Remember, this is a parable.
This is probably a reference to the household of Israel as a whole.
Yes, like I said before. This is a
parable and a
hypothetical situation which is meant to demonstrate the compassion and mercy of the Lord who is willing to forgive us our sin debt. Even though the unmerciful servant received forgiveness of his very large debt (that he could never repay) in this hypothetical situation from his master, an unforgiving, unmerciful heart (which
represents a wicked servant and not a born again Christian) cannot expect to receive God's ultimate forgiveness of sins.
He knew the Galatians would fall away, yet Paul clearly explains how they did in fact receive the gospel in salvation despite Him knowing the future when they would stop relying on Christ for justification.
Paul never stated that seeking justification by the law was the final answer of the Galatians who truly believed the gospel. That is your biased conclusion.
"the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” - Romans 10:12-13
Got a problem with 'dat?
You're saying he won't answer everyone who calls on Him.
The issue isn't whether or not God really forgives someone who asks.
The issue is the condition of the heart that calls out to Him and, consequently, how deeply rooted the message of that forgiveness they have received becomes in that soil.
Everyone who sincerely calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. A person who simply begs and pleads for forgiveness from an unrepentant, unforgiving heart will not be saved.
That's right, so stop doing that (the man's family being sold into slavery is obviously not a literal feature of the principle being taught here).
Yet it's still a part of the parable that you seem determined to take literal in regards to forgiveness of sins, yet discard the rest.
Focus on what is clear in the Parable:
The servant asked for forgiveness.
The servant really did get that forgiveness.
He got it even though he obviously did not receive it in a good and noble heart.
Free gifts, forgiveness in this case of all things, can indeed be taken back.
This is how it is in the kingdom. This is how the Father will treat each of us in these circumstances.
No, that's not the main point of the parable. You continue to overlook the fact that this is a repulsive, hypothetical situation in this parable to make a point about forgiveness and God's mercy. As unbelievable as this action would be, that is how unbelievable it would be for a genuine born again Christian, who has been forgiven such a huge debt, to be unforgiving of others with such a small debt. We could never pay back our sin debt (which is too large) and an unforgiving, unmerciful heart cannot expect to receive forgiveness from the Lord, although He is compassionate and willing to forgive, just as the master in the parable was willing to forgive.
The MAIN point of the parable for the purpose of this discussion is FREE GIFTS CAN AND WILL BE TAKEN BACK.
That's not it at all. God is not an indian giver. The MAIN point of the parable is the Lord is merciful and willing to forgive us our sin debt, but an unforgiving, unmerciful heart cannot expect to receive God's ultimate forgiveness of sins.
But osas is so sure gifts can not be taken back or they are not really gifts. Obviously, Romans 11:29 isn't talking about a person receiving the forgiveness of sin in salvation. But we knew that already by just reading it in context--the thing osas refuses to do in the passage.
Does irrevocable mean take back? I didn't think so. The gift of God is eternal life (Romans 6:23) not temporary life. All you care about is attacking osas and your obsession may end up driving you made one day.
))
