Reasoning Together

WordSword

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2017
1,302
272
70
MO.
✟248,510.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Mat 18: 32-35 is a parable explaining that being unforgiving to others means you are not forgiven, which manifests one unregenerate (Mat 6:15), for God knows if one is truly willing to forgive or not. It's not like God would forgive you when He knows you will not forgive others!
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:
Matt 18:32-35 - Christ teaches " full forgiveness revoked" at the end of the chapter

Pre-emble BEFORE the Parable:

21 Then Peter came up and said to Him, “Lord, how many times shall my brother sin against me and I still forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. 23 “For this reason the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves.


INSIDE the parable:
31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.​

OUTSIDE the parable: (the teaching of Christ )
35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”​

Mat 18: 32-35 is a parable

Vs 35 is not part of the parable - it is real Christ speaking to his real disciples giving His real teaching. The parable ends in vs 34 where servants, the king, and the unforgiving servant are the ones quoted as if speaking. Vs 35 is none of the characters in the parable -- it is Christ "teaching" outside the parable.

. And that "detail" is the problem for OSAS in Matt 18. Christ speaks outside the parable and instructs His followers saying something OSAS cannot allow.

That is a pretty big problem in a sola-scriptura testing world.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Gal 5:4 You have become severed from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Your solution turns "joined to Christ" and "under grace not under law" into "another form of still being lost" - it makes the Gal 5:4 warning a warning about "the lost risking becoming lost-er".

But the text is not writing as if nothing bad happened. In fact the way you word it - something "good" happened because "The lost finally find out they are lost instead of still not knowing about it".

The text reads the opposite way.

4 You have become severed from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.​

you suggest a text that reads this way
"as you can see - you were never joined to Christ and you have not fallen from Grace since you were never under grace - and the evidence is your recent decision to b justified by law".​

That is a lot of "rework" -- maybe even wrench - to get it turned around like that in my POV.

Not sure I understand you clear enough here, but first to be realized is that this issue is a hypothetical assumption based on "if ye be circumcised" (5:2),

The text says "you HAVE become severed from Christ" not "you would have been -- had you actually done this".


which is a continuation of 5:3, 3, "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect (complete) by the flesh? They were still ignorant of what their rebirth involved.

clearly they were mistaken on some things - but it is not THEM saying to Paul "we have been joined to Christ" when in fact they never were joined to Christ. Rather it is Paul saying "you HAVE been SEVERED from Christ" and the statement "having begun in the Spirit" is not a condemnation of the beginning, rather it is a contrast between the purity and perfection of their beginning - compared to this about face done at a later time. Paul finds no fault in the beginning but in the later turn about.

The text does not say
"having failed to be joined to Christ, having never begun in New Birth by the Spirit it is no wonder that you remain apart from Christ as are all lost people like you".​
 
Upvote 0

WordSword

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2017
1,302
272
70
MO.
✟248,510.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
[QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 76488005, member: 235244" “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Vs 35 is not part of the parable - it is real Christ speaking to his real disciples giving His real teaching. The parable ends in vs 34 where servants, the king, and the unforgiving servant are the ones quoted as if speaking. Vs 35 is none of the characters in the parable -- it is Christ "teaching" outside the parable.
[/QUOTE]
I see that the point of the parable is the teaching of being forgiven and forgiving others. I would rather understand it that it demonstrates that we forgive because we are forgiven, which is a manifestation of being in the love of God and reborn. Conversely, if we do not forgive all, we have not received forgiveness (unsaved). Otherwise to me, the sense of it would not support God's omniscience, as if He didn't already know one was not going to be forgiving, e.g. God forgives then has to take it back!

