Matt 18 and Forgiveness Revoked

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by steaver:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Why would "I" be trying to 'make a defense" for "actually" doing exegesis?

Yes, you are the only one on these boards who actually does exegesis. Give yourself a hearty amen for me!

God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]Funny. But it does not detract from the basic fact that to exegete a text you must read it and you must SHOW your work IN the text and demonstrate that it is making the case you claim.

So far all you have done is avoid the text.

That is not exegesis by anyone's standard that I know of - surely you agree!

 

[steaver]

So far all you have done is avoid the text.

There is nothing to avoid brother. There are only so many views of the passage floating around and I have nothing new to add. Doing an exegesis does not in itself validate the exegesis as fact. You have presented an exegesis of Matt 18 and I reject it. My reasons are it does not coinside with other scripture which clearly declares OSAS, like John 4 for one. Henry's exgesis is more plausible than yours. I must take into consideration the full counsel of God. I cannot let one passage form a doctrine of such importance.

I don't think your exegesis is a "must be this way". The parable begs interpretation and that must include an understanding of the full counsel of God. There just isn't enough information given within the parable to declare one has been saved and then lost again. It just isn't there.

I think in all reality you approached the passage with a premise that OSAS is false. i can see how it would then seem as you say. But when looked at objectively, there just isn't enough said to claim salvation has come and then was taken away. I guess it is the best passage you have trying to defend your position on the subject. All the other passages are much more difficult to prove that OSAS is false. But you can waste your time trying. It won't change my faith in Jesus Christ, it is settled, I am a new creature, Jesus and I are one.( and that is why i forgive as I have been forgiven)

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far all you have done is avoid the text.

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

There is nothing to avoid brother

There is the chapter of Acts 17 where you claim the term "Children" should hot have been used by the NASB translators.

(oh "you mean that chapter". Yes that one).

Just at the point you need some other term used in Acts 17 - you need to "follow Paul's argument IN Acts 17 to SHOW that some other word can be inserted into the text to better suit your views".

Failing to do that -- you don't actually have exegesis. The fact that you feel you don't even need to pay attention the chapter that you are interested in editing "editing out the word children" - shows you have not stated intention to exegete. By your own confession you are not even trying to exegete the chapter you so want to "change" so that it does not reference the children of God.

By contrast I am simply showing Bible scholars that ARE willing to LOOK at Acts 17 and that DO whos that the FAMILY relationship is the key to the argument being made there.

Each time you find that you have to ignore one text (like Matt 18 or Acts 17) and "just confine yourself to more palatible texts" you are in fact revealing a source of doctrinal error in your position.

Any JW RC Mormon etc could use that same method to slice and dice their way through scripture. I don't think you or I would want to have that as our own model.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I don't think your exegesis is a "must be this way". The parable begs interpretation and that must include an understanding of the full counsel of God. There just isn't enough information given within the parable to declare one has been saved and then lost again. It just isn't there.

Lets put the traditions of man aside for a moment and just be honest about Matt 18.

It IS there in plain text for all to read. The KING SAYS "I FORGAVE" you even admit this. You also admit that the servant starts out lost and not-yet-forgiven. You also admit that to BE forgiven is to be saved.

These are not simply "my imaginings" YOU HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED to them!

You "claim" there is a lot of fog and uncertainty in Matt 18 but the truth is you have already admitted to each of the key points to the parable. And now you are obviously stuck.

You WANT a summary that is VERY DIFFERENT from the content of the parable that YOU already admitted to!!

This is not rocket science or "Bob is the only one that can read the parable" reasoning. THIS IS YOU and what YOU have already admitted to!!

In other words it is SBVIOUS that BOTH you and I are admitting to the SAME facts in the parable.

You also admit that you NEED a summary that TOTALLY does not fit the parable and that is NOT in anything that Christ actually SAYS in the parable. You have already stated the summary that your traditions "need" and you never show that as a "QUOTE" of the what is actually IN the text.

You have repeatedly stated that your NEED to spin this around on its head at the end - is based NOT on what you read In MATT 18 but is based on what you have taken from OTHER TEXTS. Texts that are not as directly opposed to your traditions as is Matt 18.

I see that. You see that. Lets not pretend.

You also state correctly that this text (and some others) are best suited to the POV that I accept. You are also correct in implying that while these are the easy, no-brainer slam-dunk texts for my point of view - I would surely not have such an easy time some place else.

I don't deny that I have deliberately picked out a text that exactly refutes your POV. I confess it freely.

That is why I have been so focused on gettting you to admit to the obvious sections of the Parable. ADmitting to the obvious details IN the text will just confirm what it is saying.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Failing to do that -- you don't actually have exegesis. The fact that you feel you don't even need to pay attention the chapter that you are interested in editing "editing out the word children" - shows you have not stated intention to exegete. By your own confession you are not even trying to exegete the chapter you so want to "change" so that it does not reference the children of God.

