One possible way this could be a coherent concept is if one believes that people deserve immediate punishment. For example, if Jesus’ killers deserved immediate punishment and Jesus averted this by asking God to forgive them, then a very real penalty would have been pardoned for each and every one, regardless if they went on to find full forgiveness or not.
They were all forgiven, some for the better and some for the worse.
Whether that’s what happened or what the Bible teaches is another question. I’m simply asking if this is coherent as an explanation.
Would this not be more of a distinction between forgiveness and deferred judgement? Both, of course, being examples of God’s grace.
Somewhere should fit in the difference bewteen sins of inadvertency (forgiven by animal blood in the OT) and sins with a high hand (forgiven by nothing).
Jesus makes the case to God that even his crucifiction is a sin of inadvertency.
Along Christopher’s line of thought, my understanding is that this is God’s forbearance that is intended to lead people to repentance (Romans 2:4), not forgiveness. The other question would be whether or not the forgiveness would be extended with out without expiation. Did Jesus die to temporarily forgive someone who will not be saved? Those are a couple of questions that I would want to see addressed.
Kind regards,
~Jason