Verse 35: Song of Solomon likewise shall my heavenly Father,.... "This is the accommodation and application of the parable, and opens the design and intent of it; showing that God, who is Christ's Father, that is in heaven, will act in like manner towards all such persons, who are cruel and hard hearted, and are of merciless and unforgiving spirit." J Gill
 
Upvote 0

WordSword

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2017
1,302
272
70
MO.
✟248,510.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
[QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 76488005, member: 235244" “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Vs 35 is not part of the parable - it is real Christ speaking to his real disciples giving His real teaching. The parable ends in vs 34 where servants, the king, and the unforgiving servant are the ones quoted as if speaking. Vs 35 is none of the characters in the parable -- it is Christ "teaching" outside the parable.
I see that the point of the parable is the teaching of being forgiven and forgiving others. I would rather understand it that it demonstrates that we forgive because we are forgiven, which is a manifestation of being in the love of God and reborn. Conversely, if we do not forgive all, we have not received forgiveness (unsaved). Otherwise to me, the sense of it would not support God's omniscience, as if He didn't already know one was not going to be forgiving, e.g. God forgives then has to take it back!

Verse 35: Song of Solomon likewise shall my heavenly Father,.... "This is the accommodation and application of the parable, and opens the design and intent of it; showing that God, who is Christ's Father, that is in heaven, will act in like manner towards all such persons, who are cruel and hard hearted, and are of merciless and unforgiving spirit." J Gill
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Pre-emble BEFORE the Parable:

21 Then Peter came up and said to Him, “Lord, how many times shall my brother sin against me and I still forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. 23 “For this reason the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves.


INSIDE the parable:
31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.​

OUTSIDE the parable: (the teaching of Christ )
35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”​

I see that the point of the parable is the teaching of being forgiven and forgiving others.

We can't delete all the details in the entire chapter simply because there is a parable instructing us to forgive others.

There is a pre-amble discussion before the parable giving us context for why Christ is telling the parable.
Then there is a post-script summary point with great force made by Christ after the parable ends -- an application of the parable (not to parable-characters but to the disciples themselves in real life) made by Christ Himself.

The idea of "We can ignore all of the statements of Christ outside the parable - as long as a parable exists in the chapter" -- is not logical
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Is not followed by "beg your pardon? You can't be serious! can we just ignore that warning?"

His direct warning/instruction to the disciples in vs 35 (and not an instruction/warning to a parable-character) is in perfect agreement with scripture


  1. Matt 18:32-35 - Christ teaches " full forgiveness revoked" at the end of the chapter
  2. Ezek 18:20-28 - Entire chapter teaches "salvation revoked" and die in sins
  3. John 15 - "branches in me" that are cut off and burned up
  4. Matt 13:5-6,20-21 - Rocky ground example - teaches salvation revoked.
  5. Rom 11:19-21 - those who "stand only by faith" - are to fear lest they are lost by failing to continue
  6. 1 Cor 9:22-27 - Paul is exercising self discipline --lest after preaching the gospel to others I myself should be disqualified from it
  7. Gal 5:4 - "you have been severed from Christ... you have fallen from grace"
  8. Heb 6 - those who have escaped , who have found salvation - turning back again to being lost. Not able to "renew them again" back to being saved - in this very special case

Rom 11:
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 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. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; for otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again.

Pretty clear
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WordSword

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2017
1,302
272
70
MO.
✟248,510.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
“Pretty clear
Though I admire your persistence, I can't get around the idea that God would give salvation to one He knows really isn't genuine about being right with Him (and not that I'm suspecting you think this). Besides, if God gives one eternal life, He couldn't take it back, being "eternal."

Scripture contains two sources of doctrine: salvation through faith, and growing in the faith. The prior requires a great deal less doctrine of Scripture, how to be saved, being simple and clear requires little information, e.g. faith in Christ. The latter is what Scripture generally contains, and requires the remnant of our time for research, understanding and application, because growth truths are written in a manner that often requires going beyond just the way it reads, in order to cause the believer to continually search all of the Word, gaining more understanding all the time.

God's blessings to your Family Bob (I'm a Bob also)!
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Though I admire your persistence, I can't get around the idea that God would give salvation to one He knows really isn't genuine about being right with Him

I think you may be inserting OSAS in and causing a bit of a problem for the parable as a result. If OSAS is true then this person could not really have been forgiven (as you point out) -- so then we "change it" to "never forgiven".

Now we have the problem that "The unforgiven person is not forgiving others - just as in fact he also was never forgiven".

It is a problem because now the king is totally bonkers for claiming that the unforgiven servant who IS in fact treating others just as he was treated - SHOULD have forgiven others even though he himself was never forgiven.

And the king goes even more bonkers by claiming that the servant who DID treat others just as he was treated - DID not treat others as he himself was treated - claiming that he was in fact fully forgiven and should have forgiven others JUST as he himself HAD been fully forgiven.

There is no way to rescue that parable once OSAS reverses its statements to try and fix it.

God's blessings to your Family Bob (I'm a Bob also)!

God bless you as well my friend. Although I am focused on these points of discussion - I do not require that others agree with me and I enjoy having the opportunity to compare different views on the same texts. I find it helpful and add what I discover in these exchanges to my file on the OSAS topic. As you know God's Word has much more depth to it than any of us could ever fathom... so I am glad to get add one more line-upon-line to my understanding of it.
 
Upvote 0

WordSword

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2017
1,302
272
70
MO.
✟248,510.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I think you may be inserting OSAS in and causing a bit of a problem for the parable as a result. If OSAS is true then this person could not really have been forgiven (as you point out) -- so then we "change it" to "never forgiven".
I can understand why many do not accept the permanency of salvation because of the way Scripture reads with related passages, but in my nearly 45 years of study and application, and from being informed of the commentators views often, I don't see any possible scriptural collation for support otherwise, considering the overwhelming mass of passages supporting permanency.

Actually, I don't insert permanency support but always maintain it, for I see no other reason to suspect otherwise when understanding God's omniscience, which truth is from where all Christian doctrines derive. It would require me to accept that God did not know one would eventually reject the idea of salvation, or that He was unaware of anything, e.g. God knew that Adam would partake of the forbidden "Tree" when He was commanding him not to eat of it. It's the way He wanted to teach him. God couldn't confuse Adam by saying, "I know you're going to partake of the Tree, but don't do it! Adam would have went away scratching his head trying to figure that out, and instead of the Adam's Apple (simulating choking), it would be the Adam's Scratch (lol).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I can understand why many do not accept the permanency of salvation because of the way Scripture reads with related passages

if we ignore contradicting texts we risk infusing a given text with sooo much "inference" we then push it out of alignment with the rest of scripture.

for example

1 John 2:2 says "Christ is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" - now a bit of "extreme inference" infused into that one text and then ignoring all the texts telling us only "few" are saved (in Matt 7 for example) we "could" get universalism out of 1 John 2:2 .. ignoring all "correcting" texts to the contrary.

In Matt 10 where Christ speaks of "hating family members" we could pour some "extreme inference" into that one verse and use it to promote an Islamic-style brutality in the home "in the name of Jesus" supposedly -- and not allow any correcting texts to get in our way.

, but in my nearly 45 years of study and application, and from being informed of the commentators views often, I don't see any possible scriptural collation for support otherwise

Well I have shown some show-stopper texts regarding OSAS - so far that do not allow taking one or two texts "too far", so that they are then out of alignment with the rest of scripture.

It would require me to accept that God did not know one would eventually reject the idea of salvation,

That is circular reasoning - you first insert OSAS as the premise then say that other texts cannot "exist" (cannot mean what they say) because it would make OSAS untrue rather than seriously considering the alternative to OSAS in that case.

For example "free will" as a sovereign choice of God WOULD allow for the very thing you claim cannot exist.

. God knew that Adam would partake of the forbidden "Tree" when He was commanding him not to eat of it.

At which point Adam "fell" , Adam acquired the sinful nature - Adam needed the death of God the Son as Jesus Christ - dying in Adam's place to prevent Adam from suffering the Rev 20 - "second death".

Adam had sinless perfect eternal life until he fell. God points this out in Gen3 when He says He has to block Adam from that tree-of-life source of eternal life so Adam will not have it as a sinner.

