[FONT="]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="]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...
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
Matt 18 and Matt 6 Disprove OSAS
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by BobRyan, Dec 6, 2013.
Page 6 of 14
-
-
This is established, you have agreed with me, so this eliminates Matthew 18 from any discussion of 'OSAS'. -
Were we all simply "not supposed to notice" your deflection of the facts??? -
The king did not say "hypothetically I forgave you all that debt" as we all know.
[FONT="]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="]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...
-
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? -
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="]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="]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="]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="]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". -
-
Maybe he thought "nobody notices" -
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??
-
The prophet is correct as I have stated the same elsewhere. -
Ok, Is there anybody out there who believes Bob's questions to the details of the text have not been answered? -
-
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="]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="]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="]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="]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". -
-
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!"
-
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 -
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. -
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. -
-
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.
Page 6 of 14