Matt 18 and Forgiveness Revoked

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the translators and the commentaries show that the intent in the term "offspring" is to reference God as "Father" and the children of the father as "Children".

The point made explicitly in Acts 17 is that the Father MUST be like the children so a wooden image will not work once we all admit that WE ARE the children of God. Hence my "highlight" of the terms "Father" and "parent" and "children" in the commentaries I quote.

See?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually your argument failed in two key areas.

#1. Exegesis DOES NOT consist in IGNORING the text that displeases you and making "another point" instead of dealing with the text.

You never actually SHOW in Acts 17 where "Children" and "Offspring of the Father" are NOT the same thing. You merely "hope" that some other idea could be "inserted in the text".

That is not even REMOTELY exegesis.

By contrast I show not only that Bible translations ALL point to the text as a reference to the Father's Children in the form of "Child" or in the form of "Offspring" -- but I ALSO show that well know Bible commentators admit to the same blatant fact in Acts 17.

Impossible to ignore.

#2. You completely ignored the repeated stated fact that the use of CHILDREN in Acts 17 is NOT in the context of "the redeemed" but rather in the primary creation fact of mankind being the children of God as created BY GOD. In fact the ARGUMENT that Paul makes INSISTS that due to our FAMILY connection to the Father WE CAN NOT view him as "stone" or wood. The commentaries quoted gave that point in triplicate!

Your argument could not have hit a more devasting set of brick walls sir.

Now we see in your latest post that "again" you are appealing to the "redeemed" context for children AS IF your case is made if you can only show that "ALL MANKIND" referenced in Acts 17 are not in fact "ALL REDEEMED".

But in taking that rabbit trail you derail your own argument - since nobody is arguing that the ALL mankind of Acts 17 (the children of God) are in fact ALL redeemed NEITHER did I argue that the lost Servant of Matt 17 (the lost child of God) was redeemed.

In fact you yourself admitted that the servant is lost AND that the KING of Matt 18 REALLY forgives the servant.

(Which gets us off of your rabbit trail and back onto the topic at hand)

Having admitted to those two key point in Matt 18 - your entire argument against Matt 18 has also collapsed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Already asked - still waiting.

 

Oh well.

Just as the well known Bible Commentaries that admitted in Acts 17 because as it turns out the "Children of the Father" and the "Offspring of the Father" are one and the same (even by their own confession).

I am just stating the obvious. And they "obviously" state that this child relationship is not the same context as the "reedemed" child instances. Paul is using a more general concept in Acts 17 that includes ALL mankind - both the saved and the lost.

This came up because you initial asked about the servant in Matt 18 that was lost.

The Bible commentaries quoted make these same points - and you just ignore them without actually having any exegesis for Acts 17 that meets "What you need".

I suppose there are some people here (like you) that would trash the NASB.

I don't.

But even worse for you view - ALL OTHER TRANSLATIONS ALSO refer to mankind as the OFFSPRING of God -- the OFFSPRING of the FATHER! THEY ALL declare Paul's FATHER CHILD argument AGAINST idols of wood and stone!!

Had you read the Bible commentary quotes give - you would have seen that.

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

But more to the point of this thread - your own statements on Matt 18 have pretty much sunk your own argument there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

If you read the words in the post above you will see the 3 areas you confessed to in Matt 18.

Nothing in your response here even addresses the problem that you have created for your view.

#1. You admit the servant of MAtt 18 is lost.
#2. You admit that the King REALLY forgave the servant.

Where does that leave your rejection of Matt 18 then?

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

The point ALL the commentaries admit to in Acts 17 is that Paul's argument is

Your response has been to twist Acts 17, Deny its contents and refuse to exegete your way out of it - by actually LOOKING at Acts 17 and showing all the Bible commentaries to be in error.

But to your credit you do admit that all this denial on your part of what the Bible says in Acts 17 and what the Bible commentaries say about it - does not help your case at all in Matt 18.

You have only compounded your own problems by going down that rabbit trail.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This has been responded to repeatedly and is ALSO included in the text of the Bible commentaries.

The "Children of God" status claimed explicitly by Paul in Acts 17 for ALL MANKIND includes BOTH the saved and the lost and is NOT in the same context as the reference in Romans 9 which is just about the saved.

By contrast Paul's argument TO the pagan audience of Acts 17 is SPECIFICALLY addressing the scope of GOD as creator of ALL mankind and even more than that as the FATHER of all with mankind as His CHILDREN - His OFFSPRING. This is in fact the BASIS for his argument against idol worship. (Read the text of scripture in Acts 17. Read the commentary quotes given. They ALL agree!)

This obvious point has been stated repeatedly.

You do not advance your own argument by asking that the same question be answered via the same ignored answer.

 

Ssdly that post repeat "continues to totally ignore the text of Acts 17" and then "Call that exegeting Acts 17".

By contrast - "actual exegesis" has to LOOK AT the text it claims to exegete!

As do the Bible commentaries quoted here.

 

Here we actually "look at Acts 17" to show what is IN Acts 17!!

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having admitted to those two key point in Matt 18 - your entire argument against Matt 18 has also collapsed.

In Christ,

Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a horroble wrenching of both logic AND scripture.

You CLAIMED to accept the fact that the KING really DID forgive the servant. THEN you SUMMARIZE the Matt 18 point by saying "This does not show that the servant had his forgiveness REMOVED rather it shows that God never FORGAVE in the first place since the servant is "unqualified" '

Not only does your summary contradict your OWN assertion that the text DOES teach full forgiveness given by the KING but then you pretend that the story NEVER shows FORGIEVENESS given but then revoked - rather it shows the fact that God will NEVER forgive to begin with.

The wrenching that this does to the text is beyond imagination because the entire argument of the King becomes a Lie - the King says "I FORGAVE YOU SO YOU should have forgiven AS I showed you mercy". In fact with your wrench and twist of this - the servant DID SHOW other EXACTLY What HE HAD been shown for you wish to claim that he was shown NO MERCY!!

So leaving your imaginary story and getting to the actual text of Matt 18 -- The summary of Christ is "SO SHALL my Father do" where the "SO SHALL" is in rerenced TO THE STORY.

Sinc you can not change the content of the parable -- that "SO SHALL" is sticking you with the ACTUAL details IN the text of Matt 18. You can not INSERT YOUR OWN story and then add a the "SO SHALL" As refering to an imaginary text not ever written in scripture itself - as you have done above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why do I have to "make a defense for exegesis". I show multiple Bible commentators exegeting Acts 17 - I ALSO point to the "details" of the argument Paul is making against idol worship as he debates IN Athens with pagans.

You don't even allow yourself to LOOK at the text you claim to rewrite here. (Eisegesis)

Why would "I" be trying to 'make a defense" for "actually" doing exegesis?

 

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.