Matt 18 and Forgiveness Revoked

[steaver]

I stated repeatedly that the servant is in the same position as the lost child of God -


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob said -
The servant are those who owe their service to God. the servant that OWES the great debt is EVERY lost human - every lost child of God.

Every lost human is not every lost child of God. If this were so then all would be saved eventually. Seeking for the lost children of God kinda sounds calvinistic. Your not thinking about converting are ye?

God Bless!

 

[Tazman]

Steaver,

You are clearly averting the point. Bob is correct. This parable includes some one in service to the Master. That's it. No more no less. You don't have to guess who is in service to the Master, whome you know to be God in this parable. Your only way out is to disqualify the servant standing with the Master. This parable is beyond that point by addressing Servant to Master relationship. this was not a "would-be" servant as you suggest.


There are parables for none believers (servants of satan) but this isn't one of them. Remember, it was Jesus' disciples (servants of the Master) that started this.


It clearly does not fit your understanding of OSAS.

It's sad we must play politics in church.

I only have a little time, but take care.

 

[steaver]

I only have a little time, but take care.

Then please quickly answer my question...

When the scripture says a servant (of God) does this mean the servant is saved?

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

Steaver,

You are clearly averting the point. Bob is correct. This parable includes some one in service to the Master. That's it. No more no less. You don't have to guess who is in service to the Master, whome you know to be God in this parable. Your only way out is to disqualify the servant standing with the Master. This parable is beyond that point by addressing Servant to Master relationship. this was not a "would-be" servant as you suggest.

Brother, why do you have such difficulty giving a straight and clear answer? Brother Bob does not believe the man is saved just because he is called a servant, YOU obviously DO! I do NOT "suggest" this man is a "would-be" servant. I do NOT believe "servant of God" equals "saved of God". Go back to the top and read my post slowly. My end question to you was...

"Why is the servant(saved from your point of view because he is called a servant of God) starting out in the parable getting saved again? Can people become born-again over and over? Please explain.

Please! Say anything you want but answer my questions. Thank You.

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Every lost human is not every lost child of God. If this were so then all would be saved eventually. Seeking for the lost children of God kinda sounds calvinistic

News Flash: Mankind did NOT EVOLVE! Mankind was MADE by God! ALL are His children ALL are lost!

"God so LOVED THE WORLD that HE GAVE..."

"God is not willing for ANY to perish"

"God was IN Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself"

Your problem with actually seeing God as caring for His lost children as in "really cares" and "really lost" and "really God's child" stems from the rejection of the basic Gospel statement on grace (unconditional grace in this case) where God so LOVES THE WORLD without the world FIRST doing something for God ANd without some subset of the world being 'arbitrarily selected'.

Question for you -- IF you reject the basic Bible truth that all are God's and ALL are lost - (As God shows in the case of the unfaithful stewards of His vinyard for example) - and if you insist that the servant MUST be a born again saint - THEN what is the UNFORGIVEN status of the servant coming to the King with an awesome debt STILL OWED representing in your recast of the text of scripture?

Let me guess - you don't have anything that works in the model you keep suggesting!

Hmmm - why does that not surprise me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

The word of Bob....

News Flash: Mankind did NOT EVOLVE! Mankind was MADE by God! ALL are His children ALL are lost!

The word of God....

Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.


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

Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.


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

Jhn 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.


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

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:


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

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.


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

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.


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

1Jo 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.


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

1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Looks like all of mankind are not the children of God. Yes, God has created all of mankind. I can't believe you would not understand such a simple fact outlined in the scriptures. It looks bad for you brother, it's like grasping at straws. You really need to step back and take a long study into born-again.

God Bless brother.

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt

John 11:52
and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Acts 2:39
"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."

Here we see the pagans of Acts 17 in Greece called "the children of God"

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.


Acts 17:29
"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.


As for the Jews - "He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1.

Christ shows that the "Servants" of the King are not saved - some are in need of salvation (as we see explicitly in Matt 18) --


Acts 21
38"But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.'


All the imaginings that "the unforgiven servant that owes a great deabt in Matt 18 is in fact a fully forgiven saint" -- is simply that - pure imagination it is not exegesis.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

Question for you -- IF you reject the basic Bible truth that all are God's and ALL are lost - (As God shows in the case of the unfaithful stewards of His vinyard for example) - and if you insist that the servant MUST be a born again saint - THEN what is the UNFORGIVEN status of the servant coming to the King with an awesome debt STILL OWED representing in your recast of the text of scripture?

Let me guess - you don't have anything that works in the model you keep suggesting!

Hmmm - why does that not surprise me.

In Christ,

Bob

Now how did I know that was going to go unnanswered?

 

[steaver]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:

Question for you -- IF you reject the basic Bible truth that all are God's and ALL are lost - (As God shows in the case of the unfaithful stewards of His vinyard for example) - and if you insist that the servant MUST be a born again saint - THEN what is the UNFORGIVEN status of the servant coming to the King with an awesome debt STILL OWED representing in your recast of the text of scripture?

Let me guess - you don't have anything that works in the model you keep suggesting!

Hmmm - why does that not surprise me.

In Christ,

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

Now how did I know that was going to go unnanswered?

Sorry Bob, now you should know me by now, I do not ignore questions, I might miss some. I did want to reply but I did forget.

I do not believe that the servant was already saved when the King began to rekon with him. This was what I presented to Taz because Taz declared that "servant" (of God of course) means "believer". If you go back and re-read what i wrote you will see what i mean. I was showing Taz that the parable would make no sense if "servant" means "believer" getting saved again.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

And you are WAAAAAAYYYYY off understanding just who is a child of God. You are a first for me on that one. I never heard any other brother in Christ say that all of mankind were children of God. It just isn't supported in the scriptures. The ones you quote do not make your case any stronger, in fact they weaken it as well.

BTW, do you have any support of this from any well reknown bible scholars? I would like to read them.

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver -

You say the servant is not saved, not forgiven that comes to Christ in Matt 18 and owes a great debt.

But then the king DOES forgive him and the King SAYS in the story "I FORGAVE you".

Question 2: Do you accept that or ignore it?

If you allow yourself to accept it - then how is it you complain about the "children of God" concept of Paul in Acts 17 as HE declares all mankind to be the children of God - while speaking to the Pagans in Greece?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I point out that all mankind are God's children (Acts 17:29) - and that the debt owing steward represents the lost child of God.

But for some - the "Bible is not enough" --

Fine. So we get to the "Word of man" admitting to the obvious point of all mankind being the children of God as stated in Acts 17:28-29

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,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.''

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. Seeing, therefore, that we are living and intelligent beings, HE from whom we have derived that being must be living and intelligent. It is necessary, also, that the object of religious worship should be much more excellent than the worshipper; but a man is, by innumerable degrees, more excellent than an image made out of gold, silver, or stone; and yet it would be impious to worship a man: how much more so to worship these images as gods! Every man in the Areopagus must have felt the power of this conclusion; and, taking it for granted that they had felt it, he proceeds:-

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

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

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.

…

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:--
…
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

 

[steaver]

Steaver -

You say the servant is not saved, not forgiven that comes to Christ in Matt 18 and owes a great debt.

But then the king DOES forgive him and the King SAYS in the story "I FORGAVE you".

Question 2: Do you accept that or ignore it?

I accept.

If you allow yourself to accept it - then how is it you complain about the "children of God" concept of Paul in Acts 17 as HE declares all mankind to be the children of God - while speaking to the Pagans in Greece?

In Christ,

Bob

There is no such "children of God concept of Paul" in Acts 17 and HE deos NOT declare all mankind to be children of God.

Paul declares...." For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

#1, "genos"(Greek) "kin" can be interpreted literally or figuratively. The reader must decide which interpretation to teach according to all other scripture concerning the topic. #2 Offspring does not equal children of God according to God as Jesus points out...

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 .

Is Paul calling all mankind "children of God" in Acts 17? Allowing scripture to interpret scripture we find that to be called "children of God" one must have faith in God (this would be faith in the true God and not an UNKNOWN GOD).

Paul declares....

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.

Brother, I don't know why you have taken such a position on such an elementary doctrine. All of mankind is simply not considered "children of God" throughout scripture. Maybe throughout paganism, but not throughout God's word.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

Brother, the comentaries you post only prove my point. Read them carefully!

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

God said --

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,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.''

Steaver you said

There is no such "children of God concept of Paul" in Acts 17 and HE deos NOT declare all mankind to be children of God.

But then you failed to actually QUOTE Acts 17 as I did and SHOW how the phrase "Children of God" does not mean what it says.

And surely you have to admit - it would have helped your argument to actually prove your claim about Acts 17 could be supported in Acts 17.

The commentaries I gave DID show that God is their FATHER their PARENT and that they are all His offspring even calling them children!

How you can then deny that these details exist - would take "some explaining" in your post.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

This is a reference to the regenerate or adopted child. Something I never claimed for the servant in that condition where "he OWES the great debt".

If you follow the details of the argument - I claim he is a LOST child of God when he has that debt.

Same point - having to be repeated now.

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver said
Is Paul calling all mankind "children of God" in Acts 17?

I have an idea! Lets "read the text" and see if we find him saying that!

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,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.''

That didn't take long.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

But then you failed to actually QUOTE Acts 17 as I did and SHOW how the phrase "Children of God" does not mean what it says.

And surely you have to admit - it would have helped your argument to actually prove your claim about Acts 17 could be supported in Acts 17.

The commentaries I gave DID show that God is their FATHER their PARENT and that they are all His offspring even calling them children!

How you can then deny that these details exist - would take "some explaining" in your post.

In Christ,

Bob

Not to create another debate, but "genos" should not be translated "children". I use only the KJV and that is one reason why. Doctrines can get all twisted around. NOW I don't want to debate bible versions, so don't anybody go there!

But I do now have some understanding as to why you are confused.

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

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?

All translators use either "children" or "offspring" and FAther. Is it your contention that a Father's "offspring" are not "children"?

 

[BobRyan]

Aside from that problem in your view - this seems to be a blind alley for your argument because you already admit that the servant of God that "owes" is in fact lost.

How is this side trail helping you?