Matt 18 and Matt 6 Disprove OSAS

And obviously OSAS does not survive "forgiveness revoked".

We all see that.

And obviously the application of the Parable as well as Matt 6 are all OUTSIDE of the parable.

OSAS does not survive that either.

By contrast to the "actual DHK" -- we have the "Actual Bible" -

Matt 18 is another place where OSAS does not survive the text of scripture

[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 -- OUTSIDE the parable context.


This is NO exaggeration!

in Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed - but as we all can see - OSAS does not survive the detail of having the SAME one fully forgiven in 23-32 - experience forgiveness revoked in vs 33-35.

Obviously.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Have you received the Gift of Eternal Life?

Romans 11:29 - "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable".

1John5:11 - "And the testimony is this, that God has given (Past Tense) us eternal life, and this life is in His Son".

John4:10 - "Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”


John5:24 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has (Present Tense) eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life".

Eph2:8 - "For by grace you have been saved (Past Tense) through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;"

Romans 11:29 - "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.


Let the reader of this debate understand clearly from the Scriptures that there is no such thing as "Forgiveness revoked". "Forgiveness Revoked" is but an attack upon God's promise to keep those whom He has given Eternal Life. It is the abuse of a Parable in a desperate attempt to war against the teaching that a Child of God is kept by the power of God (1Pt1:5).

 

Oh good - Steaver has included this in more than one thread - so we get to see the answer as often as he likes. I am ok with that.

Romans 9 says that the promises of God to the Jewish nation do not fail even in light of the failure of the Jews to accept Christ - because it is those that obey God by faith - that are true Jews, True Israel.

Yet - another problem for OSAS I suppose.

So I am glad that Steaver chooses to remind us of Romans 11.

Certain details in Romans 11 - must be "carefully skimmed over and ignored" to get OSAS to survive the text of Romans 11.

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

#1. Paul speaks to individual salvation at the very start saying that "in the same way there is a REMNANT in Israel" today that is saved. Individual salvation vs national failure WITHIN the Jewish nation is the starting context in Romans 11. Paul declares himself to be in that remnant of Israel that remains today - saved. Saved individuals.

[FONT=&quot]1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! ForI too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3 “Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE.”
4 But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.”
5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Elijah tries to make the case that it is a NATION that is fallen and that this is what matters. God says what matters is INDIVIDUAL salvation within that nation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The context from Romans 11:1-5 onward explicitly addresses individual salvation as the focus.[/FONT]

Paul declares himself to be in that "remnant" of saved jews that remains today - even amid the nation in rebellion.
[FONT=&quot]"God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite,[/FONT]"
[FONT=&quot]4 But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.”
5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant[/FONT]


More Bible "details" in Romans 11 that the OSAS POV "needs to ignore" to survive this Bible detail - in post after post.



Saved "holy branches" remain from among both Jews and Gentiles "fellow partakers" in the olive tree.

[FONT=&quot]16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, [/FONT]

Some Gentiles are saved and SOME Jews are saved according to Romans 11.

[FONT=&quot]13But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.

"Save some of them" is an obvious reference not to "some Jewish nations" but to "some Jews in the Jewish nation". Once again individual salvation is said to be the priority in Romans 11 in vs 14 just as in vs 1-4.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]SOME Jews were broken off for "unbelief" those who believe are called "the remnant" in Romans 11:1-4
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
22Behold then thekindness and severityof God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
================================================== ====

And as shown in my three previous posts - Paul freely admits that he is a jew -- one of the remnant that 'remains at the PRESENT Time" when writing Romans 11.

The faithful Christian Jews joined by the believing gentiles as "fellow partakers in the rich root" from which all derive life.[/FONT]

 

1 John 5 is key in telling us just who it is that has eternal life - those who Love God and Love the children of God.

1 John 5
5 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

 

Have you done this Bob?
Why not?
Perhaps your doctrine doesn't exist except in your imagination.

 

The very "bible detail" you would like us to avoid seeing is the plural gift(s). Paul declares to us a promise from God concerning God's gift(s). Surely you did not expect us to miss that detail in the text?

Paul goes beyond the promise to believing Israel and extends the promise to ALL gift(s). This is a terrible blow to the doctrine of Eternal Life Lost. But I'm sure you see this in the text.

I will post it often so you don't forget it in the future...

Romans 11:29 - "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable".

Can you see the plural (s) ??? I'm sure you can.

 

You cannot engage in nonsensical arguments and expect them to hold water.

We ALL know that there are a number of non-OSAS denominations that freely admit to the OSAS-debunking texts of scripture including Matt 18 regarding forgiveness revoked.

And we ALL know that Matt 18 presents the case in the form of FULL forgiveness being revoked.

Why play your games?

In any case John Wesley is an example of someone "Admitting to the obvious" in Matt 18 (which should surprise no one but those trying to game this topic instead of dealing with the actual Bible details)

[FONT=&quot]John Wesley on Matt 18:34-35[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]1. The debtor was freely and fully forgiven;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. He wilfully and grievously offended;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. His pardon was retracted, the whole debt required, and the [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]offender delivered to the tormentors for ever. And shall we still [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]say, but when we are once freely and fully forgiven, our pardon [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]can never be retracted? Verily, verily, I say unto you, So likewise [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]will my heavenly Father do to you, if ye from your hearts forgive [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]not every one his brother their trespasses[/FONT][FONT=&quot].

[/FONT]

 

We know that. That is why you can't find a single author, including the one's you just quoted, that will ever use the phrase "forgiveness revoked." It is your man-made doctrine--uniquely yours and no one else's.
It is, as Peter calls it, "a damnable heresy."

 

You have built a nonsensical argument claiming that "[FONT=&quot]pardon was retracted" is not "forgiveness revoked" as if anyone here would believe such wild bit of fiction. Why fall on your sword over such nonsense?[/FONT]

Word to the wise - Don't fall on your sword over Steaver's gaming tactics in your eagerness to employ "any ol excuse will do" methods instead of Sola Scriptura testing of doctrine.


Matthew Henry "he revoked his pardon and cancelled the acquittance"
Grant "The man's forgiveness was rescinded,"
Wesley "[FONT=&quot]pardon was retracted"[/FONT]
=====================


In any case John Wesley is an example of someone "Admitting to the obvious" in Matt 18 (which should surprise no one but those trying to game this topic instead of dealing with the actual Bible details)

[FONT=&quot]John Wesley on Matt 18:34-35[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]1. The debtor was freely and fully forgiven;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. He wilfully and grievously offended;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. His pardon was retracted, the whole debt required, and the [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]offender delivered to the tormentors for ever. And shall we still [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]say, but when we are once freely and fully forgiven, our pardon [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]can never be retracted? Verily, verily, I say unto you, So likewise [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]will my heavenly Father do to you, if ye from your hearts forgive [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]not every one his brother their trespasses[/FONT][FONT=&quot].

Quote:


[/FONT] Quote:
[FONT=&quot]Coffman[/FONT][FONT=&quot] on Matt 18 - [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The great problem in the parable is in the fact that after the unmerciful servant [/FONT][FONT=&quot]was forgiven, he yet landed in the hands of the tormentors[/FONT][FONT=&quot] until he should pay it all. The wise words of Richard Trench give the true explanation: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Quote:
Richard Trench
[/FONT]Quote:
[FONT=&quot]Nor may we leave out of sight that all forgiveness, short of that crowning and last act, which will find place on the day of judgment, and will be followed by a blessed impossibility of sinning any more, is conditional - in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the very nature of things so conditional, that the condition in every case must be assumed, whether stated or no;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that condition being that the forgiven man continues in faith and obedience ... which this unmerciful servant had failed to do.


[/FONT]

L. M. Grant's Commentary on the Bible



[FONT=&quot]Matt 18[/FONT]
The Lord's illustration as to the kingdom of heaven is most pointed. The king's servant who owed ten thousand talents is typical of everyone of us by nature and practice, for our debt of sin has been tremendously beyond our ability to pay. Righteousness demands satisfaction, and the man faces the tragedy of losing everything, including, his wife and children and his own freedom. He pleads for mercy and time to pay, so that his lord compassionately forgave him the debt. This illustrates the fact that anyone whom God forgives has been forgiven a debt that is for beyond the possibility of our ever paying it.

