Matt 18 and Matt 6 Disprove OSAS

[BobRyan]

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?

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.

The lost person must confess and repent -- "For the forgiveness of sins" according to 1John 1:9 and Acts 2 and many other texts as well.

Let us not pretend we have lost all concept of the Gospel just for a defense of OSAS.

To accept the conviction of the Holy Spirit, to choose faith in Christ - to then be born again - and out of full appreciation of the fact that "I forgave YOU ALL That DEBT" to forgive others as they have been fully forgiven.

That is the easy and obvious points in Matt 18 and in Matt 6 that are being so desperately avoided along with the "detail" that Christ warns the saints about what happens if they choose rebellion at any point in the years to come - regarding that Gospel principle of how the Saints are to live their lives.

No sense in pretending that we cannot all see this point clearly - just for a defense of OSAS.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[prophet]

Saved, by definition, has to be permanent.
Redeemed is a position that the redeemer puts the redeemed into, and is completely in the redeemer's control(the postion, you can purchase an unruly farm animal). It is impossible to be reunredeemed, only to be resold. Nowhere does the Scripture threaten to resell God's sons.
Adoption is, again, in the control of the adoptive parent, not the adopted child.
Regeneration is the most permanent, by def. of all. A regenerated person has been made again, with a new Gene structure. Impossible to undo.
Born again...see above.
Justified...declared innocent, despiste obvious guilt.
Sanctified...set apart for a purpose. Not by the sanctified, but by the sanctifier.

Trying to 'disprove' the dictionary, is the work of the bitter, not the reasonable.

 

[DHK]

The lost person must confess and repent -- "For the forgiveness of sins" according to 1John 1:9 and Acts 2 and many other texts as well.

There are no other texts, and the ones you gave do not support your theories.
1John 1:9 is written to Christians only. It is written to those who are saved but have sinned, not who have lost their salvation.
Acts 2:38 may be correctly rendered "for the sake of," or "because of." Baptism does not give anyone forgiveness of sins; it a symbol of one who already has their sins forgiven--dead to their life of sin and risen to a new life in Christ.

Let us not pretend we have lost all concept of the Gospel just for a defense of OSAS.

I am not here to prove or disprove OSAS though that may be part of this topic. That was not in my mind. Your heretical man-made doctrine and interpretation of the parable in Mat.18 was all that concerned me. I haven't addressed OSAS. I have only addressed your heresy.

To accept the conviction of the Holy Spirit, to choose faith in Christ - to then be born again - and out of full appreciation of the fact that "I forgave YOU ALL That DEBT" to forgive others as they have been fully forgiven.

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. Bob, How many times did your mother give birth to you? How many lives have you had on this earth? He was forgiven, trusted Christ, born again. If he is born again, he cannot be unborn.

That is the easy and obvious points in Matt 18 and in Matt 6 that are being so desperately avoided along with the "detail" that Christ warns the saints about what happens if they choose rebellion at any point in the years to come - regarding that Gospel principle of how the Saints are to live their lives.

He warns them about the importance of forgiving one another. We are not forced at this point to accept your messed up interpretation of the parable. The details have been given before, and ignored by you.

 

[evangelist-7]

Someone posted ... "Parables do not teach doctrine!"

Jesus' parables confirm spiritual truths, at the very least.
Otherwise, why would Jesus have given them?
Baptist answer? ... He gave them for entertainment, amusement, comic relief, etc.
.

 

[evangelist-7]

Saved, by definition, has to be permanent.

Nonsense!

God marries 2 Baptists in a Baptist church,
even possibly with a God-called Baptist pastor presiding.

Both God's word and the pastor declare it to be permanent.
What a laugh!
.

 

[prophet]

Nonsense!

God marries 2 Baptists in a Baptist church,
even possibly with a God-called Baptist pastor presiding.

Both God's word and the pastor declare it to be permanent.
What a laugh!
.

Please start making sense.

 

[evangelist-7]

Please start making sense.

Thank you ... I am adding you to the list of forum members who don't understand anything.
.

