Matt 18 and Forgiveness Revoked

Yes, you are the only one on these boards who actually does exegesis. Give yourself a hearty amen for me!

God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]Funny. But it does not detract from the basic fact that to exegete a text you must read it and you must SHOW your work IN the text and demonstrate that it is making the case you claim.

So far all you have done is avoid the text.

That is not exegesis by anyone's standard that I know of - surely you agree!

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far all you have done is avoid the text.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is the chapter of Acts 17 where you claim the term "Children" should hot have been used by the NASB translators.

(oh "you mean that chapter". Yes that one).

Just at the point you need some other term used in Acts 17 - you need to "follow Paul's argument IN Acts 17 to SHOW that some other word can be inserted into the text to better suit your views".

Failing to do that -- you don't actually have exegesis. The fact that you feel you don't even need to pay attention the chapter that you are interested in editing "editing out the word children" - shows you have not stated intention to exegete. By your own confession you are not even trying to exegete the chapter you so want to "change" so that it does not reference the children of God.

By contrast I am simply showing Bible scholars that ARE willing to LOOK at Acts 17 and that DO whos that the FAMILY relationship is the key to the argument being made there.

Each time you find that you have to ignore one text (like Matt 18 or Acts 17) and "just confine yourself to more palatible texts" you are in fact revealing a source of doctrinal error in your position.

Any JW RC Mormon etc could use that same method to slice and dice their way through scripture. I don't think you or I would want to have that as our own model.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Lets put the traditions of man aside for a moment and just be honest about Matt 18.

It IS there in plain text for all to read. The KING SAYS "I FORGAVE" you even admit this. You also admit that the servant starts out lost and not-yet-forgiven. You also admit that to BE forgiven is to be saved.

These are not simply "my imaginings" YOU HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED to them!

You "claim" there is a lot of fog and uncertainty in Matt 18 but the truth is you have already admitted to each of the key points to the parable. And now you are obviously stuck.

You WANT a summary that is VERY DIFFERENT from the content of the parable that YOU already admitted to!!

This is not rocket science or "Bob is the only one that can read the parable" reasoning. THIS IS YOU and what YOU have already admitted to!!

In other words it is SBVIOUS that BOTH you and I are admitting to the SAME facts in the parable.

You also admit that you NEED a summary that TOTALLY does not fit the parable and that is NOT in anything that Christ actually SAYS in the parable. You have already stated the summary that your traditions "need" and you never show that as a "QUOTE" of the what is actually IN the text.

You have repeatedly stated that your NEED to spin this around on its head at the end - is based NOT on what you read In MATT 18 but is based on what you have taken from OTHER TEXTS. Texts that are not as directly opposed to your traditions as is Matt 18.

I see that. You see that. Lets not pretend.

You also state correctly that this text (and some others) are best suited to the POV that I accept. You are also correct in implying that while these are the easy, no-brainer slam-dunk texts for my point of view - I would surely not have such an easy time some place else.

I don't deny that I have deliberately picked out a text that exactly refutes your POV. I confess it freely.

That is why I have been so focused on gettting you to admit to the obvious sections of the Parable. ADmitting to the obvious details IN the text will just confirm what it is saying.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As has been pointed out this is not "me alone" seeing the obvious fact that the king said "I forgave you" and it is not "me alone" seeing the obvious fact that unforgiven is unsaved in this parable of the Gospel of the "Kingdom of heaven".

You admit to seeing the SAME things!

Your spin above makes it appear that "only I COULD see these obvious details" because I brought a bias of "no OSAS" to the text.

But the key points of Matt 18 EVEN YOU See!

Hence your dilemma and hence my statement above admitting that this text "in the DETAILS" does in fact fit my POV perfectly. The very DETAILS you admit to - the very DETAILS you admit to "needing to ignore" when you give your "other summary" that even you admit is NOT a summary actually FOUND in the text. (Hence no quote of the text by you SHOWING the summary you needed).

All this is painfully obvious no matter what side of the fence you are on.

That is why I asked for a moment of honesty here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Thus ends your entire review of the "Details" of Acts 17:28 and 29 which states that we are all (in speaking to the pagans) the "Children of God".

Notice that the bold and highlighted "problem segments" do not appear AT ALL in your tiny snippet of detail you allowed yourself to address.

By NOT addressing the part that you "needed to rewrite" you fail to make an "exegetical" case from Acts 17:28-29 for the point you say you "need" here.

By Contrast I not only ADDRESS the detail you are ignoring (the "family" details about "Father", and "Children" and "Offspring" - and the fact that offspring are children) but SO ALSO do the Bible commentary quotes I gave.

You seem to be content to snippet a tiny segment of just vs 28 excluding all the areas central to the point about "Children", "Offspring" and the fact that the Father's offspring are obviously children so they are "alike".

In your thrice repeated snippet quote of just a part of vs 28 (instead of ALL of 28 and ALL of 29) you seem to "hope to imagine" that the Bible translations and the Bible commentaries are all "wrong" to include the section on "offspring" and "Children" and "The Father" having a family relationship to the Children. It is as if you hoped the text JUST mentioned the fact that "we are in God's image so no image to God should be made of wood" -- AS IF the text could be rewritten by "wishful thinking alone" to say only that!

But let me ask you -- does this text of scripture LOOK like it is missing everything you need for it to be missing?

As for "why" you do not actually quote Vs 28-29 where they appear to refute your views -- perhaps it is because a thorough case can not be made for your views and as you already stated here - your views on Acts 17 do not help you at all in the debate on Matt 18!

In Christ,

Bob

 

The TEXT of Matt 18 ends with the summary statement "SO SHALL my Father do to each one of you IF YOU do not..."

YOUR rewrite of that text summary is of the form "So shall my Father NEVER do to you for EITHER He will not have forgiven you in the first place OR if forgiven you will always be faithful. So NOTHING like this scenario can ever happen in all of time".

HOW different from the Words of Christ in Matt 18!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is an interesting blind alley that you take briefly -

Here you "imagine" that in the Kingdom of heaven there are those who seek forgiveness RECEIVE forgiveness and IN that condition are LOST but fully FORGIVEN of all their debt of sin!!

(you seem to "make stuff up" as you go along through Matt 18) -- why do that?

 

In the post in Jan it was shown that the "context" for the parable on "The Kingdom of heaven" is forgiveness INSIDE the Gospel INSIDE the concept of the "Gospel of the Kingdom" and so Christ said "The Kingdom of Heaven is like".. when speaking TO PETER about the obligation for God's children (Peter in this case as HE is asking the question) forgive others!!

I am not the one speaking in Matt 18:34-35 - but our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ IS speaking there. I say we "listen to HIM"!

I am not the one who wrote Romans 11:18-21
Paul did at the direction of the Holy Spirit.

I am also not the one who wrote Eph 2:8 - Paul did at the direction of the Holy Spirit.


If you must choose between Paul and Christ - or choose between Paul in Romans 11:17-21 and Paul in Eph 2:8 then you have "construed too much" out of Eph 2:8 so that it appears to differ with the rest of scripture.

The Text of Matt 18 is "very clear" and it is addressed TO PETER and those who along with him - are following Christ - the true Messiah!

#1. There is "no escaping" the fact that it IS an illustration of "The Kingdom of Heaven".

#2. There is "no escaping" the fact that the summary words of Christ in that instance are OUTSIDE the PARABLE!!

#3. There is "no escaping" the fact that this teaching OF CHRIST is written more than a decade AFTER the cross in obedience to Christ's command to "GO and teach others ALL that I TAUGHT YOU" in Matt 28.

#4. There is "no escaping" the fact that Christ says to Peter "REAL FORGIVENESS" given to him by God demands that we TOO show that same spirit of forgiveness to others!

If you seek to find fault with the REAL Gospel forgiveness within the Kingdom of Heaven that is RECEIVED FROM GOD -- then you have room to justify LACK of forgiveness toward others. No such "open door" is left for the reader in the Words of Christ.

His argument to Peter IN FAVOR of forgiveness is never "Well God did not actually forgive you so don't worry about having to forgive others"!!

</font>[/QUOTE]The "bend and twist" others would have made of this text wrenches it OUT of the context of PETER's question and the saints who were following Christ -- and makes it a statment about mythical LOST people being FULLY FORGIVEN yet still LOST - "all to save OSAS"!!

 

Jan 18 - your "much needed and much invented" summary for Matt 18 was reviewed and shown to expose the flaws in your argument.

This is called eisegesis! It is called "standing the text on its head"!!

Notice that the POINT in the "recast" of the text above is to claim that the text is challenging the "genuine nature" of the KINGS's statement "I FORGAVE YOU".

The total "rework" that OSAS "needs" is to divert AWAY from the KING's claim that the FORGIVEN servant SHOULD forgive others and to twist it around to say "IF you were REALLY forgiven by ME then you COULD only forgive others. But SINCE you are not forgiving others THEN I MUST HAVE LIED when I said I forgave you!"

How such a spin- such a twist and wrench of the text be "ignored"? It testifies to the powerful atraction that the tradition of OSAS has had on Christians in recent times.

</font>[/QUOTE]Your summary "invents words never spoken by Christ"

Your summary "supposes that God forgives man's sin APART from The Gospel leaven the FORGIVEN servant LOST but FORGIVEN of all his great debt of sin".

Your summary "supposes" that God demands that LOST people forgive OTHERS JUST as THEY have been forgiven when in fact they are STILL LOST!!

Your summary is not found in scripture at all!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since you imagine a kind of "forgiveness RECIEVED in the Kingdom of heaven where you are forgiven and yet STILL lost" how is it that THIS state is the MOTIVATION for PETER to forgive others AS HE HAS BEEN FORGIVEN by God?

Since all commentaries AGREE that this is the message for Peter and PETER's question IS the context for the answer - how does you imaginary idea of "Forgiven but not actually saved - still lost" FIT this compelling point to Peter about HIS motivation for forgiving others?

Hint: pay attention to Christ's OWN explanation at the end of MAtt 18 as to HOW this fits the motivation for PETER's question on his OWN need to forgive others!

In Christ,

Bob

 

In a nutshell your solution is to question Christ.

#1. You reject the idea that the parable ACTUALLY shows Gospel of the Kingdom "forgiveness GIVEN".

(Or you "imagine" that in the Gospel forgiveness GIVEN and RECEIVED is still not "SAVED")

#2. You reject the statement of Christ that the KING REALLY did FORGIVE. You find fault with that REAL forgiveness and claim that it was "substandard" leaving the servant STILL lost STILL owing the debt of sin so that HE WAS PERFECTLY right to show the SAME kind of "not real forgiveness" to his fellow servants.

Again - rejecting the statements of Christ IN the parable.

#3. You reject the summary Christ gives "So shall my Father do to you" referring to the forgivenes GIVEN then forgiveness revoked scenario IN the Parable!

YOU suggest He really SHOULD have said "So shall my Father NEVER do to you - but only to those He has never forgiven to start with!".

Thus your own summary does not fit into a point made to Peter in answer to PETER's question on how often to forgive others!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. I did not write Acts 17 - PAul did. Your argument is with him.

#2. You argue that Genov is not fammily not offsprings as in the FAMILY the offspring of the FAther are HIS CHILDERN, -- your point dies with every translation you have quoted - they point to the family argument though you deny it.

#3. The Bible commentaries themselves disprove your POV and they use KJV!!

#4. Read the text of the commentaries AS THEY ADMIT that OFFSPRING of the Father are in fact FAMILY - are in fact CHILDREN! You know - "The obvious".

#5. I started this point by showing the commentaries distinguish between the ontological FAMILY relationship to God and the "redeemed and adopted" context. You keep "ignoring that" as if to prove one - deletes the other. The text remains and offspring of the Father CONTINUE to be CHILDREN in ALL cases!

I keep repeating this point since it merely shows the lengths you have been willing to go to deny the text, the commentaries and even the Greek language itself to hold to your traditions.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Since ALL of these Bible Commentary quotes have been quoting the KJV and since you pretend to accept it - I offer to you the SAME commentaries using the KJV and proving your rejection of the family argument Paul makes - to be a direct denial of the text of Acts 17.

You have not read the quotes.

Here they are again -

Paul makes the argument “from family” for the pagans at the Areopagus. He says in vs 29 that SINCE we are God’s Children – God HIMSELF is like us more than like a stone or a piece of wood. He is a living being – not a rock! Paul argues “From family” and the ontological “likeness” of family members vs Rocks!

As Adam Clarke notes “The Parent must resemble his offspring”. Obviously the offspring of the parent – is the child.

John Gill admits to the same argument showing that God is our “Father” – the Father of all and we are His “offspring” . The “offspring” of the Father are “Children”. Obviously.

Matthew Henry makes the same obvious connection between Father and Offspring calling them “Children”.

8. That upon the whole matter we are God's offspring; he is our Father that begat us (Deuteronomy 32:6,18), and he hath nourished and brought us up as children, Isaiah 1:2.

</font>[/QUOTE]