Matt 18 and Forgiveness Revoked

[steaver]

1. What are the terms of this New Covanant? Is it one sided (meaning not dependent on our commitment, but totally on God's commitment to us)?

Once the covenant is made by the sinner calling on the name of the Lord, faith is sealed within the new convert via the Holy Spirit, knowlege of the truth has been given and belief can never cease.

example, Do you know with absolute certainty that Jesus is the Son of God? Why? Is it not because the Holy Spirit within you forever testifies that it is so? The just shall live by faith.

Your salvation is entirely sustained by Jesus Christ ALONE! You couldn't do anything to earn it and you can not do anything to keep it or lose it. It would require you to stop believing and that would be an impossibility. One cannot stop believing that which they have absolute, personal, one on one knowledge is a truth.

2. Is not a covenant an agreement btwn two parties? In our case the terms are set by God.

We agree only to recieve God's free gift. At that moment God creates a new creature via the Holy Ghost and a child of God is born. Nothing can change this act of God. The covenant has been made and not even God can undo it because the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. It cannot be changed or undone. You have recieved the Gift, right?

God Bless!

 

[Hope of Glory]

A covenant is "I will do this and you will do that". We fail to keep up our end of the covenant, but thank God he keeps up his end.

A covenant is not dependent upon the faithfulness of the other one.

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tazman:
Does God not tie in our forgiveness of others with his forgiveness of us?

Yes or No?

Absolutely. But nowhere in the Word of God does it suggest that sins forgiven can be or will be revoked by God. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, we agree on one part.

Now the other question is in the parable stated, did not the master take back the fogiveness (or canceled debt) of one servant because of his mistreatment of another? Yes or No?

P.S. If your answer is NO, which I can't see how, then please defined the term "Revoked"

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
A covenant is "I will do this and you will do that". We fail to keep up our end of the covenant, but thank God he keeps up his end.

A covenant is not dependent upon the faithfulness of the other one.

This is actually a reply to all:

1. Do not change a definition based on human weakness. New creations are lead by the Spirit not flesh (Rom 8) and their minds are renewed (Rom 12). There is no failing when living by the Spirit. I think people prematurally impart God's grace on themselves before they even try to obey (or believe)

2. Convenant is made available through Jesus' blood (God's environment of Grace), God's free gift. Though it is freely made available to us, it does not exist as a covenant without our belief (Fiath) in Christ.

3. We must at least agree to have faith in order to enter into the covenant. The question then becomes at what point does Faith cease to include repentance (of mind and life), commitment to following Jesus the rest of your life, Professing his lordship, and holding to his teachings (John 8:31-32, luke 9:53-59)


Faith is more than an intellectual understanding.

A covenant is not dependent upon the faithfulness of the other one.

Show me this in the bible. Next thing you know I will hear that everyone in the Covenant with God just for believing he exist but not following him. Better yet who needs faith? God has enough in himself to include the faithless in his covenant.

 

[steaver]

3. We must at least agree to have faith in order to enter into the covenant.

Right, but you only have faith because God has given it to you when you called on Jesus to save you. Otherwise you have something to boast about. Do you? I don't boast, I am saved by faith through Jesus Christ. Everything I have is because of Jesus Christ...even my saving faith.

The question then becomes at what point does Faith cease to include repentance (of mind and life), commitment to following Jesus the rest of your life, Professing his lordship, and holding to his teachings (John 8:31-32, luke 9:53-59)

The answer is "it never ceases to include these things".

1Th 5:23 "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ".


1Th 5:24 "Faithful [is] he that calleth you, who also will do [it]".

Just to reitterate... " who also will do it " and " Faithful is HE "...not " YE ".

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

1. Do not change a definition based on human weakness. New creations are lead by the Spirit not flesh (Rom 8) and their minds are renewed (Rom 12). There is no failing when living by the Spirit.

You speak the truth here but have missed the point of Romans 8. Those saved "walk after the Spirit"(verse 1). There is no choice offered to the believer here. Either you walk after the Spirit which means you have been saved or you walk after the flesh which means you have yet to be saved. It does not mean that a believer can never follow his flesh but rather it is giving a distinction between those who are saved and those who are lost. Those saved are forever walking after the spirit even when they fail to obey the Spirit's directions. A reading of the NT in whole reveals the fact that a Christian can still choose fleshly things even as they walk after the Spirit. When I choose to sin it doesn't go unnoticed that the Spirit is telling me not to do it because I am always walking after the Spirit which means that the Spirit is always with me directing me even though I fail to always obey. This is "walking after the Spirit" and only those who have been redeemed can do so.

