In another thread we've been discussing forgiveness and how it is looked upon by the Amish people after the recent tragedy in Lancaster County. Well, it made me think about something I've heard before. I've heard two schools of thought on forgiveness. One teaches forgiveness but don't forget, and the other promotes the idea of forgive and forget. Can we do one without the other or does it require both?

Michael Horton wrote: ”For those who believe, the church must show the (functional) forgiveness she preaches, treating them as those wiped clean. Forget the past? No. But promise not to drag it into the present! And for those who will not repent, who live stubbornly in their sins, the church must “worry them” like a child “worries” a loose tooth, refusing to give up until the issue is settled, reminding them always that God will not ignore unrepentant sin, but bind it to them like a deep tattoo on a sailor’s chest.”

Years ago when old Robert A. Cook from the Kings College was still on the radio I remember him saying that when it comes to forgiveness sometimes we like to bury the axe but still leave the handle sticking out of the ground. That way just in case we need to bring it up again we can find it. He would ask his audience, "Is that true forgiveness?" Then he would go on to say that true forgiveness should bury the axe handle and all so that it is truly forgiven and never to be brought up again.

When we forgive someone are we required to forget? Is keeping a record of wrongs a denial of true forgiveness?

Any thoughts?


Wes

When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts