Matt 18 and Forgiveness Revoked

I am still trying to find the part where you addresst the details raised by Gill, or Clarke or Henry.

Let me guess "more inconvenient facts to ignore"?

When it comes to Acts 17 the Bible Commentaris - scholars - seem to "get the idea" that the "Offspring of the Father" is a member of the family - the "child".

But you seem to find this concept extremely challenging.

When it comes to Matt 18 they all seem to get that the servant is SAVED when forgiven and LOST when "unforgiven". You seem to choke on the idea that the FORGIVEN servant is in fact SAVED! Yet these Bible scholars all "get it"!!

More obvious points here could hardly be imagined!!

Your position has been to find imaginative ways to "deny the obvious", turn the point, misdirect -and appeal to those who "already reject Matt 18".

The more detail I bring out in Matt 18 - the more you turn a blind eye to the text and refuse to read. All your methods are "consistent" so far.

How in the world can you be satisfied with that!?

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am still trying to find the part where you addresst the details raised by Gill, or Clarke or Henry.

Let me guess "more inconvenient facts to ignore"?

When it comes to Acts 17 the Bible Commentaris - scholars - seem to "get the idea" that the "Offspring of the Father" is a member of the family - the "child".

But you seem to find this concept extremely challenging.

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

One of the first rules of exegesis is "context". You seem to be more than happy to ignore it in the case of Acts 17.

But what is surprising is that you also ignore the fact above - the one you were asked to respond to -- the fact that the Bible commentaries (and any reader who takes even the slightest interest in what Acts 17 "says) clearly see that Paul is speaking to PAGANS when he makes the FAMILY argument that WE ALL are God's chilren (offspring for those who know that the Offspring of the Father are Children).

You get stuck on that point of "context" time after time after time. Though you are "reminded" of this inconvenient detail you find endless opportunity to "gloss over facts IN the text you claim to exegete if they do not please" you. That is not exegesis. Not even remotely.

Second point repeated glossed over in your responses is that both the Bible commentaries quoted here - and I - have repeatedly pointed out that the "Context for the statements in Acts 17" are not the regenerate case of the redeemed and "adopted children".

Paul is using the term entirely in the context of "Family" where BOTH the lost and the saved are ontologically a member of God's Family - and as family members "indicate" that God can not possibly be stone or wood!

You have shown no end of interest in "Quoting John 8 while glossing over the details of Acts 17".

I on the other hand - have no question that John 8 is using the idea of "Children" in the context of the "adopted saints - the redeemed". A point that the Bible commentaries also seems to be comfortable with -- as expected.

This response has been given repeatedly to your continued efforts to circle back to the observations in John 8 "as if" the invonvenient details you so need to gloss over in Acts 17 "dissappear" every time you quote John 8.

They do not. Why do you find this so surprising?

Finally in addition to dodging and glossing over the Acts 17 facts listed above - you also dodged the question at the top of the post. Namely - you failed to show ANY example in scripture where ANY author argues "the offspring of a parent are not actually children". You appear to simply "make it up" by mixing contexts having failed to actually find a verse that "says what you need".

In Christ,

Bob

 

You have not read the quotes.

Here they are again -

You pretend that we don't actuall "see" chilren in the text above and if we did it would be "offspring instead of children" and then you argue that "offspring of the parent ARE Not the parents chilrdren". Like THAT is found in some text of scripture!!

Notes the word "parent" as connected to "offsrping" - and the fact that this parent is identified as "Father" is confirmed in the text.

Gill tells us that this is explicitly speaking of "Childen of God" and points to the parent releationship of the "Father".

All just "more inconvenient facts to gloss over" if you are running from something.

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]The words in bold type are simply being glossed over in your response. Not once do you quote them and respond to the arguments they make.

Yet you do not give up on "ignoring them" as if they "vanish" each time you do it.

What is up with that?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Matt 18 question being set aside in favor of more time to ignore what Acts 17 stays about all mankind being the "children of God".

Lets get to Matt 18 and respond to a few of the basic points raised already.

 

Matt 18 summation being set aside in favor of more time to ignore what Acts 17 stays about all mankind being the "children of God".

Lets get to Matt 18 and respond to a few of the basic points raised already.

 

1John 2:2 does not say "the WORLD was FORGIVEN at the Cross".

John 1:29 does not say "The World was FORGIVEN at the Cross".

But wouldn't it be neat if those texts DID say that??!!

Back to our story. - are you saying that God's argument for PETER showing forgiveness is "Peter YOU should show forgiveness because the WORLD was forgiven at the cross in a kind of way that leaves EVERYONE STILL OWING their DEBT and STILL LOST"???

Or are you claiming that "WORLD forgiven at the cross" means - "everyone is saved" - "everyone is really forgiven of all sins and so the WORLD is now in right standing with God instead of in rebellion".

I see - so in "full rebellion REFUSING the Gospel" God claims "YOUR DEBT is forgiven go your way" and then when these people IN FULL rebellion yet FULLY forgiven refuse to forgive others THEN God says "Hey I actually forgave you all your sins. You should have rejoiced in that mercy and salvation already RECEIVED on your part instead of being unforgiving".

So basically you are either saying that "their is forgivness APART from salvation and the Gospel" OR you are saying "Gospel forgiveness does not actually save".

Which is it?

In the case of the four kinds of soil - all but one have the "dead spring to LIFE" and all but one end up "dead" at the end.


Jesus told Peter to forgive without measure AS HE had been forgiven without measure. Jesus then told Peter a story of someone who is forgiven JUST AS PETER had been - but then stops forgiving others JUST AS Peter was asking (seeking a limit on his forgiveness toward others).

