Matt 18 and Matt 6 Disprove OSAS

[Revmitchell]

Matt 18 is another place where "forgiveness revoked" is a subject of the Bible - often ignored by those clinging to man-made-tradition over the Word of God.

[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]


Matt 6

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.


There is a long list of other texts that disprove OSAS in the same way - such as those we find in Ezek 18.

in Christ,

Bob

The assumption here appears to be that the saved person can be unforgiving and thus lose their salvation. Is that correct?

 

[DHK]

HOW does OSAS survive these "Bible details"?? Or is your solution to "continue to ignore the Bible on these details"??
Bob

Answering a question with a question is not answering the question.
Answer the post Bob without your mindless posting of Scripture. C
Are you able to think for yourself and give a coherent answer to the post above:
Here it is again, lest you have forgotten what it is you were answering to you:

You never answered the question Bob.
If you lose your salvation, how do you get it back again?
According to your doctrine you must ask forgiveness (again).
Thus you have made forgiveness a prerequisite for salvation. But it isn't.

You never answered the evidence presented here either.
Does your closed mind allow you do it:
Obviously it does Bob. Your too blind to see it.

Look at the facts of the case.
1. The context in both cases: Jesus was speaking to his disciples (and in one case especially Peter).
2. Judas Iscariot is omitted by the mere fact that he was prophesied to be the son of perdition. He was lost then, never was saved.
3. All the others were saved. They never lost their salvation. Their sins were all forgiven then, throughout their lives in the Book of Acts, and they are all in heaven now.
4. Jesus was not holding a thread of revoking that initial forgiveness or salvation above their heads. They themselves testified that they served him out of love, not fear. That disqualifies your teaching. They were not fearful of having "their forgiveness revoked." There is no such doctrine.
5. They were eternally forgiven, not one of them was lost, and could have been lost. Jesus promised that in John 10:27-30; 5:24, and especially in His Great High Priestly prayer to the Father, where he specifically said that "I have lost none of them."
6. You have all of history against you. All the apostles died as martyrs for Christ, except for John who was exiled on Patmos where he wrote the Book of Revelation.

Furthermore you are teaching doctrine from parables, something that is hermeneutically wrong--wrongly dividing the word of truth. That is exactly what cults do when they form strange doctrines.

Give an answer Bob without dodging these points. Take each point and address them, point by point.

 

[Iconoclast]

Furthermore you are teaching doctrine from parables, something that is hermeneutically wrong--wrongly dividing the word of truth. That is exactly what cults do when they form strange doctrines

there it is!

 

[BobRyan]

I am reminding those who keep ignoring these 3 easy questions -- of just what it is they are ignoring.
================================

I am asking you to respond to the details IN the text.

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.

So yes that would be "Sola scriptura" testing of your man-made tradition if you can actually address "the Bible details".

So far ducking them does not count as addressing them.

 

[BobRyan]

The assumption here appears to be that the saved person can be unforgiving and thus lose their salvation. Is that correct?

Not at all.

The assumption here is that we will find at least one person who believes in OSAS who will finally address the 3 simple questions and the details actually in the texts posted. Without running from the details - with an interest in a compelling answer to the 3 questions.

So far that assumption is in question.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And obviously - the 3 easy questions just posted arise naturally from these two chapters..



Matt 18 is another place where "forgiveness revoked" is a subject of the Bible - often ignored by those clinging to man-made-tradition over the Word of God.

[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]


Matt 6

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Notice that the SAME point is made in BOTH Matt 18:35 AND in Matt 6:15... Hint: This is NO exaggeration!

You cannot use the straw-rule of the form "anything Christ says that contradicts the man-made tradition of OSAS must be cast down to the level of "mere exaggeration"." as if it were Bible exegesis.




Indeed once again Christ is speaking to the "fully forgiven" in the case of the Lord's Prayer and the same message is given.

[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]


Matt 6
15 But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

 

[BobRyan]

Look at the facts of the case.
1. The context in both cases: Jesus was speaking to his disciples (and in one case especially Peter).
...
5. They were eternally forgiven, not one of them was lost, a

1. They were all FULLY FORGIVEN just as the servant in the parable who was expected to forgive others JUST as HE really had been FULLY FORGIVEN ALL.

Hence your problem with the parable as it teaches "forgiveness revoked" for the FULLY FORGIVEN. you keep highlighting the flaw in your own argument as if I am supposed to "miss it'.

5. There is no such thing as your highly fictional "when you warn someone of a danger then they automatically reject your warning and are victims of the calamity you were warning them about'. Your argument in that regard is nonsense.

You never answered the question Bob.
If you lose your salvation, how do you get it back again?
According to your doctrine you must ask forgiveness (again).
Thus you have made forgiveness a prerequisite for salvation. But it isn't.

1. The text does not deal with getting salvation back after you lose it -- it just deals with losing it so you "leap to some other subject" like one about "how do you get it back".

2. Romans 11 states of those who have lost salvation "He is able to graft them in AGAIN if they do not continue in unbelief". Which answers your question -- but since this is not about "how to get it back" not sure why you want to jump over to that other subject.

3. The actual BIBLE says "IF we CONFESS our sins He is faithful and just to FORGIVE us our sins". It does not have your "forgiven when you do not confess your sins" doctrine. So not sure why you are "quoting you" to come up with such a doctrine.

So now --- back to the questions that actually deal with the subjects that come up in Matt 18 and Matt 6 on forgiveness revoked for those FULLY FORGIVEN.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Revmitchell]

Not at all.

The assumption here is that we will find at least one person who believes in OSAS who will finally address the 3 simple questions and the details actually in the texts posted. Without running from the details - with an interest in a compelling answer to the 3 questions.

So far that assumption is in question.

in Christ,

Bob

Ok well your posts are incoherent and your behavior is that of a troll.

 

[BobRyan]

Your tirade, acrimony and vitriol may serve as a substitute for sola scriptura testing for "some" -- but you must know by now that not everyone will fall for that.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your tirade, acrimony and vitriol may serve as a substitute for sola scriptura testing for "some" -- but you must know by now that not everyone will fall for that.

Ok I don't know of any vitriol but twice now I have engaged you by asking direct questions and you only reply with incoherent responses that avoid directly answering them. It appears you are only here to stir people up rather than have any serious discussions. That is what a troll does. And your responses to me are clear indicators of that behavior.

 

[DHK]

1. They were all FULLY FORGIVEN just as the servant in the parable who was expected to forgive others JUST as HE really had been FULLY FORGIVEN ALL.

Hence eternal security. The righteous stay righteous. And unless the wicked repents, the wicked remain wicked.

Hence your problem with the parable as it teaches "forgiveness revoked" for the FULLY FORGIVEN. you keep highlighting the flaw in your own argument as if I am supposed to "miss it'.

The parable teaches no such doctrine. That is a figment of your imagination. You are forcing it into the parable, but it is not taught elsewhere. Parables do not teach doctrine they illustrate doctrine already taught.
Furthermore, you just demonstrated eternal security. The apostles never lost their salvation. The forgiven stay forgiven.

5. There is no such thing as your highly fictional "when you warn someone of a danger then they automatically reject your warning and are victims of the calamity you were warning them about'. Your argument in that regard is nonsense.

This is the scenario that you are setting up. Jesus, a God of love, is threatening his disciples whom he dies for, with doom and gloom. It doesn't add up does it?

1. The text does not deal with getting salvation back after you lose it -- it just deals with losing it so you "leap to some other subject" like one about "how do you get it back".

Your the one that deals with that. If it deals with forgiveness revoked then you must have an answer for getting it back. How do you get it back Bob? What do you tell your followers? Or do you let them wander hopelessly in to the direction of hell and then just jump off the cliff right into the pit?? Your a sad case if you can't answer that one and not give hope to those who have none.
All you can say is: "the text doesn't teach it."
Your a lost cause without hope.

2. Romans 11 states of those who have lost salvation "He is able to graft them in AGAIN if they do not continue in unbelief". Which answers your question -- but since this is not about "how to get it back" not sure why you want to jump over to that other subject.

The subject is in the parable. The parable is about forgiveness. You read into the parable forgiveness revoked, which I contend is not taught. If you believe it is taught then you must take it one step further and teach how forgiveness is regained. Romans 11--a passage directed to Israel--doesn't help you here.

3. The actual BIBLE says "IF we CONFESS our sins He is faithful and just to FORGIVE us our sins". It does not have your "forgiven when you do not confess your sins" doctrine. So not sure why you are "quoting you" to come up with such a doctrine.

Now we are back to eternal security.
This verse is written only to believers. Notice the "we" which includes "John," who never lost his salvation, and was never in danger of hell. (Although your teaching put him there with the teaching and conclusions drawn from Matthew 18 and also Matthew 6).
1John 1:9 is exclusively written to Christians who are sure of their salvation. They confess their sins to keep in fellowship with God, not because they have any fear of losing their salvation. The are eternally secure in the hand of God.

So now --- back to the questions that actually deal with the subjects that come up in Matt 18 and Matt 6 on forgiveness revoked for those FULLY FORGIVEN.

1. There is no such doctrine as forgiveness revoked and no passage in scripture that teaches it. Certainly, not the passages that you have misinterpreted.
2. If anything, you demonstrated how they teach eternal security instead.
3. Not one of the apostles lost their salvation. Their sins had been forgiven: past, present and future. Their names are all written on the foundations of the walls of the New Jerusalem. Obviously, these passages that were addressed to the apostles, were not about THEIR forgiveness being revoked.
4. It is clearly evident that you ignore the context of these passages.
5. Now it is your turn to come back and tell me that I have not addressed your question in the text. I have, just not given you the answers you want to see. You need to address the points I just put forward.

 

[BobRyan]

I am reminding those who keep ignoring these 3 easy questions (taken from the texts in the opening Post )-- of just what it is they are ignoring.
================================

I am asking you to respond to the details IN the text.

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.

So yes that would be "Sola scriptura" testing of your man-made tradition if you can actually address "the Bible details".

Obviously - ducking the these Bible details does not count as addressing them.

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

Those who think they are responding to these three specific and easy points -- please post your response that pays attention to the Bible details listed -- or else post the link to such a post so we can see if it is fact or myth.

But be careful because "details matter".

Pulpit pounding will not substitute for actual attention to Bible details.

in Christ,
Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1. There is no such doctrine as forgiveness revoked

Yes you keep "quoting yourself" on that point.

I think we all get that OSAS cannot survive the forgiveness revoked facts of the Bible.

This is where you were supposed to stop the vitriol and rant and simply deal with the Bible points listed in the actual texts in the OP.

Finding creative ways to avoid it - does not count as dealing with the actual Bible details being listed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by DHK
Look at the facts of the case.
1. The context in both cases: Jesus was speaking to his disciples (and in one case especially Peter).
...
5. They were eternally forgiven, not one of them was lost,

[/quote]

1. They were all FULLY FORGIVEN just as the servant in the parable who was expected to forgive others JUST as HE really had been FULLY FORGIVEN ALL.

Hence your problem with the parable as it teaches "forgiveness revoked" for the FULLY FORGIVEN. you keep highlighting the flaw in your own argument as if I am supposed to "miss it'.

5. There is no such thing as your highly fictional "when you warn someone of a danger then they automatically reject your warning and are victims of the calamity you were warning them about'. Your argument in that regard is nonsense.

Hence eternal security. The righteous stay righteous. And unless the wicked repents, the wicked remain wicked.

The parable teaches no such doctrine. That is a figment of your imagination. You are forcing it into the parable, but it is not taught elsewhere. Parables do not teach doctrine they illustrate doctrine already taught.
Furthermore, you just demonstrated eternal security. The apostles never lost their salvation. The forgiven stay forgiven.

This is the scenario that you are setting up. Jesus, a God of love, is threatening his disciples whom he dies for, with doom and gloom. It doesn't add up does it?
.

I am not asking you for "philosophy and flawed stories" - I am asking you to deal with the actual details IN the text.

Why keep dancing around them as you are doing in the case above.


Hint: There is no such thing as your highly fictional "when you warn someone of a danger then they automatically reject your warning and are victims of the calamity you were warning them about'. Your argument in that regard is nonsense.

So if Christ warns the disciples and they heed the warning and avoid the subsequent calamity - it is not "proof that the warning was bogus or can be ignored" as you seem to imagine.

Stating the obvious now.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK
You never answered the question Bob.
If you lose your salvation, how do you get it back again?
According to your doctrine you must ask forgiveness (again).
Thus you have made forgiveness a prerequisite for salvation. But it isn't.

Obviously one cannot be a forgiven saint and saved even if all forgiveness be revoked - you yourself admit that OSAS cannot survive that.

Obviously forgiving others before receiving full forgiveness from God FIRST - is not in the text I quote or in any thing I state. We only find it in "you quoting you".

Glaringly obvious. How did you expect us to miss it?

As for rabbit-trailing about how one gets forgiveness back after losing it (a point not in my questions and not in Matt 18)...

1. The text does not deal with getting salvation back after you lose it -- it just deals with losing it so you "leap to some other subject" like one about "how do you get it back".

2. Romans 11 states of those who have lost salvation "He is able to graft them in AGAIN if they do not continue in unbelief". Which answers your question -- but since this is not about "how to get it back" not sure why you want to jump over to that other subject.

3. The actual BIBLE says "IF we CONFESS our sins He is faithful and just to FORGIVE us our sins". It does not have your "forgiven when you do not confess your sins" doctrine. So not sure why you are "quoting you" to come up with such a doctrine.

So now --- back to the questions that actually deal with the subjects that come up in Matt 18 and Matt 6 on forgiveness revoked for those FULLY FORGIVEN.

Your the one that deals with that. If it deals with forgiveness revoked then you must have an answer for getting it back.

Romans 11 has that - but in the spirit of keeping this simple so that we do not ovewhelm the OSAS guys with all of their doctrinal errors at once - I wanted to stick with Matt 18 and Matt 6 - the simple case of forgiveness revoked.

Going on to Romans 11 and how that forgiveness is regained is another battle - one you are free to comment on and one where OSAS is sure to lose on the Romans 11 thread if you wish.

I have it there for you and Amy (as I recall).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Obviously one cannot be a forgiven saint and saved even if all forgiveness be revoked - you yourself admit that OSAS cannot survive that.

Yes it does.
The definition of a Christian (given by many scholars) is:
A Christian is both forgiven and forgiving.
Thus forgiveness revoked does not apply to a true Christian. He has been forgiven, has the characteristic of forgiveness, and is eternally forgiven. Thus something is obviously haywire in your interpretation with your strange and heretical doctrine of "forgiveness revoked."
Parables do not teach doctrine!

Obviously forgiving others before receiving full forgiveness from God FIRST - is not in the text I quote or in any thing I state. We only find it in "you quoting you".

Deal with the consequences of your heresy. If a man supposedly loses his salvation because he neglects to forgive a person, then must he forgive that person to regain his salvation? You don't like giving straight answers do you? Deal with the doctrine that arises out of the doctrine you teach.

For example:
The Philippian jailer asked: "What must I do to be saved?"
Paul replied: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
It is not written in the text that if he does not believe he will go to hell, but we know that from other Scripture. Not everything has to be written in the text.

As for rabbit-trailing about how one gets forgiveness back after losing it (a point not in my questions and not in Matt 18)...

No rabbit trail here. From this text you are teaching that man loses his salvation. Now teach how he gets it back. Same scenario in my above example. Paul teaches how one is saved. He doesn't have to teach what happens if one does not believe, but does in many other places.
You also have the same obligation. How does one get saved--again! Or are you so cruel to others that you leave them without hope, in despair, without a Savior, doomed to hell for all eternity. Is that your religion Bob? Has it no hope; no Savior? Once lost always lost (OLAL).

Romans 11 has that - but in the spirit of keeping this simple so that we do not ovewhelm the OSAS guys with all of their doctrinal errors at once - I wanted to stick with Matt 18 and Matt 6 - the simple case of forgiveness revoked.

Then stick with these two passages and possibly other related passages.
Romans 11 has nothing to do with these passages as it is directed to the nation of Israel. I suggest you not go there.

Going on to Romans 11 and how that forgiveness is regained is another battle - one you are free to comment on and one where OSAS is sure to lose on the Romans 11 thread if you wish.

Again Romans 9-11 is about God's dealings with the nation of Israel, and has no bearing on this subject or this passage. Can't you do better than that? How does a person who has lost their salvation gain it back? You teach this doctrine only from a parable. Now how does the person get his salvation back. Is forgiveness now the requirement to be saved?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Yes it does.
The definition of a Christian (given by many scholars) is:
A Christian is both forgiven and forgiving.
Thus forgiveness revoked does not apply to a true Christian. He has been forgiven, has the characteristic of forgiveness, and is eternally forgiven. Thus something is obviously haywire in your interpretation with your strange and heretical doctrine of "forgiveness revoked."
Parables do not teach doctrine!

Deal with the consequences of your heresy. If a man supposedly loses his salvation because he neglects to forgive a person, then must he forgive that person to regain his salvation? You don't like giving straight answers do you? Deal with the doctrine that arises out of the doctrine you teach.

For example:
The Philippian jailer asked: "What must I do to be saved?"
Paul replied: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
It is not written in the text that if he does not believe he will go to hell, but we know that from other Scripture. Not everything has to be written in the text.

No rabbit trail here. From this text you are teaching that man loses his salvation. Now teach how he gets it back. Same scenario in my above example. Paul teaches how one is saved. He doesn't have to teach what happens if one does not believe, but does in many other places.
You also have the same obligation. How does one get saved--again! Or are you so cruel to others that you leave them without hope, in despair, without a Savior, doomed to hell for all eternity. Is that your religion Bob? Has it no hope; no Savior? Once lost always lost (OLAL).

Then stick with these two passages and possibly other related passages.
Romans 11 has nothing to do with these passages as it is directed to the nation of Israel. I suggest you not go there.

Again Romans 9-11 is about God's dealings with the nation of Israel, and has no bearing on this subject or this passage. Can't you do better than that? How does a person who has lost their salvation gain it back? You teach this doctrine only from a parable. Now how does the person get his salvation back. Is forgiveness now the requirement to be saved?

I would really like Bob to respond to how one gets his revoked forgiveness back? is forgiveness now a requirement for salvation? or is Bob misinterpreting the passages in Matthew?

 

[steaver]

I would really like Bob to respond to how one gets his revoked forgiveness back? is forgiveness now a requirement for salvation? or is Bob misinterpreting the passages in Matthew?

It is these questions that arise from a doctrine which must pass the test of sola-scripture. These are just some of the questions which would arise in a Sunday School class and the students would expect the good teacher to have answers. This debate board is the same as a SS class, doctrines are questioned and if they are sound doctrines they can withstand the questioning through sound answers. With Bob, where are the sound answers to investigative questions?? As a teacher teaching a Christian they can have their forgiveness revoked, that teacher sure better be able to give an answer to that Christian as to how they can have forgiveness restored.

 

[BobRyan]

I would really like Bob to respond to how one gets his revoked forgiveness back?

1. Because you have dodged the 3 questions on Matt 18 and the details in Matt 18 and Matt 6 that disprove OSAS - so now you would like me to explain a part of the problem not mentioned at all in Matt 18 and Matt 6??

2. Good news - there is an entire thread where I do that - Romans 11. Recently started - has all the info you claim to be interested in.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90647

Steaver knows about that thread -- he is just trying to "game the thread" here - as if that "he able to graft them in AGAIN if they do not continue in unbelief" discussion is not exposing his objections even as we speak.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Obviously one cannot be a forgiven saint and saved even if all forgiveness be revoked - you yourself admit that OSAS cannot survive that.

Yes it does.
The definition of a Christian (given by many scholars) is:
A Christian is both forgiven and forgiving.
Thus forgiveness revoked does not apply to a true Christian.

Circular argument -- again??.

Neither Matt 18 nor Matt 6 say "of course you will not need to worry about this problem -- err... umm... because "by definition" you can never have the problem I am speaking about".

And I think we all know that.

No wonder you want to carefully avoid having your post compared to the actual text.

Parables do not teach doctrine!

Question #3 in the 3 easy questions you are ducking from Matt 18 and Matt 6 points out the fallacy in your argument.


[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.

So yes that would be "Sola scriptura" testing of your man-made tradition if you can actually address "the Bible details".

So far ducking them does not count as addressing them.

I have responded to that failed argument about Matt 18 and Matt 6 a dozen times including my point in the 3rd questioin and you simply fall dead silent to the response -- circling back and repeating yourself above.

Why keep doing that?

in Christ,

Bob