Barclay was convinced (UR)

[Todd]

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.

And here we see that the merciless servant is thrown into a place of torment until he should pay all his debt. The magnitude of his debt makes it obvious the punishment will be endless. Obviously a warning of the final judgement. The merciless receives no mercy, and Jesus' concluding statement makes it plain this too will be our fate if we are without mercy:

35. “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy". If everyone, as universalism requires, will receive mercy, then Jesus' teaching on the subject is meaningless.

Homer,
This one is easy for the ultra-universalist. Since the ultra-universalist believes that God's wrath is poured out while the disobedient one still lives, then, according to this parable, he may continue to suffer the consequences of his error until his death. However, I believe there is hope for anyone to repent at anytime. But if he dies unrepentant, then he (like everyone else) will be changed in the resurrection and will be raised in willing subjection to Christ (to the glory of God).

Todd

[steve7150]

But why does He wait until they die? Could He not save them now just as well? And on what basis are they saved post-mortem? No one can say.

Homer












According to Heb 2.10 Jesus was perfected through his suffering so i think perfecting suffering is awaiting the great majority of folks but for a Godly purpose.

[Paidion]

Homer, in the my understanding universal reconciliation, they are saved from sin on the same basis that we are saved from sin now — through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which we can appropriate by repentance, denying our self-life, and submitting to His authority. If by "saved" you mean "saved from being either (1) eternally tortured or (2) being annihilated, then the same applies. This would the natural consequent of living in submission to Christ. However, as I understand the annihilation or conditional immortality view, there would be no opportunity to do so.

However, the decision to submit to Christ may take a long time. Indeed, I am not sure whether or not they will be delivered from hell the moment they repent. For all I know, God might keep them there longer for some reason. I do not find this detail made plain in scripture.

Todd, I cannot make sense of your view. If God will raise them up in "willing subjection to Christ" would that not imply that God will either prevent them from exercising their free wills, or else will not raise the same individuals?

[steve]

Homer,

I don't believe that I have seen your post about the universalist texts in the Old Testament. Could you direct me to it? I am a slow reader, and can't take the time to search through more than thirty pages of posts to identify which one you are referring to. If you just provide me with the date of the post, I can easily find it.

As for my Baptist background influencing my view of Matthew 18, I have to say that I had never studied the passage or formed any view of it while I was a Baptist (I left that denomination at age 16). I have not held to the eternal security view since then. My view of the passage comes from the statements within it, and cross-references, such as those I provided for your consideration, that speak on the same subject. I find nothing in the passage to suggest that Jesus is warning Peter about the danger of his going to hell. However, Peter himself is aware of the danger of Christians being "devoured" by the aggression of Satan—apparently in this life (1 Peter 5:8). Could it be that Peter understood Christ's answer to Him in a manner similar to the way I understand it? What evidence is there of his understanding it as being about hell?

I have not yet read anything by Ballou (though I probably will, at some point), so he has not influenced me toward a no-heller view. In fact, nothing has influenced me toward such a view, since nothing in my views resembles it, nor have they ever moved, in any degree, that direction. The fact that you think my comments bespeak such influence tells me that you either have not read, or have not the capacity to understand, my original comments nor the subsequent clarification I gave that I give no support to a no-heller view, and only fail to see any mention of that subject in Matthew 18. You are certainly not making a very serious attempt to understand my posts.

I wrote: If you read my last post (the one that you both apparently find astonishing), you should have seen that I make no points about hell at all from Matthew 18, since I do not find any reference to hell in that particular parable. Can you defend the fact that you do see hell there? It is not mentioned.

To which, you replied: My interest is not in the particulars about hell. I am confident God will do what is right in any case. My interest is in refuting the false doctrine of the universalists. What I do see clearly pictured by Jesus is the irrevocable state of the wicked servant. The same conclusion is reached by Jeremias, Edersheim, Alford, D.A. Carson, Chrysostom, Schaff, Lange, and Trench, and many others I am sure.

I did not ask you for particulars about hell. I asked what it is in Matthew 18 that gives you the impression that hell is mentioned there. Your answer is such a dodge that it is now I whom am astonished. Especially, when, after I told you I am impressed with exegesis, not quotes from commentators, you continued to avoid providing exegesis and simply listed commentators who agree with you! Are you paying no attention to my posts?

I wrote: It is strange to hear the suggestion that the purpose of the parable is to emphasize the severity of punishment. In the context of Peter's question, the parable is given to show the appropriateness and the duty of Christians, who have received great mercy, to extend the same mercy to our fellow men. The mention of punishment seems to be a corollary to the main point, and one about which very little detail is provided. If one has no agenda, one way or another, about proving a particular point about hell, he would likely see a very different main point of the parable.

To which you replied: Not just an appropriate duty, but mandatory.

I would have assumed that the concept of "mandatory" was inherent in the word "duty"?

You continued: There is nothing Jesus taught more plainly than that we must be forgiving or God will not forgive us. Jesus began the parable with "the kingdom of heaven is like" and concluded it with "this is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from the heart". They will be turned over to the basanistes (jailers who torture) until they repay the debt which is not possible, unless you believe in purgatory. The threat could support either EP or CI. Jesus gave the warning and I would not dare trivialize it. It is an essential point of the parable, not just "window dressing".

I have made no attempt to trivialize the stated consequences of unforgiveness, as threatened in the parable. What I have attempted to do is to identify those consequences. There is a difference. I should have thought that would be obvious to anyone who read what I wrote. Are you sure that you did? You have not made the slightest attempt to demonstrate exegetically that this threat speaks of postmortem consequences (Did someone in the story die?). Until you give reasons to find such indicators in the parable itself (rather in the commentators), your position holds no higher claim to acceptance than does mine. Mine, at least, can provide cross references in its support. I still await your cross references to "tormentors" in hell.

I wrote: Homer also seems to think that the point of the large amount of the original debt is to emphasize the impossibility of its repayment. While it may be that such a large debt could hardly be repaid, I do not at all think that this is the point intended. This would probably be the case if the point of the parable was to underscore the hopelessness of a sinner to justify himself before God by his own works (a topic close to the heart of Paul, but barely on the radar in the teachings of Jesus).

To which you replied: This sounds like something Bob George would say: Jesus never taught grace. Is that what you believe? True, the gospel writers never used the word charis when writing Jesus' words for us but IMO He clearly taught the concept, and more clearly than Paul did. We see the idea marvelously demonstrated in the parable we are discussing and also in the parable of the publican and Pharisee at prayer in the temple.

Is it so impossible to refute my actual statements that you must misrepresent them first, so as to transform them into different statements which can be refuted? I did not say a word about whether or not Jesus taught grace. In fact, the parable of the publican and the Pharisee is one of the examples I most commonly cite in order to demonstrate that Jesus did, in fact, teach grace. Now can we look at the point I made, instead of a different one?

It is one thing to say that we are saved by grace rather than by our merits. It is an entirely different subject to discuss whether the debts from which grace released us were incapable of payment or not. In other words, if I owe you $1000, as rent on a house that I am renting from you, and I say, "Could I have an extra week in order to get the money to you?", you might say, "I'll tell you what, times are hard, I'll just cover this month's rent for you!" This would be an example of grace, but it would not be an example of an unpayable debt. These are quite separate subjects. It is possible that I would be able to come up with the $1000, given a few more days. It is still be an instance of grace for me to be forgiven the debt.

True as it may be that the debt God has forgiven us is one we could never have paid, that fact is not inherent in the idea that we were saved by grace. That is an additional fact. Grace simply means a generosity was extended to us that we in no way merited. Jesus taught this in the parable of the publican and the Pharisee.

Did that parable teach that the publican could never have improved and met his obligations under the law? Why could he not? Other Jews did (e.g., Luke 1:6). Jesus did not raise the issue of the publican's ability or inability to meet God's requirements. He only pointed out that God forgave him without his having done so. That is grace. Of course Jesus taught grace. I never came close to questioning this.

What we were discussing is whether Jesus was, in Matthew 18, seeking to speak of forgiveness from a debt that the man could never have paid. If so, he does not mention it, and he puts dialogue in the parable suggesting that the man was confident that, with time, he could do so (v.26). We might express our own confidence that he could never do so, but it is neither affirmed nor hinted at in the parable. What the parable does affirm is that, whether the man could or could not have paid the debt, he was nonetheless released from it by the compassion of the king. You may read as much more into this as you wish, but you should recognize that you are going beyond the text, and making Christ affirm a theological point that we have no evidence that Jesus wished to make.

You and I simply have different methods of doing biblical studies. I have a habit of challenging the traditions with which I was raised by a careful examination of not only what the Bible does say on a topic, but also what I was formerly led to believe it says, but it does not. If this method of study does not meet with your approval (at least you have not yet adopted it for yourself, apparently) then we will probably be talking past each other for as long as we are discussing points on which we disagree. I will keep asking, "Where do you find that in the text," and you will keep listing the traditionalist authorities who agree with you, instead of answering my question. Certainly this kind of dialogue can lead to little other than frustration for both of us. I will be perceived as a nuisance, always asking for biblical evidence, and you will be perceived as a person who would rather let the commentators speak for you (though they do not answer my questions any more than you do).

[philman]

AFTER READING:

...most pages of this thread it seems to me that much of the discussion lies ultimately in what each individual perceives

love to be

or more frankly...unmeasurable, unfailing, indescribable

LOVE

furthermore, it is my experience that when discussing this very topic in person with people this always becomes a center point issue.

[Todd]

Todd, I cannot make sense of your view. If God will raise them up in "willing subjection to Christ" would that not imply that God will either prevent them from exercising their free wills, or else will not raise the same individuals?

Paidion,

It's not that God prevents them from exercising their will, it's that their will has changed through seeing the risen Christ.

Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.

In the resurrection, faith will be replaced by sight; faith will no longer be required. All will see him and understand who He is.

Secondly, through the resurrection we are all changed. In this life we occupy corruptible bodies that have physical needs and desires. Our wills can be greatly influenced by our human frailties. In the resurrection we are changed; we are raised in incorruptible bodies that won't be encumbered by the fleshly desires which can blind us and lead us to harm ourselves and others. In this life we have a self-preservation instinct that promotes selfishness; in the resurrection we will be immortal.

So, as I see it, the resurrection is not going to be like going to sleep and waking the next day with nothing changed. On the contrary, it will be a life-changing event for everyone. Seeing the risen Christ is enough to change anyone's mind. John said.....

Rev 1:17
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead...

Todd

[steve7150]

In the resurrection, faith will be replaced by sight; faith will no longer be required. All will see him and understand who He is.

Secondly, through the resurrection we are all changed. In this life we occupy corruptible bodies that have physical needs and desires. Our wills can be greatly influenced by our human frailties. In the resurrection we are changed; we are raised in incorruptible bodies that won't be encumbered by the fleshly desires which can blind us and lead us to harm ourselves and others. In this life we have a self-preservation instinct that promotes selfishness; in the resurrection we will be immortal.

So, as I see it, the resurrection is not going to be like going to sleep and waking the next day with nothing changed. On the contrary, it will be a life-changing event for everyone. Seeing the risen Christ is enough to change anyone's mind. John said.....







However everyone is raised to judgment and they will be judged by their works therefore the logical conclusion would be that we are accountable to God for the evil we committed and there is a corresponding sin debt to pay. The debt is not to gain salvation or for retribution but for the sake of justice. I think the word judgment and justice are closely related and justice is one of the weightier parts of the law, which is a law God had established.
Also at the resurrection i'm not sure unbelievers receive an imperishable body yet as Paul was talking to his fellow believers and i'm not sure he included unbelievers in that reference.

[Homer]

Steve,

You wrote:

I don't believe that I have seen your post about the universalist texts in the Old Testament. Could you direct me to it?

Here it is so you will not have to look for it:

Earlier in this thread you posted a list of some 74 proof-texts you consider as favorable to UR. It will take considerable time to do them justice but I have been working on it. One of the first ones I noticed was in the "every knee shall bow" category, Revelation 5:13. One of your comments following the list was as follows:

a. Not every verse listed in a category gives exactly the same information as is included in every other listed verse. The ones that are more explicit, however, by normal canons of exegesis, would be permitted to inform the interpretation of the ones that are less explicit.

So looking at Revelation 5:13:
New King James Version (NKJV)

13. And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:


“ Blessing and honor and glory and power
Be to Him who sits on the throne,
And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”

But then Isaiah, speaking prophetically, also spoke of "all flesh" coming to worship the Lord. But "all flesh" does not mean all people! For Isaiah goes on to speak of the "all flesh" going forth to look upon the corpses in words repeated by Jesus in Mark 9:42-48:

Isaiah 66:23-24
New King James Version (NKJV)

23. And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the LORD.
24. “ And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

I would say Revelation 5:13 is of no use at all to the universalist according to your "comment a." above. And the same would apply to Revelation 15:4. And how is it that "all nations" is taken to mean "every individual that ever existed". What cannon of interpretation is that based on?

Revelation 15:4
New King James Version (NKJV)

4 Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name?
For You alone are holy.
For all nations shall come and worship before You,
For Your judgments have been manifested.”

You listed two categories solely from the Old Testament with the exception of Rev. 15:4 dealt with above:

5. Through judgment, God corrects: Isa.26:9 / Lev.26:23-24 / Job 5:17-18 / Jer.9:6-7 / Jer.30:24 / Hab.1:12 / Rev.15:4

6. After judgment, God restores: Jer. 23:20 / Lam.3:31-33 / 2 Sam.14:14 / Ps.107:10-13 / Isa.25:6-8 / Zeph.3:8-9

Generally speaking, the Old Testament appears to have nothing to say regarding any universal salvation. God certainly corrects through judgement and restores after judgement. But does this not speak of nations or remnants of nations? Can you show an example where a whole nation was judged and all individuals were later restored? And how could this be when many years or centuries passed between the correction and restoration? Nevertheless there were three Old Testament verses you listed that upon a cursory reading might appear to favor universalism:

2 Samuel 14:14
New King James Version (NKJV)

14. For we will surely die and become like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. Yet God does not take away a life; but He devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him.

The "wise woman" is trying to persuade the king to forgive. She reminds him of the brevity of life and that God is merciful. God's usual practice is not to slay sinners but gives ample opportunity to repent, as He did with David. There is nothing here about after death repentance.

Isaiah 25:6-8
New King James Version (NKJV)

6. And in this mountain
The LORD of hosts will make for all people
A feast of choice pieces,
A feast of wines on the lees,
Of fat things full of marrow,
Of well-refined wines on the lees.
7. And He will destroy on this mountain
The surface of the covering cast over all people,
And the veil that is spread over all nations.
8. He will swallow up death forever,
And the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces;
The rebuke of His people
He will take away from all the earth;
For the LORD has spoken.

Again a cursory reading might be considered favorable to universalism, that is, if you stop there. Reading 9-12:

9. And it will be said in that day:

“ Behold, this is our God;
We have waited for Him, and He will save us.
This is the LORD;
We have waited for Him;
We will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.”
10. For on this mountain the hand of the LORD will rest,
And Moab shall be trampled down under Him,
As straw is trampled down for the refuse heap.
11. And He will spread out His hands in their midst
As a swimmer reaches out to swim,
And He will bring down their pride
Together with the trickery of their hands.
12. The fortress of the high fort of your walls
He will bring down, lay low,
And bring to the ground, down to the dust.

Lange's Commentary:
"In opposition to the high, triumphant joy of believers, the prophet now depicts thelot of unbelievers. He mentions Moab as representative of the latter. He can not mean thereby the whole nation of Moab. For all nations partake of the great feast on the holy mountain, from all nations the covering is taken off, from all faces the tears are wiped away. Moab consequently cannot be excluded....It can therefore be only the Moab that hardens itself against the knowledge of God which will suffer the doom described in v. 10 sqq. But if Moab, so far as it is hostile to God, has to bear this sentence, why not God-opposing elements from all other nations? Moab therefore stands for all."

Zephaniah 3:8-9
New King James Version (NKJV)

8. “ Therefore wait for Me,” says the LORD,

“ Until the day I rise up for plunder;
My determination is to gather the nations
To My assembly of kingdoms,
To pour on them My indignation,
All My fierce anger;
All the earth shall be devoured
With the fire of My jealousy.
9 “ For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language,
That they all may call on the name of the LORD,
To serve Him with one accord.

So here we have a proof-text from a book of poetic prophecy. It may well be a prophecy applicable to end times. But reading the entire book we find that God preserves only a remnant, His usual practice. Again, nothing to support universalism.

[Todd]

However everyone is raised to judgment and they will be judged by their works therefore the logical conclusion would be that we are accountable to God for the evil we committed and there is a corresponding sin debt to pay. The debt is not to gain salvation or for retribution but for the sake of justice. I think the word judgment and justice are closely related and justice is one of the weightier parts of the law, which is a law God had established.
Also at the resurrection i'm not sure unbelievers receive an imperishable body yet as Paul was talking to his fellow believers and i'm not sure he included unbelievers in that reference.

How do you know that the description of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15 only applies to Christians? There is a reference that the subject includes everyone.

1 Cor 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

This seems to indicate that Paul's description of the resurrection applies to all who die in Adam - everyone.

Secondly, regarding justice. I think it is misunderstood. It seems that most people equate justice with punishment. This doesn't seem correct. Think of it this way... When an injustice is done, punishment is required; when justice is done, no punishment is required because righteousness was exercised. Justice can be equated to righteousness. For example, when someone is described as just...

Genesis 6:9
This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.

Luke 23:50
Now behold, there was a man named Joseph, a council member, a good and just man.

Acts 10:22
And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews,...

A "just man" is one who is good and has a good reputation. He exercises justice in his dealings with others. That doesn't mean he goes around punishing people; rather, it means he does the right thing in dealing with others - he is righteous.

So if God has a system of justice, it means righteousness reigns - good is being done, and therefore no punishment is required. It is only when injustice is done that punishment is required in order to make things right again.

Todd

[Homer]

Steve,

My apology if you think I am "stirring up strife" in this discussion. I am trying to establish the truth regarding what I believe is an important issue, just as you do in your debates.

As for my Baptist background influencing my view of Matthew 18, I have to say that I had never studied the passage or formed any view of it while I was a Baptist (I left that denomination at age 16). I have not held to the eternal security view since then. My view of the passage comes from the statements within it, and cross-references, such as those I provided for your consideration, that speak on the same subject. I find nothing in the passage to suggest that Jesus is warning Peter about the danger of his going to hell. However, Peter himself is aware of the danger of Christians being "devoured" by the aggression of Satan—apparently in this life (1 Peter 5:8). Could it be that Peter understood Christ's answer to Him in a manner similar to the way I understand it? What evidence is there of his understanding it as being about hell?

I looked at the texts you cited to support your idea that Jesus is warning of demon possession if we do not show mercy. I found nothing there that appeared to support such a position. There are many people in this life that hold grudges and are unforgiving. In fact, the forgiveness Jesus taught is unusual. If there are a lot of demon possessed people around it is not noticeable to me but perhaps I am not very perceptive.

I have not yet read anything by Ballou (though I probably will, at some point), so he has not influenced me toward a no-heller view. In fact, nothing has influenced me toward such a view, since nothing in my views resembles it, nor have they ever moved, in any degree, that direction.

Some time ago you indicated you were interested in reading Ballou. I thought perhaps you had; your "demon possession" idea speaks of consequences limited to this life, as Ballou taught. I am pretty well read and have never encountered such an explanation of the unmerciful servant.

tells me that you either have not read, or have not the capacity to understand

Why do you feel you need to make demeaning statements such as this and comments about "poor exegesis", etc.? It is not becomming of you. I recall many years ago in a speech class we were told that in communication the failure of the person to understand what is said is usually the fault of the speaker.

I wrote: If you read my last post (the one that you both apparently find astonishing), you should have seen that I make no points about hell at all from Matthew 18, since I do not find any reference to hell in that particular parable. Can you defend the fact that you do see hell there? It is not mentioned.

Back when I responded to your request I brought up the subject parable regarding mercy.

You had asked:

Is there something wrong with my thinking here?

To which I replied and introduced my argument from the subject parable:

Seems to me there is something wrong with your thinking. If God has established conditions whereby He will grant mercy, and made those conditions known, then I would think His character would not allow Him to violate those conditions. And He has declared conditions:

I have carefully reviewed twice my posts from this time and found that I made no mention of Hell, in fact I said no more than Jesus said: he will be turned over to the tormentors until the whole debt is paid. And I reaffirmed this:

My interest is not in the particulars about hell. I am confident God will do what is right in any case. My interest is in refuting the false doctrine of the universalists. What I do see clearly pictured by Jesus is the irrevocable state of the wicked servant. The same conclusion is reached by Jeremias, Edersheim, Alford, D.A. Carson, Chrysostom, Schaff, Lange, and Trench, and many others I am sure.

Yet you accuse me of dodging a question about something I never said:

I did not ask you for particulars about hell. I asked what it is in Matthew 18 that gives you the impression that hell is mentioned there. Your answer is such a dodge that it is now I whom am astonished. Especially, when, after I told you I am impressed with exegesis, not quotes from commentators, you continued to avoid providing exegesis and simply listed commentators who agree with you! Are you paying no attention to my posts?

I am curious, do you know of any respected commentator who agrees with your interpretation of the parable?

To which you replied: Not just an appropriate duty, but mandatory.

I would have assumed that the concept of "mandatory" was inherent in the word "duty"?

This is not correct. That is why the courts say jury "duty" is "mandatory". We have many duties that may or may not be mandatory. Being faithful to a spouse is a duty but the law does not make it mandatory anymore.

I said: There is nothing Jesus taught more plainly than that we must be forgiving or God will not forgive us. Jesus began the parable with "the kingdom of heaven is like" and concluded it with "this is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from the heart". They will be turned over to the basanistes (jailers who torture) until they repay the debt which is not possible, unless you believe in purgatory. The threat could support either EP or CI. Jesus gave the warning and I would not dare trivialize it. It is an essential point of the parable, not just "window dressing".

You have not made the slightest attempt to demonstrate exegetically that this threat speaks of postmortem consequences (Did someone in the story die?). Until you give reasons to find such indicators in the parable itself (rather in the commentators), your position holds no higher claim to acceptance than does mine. Mine, at least, can provide cross references in its support.

Jesus clearly said that we will not be forgiven if we do not forgive. I do not think either of us believes that there is no time lapse allowed between the offense anf forgiving. But I believe it must be done before death. You apparently do not. I believe Jesus taught in the parable that the lack of mercy leads to irrevocable consequences.

I still await your cross references to "tormentors" in hell.

I say no more than Jesus said.

To which you replied: This sounds like something Bob George would say: Jesus never taught grace. Is that what you believe? True, the gospel writers never used the word charis when writing Jesus' words for us but IMO He clearly taught the concept, and more clearly than Paul did. We see the idea marvelously demonstrated in the parable we are discussing and also in the parable of the publican and Pharisee at prayer in the temple.

Is it so impossible to refute my actual statements that you must misrepresent them first, so as to transform them into different statements which can be refuted? I did not say a word about whether or not Jesus taught grace. In fact, the parable of the publican and the Pharisee is one of the examples I most commonly cite in order to demonstrate that Jesus did, in fact, teach grace. Now can we look at the point I made, instead of a different one?

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Now I do not know what you meant about Jesus not having "on His radar" something Paul taught.

It is one thing to say that we are saved by grace rather than by our merits. It is an entirely different subject to discuss whether the debts from which grace released us were incapable of payment or not. In other words, if I owe you $1000, as rent on a house that I am renting from you, and I say, "Could I have an extra week in order to get the money to you?", you might say, "I'll tell you what, times are hard, I'll just cover this month's rent for you!" This would be an example of grace, but it would not be an example of an unpayable debt. These are quite separate subjects. It is possible that I would be able to come up with the $1000, given a few more days. It is still be an instance of grace for me to be forgiven the debt.

Rather odd example. You illustrate your agument with an example of a debt that is payable, such as owed by the second sevant in the parable. A more appropriate debt to illustrate the situation of the wicked servant would be $500 - 800 billion dollars. That is a lot of "rent" money. I hope I have not misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Did that parable teach that the publican could never have improved and met his obligations under the law? Why could he not? Other Jews did (e.g., Luke 1:6). Jesus did not raise the issue of the publican's ability or inability to meet God's requirements. He only pointed out that God forgave him without his having done so. That is grace. Of course Jesus taught grace. I never came close to questioning this.

I think that Jesus' point, though not explicitly stated, is that if we go to our death in the state of the unmerciful sevant, our sin will be irrevocable.

What we were discussing is whether Jesus was, in Matthew 18, seeking to speak of forgiveness from a debt that the man could never have paid. If so, he does not mention it, and he puts dialogue in the parable suggesting that the man was confident that, with time, he could do so (v.26). We might express our own confidence that he could never do so, but it is neither affirmed nor hinted at in the parable. What the parable does affirm is that, whether the man could or could not have paid the debt, he was nonetheless released from it by the compassion of the king. You may read as much more into this as you wish, but you should recognize that you are going beyond the text, and making Christ affirm a theological point that we have no evidence that Jesus wished to make.

So you believe Jesus picture of the inconceivable debt was a sort of accident and not well thought out to drive home a point? That He just happened to use the largest denomination of currancy multiplied by the largest amount conceivable in accounting/ to picture a debt that was payable? And you see no parallel to our debt of sin?

You and I simply have different methods of doing biblical studies.

That is for sure.

I have a habit of challenging the traditions with which I was raised by a careful examination of not only what the Bible does say on a topic, but also what I was formerly led to believe it says, but it does not. If this method of study does not meet with your approval (at least you have not yet adopted it for yourself, apparently) then we will probably be talking past each other for as long as we are discussing points on which we disagree.

This is purely an assumption on your part, about which you know nothing.

During my life I have changed a great number of my views. As an example, I was raised with a certain belief about the head covering issue, 1 Corinthians 11. In trying to determine the truth I estimate I read at least 30 different articles regarding it and have a different belief about it than I once had.

I do not anticipate changing my mind on this issue. I still believe universalism is one of the most poorly supported doctrines I have ever encountered. I can well understand why people very much want it to be true. I do not anticipate your changing your mind either; you appear to have the zeal of a new convert.