Matt 18 and Matt 6 Disprove OSAS

[DHK]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
In the "three questions" from Matt 18 and Matt 6 - DHK has admitted that the "fully forgiven" state - is in fact the state of the saved saints.
Bob

1. You don't listen Bob.
2. You don't understand Bob.
3. It seems as if you don't want to understand Bob.
4. Given the above facts you place yourself in the category of the Pharisees:

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

What did I really say?
I said: "A Christian is one who is both forgiven and forgiving. I never said that the servant in the second half of the parable was "a forgiven servant." If fact I explained that very carefully to you. That was the time that you mocked at my answer. So perhaps you don't remember it too well.

I have given you enough information to work with. Don't misrepresent me.
A forgiven Christian is a forgiving Christian. However if a person is not forgiving or does not have that characteristic then no doubt he is not a Christian.
He that hath ears let him hear.

 

[BobRyan]

The three untouchable (apparently) questions:. And how the details in the text - are being carefully contradicted by OSAS arguments here.
================================================================

1. First this one -- where we see an ALREADY FULLY Forgiven servant expected to forgive AS HE WAS TRULY forgiven.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]

2. Then THIS ONE

Where we see forgiveness revoked - full debt returned.

[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.


3. Then THiS ONE
[/FONT]
Where Christ applies the lesson to His listeners - which is obviously OUTSIDE of the parable.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

Which is what we also see with Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

=============================

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

Ok so "one more time" with feeling.

The question 3 that you are ducking and dodging as "if" we call cannot see it.

[FONT=&quot]
3. Then THiS ONE
[/FONT]
Where Christ applies the lesson to His listeners - which is obviously OUTSIDE of the parable.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

Which is what we also see with Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.




=-==========================

I never said that the servant in the second half of the parable was "a forgiven servant."

Yet God did say that about that servant. Hint: Christ is God.

That would be point 1 above - where you are now ever so carefully contradicting the Words of Christ -

But previously you were not so quick to contradict everything in the text.

1. According to the parable he accepted God's forgiveness and thus the Holy Spirit. He was greatly convicted of how much debt he owed. That is why he went to the King in the first place. The conviction was great. Conviction comes from the Holy Spirit. What follows is exactly what you said--he chose to put his faith in the King (Christ) and receive his forgiveness (once and for all). He was forgiven.

2. He was already born again. One cannot be born again and again and again.

Better to just go back to accepting point 1 -- the "detail in the text" we find here.


1. First this one -- where we see an ALREADY FULLY Forgiven servant expected to forgive AS HE WAS TRULY forgiven.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]


===================

So many Bible details for OSAS to contradict --- so little time.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

The three untouchable (apparently) questions:. And how the details in the text - are being carefully contradicted by OSAS arguments here.

1. They are not contradicted.
2. But as I will demonstrate, you will not receive the answer, so why do you want an answer that you will not receive? It seems to be an exercise in futility.

1. First this one

-- where we see an ALREADY FULLY Forgiven servant expected to forgive AS HE WAS TRULY forgiven.

In the first half of the parable the slave was fully forgiven of his debt, and was very thankful for that forgiveness. His life was completely changed. He was forgiven and forgiving the two characteristics of a truly saved Christian, as he was.
[FONT=&quot]

32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]

This is what you don't get, and will deny even if I give you the answer.
The second half is a hypothetical. Jesus doesn't specifically use the words "Suppose ye," but they are implied.
Suppose that this same servant went out and did this....
It is not in reality the same servant, it is a supposition, a hypothetical. There are too many inconsistencies to make it the exact same servant.
Just the fact alone that the exact same servant would not be there. He would be at the feet of Jesus worshiping and praising and thanking him. He would not be going after those who owe him something worth the price of a cup of coffee in contrast to $16 million dollars (the comparison given in the parable).
A servant forgiven so much would be too involved in thankfulness over the debt forgiven that he would be involved in praise and thanksgiving rather than going after petty debts.
It is a hypothetical. But you won't accept that explanation will you?

Because it is not the same servant, he is a wicked servant, as he is addressed. The forgiven servant is a forgiving servant. He wouldn't do that. A wicked servant has the quality of wickedness, the wickedness described. He is called into account for his wickedness.

2. Then THIS ONE

Where we see forgiveness revoked - full debt returned.

Where there is no forgiveness there is no forgiveness revoked.
It is a hypothetical.
[FONT=&quot]

34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]He is jailed until the debt is repaid. The enormity of the debt makes the "jail" seem like it will be forever, for he will never be able to pay the debt that the servant (now originally) was forgiven.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

3. Then THiS ONE

[/FONT]

Where Christ applies the lesson to His listeners - which is obviously OUTSIDE of the parable.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

The parable was spoken to Peter. Peter was both forgiven and he forgave others. This is the quality of a Christian. He rejoiced because he had been forgiven. Peter was not the surly sultry servant never giving forgiveness to anyone. He rejoiced in the forgiveness given to him and freely forgave others.
The warning was not applicable to him, or the other apostles. It was for the unsaved.

Which is what we also see with Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Obviously directed to the unsaved; for neither the apostles or a saved person acts in this way. They are both forgiven and forgive.

The question 3 that you are ducking and dodging as "if" we call cannot see it.

I don't dodge. You don't accept my answers, as will be shortly noted.
[FONT=&quot]

3. Then THiS ONE

[/FONT]

Where Christ applies the lesson to His listeners - which is obviously OUTSIDE of the parable.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

Which is what we also see with Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

A warning to the unsaved listening, not applicable to the true believer. A true believer is forgiving. It is characteristic of every true believer to be forgiving--a forgiving person.

Yet God did say that about that servant. Hint: Christ is God.

The servants were not the same. There are too many inconsistencies. The second half of the parable is an obvious hypothetical. Are you willing to accept that?

That would be point 1 above - where you are now ever so carefully contradicting the Words of Christ -

I don't contradict the Word; I rightly divide it.

But previously you were not so quick to contradict everything in the text.

I understand what it says so that it does not contradict itself nor the rest of Scripture as you have it doing.

 

[BobRyan]

The three untouchable (apparently) questions:. And how the details in the text - are being carefully contradicted by OSAS arguments here.
================================================== ==============

1. First this one -- where we see an ALREADY FULLY Forgiven servant expected to forgive AS HE WAS TRULY forgiven.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]

2. Then THIS ONE

Where we see forgiveness revoked - full debt returned.

[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.


3. Then THiS ONE
[/FONT]
Where Christ applies the lesson to His listeners - which is obviously OUTSIDE of the parable.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

Which is what we also see with Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

In the first half of the parable the slave was fully forgiven of his debt, and was very thankful for that forgiveness. His life was completely changed. He was forgiven and forgiving the two characteristics of a truly saved Christian, as he was.

I don't think I have ever disputed that point for "the start" it is the later state of unforgiveness and the dreaded OSAS-denying result of "forgiveness revoked" as the consequence that we are debating most often on this thread.

.
The second half is a hypothetical. Jesus doesn't specifically use the words "Suppose ye,"

indeed there is no "yes but what If that slave should not always choose to forgive others? What then??"

Yet even if He did say that - it would still destroy OSAS for the preservation of the saints folks like Winman.

but they are implied.

No the "but what IF" statement is not implied -- rather you merely "infer it" - eisegeting in what is not there.

It saves one form of OSAS (sort of) but destroys Winman's view of it.

Suppose that this same servant went out and did this....
It is not in reality the same servant,

More story telling details not in the text - that appear only by virtue of "inference" and eisegesis.

By contrast Christ says it is in fact the very SAME servant as the one fully forgiven.

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]

Just the fact alone that the exact same servant would not be there. He would be at the feet of Jesus worshiping and praising and thanking him.

More circular argument and story telling - a "rich" set of details to "spin" the chapter.

But "later" I suppose you will call all these inserts, and inference, and added details "your full refutation of the actual details IN the text that are NOT inserted" --

We both know that post from you is coming - where you claim that your storytelling and inserts - are the proof that the text as written does not destroy at least some form of OSAS though your story tosses Winmans' version of OSAS under a bus.

He would not be going after those who owe him something worth the price of a cup of coffee in contrast to $16 million dollars (the comparison given in the parable).
A servant forgiven so much would be too involved in thankfulness over the debt forgiven

What a wonderful paragraph of "added details" to be ADDED to the text.

But Jesus does not make the "you are programmed and can make no other choice but forgive others so pay no attention to this next warning" point that your kind of OSAS would love to imagine-into-the-text.

No wonder you have refused to deal with the questions so long.

Adding all these "DHK sourced detail" into the text is not something you want to do on page one of this thread.

How it would quickly be noticed by all.

It is a hypothetical. But you won't accept that explanation will you?

Because it is not the same servant, he is a wicked servant, as he is addressed.

He is only called wicked when later he chooses not to forgive others AND He is only called wicked because of his prior FULL forgiveness.

Impossible to flood the text with enough story telling not to notice this Bible detail.

Where there is no forgiveness there is no forgiveness revoked.
It is a hypothetical.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

We have only "you" as the source for that flood of added eisegeted imagined doctrine.

Why do you suppose such key OSAS-necessary details are missing?

Your extreme "insert" version of dividing the word - makes it stand on its head making the opposite point from what the text says without all of you "inserts".

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

In all fairness to DHK - though he adds a huge amount of his own material into Matt 18 trying to get it to work for OSAS - he is the only one on the OSAS side that tries to get the actual details to fit OSAS without simply providing the answer of "ignoring them entirely".

Though it is creative writing on his part - at least he is wrestling with the Bible details.

Credit where credit is due.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

The three untouchable (apparently) questions:. And how the details in the text - are being carefully contradicted by OSAS arguments here.

First, take the parable by itself.
Note: It is a parable. Doctrine is not taught by parables; it is illustrated. This is the first reason why we know "forgiveness revoked" is heresy. It is not taught elsewhere, but the basis of it is from a parable. It is hermeneutically wrong.

Second, a parable can be defined as "an earthly story teaching a heavenly or spiritual truth." It is meant to teach one central truth. All the parts of a parable do not necessarily fit together and are not always relevant. For example: In the parable of the woman who lost one of her ten coins, and sweeps the floor looking for that one lost coin, what does the "broom" represent? It represents an instrument by which one sweeps the floor and nothing more. Not everything must "fit" or represent something. One must be careful of reading into the parable too much. They are meant to teach one central truth. One needs to look for that one central truth.

