Forget & Forgive?

[al Hartman]

All,

Marcia's post, to which these posts respond, is on another thread under the "Grace and Truth" category...

Tom,

I have read a couple of reviews of the book Bold Love, but have not been able to find any background information on either of the authors.  I have not seen the book itself.

I am not well enough educated to comment on the theology of the point in question.  I do however believe I understand your perspective, as it is similar to my own manner of dealing with the issue of past mistreatment/abuse by others.

Bystander,

Your comments appear presumptuous, e.g. calling Tom's attitude "lighthearted" and his actions "the easy, incomplete way."  Conclusions about Tom's personal history which you say you have drawn from Tom's posts do not seem consistent with his posts that I have read.

Regardless of that, do you speak from your own personal experience in dealing with hurtful people and events, or are you theorizing?  You said you have not read the book Bold Love, yet you speak with certainty of the authors' intentions:

The point the author is trying to make is that...

That is what the authors of Bold Love are trying to say.

With all due respect, your "What if..." suggestion seems vague and unfounded.  It would be helpful if you could share actual experiences in which you have successfully employed the ideas you recommend.

al

[M2]

Tom,

I think you miss the point the author is trying to make. Of course, a book review is not the same as actually reading the book, but even so, the point about forgiveness is that if we neglect "Bold Love," we don't help those who offend us.

On the contrary, we are told to extend real love towards people, especially those who offend us, and doubly so when those people are fellow Christians.  While your current healthy, lighthearted approach to the abuse you suffered under George is good for you and your family, it hasn't served George, or others who have been offended by him very well.  In fact, your "forgiveness" actually allowed George to continue to abuse others for years, while you stood by and didn't protest too loudly.  (I may be wrong about this last statement, so please accept my apology if I have misrepresented you.  I am making this statement based on what I have been able to learn from your own posts.) In any event, a person who walked away from it all, and didn't confront George did nothing to help George, or those whom they left behind when they left.  That is the point of Bold Love.

I don't suppose that you and George are on speaking terms, let alone reconciled.  The point the author is trying to make is that this reconciliation and forgiveness can't take place without rebuke and repentence.  It is the job of the offended to  rebuke, and then forgive...or not, depending on how the offender responds.   

How much better if you could remember these things and NOT have to get your feelings of anger, betrayal and sadness back under control?  These chains of oppression remain, otherwise you wouldn't be able to conjure up old feelings any time you mull over the past.

What if mulling over the past led you to an amazing story of God's grace?  What if you remembered the abuse you suffered, and how you confronted the abuser, who then repented, and the two of you were reconciled and there was a general clearing of the matter?  That would be amazing.  It is also highly unlikely to take place in your situation, because you have chosen the easy, incomplete way, that only provides for periods of relative comfort in between times of "mulling over the past."  Do you see how this is the only way to truly experience God's forgiveness in this situation?  Never again would you have to "remind yourself," that you forgave them!  Instead, the very thought of the past would lead to to remember a tearful, joyful reconcilliation.  Then, the chains of oppression would actually be gone.  This can't happen with your current model, unless someone else confronts these people and they remember you.  Why not you be the one who does something about it?

I would like to suggest that you contact these people, tell them what they did, and how you feel, and seek reconcilliation with them through real forgiveness.  That is what the authors of Bold Love are trying to say.  Of course, that is a rather bold and daring course of action, is it not?

bystander

Thank you bystander.  You have expressed my thoughts, in your response to Tom, and said it far better than I could have.

I am also interested if any one has actually read the book and can comment on it.

Marcia

P.S. I moved my post to another thread.
MM

[bystander]

Al, you said below,

Bystander,

Your comments appear presumptuous, e.g. calling Tom's attitude "lighthearted" and his actions "the easy, incomplete way." Conclusions about Tom's personal history which you say you have drawn from Tom's posts do not seem consistent with his posts that I have read.

Regardless of that, do you speak from your own personal experience in dealing with hurtful people and events, or are you theorizing? You said you have not read the book Bold Love, yet you speak with certainty of the authors' intentions:

Quote
The point the author is trying to make is that...

That is what the authors of Bold Love are trying to say.

