Matt 18 and Matt 6 Disprove OSAS

[BobRyan]

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,

[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]

The circular argument that says that the king was lying - and the man was never forgiven in the first place and so had every reason not to forgive others JUST as he had NOT been forgiven himself - makes nonsense of the entire warning of Christ "SO shall my Father do to each one if you IF you do not...".

Even DHK gets this Bible detail easily...

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.

No wonder people are so anxious to avoid the 3 easy Bible questions based on Matt 18 and Matt 6.

Were we all simply "not supposed to notice"???

in Christ,

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.

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.



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?




oops! Ok there you "quote you".



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

Turning someone over to tormentors is not = sending them to Hell.
This is established, you have agreed with me, so this eliminates Matthew 18 from any discussion of 'OSAS'.

 

[steaver]

[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]

The circular argument that says that the king was lying - and the man was never forgiven in the first place and so had every reason not to forgive others JUST as he had NOT been forgiven himself - makes nonsense of the entire warning of Christ "SO shall my Father do to each one if you IF you do not...".


in Christ,

Bob

A hypothetical is not a lie -

Were we all simply "not supposed to notice" your deflection of the facts???

 

[BobRyan]

The king did not say "hypothetically I forgave you all that debt" as we all know.

[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]


Even DHK gets this Bible detail easily...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Turning someone over to tormentors is not = sending them to Hell.
.

It is hell -- when the analogy is between a King and His servants -- vs God and His people.

An even though 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?

 

[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".

 

[prophet]

It is hell -- when the analogy is between a King and His servants -- vs God and His people.

An even though 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?

Non answer.

 

[steaver]

It is hell -- when the analogy is between a King and His servants -- vs God and His people.

I think this is the part where you say - "This is you quoting you". Yes, Bob likes to quote himself also.

Maybe he thought "nobody notices"

 

[steaver]

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.[/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]

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".

It has all been answered and your interpretation refuted.

Maybe folks are - "not suppose to notice".

Now maybe there is someone out there you could present that preaches this as you do - anybody?? Or is it an exclusive BobRyan tradition??

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??

 

[OldRegular]

It is hell -- when the analogy is between a King and His servants -- vs God and His people.

An even though 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?

Are you trying to say in some clever way that Jesus Christ went to hell, the lake of fire. If so then say so and once again demonstrate your ignorance of Scripture.

The prophet is correct as I have stated the same elsewhere.

 

[steaver]

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.

I have an idea! Let's put a call out to all the viewers of this thread and ask them if they have noticed if all of your questions have been thoroughly addressed or not!

Ok, Is there anybody out there who believes Bob's questions to the details of the text have not been answered?

 

[prophet]

I have an idea! Let's put a call out to all the viewers of this thread and ask them if they have noticed if all of your questions have been thoroughly addressed or not!

Ok, Is there anybody out there who believes Bob's questions to the details of the text have not been answered?

1 vote for they've been answered and ignored.

 

[BobRyan]

In my post I suggest that those who wish to fictionalize events that did not take place - provide the link to a post where they deal with 'the details" in the 3 questions.

Response??? ...crickets...crickets...

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

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".

 

[OldRegular]

1 vote for they've been answered and ignored.

Me Too!:laugh:

 

[steaver]

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.

They have 12 pages here to look through and can go here for the same subject http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=90233

I'm sure they won't find an adequate response to your objections lacking. It is your "game" to play "let's pretend nobody answered" and just keep clipping and pasting the same questions as if "nobody is noticing".

I'm not sure that method of doctrinal debate is working as well as you may have first imagined it would for you.

Reminds me of a school boy putting his hands over his ears and shouting "I can't hear you!"

 

[BobRyan]

Some offer only the Bible-vacuous post after Bible-vacuous post.

Some flee the 3 easy Bible questions specific to the "Bible details in the chapter".

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".

This is usually where "the gamers" step in.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[OldRegular]

Some offer only the Bible-vacuous post after Bible-vacuous post.

That is a snotty remark, Ryan, and a sorry attitude about the Word of God. Would you be so disrespectful of remarks by the founder of SDA, Ellen White? I think not. When you sign out, In Christ, does that really mean "in Ellen White"?

Some flee the 3 easy Bible questions specific to the "Bible details in the chapter".

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".

This is usually where "the gamers" step in.

in Christ,

Bob

Ryan

Scripture does not conflict with Scripture. Sufficient Scripture has been presented to show that your interpretation of the passages you repeatedly post from Matthew is not correct. If that doesn't make you happy you will just have to live with it.

 

[BobRyan]

Vitriol noted:

However the point remains from my former post --

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".

This is usually where "the gamers" step in.

 

[OldRegular]

But be careful because as we all know and agree -- "Bible details matter".

I thought you believed that Bible posts were vacuous!

 

[BobRyan]

Nope "Bible vacuous" means no Bible in those posts - just rant... vitriol...acrimony...diatribe.... ad hominem.

You know -- 'the usual and customary' at least for a few.