God Bless!

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Tazman:
...did not the master take back the fogiveness (or canceled debt) of one servant because of his mistreatment of another? Yes or No?

Yes, the master in the parable revoked his forgiveness. Again, nowhere in the Word of God does it suggest that God will revoke sins that He has forgiven. On the contrary, there are many passage which declare the exact opposite.

What this parable does teach is, that if we are not willing to forgive others, God will not forgive us. It is that plain and simple. We need not try to dig any deeper than that.

It is also important to note that Jesus said, "my heavenly Father" in verse 35 and not "your heavenly Father," which very well may indicate that this person who has this unforgiving attitude is not even saved.

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tazman:
...did not the master take back the fogiveness (or canceled debt) of one servant because of his mistreatment of another? Yes or No?

Yes, the master in the parable revoked his forgiveness. Again, nowhere in the Word of God does it suggest that God will revoke sins that He has forgiven. On the contrary, there are many passage which declare the exact opposite.

What this parable does teach is, that if we are not willing to forgive others, God will not forgive us. It is that plain and simple. We need not try to dig any deeper than that.

It is also important to note that Jesus said, "my heavenly Father" in verse 35 and not "your heavenly Father," which very well may indicate that this person who has this unforgiving attitude is not even saved. </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, you seem to be dancing around on this one. How can you in one statement agree that the Master revoked forgiveness, but Deny that Jesus is indicating That His Father is the master in the parable. (Jesus said directly, no mystery)

Jesus made no distinction between what His Father would do verses the Master in the parable, did He?
Did he not say "in the same way" referring to his Father?

Yes, or No?

Yeah, you can try and argue suggesting that the person in the parable may not have been a believer, but, c'mon, lets be honest.

1. Why would God refer to an unbeliever as a servant in a parable? The world is condemned already according to Jesus in John 3:17-20.

2. It is clear as it has always been, that Jesus is speaking to His students as Servants of His Father and this lesson served as a warning for them. It was Peter who initiated the conversation that Jesus responded to.

The devastating results of this theology (OSAS) is tragic and obvious; similar to that found in Matthew 15:1-9:tear:

people doubt even Jesus before they doubt their own tradition.

Grace and Peace.

 

[steaver]

2. It is clear as it has always been, that Jesus is speaking to His students as Servants of His Father and this lesson served as a warning for them. It was Peter who initiated the conversation that Jesus responded to.

Of course He was speaking to His students as servants. Jesus came unto His own yet they recieved Him not (John 1). Are not His own His servants? His own is Israel. Yet they rejected Him and those who refuse to forgive have not the Spirit, they have never been born of God. The servant in the parable declares his lost condition. The only way we can forgive "from the heart" is with the Holy Spirit indwellment. The parable should beg the question, how can I forgive from my heart when it is desperatly wicked? Answer is, create in me a new heart Lord. There are many who i would not forgive until the Spirit indwelled me. One cannot forgive "from the heart" without God in that heart.

The parable is a little deeper than trying to declare a servant a saint. Remember, once one is converted they are no longer called a servant but a friend, a brother, a child of God, a saint! Praise His wonderful name!

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

Tazman,

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Wouldn't forgiving from YOUR heart be something of YOURSELF?

Your position on the parable cannot coexist with the above scripture. So either you continue to preach contradiction or you adjust the parable accordingly, because Eph 2 is crystal clear, it isn't a parable begging for interpretation.

God Bless!

 

[Avshalom]

As I read various discussion threads I notice that in many debates it usualy boils down to a point: OSAS. Being a relatively new believer, I just wanted to let you know that I am apalled by this doctrine because it goes so much against everything the bible teaches.

I had the impression it is believed mostly by American Christians, yet I find it to be thriving pet doctrine also here in Austria.

To be honest, I will never understand how anybody can believe this OSAS stuff with so many if's and warnings in the Bible addressed to believers. God never said salvation unconditional, at least not in my bible.

I am convinced that the same conditions to receive salvation, repentance towards God and faith in Christ, are also required to keep it. Nothing more, nothing less. And true repentance involves turning from all known sin and walk in the light. Only then will the blood of Christ cleanse you from all sin. If you think this is salvation by works or legalism you'd better revise your theology.

Just to point out one of tha many places in the bible that flatly contradict OSAS, consider the book of Revelation where Jesus himself tells us believers that unless we overcome we will never see heaven.

"He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death."

I would really like to know how an OSAS believer can interpret that. To me, this shows the conditional nature of salvation beyond any reasonable doubt. So much for unconditional security.

