A while back, I took a stand other than the popular (and, to me, incomprehensible) evangelical position here. Upset some folks.
Dear Libbie broached the subject again here and here.
She linked to a good essay on the subject over at NeoFundamentalist. The anonymous writer's position is similar to mine. Read it, and our interaction in the comments.
Taking the opposite position is Valerie (— who, like my wife, does not wish to be called "Val," thank you very much), who alludes to something by the often-incomprehensible-to-me Douglas Wilson.
Both Neofundamentalist and I cite Scripture that directly creates our position.
Neither Valerie nor Wilson cite one Scripture that directly states that a Christian should "forgive" someone who commits and clings to a sin against him. Their position (as I read it) rests instead on concepts and assumptions and extrapolations and is, to me, as I keep stating, impossible to make sense of.
I'm always concerned when I feel that someone is taking a Biblical concept (i.e. grace, forgiveness, family), and just sort of "goes" with it. I really only feel safe if I specifically anchor my development of a concept as closely to Biblical texts as I can. On this specific, for as popular as the notion of "unconditional forgiveness" is, it's remarkable to me that advocates cannot adduce one direct command to extend it.
NOTE: Valerie refines her position some in comments on Libbie's second post. She makes some very good points, including this wonderfully well-phrased thought: "We should be predisposed to forgive sins committed against us. That should be our default position." Amen.
I know it can be difficult to forgive, but for the life of me, I have never, ever understood how genuine Christians — who know they've been saved from the fires of Hell, and forgiven inexcusable atrocities against a holy God — can knowingly and deliberately refuse to forgive a person who asks for forgiveness. Now, on that one, there is some pretty specific Scripture (i.e. Matthew 18:35).