Matt 18 and Forgiveness Revoked

Via the "atonement model" we have the "Atoning Sacrifice" at the cross for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the "Whole world".

But some see this more along the lines of the grocery store model where the transaction at the cross was done without the Lev 16 concepts of atonement. That model has no place for the texts just mentioned about sins being applied to the lost in real life today!

 

The answer was already given in this list of texts that you are bypassing

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3579/15.html#000215

And as already pointed out (as well)

They are convicted of their guilt - they are told to "repent" in order to receive forgiveness JUST as we see in 1John 1:9.
</font>[/QUOTE]God always makes a "distinction" between the saved, the forgiven and the unsaved as the unforgiven who are "condemned under the Law that shows that ALL have sinned" as the list points out.

God never says "Do not confess your sins - I forgive you anyway". Not to the saved and not to the lost. So in that respect "there is no distinction".

God never says to the lost "Do not repent you have no sins they are all taken away so don't think about them".

God never says to the saved who sin "Do not repent - your sins are already taken away and since you already believe just don't think about it except to keep saying thanks".

There is no way to "box God in" as if this is what He "should have said" and as if the texts in that list above "no longer exist".

That means that the "unforgiven" problem Christ points out in Matt 18 with the servant that COMES TO THE KING having a great debt (of sin) is "REAL".

That means that when he IS FORGIVEN the solution is "REAL salvation" REAL Gospel forgiveness.

That means when the debt is RETURNED (forgiveness REVOKED) the problem is REAL and is NOT the problem that the servant had WHILE forgiven!

Just stating the obvious for now.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As we review it we see that "your model" does NOT allow for the unforgiven, lost "debt-owing servant" in Matt 18 to exist. He can not come to the king saying that he HAS a great debt nor can the king accuse him of such nor ask him to pay it. (in your model).

Once forgiven you model insists "NO change from the first condition when he came to the King unforgiven".

So your model does not allow for that forgiveness being any CHANGE at all - story not withstanding.

Then when the king passes judgement and RETURNS the debt - your "everybody is forgiven whether lost or saved" does NOT allow for the RETURN of anything. It says "again" --- "NO CHANGE".

Your model seems to contradict every aspect of Christ's Word in Matt 18.

Does that not bother you at all??

In Christ,

Bob

 

The answer was already given in this list of texts that you are bypassing

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3579/15.html#000215

And as already pointed out (as well)

They are convicted of their guilt - they are told to "repent" in order to receive forgiveness JUST as we see in 1John 1:9.
</font>[/QUOTE]God always makes a "distinction" between the saved, the forgiven and the unsaved as the unforgiven who are "condemned under the Law that shows that ALL have sinned" as the list points out.

God never says "Do not confess your sins - I forgive you anyway". Not to the saved and not to the lost. So in that respect "there is no distinction".

God never says to the lost "Do not repent you have no sins they are all taken away so don't think about them".

God never says to the saved who sin "Do not repent - your sins are already taken away and since you already believe just don't think about it except to keep saying thanks".

There is no way to "box God in" as if this is what He "should have said" and as if the texts in that list above "no longer exist".

That means that the "unforgiven" problem Christ points out in Matt 18 with the servant that COMES TO THE KING having a great debt (of sin) is "REAL".

That means that when he IS FORGIVEN the solution is "REAL salvation" REAL Gospel forgiveness.

That means when the debt is RETURNED (forgiveness REVOKED) the problem is REAL and is NOT the problem that the servant had WHILE forgiven!

Just stating the obvious for now.
[/QUOTE]

 

#1 The parable makes a great point of saying the servant WAS NOT foriven and NEEDED it. In fact it goes into detail about the judgement and the servant OWING.

You have no place at all in your traditions for the EXPLICIT detail in the text.

#2. The context for the parable is Peter asking about those who DO ask for forgiveness and how often they should be forgiven. In the example the servant IS fully submitted to the king not only is he not seeking GREATER debt he is seeking to pay the debt he owes This is the mindet of the one who turns from rebellion. Repentance "enacted".

I find it interesting that you need to ignore the detail that IS highlighted in the text and focus on the one that is not mentioned.

AS IF Christ meant to talk to Peter about NO repentance needed by the one the king judged as OWING a great debt and still unforgiven.

 

Sorry to debunk your position so quickly -

But "in the details" of Christ's example the FELLOW slave DOES plead for forgiveness! It is in that context that Christ argues Peter should forgive AS he was forgiven. You have been arguing agains this concept of repentance and seeking forgiveness consistently yet we SEE it in the example Christ gives AND we see it in Acts 2 AND in 1John 1:9. Texts obviously dealing with BOTH the unsaved AND the saved.