The illustration is obvious and perfectly applicable to Peter's request. Perfectly designed to motivate someone in Peter's position asking Peter's question!

"SO shall My father DO TO YOU IF YOU do not ..."

Details that can hardly be glossed over - all the efforts listed here not withstanding.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Again - we notice all the "Family" terms In the text "Children of God" comes to mind.

AND we notice that SAME term used by the Bible commentaries!! (And glossed over each time you reference them -- not to be surprised by that).

Notice "again" the words in bold type???!!

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3579/14.html#000203

The "Family terms" that you claim -- "do not exist".

Notice the summary of those BOLD typed terms already posted here??

 

NASB tells us that Paul uses the terms --Children of God for the "family argument"

Adam Clarke uses terms like

John Gill admits to the same argument

Matthew Henry makes the same obvious connection between Father and Offspring calling them “Children”.

Time after time you gloss over each of these family terms as ALL the commentaries listed here are using them!!

Why do you find glossing over the difficult sections to be a compelling form of response??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is it your argument that we should NOT tell the lost that they are guilty of sin and that their debt must be paid by THEM if they do not accept Christ as their Savior?

Should we hide from them the command to "Confess our sins" since He is "Faithful and just TO FORGIVE us our sins"??

Should we tell them "you HAVE NO sin - you already stand forgiven and saved - there is nothing for you to choose, or to do - just go back to sleep.

 

This is a good point for agreement - hopefully this will get us on track for the point in Matt 18.

In Matt 18 the servant does NOT start out "forgiven". He goes to the King with a great debt -- not a forgiven one.

In Romans 3 we see the same thing (as we also do in Gal 3).

All are under the debt of sin. No one comes to God standing free and clear of the debt of sin. Not in Matt 18 pre-cross and not in Romans 3 post-cross.

Paul declares that all are under the law - all are lost. The Law still speaks to "all" post-cross declaring taht "all" are in debt! All owe. So ALL need to come to Christ and receive forgiveness, the new birth, reconciliation with God!

Paul does not say "THe Law is not speaking to anyone about their debt of sin any more telling them that as sinners they owe a great debt of sin. Nobody has a debt of sin.

Paul's emphasis post cross is "ALL of sinned" all owe the debt (Romans 6 the wages of sin is death).

The entire argument for the "free gift of God" is that ALL are in debt and ALL need that free gift!

Gal 3 holds "all under sin" until we actually enter into "Faith" that is the New Covenant Gospel Faith in Christ.

Until we are justified - until we enter into faith (Gospel faith, living faith, saving faith) we are "all under sin" we are "all under the condemnation of the Law" declared to be sinners - declared to "owe" the great debt that the LAW demands for sin. Eternal death in the Lake of Fire - which is in fact fiery hell of Matt 10 where both body and soul are "destroyed" according to Christ in Matt 10.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Steven and Christ both prayed for the forgiveness of their persecutors.

God said in 1John 1:9 and in Acts 2 and in Luke 24:47 --

"IF we confess our sins He IS faithful and just to forgive us our sins"

The idea that "we are forgiven even while lost so no need to confess no need to repent to be forgiven because you are already forgiven before God living without the sin debt as a lost person" is not found in all of scripture.

The death of Christ PROVIDES for that promise of forgiveness but the conditions listed in 1John 1:9 are real - there is no "sticking God in a box:" and getting out of the Confess condition or the "Repent" condition as listed above.

When the lost sinner comes to Christ - he comes "owing a great debt of sin" just as the Matt 18 parable shows.

You have supposed that the Matt 18 parable shows the servant coming to the King "already forgiven but in a pointless kind of way that leaves him unsaved". Never is that point made in the parable. You have "inserted it".

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob...

Should we hide from them the command to "Confess our sins" since He is "Faithful and just TO FORGIVE us our sins"??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it your argument that ONLY the SAVED Christian owes the debt of sin and only they need to CONFESS to then be "forgiven" in the SEQUENCE God shows in 1John 1:9?

What about Acts 2 are they ALL SAVED as lost sinners not standing in debt owing a great debt of sin??

They are convicted of their guilt - they are told to "repent" in order to receive forgiveness JUST as we see in 1John 1:9.

There is no way to "spin these texts" away from the obvious sequences they provide.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Bible says "IF we Confess HE is faithful and just TO forgive".

You seem to claim that "WE only need to confess the sin of unbelief". But this is never the case in scripture. As you noted earlier 1John1:9 ALSO applies to the saved saints who DO BELIEVE but they SIN!

Not only that - but Romans 3 does not go on to limit its list "UNBLIEF" as the great SIN of mankind. Rather it lists all other forms of sin in addition.

James 2 does the same thing when it talks about what constitutes sin saying "he who is guilty of one is guilty of all" it does not say "there is only one sin of which mankind may now be guilty"!!

The bible says that turning to Christ in faith is the gateway to that forgiveness. Those who refuse to believe are refusing the promise of forgiveness. But never does the Bible say "the only sin of mankind is unbelief"!!

In all cases in the NT - the lost are "lost in in a great of debt sin" and the list of for them as seen in 1Cor 6 "Those who do such things do not inherit the kingdom of God" and in Romans 3 - is never "limited to just unbelief"!!

In Rev 20 the wicked are raised in the 2nd resurrection and judged out of the book of deeds which they have done. There is no indication that the only thing registered against the wicked is just "unbelief".

In Christ,

Bob