. God couldn't confuse Adam by saying, "I know you're going to partake of the Tree, but don't do it!

Agreed - and in Gen 6 God does not say "oh wow mankind has failed just as I always knew they would - I guess I will have to drown every man woman and child on planet Earth just as I always knew I would do".

Rather God says "I REPENT that I have made man" - as if He could not see this end point, because that more closely reflects the true parenting , loving nature of God.

Is 5:4
"what MORE could I have done than that which I have already done? WHY then when I expected this plant to produce GOOD fruit did it produce bad???"

Certain Calvinist arguments claim the above scenario "cannot exist" -- there can be no such thing as God actually "Doing everything He knows to do" for salvation and yet failing ... it is impossible.

Just as a close look into each of the texts in my list of texts shows that they too "cannot exist" if OSAS is to survive.

But in the Arminian model God sovereignly chooses "free will" for mankind and freely limits His own actions so as not to violate free will of the individual. It was His own sovereign choice to use that limit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WordSword

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2017
1,302
272
70
MO.
✟248,510.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
if we ignore contradicting texts we risk infusing a given text with sooo much "inference" we then push it out of alignment with the rest of scripture.
Nothing personal but judging from your replies I don't see a definition of God's omniscience, without which our issue at hand (permanency) can only remain at an impasse, due to our understanding being too different from one another. Is there anything God hasn't known that He has always known, even from eternity past ("from everlasting")?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Nothing personal but judging from your replies I don't see a definition of God's omniscience

Then I think you are missing the point of my last post

============================== begin quote
in Gen 6 God does not say

"oh wow mankind has failed just as I always knew they would - I guess I will have to drown every man woman and child on planet Earth just as I always knew I would do".​

Rather God says "I REPENT that I have made man" - as if He could not see this end point, because that more closely reflects the true parenting , loving nature of God.

Is 5:4
"what MORE could I have done than that which I have already done? WHY then when I expected this plant to produce GOOD fruit did it produce bad???"

Certain Calvinist arguments claim the above scenario "cannot exist" -- there can be no such thing as God actually "Doing everything He knows to do" for salvation and yet failing ... it is impossible.

Just as a close look into each of the texts in my list of texts shows that they too "cannot exist" if OSAS is to survive.

But in the Arminian model God sovereignly chooses "free will" for mankind and freely limits His own actions so as not to violate free will of the individual. It was His own sovereign choice to use that limit.
=============================== end quote

The "reason" I give for God saying in Gen 6 "I repent that I have made mankind" - is not because God "did not know something".

7 The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”​

rather it is because the "I repent" statement is much closer to "the truth" - the real heart of God in that example than the statement ;

"oh wow mankind has failed just as I always knew they would - I guess I will have to drown every man woman and child on planet Earth just as I always knew I would do".
The statement above is heartless and cruel - and is not at all a reflection of the true heart of God - so He does not say it EVEN THOUGH He does "know the end from the beginning".

When some child gets a bad grade God does not say "ahh hah you failed just as I always knew you would do" - He is not "That" kind of parent. Who in the Bible is "exactly that kind" of being?

Calvinism's form of humanism does not "allow" for Gen 6:7 and Is 5:4 statements to even exist! It goes against everything Calvinism teaches about God.

God knew of Lucifer's fall from before the day He created Lucifer but because of the degree of freedom inherent in "free will" (regarding cause and effect ) God did not have to "insert a defect" into Lucifer and "make him fail" as Calvinism suggests. That is certainly how a finite human would make Lucifer fail if a human were the creator - but God does not do anything at all "to make Lucifer fail".

In Calvinism's humanist view of God - He would not create Lucifer to succeed as a sinless being only to have Lucifer fail. And He would not create Lucifer at all if He actually knew Lucifer would fail. Calvinism is wrong on both counts.