With all due respect, your "What if..." suggestion seems vague and unfounded. It would be helpful if you could share actual experiences in which you have successfully employed the ideas you recommend.

al

Dear Al,

I certainly meant no harm in what I was saying to Tom.  Please accept my apology for coming off as presumptuous!  In re-reading what I had said, I think I should have put the word, "healthy" in bold.  That would have made it clearer that what I was saying was not a condemnation, or presumptous writing off of Tom's approach, but a contrast between what he is doing and what the authors suggest.  Certainly, Tom's approach is far better than being bitter and angry!
As for conclusions from his personal history, again, I apologize.  I should have put the following statement, from my post, in bold Italics: 
(I may be wrong about this last statement, so please accept my apology if I have misrepresented you. I am making this statement based on what I have been able to learn from your own posts.)
Had I done so, it would have made it easier for people to discern that I was quite tentative in suggesting what I did about Tom's exit from the Assembly.  My point was that a person who leaves and says/does nothing isn't helping others too much....which is the point of what the authors of Bold Love are saying.
Again, I find myself having to take my foot out of my mouth!  I re-read my post yet again, and didn't see where you got the idea that I hadn't read the book!  In fact, I have read the book.  I should have plainly stated that fact in underlined text in order to avoid confusing people such as yourself.  What I meant to say was that while Tom hasn't read the book, and was only commenting on the review, the point the authors were trying to make was X. 

I wish to retract the whole post!  What a mess I have made!  Thanks for diligently pointing out my mistakes, Al.

I want to thank you for pointing out another grave ommission in my post, that of using a "What if," type of conjecture.  I agree, it seems vague and unfounded.  As you so ably pointed out, I should rather have shared a personal example.

OK.  Here's one:

Several years ago, a family left our church without really giving an explanation for doing so.  I contacted them, and was able to draw out the real reason.  One of our elders was a contractor who had done some work for the family, the results of which turned out badly.  In short, the contractor didn't stick to the signed, contractual amount of the bill, and didn't do  good job.  The family was offended that an "elder" would act that way, but intead of saying something about it, they stewed, for several months and then decided they could no longer watch the man function as an elder, knowing that he didn't keep his word, etc. They felt they must leave the church, due to their discomfort.  They had forgiven him, but couldn't face him, or enjoy fellowship with him.  (I know it sounds crazy, but that's what they told me)

To make a long story short, I convinced the two parties to meet, and our elder was convicted.  He finished the job, and refunded the difference in money, and everyone lived happily ever after.  It was very difficult and uncomfortable for the offended family to confront the man, but their joy upon doing so made it all quite worthwhile.  There is more to the story, but hopefully this will make what I wrote to Tom seem less vague and unfounded.

Thanks Al, for your contribution and diligence to get to the bottom of all this.

bystander

[Oscar]

Bystander,

I was not offended at all by your post.  In fact, you made me look at the situation in ways I had not considered before.

I do, however, think that applying the idea that real love rebukes and then forgives with restoration of fellowship as a goal does not really apply to the assembly situation.  The reason is that you must be able to communicate with people in order to "rebuke" them. 

Sociologically and psychologically, the assembly was cultic.  Cults protect themselves from criticism by: 1. Character assasination.  The departing critic is attacked as a servant of Satan so that no one will listen to his/her objections.

  2. Shunning.  They just won't talk to you.  I my case, I told the leading brothers, (before I left) that I would meet at any reasonable time at any reasonable place with a few of them to discuss what was on my mind.  I'm still waiting.  A few months after I left, I encountered a leading brother at a street fair.  As soon as I mentioned a problem, he said, "This conversation is now over."  Another former leading brother encountered George Geftakys at a funeral.  He said something like, "Its nice to see you" and walk away quickly.

 3. Insulation by indoctrination.  Members are taught that the cult is the true work of God and that Satan is attacking God's true church.  Therefore any criticism, however valid, is deflected by the "shields".  You shouldn't listen to the voice of the Devil.

In an attempt to overcome these methods, a few of us started a mailer called The Noble Bereans (or something like that).  We mailed one to just about everyone in the assemblies.  Geftakys just told them to ignore us, and most of the recipients wrote back and told us to take them off the mailing list.