 

[Avshalom]

To all of you here who think you can be disobedient and heavenbound, God has a few words for you:

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

 

[Avshalom]

... continued

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


What??? "Do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life"??? Heresy!!! Salvation by works!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Avshalom:
As I read various discussion threads I notice that in many debates it usualy boils down to a point: OSAS. Being a relatively new believer, I just wanted to let you know that I am apalled by this doctrine because it goes so much against everything the bible teaches.

I had the impression it is believed mostly by American Christians, yet I find it to be thriving pet doctrine also here in Austria.

To be honest, I will never understand how anybody can believe this OSAS stuff with so many if's and warnings in the Bible addressed to believers.

Good points all.

But remember that where there is modern-day Calvinism - there is always going to be OSAS. What is even more interesting is that you find OSAS among many Arminians as well.

I can "see" why Calvinists might go for it - no matter what they read in Matt 18, and Romans 11 and Heb 6 and 1Cor 9 and Romans 2 and ... But why do Arminians do it if they really believe in Free-Will and if they really reject 4 point Calvinism?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
Forgiveness has to do with justification, not with salvation.

And there you have an interesting "Division of the Gospel" so that Gospel Justification is no longer connected to Salvation.

Where is that taught in scripture?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
[QB] OT Saints made "Sacrifices" and their sin were "FORGIVEN".

BUT NOT "TAKEN AWAY"

Read the quote from Matt 18 carefully the statement of Christ is not "SO shall my Father do to each one of YOU UNTIL a few days from now when I die on the cross" [/quote]

Matt 18 was written many years AFTER the Cross. It is written in obedience to the command of Matt 28 to "go into all the world and TEACH THEM whatsoever things I TAUGHT YOU".

The idea that we "need not worry about what Christ taught in the Gospels" is foreign to the NT writers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by steaver:
Brother Bob still worried about possibly forgeting to forgive someone ...

No - I just keep forgetting to take scissors to Romans 11, Matt 18, Ezek 18 the Lord's Prayer etc.

Until I remember to do that - I get to keep posting those texts of scripture and talking about them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
It is not always wise to base doctrine on parables. Jesus gave this parable to teach specific truths. Those truths are:
1. We are all sinners and have sinned against God.
2. God will forgive us.
3. The offenses committed against us by our fellow man are small in comparison to our sin against God.
4. We should be ready to forgive those who offend us.
5. If we do not, we are subject to the wrath of God.

Nowhere in this parable does Jesus say that God's forgiveness will be revoked.

Oh Really?

"The Kingdom of Heaven" is like the KING and the slaves. Nowhere does the Parable say the King IS God and the Slave is YOU and the debt YOU owe is your debt of SIN and the king is forgiving the DEBT of SIN so that you may be a member of the "Kingdom of heaven"??

So you are saying this "really" does not appear as plain as day to all readers of the text??

That is curious.

When the king SAYS HE forgave the debt and SAYS that IN THE SAME WAY the slave should forgive others -- and then REVOKES that forgiveness as explicitly shown in the story - "we can ignore it"???

When Christ said "SO shall My Father do to eachd of YOU IF YOU do not FORGIVE your brother from the heart" we can "IGNORE" that as "not really something that silly old parable to pay attention too"??

How do you come up with that?

You would have to read that into the parable.

Oh really?

So you are sahing it is not blatantly sitting there like ... it is?

Jesus would not teach something that is contrary to other clearly revealed scriptural truths.

True. But He WOULD teach something contrary to the man-made traditions that go contrary to the text of Matt 18. HE probably would not hesitate to do that.

And then those who accept those traditions would "tend" to define them as "gospel" and reject what Christ is explicitly saying IN the text because "surely it would never conflict" with their other ideas - ideas they suppose to be of God rather than simply a mistake in doctrine.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

God never said salvation unconditional, at least not in my bible.

Here it is in mine (KJV)...

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" (Ehp 2:8)

You must really meditate on the part "that not of yourselves".

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

Just to point out one of tha many places in the bible that flatly contradict OSAS, consider the book of Revelation where Jesus himself tells us believers that unless we overcome we will never see heaven.

"He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death."

I would really like to know how an OSAS believer can interpret that. To me, this shows the conditional nature of salvation beyond any reasonable doubt. So much for unconditional security.

How this is interpreted is by studying the other scriptures which God has provided. So rather than it being "my" interpretation it is God's interpretation. Here it is...

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:4-5).

Therefore, using scripture to interpret scripture we understand that Rev agrees with the rest of the Word and overcomers are indeed the saved. Where one gets into misunderstanding is when one passage is self-interpreted rather than letting the other scriptures do the interpreting.

God Bless!