 

[BobRyan]

Saved, by definition, has to be permanent.

I agree that some people will choose to prove a given doctrine by simply redefining terms to fit that doctrine.

But the way to test that redefinition is -- "sola scriptura".

So in the problem cases like Matt 18 and Matt 6 - how does such redefinition of terms hold up?

This becomes then a great place not to lose attention to the details "in the text".

It is pretty much how the Protestant reformation works.

Did you happen to notice the Bible details being highlighted in the two chapters mentioned in the OP - but not referenced at all in your post?

How about the Bible details in these 3 easy Bible questions that the OSAS folks on this thread keep avoiding?

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 as we all know and agree -- "Bible details matter".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by DHK
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.

The lost person must confess and repent -- "For the forgiveness of sins" according to 1John 1:9 and Acts 2 and many other texts as well.

Let us not pretend we have lost all concept of the Gospel just for a defense of OSAS.

There are no other texts, and the ones you gave do not support

Sadly for your comment the lost person must confess sins and repent - in response to the Holy Spirit "convicting them of sin and righteousness and judgment".

"IF we confess our sins" 1John 1:9 He will forgive.

Turns out - that is also in the actual Bible. I think you knew that -- you were just trying out a "deny all" form of response off hand.

1John 1:9 does not say 'if you are already saved but sin - then you must confess your sins and He will forgive -- otherwise it does not work"

I think we all know that - even you . But you were just trying out a deny-all form of response offhand.

Those who imagine salvation and forgiveness without repentance and confession of sin - are not paying close attention to "Gospel details".

Perhaps this is your source of difficulty with Matt 18 and Matt 6.

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.

Indeed the lost and the saved are convicted of Sin.

For the Holy Spirit "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

Looks like you might want pay attention to the actual details in Matt 18 at this point. That would be a welcomed change.

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.

Indeed "I forgave you ALL of that debt" is even stated in the parable.

Your statement is correct - and it fits the "details in the text" to this point where you stop paying attention to the text almost entirely beyond this point..

2. He was already born again.

He was fully forgiven and so in the Christian life - born-again at the time he decided not to forgive his fellow servant.

If he is born again, he cannot be unborn.

That is just a "game" - Nicodemus could not play it - and you cannot play it with Adam "He was created a child of God - he could not be UNCREATED".

Simply playing word games with the text is not a funny kind of substitute for actual Bible details.

OSAS makes it's case as does calvinism - by extreme inference.


[/quote]
He warns them about the importance of forgiving one another. you.[/QUOTE]

Indeed - and this is the point where you typically bail-out on the details going forward.

There is more detail than "importance" rather there is detail in the text that OSAS does not survive.

Not in Matt 18.

Not in Matt 6.

You insist that I not quote that part of the texts above - probably because you still have not found a way for OSAS to survive it .

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Amy.G]

Bob, I do not worry about FORGIVENESS REVOKED because I know I HAVE eternal life. But you should be worried because the gospel of Christ in which one is saved by GRACE through faith is the only gospel. There is no gospel of works. That is anathema.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I do not worry about FORGIVENESS REVOKED

AND you don't address the details of Matt 18 and Matt 6 nor even the 3 easy Bible questions that arise from Matt 18 and Matt 6.

To cling to tradition and ignore Bible details that do not support it - is not so new. It was done for many centuries.

And you can say "Anathema" to anyone who clings to the Bible details over your tradition all day long.

It works for a number of people as we found out in the dark ages. I just don't know why anyone would want to keep using those methods.

There is no such thing as "believe in being saved by grace or pay attention to the details i Matt 18, and Matt 6... pick one or the other". When you find yourself out on that limb - it is time to re-think your tradition.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[prophet]

I agree that some people will choose to prove a given doctrine by simply redefining terms to fit that doctrine.

But the way to test that redefinition is -- "sola scriptura".

So in the problem cases like Matt 18 and Matt 6 - how does such redefinition of terms hold up?

This becomes then a great place not to lose attention to the details "in the text".