In the "details of Christ's example" the slave STARTS OUT unforgiven. You do not allow for that - and simply reject it.

Om the "details of Christ's example" when the slave TURNS to the king and seeks to make restitution (repentance, confession and seeking reconciliation) the King PROVIDES grace, mercy and gospel forgiveness as in "The Gospel of the Kingdom".

The King says the slave is NOW forgiven as a result of that encounter with the king. HE never says "I already forgave you long ago - you have not owed a thing for all these years - you just THOUGHT you owed!".

Your views are rejected in this parable at each point of detail in the parable.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You keep going down this blind alley and I don't see how it helps your view at all.

First you state that ALL are forgiven - which is not the start of this parable by any imagination possible.

Then you argue that in full rebellion and apart from any repentance the servant is forgiven. THOUGH the servant seeks to make restitution EXPLICITLY you "ignore it".

THOUGH the servant is being placed in the role of Peter as a warning to Peter not to make the wrong choice AFTER having been forgiven you "ignore it".

Though the Bible says in BOTH Acts 2 and 1John 1:9 "IF we CONFESS He .. forgives" and "REPENT.. for the forgiveness of sin" you "ignore it".

You seek model that has "man fully forgiven in full rebellion and apart from repentance" but the story does not show it - nor does the Bible teach it anywhere.

How is this helping you?

The story does NOT start out by saying to the servant "YOU OWE NOTHING you just THINK you do". So you simply "imagine it".

The Bible shows that under the Gospel of the Kingdom - GOD is "Convicting the WORLD of SIN and RIGHTEOUSNESS and JUDGMENT" but you "ignore it".

The story DOES NOT say "Let us wait and see if you forgive others - if you do then I will REALLY forgive you" so you "imagine it".

The story DOES NOT point to any forgiveness apart from the particular act of the King on an individual basis - but you need it so you "imagine it".

The story reprensents the Gospel -

PETER is IN the story as the servant.

GOD is in the story as the KING.

GOD is showing Peter that as the true forgiven servant who HAS been convicted of REAL sin and HAS been brought to realize his own NEED and HAS been submitted to God seeking reconciliation - that it is HE who has been shown mercy and should show others mercy as well.

I can't imagine how you are getting every detail in the story out of context!

 

Christ said "The Kingdom of heaven may be compared to...".

Christ is speaking before the Cross, Anna, Eli, Samuel, Enoch, Elijah, Moses, David, Josiah, Jacob etc -- none of them "Baptized".

1. Christ is right to use the story as an illustration of Gospel forgiveness within the "Gospel of the Kingdom" the ONE Gospel for all time!

2. Christ is RIGHT to show that the servant is NOT forgiven when he comes before the king and is condemned by law. The SAME law already shown here to condemn "ALL" under sin even AFTER the Cross according to Romans 3 and Galatians 3.

3. Christ is RIGHT to point out that in that INDIVIDUAL transaction with the King MERCY IS shown and the Servant IS forgiven.

4. Christ is RIGHT to point out that JUST AS the servant was REALLY forgiven - SO that servant is expected to show mercy. (Thus Making the argument FOR the REALLY forgiven PETER to REALLY forgive others as it turns out).

5. Christ is RIGHT to point out that when that servant fails to show the mercy to other that HE REALLY received the KING expresses anger and says "I forgave you AS YOU should forgive others".

6. Christ is RIGHT to say to Peter and all those with him in answer to Peter's question "SO shall My Father do to EACH on of you IF YOU do not ..."

You seem to struggle with each of these "details" in the text so far.

Surely you notice that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Peter says "According to that Baptism saves NOT the magical touching of water to the flesh but the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience".

I believe in baptism of BELIEVERS. Romans 10 points to the fact that one FIRST believes and then they are saved -- no mention of "must be baptized to GET saved or BECOME born again or become a believer".

I do not believe in "baptismal regeneration" or magic sacramental powers with the ability to "Mark the soul"

But this point digresses from the six key points listed above - explicitly stated in the text. Six points that you seem to have no room for in your views of Matt 18.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am trying to point out that you do not "get Baptized to BECOME a believer" you become a believer AND THEN get baptized.

 

If you must first be an "unbelieving believer" to then "believe" then you have a contradiction of terms!

There is no such thing as an "unbelieving believer".

That is why we see that sequence of "belief" and then "savlation" in Romans 10.

It is the drawing of God that ENABLES the unbeliever to choose to believe and BECOME a believer.

In the Matt 18 story we see the servant - unforgiven but under conviction by the King and seeking restitution after THAT comes the full forgiveness and pardon by the King.

In Christ,

Bob