Third, the one central truth in Matthew 18 is the importance of forgiveness. That is what Jesus was stressing throughout the whole chapter. Even just before he gave the parable he stressed how important to forgiveness was to Peter. If his discussion with Peter is not taken into consideration in the interpretation of the parable, the parable will not have a proper meaning.

Bob ignores some of these basic principles in the interpretation of parables. He teaches doctrine from parables and forces them to teach his doctrine, rather than allow the parable to illustrate Biblical doctrine that is already taught in the Bible.

I don't think I have ever disputed that point for "the start" it is the later state of unforgiveness and the dreaded OSAS-denying result of "forgiveness revoked" as the consequence that we are debating most often on this thread.

They are not the same servants--obviously. You don't look at this parable in any objective way at all. I warned you that you would not accept my answer, so tell me: why do you want me to answer?

In the reality of the parable he was forgiven about $16,000,000.00 debt.
Then (if the same person) he takes a fellow servant (for the price of a cup of coffee or five or ten dollars at the most) and throws him in jail.
First, what kind of power does a servant have to throw another in jail for the debt of a cup of jail? Does that make sense to you?
Second, what judge would agree to such a scheme to throw a person in jail because he owed an amount worth the price of a cup of coffee? Does this make sense to you?
Third, Does it make sense that a person who has just been forgiven of such a great debt to go after a person for such a small debt, and have the power to put him jail for such a small amount? No, it doesn't.
Fourth, the reality is, that Jesus is using contrast, and he is using exaggerated contrast to make a very obvious point.

A forgiven person is a forgiving person.
A forgiven person does not do wickedly. Nor is he called "O you wicked servant," by the one who just "saved" him.

In the first half, what happened when the servant was forgiven? What was the spiritual lesson?
[FONT=&quot]In the parable, the King is God. We are the servant. Our debt is our sin. It is far too great for us to pay. We are as criminals before God. Our sin is insurmountable. We cannot even begin to imagine how great the crimes against a Holy and righteous God that we have committed. The penalty is out of reach. We deserve to pay—the penalty is eternal condemnation in Hell. It is a terrible payment and a terrible punishment. Yet, what can we do? The accumulation of our sins before God is so massive, so great that it is impossible for any person to comprehend. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The only answer to our problem is to throw ourselves on the mercy of God, the King.

This is precisely what the servant did, and the King forgave him. Now what would the servant be doing? He would be so busy worshiping and praising the Lord that he would not have the time to track time those who owe him a cup of coffee or the equivalent. Does this make sense to you? Put the facts of the parable together!

They cannot be the same person for very obvious reasons. It is Jesus Himself who has made them very different people by using contrast and exaggeration which would be very obvious to the hearer of the parable in the first century. But we are 20 centuries removed and must think about different currencies, different cultures, different customs, etc. Thus many misunderstand the parable. One must also realize that it is one basic truth that is being taught--the truth of the importance and necessity of forgiveness. [/FONT]

indeed there is no "yes but what If that slave should not always choose to forgive others? What then??"

A forgiven servant (Christian) is a forgiving servant. Your question is moot.

Yet even if He did say that - it would still destroy OSAS for the preservation of the saints folks like Winman.

The parable does not destroy the doctrine of eternal security at all. The servant was forgiven of all his sin. Period. The wicked servant is a wicked servant. He stands in his wickedness and the righteous servant stands in his righteousness.

No the "but what IF" statement is not implied -- rather you merely "infer it" - eisegeting in what is not there.

You are the one introducing new and heretical doctrine via a parable. Don't worry about my interpretation. The Bible backs it up.

It saves one form of OSAS (sort of) but destroys Winman's view of it.

Winman can fend for himself. There is only one doctrine of "eternal security."

More story telling details not in the text - that appear only by virtue of "inference" and eisegesis.

Not at all. But as I said, you wouldn't like the answers to the explanation I would give.

By contrast Christ says it is in fact the very SAME servant as the one fully forgiven.

Look at what you just wrote: "By Contrast..."
It was a contrast. It was a different servant. You just about said it yourself. He was contrasting two different servants in a hypothetical situation. The contrasts are given plainly, so plainly that one cannot possibly miss them. The contrasts are so obvious they are exaggerated!

 

[BobRyan]

First, take the parable by itself.
Note: It is a parable. Doctrine is not taught by parables; it is illustrated.

all except for vs 37 where Jesus makes application of the lesson OUTSIDE of parable and for Matt 6 where the SAME point is repeated in the Lord's Prayer and also in Ezek 18 where the SAME point is made.

You keep missing this detail. Not sure why it keeps escaping your notice.

This is the first reason why we know "forgiveness revoked" is heresy

Calling the words of Christ "heresy" in Matt 6 and Matt 18 and Ezek 18 is not the enlightened solution you may have at first imagined for OSAS.

I think your first trick was to accuse Christ of "exaggeration" and now -- heresy?? Really?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

all except for vs 37 where Jesus makes application of the lesson OUTSIDE of parable and for Matt 6 where the SAME point is repeated in the Lord's Prayer and also in Ezek 18 where the SAME point is made.

You keep missing this detail. Not sure why it keeps escaping your notice.

I am not missing any details; you are the one adding them.
First of all you added to the Scriptures which is adding to yourself plagues and condemnation. There are only 35 verses in Matthew 18.
If it is verse 35 you are speaking of he is still talking to Peter, the only one he ever addressed in that parable. Where does it say he is speaking to anyone else? You tell me. That is where you are assuming a greater audience. If there is a greater audience it would simply be his apostles, as it is in Matthew 6. You are assuming too much.
You keep missing this detail; it is called context. Not sure why it keeps escaping your notice.

Calling the words of Christ "heresy" in Matt 6 and Matt 18 and Ezek 18 is not the enlightened solution you may have at first imagined for OSAS.

The heresy is "forgiveness revoked." Show me one place where these words are used. You can't. It is a heresy. You can't even find the concept in Scripture. Thus what you have said is a false accusation. Now where have I called the words of Christ "heresy" as you have so slanderously alleged. You need to apologize and take back your accusation.
Your heresy is not taught here, neither in Mat.6, nor in Ez.18. I have given you explanations for all three passages. The fact that you reject Scriptural explanations does not give you license to accuse me of calling Christ's words "heresy." You are way out of line here. What you are teaching is way outside the borders of orthodox Christianity, and thus I have every right to call it "heresy." What orthodox Christian group in history has ever taught this doctrine. Give me a reason not to call it heresy.

I think your first trick was to accuse Christ of "exaggeration" and now -- heresy?? Really?

Again this is a false accusation. I said Christ used exaggeration, a literary device. He also used metaphors, such as "I am the door." He didn't mean he was a literal door did he.
Comparing a debt of $16 million to the price of a cup of coffee is an exaggerated debt. The two cannot be compared. Christ is allowed to use such comparisons is he not? Or are you the 'Almighty One' (blasphemy) that puts limits on Christ??

Maybe "exaggeration" is the wrong word to use. But Jesus uses the same kind of "stark comparison" in another place. It is such an "exaggerated comparison" that it is too incomprehensible to imagine.
He states that it is "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
The exaggerated comparison of a camel going through an eye of a needle is so great that it is impossible to comprehend. This is what he does in the above parable in making many such impossible comparisons. But you put Christ in the class of a sinner for doing so!

 

[The Biblicist]

You keep missing this detail.

Here is a detail that I would be interested in hearing your interpretation:

Mt. 18:23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought to him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

Does not this portion of the parable recongize this "one" brought to him as already one "of his servants"? So according to this parable if we make it walk on all fours as you are insisting in all other particulars, then this man was already one "of his servants" before he was forgiven. A servant is one who serves someone or something. How does this apply to your view of salvation as I understood the Bible clearly teaches that the unforgiven are servants of sin/unrighteousness and Satan not servants of God.

Ro 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin,

Ro 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin,


Secondly, how is it that the Master gives the same punishment exactly as the servant gave his servant and you interpret that to be hell. Did the forgiven servant cast his servant into hell?

Mt. 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

Mt. 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due to him.

The former was TEMPORAL not eternal punishment. Why can't the latter be also TEMPORAL punishment as well and thus whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap?

Were not the prison in biblical times similar to the debtors prison in old England where severe labor was required to pay their debt?

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is a detail that I would be interested in hearing your interpretation:

Mt. 18:23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought to him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

Does not this portion of the parable recongize this "one" brought to him as already one "of his servants"? So according to this parable if we make it walk on all fours as you are insisting in all other particulars, then this man was already one "of his servants" before he was forgiven. A servant is one who serves someone or something. How does this apply to your view of salvation as I understood the Bible clearly teaches that the unforgiven are servants of sin/unrighteousness and Satan not servants of God.

Ro 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin,

Ro 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin,


Secondly, how is it that the Master gives the same punishment exactly as the servant gave his servant and you interpret that to be hell. Did the forgiven servant cast his servant into hell?

Mt. 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

Mt. 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due to him.

The former was TEMPORAL not eternal punishment. Why can't the latter be also TEMPORAL punishment as well and thus whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap?

Were not the prison in biblical times similar to the debtors prison in old England where severe labor was required to pay their debt?

In addition, why do you pit a parable against clear precepts as in John 6:37-39 which denies that "OF ALL" any should perish because the responsiblity for their eternal security rests entirely upon Christ's obedience to the will of the Gather instead of the beleivers obedience?

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.


1. NONE fail to come of all who are given.

2. NONE "of all" given are lost

3. The Son is entrusted with entire responsibility to assure "of all" given NONE ARE LOST

Are you not accusing Christ of sin by your interpretation of a parable? Would not Christ have to sin against the revealed will of the Father that "OF ALL" given to him, He should "lose nothing" if indeed some given are lost???

Jesus did not say that revealed will was the responsibility to those given him but rather it is the responsibility given to the Son by the Father.

 

[BobRyan]

No sense in ignoring the texts pointed out by "Question 3"

Originally Posted by DHK
First, take the parable by itself.
Note: It is a parable. Doctrine is not taught by parables; it is illustrated.

all except for vs 37 (and by that I mean vs 35 ) where Jesus makes application of the lesson OUTSIDE of parable and for Matt 6 where the SAME point is repeated in the Lord's Prayer and also in Ezek 18 where the SAME point is made.

You keep missing this detail. Not sure why it keeps escaping your notice.

[FONT=&quot]
3. Then THiS ONE
[/FONT]
Where Christ applies the lesson to His listeners - which is obviously OUTSIDE of the parable.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

Which is what we also see with Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

This is the first reason why we know "forgiveness revoked" is heresy

Calling the words of Christ "heresy" in Matt 6 and Matt 18 and Ezek 18 is not the enlightened solution you may have at first imagined for OSAS.

I think your first trick was to accuse Christ of "exaggeration" and now -- heresy?? Really?

If it is verse 35 you are speaking of he is still talking to Peter, the only one he ever addressed in that parable.

You're holding the text at too great a distance and so are making glaring mistakes.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

"To each of you"?? you want to turn into "just one of you" -- just "Peter"??? That is a level of eisegesis that does not survive Matt 18:35 and does not survive


And the same teaching in Matt 6 -- also not possible to limit to "just Peter"

Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Already pointed out dozens of times by now.

As we all know.

Where does it say he is speaking to anyone else? You tell me.

One more time "With feeling" where we see MORE than "just Peter"

Matt 18
[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

"To each of you"?? you want to turn into "just one of you" -- just "Peter"??? That is a level of eisegesis that does not survive Matt 18:35 and does not survive


And the same teaching in Matt 6 -- also not possible to limit to "just Peter"

Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

The heresy is "forgiveness revoked." Show me one place where these words are used. You can't. It is a heresy.

Hint - Matt 18.
[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]


If you "make up a story' about
[FONT=&quot]to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Such that this is NOT the one fully forgiven [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
[/FONT]
Then you left with a self-story and not the Bible. Worked better in the dark ages but not so easy to do in this age of light.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

neither in Mat.6, nor in Ez.18. I have given you explanations for all three passages. The fact that you reject Scriptural explanations

Your "explanation" in Matt 18 included a whole story line about the servant where God says that the King "Forgive Him ALL" and that he was expected to do likewise - is in your story one who was never at all forgiven and yet God is demanding that he forgive others. -- as odd as that story-insert is.

Yet you call your "insert" into the text "scriptural explanation" how odd.

Same with Ezek 18 it was pointed out to you that the one who is wicked, who murders who then turns to God is set free - is decreed to "Live" rather than die - which is obviously not a statement about civil courts (obviously).

you simply "ignore the details that don't fit your stories".

Who is that supposed to snooker?? me?? Seriously??

. What you are teaching is way outside the borders of orthodox Christianity,

Your ability to "make stuff up" apparently goes BEYOND inserting whole paragraphs of made up stuff for your 'explanation' of Matt 18 - but now you claim that the Free Will Baptists, Methodists, and many other non-OSAS denominations are "not orthodox" simple because they don't have your same OSAS-need to ignore Bible details in Matt 18, Ezek 18, Romans 11 etc that don't fit OSAS??

Really??

Maybe "exaggeration" is the wrong word to use. But Jesus uses the same kind of "stark comparison" in another place. It is such an "exaggerated comparison" that it is too incomprehensible to imagine.
He states that it is "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

There was a smaller gate into the courtyard was called "the eye of the needle" in the middle east and the camels had to crawl through it to get in when they were loaded with supplies.

At least two solutions have been proposed for the accuracy of Christ.


Needle Gate:
"The "eye of the needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century."
This would address the scenario of a saved Rich Man who endures and does not lose salvation yet with difficulty.

The other option is a literal needle - if the scenario is to address a rich man who tries to get to heaven on his own merit as many Jews supposed the rich to be favored by God and worthy on their merits "alone" to enter heaven.

Christ's Word is far more accurate and trustworthy than traditions like OSAS would like to imagine.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Needle Gate:
"The "eye of the needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century."

Christ's Word is far more accurate and trustworthy than traditions like OSAS would like to imagine.

in Christ,

Bob

But you are the one that ignores God's Word. Look at it carefully:

Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

A.T. Robertson says this:

It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye (eukopôteron estin kamêlon dia trêmatos rhaphidos eiselthein). Jesus, of course, means by this comparison, whether an eastern proverb or not, to express the impossible. The efforts to explain it away are jejune like a ship's cable, kamilon or rhaphis as a narrow gorge or gate of entrance for camels which recognized stooping, etc. All these are hopeless, for Jesus pointedly calls the thing "impossible" (verse Mt 19:26). The Jews in the Babylonian Talmud did have a proverb that a man even in his dreams did not see an elephant pass through the eye of a needle (Vincent). The Koran speaks of the wicked finding the gates of heaven shut "till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle." But the Koran may have got this figure from the New Testament. The word for an ordinary needle is rhaphis, but, Luke (Lu 18:25) employs belonê, the medical term for the surgical needle not elsewhere in the N.T.

You are among those that disbelieve the Bible.
With God all things are possible, but not with men.
The idiom "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" is meant to show that it is an impossibility. Your explaining away the words of the Bible, as Robertson demonstrates, simply shows your unbelief.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a detail that I would be interested in hearing your interpretation:

Mt. 18:23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought to him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

Does not this portion of the parable recongize this "one" brought to him as already one "of his servants"?

Yes - but all mankind are in that sense the creation of God.

All are accountable to God - both the saved and the lost.

In this case someone who is lost is under conviction. You yourself describe this scenario in a recent post where I agreed with that part of your statement.


How is this a question?

So according to this parable if we make it walk on all fours as you are insisting in all other particulars, then this man was already one "of his servants" before he was forgiven.

No - rather "ALL souls are MINE the soul of the Father as well as the soul of the son" Ezek 18.

God is the sovereign over all and the judge of all.

God is also the judge of Satan and the fallen angels. The will get no such offer of pardon as is the case with those who commit the "sin that is unto death" as John says in 1John 5.

Secondly, how is it that the Master gives the same punishment exactly as the servant gave his servant and you interpret that to be hell. Did the forgiven servant cast his servant into hell?

Mt. 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

Mt. 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due to him.

The former is jail for a small amount to be repaid - but the later is jail and torment for a much larger sum.

The indebted servant can survive the first one - but 10 life-times would not allow the wicked servant to pay his debt - he cannot survive it.

The lost sinner cannot survive payment in full of his debt in the lake of fire and brimstone. Matt 10;28 already pointed this out prior to Matt 18.

In Matt 25 we are told that the same form of punishment is given to both the wicked and the devil and his angels at the end of the age.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[FONT=&quot]
3. Then THiS ONE
[/FONT]
Where Christ applies the lesson to His listeners - which is obviously OUTSIDE of the parable.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

Which is what we also see with Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Now watch as the above "details" outside of parable are 'missed again'

In addition, why do you pit a parable against clear precepts as in John 6:37-39

ok well - we can all see the details above - OUTside of parable!

As for John 6.

which denies that "OF ALL" any should perish because the responsiblity for their eternal security rests entirely upon Christ

1. in Matt 18 and in Matt 6 the behavior of the one who IS Fully forigven and yet at some later point stops forgiving others - so -- so much for imagining that such a thing is not possible.

2. John 6 refers to the faithful who persevere no mention is made about them turning to rebellion against the Word of God at some point in John 6 or in John 10.

The fact is that both the OSAS and the non-OSAS groups agree that for those who do persevere firm until the end - they are saved at last -- nothing lost.

The only point of difference is for those who once saved - "Fall from Grace" and are "Severed from Christ" experiencing "Forgiveness revoked".

Some parts of John 6 do not explicitly stop you from inferring that Matt 18 and Matt 6 and Ezek 18, and Romans 11 and Gal 5:4 and ... cannot possibly exist. But when you get to those chapters you then realize that inference applied to extreme in John 6 to support OSAS now has limits.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

At least two solutions have been proposed for the accuracy of Christ.


Needle Gate:
"The "eye of the needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century."
This would address the scenario of a saved rich man who endures and does not lose salvation yet with difficulty.

The other option is a literal needle - if the scenario is to address a rich man who tries to get to heaven on his own merit as many Jews supposed the rich to be favored by God and worthy on their merits "alone" to enter heaven.

Christ's Word is far more accurate and trustworthy than traditions like OSAS would like to imagine.

But you are the one that ignores God's Word. Look at it carefully:

Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

With men it is impossible to get to heaven by their own works.

But with God - the Gospel, the plan of Salvation etc - those who could not get to heaven at all - may now get to heaven. That was the second scenario showing that with man it is impossible.

And the first scenario points out how the same person as a saved saint that perseveres does get to heaven just as Romans 2:4-16 states.

Robertson limits himself to the impossible - but i address that in the second scenario already where it is impossible for the rich man to enter heaven apart from the Gospel.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

No sense in ignoring the texts pointed out by "Question 3"

Your "questions" become irrelevant in the light of the rest of Scripture.
Your "questions" become irrelevant when you try to force parables to teach doctrine that goes contrary to the rest of Scripture.
Your "questions" become irrelevant since you go against basic hermeneutical principles of the interpretation of parables not understanding that they illustrate Biblical doctrine already taught (not teach new doctrine), and that the doctrine illustrated is a basic truth (not many). They are not to be made "to walk on all fours." Nevertheless you "force" them to teach YOUR doctrinal heresy inspite of the above.
[FONT=&quot]

3. Then THiS ONE

[/FONT]

Where Christ applies the lesson to His listeners - which is obviously OUTSIDE of the parable.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

I have answered this. How many times do I need to answer it before you will accept it? Why do you want me to answer it over and over again if you are just going to refuse the answer?? :BangHead:
The parable is addressed to Peter.
If (and only if) there is an audience greater than Peter, then it is to the apostles as a group. They were the ones that were with Peter. He is not addressing the general public as you assume. He is teaching his disciples or the apostles. Don't ignore context. If each of you (the apostles) do not...
It is a moot point since the apostles are both forgiven and forgiving. They are righteous before God and stand in their righteousness.
The wicked, however are unrepentant and shall stand in their wickedness. Their punishment will be as they deserve and as the King desires to mete out.

Which is what we also see with Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Yes it is. I was addressing the parable, not flitting like an aimless bird here and there.
However, Jesus was teaching principles of prayer to his apostles! You again ignore context. His apostles came to him and said: "Lord teach us to pray." And then he said to them, "Pray ye in this manner, Our Father which art in heaven..."
He is speaking to his disciples.
"If you (apostles) do not forgive others...
Again, it is a moot point. The apostles were forgiven and forgiving.
They were righteous before God and stood in their righteous standing.
I thoroughly explained Matthew six in another post previously. There is no need for me to explain it here.

You're holding the text at too great a distance and so are making glaring mistakes.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

"To each of you"?? you want to turn into "just one of you" -- just "Peter"??? That is a level of eisegesis that does not survive Matt 18:35 and does not survive

Each of you--the apostles. Already asked and answered. Pay attention.

And the same teaching in Matt 6 -- also not possible to limit to "just Peter"

Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Already pointed out dozens of times by now.

As we all know.

Already asked and answered--dozens of times by now, as we all know.
He was speaking to his apostles. Do you comprehend that yet.

Luke 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

One more time "With feeling" where we see MORE than "just Peter"

Matt 18
[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

"To each of you"?? you want to turn into "just one of you" -- just "Peter"??? That is a level of eisegesis that does not survive Matt 18:35 and does not survive

And the same teaching in Matt 6 -- also not possible to limit to "just Peter"

Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Luke 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

He was speaking to his disciples--the twelve. Do you understand yet? How many more times must I repeat it. Why do you ask this question so many times. It has been asked and answered--repeatedly.

Hint - Matt 18.
[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

I can quote scripture too. But there is nothing in this scripture about the heresy of "forgiveness revoked. The Bible teaches no such heretical doctrine. In fact you should know that such a sacred book as the Bible does not teach any heresy at all. Why do you insist that it does?

If you "make up a story' about
[FONT=&quot]to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]You have always had trouble with spiritual applications. You had trouble making spiritual applications when discussing the Sabbath, and you have trouble with it now. It is not just a story. It is making the Scriptural applicable to us today.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Such that this is NOT the one fully forgiven [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It was a hypothetical. He is called "wicked". The other servant was "righteous," made righteous in the sight of the King (God) who forgave him all of his debt (the debt of sin that he could never pay). The first servant was not then wicked. He would be wearing a cloak of righteousness and would be doing righteous acts, not sinful ones.
[/FONT]

Then you left with a self-story and not the Bible. Worked better in the dark ages but not so easy to do in this age of light.
Bob

I can't help you if you don't accept biblical truth as it harmonizes with the rest of scripture. You want the Bible to contradict itself. It is unacceptable.

 

[DHK]

With men it is impossible to get to heaven by their own works.

Robertson limits himself to the impossible - but i address that in the second scenario already where it is impossible for the rich man to enter heaven apart from the Gospel.
Bob

It doesn't matter how you interpret the passage. That is not up for discussion. Robertson is a Greek scholar; you are not.
The point to be made is this: "The idiom "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle," is used to portray the impossible.
Interpret the passage however you want, that is irrelevant for it is not under discussion. The idiom is. Jesus used the idiom to express an impossibility. As Robertson pointed out that is what the idiom was designed to mean, and he referenced outside material to prove his point.

That being said, Jesus using figurative language in Matthew 19 about camels going through the eye of a needle, as Robertson (not you) describes, comparisons that are impossible for one to conceive of, so he is using the same type of comparison in the parable in Matthew 18.
There is no point in arguing over the passage in Matthew 19. It is only an illustration of the same type of literary device used here--stark contrast, exaggeration, hyperbole, contrast so great that it is incomprehensible, etc. Do you understand yet.

The one just forgiven of a debt equivalent to $16,000,000.00 does not go and throw in jail (as if he could) another fellow worker who owes him a "debt" worth the price of a cup of coffee (100 pence), or about five dollars.
This is not a story but it is what the parable teaches. The extreme contrast here is incomprehensible. One forgiven of so much does not immediately sue one for so little. They are not the same person; obviously.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes - but all mankind are in that sense the creation of God.

All are accountable to God - both the saved and the lost.

In this case someone who is lost is under conviction. You yourself describe this scenario in a recent post where I agreed with that part of your statement.


How is this a question?Bob

But look at the preceding context that it follows. Church members dealing with another brother who has offended them (Mt. 18:15-20). Look at the question by Peter that gives rise to this parable:

21 ¶ Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Peter imagined that since he was dealing with "my brother" instead of a lost man or heathen he should forgive at least "seven times."

Now look at the parable that it is about the kingdom of God not the world, and about those already "servants" in His kingdom.

Now look at the concluding application:

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also to you, if you from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Hence, the total context demands that dealing with brethren that offend you is still the context.

Finally, again notice that the retribution of the Master toward the servant who did not forgive his servant is EXACTLY THE SAME except more intense because of the greater debt:

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due to him.

Both retributions are TEMPORAL and occur during the physical life of both servants. The servant did not send the other servant to hell but put him in a TEMPORAL position of difficulty. The Scriptures clearly teach in regard to mistreatment OF BRETHREN that IN THIS LIFE we reap what we sow:

1 ¶ Brothers, if a man be overtaken in a fault, you which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering yourself, lest you also be tempted.
2 Bear you one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
......7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap.

When we sow of the flesh we reap of the flesh here and now. Jesus is referring to divine chastisement here and now because neither the unforgiving servant or the Master cast anyone into hell after they had died but both cast the debtors into TEMPORAL PRISONS while they both are alive.

For example, consider the sins of David against Uriah and Bathsheba. In Psalm 32 he acknowledges the eternal consequences of his sins are already forgiven:

1 ¶ Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputes not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

However, that did not provide escape from the TEMPORAL CONSEQUENCES as the prophet Nathan told him:

2Sa 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

Note that David had used the sword against Uriah once but the temporal consequence was manifold more times IN HIS OWN LIFE.

Likewise, when the children of God do not forgive one another, the very same TEMPORAL HARDSHIPS they put upon their brethren in this life is returned unto their own bosom by God IN THIS LIFE except more intense.

 

[BobRyan]

No sense in ignoring the texts pointed out by "Question 3"
[FONT=&quot]
3. Then THiS ONE
[/FONT]
Where Christ applies the lesson to His listeners - which is obviously OUTSIDE of the parable.

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]

Which is what we also see with Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Your "questions" become irrelevant in the light of the rest of Scripture.

hint: My questions ARE from the text of Matt 18 and your response of the form "making stuff up about the wicked slave That Christ said was fully forgiven not being the same as the slave - fully forgiven at the start of Christ's illustration" does not hold water.

Not even for a second. I don't see even one person here climbing out on that limb with you.

Your "questions" become irrelevant when you try to force parables

Hint: Asking a question from the very text - is NOT "forcing the parable".

And vs Matt 18:35 and Matt 6 are BOTH outside of parable - and we both know it.

And "obviously" the forgiveness revoked of Ezek 18 forms context affirming Christ's teaching in Matt 18 and so also Paul's statement in Gal 5:4 about those who have "fallen FROM Grace" and been "severed FROM Christ". So also Christ's statement in John 15:1-8 about "Every branch IN ME " that does not continue to bear fruit - being cut off dried up -- worthless and cast into the fire.

[FONT=&quot]
I have answered this. How many times do I need to answer it before you will accept it? Why do you want me to answer it over and over again [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You keep repeating yourself about "all is parable" when I show you that Matt 18:35 is NOT parable nor is Matt 6 making the same point.

And then you "make stuff up" about the servant that Christ said is "wicked and fully forgiven" not being the same as the servant "fully forgiven" at the start of His illustration.

Who is that supposed to ahve snookered? me?? You pretend as if you gave smoe form of compelling Bible exegesis when you simply "made up the idea" that the one tha King said was wicked AND FULLY Forgiven was not ever forgiven![/FONT][FONT=&quot]

If (and only if) there is an audience greater than Peter, then it is to the apostles as a group.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]They were the ones that were with Peter. He is not addressing the general public as you assume.[/FONT] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Catholics like to "pretend" that the teaching of Christ in the Gospel was only for the Apostles - but not us - I was not aware that those like you who consider the teaching of the Protestant reformers to be like that of Charles Taze Russell (your words) joined the Catholics in that hopeless line of defense.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
It is a moot point since the apostles are both forgiven and forgiving. They are righteous before God and stand in their righteousness. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hint - Matt 18.

[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.'' [/FONT]


Hint: Which is why vs 35 destroys OSAS.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Obviously.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

The wicked, however are unrepentant and shall stand in their wickedness. Their punishment will be as they deserve and as the King desires to mete out.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
In this case - the wicked servant was "Fully forgiven" and then had that forgiveness revoked.

Hence the problem for OSAS.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hint - Matt 18.
[FONT=&quot]32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.[/FONT]


[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
However, Jesus was teaching principles of prayer to his apostles! You again ignore context. His apostles came to him and said: "Lord teach us to pray." And then he said to them, "Pray ye in this manner, Our Father which art in heaven..."
He is speaking to his disciples.
"If you (apostles) do not forgive others...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Our Catholic friends are gleeful to see that you deny the Gospel teaching of Christ seeking to restrict it to "just the disciples" EVEN in the case of the Lord's Prayer!!

Is that really supposed to "help" OSAS?

Please be serious.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Time to throw away the shovel)

Again, it is a moot point. The apostles were forgiven and forgiving.
They were righteous before God and stood in their righteous standing.

hint: Which is WHY Matt 6 is a problem for OSAS

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Matt 6. (Which is obviously OUTSIDE of a parable)
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

You can't help out OSAS by repeatedly making MY point.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It was a hypothetical. He is called "wicked". The other servant was "righteous," made righteous in the sight of the King (God) who forgave him all of his debt (the debt of sin that he could never pay). The first servant was not then wicked. He would be wearing a cloak of righteousness and would be doing righteous acts, not sinful ones.
[/FONT]

]

Here is your attempt to "make stuff up " about the wicked slave that Christ said was wicked and fully forgiven - to be some other person not at all mentioned in the parable - and innexplicably NOT fully forgiven even though the king said he WAS fully forgiven and it was for that VERY REASON that he was expected to forgive others?

Seriously such a failed response cannot be your "best" --

Astounding!!


I can't help you if you don't accept biblical truth as it harmonizes with the rest of scripture. You want the Bible to contradict itself. It is unacceptable.