Since you missed it the first two times I posted it, here it is again.

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.

God Bless!

It IS there in plain text for all to read. The KING SAYS "I FORGAVE" you even admit this. You also admit that the servant starts out lost and not-yet-forgiven. You also admit that to BE forgiven is to be saved.

These are not simply "my imaginings" YOU HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED to them!

Actually brother, you do have some "imaginings". I never declared that to be forgiven is to be saved in this parable. Here are a few of my postings on this subject...

Jan 12, Steaver

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!

Jan 13, Steaver

No. He did forgive the servant a debt, but it does not say that He saved the man from hellfire. That is were you fall into misinterpretation.

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

Forgiving others does not save. Forgiving is an attribute of the saved. Read Eph 2:8 carefully. It does not coinside with your theory concerning Matt 18. You will need to abandon your interpretation of it and let the scriptures determine what it teaches.

Jan 14, Steaver

No Bob. They are not seen as "unacceptable". They are seen as interpreted by the scriptures themselves and not by self-interpretations. Eph 2:8 does not allow for oneself to have anything to do with getting saved or staying saved. One can only accept the Free Gift. Once accepted it continues to be ALL God and NONE You or I that saves. From there you can then deal with the parables.

Bob, it is a PARABLE! It begs for interpretation! Don't let it confound you in such a way.

Sorry, I'm not "stuck" as you would like to believe. If any of my postings seem to indicate at all that I believe the servant is saved once the debt is forgiven, let me clarify now that I do not. Yes, the servant was forgiven a debt. I have not yet went as far as to say he was saved.

God Bless!

 

[steaver]

You are also correct in implying that while these are the easy, no-brainer slam-dunk texts for my point of view - I would surely not have such an easy time some place else.

Good spin bro

I do not imply what you feel. I said, " I think in all reality you approached the passage with a premise that OSAS is false. i can see how it would then seem as you say ". See? That is different than me saying...the passage is an "easy, no-brainer slam-dunk text for your point of view". You sure love the spinning brother.

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

As has been pointed out this is not "me alone" seeing the obvious fact that the king said "I forgave you" and it is not "me alone" seeing the obvious fact that unforgiven is unsaved in this parable of the Gospel of the "Kingdom of heaven".

You admit to seeing the SAME things!

Your spin above makes it appear that "only I COULD see these obvious details" because I brought a bias of "no OSAS" to the text.

But the key points of Matt 18 EVEN YOU See!

Hence your dilemma and hence my statement above admitting that this text "in the DETAILS" does in fact fit my POV perfectly. The very DETAILS you admit to - the very DETAILS you admit to "needing to ignore" when you give your "other summary" that even you admit is NOT a summary actually FOUND in the text. (Hence no quote of the text by you SHOWING the summary you needed).

All this is painfully obvious no matter what side of the fence you are on.

That is why I asked for a moment of honesty here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver 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.

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...

Thus ends your entire review of the "Details" of Acts 17:28 and 29 which states that we are all (in speaking to the pagans) the "Children of God".

Notice that the bold and highlighted "problem segments" do not appear AT ALL in your tiny snippet of detail you allowed yourself to address.

By NOT addressing the part that you "needed to rewrite" you fail to make an "exegetical" case from Acts 17:28-29 for the point you say you "need" here.

By Contrast I not only ADDRESS the detail you are ignoring (the "family" details about "Father", and "Children" and "Offspring" - and the fact that offspring are children) but SO ALSO do the Bible commentary quotes I gave.

You seem to be content to snippet a tiny segment of just vs 28 excluding all the areas central to the point about "Children", "Offspring" and the fact that the Father's offspring are obviously children so they are "alike".

In your thrice repeated snippet quote of just a part of vs 28 (instead of ALL of 28 and ALL of 29) you seem to "hope to imagine" that the Bible translations and the Bible commentaries are all "wrong" to include the section on "offspring" and "Children" and "The Father" having a family relationship to the Children. It is as if you hoped the text JUST mentioned the fact that "we are in God's image so no image to God should be made of wood" -- AS IF the text could be rewritten by "wishful thinking alone" to say only that!

But let me ask you -- does this text of scripture LOOK like it is missing everything you need for it to be missing?

Acts 17
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.

As for "why" you do not actually quote Vs 28-29 where they appear to refute your views -- perhaps it is because a thorough case can not be made for your views and as you already stated here - your views on Acts 17 do not help you at all in the debate on Matt 18!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The TEXT of Matt 18 ends with the summary statement "SO SHALL my Father do to each one of you IF YOU do not..."