In my case, I did help a few people to see through the assembly and leave.  These, however, were people who were beginning the painful exit process due to their own experiences. They were willing to listen and discuss issues.  One couple later returned to the assembly.

The situation you described that happened between an elder and some church members is the type of situation the scripture applies to.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[al Hartman]

Thanks, fellers, for clearing things up (for me at least).

Bystander, sorry I misunderstood you to have said that you hadn't read the book when you actually had, and did not, in fact, state that at all.  Mea culpa, as Tom would say

Tom, since I have blatantly borrowed your Latin phrase, I feel I owe it to you to explain that Ancora Imparo translates to "I am still learning."

al

[Oscar]

Bystander,

Here is an account of a brother who tried to contact George Geftakys and discuss the way he was sinned against.  It is posted, along with other testimonies, on www.georgegeftakysassembly.com .

----------------

I'll never forget my last conversation with an Assembly Member--it was George himself. I finally worked up the nerve and called his house--the conversation( I swear upon the Lord Jesus Christ this is the absolute truth) went like this:

"Hello" "Hi, is this Brother George?" "Yes it is, who's calling please?" "My name is ____, and I used to be a member of the Assembly. I went through a lot of pain there and wanted to talk to you about it." "Oh, this is George's brother, George isn't here right now". "What? I thought you said you were George"
"No, I said this was George's brother." "Well, Can I talk with Brother George then?" "Brother George isn't here right now".
(CLICK). I couldn't believe what I had just heard. I called back immediately and a woman answered. I asked for brother George and she said he had just left. I then asked if George's brother was there. "George's Brother??" she said. "Why would you ask for him?" "Because someone on the phone just said they were him"
"Well George's brother lives in Chicago I think, and he hasn't visited here in quite a while." "Well, someone just said they were George's brother after saying at first they were George." "Well George was the only one here, and he is a holy man, why would he lie to you?" She promptly hung up the phone. I tried to explain this to some members and they all called me a liar and said George was incapable of such a thing. But he did--he was afraid to confront and talk to a former member of the Assembly, or he simply felt it wasn't worth his time. But he chose lying as a way to deal with the problem. I FINALLY realized who this person and this Assembly was--it truly was way off base. believe it or not this event began to really bring me closure and I was able to REALLY investigate some of the teachings without a supreme feeling of fear overwhelming me for questioning doctrine. You see, I had felt that because I left the Assembly God would no longer bless me as those who were still in the Assembly. But when you turn that thought around you see how "pride-filled" and horrendous it is!!!! To think that God would bless 300 people far more than all of the other children in all of his other churches, and give them deeper insight and spirituality is spiritual pride carried to it's highest level.

-------------

Thomas Maddux

[bystander]

Bystander,

Here is an account of a brother who tried to contact George Geftakys and discuss the way he was sinned against.  It is posted, along with other testimonies, on www.georgegeftakysassembly.com .

----------------

I'll never forget my last conversation with an Assembly Member--it was George himself. I finally worked up the nerve and called his house--the conversation( I swear upon the Lord Jesus Christ this is the absolute truth) went like this:

"Hello" "Hi, is this Brother George?" "Yes it is, who's calling please?" "My name is ____, and I used to be a member of the Assembly. I went through a lot of pain there and wanted to talk to you about it." "Oh, this is George's brother, George isn't here right now". "What? I thought you said you were George"
"No, I said this was George's brother." "Well, Can I talk with Brother George then?" "Brother George isn't here right now".
(CLICK). I couldn't believe what I had just heard. I called back immediately and a woman answered. I asked for brother George and she said he had just left. I then asked if George's brother was there. "George's Brother??" she said. "Why would you ask for him?" "Because someone on the phone just said they were him"
"Well George's brother lives in Chicago I think, and he hasn't visited here in quite a while." "Well, someone just said they were George's brother after saying at first they were George." "Well George was the only one here, and he is a holy man, why would he lie to you?" She promptly hung up the phone. I tried to explain this to some members and they all called me a liar and said George was incapable of such a thing. But he did--he was afraid to confront and talk to a former member of the Assembly, or he simply felt it wasn't worth his time. But he chose lying as a way to deal with the problem. I FINALLY realized who this person and this Assembly was--it truly was way off base. believe it or not this event began to really bring me closure and I was able to REALLY investigate some of the teachings without a supreme feeling of fear overwhelming me for questioning doctrine. You see, I had felt that because I left the Assembly God would no longer bless me as those who were still in the Assembly. But when you turn that thought around you see how "pride-filled" and horrendous it is!!!! To think that God would bless 300 people far more than all of the other children in all of his other churches, and give them deeper insight and spirituality is spiritual pride carried to it's highest level.