Certainly we should therefore have the same forgiving spirit toward others. Yet this servant, though entreated by his fellow servant to have patience with him, is adamant in demanding payment of a debt of a hundred pence, and has him imprisoned till he should pay the debt. He himself had owed 700,000 times as much, yet forgets how he has been shown such great mercy.
Other fellow servants have observed this painful action, however, and it is good to see that they were not merely angry or bitter, but "very sorry." They tell their Lord, who calls the offending servant to account. Calling him a wicked servant, he reminds him that had received mercy when helped for it, and asks if he ought not to have shown similar compassion toward his fellow servant. The man's forgiveness was rescinded, and he was delivered to the tormenters, evidently confined to the rigors of prison until he should pay all his debt. This was a righteous recompense for his having done this to his fellow servant.



[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Matthew Henry[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Matt 18[/FONT]
(2.) How he revoked his pardon and cancelled the acquittance, so that the judgment against him revived He delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. Though the wickedness was very great, his lord laid upon him no other punishment than the payment of his own debt. Note, Those that will not come up to the terms of the gospel need be no more miserable than to be left open to the law, and to let that have its course against them. See how the punishment answers the sin he that would not forgive shall not be forgiven He delivered him to the tormentors the utmost he could do to his fellow servant was but to cast him into prison, but he was himself delivered to the tormentors. Note, The power of God's wrath to ruin us, goes far beyond the utmost extent of any creature's strength and wrath. The reproaches and terrors of his own conscience would be his tormentors, for that is a worm that dies not devils, the executioners of God's wrath, that are sinners' tempters now, will be their tormentors for ever. He was sent to Bridewell till he should pay all. Note, Our debts to God are never compounded either all is forgiven or all is exacted glorified saints in heaven are pardoned all, through Christ's complete satisfaction damned sinners in hell are paying all, that is, are punished for all. The offence done to God by sin is in point of honour, which cannot be compounded for without such a diminution as the case will by no means admit, and therefore, some way or other, by the sinner or by his surety, it must be satisfied.

 

Thanks for reminding us of Romans 11 --

 

Let me repeat that part of the quote again:

You should know that MH believes in eternal security.
1. Glorified sinners are pardoned ALL--completely--through Christ's complete satisfaction.

2. Damned sinners are in hell paying all, that is, are punished for all.
--MH draws a distinction between the two servants.
He certainly doesn't agree with you. Read more carefully.

 

I can 't help the fact that you picked up Steaver's gaming point on finding the terms "forgiveness revoked" in the Bible commentaries we all have access to -- ( in fact I think that Steaver or you even wanted to include Seventh-day Adventist Bible commentaries - which of course I have not done.)

How much less then can you complain that Matthew Henry is in the list of those using the very terms you find so offensive to the man-made tradition of OSAS. I post them only because they show how this terminology for Matt 18 goes far beyond the "just Bob notices" mythology you have invented. I do not post them because I think the authors have been able to reconcile that idea with OSAS in a way that I find convincing. Clearly they are holding to a form of cognitive dissonance brought about by the force of the truth in Matt 18 confronting the man-made tradition of OSAS.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Such gibberish! MH believes in eternal security not the foolishness of whatever "forgiveness revoked" may mean. Obviously if he believes in OSAS, then he does not believe anything similar to what you believe and you simply take his remarks out of context. The proof is in the pudding. I explained to you what he meant. Even then you reject the truth and call him out for "cognitive dissonance," as if he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Have you written as much about the Bible as he has?
He believes in eternal security! And you quote him as one of your authorities to make it seem as if he believes the opposite! How ludicrous and foolish can you be!

 

You know, many folks consider Mathew Henry a Calvinist according to his commentaries. Whether or not he was I wouldn't say, I haven't read all he has written, however, I doubt he believed a justified believer could then become unjustified......

