Is a Christian under obligation to associate with an offending person on a friendly basis in order to show that he has forgiven him? Does refusal to associate indicate lack of forgiveness? Or does it all depend on the gravity of the offense?
|
Is a Christian under obligation to associate with an offending person on a friendly basis in order to show that he has forgiven him? Does refusal to associate indicate lack of forgiveness? Or does it all depend on the gravity of the offense?
The short answer is no. Forgiveness is something you do to heal yourself. You forgive the other person for what he or she did to you then you move on. Forgiveness is a way of saying to yourself, I can't help what that person did to me, but they are now gone out of my life and I'm allowing myself to move on in a forward direction without them or there thoughts holding me back.
Suppose the person accuses us of not forgiving him because we refuse to associate with him? Takes our refusal as proof that he or she hasn't really been forgiven? I saw this happen once between two Christians. One claimed to have forgiven but evaded the other claiming that she wasn't under any obligation to associate. The other claimed that the refusal proved forgiveness hadn't really taken place.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuff
BTW
The refusal to associte was based on the scripture which states that bad association is detrimental to spiritual health. In short, the offended Christian viewed the other as being too much in touch with the world to be good association so she tried to keep a safe distance.
I agree, the answer is no. Of course sometimes it does happen, but one does not cause or require the other.
You never have to speak to them again. If there guilt makes them believe they have not been forgiven that's there problem. Forgiveness is a tool you can use to promote and forward your own life. What your forgiveness makes another person feel or not feel is there problem, not yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
If the offended one HAS forgiven, that is fine. If the past offender wants to still claim she is unforgiving because she won't associate with him on a friendly basis -well, obviously the past offender didn't listen to her explanation of why she won't associate now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
Her reasons ARE Bible-based. Although a very casual hello, how are you, & goodbye is fine. Any close association with someone who is too in touch with worldly things can be detrimental to our spiritual life.
Consider this- Written by Kenneth Copeland.
CHOOSE FRIENDS WISELY
"I wrote you in my(previous) letter not to associate(closely and habitually) with unchaste(impure) people." 1Corinthians 5:9, The Amplified Bible.
The company you keep has such an influence on your spiritual life. Fellowshiping with godly people will help speed you on your way to victory, while fellowshiping with those who are ungodly will drag you down to defeat. That is why the Bible has some things to say about your friends. That is why it tells you to separate yourself from the world. Because evil companions will corrupt you.
Now, I am not talking about ministry. Jesus Himself ministered to sinners. You have to mix with them to preach to them and pray for them. What I am talking about here are the people you choose for friends. If you want to walk in things of the Lord, don't choose friends who walk in things of the devil, people who talk and act ungodly, who don't give God any place in their lives. They'll pull you down. As you rub shoulders with them, you'll expose yourself to tempation. You'll get so familiar with sin it will start to appear less repulsive to you. Sooner or later, you'll fall into it.
So choose your friends wisely. Fellowship with those who call on the Name of the Lord out of a pure heart(2 TIM 2:22)Expose yourself to their love and peace. Let their faith rub off on you. ( FAITH TO FAITH 1999)
So yes, even if that person is a Born-again Christian, he could be dabbling too much in the world. Good that she let him know too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
This just shows what a slippery slope it is to judge someone else's motives. First thing you know, Christians are accusing each other of being insincere in their forgiveness, and of being too worldly, while quoting scripture to justify their attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
What about family members. Family members can bring you down all the time. Are you suppose to keep letting them treat you badly or are you going to say enough is enough and stop the contact. They think they are right and your wrong and everything is the other persons fault. The thing is you can chose your friends but not your family.
How to deal with that.
Joe
I think that the following scripture has some bearing on your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesushelper76
Matthew 12:50
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
I agree about judging motives in reference to forgiveness in this particular case. I disagree that we shouldn't evaluate a lifestyle or conduct as too worldly based on what we are told in the scriptures.
Hopefully our forgivenes will set a good example for the person and help him out spiritually. I am speaking from the Christian standpoint where we are told to care about the welfare of our neighbor and love others as ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuff
Are a person's motives relevant for judging whether they are being too worldly, or is it simply a matter of conduct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
Not just a matter of conduct. Motives are very relevant. That's why lying isn't always a sin--in fact, telling the truth might be a sin. Here is example. I am asked by the Gestapo if I know where a targeted person they plan to murder is hiding. If I know and tell, then telling the truth under that situation is a sin. Is stealing always a sin? Suppose those in possession of food on a deserted island have more than enough to share with us refuse to do so simply because they don't like our faces or for some other trivial reason. Would stealing some of "their" food be a sin? Or would going along with their murderous intentions be required simply based on the rule that stealing is bad no matter what?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
However, this doesn't negate in any way that there is conduct which is classified as worldly and that such conduct under normal circumstances should be avoided and that we should seek to associate with those who will encourage us in being Christians and not with those who would discourage us.
1 Corinthians 15:33
33 Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.” (NKJV)
BTW
As you know, motive does not always justify means.
Then judging someone to be too worldly to associate with does involve judging their motive as well as their conduct, doesn't it? And in the instance you cited, the Christian who did the forgiving judged the Christian who was forgiven to be too worldly to associate with. And because of this, the Christian who committed the original offense judged the forgiving Christian's motive to be insincere. Thus, the animosity between fellow Christians arose as a result of judging one another's motives. That was my only point, and you agreed with it. Nevertheless, you managed to read something else into it that you could disagree with. I won't presume to judge your motive, but I can't help but wonder why you would behave that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
First, thank you for responding to my question. I assure you that your feedback is appreciated. True, I agreed that judging motives was the cause of the conclusions these two women reached concerning each other. If I understood more from your written commentary than was intended I apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
I have to disagree entirely with your assessment of that example. You are the one suggesting 1)judging & 2) motives. I do not see any suspicion of motives or any judging going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Such a situation could happen with 2 non-Christians. For example, A girlfriend says to her boyfriend, we're through, you've been cheating on me" Now, she WON'T take him back. Is she judging him? You can call it that. She is deciding, based on his behavior, and hopefully she is deciding or making a judgment call - wisely.
Still I think if we are quick to forgive then we don't cling to the problem anymore & move on.
You don't? Really? Read the story again:Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
How could you accuse someone of offering forgiveness that isn't genuine without questioning their motive? And how could you conclude that someone is too worldly without questioning the motive for their conduct?Quote:
Suppose the person accuses us of not forgiving him because we refuse to associate with him? Takes our refusal as proof that he or she hasn't really been forgiven? I saw this happen once between two Christians. One claimed to have forgiven but evaded the other claiming that she wasn't under any obligation to associate. The other claimed that the refusal proved forgiveness hadn't really taken place.
The refusal to associte was based on the scripture which states that bad association is detrimental to spiritual health. In short, the offended Christian viewed the other as being too much in touch with the world to be good association so she tried to keep a safe distance.
I agree. I forgive you for disagreeing with my assessment, and I'm moving on.Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
First of all, I read it again. You are reading too far into the example that was given. Secondly, the use of "you" in your statement is erroneous imo. "How could ONE accuse" (still too strong a verb to ASSUME in this case) "How could ONE conclude...." would be the objective word to use in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
And next, I don't agree with you using the word motive or motives. You are playing both parts(offended & offender) And what I see is that that takes away from the previously offended one's convictions.
In other words, YOU are not looking at the example objectively enough.
Psych 101. Thanks.
The "you" was generic, not specific, and "accuses" was the term Starman used in telling the story. Nevertheless, if it helps, I'll rephrase the question: How could anyone claim that another person's forgiveness isn't genuine without questioning their sincerity?Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
So, based on YOUR objective analysis, was the proffered forgiveness genuine, or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
If she said so. A Christian usually knows even the principles of forgiveness, so yes, why not?Quote:
So, based on YOUR objective analysis, was the proffered forgiveness genuine, or
Not?
That makes sense to you maybe but I'm sorry, I don't entiendo. No one knows exactly what someone else thinks anyway, so why would you try?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
And yet, in spite of Christian No. 1 saying that it was genuine, Christian No. 2, the actual recipient of the forgiveness, didn't believe that it was. Based on YOUR objective analysis, why did SHE doubt it, even though YOU don't?Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
Did you mean to say "...so why would ONE try"? Wouldn't that be the objective word to use?Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
Ordinaryguy- Thank you for your patience. All I'm trying to convey is what others have answered too. Forgiveness is , if for no one else, for the person doing the forgiving. Why the 2nd Christian doesn't believe it, or doesn't want to believe it, we DON"T know. It is Christian#2's business to find forgiveness from God now for the "worldly" behavior. Then she may hopefully forgive HERSELF- is what I see as important now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
No, actually I was referring to" YOU" in particular in that sentence. I should maybe have put the you in caps there. I'll restate from before. Yes, why would YOU try to analyze what is on Christian#2's mind any further? WE don't have to have anymore info to beat this dead horse?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
BTW-
A little Biblical backround helps people to see from spiritual eyes.
Now, to end my "strife" with you- I offer this verse-
PHILIPPIANS 4:8-
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy- think about such things. (NIV)
I'm working on my PC skills here! :o
She said it was because of Christian No. 1's refusal to associate with her. Does your objective analysis reveal that she had a different (yet unknown) reason?Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
Apparently, Christian No. 2 didn't think her behavior was worldly, and so didn't feel that she needed forgiveness from either God or herself. It was Christian No. 1 who thought Christian No. 2's behavior was worldly. Does your objective analysis reveal that Christian No. 1 was right and Christian No. 2 was wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
I wasn't trying to analyze what either of them thought, beyond the fact that it seemed obvious that the trouble arose because each questioned the other's motives, which led them to start trading accusations. But at that point, I didn't have the benefit of your objective analysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
People often say I'm "worldly". I always thought it was because of my travels and experiences. I never thought that it could be christians gearing up to avoid me. :D
You probably weren't objective enough to see it clearly.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The Christian who wanted to avoid contamination was trying to protect herself via not associating. I should have been specific about the other Christian's behavior in order to avoid misunderstandings. The Christian who was being avoided was one who regularly went to dances with nonChristians. During one of those dances a man was killed due to an argument with another in relation to her. This automatically gave her wordly reputation and based on that the other Christian thought it best to keep her distance. The personal offense was one of gossiping and backbiting. For this she was forgiven. But no association.
Hope that clears it up. Sorry about any confusion.
BTW
Although I agree that we have to avoid certain associations we also have to be very careful that don't finish the person off spiritually by causing him or her to stumble. We That can happen if we come across as feeling superior or being cruel. It's a good to keep in mind that the person's life is still precious and that he still deserves a certain measure of respect and consideration.
(King James Version)
Luke 17
1Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
3Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
Did the person have a communicable disease too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
What do YOU think?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Hello Everyone,
In my humble opinion:
“The Christian who wanted to avoid contamination was trying to protect herself via not associating. I should have been specific about the other Christian's behavior in order to avoid misunderstandings. The Christian who was being avoided was one who regularly went to dances with non Christians.”
__________________________________________________ _________
( Would a parent allow their child to play with another child if they played with guns or other things that could harm their child? No of course not, so this Christian was avoiding the association that could possibly do harm to her. Is that wrong? No! What happens to a basket of apples and one of those apples is rotten? Can not the rotten apple spoil the other apples? So too with conduct that is not Christian.
1 Corinthians 15:33
Even after a person has freed himself from the control of the powers of darkness and has come into the light he faces continued bombardment from this system of things. So it may be difficult at times for some to ‘practice the truth,’ but they need to be on guard so that they do not return to their former way of life. The apostle John wrote: “If we make the statement: ‘We are having a sharing with him,’ and yet we go on walking in the darkness, we are lying and are not practicing the truth.” (1 John 1:6) True, we all fall short at times, but what are the things that we practice? Are some of us walking in darkness rather than light, even though we claim to have come out of the darkness of this world into the light? Are we really practicing the truth, or does our pattern of life show that we are holding back, deceiving ourselves, lying to ourselves?—1 John 1:8–2:2.
7
The secret word there is Regularly. That means that the one she is avoiding makes it a practice to get involved with behavior or actions that do not befit a true Christian. She has her God given right to make that choice.
************************************************** ***
“During one of those dances a man was killed due to an argument with another in relation to her. This automatically gave her worldly reputation and based on that the other Christian thought it best to keep her distance. The personal offense was one of gossiping and backbiting. For this she was forgiven. But no association.”
The Bible states that when a Christian does wrong and sins , they should be forgiven and taken back fully into the congregation.
(1 John 2:1-6) My little children, I am writing YOU these things that YOU may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. 2 And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s. 3 And by this we have the knowledge that we have come to know him, namely, if we continue observing his commandments. 4 He that says: “I have come to know him,” and yet is not observing his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in this [person]. 5 But whoever does observe his word, truthfully in this [person] the love of God has been made perfect. By this we have the knowledge that we are in union with him. 6 He that says he remains in union with him is under obligation himself also to go on walking just as that one walked.’
So a true Christian would forgive and until they are sure of the persons conduct they would not avoid them and when they see them they must treat them as a fellow worshiper of God. They though can mark the person in the sense of keeping their association limited until they are sure this person has made the changes needed to be good association for them. They however should never treat this one badly, but show more then the usual love toward them so they can heal from their sin and return to spiritual maturity.
************************************************** ***********
BTW
Although I agree that we have to avoid certain associations we also have to be very careful that don't finish the person off spiritually by causing him or her to stumble. We That can happen if we come across as feeling superior or being cruel. It's a good to keep in mind that the person's life is still precious and that he still deserves a certain measure of respect and consideration.”
************************************************** ******
I agree totally.
We would never allow ourselves to think we are better and would never treat others poorly. We always want to help others that fall into sin to get right again with God. We also must remember that if we do not forgive our brother or sister their sin, then God does not forgive us.
An important reason to forgive others is indicated at Ephesians 5:1: “Therefore, become imitators of God, as beloved children.” In what respect should we “become imitators of God”? The word “therefore” connects the expression with the preceding verse, which says: “Become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate, freely forgiving one another just as God also by Christ freely forgave you.” Ephesians 4:32
When it comes to forgiveness, we should become imitators of God. As a little boy tries to be just like his father, we, as children whom Jehovah dearly loves, should want to become like our forgiving heavenly Father. How it must delight God’s heart to look down from the heavens and see his earthly children trying to be like him by forgiving one another! Luke 6:35, 36;
Matthew 5:44-48.
Even more important, if we refuse to forgive others when there is a basis for mercy, it can adversely affect our own relationship with God. God does not just ask us to forgive one another; he “expects us to do so. According to the Scriptures, part of the motivation for us to be forgiving is in order that God might forgive us or because he has forgiven us. Matthew 6:14; Mark 11:25; Ephesians 4:32; 1 John 4:11
Who are we that we should not show mercy and forgive others? If, then, we are unwilling to forgive others when there is sound reason to do so, can we really expect such forgiveness from God?—Matthew 18:21-35
Take care,
Hope12
So you're equating someone who goes to dances with different people than you or whose behaviour you don't condone to a child playing with guns? That makes no sense at all. Of course a parent protects a child from harm; because it's a child. As an adult are we so weak-willed that someone else's behaviour can affect your life? Remember now, the behaviour referred to was gossipping and "backbiting" (I'm not too sure what that is).
Remember too that we are all sinners, so are you to avoid everyone? What a lonely, lonely life. Thank goodness for the internet I guess.
Hello NeedKarma,
I was using the example as an illustration on why a person might avoid association with another. A persons behavior can cause another to choose not- to associate with- another.
We do not know the whole situation, however, isn't it great that we can choose who we wish to associate with and who we do not..
Take Care,
Hope12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope12
I agree with the principle of avoiding certain close associations both for personal and congregational spiritual well-being. So it's concerning the manner in which the evasion of associating is carried out that I am advising caution. I know that in principle, as you describe, all should go smoothly. Unfortunately it sometimes doesn't with devastating consequences. The reason, as I am sure you already know, is that some immature individuals are prone to brandish the evasion behavior as a weapon or due to lack wisdom are unable to apply it in a nonoffensive manner.
So in my humble opinion is that more attention be given the cautioning against the dangers involved in the misuse of this right, or duty to avoid others. Otherwise the avoided person might be given the impression that the avoiders themselves are bad association that should be avoided. In short, instead of helping the person come to his senses the perceived cruelty provides a reason to conclude that his original drifting away from that particular church was the right choice. Right?
Luke 11:23
"He that is not with me is against me. He who doesn't gather with me scatters.
The relationship between God and humankind is that of parent and offspring. Are humans weak-willed when it comes to making right decisions? History speaks volumes on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I feel that myself, my family, my friends, and most of the people I've met around the world make pretty good decisions and bear no resemblance to the tyrants, murderers, rapists, etc. that make up that small percentage of the population that I'm assuming that you are referring to. In the same way that christian types probably feel no relationship to outfits such as the Westboro Baptist Church or that James Rutz guy who says "soy makes you gay".Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
All my decisions haven't been perfect but's that's life my friend. If you expect all your decisions to be perfect then you are going to be sorely dissapointed and have yourself up for frustration in life. Live and learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I am not asking you to identify yourself with the few imbeciles who led I am asking you to identify with the billions of morons who followed=most of mankind.
BTW
Dee Dee Dee!
If you would naturally come in contact with a person who has done you an injustice and this has really offended you, then depending on the severity of the act it would be totally your decision if you became friendly again.
If however the offence was so hurtful that you decide to wash your hands of them, then you could approach that person explain that you have forgiven them but feel it would be better if you kept your distance in future and go your separate ways.
Should it be a person that you have to see on a daily basis... maybe job, family etc.etc... and there's no avoiding them, well if it were me being an upfront person I'd just have to come clean, appeal to their better nature and tell them exactly what I thought depending on their crime.
If they are genuinely sorry and apologize... which is all any of us can do... and you believe that they are sincere then enough said give them a hug and get on with life.
Religion... I cannot for the life of me see where it comes in regarding this issue, surely it's about what you should do as a human being... one to another, how we treat each other... it's not whether or not your religion say's you should or should not, it's about free will, you are your own person and quite capable deciding for yourself.
The severity of the crime is of no conseqence, a crime is a crime what ever packaging it 's wrapped in, if it's been paid back to society... that's it over
You've received excellent answers from those who I believe are Christians on this board. The old saying "forgive and forget" is just a saying. Many times bullies want to keep those they have harmed close to them because they consider them easy marks. Continuing to associate with such people is simply empowering them to continue an abusive relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
Sincerely,
De Maria
So, you don't judge anyone else's motives? Sounds a bit naïve.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
That's only bad if you are wrong. But in my opinion, if the person in question has proven his insincerity, then the accusation is true and you are justified in avoiding him. That only seems logical.Quote:
First thing you know, Christians are accusing each other of being insincere in their forgiveness, and of being too worldly,
Or would you associate with known criminals for instance?
And you believe quoting Scripture is bad?Quote:
And while quoting scripture to justify their attitude.
So, did you answer the OP? In your opinion, MUST a person associate with someone whom he has forgiven? Or is a person free to choose his associations?
Besides it really seems as though you've ignored the OP and pardon me for judging your motives, in order to take another potshot at Christians and Christianity. Am I wrong?
Sincerely,
De Maria
I don't condone behavior such as drug dealing. Therefore I don't associate with drug dealers.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I don't condone atheism, so I minimize my contact with atheists and my children's with atheists lest their morals rub on to me or them.
But I don't understand your objection to this attitude. If I remember correctly, You once said that you didn't want your children being taught by Christians and that you would remove your children from any school where Christianity was taught. Therefore, if you believe you have right to choose with whom you and your children associate, why do you deny that right to Christians?
It is precisely the opposite. We are exercising our will when we decide not to associate with people whose morals and behaviour we don't agree.Quote:
That makes no sense at all. Of course a parent protects a child from harm; because it's a child. As an adult are we so weak-willed that someone else's behaviour can affect your life?
We would be weak willed if we succumbed to the idea that we MUST associate with everyone no matter what they do or how they behave.
And not only does an adult have an obligation to protect his children but also himself.
Would you advocate for instance, that a young lady who was raped by her boyfriend must forogive him and then continue to associate with him?
I would say, "No!!!" It is absolutely ludicrous. But apparently, you and OG would advocate just that.
Who advocated avoiding everyone? Maybe I missed it, but I thought the point being made was to avoid people whom you mistrust or whom you believe would be detrimental to your values and morals. In my case, our family avoids atheistic, immoral and criminal associations. But we have hundreds of friends. They're mostly Christian, some Muslims and other people of conscience. Not a lonely life at all.Quote:
Remember now, the behaviour referred to was gossipping and "backbiting" (I'm not too sure what that is).
Remember too that we are all sinners, so are you to avoid everyone? What a lonely, lonely life. Thank goodness for the internet I guess.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Why is this being brought up after almost a year and half?
Sorry, I didn't notice the date.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuff
Message #33 brought the discussion to the top of the list and since it was posted today, I assumed the discussion was recent.
If the discussion is old news, then by all means, disregard.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuff
Hi chuff... I wasn't aware that you could not comment on an old question. This question is still open so I assumed a comment was still acceptable especially if you have not been a member for long like myself and of coarse there are many new members after me that perhaps might also care to comment.
My apologies if this is incorrect, perhaps some one could set me right on this.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:47 PM. |