-------------

Thomas Maddux

I have read that statement, and many others before.  I certainly am in need of no convincing as to the evil nature of the Geftakys organization.  (For those sensitive souls who carefully read the threads, I am not saying that every person there was evil.  I am saying that George is evil, and that his methods and tactics were and are evil.  I completely concurr that there is a difference between my personal example and that of trying to contact George.

I assume that the same holds true for several of the other leaders?  What attempts have been made to contact them and lay out the matter of their offense?  What was the response?

If they refuse all attempts, then it is my contention that they be written off and avoided for several obvious reasons.  That being the case, by definition, they are not forgiven.  If they were forgiven, they would owe nothing, and there would be no hinderance to fellowship.

If I am not mistaken, the point you are trying to make is that it is a tragic thing to let the abuse and offense of these men rob people of joy and happiness, for years after contact has been broken.  I fully agree with this advice, but I do not call this forgiveness.  Neither do I call continued bitterness, anger and even hatred toward the offender forgiveness.

If we attempt to follow God's instruction for forgiveness, and having done so to the best of our ability the other party refuses entreaty, we can only plead for grace to not let anger and bitterness rob us.  It won't be easy, either.

If this is the case, I ask you, how much good can come from re-hashing, re-examining, re-analyzing and re-telling the past?  It seems to me that the healthy thing to do is cut the cord, and move away.

On the other hand, how many ex-members can really say that they made a worthy effort in trying to reconcile with their abusers?  How many left without saying a word?  How many allowed themselves to be silenced or slandered?  How many made a vigorous attempt to expose George and his Assembly?  How many gave up after giving it a good try?  How many even bothered to "tell them off," let alone rebuke them?

Bold Love means waging war against sin, using the tools of rebuke, entreaty, forgiveness, patience and persistence. 

How many have a clear conscience in this matter and can honestly say, before God, that they have made every attempt to rebuke, win, warn and save their brother?

I don't know the answer to that.

bystander

[Elizabeth H]

I also agree with bystander regarding contacting those who have hurt you. I have done this myself with mixed results.

I have to make my peace with my own anger, bitterness and betrayal BEFORE I approach the offender. Otherwise, I am allowing the offender to determine the outcome. For example, if they refuse to see how I was hurt, or perhaps are not able to understand the magnitude of how they hurt me, I am left with partially resolved feelings & frustration. This only impedes MY forward progress. In other words, I am letting them win. My anger only hinders the grievance from being properly addressed. It's also important that the offender doesn't feel threatened by me, ie. that I'm demanding retribution OR ELSE. If they feel threatened, they will naturally clam up and stone-wall.

I have made the mistake of approaching my parents and others in anger. "Look what you did to me!!! How could you do this?!!" Throw in a few expletives and that was about the extent of my reasoning for a full year after we left the Assembly. However, this didn't get me anywhere. It just made me feel worse.

I think I was in a state of shock.

The healing has come slowly and in pieces and in unexpected ways. Here's what I do when approaching family members or LBs:

1. Be specific: give details about a specific situation, what was said, how it hurt you, don't editorialize (at first), just state the facts.
2. Wait: this is huge. It's so tempting to want to get in their face, demand an apology, get emotional (speaking from experience here!) When I present things to my parents, sometimes I have to wait a couple of weeks, sometimes a month. But they always get back to me.
3. Listen: hear what they have to say; they may throw in a general apology
4. Editorialize: if the apology isn't specific or it sounds like this: "IF I offended you, then I'm sorry"; then it's time to go a little deeper, re-state specific points that need addressing
5. Wait: I know, it's REALLLLY hard to wait. Sometimes I think I'll be waiting my entire life for them to finally understand my point. But that's why it's vital that I've already dealt with my anger. My anger just gets in the way and hinders the actual grievance from being addressed.
6. Forgive: tell them you forgive them. This doesn't mean you have to be friends or send Christmas cards. But it does mean you don't bring it up again, to them or anyone else.
7. If, however, they are not willing to see your point or adamantly refuse or start calling names, etc., then you know it's not time and you have to give it back to God. Again, this is why it's important to deal with the anger BEFORE going into the situation.