From Matthew Henry himself.....

IV. Whom he justified those he also glorified. The power of corruption being broken in effectual calling, and the guilt of sin removed in justification, all that which hinders is taken out of the way, and nothing can come between that soul and glory. Observe, It is spoken of as a thing done: He glorified, because of the certainty of it; he hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling. In the eternal glorification of all the elect, God's design of love has its full accomplishment. This was what he aimed at all along - to bring them to heaven. Nothing less than that glory would make up the fulness of his covenant relation to them as God; and therefore, in all he does for them, and in them, he has this in his eye. Are they chosen? It is to salvation. Called? It is to his kingdom and glory. Begotten again? It is to an inheritance incorruptible. Afflicted: It is to work for them this exceeding and eternal weight of glory. Observe, The author of all these is the same. It is God himself that predestinated, calleth, justifieth, glorifieth; so the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange God with him. Created wills are so very fickle, and created powers so very feeble, that, if any of these did depend upon the creature, the whole would shake. But God himself hath undertaken the doing of it from first to last, that we might abide in a constant dependence upon him and subjection to him, and ascribe all the praise to him - that every crown may be cast before the throne. This is a mighty encouragement to our faith and hope; for, as for God, his way, his work, is perfect. He that hath laid the foundation will build upon it, and the top-stone will at length be brought forth with shoutings, and it will be our eternal work to cry, Grace, grace to it. (Comments on Romans 8:30)

Thirdly, He has undertaken for their security and preservation to this happiness.
a. They shall be saved from everlasting perdition. They shall by no means perish for ever; so the words are. As there is an eternal life, so there is an eternal destruction; the soul not annihilated, but ruined; its being continued, but its comfort and happiness irrecoverably lost. All believers are saved from this; whatever cross they may come under, they shall not come into condemnation. A man is never undone till he is in hell, and they shall not go down to that. Shepherds that have large flocks often lose some of the sheep and suffer them to perish; but Christ has engaged that none of his sheep shall perish, not one.

b. They cannot be kept from their everlasting happiness; it is in reserve, but he that gives it to them will preserve them to it. (a.) His own power is engaged for them: Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. A mighty contest is here supposed about these sheep. The Shepherd is so careful of their welfare that he has them not only within his fold, and under his eye, but in his hand, interested in his special love and taken under his special protection (all his saints are in thy hand, Deu_33:3); yet their enemies are so daring that they attempt to pluck them out of his hand - his whose own they are, whose care they are; but they cannot, they shall not, do it. Note, Those are safe who are in the hands of the Lord Jesus. The saints are preserved in Christ Jesus: and their salvation is not in their own keeping, but in the keeping of a Mediator. The Pharisees and rulers did all they could to frighten the disciples of Christ from following him, reproving and threatening them, but Christ saith that they shall not prevail. (b.) His Father's power is likewise engaged for their preservation, Joh_10:29. He now appeared in weakness, and, lest his security should therefore be thought insufficient, he brings in his Father as a further security. Observe, [a.] The power of the Father: My Father is greater than all; greater than all the other friends of the church, all the other shepherds, magistrates or ministers, and able to do that for them which they cannot do. Those shepherds slumber and sleep, and it will be easy to pluck the sheep out of their hands; but he keeps his flock day and night. He is greater than all the enemies of the church, all the opposition given to her interests, and able to secure his own against all their insults; he is greater than all the combined force of hell and earth. He is greater in wisdom than the old serpent, though noted for subtlety; greater in strength than the great red dragon, though his name be legion, and his title principalities and powers. The devil and his angels have had many a push, many a pluck for the mastery, but have never yet prevailed, Rev_12:7, Rev_12:8. The Lord on high is mightier. [b.] The interest of the Father in the sheep, for the sake of which this power is engaged for them: “It is my Father that gave them to me, and he is concerned in honour to uphold his gift.” They were given to the Son as a trust to be managed by him, and therefore God will still look after them. All the divine power is engaged for the accomplishment of all the divine counsels. [c.] The safety of the saints inferred from these two. If this be so, then none (neither man nor devil) is able to pluck them out of the Father's hand, not able to deprive them of the grace they have, nor to hinder them from the glory that is designed them; not able to put them out of God's protection, nor get them into their own power. Christ had himself experienced the power of his Father upholding and strengthening him, and therefore puts all his followers into his hand too. He that secured the glory of the Redeemer will secure the glory of the redeemed. Further to corroborate the security, that the sheep of Christ may have strong consolation, he asserts the union of these two undertakers: “I and my Father are one, and have jointly and severally undertaken for the protection of the saints and their perfection.” This denotes more than the harmony, and consent, and good understanding, that were between the Father and the Son in the work of man's redemption. Every good man is so far one with God as to concur with him; therefore it must be meant of the oneness of the nature of Father and Son, that they are the same in substance, and equal in power and glory. The fathers urged this both against the Sabellians, to prove the distinction and plurality of the persons, that the Father and the Son are two, and against the Arians, to prove the unity of the nature, that these two are one. If we should altogether hold our peace concerning this sense of the words, even the stones which the Jews took up to cast at him would speak it out, for the Jews understood him as hereby making himself God (Joh_10:33) and he did not deny it. He proves that none could pluck them out of his hand because they could not pluck them out of the Father's hand, which had not been a conclusive argument if the Son had not had the same almighty power with the Father, and consequently been one with him in essence and operation. (Comments on John 10:28)

 

You are welcome, and thank you for every opportunity to keep folks informed of the truth about God's Gift of Eternal Life....

The very "bible detail" you would like us to avoid seeing is the plural gift(s). Paul declares to us a promise from God concerning God's gift(s). Surely you did not expect us to miss that detail in the text?

Paul goes beyond the promise to believing Israel and extends the promise to ALL gift(s). This is a terrible blow to the doctrine of Eternal Life Lost. But I'm sure you see this in the text.

I will post it often so you don't forget it in the future...

Romans 11:29 - "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable".

Can you see the plural (s) ??? I'm sure you can

 

I am guessing you want me to post Romans 11 again and show how OSAS does not survive the chapter.

Will do - but I would rather wait until you quote one tiny little snippet verse of Romans 11 at least one more time.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Can't imagine that would even matter to you after you said this --

oh no wait!! you were not serious you were just "gaming" again - yes? No?

In any case here is that quote you were looking for - in triplicate.

Matthew Henry "he revoked his pardon and cancelled the acquittance"
Grant "The man's forgiveness was rescinded,"
Wesley "[FONT=&quot]pardon was retracted"[/FONT]

Of course Wesley does not even hold to OSAS at all - but it is interesting that even those who do - are using the terms that you find so objectionable (and this without even one quote of an SDA commentary).

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


In any case John Wesley is an example of someone "Admitting to the obvious" in Matt 18 (which should surprise no one but those trying to game this topic instead of dealing with the actual Bible details)

[FONT=&quot]John Wesley on Matt 18:34-35[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]1. The debtor was freely and fully forgiven;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. He wilfully and grievously offended;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. His pardon was retracted, the whole debt required, and the [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]offender delivered to the tormentors for ever. And shall we still [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]say, but when we are once freely and fully forgiven, our pardon [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]can never be retracted? Verily, verily, I say unto you, So likewise [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]will my heavenly Father do to you, if ye from your hearts forgive [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]not every one his brother their trespasses[/FONT][FONT=&quot].

Quote:


[/FONT] Quote:
[FONT=&quot]Coffman[/FONT][FONT=&quot] on Matt 18 - [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The great problem in the parable is in the fact that after the unmerciful servant [/FONT][FONT=&quot]was forgiven, he yet landed in the hands of the tormentors[/FONT][FONT=&quot] until he should pay it all. The wise words of Richard Trench give the true explanation: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Quote:
Richard Trench
[/FONT]Quote:
[FONT=&quot]Nor may we leave out of sight that all forgiveness, short of that crowning and last act, which will find place on the day of judgment, and will be followed by a blessed impossibility of sinning any more, is conditional - in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the very nature of things so conditional, that the condition in every case must be assumed, whether stated or no;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that condition being that the forgiven man continues in faith and obedience ... which this unmerciful servant had failed to do.


[/FONT] Quote:

Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments


[FONT=&quot]The debtor was freely and fully forgiven; 2, He wilfully and grievously offended; 3, His pardon was retracted, the whole debt required, and the offender delivered to the tormentors for ever. And shall we still say, that when we are once freely and fully forgiven, our pardon can never be retracted? Verily, verily I say unto you, So likewise will my heavenly Father do to you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.[/FONT]

L. M. Grant's Commentary on the Bible



[FONT=&quot]Matt 18[/FONT]
The Lord's illustration as to the kingdom of heaven is most pointed. The king's servant who owed ten thousand talents is typical of everyone of us by nature and practice, for our debt of sin has been tremendously beyond our ability to pay. Righteousness demands satisfaction, and the man faces the tragedy of losing everything, including, his wife and children and his own freedom. He pleads for mercy and time to pay, so that his lord compassionately forgave him the debt. This illustrates the fact that anyone whom God forgives has been forgiven a debt that is for beyond the possibility of our ever paying it.

Certainly we should therefore have the same forgiving spirit toward others. Yet this servant, though entreated by his fellow servant to have patience with him, is adamant in demanding payment of a debt of a hundred pence, and has him imprisoned till he should pay the debt. He himself had owed 700,000 times as much, yet forgets how he has been shown such great mercy.
Other fellow servants have observed this painful action, however, and it is good to see that they were not merely angry or bitter, but "very sorry." They tell their Lord, who calls the offending servant to account. Calling him a wicked servant, he reminds him that had received mercy when helped for it, and asks if he ought not to have shown similar compassion toward his fellow servant. The man's forgiveness was rescinded, and he was delivered to the tormenters, evidently confined to the rigors of prison until he should pay all his debt. This was a righteous recompense for his having done this to his fellow servant.



[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Matthew Henry[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Matt 18[/FONT]
(2.) How he revoked his pardon and cancelled the acquittance, so that the judgment against him revived He delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. Though the wickedness was very great, his lord laid upon him no other punishment than the payment of his own debt. Note, Those that will not come up to the terms of the gospel need be no more miserable than to be left open to the law, and to let that have its course against them. See how the punishment answers the sin he that would not forgive shall not be forgiven He delivered him to the tormentors the utmost he could do to his fellow servant was but to cast him into prison, but he was himself delivered to the tormentors. Note, The power of God's wrath to ruin us, goes far beyond the utmost extent of any creature's strength and wrath. The reproaches and terrors of his own conscience would be his tormentors, for that is a worm that dies not devils, the executioners of God's wrath, that are sinners' tempters now, will be their tormentors for ever. He was sent to Bridewell till he should pay all. Note, Our debts to God are never compounded either all is forgiven or all is exacted glorified saints in heaven are pardoned all, through Christ's complete satisfaction damned sinners in hell are paying all, that is, are punished for all. The offence done to God by sin is in point of honour, which cannot be compounded for without such a diminution as the case will by no means admit, and therefore, some way or other, by the sinner or by his surety, it must be satisfied.

in Christ,

Bob

 

As I said....

I will post it often so you don't forget it in the future...

Romans 11:29 - "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable".

Can you see the plural (s) ??? I'm sure you can.

Keep posting it brother! It gives me opportunity to save many readers from doctrinal error! :thumbsup: (I know you see it, you just don't want to upset your SDA world :smilewinkgrin:, you know, friends and all, it's tough to break away from traditions)

 

MH used the terminology you claimed that only I would use.

The fact that he had to use it even though he believes in OSAS only worsens the case for your tradition... obviously.

Matthew Henry "he revoked his pardon and cancelled the acquittance"
Grant "The man's forgiveness was rescinded,"
Wesley "[FONT=&quot]pardon was retracted"

[/FONT]

Done.