The problem is not God - it is Calvinism. It is when man tries to "Sit in God's chair and then reason AS God" that we see failure - and we can test that theory by real examples in the Bible. God says things that prove Calvinism is wrong (as in the case of Gen 6 and Isaiah 5:4) yet does not prove God is not all-knowing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WordSword

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2017
1,302
272
70
MO.
✟248,510.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Then I think you are missing the point of my last post

============================== begin quote
in Gen 6 God does not say

"oh wow mankind has failed just as I always knew they would - I guess I will have to drown every man woman and child on planet Earth just as I always knew I would do".​
.
It's obvious that we are done with this issue. My final word is that God knows all that will occur and has planned it all to work "according to what He has purposed."
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
r God says "I REPENT that I have made man" - as if He could not see this end point, because that more closely reflects the true parenting , loving nature of God.

Is 5:4
"what MORE could I have done than that which I have already done? WHY then when I expected this plant to produce GOOD fruit did it produce bad???"

Certain Calvinist arguments claim the above scenario "cannot exist" -- there can be no such thing as God actually "Doing everything He knows to do" for salvation and yet failing ... it is impossible.

Just as a close look into each of the texts in my list of texts shows that they too "cannot exist" if OSAS is to survive.

But in the Arminian model God sovereignly chooses "free will" for mankind and freely limits His own actions so as not to violate free will of the individual. It was His own sovereign choice to use that limit.
=============================== end quote

The "reason" I give for God saying in Gen 6 "I repent that I have made mankind" - is not because God "did not know something".

7 The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”​

rather it is because the "I repent" statement is much closer to "the truth" - the real heart of God in that example than the statement ;

"oh wow mankind has failed just as I always knew they would - I guess I will have to drown every man woman and child on planet Earth just as I always knew I would do".
The statement above is heartless and cruel - and is not at all a reflection of the true heart of God - so He does not say it EVEN THOUGH He does "know the end from the beginning".

When some child gets a bad grade God does not say "ahh hah you failed just as I always knew you would do" - He is not "That" kind of parent. Who in the Bible is "exactly that kind" of being?

Calvinism's form of humanism does not "allow" for Gen 6:7 and Is 5:4 statements to even exist! It goes against everything Calvinism teaches about God.

God knew of Lucifer's fall from before the day He created Lucifer but because of the degree of freedom inherent in "free will" (regarding cause and effect ) God did not have to "insert a defect" into Lucifer and "make him fail" as Calvinism suggests. That is certainly how a finite human would make Lucifer fail if a human were the creator - but God does not do anything at all "to make Lucifer fail".

In Calvinism's humanist view of God - He would not create Lucifer to succeed as a sinless being only to have Lucifer fail. And He would not create Lucifer at all if He actually knew Lucifer would fail. Calvinism is wrong on both counts.

The problem is not God - it is Calvinism. It is when man tries to "Sit in God's chair and then reason AS God" that we see failure - and we can test that theory by real examples in the Bible. God says things that prove Calvinism is wrong (as in the case of Gen 6 and Isaiah 5:4) yet does not prove God is not all-knowing.



My final word is that God knows all that will occur and has planned it all to work "according to what He has purposed."

Agreed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

WordSword

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2017
1,302
272
70
MO.
✟248,510.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Thanks Brother for your input! Concerning Gen 6:6, 7, this passage is like many others which only presents an appearance of conflicting with omniscience and requires understanding that complies with omniscience, which may not in this life be revealed. It's certain though that if God is not omniscient, He doesn't exist, thus there's always an explanation that may or may not be understood. Thankfully, understanding His omniscience is sufficient for answering most mysteries of the Word of Truth which have not been clearly explained; and I believe unexplained knowledge of God's Word always tests genuine patience and faith.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Mat 18: 32-35 is a parable explaining that being unforgiving to others means you are not forgiven,

Christ taught with parables - so ignoring his own application of the parable is to ignore "Christ's teaching" not merely "a parable".

Matt 32-34 is Christ's parable vs 35 is Christ's application directly to his disciples.

If your doctrine demands that you not only ignore the parable but also Christ's application of it - then you are taking it too far.

