[Starman]

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?

[chuff]

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.

[Starman]

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.

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.

[RickJ]

I agree, the answer is no. Of course sometimes it does happen, but one does not cause or require the other.

[chuff]

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.

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.

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.

[31pumpkin]

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.

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.

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.
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!

[ordinaryguy]

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.

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!

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.

[JoeCanada76]

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

[Starman]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Are a person's motives relevant for judging whether they are being too worldly, or is it simply a matter of conduct?

[Starman]

Are a person's motives relevant for judging whether they are being too worldly, or is it simply a matter of conduct?

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?

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.

[ordinaryguy]

Not just a matter of conduct. Motives are very relevant.

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.

[Starman]

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.

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.

[31pumpkin]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

You don't? Really? Read the story again:

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.

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?

Still I think if we are quick to forgive then we don't cling to the problem anymore & move on.

I agree. I forgive you for disagreeing with my assessment, and I'm moving on.

[31pumpkin]

You don't? Really? Read the story again:

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?

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.
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.

[ordinaryguy]

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. And next, I don't agree with you using the word motive or motives.

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?

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.

So, based on YOUR objective analysis, was the proffered forgiveness genuine, or not?

[31pumpkin]

So, based on YOUR objective analysis, was the proffered forgiveness genuine, or
Not?

If she said so. A Christian usually knows even the principles of forgiveness, so yes, why not?

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?

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?

[ordinaryguy]

So, based on YOUR objective analysis, was the proffered forgiveness genuine, or
not?

If she said so. A Christian usually knows even the principles of forgiveness, so yes, why not?

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?

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?

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?

Did you mean to say "...so why would ONE try"? Wouldn't that be the objective word to use?

[31pumpkin]

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?

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.

Did you mean to say "...so why would ONE try"? Wouldn't that be the objective word to use?

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?
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