YOUR rewrite of that text summary is of the form "So shall my Father NEVER do to you for EITHER He will not have forgiven you in the first place OR if forgiven you will always be faithful. So NOTHING like this scenario can ever happen in all of time".

HOW different from the Words of Christ in Matt 18!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is an interesting blind alley that you take briefly -

Jan 13, Steaver

No. He did forgive the servant a debt, but it does not say that He saved the man from hellfire. That is were you fall into misinterpretation.

Here you "imagine" that in the Kingdom of heaven there are those who seek forgiveness RECEIVE forgiveness and IN that condition are LOST but fully FORGIVEN of all their debt of sin!!

(you seem to "make stuff up" as you go along through Matt 18) -- why do that?

 

[BobRyan]

In the post in Jan it was shown that the "context" for the parable on "The Kingdom of heaven" is forgiveness INSIDE the Gospel INSIDE the concept of the "Gospel of the Kingdom" and so Christ said "The Kingdom of Heaven is like".. when speaking TO PETER about the obligation for God's children (Peter in this case as HE is asking the question) forgive others!!

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by steaver:
"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses."(Matt 18:34-35)

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

Either it is ye who saves you or it is " not of yourselves ". You have a delima brother?

I am not the one speaking in Matt 18:34-35 - but our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ IS speaking there. I say we "listen to HIM"!

I am not the one who wrote Romans 11:18-21
Paul did at the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Rom 11
18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

I am also not the one who wrote Eph 2:8 - Paul did at the direction of the Holy Spirit.


If you must choose between Paul and Christ - or choose between Paul in Romans 11:17-21 and Paul in Eph 2:8 then you have "construed too much" out of Eph 2:8 so that it appears to differ with the rest of scripture.

The Text of Matt 18 is "very clear" and it is addressed TO PETER and those who along with him - are following Christ - the true Messiah!

#1. There is "no escaping" the fact that it IS an illustration of "The Kingdom of Heaven".

#2. There is "no escaping" the fact that the summary words of Christ in that instance are OUTSIDE the PARABLE!!

#3. There is "no escaping" the fact that this teaching OF CHRIST is written more than a decade AFTER the cross in obedience to Christ's command to "GO and teach others ALL that I TAUGHT YOU" in Matt 28.

#4. There is "no escaping" the fact that Christ says to Peter "REAL FORGIVENESS" given to him by God demands that we TOO show that same spirit of forgiveness to others!

If you seek to find fault with the REAL Gospel forgiveness within the Kingdom of Heaven that is RECEIVED FROM GOD -- then you have room to justify LACK of forgiveness toward others. No such "open door" is left for the reader in the Words of Christ.

His argument to Peter IN FAVOR of forgiveness is never "Well God did not actually forgive you so don't worry about having to forgive others"!!

</font>[/QUOTE]The "bend and twist" others would have made of this text wrenches it OUT of the context of PETER's question and the saints who were following Christ -- and makes it a statment about mythical LOST people being FULLY FORGIVEN yet still LOST - "all to save OSAS"!!

 

[BobRyan]

Jan 18 - your "much needed and much invented" summary for Matt 18 was reviewed and shown to expose the flaws in your argument.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Stever said -

As unbelievable as this action would be, that is how unbelievable it would be for a Christian discipple, who has been forgiven a lifetime of sin, to be unforgiving of others. In the story, such an unforgiving servant is called a wicked servant because no true believer would do such. The unforgiving servant is not the one who was saved and then lost his salvation. The story is merely hypothetical; no one forgiven a debt of millions would behave this way, therefore, the intention of the parable is to challenge the genuineness of the disciple's conversion

This is called eisegesis! It is called "standing the text on its head"!!

Notice that the POINT in the "recast" of the text above is to claim that the text is challenging the "genuine nature" of the KINGS's statement "I FORGAVE YOU".

The total "rework" that OSAS "needs" is to divert AWAY from the KING's claim that the FORGIVEN servant SHOULD forgive others and to twist it around to say "IF you were REALLY forgiven by ME then you COULD only forgive others. But SINCE you are not forgiving others THEN I MUST HAVE LIED when I said I forgave you!"

How such a spin- such a twist and wrench of the text be "ignored"? It testifies to the powerful atraction that the tradition of OSAS has had on Christians in recent times.

</font>[/QUOTE]Your summary "invents words never spoken by Christ"

Your summary "supposes that God forgives man's sin APART from The Gospel leaven the FORGIVEN servant LOST but FORGIVEN of all his great debt of sin".

Your summary "supposes" that God demands that LOST people forgive OTHERS JUST as THEY have been forgiven when in fact they are STILL LOST!!

Your summary is not found in scripture at all!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[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

 

[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

 

[steaver]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 17
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.

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

As for "why" you do not actually quote Vs 28-29 where they appear to refute your views -- perhaps it is because a thorough case can not be made for your views and as you already stated here - your views on Acts 17 do not help you at all in the debate on Matt 18!

In Christ,

Bob

Hi brother, I will get back yo Matt 18, surprisingly I am not finished there

But here is what Acts 17:28-29 actually say...

Act 17:28 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.
Act 17:29 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.

As I already pointed out(you must have missed it) "genos" is not "children of God" which is defined throughout scripture as a personal relationship with God through faith in the One true God. This is exactly what the commentaries point out as well and agree with me on.

How can Paul make it any clearer to you? " 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 ."...This clearly is Paul pointing out that all mankind is created in the image of God (that is found in Genesis).... Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God ...See? "Offspring" which fits perfectly with creation. Jesus makes my point very clear as does Paul in many other passages of scripture as I have already repeatedly pointed out to you.

For anyone to translate or teach that all of mankind are "the children of God" is misleading and a mishandling of God's precious Word.

Now stop trying to worm out of the obvious facts and stop telling the lost that we are all "the children of God". It is misleading and they will not understand why they are in reality "the children of the devil" when you are telling them they are the "children of God".

The BOTTOM LINE is...you and I agree with just who is the "children of God" concept and just who is the "offspring of God" concept. There is no need to confuse the lost by bluring the terminology. Paul seen the need (or was inspired) to keep the wording clear and defined. Why should we later blur it together?

You surely can clearly see this point and are simply trying to save some face for defending the NASB. You can drop it now. God Bless!

 

[steaver]

Just one more thought about the "children" of God. Paul could have very easily said " teknon ", which is CLEARLY translated "children", as he did numerious times throughout his writings, but he didn't! He said " genos " in this passage. Now you go and figure out why, and as to why the KJV translators had enough sense to make a distinction as well!

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Act 17:28 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.

At this point - your argument died!

Act 17:29 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.

And there - it died "again".

A person's offspring is their child!!

Here is what is "Actually said" --

17:28
for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

En autw| gar zwmen (5719) kai kinoumeqa (5743) kai esmen, (5748) wv kai tinev twn kaq' umav poihtwn eirhkasin, (5758) Tou gar kai genov esmen. (5748)

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.

genov oun uparxontev (5723) tou qeou ouk ofeilomen (5719) nomizein (5721) xrusw| h argurw| h liqw|, xaragmati texnhv kai enqumhsewv anqrwpou, to qeion einai (5750) omoion.

genov: kindred
offspring
family
stock, tribe, nation
i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people
the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort

Your attempt to deny the Bible translations, deny the Greek language itself and deny the Bible commentaries on this point of the "Family argument" Paul makes - has not served you well not in MAtt 18 and not in Acts 17.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now stop trying to worm out of the obvious facts and stop telling the lost that we are all "the children of God".

#1. I did not write Acts 17 - PAul did. Your argument is with him.

#2. You argue that Genov is not fammily not offsprings as in the FAMILY the offspring of the FAther are HIS CHILDERN, -- your point dies with every translation you have quoted - they point to the family argument though you deny it.

#3. The Bible commentaries themselves disprove your POV and they use KJV!!

#4. Read the text of the commentaries AS THEY ADMIT that OFFSPRING of the Father are in fact FAMILY - are in fact CHILDREN! You know - "The obvious".

#5. I started this point by showing the commentaries distinguish between the ontological FAMILY relationship to God and the "redeemed and adopted" context. You keep "ignoring that" as if to prove one - deletes the other. The text remains and offspring of the Father CONTINUE to be CHILDREN in ALL cases!

I keep repeating this point since it merely shows the lengths you have been willing to go to deny the text, the commentaries and even the Greek language itself to hold to your traditions.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since ALL of these Bible Commentary quotes have been quoting the KJV and since you pretend to accept it - I offer to you the SAME commentaries using the KJV and proving your rejection of the family argument Paul makes - to be a direct denial of the text of Acts 17.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Then you post commentarians who agree with me! We are God's offspring by creation. We are God's children through the gospel. Children of God is for those who have faith in the one true God. All the text prove this without a doubt (at least to everyone I know except you brother, you are a first for me).

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,
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.''

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.

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

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.

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 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.

…

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

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[steaver]

Amazing! Simply amazing!

I have learned a great deal about your character through this "children" topic. I have presented my case and point before God and my fellow brethern here. There is nothing else I can say to help you understand the difference. I only hope that some others watching here have come away with a clear understanding that all of mankind are not the children of God. I rest this issue in peace.

I will return later and give my final "exegesis" on Matt 18. Of course I am sure it will not measure up to your standard of expositioning.

Love ya brother!

God Bless!