that love of enemies does not eliminate the requirements of justice, and that forgiveness cannot accomplish reconciliation unless it is met with willingness to make amends.10 Still, people always can forgive enemies by praying that they will be moved to repentance, which will open the way to reconciliation (see Mt 5.44, Rom 12.14).
I understand forgiveness is the willingness to absorb the pain of an offense within one's own person rather than return the pain to the person who hurt them. The willingness flows from the hope of reconciliation leading to intimacy. Vengeance is the attempt to return the pain of an offense to the person who harmed them. Vengeance rejects future reconciliation. Justice is society working through rightly selected representatives to restore balance and peace in the face of wrong and harm. Forgiveness cannot be forced from a person. It is a fully free act, it cannot be coerced. At the same time, the person who forgives cannot force reconciliation. By reconciliation I mean a full return to true loving intimacy between the persons. The potential for reconciliation shifts to the person who harmed the other (abuser). The abuser has three steps which can happen in any order. Confession of their wrong. Repentance - changing their whole behavior from harm to benefit so they can be trusted again. Faith - believing that the forgiver has honestly and truly forgiven and that reconciliation is actually possible.
"self-focused rather than god-focused,"
Exactly. Christ said "Father forgive them", not "I forgive them".
Does that imply only God can truly forgive, not even Christ can do that?
I don't know, but I think it's worth a thought or two.
i have a crazy idea that man’s forgiveness has to be premised by god’s because sin is a violation against god’s order but the traditional theologians only went in that direction with the church and avoided doing it with interpersonal forgiveness which is a real shame because it has really beautiful implications. might be impactical and not sufficently mimetic but boy do i think it is the only thing that makes sense.
oh and 100% re jesus on the cross. same with stephen the martyr.
Yes because the mob that agreed with the crucifixion of Christ did not know he was an innocent man. But his words did not apply to Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees, of them he said “It would be better that they would not have been born” Why? Because no one can escape judgement for sin. Christs sacrifice only applies to truly repentant sinners, not those who claim to be Christians but live in sin.
Well, as in The Paralytic Man (Matthew 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20) and The Sinful Woman (Luke 7:48), Jesus directly forgives, whereas in Luke 23:34 of course Jesus makes an intercessory prayer (on behalf of his persecutors) appealing to the Father. And then from the Sermon on the Mount and beyond, there are loads of passages when Jesus clearly states that His followers have the power to forgive act in His name (Matthew 5:43-44, Luke 6:27-28, Matthew 6:12-15). Furthermore, Jesus welcomes his disciples to perform miracles (John 14:12; Mark 16:17-18), or at least reassures bystanders not to reprimand those who act as Jesus does, as in Mark 9:38-40; see also Luke 9:49-50.
Just to reiterate what I referenced above in plain:
"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matthew 6:14-15).
Good post, thanks!
Agreed! To forgive is to open a path to reconciliation by the offender, should they choose to walk it; but walk it they must, in a manner becoming the nature of the transgression they committed.
Make Medieval Great Again! I can just see the merch. Kevin, I'll order a hat.
Very interesting references and timely topic sir! But I'll never forgive you for not capitalizing your sentences. Repent for your mechanical errors, or forever scriven like an insouciant Substacker.
I was wondering how many others would find it ironic that a supporter of the traditional view supports the modernist and extremely annoying affectation of deleting capitalisation and employing distinctly sketchy punctuation. The microseconds this might save in typing is outweighed by the delay in reading, plus the effort in stilling my grinding teeth. Please desist with this fad forthwith!
Astute observation – I was joking though! I also riff on uncapitalized styling sometimes.
gOOD pOINT! iTS uFORGIVEABLE!
Haha! camelCase with aVengeance.
Impressive reasoning. I completely agree. Bringing God into it in any active way is not rational. That's why he gave us free will.
It is very rational to include God when a person forgives someone who harmed them, when the Lord's prayer is in view. We are required to forgive by God's command and our refusal to forgive results in God's not forgiving us. So, our forgiveness of others does rest on God's prior forgiveness of that same person. To Kevin's point, reconciliation with God happens when a person confesses (agrees with God about the true nature of their actions), repents (turns from their harmful actions replacing them with actions that build the other person up), and faith (trusting that the promise of forgiveness is real and trusting that the person forgiving really wants to reconcile).
I'm encouraged to see more and more writing about virtue and ethics. I realized a few years ago that our civilization had almost completely excised the concept of 'virtue.' We need to bring it back, and I don't trust our elites to formulate anything original on this score. Bonhoeffer and Lewis shouldn't just be read and discussed on Substack - they should be integrated into teacher education and therapy training programs and HR events. Society needs norms, and they must be based upon tradition and the common good (and not personal whim or impulse). I suspect that most every successful human culture knew this intuitively. Somehow we've nearly forgotten it.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/rule-1-you-are-responsible
Forgiveness in any traditional religious context was always in the context of the shared understanding of error or fault by the individual and the community.
Forgiveness was always contingent upon repentance by the individual for the error and a commitment to change the behaviour which gave rise to the error or fault. Failure to do so had consequences, social and spiritual.
The current degraded and anaemic view of forgiveness or compassion, is that it is given to everyone no matter what the error, or sin is that they commit. It requires no commitment to change on the part of the person who erred and there are no consequences for continuing the same behaviour, no matter how degenerate or socially harmful, indeed it is considered that this is all part of and parcel of their “unique individuality”.
Such a totally amoral view is considered “compassionate” and humane. It is of course no such thing and simply encourages all sorts of degenerate behaviours. Unfortunately erroneous thinking such as this has insinuated itself into all religions to some extent, but particularly Christianity, as it enables fools to feel “compassionate” and therefore “virtuous”.
To paraphrase Chesterton “Tolerance is the only possible virtue for people who have no values.”
This take is immensely better explained than previous posts and quite solid in its thought. I am overjoyed at the marked refinement of the idea at the same time I mourn the loss of your SHIFT key. Well done.
Forgiveness given when no remorse or repentance is shown is unwise. We simply enable more of the same conduct.
I'm inclined to agree with you.
I'm curious, however, how you would respond to the protest I've OFTEN received: "When Jesus was on the cross, He said, 'Father, forgive them.' He didn't require that they repent first!"
My typical response has been: "Jesus asked the Father to forgive them; but we have no explicit record of the Father's response. It seems to me that if He had already forgiven them, there isn't much reason for Peter's response in Acts 2:38. When the crowd cries, "What shall we do to be saved?" Peter doesn't say, "Nothing. Jesus already asked the Father to forgive you, so you're good." There IS a definitive answer given. Two steps prescribed and a result. (1) Repent, (2) be baptized, and (3) you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Didn't mean to ramble that much, sorry. I'm really just interested in how you respond to the "But Jesus on the cross..." argument for therapeutic forgiveness.
No, 100%
The "modern" evangelical sense to say "I forgive" is more a statement to say, "We will not respond in rage or revenge. Rather, we will follow the example of our Savior hanging on the cross, saying, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'"
Jesus didn't wait for those who crucified him to repent.
I have heard about countless cases where people were prayed for a healing, and nothing would happen - until they chose to forgive someone who had seriously hurt them years before. The poison of unforgiveness eats away at us not only in our hearts and spirits, but in our bodies as well. When you hold on to unforgiveness you're also holding onto that poison.
Saying you forgive someone though does NOT mean they are free of consequences. They still must face the law and pay for their crimes.
Jesus said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy."
We have two sides in this country getting ever closer to some form of civil war. We can well use mercy, grace, and forgiveness before things get uglier.
I don’t understand why Charlie Kirks wife would “forgive” the man who murdered her husband when he has not asked for forgiveness nor repented. This isn’t what God teaches at all. Pope John Paul forgave the man who tried to kill him, but as all may recall, this man repented and asked for forgiveness. And as far as Judas Iscariot is concerned, Jesus did not “forgive “ him, he simply said “it would be better that he not have been born” That is my opinion of Charlie Kirks killer and those who praise him.
For real-world applications of Catholic doctrine, I often reference Grisez's "Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2: Living a Christian Life." Here is the section of Forgiveness: Chapter 6, Question A, Section 2(e), "Love of enemies should not be conditioned on their repentance."
https://www.catholicbridge.com/moral-theology/G-2-6-A.php
Quote:
"It might seem that enemies cannot be loved while they remain enemies, so that a person need only be prepared to love them should they ever seek reconciliation; for, it is argued, not even God can forgive sinners unless and until they repent. Against this argument: “God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5.8).
"A person can forgive enemies, and, in doing so, try to serve as a channel of God’s grace, evoking their repentance—assuming they really are guilty—by gently offering them forgiveness, just as God in Christ does with every sinner: “Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (Col 3.13). Therefore, people do not live by Jesus’ teaching concerning love of enemies by waiting for them to ask forgiveness or show other signs of repentance, meanwhile refusing to love them. Rather, Jesus’ teaching is lived only by following his example, as St. Stephen did in praying for those who were stoning him (see Acts 7.60).
"Even when enemies reject one’s offer of forgiveness, it is possible to live in peace with everyone, insofar as it depends on oneself, and not try to avenge any wrong (see Rom 12.17–19, 1 Pt 3.8–14). It is true that love of enemies does not eliminate the requirements of justice, and that forgiveness cannot accomplish reconciliation unless it is met with willingness to make amends.10 Still, people always can forgive enemies by praying that they will be moved to repentance, which will open the way to reconciliation (see Mt 5.44, Rom 12.14).
I have a hard time getting past no capital letters. It's very distracting while I'm trying to read your piece.
But I'll try to forgive you.
I understand forgiveness is the willingness to absorb the pain of an offense within one's own person rather than return the pain to the person who hurt them. The willingness flows from the hope of reconciliation leading to intimacy. Vengeance is the attempt to return the pain of an offense to the person who harmed them. Vengeance rejects future reconciliation. Justice is society working through rightly selected representatives to restore balance and peace in the face of wrong and harm. Forgiveness cannot be forced from a person. It is a fully free act, it cannot be coerced. At the same time, the person who forgives cannot force reconciliation. By reconciliation I mean a full return to true loving intimacy between the persons. The potential for reconciliation shifts to the person who harmed the other (abuser). The abuser has three steps which can happen in any order. Confession of their wrong. Repentance - changing their whole behavior from harm to benefit so they can be trusted again. Faith - believing that the forgiver has honestly and truly forgiven and that reconciliation is actually possible.
It is good to have you in the fight and the fold, Brother. We have a more muscular and masculine interpretation of things in Traditional Catholicism.