It is pretty much how the Protestant reformation works.

Did you happen to notice the Bible details being highlighted in the two chapters mentioned in the OP - but not referenced at all in your post?

How about the Bible details in these 3 easy questions?

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 as we all know and agree -- "Bible details matter".

in Christ,

Bob

Without a clear definition of words, doctrine cannot be established.

No one can pay all of their debt in Hell, hence it is forever...where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.. Mat 18:34-35
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
(KJV)
Going to Hell doesnt repay your LORD what is due unto Him.
So these tormentors arent in Hell.
Tormentors are people.
The Lord delivered the servant to people, officers, who mete out judgement and justice.

How's that for attention to detail?

 

[BobRyan]

Without a clear definition of words, doctrine cannot be established.

I am not complaining about those who want to spin definition one way or the other. i am saying that the Bible "details" in places like Matt 18 and Matt 6 - is a TEST for those definitions.

It is no accident here that the OSAS argument flees those details non-stop.

Even you are not addressing the 3 easy Bible questions that arise from Matt 18 and Matt 6.

No one can pay all of their debt in Hell,

How's that for attention to detail?

The bible detail "IN the text" says they do pay their entire debt. We have only you quoting you to argue against the detail in the text.

In Luke 12:45-47 Jesus said that those who go to hell knowing their master's will pay in the form of many stripes. Those who go there knowing little - pay FEW stripes.

In Isaiah 53 Christ pays the stripes for US "to whom the STROKE was due".

The torment and suffering of the second death is real - in the lake of fire and brimstone. That torment suffering and death was paid for all by Christ. And those who choose to accept the Gospel receive full forgiveness.

out of gratitude they are to forgive others - if not their full debt is returned to them.

That is because God's model is "Atonement" hence He is not "boxed in" and can do as He says in Ezek 18 and Matt 18 and Matt 6 - he can revoke forgiveness.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Amy.G]

And you can say "Anathema" to anyone who clings to the Bible details over your tradition all day long.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

There is no such thing as "believe in being saved by grace

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Sola Scriptura Bob!

 

[prophet]

I am not complaining about those who want to spin definition one way or the other. i am saying that the Bible "details" in places like Matt 18 and Matt 6 - is a TEST for those definitions.

It is no accident here that the OSAS argument flees those details non-stop.

Even you are not addressing the 3 easy Bible questions that arise from Matt 18 and Matt 6.



The bible detail "IN the text" says they do pay their entire debt. We have only you quoting you to argue against the detail in the text.



Bob

Wrong! You have me quoting Jesus:"Where their worm dieth not..."
That sheds light on the text.
Hell is forever.

Address this please:

There are no 'tormentors' in Hell, only flames.
A 'tormentor', is a person.
There are no persons in Hell, tormenting the others.
Thus Matthew 18:34 is not referring to Hell, but rather to corrective officers.

 

[steaver]

2. The danger of not forgiving; So shall your heavenly Father do. (1.) This is not intended to teach us that God reverses his pardons to any, but that he denies them to those that are unqualified for them, according to the tenour of the gospel; though having seemed to be humbled, like Ahab, they thought themselves, and others thought them, in a pardoned state, and they made bold with the comfort of it. Intimations enough we have in scripture of the forfeiture of pardons, for caution to the presumptuous; and yet we have security enough of the continuance of them, for comfort to those that are sincere, but timorous; that the one may fear, and the other may hope.

Those that do not forgive their brother's trespasses, did never truly repent of their own, nor ever truly believe the gospel; and therefore that which is taken away is only what they seemed to have, Lu. 8:18. (2.) This is intended to teach us, that they shall have judgment without mercy, that have showed no mercy, Jam. 2:13. It is indispensably necessary to pardon and peace, that we not only do justly, but love mercy.

It is an essential part of that religion which is pure and undefiled before God and the Father, of that wisdom from above, which is gentle, and easy to be entreated. Look how they will answer it another day, who, though they bear the Christian name, persist in the most rigorous and unmerciful treatment of their brethren, as if the strictest laws of Christ might be dispensed with for the gratifying of their unbridled passions; and so they curse themselves every time they say the Lord's prayer. (Matthew Henry)

 

[steaver]

Matt18:28-35. The contrast in verse 28, where the same servant is unwilling to forgive his fellow servant a debt of a hundred pence 9about ten dollars) is deliberately presented as a hideous hypothetical situation. As unbelievable as this action would be, that is how unbelievable it would be for a Christian disciple, who has been forgiven a lifetime of sin, to be unforgiving of others. In the story, such an unforgiving servant is called a wicked servant because no true believer would do such. The unforgiving servant is not one who was saved and then lost his salvation. The story is merely hypothetical; no one forgiven a debt of millions would behave this way, therefore, the intention of the parable is to challenge the genuineness of the disciple's conversion. A truly saved man would never behave like the man in the story, who was delivered to the tormentors. This is certainly not a reference to purgatory. One behaving in this manner falls into the condemnation of the lost. the searching threat of verses 35 does not mean that a true believer will be lost, but if he claims to be born of God, he will act like a born-again person. True forgiveness "from the heart" of a regenerated man is one of the true signs of genuine salvation and conversion (cf.Eph 4:32). Saved people are both forgiven and forgiving. Unforgiving people prove that they have never been born of God. ( King James Bible Commentary, Edward E. Hindson, Th.D., D.Min. )

 

[steaver]

BTW Bob, you never did give any references of Commentary who exegete "forgiveness/salvation revoked" from Matt 18. So far it appears it is an invention of BobRyan alone. Do you even have any SDA commentary which shows "forgiveness/salvation revoked" from Matt 18??

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by prophet
Without a clear definition of words, doctrine cannot be established.

I am not complaining about those who want to spin definition one way or the other. i am saying that the Bible "details" in places like Matt 18 and Matt 6 - is a TEST for those definitions.

It is no accident here that the OSAS argument flees those details non-stop.

Even you are not addressing the 3 easy Bible questions that arise from Matt 18 and Matt 6.

Quote:
No one can pay all of their debt in Hell,

How's that for attention to detail?

The bible detail "IN the text" says they do pay their entire debt. We have only you quoting you to argue against the detail in the text.

In Luke 12:45-47 Jesus said that those who go to hell knowing their master's will pay in the form of many stripes. Those who go there knowing little - pay FEW stripes.

In Isaiah 53 Christ pays the stripes for US "to whom the STROKE was due".

The torment and suffering of the second death is real - in the lake of fire and brimstone. That torment suffering and death was paid for all by Christ. And those who choose to accept the Gospel receive full forgiveness.

out of gratitude they are to forgive others - if not their full debt is returned to them.

That is because God's model is "Atonement" hence He is not "boxed in" and can do as He says in Ezek 18 and Matt 18 and Matt 6 - he can revoke forgiveness.

Wrong! You have me quoting Jesus:"Where their worm dieth not..."

Indeed you stray from the topic of forgiveness revoked to the topic of "how much must be paid by the wicked" as noted in your comment.

Did you think we missed that?

Hell is forever.

oops! Ok there you "quote you".

Address this please:

There are no 'tormentors' in Hell, only flames.

That is true - and there were no flames on the cross or in the Garden of Gethsemane -- And yet on the cross Christ paid for the full debt of sin "For OUR sins and not for OUR SINS only but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2.

So the fact that God uses flames "Fire and brimstone" in fact to accomplish that torment and suffering in the "second death" the "Lake of Fire" does not take away from the fact that the full debt was paid by Christ and that as GOD says in Matt 18 the full debt is paid by the wicked for their own debt of sin.

What part of these "Bible details" is supposed to excuse those who wish to turn a blind eye to the teaching of Christ in Matt 18 and in Matt 6 that does not compliment OSAS??

What part of these "Bible details" leads you to ignore the 3 easy Bible questions based on Matt 18 and Matt 6?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[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 as we all know and agree -- "Bible details matter".