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

Pre-emble BEFORE the Parable:

21 Then Peter came up and said to Him, “Lord, how many times shall my brother sin against me and I still forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. 23 “For this reason the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves.


INSIDE the parable:
31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.​

OUTSIDE the parable: (the teaching of Christ )
35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”​

Vs 35 is not part of the parable - it is real Christ speaking to his real disciples giving His real teaching. His explicit "application".

If you expect us to believe one of the characters in the parable is saying vs 35 to another character in the Parable - tell us which character in the parable is saying vs 35.

The point remains.

If instead it is just as obvious to you - as it is to the rest of us that this is Christ's own application of the parable to His disciples then why even go down that other path???
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
in Gen 6 God does not say

"oh wow mankind has failed just as I always knew they would - I guess I will have to drown every man woman and child on planet Earth just as I always knew I would do".​

Rather God says "I REPENT that I have made man" - as if He could not see this end point, because that more closely reflects the true parenting , loving nature of God. (Not because He did not always know it - as some might suppose)

Is 5:4
"what MORE could I have done than that which I have already done? WHY then when I expected this plant to produce GOOD fruit did it produce bad???"

Certain Calvinist arguments claim the above scenario "cannot exist" -- there can be no such thing as God actually "Doing everything He knows to do" for salvation and yet failing ... it is impossible.

Just as a close look into each of the texts in my list of texts shows that they too "cannot exist" if OSAS is to survive.

But in the Arminian model God sovereignly chooses "free will" for mankind and freely limits His own actions so as not to violate free will of the individual. It was His own sovereign choice to use that limit.
=============================== end quote

The "reason" I give for God saying in Gen 6 "I repent that I have made mankind" - is not because God "did not know something".

7 The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”​

rather it is because the "I repent" statement is much closer to "the truth" - the real heart of God in that example than the statement ;

"oh wow mankind has failed just as I always knew they would - I guess I will have to drown every man woman and child on planet Earth just as I always knew I would do".
The statement above is heartless and cruel - and is not at all a reflection of the true heart of God - so He does not say it EVEN THOUGH He does "know the end from the beginning".

When some child gets a bad grade God does not say "ahh hah you failed just as I always knew you would do" - He is not "That" kind of parent. Who in the Bible is "exactly that kind" of being?

Calvinism's form of humanism does not "allow" for Gen 6:7 and Is 5:4 statements to even exist! It goes against everything Calvinism teaches about God.

God knew of Lucifer's fall from before the day He created Lucifer but because of the degree of freedom inherent in "free will" (regarding cause and effect ) God did not have to "insert a defect" into Lucifer and "make him fail" as Calvinism suggests. That is certainly how a finite human would make Lucifer fail if a human were the creator - but God does not do anything at all "to make Lucifer fail".

In Calvinism's humanist view of God - He would not create Lucifer to succeed as a sinless being only to have Lucifer fail. And He would not create Lucifer at all if He actually knew Lucifer would fail. Calvinism is wrong on both counts.

The problem is not God - it is Calvinism. It is when man tries to "Sit in God's chair and then reason AS God" that we see failure - and we can test that theory by real examples in the Bible. God says things that prove Calvinism is wrong (as in the case of Gen 6 and Isaiah 5:4) yet does not prove God is not all-knowing.



Concerning Gen 6:6, 7, this passage is like many others which only presents an appearance of conflicting with omniscience and requires understanding that complies with omniscience

Just as I gave it above. This is God conveying His real heartbreak over the situation rather than Him just coldly commenting on the fact that knows all things past, present and future (as noted in my post above.) God reveals His true heart of love even though he also knows everything in advance.
 
Upvote 0

WordSword

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2017
1,302
272
70
MO.
✟248,510.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Just as I gave it above. This is God conveying His real heartbreak over the situation rather than Him just coldly commenting on the fact that knows all things past, present and future (as noted in my post above.) God reveals His true heart of love even though he also knows everything in advance.
God's way of a broken heart, anger, etc. is not the same as ours. We will just continue to be of a different understanding on this issue. God bless!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums