Matt 18 and Forgiveness Revoked

BobRyan · Feb 10, 2006

I am still trying to find the part where you addresst the details raised by Gill, or Clarke or Henry.

Let me guess "more inconvenient facts to ignore"?

When it comes to Acts 17 the Bible Commentaris - scholars - seem to "get the idea" that the "Offspring of the Father" is a member of the family - the "child".

But you seem to find this concept extremely challenging.

When it comes to Matt 18 they all seem to get that the servant is SAVED when forgiven and LOST when "unforgiven". You seem to choke on the idea that the FORGIVEN servant is in fact SAVED! Yet these Bible scholars all "get it"!!

More obvious points here could hardly be imagined!!

Your position has been to find imaginative ways to "deny the obvious", turn the point, misdirect -and appeal to those who "already reject Matt 18".

The more detail I bring out in Matt 18 - the more you turn a blind eye to the text and refuse to read. All your methods are "consistent" so far.

How in the world can you be satisfied with that!?

In Christ,

Bob

steaver · Feb 11, 2006

I am still trying to find the part where you addresst the details raised by Gill, or Clarke or Henry.

Let me guess "more inconvenient facts to ignore"?

When it comes to Acts 17 the Bible Commentaris - scholars - seem to "get the idea" that the "Offspring of the Father" is a member of the family - the "child".

But you seem to find this concept extremely challenging.

First let me appologize for not being able to reply quickly, I have been very busy this week (still am).

If all we had at our disposal was Acts 17, one could understand how the wisdom of man would end up believing and teaching that all of mankind are the "children of God". However, God has given us much more scripture to aid us in our understandings of just who truly are the "children of God" and who are the "children of the devil".

" Precept must be upon precept " in order to understand and teach correct doctrine. One cannot just pluck out a verse and say "see?", that would cause great confusion as has been demonstarted in your own postings concerning this topic.

Gill, Clarke and Henry all explain just as Paul explains that all of mankind are the offspring(or created) by God and therefore God cannot be like wood or stone or any inaminate object. It is that plain and simple.

Gill clarifies as I do " God, the creator of men ".

Clarke clarifies as I do " HE from whom we have derived that being must be living and intelligent ".

Henry clarifies as I do " He is, in a particular manner, the Creator of men, of all men ". Henry does not call them "children" as you claim. Henry quotes From the OT Isa 1:2 which has absolutely nothing to do with this subject and I have no idea why he thought it did.

Now how about Jesus' word concerning this subject? I will take His word over anyones anytime. Jesus explained it like this...

Jhn 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed ; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Jhn 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father .
Jhn 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father . Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

Do you see how Jesus distinguishes between " seed "(offspring) and " children "? Being "seed" does not make one a "child" as defined in scripture . "Children of God" is a title given only to those who have true faith in the One true God. Secularly you can argue that all offspring are children, but not scripturally .

Further proof...

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God : but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Scripture interpreting scripture we find that Paul does not consider all mankind to be children of God and that is why Paul says " genos " when speaking to the lost crowd in Acts 17. He wants them to understand that they are created in the image of God and that means no gold or silver inanimate objects.

I use these above verses often times when witnessing to the lost. A co-worker of mine was very troubled about some things that were going on in her life and was seeking answers. She began going to a church and after a few months I was able to speak one on one with her and I asked this question, "Are you a child of God?" Her reply was "aren't we all"? She understood that she was "offspring", she was "created", but not that she was a "child of satan" without Jesus. I wrote down the passages above for her to read and two weeks later she received Jesus Christ and became one of those "children of God". Praise Jesus!

As for Matt 18, I will be back, my time is just very short right now, but I know you will hold me to it and I want you to as well. Hopefully by the end of this weekend.

God Bless!

BobRyan · Feb 11, 2006

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am still trying to find the part where you addresst the details raised by Gill, or Clarke or Henry.

Let me guess "more inconvenient facts to ignore"?

When it comes to Acts 17 the Bible Commentaris - scholars - seem to "get the idea" that the "Offspring of the Father" is a member of the family - the "child".

But you seem to find this concept extremely challenging.

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

First let me appologize for not being able to reply quickly, I have been very busy this week (still am).

If all we had at our disposal was Acts 17, one could understand how the wisdom of man would end up believing and teaching that all of mankind are the "children of God". However, God has given us much more scripture to aid us in our understandings of just who truly are the "children of God" and who are the "children of the devil".

One of the first rules of exegesis is "context". You seem to be more than happy to ignore it in the case of Acts 17.

But what is surprising is that you also ignore the fact above - the one you were asked to respond to -- the fact that the Bible commentaries (and any reader who takes even the slightest interest in what Acts 17 "says) clearly see that Paul is speaking to PAGANS when he makes the FAMILY argument that WE ALL are God's chilren (offspring for those who know that the Offspring of the Father are Children).

You get stuck on that point of "context" time after time after time. Though you are "reminded" of this inconvenient detail you find endless opportunity to "gloss over facts IN the text you claim to exegete if they do not please" you. That is not exegesis. Not even remotely.

Second point repeated glossed over in your responses is that both the Bible commentaries quoted here - and I - have repeatedly pointed out that the "Context for the statements in Acts 17" are not the regenerate case of the redeemed and "adopted children".

Paul is using the term entirely in the context of "Family" where BOTH the lost and the saved are ontologically a member of God's Family - and as family members "indicate" that God can not possibly be stone or wood!

You have shown no end of interest in "Quoting John 8 while glossing over the details of Acts 17".

I on the other hand - have no question that John 8 is using the idea of "Children" in the context of the "adopted saints - the redeemed". A point that the Bible commentaries also seems to be comfortable with -- as expected.

This response has been given repeatedly to your continued efforts to circle back to the observations in John 8 "as if" the invonvenient details you so need to gloss over in Acts 17 "dissappear" every time you quote John 8.

They do not. Why do you find this so surprising?

Finally in addition to dodging and glossing over the Acts 17 facts listed above - you also dodged the question at the top of the post. Namely - you failed to show ANY example in scripture where ANY author argues "the offspring of a parent are not actually children". You appear to simply "make it up" by mixing contexts having failed to actually find a verse that "says what you need".

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 11, 2006

You have not read the quotes.

Here they are again -

Acts 17
22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, ""Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
23 ""For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
24 "" The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, "For we also are His children.'
29 ""Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
30 ""Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,

You pretend that we don't actuall "see" chilren in the text above and if we did it would be "offspring instead of children" and then you argue that "offspring of the parent ARE Not the parents chilrdren". Like THAT is found in some text of scripture!!

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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!
As Adam Clarke notes “The Parent must resemble his offspring”. Obviously the offspring of the parent – is the child.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Adam Clarke Commentary
Acts 17:29
Verse 29. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, This inference of the apostle was very strong and conclusive; and his argument runs thus: "If we are the offspring of God, he cannot be like those images of gold, silver, and stone, which are formed by the art and device of man; for the parent must resemble his offspring.

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=017

Notes the word "parent" as connected to "offsrping" - and the fact that this parent is identified as "Father" is confirmed in the text.

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.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible
Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God…
In the sense before given; for the apostle is not here speaking of himself, and other saints, as being the children of God, by adoption, and by regenerating grace, and faith in Christ Jesus, but as men in common with others, and with these Athenians:
we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver,
or stone, graven by art and man's device;
for men themselves, who are the offspring of God, and made after his image, are not to be compared to graven images of gold, silver, and stone, but are vastly preferable to them, they being formed by their art, and the device of their minds; and much less then should God, the Creator of men, and from whom they spring, be likened to, or represented by, any such thing; for so to think of God, is to think very unworthily of him; for if to think thus of ourselves, who are descended from him, would be a debasing of us, then much more to think so of God, the Father of spirits, must be a depreciating of him; and which by no means ought to be done, and argues great stupidity: if living rational creatures are not to be equaled to, and compared with, senseless statues, much less God, the former of men and angels.
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=017&verse=029

Gill tells us that this is explicitly speaking of "Childen of God" and points to the parent releationship of the "Father".

All just "more inconvenient facts to gloss over" if you are running from something.

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.

Matthew Henry

Acts 17:29
3. He is, in a particular manner, the Creator of men, of all men (Acts 17:26): He made of one blood all nations of men. He made the first man, he makes every man, is the former of every man's body and the Father of every man's spirit. He has made the nations of men, not only all men in the nations, but as nations in their political capacity; he is their founder, and disposed them into communities for their mutual preservation and benefit. He made them all of one blood, of one and the same nature; he fashions their heart alike. Descended from one and the same common ancestor, in Adam they are all akin, so they are in Noah, that hereby they might be engaged in mutual affection and assistance, as fellow-creatures and brethren. Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? Malachi 2:10. He hath made them to dwell on all the face of the earth, which, as a bountiful benefactor, he has given, with all its fulness, to the children of men. He made them not to live in one place, but to be dispersed over all the earth; one nation therefore ought not to look with contempt upon another, as the Greeks did upon all other nations; for those on all the face of the earth are of the same blood. The Athenians boasted that they sprung out of their own earth, were aborigines, and nothing akin by blood to any other nation, which proud conceit of themselves the apostle here takes down.

Click to expand...

The explicit references to "Family" to "Father" to "offspring" to God being the "Father of every man's spirit".

Just more "details to be glossed over" if you need to turn a blind eye to the commentaries.

But the quote goes on to show the parent betting the 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. The confession of an adversary in such a case is always looked upon to be of use as argumentum ad hominem--an argument to the man, and therefore the apostle here quotes a saying of one of the Greek poets, Aratus, a native of Cilicia, Paul's countryman, who, in his Phenomena, in the beginning of his book, speaking of the heathen Jupiter, that is, in the poetical dialect, the supreme God, says this of him, tou gar kai genos esmen--for we are also his offspring. And he might have quoted other poets to the purpose of what he was speaking, that in God we live and move:--

Click to expand...

No question in the above that the parent is said to begget the children!

And then comes the "Family argument" as in all cases -- since it is the one IN the text of Acts 17 against idolatry!

…
III. From all these great truths concerning God, he infers the absurdity of their idolatry, as the prophets of old had done. If this be so, 1. Then God cannot be represented by an image. If we are the offspring of God, as we are spirits in flesh, then certainly he who is the Father of our spirits (and they are the principal part of us, and that part of us by which we are denominated God's offspring) is himself a Spirit, and we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device, Acts 17:29. We wrong God, and put an affront upon him, if we think so.

http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=017

Click to expand...



Click to expand...

[/QB][/QUOTE]The words in bold type are simply being glossed over in your response. Not once do you quote them and respond to the arguments they make.

Yet you do not give up on "ignoring them" as if they "vanish" each time you do it.

What is up with that?

IN Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 11, 2006

Matt 18 question being set aside in favor of more time to ignore what Acts 17 stays about all mankind being the "children of God".

Lets get to Matt 18 and respond to a few of the basic points raised already.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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 [/QB]

BobRyan · Feb 11, 2006

Matt 18 summation being set aside in favor of more time to ignore what Acts 17 stays about all mankind being the "children of God".

Lets get to Matt 18 and respond to a few of the basic points raised already.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
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 [/QB]

steaver · Feb 12, 2006

Bob...

One of the first rules of exegesis is "context". You seem to be more than happy to ignore it in the case of Acts 17.

Steaver....

Gill, Clarke and Henry all explain just as Paul explains that all of mankind are the offspring(or created) by God and therefore God cannot be like wood or stone or any inaminate object. It is that plain and simple.

Gill clarifies as I do " God, the creator of men ".

Clarke clarifies as I do " HE from whom we have derived that being must be living and intelligent ".

Henry clarifies as I do " He is, in a particular manner, the Creator of men, of all men ". Henry does not call them "children" as you claim. Henry quotes From the OT Isa 1:2 which has absolutely nothing to do with this subject and I have no idea why he thought it did.

As one can see, the context is about creation.

Bob...

But what is surprising is that you also ignore the fact above - the one you were asked to respond to -- the fact that the Bible commentaries (and any reader who takes even the slightest interest in what Acts 17 "says) clearly see that Paul is speaking to PAGANS when he makes the FAMILY argument that WE ALL are God's chilren (offspring for those who know that the Offspring of the Father are Children).

The only thing you got right is that Paul is clearly speaking to PAGANS. He does not make a "FAMILY" argument but rather makes a CREATION argument...."And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth"..."For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"...." Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

"Offspring", kept in context, is speaking solely about creation.

Bob...

You get stuck on that point of "context" time after time after time. Though you are "reminded" of this inconvenient detail you find endless opportunity to "gloss over facts IN the text you claim to exegete if they do not please" you. That is not exegesis. Not even remotely.

Right back at you brother!

Bob...

Second point repeated glossed over in your responses is that both the Bible commentaries quoted here - and I - have repeatedly pointed out that the "Context for the statements in Acts 17" are not the regenerate case of the redeemed and "adopted children".

I have pointed the same out as well repeatedly, yet you ignore them.

Bob...

Paul is using the term entirely in the context of "Family" where BOTH the lost and the saved are ontologically a member of God's Family - and as family members "indicate" that God can not possibly be stone or wood!

Wrong and right. Context is "Creation" and BOTH the lost and the saved are ontologically a part of God's Creation - and as created members "indicate" that God can not possibly be stone or wood!

Bob...

Finally in addition to dodging and glossing over the Acts 17 facts listed above - you also dodged the question at the top of the post. Namely - you failed to show ANY example in scripture where ANY author argues "the offspring of a parent are not actually children". You appear to simply "make it up" by mixing contexts having failed to actually find a verse that "says what you need".

How about this one..."Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God : but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus".

See, "children of the flesh" are "creation". "Children of God" are those by faith in Christ Jesus. Very simple brother!

Bob...

The words in bold type are simply being glossed over in your response. Not once do you quote them and respond to the arguments they make.

Steaver...

Gill clarifies as I do " God, the creator of men ".

Clarke clarifies as I do " HE from whom we have derived that being must be living and intelligent ".

Henry clarifies as I do " He is, in a particular manner, the Creator of men, of all men ". Henry does not call them "children" as you claim. Henry quotes From the OT Isa 1:2 which has absolutely nothing to do with this subject and I have no idea why he thought it did.

Now I will work on Matt 18. I hope enough has been said about Acts 17. If you still don't get it I don't know what else I can say about it.

God Bless!

steaver · Feb 12, 2006

Originally posted by BobRyan:

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

The world has been forgiven at the cross (1 Jo 2:2, Jo 1:29) This is part of the message of the kingdom of heaven. The servant represents those brought to the knowledge of Jesus' forgiveness yet refuses to understand/believe and be converted as when Jesus explains the kingdom of heaven through the parable of the four soils. The servant has been forgiven, yet the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (Matt 12:31). And these shall not be saved.

Jesus told Peter to forgive infinitely. Would Jesus then give example to Peter by only forgiving the servant one time? Should not Jesus have forgiven the servant over and over?

Those who do not forgive as they have been forgiven show that they have rejected the Holy Ghost and therefore have blasphemed Him. They have not the Spirit, never saved.

It would be the same as me saying to another "I forgive you" but the person going away not caring and not believing that I really did. It matters not that the servant did not care or did not believe, Jesus' forgiveness was genuine even though the servant did not believe it or embrace it. However, unbelief will not be forgiven and the servant ends up in hell bearing the full weight of his actions.

It is not that I reject all that you say. I simply understand the parable in light of the full counsel of God.

God Bless!

BobRyan · Feb 13, 2006

Originally posted by BobRyan:

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

Originally posted by steaver:

The world has been forgiven at the cross (1 Jo 2:2, Jo 1:29) This is part of the message of the kingdom of heaven.

1John 2:2 does not say "the WORLD was FORGIVEN at the Cross".

John 1:29 does not say "The World was FORGIVEN at the Cross".

But wouldn't it be neat if those texts DID say that??!!

Back to our story. - are you saying that God's argument for PETER showing forgiveness is "Peter YOU should show forgiveness because the WORLD was forgiven at the cross in a kind of way that leaves EVERYONE STILL OWING their DEBT and STILL LOST"???

Or are you claiming that "WORLD forgiven at the cross" means - "everyone is saved" - "everyone is really forgiven of all sins and so the WORLD is now in right standing with God instead of in rebellion".

The servant represents those brought to the knowledge of Jesus' forgiveness yet refuses to understand/believe and be converted

I see - so in "full rebellion REFUSING the Gospel" God claims "YOUR DEBT is forgiven go your way" and then when these people IN FULL rebellion yet FULLY forgiven refuse to forgive others THEN God says "Hey I actually forgave you all your sins. You should have rejoiced in that mercy and salvation already RECEIVED on your part instead of being unforgiving".

So basically you are either saying that "their is forgivness APART from salvation and the Gospel" OR you are saying "Gospel forgiveness does not actually save".

Which is it?

as when Jesus explains the kingdom of heaven through the parable of the four soils. The servant has been forgiven, yet the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (Matt 12:31). And these shall not be saved.

In the case of the four kinds of soil - all but one have the "dead spring to LIFE" and all but one end up "dead" at the end.

Jesus told Peter to forgive without measure AS HE had been forgiven without measure. Jesus then told Peter a story of someone who is forgiven JUST AS PETER had been - but then stops forgiving others JUST AS Peter was asking (seeking a limit on his forgiveness toward others).

The illustration is obvious and perfectly applicable to Peter's request. Perfectly designed to motivate someone in Peter's position asking Peter's question!

"SO shall My father DO TO YOU IF YOU do not ..."

Details that can hardly be glossed over - all the efforts listed here not withstanding.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 13, 2006

He does not make a "FAMILY" argument

Again - we notice all the "Family" terms In the text "Children of God" comes to mind.

AND we notice that SAME term used by the Bible commentaries!! (And glossed over each time you reference them -- not to be surprised by that).

Notice "again" the words in bold type???!!

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3579/14.html#000203

The "Family terms" that you claim -- "do not exist".

Notice the summary of those BOLD typed terms already posted here??

BobRyan · Feb 13, 2006

NASB tells us that Paul uses the terms --Children of God for the "family argument"

as even some of your own poets have said, "For we also are His children.'
29 ""Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

Adam Clarke uses terms like

Adam Clarke Commentary
..."If we are the offspring of God,
]for the parent must resemble [bhis offspring[/b].

John Gill admits to the same argument

New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible
Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God…
..
men themselves, who are the offspring of God, and made after his image,

God, the Father of spirits,

http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=017&verse=029

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

in Adam they are all akin, so they are in Noah,

Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? Malachi 2:10.
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.
we are also his offspring.

If we are the offspring of God, as we are spirits in flesh, then certainly he who is the Father of our spirits

God's offspring) .

http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=017

Time after time you gloss over each of these family terms as ALL the commentaries listed here are using them!!

Why do you find glossing over the difficult sections to be a compelling form of response??

In Christ,

Bob

steaver · Feb 13, 2006

Bob...

Back to our story. - are you saying that God's argument for PETER showing forgiveness is "Peter YOU should show forgiveness because the WORLD was forgiven at the cross in a kind of way that leaves EVERYONE STILL OWING their DEBT and STILL LOST"???

Or are you claiming that "WORLD forgiven at the cross" means - "everyone is saved" - "everyone is really forgiven of all sins and so the WORLD is now in right standing with God instead of in rebellion".

Niether

All sins are forgiven/paid in full except unbelief.

Bob...

I see - so in "full rebellion REFUSING the Gospel" God claims "YOUR DEBT is forgiven go your way" and then when these people IN FULL rebellion yet FULLY forgiven refuse to forgive others THEN God says "Hey I actually forgave you all your sins. You should have rejoiced in that mercy and salvation already RECEIVED on your part instead of being unforgiving".

So basically you are either saying that "their is forgivness APART from salvation and the Gospel" OR you are saying "Gospel forgiveness does not actually save".

Which is it?

Niether

Jesus paying the FULL sin price at the cross does not automatically save because He said that all sins will be forgiven except for unbelief. Belief is what is required from the world. If you do not believe that Jesus has forgiven you your sins, then the forgiveness will be of no affect upon you. Jesus does not force anyone to believe.

Bob...

Jesus told Peter to forgive without measure AS HE had been forgiven without measure. Jesus then told Peter a story of someone who is forgiven JUST AS PETER had been - but then stops forgiving others JUST AS Peter was asking (seeking a limit on his forgiveness toward others).

The illustration is obvious and perfectly applicable to Peter's request. Perfectly designed to motivate someone in Peter's position asking Peter's question!

I don't believe the story says that the servant "stops forgiving others". It shows that he never forgave anyone. The parable indicates the unregenerated heart of the lost who has had their sin debt forgiven yet refuses to believe it and bears no fruit of the Spirit. Therefore, the servant is unchanged and the sin of unbelief(the one sin not forgiven) will ultimately lead him to hell where the servant will endure the full weight of his actions.

"SO shall My father DO TO YOU IF YOU do not ..."

Details that can hardly be glossed over - all the efforts listed here not withstanding.

Exactly! Remember, Peter and all disciples (including Judas) are still learning and pondering the things Jesus is teaching. Nobody has yet been born-again.

God Bless!

BobRyan · Feb 13, 2006

Is it your argument that we should NOT tell the lost that they are guilty of sin and that their debt must be paid by THEM if they do not accept Christ as their Savior?

Should we hide from them the command to "Confess our sins" since He is "Faithful and just TO FORGIVE us our sins"??

Should we tell them "you HAVE NO sin - you already stand forgiven and saved - there is nothing for you to choose, or to do - just go back to sleep.

steaver · Feb 13, 2006

Bob...

Is it your argument that we should NOT tell the lost that they are guilty of sin and that their debt must be paid by THEM if they do not accept Christ as their Savior?

Yes we must tell them All are guilty of sin (Ro 3:23). Yes we must tell them the "good news" (Mark 16:15). The good news is Jesus Christ has paid the sin debt for the entire world at the cross and if they will believe this and call on Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior they will be saved, but if they will not believe they will be condemned.

Bob...

Should we hide from them the command to "Confess our sins" since He is "Faithful and just TO FORGIVE us our sins"??

Not at all, we should tell them that as Christians they will still have a nature to sin, but we need to consistantly confess our sins before God and He will consistantly forgive because of the blood of Jesus which has paid the price for those sins. Confessing is also healing for the soul. It releases us from the bondage of guilt.

Bob...

Should we tell them "you HAVE NO sin - you already stand forgiven and saved - there is nothing for you to choose, or to do - just go back to sleep.

Not at all. All have sinned (Ro 3:23). All stand forgiven of sin except for unbelief. To be saved you must choose to believe...

" He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God ". (Jo 3:18)

God Bless!

steaver · Feb 14, 2006

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.(Luke 23:34)

Did Jesus mean Father save them; for they know not what they do? Are THEY in this word from Jesus FULLY FORGIVEN AND SAVED as you keep repeating? Or just forgiven their sins with the exception of unbelief?

God Bless!

BobRyan · Feb 14, 2006

Bob...

Is it your argument that we should NOT tell the lost that they are guilty of sin and that their debt must be paid by THEM if they do not accept Christ as their Savior?

Originally posted by steaver:

Yes we must tell them All are guilty of sin (Ro 3:23).

This is a good point for agreement - hopefully this will get us on track for the point in Matt 18.

In Matt 18 the servant does NOT start out "forgiven". He goes to the King with a great debt -- not a forgiven one.

In Romans 3 we see the same thing (as we also do in Gal 3).

Rom 3

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "" THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

All are under the debt of sin. No one comes to God standing free and clear of the debt of sin. Not in Matt 18 pre-cross and not in Romans 3 post-cross.

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Paul declares that all are under the law - all are lost. The Law still speaks to "all" post-cross declaring taht "all" are in debt! All owe. So ALL need to come to Christ and receive forgiveness, the new birth, reconciliation with God!

Paul does not say "THe Law is not speaking to anyone about their debt of sin any more telling them that as sinners they owe a great debt of sin. Nobody has a debt of sin.

Rom 3
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Paul's emphasis post cross is "ALL of sinned" all owe the debt (Romans 6 the wages of sin is death).

The entire argument for the "free gift of God" is that ALL are in debt and ALL need that free gift!

Gal 3 holds "all under sin" until we actually enter into "Faith" that is the New Covenant Gospel Faith in Christ.

Gal 3
21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Until we are justified - until we enter into faith (Gospel faith, living faith, saving faith) we are "all under sin" we are "all under the condemnation of the Law" declared to be sinners - declared to "owe" the great debt that the LAW demands for sin. Eternal death in the Lake of Fire - which is in fact fiery hell of Matt 10 where both body and soul are "destroyed" according to Christ in Matt 10.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 14, 2006

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.(Luke 23:34)

Originally posted by steaver:

Did Jesus mean Father save them; for they know not what they do? Are THEY in this word from Jesus FULLY FORGIVEN AND SAVED as you keep repeating? Or just forgiven their sins with the exception of unbelief?

Steven and Christ both prayed for the forgiveness of their persecutors.

God said in 1John 1:9 and in Acts 2 and in Luke 24:47 --

"IF we confess our sins He IS faithful and just to forgive us our sins"

The idea that "we are forgiven even while lost so no need to confess no need to repent to be forgiven because you are already forgiven before God living without the sin debt as a lost person" is not found in all of scripture.

The death of Christ PROVIDES for that promise of forgiveness but the conditions listed in 1John 1:9 are real - there is no "sticking God in a box:" and getting out of the Confess condition or the "Repent" condition as listed above.

When the lost sinner comes to Christ - he comes "owing a great debt of sin" just as the Matt 18 parable shows.

You have supposed that the Matt 18 parable shows the servant coming to the King "already forgiven but in a pointless kind of way that leaves him unsaved". Never is that point made in the parable. You have "inserted it".

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 14, 2006

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob...

Should we hide from them the command to "Confess our sins" since He is "Faithful and just TO FORGIVE us our sins"??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steaver said
Not at all, we should tell them that as Christians they will still have a nature to sin, but we need to consistantly confess our sins before God

Is it your argument that ONLY the SAVED Christian owes the debt of sin and only they need to CONFESS to then be "forgiven" in the SEQUENCE God shows in 1John 1:9?

What about Acts 2 are they ALL SAVED as lost sinners not standing in debt owing a great debt of sin??

Acts 2
36 ""Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom you crucified.''
37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "" Brethren, what shall we do?''
38 Peter said to them, "" Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 ""For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.''
40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "" Be saved from this perverse generation!''
41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

They are convicted of their guilt - they are told to "repent" in order to receive forgiveness JUST as we see in 1John 1:9.

There is no way to "spin these texts" away from the obvious sequences they provide.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Feb 14, 2006

Steaver said -
Not at all. All have sinned (Ro 3:23). All stand forgiven of sin except for unbelief. To be saved you must choose to believe...

" He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God ". (Jo 3:18)

The Bible says "IF we Confess HE is faithful and just TO forgive".

You seem to claim that "WE only need to confess the sin of unbelief". But this is never the case in scripture. As you noted earlier 1John1:9 ALSO applies to the saved saints who DO BELIEVE but they SIN!

Not only that - but Romans 3 does not go on to limit its list "UNBLIEF" as the great SIN of mankind. Rather it lists all other forms of sin in addition.

James 2 does the same thing when it talks about what constitutes sin saying "he who is guilty of one is guilty of all" it does not say "there is only one sin of which mankind may now be guilty"!!

The bible says that turning to Christ in faith is the gateway to that forgiveness. Those who refuse to believe are refusing the promise of forgiveness. But never does the Bible say "the only sin of mankind is unbelief"!!

In all cases in the NT - the lost are "lost in in a great of debt sin" and the list of for them as seen in 1Cor 6 "Those who do such things do not inherit the kingdom of God" and in Romans 3 - is never "limited to just unbelief"!!

In Rev 20 the wicked are raised in the 2nd resurrection and judged out of the book of deeds which they have done. There is no indication that the only thing registered against the wicked is just "unbelief".

In Christ,

Bob

steaver · Feb 14, 2006

Wasn't the world's sin debt (both before Messiah and after) paid in full at the cross?

God Bless!

Matt 18 and Forgiveness Revoked

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member