Why are sinful people usaully portrayed as arrogant?

[aspen]

It seems like whenever sin is discussed - homosexuality, for example - sinners are portrayed as manical, coniveing rebels who conciously flip off God every second they purposely fail to repent? Is this really accurate? It seems to me that apathy and hopelessness and lack of the ability to trust others are more likely to lead to a failure to love perfectly (sin) than willfull rebellion. It is interesting to watch Jesus interact with sinners in the gospels; yes he confronted arrogant sinners harshly, but everyone else was confronted with compassion. They were treated as sick people who needed to trust that they could be healed. Jesus did not take their sins personally.

It makes me wonder why many Christians take sinners private sin so personally - almost as if the private sin is part of the persecution Jesus warned us about.

seems to me that we are called to name sin, but not demonize the people who are commiting the sin - even when they do not recognize it as sin. In my experience and in the gospels the only sinners who are haughty and arrogant are those pointing out sin in others

 

[Raeneske]

It seems like whenever sin is discussed - homosexuality, for example - sinners are portrayed as manical, coniveing rebels who conciously flip off God every second they purposely fail to repent? Is this really accurate? It seems to me that apathy and hopelessness and lack of the ability to trust others are more likely to lead to a failure to love perfectly (sin) than willfull rebellion. It is interesting to watch Jesus interact with sinners in the gospels; yes he confronted arrogant sinners harshly, but everyone else was confronted with compassion. They were treated as sick people who needed to trust that they could be healed. Jesus did not take their sins personally.

It makes me wonder why many Christians take sinners private sin so personally - almost as if the private sin is part of the persecution Jesus warned us about.

seems to me that we are called to name sin, but not demonize the people who are commiting the sin - even when they do not recognize it as sin. In my experience and in the gospels the only sinners who are haughty and arrogant are those pointing out sin in others

Could have to do with the evil in the world.

People may in fact be getting bolder, and more arrogant with their sins. I mean really, look at the 7 last plagues. Those people blaspheme God, instead of repenting. They know it's coming down from God, but they refuse to repent. But that's in the near future.

This is why we aren't supposed to judge. We just have to try and share the truth with as many people as possible -- And we are to do so in a loving manner. They may not like your words, but there is nothing that you can do about that.

 

[afaithfulone4u]

It seems like whenever sin is discussed - homosexuality, for example - sinners are portrayed as manical, coniveing rebels who conciously flip off God every second they purposely fail to repent? Is this really accurate? It seems to me that apathy and hopelessness and lack of the ability to trust others are more likely to lead to a failure to love perfectly (sin) than willfull rebellion. It is interesting to watch Jesus interact with sinners in the gospels; yes he confronted arrogant sinners harshly, but everyone else was confronted with compassion. They were treated as sick people who needed to trust that they could be healed. Jesus did not take their sins personally.

It makes me wonder why many Christians take sinners private sin so personally - almost as if the private sin is part of the persecution Jesus warned us about.

seems to me that we are called to name sin, but not demonize the people who are commiting the sin - even when they do not recognize it as sin. In my experience and in the gospels the only sinners who are haughty and arrogant are those pointing out sin in others

We must recognize sin and bring it to light just as Jesus did with the woman at the well who had 5 husbands.
But we notice that he did not crash down on them with the LAW which only destroys them, but in Christ we are to build up people by teaching them a new and better way by helping them to tear down the old temple(old man of the flesh) that worships idols and harms people by seekong others sacrifice by physical or emotional punishment that has put the world in the state it is in. And help them to errect a new foundation based on the Word and help them build up their new tabernacle(body).
Carnal man seeks capital punishment and more laws, but the spiritual man seeks to teach so that no law is needed.

 

[Rex]

Why are sinful people usaully portrayed as arrogant?
Simply put, I believe it is because they don't acknowledge there sin and repent of it.
We are not called to forgive and accept those that continue in an unrepentant condition as brothers.
Matthew 18:15-17


All of this leads me to another question: Does God expect us to
forgive everyone who sins against us, even those who don't humble
themselves, admit their sin, and request forgiveness?
As we study
Scripture closely, we discover that the answer is "No." To the surprise
of many Christians, Scripture clearly states that, although we are
commanded to love everyone, we are not required to forgive everyone.
For example, does Jesus expect us to simply forgive a fellow believer who
sins against us? No, He doesn't. Otherwise, He would not have to told us
to follow the four steps to reconciliation outlined in Matthew
18:15-17, steps that end with excommunication if the offender does not
repent:

And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in
private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does
not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth
of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses
to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen
even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer .

God's Example
As we further consider our responsibility to
forgive others, we might also wonder why God would expect us to do
something that He Himself does not do. Certainly God loves guilty people
and extends His merciful hands in an offer to pardon them. He withholds
His wrath and gives them time to repent. But their actually being
forgiven is contingent upon their repentance. God does not forgive guilty people unless they repent. So why should we think that He expects more of us?

This love trumps all laws and teachings is nothing more than a dressed up version of watering down the truth.
That I believe is the core of your faith and teaching Aspen.

We are so careful not to OFFEND our neighbors , friends and family by
THE TRUTH, so we can love them. But are we loving God by doing this? Are we
really loving them? Are we so unwilling to endure any rejection that we have become
ashamed of Gods words! Its better to do what is right in Gods eyes and suffer the
consequences from man, then to do what is right in mans eyes and suffer the consequences
from God!

Even for those inside the Church James 5:19-20 "Brethren, if anyone among you
wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a
sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of
sins." Essentially we are our brothers keeper. To keep silent James calls it a sin of
omission. Jm.4:17 "to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is
sin."


Today the very definition of love has been changed it now means tolerance at the
expense of truth. Love must find its source in truth or it is a fake love. John 1:14...We
have seen his glory, the glory of the Only begotten, who came from the Father, full of
grace and truth." This is the one God the father sent because of his love.


Jn. 8:31-32..."If you abide in my word (live in the teachings), you are my
disciples indeed; you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Jesus
did not just say to dwell in his love only, but his truth as well. Love alone will not
save anyone from Hell but love with the truth will. Jesus is the truth and told only the
truth and we should as well. Not beating it over peoples heads but first present it in a
kind but firm way so it can be received.


If you love me you will keep my commandments, his word and precepts. The love Jesus
asks has loyalty it means for us to stand against opposition no matter where it will lead.
But how can we know his commands and teachings? By staying in his word and acting on it by
faith.

John 13:34-35 " A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I
have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My
disciples, if you have love for one another."


Most Christians interpret this as having unity or to be accepting, but this is not what
Jesus is saying . He said to love as I loved you. How did Jesus love? Did he accept
everyone for who they were and disregarded what they did ? When Peter received a
revelation from the Father and he proclaimed who Jesus is, he was commended. But right
after this he was prompted by the Devil to prevent Jesus from accomplishing his mission.
Jesus rebuked him openly. I imagine it must have been humbling to have this occur right
after everyone thought "right on Peter".


Jesus did not overlook his error because he did something right beforehand. Nor did he
say his good outweighed the bad. What was at stake was the truth. Neither did Jesus keep
silent and have Peter influence the others falsely.


Can love bring unity? If one wants to disregard the truth it certainly can!
But it is not honored by God, only man.

IMO aspen and in your example using homosexuality, is that many homosexuals look rather to continue in sin rather than admit it is a sin and repent of it.
There for they react negativity to any mention of it as being sin and seek to admonish those that point it out as sin as well, sound familiar?

And attempting to paint anyone as being unloving by doing so "mentioning it as sin" is a straw-man

 

[aspen]

thank you for your opinion, Rex - you have actually answered and age old question i have had. Your post requires a longer and more indepth repy that I can provide from my mobile device. I will try to get back to you tomorrow on my computer.

 

[[email protected]]

It makes me wonder why many Christians take sinners private sin so personally - almost as if the private sin is part of the persecution Jesus warned us about.


seems to me that we are called to name sin, but not demonize the people who are commiting the sin - even when they do not recognize it as sin. In my experience and in the gospels the only sinners who are haughty and arrogant are those pointing out sin in others

* * *

Rephrase the question a bit.....

Why do many Christians take private sin so personally, as for example the dissemination and use of pornography? Because it corrupts US.

More to the point, it corrupts ME. I must make conscious strenuous efforts to rebuke it - to take every thought captive as the apostle suggests. Sin is personal to every man. It's personal to me! One does not lose it on the day of salvation or the evening of rededication never having to deal with it again. That is childish thinking and we are all adults here I think. Let's be honest, American culture is drenched in sin and debauchery. It is the duty of every one who follows Christ to periodically 'wash the feet' as it were. If it were not so, would Jesus have demonstrated the need, would St. Paul have cautioned against it?

Are we called to name sin and not demonize those who commit it? Sin is sin and there's no problem on anyone's part calling it that. But calling a man a sinner or suggesting that he is one is a mercy. How so? Because no man can come to forgiveness and grace and mercy unless he knows the score, unless he knows that he IS sinning. That is the whole purpose of the law (Read Romans 6, 7 & 8) and the working of grace. There is no other way to paint the picture and make it come out beautiful in the sight of God.

On the street level, one who sells drugs is punished. It is the pusher who is subject to prison not the drug. Yes indeed drugs are harmful and addictive and capable of turning men into beasts, but drugs alone are inanimate objects. Shall the policeman walk up to the pusher and say drugs are bad and simply walk away or should the long arm of the law seize the one who makes his living off the stuff.

The wages of sin is death, the Good Book says. The dying need to know their crime. That is the whole purpose of the law. Yet it cannot save. The blood must be applied for that, but only upon he who knows he needs it. Without the blood there is no salvation and without knowing the need, by means of the law, no humble and contrite petition for mercy will be born.

When it comes to sin, a polite attitude will only grease the skids that lead to hell.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[Rex]

thank you for your opinion, Rex - you have actually answered and age old question i have had. Your post requires a longer and more indepth repy that I can provide from my mobile device. I will try to get back to you tomorrow on my computer.

I have been meaning to address your portrayal of love is answer to every christian situation for a while.
I have never believed such a thing. IMO it is anly a part of the whole picture.

 

[KingJ]

It seems like whenever sin is discussed - homosexuality, for example - sinners are portrayed as manical, coniveing rebels who conciously flip off God every second they purposely fail to repent? Is this really accurate? It seems to me that apathy and hopelessness and lack of the ability to trust others are more likely to lead to a failure to love perfectly (sin) than willfull rebellion. It is interesting to watch Jesus interact with sinners in the gospels; yes he confronted arrogant sinners harshly, but everyone else was confronted with compassion. They were treated as sick people who needed to trust that they could be healed. Jesus did not take their sins personally.

It makes me wonder why many Christians take sinners private sin so personally - almost as if the private sin is part of the persecution Jesus warned us about.

seems to me that we are called to name sin, but not demonize the people who are commiting the sin - even when they do not recognize it as sin. In my experience and in the gospels the only sinners who are haughty and arrogant are those pointing out sin in others

The best example...Look at how Jesus interacted with the devil. No cursing, belittling or calling angels to beat him. He gave him the time of day and spoke nicely imho.

I think we need to differentiate between saved and unsaved. Arrogance is a verb not a noun. It takes effort to be arrogant. If it is in our nature to sin, it does not take much effort to sin. If it is against our nature to sin, like it is for us Christians, it takes effort.

The unsaved take time to get arrogant. The more they are exposed to the light, the more arrogant they would get as they try hold onto their sin. Arrogance with a sin is essentially saying my way and not God's way.

I guess an argument could be made that all are without excuse Rom 1:20. Then I imagine there are different levels of arrogance. Like homo-sexuals who know they are going against the natural cause of their bodies but still give you a chance to preach to them and then those who don't.

 

[soupy]

Reminds me of Ephesians 4:15
...speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ.

Truth and love go together.

 

[justaname]

It seems like whenever sin is discussed - homosexuality, for example - sinners are portrayed as manical, coniveing rebels who conciously flip off God every second they purposely fail to repent? Is this really accurate? It seems to me that apathy and hopelessness and lack of the ability to trust others are more likely to lead to a failure to love perfectly (sin) than willfull rebellion. It is interesting to watch Jesus interact with sinners in the gospels; yes he confronted arrogant sinners harshly, but everyone else was confronted with compassion. They were treated as sick people who needed to trust that they could be healed. Jesus did not take their sins personally.

It makes me wonder why many Christians take sinners private sin so personally - almost as if the private sin is part of the persecution Jesus warned us about.

seems to me that we are called to name sin, but not demonize the people who are commiting the sin - even when they do not recognize it as sin. In my experience and in the gospels the only sinners who are haughty and arrogant are those pointing out sin in others

I do not believe arrogance is the always the conscience decision for the unrepentant rather it is the underlying cause that does not allow them to repent weather conscience or unconscious. What I have found is most believe people are basically good and do not recognize the presence of sin in their lives. The sin they do recognize is viewed as petty and irrelevant and think God is not really concerned with their sin comparing themselves to others sin being greater than their own.(arrogance) This sense of goodness is a lie, (Matthew 19:17 Luke 18:19) and is the first step needed to overcome in leading others to Christ and His salvation. Only by getting people to recognize they are desperately trapped in sin, all sin is despised by God, and there is nothing they can do on their own to get out of it, can they come to the realization they need a Savior.

Now we are taught that we are not to Judge sinners by the Apostle Paul, which is correct because God will judge them. Pointing out sin is not judging but is teaching or showing the obvious in an attempt to lead on to Christ. How can one be upset with a sinner who sins? You might as well get angry with a horse that gallops or a lion that hunts. Once one comes to the realization they are a sinner and have accepted Christ, our role in accordance with their sin changes, as the sin of the individual affect the whole body of Christ. (Galatians 6:1-10)

All of this leads me to another question: Does God expect us to
forgive everyone who sins against us, even those who don't humble
themselves, admit their sin, and request forgiveness?
As we study
Scripture closely, we discover that the answer is "No." To the surprise
of many Christians, Scripture clearly states that, although we are
commanded to love everyone, we are not required to forgive everyone.
For example, does Jesus expect us to simply forgive a fellow believer who
sins against us? No, He doesn't. Otherwise, He would not have to told us
to follow the four steps to reconciliation outlined in Matthew
18:15-17, steps that end with excommunication if the offender does not
repent:

And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in
private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does
not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth
of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses
to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen
even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer .

God's Example
As we further consider our responsibility to
forgive others, we might also wonder why God would expect us to do
something that He Himself does not do. Certainly God loves guilty people
and extends His merciful hands in an offer to pardon them. He withholds
His wrath and gives them time to repent. But their actually being
forgiven is contingent upon their repentance. God does not forgive guilty people unless they repent. So why should we think that He expects more of us?

I do not see this as a correct interpretation. First off we have Jesus' response given to Peter (Matthew 18:21-22)

Next we have God's true example given to all of us. (Ephesians 2:1-5 Colossians 2:13 Romans 5:8)

For us to forgive another requires nothing from the other but everything from us. To not forgive is to be trapped and burdened unnecessarily. (Matthew 6:15 Mark 11:25-26)

As to the Matthew 18:15-18 pericope it never speaks to continuing the burden of unforgivingness rather it gives the loving response required to bring one to repentance.

 

[Foreigner]

It seems like whenever sin is discussed - homosexuality, for example - sinners are portrayed as manical, coniveing rebels who conciously flip off God every second they purposely fail to repent? Is this really accurate?

-- Funny you should mention that....


This January started yet another new semester at our colleges here in town.
As usual, they had a welcoming center set up with booths from several different local businesses, organizations, and churches.

I was manning a booth from my church as usual and our banner simply gives the name of our church and the year it was established here in my town.
We were handing out keychains with our church name and phone number.
We had pamphlets with an invitation to visit our church, our church name, address, phone number, service times and a representation of the cross.
NOTHING ELSE
No mission statement
No list of individual ministries within the church

Nothing...at...all...about...homosexuality, either positive nor negative.

Yet within 10 minutes of setting up the booth - like clockwork - we have very loud, very vocal, very abusive homosexuals and homosexual advocates come over to our booth and begin loudly questioning who we thought we were, and swearing at us for judging them.

"Who the $%&#@ do you think you are?"
"What the *%^*)+ gives you the right to judge me?"
"I am a @%^&#$% fag and proud of it so you can go &$%&@# yourself!"

Some come and bump my chest. A number have flipped over the table. Twice they have torn our banner down.
Thankfully they now have security at this event.

Neither I myself or my church has marched in any anti-gay rallies, participated in any anti-gay campus events, or distributed any documents or fliers with an anti-gay message.

What the security person said makes us easy pickings at these events is we never "fight back." We never get in their face, yell back, or stand up to bullying.

Our one fault appears to be that we handle confrontation and the anger of sinners the way Christ did.


Aspen, in all the time you have been here there are two things you simply seem incapable of understanding.

1. It is wrong to overgeneralize and paint an entire group - in this case Christians - with a sin that only a portion may commit.

2. When you share Jesus with people, How much He loves them, what He did for them, and how they can have eternity with Him, it is when you mention what He expects of them that Christians are called judgmental, etc.



But this is where your "seems to me that we are called to name sin, but not demonize the people who are commiting the sin" statement shows your lack of experience in actually witnessing to people.

When you tell people God loves them, died for them, wants them to spend eternity with Him in heaven, they want to know what they have to do to have that.
You then sharing with them that they have to turn away from sin is normally the point where the non-believer is then claiming they are being "demonized."

Even when you point out the specific sins you yourself were caught up in that you had to turn away from, it doesn't matter. With THEM it is different.
They see the answer to their question as judgment on them. And thus you - by answering their question AFTER telling them Jesus loves them - are called judgmental, accusatory, etc. etc. etc. Ad infinitum, Ad nauseum.

You have apparently bought into their way of thinking. Your own words play right into it: "the only sinners who are haughty and arrogant are those pointing out sin in others"

At least according to your words, organizations like "Act Up!" are recognied as the 'haughty and arrogant" ones you speak of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_UP

 

[HammerStone]

Well, I think homosexuality is a terrible choice in what you're trying to convey because it is, ultimately, a public-facing issue with a large bit of pent-up emotion ready to explode. In addition, it has been my experience that both sides are quite vocal about it; I've been called names by family members because I support the idea of traditional marriage - members themselves who are not gay and are merely advocating on behalf of gay friends. It didn't really seem to dawn on them, until I pointed out that if you removed the word "conservative" from their rant and inserted the word(s) gay/homosexual/etc., that the rant would be considered quite homophobic and entirely offensive.

I am, unfortunately, defined as anti-gay because I believe in marriage between a man and a women by definition. I don't say that because I believe a group of people should be robbed of rights, but rather because that's what marriage is as it was constructed both by God and civily through the ages. The problem with this particular debate is that the middle ground has been burnt up; you're either for or against. Pro- or Anti-. Hate them or love them.

Just to be blunt, the problem with your homosexuality example is that I can indeed go out and find that person. The more unfortunate problem for us is that "they" can go out and find Christians who talk about locking them up or other nonsense.

For a better, and I believe truer, picture go look at the friendship between Dan Cathy (Chic-fil-a) and noted homosexual activist Shane Windmeyer. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango and I think both men are exemplar about what's best about each other's perspective. They disagree and odds are that they will never convert the other, but neither one levels false charges at the other and they've developed a friendship.

But to return to your question at hand, my answer is two fold. I think first and foremost we fail to account for our own failures. It is simply easier to condemn someone else for what you're not (or, as in some case, are doing) simply because the subject is not you. It's never hard to say that the other guy (or gal) is doing something that they need to fix.

Matthew 7:3-5

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Essentially, yes, we are hypocrites by nature. We are all guilty in not acknowledging this.

As almost an outgrowth of the above failure, we fail to know how to properly evangelize. Look no further than the Christianity Board forums here to see how people handle disagreement. (This is amongst believers!) However, I think the disconnect with nonbelievers comes down to two things:

1) We do not use a Christ-centric evangelism method. Here on the boards even, I see way too much "you're wrong and here's why!" reasoning. In other words, we would rather start with the sin and then work to Jesus. "You're doing this wrong, so you need Jesus!" Which, at face value, this message is factually true if you are a Christian, in one form or another. However, when we're putting the message out there, the message is really about him and not us; the "you're wrong" part drowns out the need for Jesus. If someone is doing something wrong, very rarely will shouting cause them to change course; we need to be gently shown and then brought to that point where they'll be dashed up against the rock called Jesus. Only he can rebuild them and make them a new creation. We cannot do this and it is not our job. Too many Christians think that they need to do the saving themselves. Love can be gentle or it can be harsh, but it's still love.

2) We judge NonChristians with Christian standards. We're now in a world where a much larger percentage of the population not only has not gone to church in many years, but might not have ever been part of a "Judeo-Christian" mindset. This means that you are dealing with people and culture where the Christian ecosystem is 100% foreign and new (though it may be labeled as old and outdated). We cannot possibly judge a person by Christian standards when he or she is not Christian; as Paul says the law will win every time we apply those standards. We will break it one way or another. That's why I needed Jesus and that's why ya'll needed him as well to overcome this. The person needs the very same grace, even when they may very well be quite stubborn about it.

However, there is also another facet in this portrayal that is not 100% the fault of hypocritical Christians. As a rebuttal to this aspect, I would simply cite the recent article from The Gospel Coalition's Collin Hansen, "Dare to Be Immoral" - which I fully recommend reading in it's entirety.

If you only knew Christians from television, why would you want to become one? You have only a few kinds of media role models, none of them appealing. You could be a goody-two-shoes rube, most likely from the Midwest or South, like Ned Flanders from The Simpsons or Kenneth Parcell from 30 Rock. You could be a judgmental hypocrite like Angela Martin from The Office and take only the Bible and The Purpose-Driven Life with you on a desert island but sleep around with your coworkers. Or you could be a deranged serial killer. As Gene Veith observes, you can usually identify the culprit in a suspenseful TV drama when you find the most religious character.

Our journalistic sensibilities don't exactly help matters. It's not news when Christians serve soup to the homeless. But it's always news when a church leader misappropriates benevolent funds for selfish gain. The world resents our moral standards and gloats over our failings. Somehow we've perpetuated the myth that what sets evangelicals apart is our moral superiority rather than an acute sense of our moral inability.

"Evangelicals' distinctive moral outlook, inherited from their fundamentalist forebearers, is dark and somewhat puritanical (or Victorian)," write public policy experts Robert Putnam and David Campbell, authors of the influential study American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. "[Evangelicals] share a view of the world as sinful and of God as a harsh judge. For them, heaven, hell, and judgment day are realities, not metaphors, and moral issues are framed in absolute, black-and-white terms."

The only problem with this summary is that I doubt Putnam and Campbell could find any evangelicals who would describe their faith this way. Whose testimony says, "I was looking for an unflinching moral standard, and I found it in the harsh Christian God"? Even so, evidence suggests that Putnam and Campbell accurately describe how outsiders at least have viewed evangelicals at least since the tumultuous social revolutions of the 1960s and probably before. Statistics analyzed by Putnam and Campbell lead us to believe that the 1960s unleashed a counter-revolution of concern about declining moral standards. And many of these concerned citizens found their way to evangelical churches in the 1970s and 1980s. Somehow we failed to convince the watching world, maybe even ourselves at times, that the church only accepts immoral sinners who confess their need for a Savior.

 

[Rex]

I do not see this as a correct interpretation. First off we have Jesus' response given to Peter (Matthew 18:21-22)

Next we have God's true example given to all of us. (Ephesians 2:1-5 Colossians 2:13 Romans 5:8)

For us to forgive another requires nothing from the other but everything from us. To not forgive is to be trapped and burdened unnecessarily. (Matthew 6:15 Mark 11:25-26)

As to the Matthew 18:15-18 pericope it never speaks to continuing the burden of unforgivingness rather it gives the loving response required to bring one to repentance.

Then I'd like to here how you interpret these verses.

Hebrews 12:6
“My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord,
Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;
6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens,
And scourges every son whom He receives.”

Which is from proverbs 3:11-12
11 My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord,

Nor detest His correction;
12 For whom the Lord loves He corrects,
Just as a father the son in whom he delights.




Hebrews 12 continued
7 If[b] you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now
no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful;
nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness
to those who have been trained by it.

And just why did God bring the law If He wasn't going to allow those that loved him, to not be convicted by it?
No matter many people don't bother to reconcile apparent contradictory verses they just choose the part they like.
By applying the verses you quoted there would never be a need or reason to correct a brother, apparently Jesus disagrees in Matthew 18:15-17
As well as James 5:19-20

 

[justaname]

Psalm 119:67-68
67 Before I was afflicted I went astray,

But now I keep Your word.

68 You are good and do good;

Teach me Your statutes.

Psalm 119:71

71 It is good for me that I was afflicted,

That I may learn Your statutes.

Again I see forgiveness as a one sided affair at first. God's affliction leads us to repentance. This is the same as the teaching given in Matthew 18:15-17, but this has nothing to do with forgiveness. You can forgive someone and still discipline them.



Let me also bring these verses to remembrance.

Matthew 26:31-32
31 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.’

32 “But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.”


Luke 23:34

34 But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.


None of these repented first, in fact some continued in their mockery, but Jesus forgave and asked for their forgiveness from the Father.


Finally this idea of forgiveness is taught for quite some time, it is nothing new.

Leviticus 19:18
18 ‘You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.

 

[Rex]

your comparing apples to oranges using luke 23
I was speaking to aspen about believers not unbelievers.

Did not Jesus pray for the soldiers who were dividing His garments,
"Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke
23:34)? Does this not indicate that God forgives people without them
asking for it?
It does, but only to a certain degree. It
indicates that God shows mercy to the ignorant, a measure of
forgiveness. Because God is perfectly just, He holds people accountable
only when they know they are sinning.

I used the examples I did to make a point to Aspen about the love only doctrine that permeates peoples thinking today.

Forgiveness in the context i used it in, is acceptance in the fellowship.
In other words we are not called to accept those that practice immorality and sexual perversions as being brothers by willfully continuing in it, or denying it's a sin.

We are not called to forgive and accept those that continue in an unrepentant condition as brothers.

Matthew 18:15-17

Are we to allow people to sit in church and drink or look at pornography or openly proclaim homosexuality with no intent of repenting?
Now remember were talking about self proclaiming Christians.

Are we called to just say I love you
I seem to remember some tables being over turned in the Fathers house, something about a den of thieves

 

[justaname]

your comparing apples to oranges using luke 23
I was speaking to aspen about believers not unbelievers.

Did not Jesus pray for the soldiers who were dividing His garments,
"Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke
23:34)? Does this not indicate that God forgives people without them
asking for it?
It does, but only to a certain degree. It
indicates that God shows mercy to the ignorant, a measure of
forgiveness. Because God is perfectly just, He holds people accountable
only when they know they are sinning.

I used the examples I did to make a point to Aspen about the love only doctrine that permeates peoples thinking today.

Forgiveness in the context i used it in, is acceptance in the fellowship.
In other words we are not called to accept those that practice immorality and sexual perversions as being brothers by willfully continuing in it, or denying it's a sin.
Are we to allow people to sit in church and drink or look at pornography or openly proclaim homosexuality with no intent of repenting?
Now remember were talking about self proclaiming Christians.


Are we called to just say I love you
I seem to remember some tables being over turned in the Fathers house, something about a den of thieves

I was answering your question.
And I would have to disagree with your underlined portion He holds all who sin accountable. Luke 12:47-48

Now we are taught that we are not to Judge sinners by the Apostle Paul, which is correct because God will judge them. Pointing out sin is not judging but is teaching or showing the obvious in an attempt to lead on to Christ. How can one be upset with a sinner who sins? You might as well get angry with a horse that gallops or a lion that hunts. Once one comes to the realization they are a sinner and have accepted Christ, our role in accordance with their sin changes, as the sin of the individual affect the whole body of Christ. (Galatians 6:1-10)

You might have missed this in my first post.

Let me speak a bit to your acceptance portion. This may be the most difficult thing a church body has to face. There is a point where someone needs to be ostracized, but that is something that must be taken extremely seriously with deep continuous prayer and extensive consulting.

Should we remove the alcoholic at the first sign of falling off the wagon? Should we kick out the truck driver that uses vulgar language occasionally? How about the man who sees women lustfully still even though he does know better and is honestly making an effort?

I would say we would have no one or in the in the pews or in the pulpit if everyone who is struggling with sin is kicked out of the church.

Now to be completely fair on my behalf you can see the portion I selected from your post:

All of this leads me to another question: Does God expect us to
forgive everyone who sins against us, even those who don't humble
themselves, admit their sin, and request forgiveness?

I still hold to my answer which is yes.

 

[HammerStone]

By the way, seems this is not just a modern problem.

It is easier to cry against one-thousand sins of others than to kill one of your own. — John Flavel

 

[Rex]

I suppose when we agree that God isn't concerned with willfully disobedience or turning away and continuing on our own we should all keep quiet about it then.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones to death
those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your
children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you
were unwilling!

Love covers a multitude of sin, but Jesus also told the woman to go and sin no more.
Sacrifices and offerings I did not desire but obedience.

22 So Samuel said:

“Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you from being king.”

 

[justaname]

Here is something interesting for you to chew on when it comes to forgiveness. Unforgiving is a demon that consumes you from the inside out, but forgiving is not the same as acceptance. You can forgive someone without condoning their actions. Sometimes it is not possible to restore a relationship, but sometimes it is.

http://theforgivenessproject.com/stories/terry-caffey-usa/

and just to show a view of the other side of the story

http://theforgivenessproject.com/stories/peter-tatchell-england/

Rex,
It seems you have not gathered this but I agree with this statement.

In other words we are not called to accept those that practice immorality and sexual perversions as being brothers by willfully continuing in it, or denying it's a sin.

I apologize if I was not clear enough in my responses.