This is the method I use, thought it might help those of you considering seeking redress of grievances.
My goal is to see the actual issue be addressed and resolved. This cannot be accomplished if I am still bearing anger or bitterness toward the offender personally.

E.

[soul dreamer]

I commend you, Elizabeth, for your patience with those who have grieved you (after you have stated your grievance with them).  Good job. 

Rick

[M2]

My fantasy meeting:

GG.  "Are you with me friends?"

"Are you kidding?  How can we be with you?  You aren't making sense, you're taking the verses out of context, you're reading notes that are poorly written, and MAN WASN'T CREATED ON THE SEVENTH DAY!!  How in the He!! can anyone be with you?  Everyone here knows in their hearts that you're full of crap, and what's wrong with these spineless weasels that they let you get off saying man was created on the seventh day?  Why are you an adulterer?  Why do you let your son beat his wife?  Why do you handle all the money?

Oh, if your goons touch me, I'm going to fight.  In fact, I'm gonna kick your adulterous @ss right now!"

Now that's a fantasy!

Are you with me dear friends?

This is probably the most insightful thing you have ever posted on this topic.
Let us get down to brass tacks shall we?
If the Spirit of God were present (subjunctive case deliberate) in that gathering, since George did not stand up and do exactly what you outlined, someone else truly speaking for God would have.
If you understand this, then you understand the most important thing you should have learned about Geftakys and the assemblies.
No amount of alabis, excuses, and psychologising will ever change the reality of this fact.
It has ever been the way of God with men...

You do know the answer.
The point you are trying to make would have some cogency if it could be argued that there are those formerly in leadership who are still unaware of their own sin.
As a matter of conscience, as a matter of the historical record, of which this website is a part, that case cannot be made.

Which of these men, in view of what God has done, dare presume himself above abject repentance in dust and ashes?

If you have followed the events as you state, this ought to be your conclusion. They do not need further entreaty...
I do agree it is time for some of us to let it go. We have done all we humanly can. I think it is time to delete my own account and will make my final post as soon as I figure out how to save some of the more precious messages I got from some of you folk...it sure has been fun!... ...

Verne

Verne, you are right on the money.

Liz, IMO, you are on the right track.  You might discover that your guidelines will change as you learn from your experiences with 'approaching' others re. past offenses.  Family members are different than those you will encounter only occasionally.

My experience has been that, no matter what tactic I used, I got the silent treatment.  The only time an audience was meritted was when it was necessary to 'protect the testimony' 'protect the leaders reputation' and to try to convince me to keep my mouth shut (which I did not agree to do).  So it's on with my life and take any opportunity presented to re-visit the need for true reconciliation.

My fantasy meeting:

Brother D is preaching today.  He says that he is inclined to believe that Christ was 'superhuman', not in those exact words but basically it boiled down to that.  Brother B stands up in the midst of the meeting and says, "that's a lie."

or another:

Brother G is answering questions and says that he is inclined to believe that Christ never sweat nor choked nor...
Brother and sister M approach Bro G after the meeting and inquire about his comments.  Being a worker LB he does not stand corrected, and brother and sister M walk away incredulous.


But, but, that's not fantasy.  Those things actually happened.  The sad thing is that Brother and sister M did not know how to add 2+2 because they were dedicated to 'preserving the testimony'.  The fantasy part would have been Brother and sister M packing up and leaving fellowship before George's excommunication.

Marcia

P.S. Verne, I shall not be deleting my account, but will pop in from time to time to give my 2 cents.

Marcia

[Chuck Miller]

[continued from above]

And so, in regard to forgiving George - No, I haven’t forgiven him, but I stand eager and ready to do so, should he repent.  To close one’s heart to forgiveness and to say, “I can never forgive,” is to deny the sufficiency of the grace of God.  God forbid that we should ever lose faith in Him or in His grace.
To my knowledge, George has neither confessed, nor asked forgiveness for his sins.  So, I don’t believe that we are under obligation to forgive him until such time as he should repent.. The  reason I point this out is because one can inadvertently hinder the process of restoration by continuing to have fellowship with an unrepentant sinner.

In noting that neither Matthew 18:17 nor 1 Corinthians 5:13 instruct us to shun the one who has been cast out of fellowship I have no  aversion to anyone reaching out in compassion to an unrepentant one in an effort to aid in his restoration.  But, such a one is to be regarded in the same manner as one would communicate with an unbeliever and that means that we should have no Christian fellowship with him, until, such time as he acknowledges his sin and asks forgiveness.  Those who would do so, or allow the unrepentant one to preach or teach, violate Jesus’ command, and place an obstacle in the way of his repentance. 

I would only request that those who would disagree with my reasoning would take the time to rebut in toto the contents of my post and not read into it what is nether stated nor implied.  I welcome your rebuttal since I admit that I could be in error in my evaluation of this important issue and desire nothing more than to walk in observance of the instruction of the Lord Christ Jesus.

In closing I would like to offer some advice to those who are struggling with anger and bitterness and have been unable to close out the “Assembly” chapter in their life.

 I believe you must cease in desiring to receive the apology of others who have offended you, and instead, seek forgiveness from those who have been the object of your own anger and bitterness. 

No doubt some will re-read my admonition and wonder - “Is he saying that I should go to those against whom I have (“justifiably”) held anger and bitterness, and ask them to forgive me?“ 
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

And please note that I say “justifiably” tongue-in-cheek, since I find no justification for bitterness in the scriptures.   
Prayerfully contemplate, if you will, the words of the writer of the Book of Hebrews:   

Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.
See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled;                    Hebrews 12:14-15

If there is any hope of attaining permanent relief from anger and bitterness, it lies in our willingness to obey this blatantly lucid admonition.   I won’t take up any more space on this post, but I will just say that I am not just theorizing one of God’s principles.  I will share in a subsequent writing, my own experience and how it led to the peace that only comes by His grace. 

So, yes, Elizabeth, I’m saying you must go to your parents and ask them to forgive you for your anger and bitterness.  Yes, Tom , Bystander, and others; I’m telling you to go to George Geftakys and ask him to forgive you for your anger and bitterness.  I won’t belabor the point, but just admonish those of you who are harboring or have harbored bitterness against another - you know who you are - Go!

No doubt there are those who will protest, “But I’m not bitter.”   To them, I would say, “Great! Then you have a clear conscience before God, and have nothing for which you need to seek forgiveness.”   “God bless you.”

In His service,

Chuck Miller

P.S. - When it is impossible to physically “go,” I believe that a letter, phone call or other means of communication is acceptable.  Expediency I believe, is more important than method.









 

[Chuck Miller]

[continued from above]

For if we look at the rest of the passage that precedes Jesus’ warning, we see that it is in reference to His comparison of the kingdom of heaven being likened to a certain king who wished to settle accounts with His slaves.  In both instances, the slaves asked forgiveness of their debts.  The king granted forgiveness to his debtor who pleaded with him, but that very same man refused to forgive the man who pleaded with him.  The master of that man did not forgive him until he should repay all that was owed him.  In conjunction with the rest of the passage, this seems to support the idea that forgiveness is not to be granted unconditionally. 

Again,  this is consistent with Luke 17:3-4 which reads,   "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.
"And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."  Isn’t it implied that if he doesn’t repent, we aren’t obligated to forgive?

Then, as we look at the way that Paul instructed the church at Corinth to “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves” (1 Cor 5:13), there is not even a hint of forgiveness until we read Paul’s admonition in 2 Cor 2:5-9.  There it would appear that the man was sorrowed by being cast out of the church, and repented.  We don’t know how the grace of God worked through his being rejected by the church, but we hear Paul commending them for evidently having “passed the test,” of being obedient to his directive (vs. 9). Paul, evidently knew that some would consider his command to be harsh and excessive, as evidenced by their having been arrogant in their tolerance of the man’s immoral conduct (1 Cor 5:2).  And we know that Jesus said,   "I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7)

Now consider this:  If the Corinthians were to forgive unconditionally, wouldn’t Paul have commended them for their having tolerated the sinful man?  And why was there no forgiveness for Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) when they withheld some of the price of the land?

I don’t think our not forgiving an unrepentant sinner is in any way an affront to the mercy of God and the completed work of Jesus on the cross, if - and to me, this is critical - if we relate it to our sanctification and not to our justification. 

However, we must also consider Mark 11:25-26 ,which, at first glance,  seems to support the contention that we are obligated to forgive even the unrepentant sinner.  It reads:

 25 "Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions.
 26 ["But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions."]

In addition to the fact that many of the original manuscripts do not contain verse 26. I also believe that there is a difference in the thought  “if you have anything against anyone” 
as compared to  “sinning against a brother.”  In the first place, the “anyone” seems to imply that it doesn’t necessarily mean someone in the church,. Nor is it necessarily “sin” to which Jesus is referring here.  I believe that Jesus was here addressing those areas that we can not absolutely categorize as “sin.”

For instance, I was disappointed with our children because they didn’t come to us when we were accused of sin.  But were they sinning by not coming to us?  I don’t think so.  Was I holding it against them?  Yes.  And I guess it was not until one morning when God put it on my heart in a very bizarre manner, that -  “Love doesn’t take into account a wrong suffered“ (1 Cor 13:.5). - it was then that I knew God wanted me to forgive them.   Again, “a wrong suffered” does not necessarily mean a sin.  Consider the times when fellow Christians, or non-Christians have done something, or do something, that bothers us, but is not actually a sin.  I believe that this may be what the Lord was speaking of here.  No doubt we ourselves have offended others by our conduct at times, and we should be ready to ask forgiveness for doing so, even though it isn’t sinful.   

Then too, do we not sometimes have something against someone who may not even be aware that we do.  And isn’t it possible that we could be in error by not having all of the facts.  Some of the saints from the Assembly have apologized to me for having believed the accusations against me, when they actually didn’t know what had transpired?  They had something against me, but did they sin?   I don’t think so. But wouldn’t it have been more profitable for them to have assumed the best,  and forgiven me instead of holding it against me?  Their letters of apology indicate as much.  That would have been consistent with Paul saying, “Love believes all things.” To me, this means that we are to believe the best of a brother or sister when we don’t have absolute evidence against them.  Outward appearances can be deceiving.  But then, I don’t remember these scriptures that expressed such an attitude ever being expounded upon in the Assembly.

And so, at this point, at least, I’m able to reconcile these verses  in what I believe makes them harmonious instead of conflicting.  I am, by no means, claiming to have exhausted all areas of seeming conflict and I’m giving consideration to the meanings of the words, “trespasses,” “debts,”  “transgressions, “  and “offenses,”  and from what I have come across so far, their meanings lend even more understanding to these verses.  Note that Jesus didn’t say, “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.” Is there a significance to that?  I believe so.
 
[continued below]

[Chuck Miller]

No doubt someone will point out  Matthew 6:14-15 - “if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.”  But this does not in any way negate the need for repentance, for we see in the companion verse in Luke which reads:  "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him" (Luke 17:3-4). 

If forgiveness is to be unconditional, why would Jesus have given the apostles authority to retain sins when he instructed them,  "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained" (John 20:23) This can be a confusing passage, both for those who espouse unconditional forgiveness, and for those who don‘t.  But I believe this directive is consistent with its application of Matthew 18:18, where Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, ‘whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”   This ties in with the verse preceding it where it speaks of exposing the unrepentant sinner before the church.  I believe that those who have thus been justifiably cast out of fellowship in the church (bound on earth) will subsequently face a denial of entrance into the kingdom (bound in heaven).  Please notice two things about this statement. 
(1) I have used the qualifier “justifiably” cast out of fellowship, since there are obviously some who have been unjustifiably cast out.  Such injustices will, I believe, be rectified at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
(2) I have specified that the unrepentant offender will be “denied entrance into the kingdom.”  I have not said that he will loose his salvation. 

I realize that this second statement is going to prompt some serious rebuttals from those who have rejected George’s teaching about the Kingdom.  However, I am not speaking in reference to George’s teaching, whatever that may be (I was not in the Assembly long enough to have heard George‘s teaching on the kingdom), but rather, the teachings of men such as Robert Govett, G.H. Lang, Joseph Dillow, E.M. Panton,  and others, and men such  as Hudson Taylor and George Muller who subscribed to the teaching.   

To those who reject the teachings of these men concerning the  Kingdom, I would ask you not to post a rebuttal unless you are prepared to include your explanation of the meanings of John 20:23 and Matthew 18:18.

But, getting back to Matthew 6:13-15:

12 “And forgive us our debts , as we also have forgiven our debtors”
14 “For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Again, I don’t believe this has any  reference to our justification, since we are not saved on the basis of works.  Jesus is speaking to his disciples here - saved men.  He certainly wasn’t instructing them to pray for their salvation.  They were already forgiven on the basis of their faith in Jesus.   I agree with Joseph Dillow  (Reign of the Servant Kings) - that “There is a forgiveness for salvation and a forgiveness for restoration.”  Is it possible that some have commingled the two?

I believe that the warning in Matthew 6:15 is in relation to our sanctification, and how we live our life in obedience to Christ.   Think about it.  It doesn’t negate the premise that repentance is a prerequisite for forgiveness, since it is possible that the verse could be assumed to be understood as follows  - "But if you do not forgive others [who ask your forgiveness], then your Father will not forgive your transgressions [at the judgment seat of His Son]?”  Now if I seem to be taking liberty with the verse to make it fit with what I believe, hold on until you read the rest of what I have to say. 

[continued below]

[Chuck Miller]

 
I would like to add my comments to this discussion on Forgiveness.

------------------------

If someone were to ask me if I have forgiven George Geftakys for the grief and distress he has caused my family, I would have to answer in the negative.    I have read the posts concerning the exhortation of Jesus on the cross, when He said,  “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do,” with the implication that we must therefore forgive as Jesus forgave those who crucified Him . 

In thinking about this, the verse in 1John came to mind “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness“ (1 John 1:9).  Does God forgive all of our sins?  Certainly Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, but is forgiveness of our sins unconditional, or is our confession required?  The “if” in 1 John 1:9 seems to indicate confession as a prerequisite? 

In response to those citing Jesus’ exhortation on the cross, I believe we must look at the circumstances leading up to His plea to the Father, which reveal an ignorance on the part of the Jews who had been incited by the Chief Priests and rulers.  They did not realize that they were crucifying their Messiah.  Remember that even Paul, who was present at the stoning of Stephen and had heard his plea, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them,” - even he didn’t realize that Jesus was truly the “Anointed One” for whom all Israel had awaited.  Paul revealed as much in his letter to Timothy, saying, “even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim 1:13). 

My point is, that there is a vast difference between the ignorance of many of the Jews and the willful sinning of George Geftakys.  We see that in Acts 2, when the Jews heard and believed that Jesus was “both Lord and Christ“ (vs. 36), they repented and were forgiven for their former ignorance.     

So, I don’t believe that we can use Luke 23:34 as some kind of proof text for forgiving someone like George who did not act in ignorance, but instead propagated his own brand of control over his Assemblies and used it to attempt to induce young women into immoral relationships. Neither can George plead ignorance of the sinful conduct of his son, nor justify his attempt to conceal it. 

[continue below]

[Oscar]

Chuck,

I would only request that those who would disagree with my reasoning would take the time to rebut in toto the contents of my post and not read into it what is nether stated nor implied.  I welcome your rebuttal since I admit that I could be in error in my evaluation of this important issue and desire nothing more than to walk in observance of the instruction of the Lord Christ Jesus.

It seems to me that requesting that someone "rebut in toto" a four page post is exposing oneself to disappointment, at the very least.  I would suggest a more workeable method: State your argument simply and clearly, then support it with what you believe is the strongest evidence.

Then if anyone replies and offers counter arguments, use your other evidences to reply to the specific information offered in rebuttal.

Othewise, it might take eight pages to reply to your four pages, then you must type twelve pages........

No one wants to get that involved.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux