A most instructive article, and the audio recording has been particularly beneficial to me given my rather slow reading speed.
There are two matters to which I would like to respond, firstly to the definition of forgiveness, or rather broadly when we truly forgive, and then building upon this article, an overall map of positions within Christianity, at least in broad strokes, not just between what you have termed Protestants and the Radicals. However, for the length of the first response I like to just talk about the first point.
1. About forgiveness:
You have precisely articulated that when we forgive a "person P", this does not mean, nor can it mean, that we still wish for person P to experience "damnation or punishment B," thus B(P), at least none that would arise from the transgressions against us, hence "B(P) r S:" a punishment towards person P due to something they have done towards us ourselves (r meaning relation here).
This reminds me of an idea on how to deal with the opinions of others, though a flawed idea. By saying: "in heaven everyone will recognize where I was right, and thus I need not worry." The problem, evidently, is that one thereby anchors the stability of their identity or at least their actions on something external, still, and also on something other than love. One still desires to be recognized as the one who is right. And in the same manner there lies a problem in how some people see forgiveness, which you have implied as well:
I) If one merely does not wish "B(P) r S," meaning no additional punishment or natural ["mechanical"] consequence of a misdeed in person P due to what they did to oneself S, ...
II) and even if one does not wish "B(P) r A," meaning no such an addition from the misdeeds that person P has done to others as well, ...
III) one may still not truly forgive Person P if one wishes a consequence or punishment due to their misdeed towards God: B(P) r G, ...
IV) but not for the sake of justice, if one is honest, rather because one holds a personal grudge.
How can one overcome this and still correctly combat evil? I think, Leibniz, who was also a Lutheran, provides an answer. Here my own translation from German:
"It follows evidently that genuine piety and even true happiness consist in the love of God, albeit in an enlightened love, whose fire is kindled by the light of knowledge.
This kind of love brings forth joy in good actions, which lend support to virtue and, by relating everything to God as the center, elevates the human to the divine. For by doing one's duty, by obeying reason, one follows the decrees of the supreme, exalted reason.
One directs all endeavors towards the common good, which is identical with the glory of God*, and thus finds that there is no greater private interest than to encompass the common interest. That way, one lives for one's own satisfaction by striving to follow the true benefits of humanity. Whether one succeeds or not, one is content with what happens, if one submits to the will of God, and knows that what He wills is best. Yet before His will is made known through events, one seeks to anticipate it by doing what seems best to correspond to His commands.
When we are in this spiritual state, we are not repelled by lack of success; we then only regret our own mistakes, and the ingratitude of people does not deter us from continuing our benevolent acts. Our charity is full of humility and moderation; it does not presume to dominate. By being as attentive to our own faults as to the talents of others, we are inclined to criticize our own actions, while excusing and rectifying those of others: for we seek to perfect ourselves, but to wrong no one else."
*the better humanity, the more God will be glorified by it.
I would further add that the focal point should not only be humanity as a whole but also the next individual as a distinct notion. This means one has these focal points: "God, humanity, the individual" and acts according to the current focus for the benefit of one of these, directly. By classifying oneself as an individual, one can correctly position oneself within this framework. Additionally, I believe there may be further points to which one could shift focus depending on personal life circumstances, such as one's spouse, work, or community, at these may be added. Oneself thus is only part of the whole formula, and a lesser part to that if one speaks of one's role as object of one's strivings.
A most instructive article, and the audio recording has been particularly beneficial to me given my rather slow reading speed.
There are two matters to which I would like to respond, firstly to the definition of forgiveness, or rather broadly when we truly forgive, and then building upon this article, an overall map of positions within Christianity, at least in broad strokes, not just between what you have termed Protestants and the Radicals. However, for the length of the first response I like to just talk about the first point.
1. About forgiveness:
You have precisely articulated that when we forgive a "person P", this does not mean, nor can it mean, that we still wish for person P to experience "damnation or punishment B," thus B(P), at least none that would arise from the transgressions against us, hence "B(P) r S:" a punishment towards person P due to something they have done towards us ourselves (r meaning relation here).
This reminds me of an idea on how to deal with the opinions of others, though a flawed idea. By saying: "in heaven everyone will recognize where I was right, and thus I need not worry." The problem, evidently, is that one thereby anchors the stability of their identity or at least their actions on something external, still, and also on something other than love. One still desires to be recognized as the one who is right. And in the same manner there lies a problem in how some people see forgiveness, which you have implied as well:
I) If one merely does not wish "B(P) r S," meaning no additional punishment or natural ["mechanical"] consequence of a misdeed in person P due to what they did to oneself S, ...
II) and even if one does not wish "B(P) r A," meaning no such an addition from the misdeeds that person P has done to others as well, ...
III) one may still not truly forgive Person P if one wishes a consequence or punishment due to their misdeed towards God: B(P) r G, ...
IV) but not for the sake of justice, if one is honest, rather because one holds a personal grudge.
How can one overcome this and still correctly combat evil? I think, Leibniz, who was also a Lutheran, provides an answer. Here my own translation from German:
"It follows evidently that genuine piety and even true happiness consist in the love of God, albeit in an enlightened love, whose fire is kindled by the light of knowledge.
This kind of love brings forth joy in good actions, which lend support to virtue and, by relating everything to God as the center, elevates the human to the divine. For by doing one's duty, by obeying reason, one follows the decrees of the supreme, exalted reason.
One directs all endeavors towards the common good, which is identical with the glory of God*, and thus finds that there is no greater private interest than to encompass the common interest. That way, one lives for one's own satisfaction by striving to follow the true benefits of humanity. Whether one succeeds or not, one is content with what happens, if one submits to the will of God, and knows that what He wills is best. Yet before His will is made known through events, one seeks to anticipate it by doing what seems best to correspond to His commands.
When we are in this spiritual state, we are not repelled by lack of success; we then only regret our own mistakes, and the ingratitude of people does not deter us from continuing our benevolent acts. Our charity is full of humility and moderation; it does not presume to dominate. By being as attentive to our own faults as to the talents of others, we are inclined to criticize our own actions, while excusing and rectifying those of others: for we seek to perfect ourselves, but to wrong no one else."
*the better humanity, the more God will be glorified by it.
I would further add that the focal point should not only be humanity as a whole but also the next individual as a distinct notion. This means one has these focal points: "God, humanity, the individual" and acts according to the current focus for the benefit of one of these, directly. By classifying oneself as an individual, one can correctly position oneself within this framework. Additionally, I believe there may be further points to which one could shift focus depending on personal life circumstances, such as one's spouse, work, or community, at these may be added. Oneself thus is only part of the whole formula, and a lesser part to that if one speaks of one's role as object of one's strivings.