Please continue response on Matthew 18, because you have not addressed it sufficiently.
I have, unless you have a question about my response. That I don't agree with your interpretation, I think I've already said why. In parables, in particular those which are defined for us, as is this one, look at the teaching that accompanies it, and see how the parable illustrates the teaching. Those elements that are not part of the teaching aren't meant to define some new doctrine, they are a part of the story.
For example, look at the parable of the 10 Bridesmaids, at how many and how different the interpretations because people try to apply all the details of a parable to their doctrine.
Here, the parable of the master who cancels his servant's debt, who then will not cancel his fellow servant's debt. The master had forgiven the servant, and rescinded the forgiveness for the servant's unforgiveness of the other's debt. The punishment of course was debtor's prison, where you'd then be forced to come up with the money, or your family or friends would, or you'd sit there until the next year of release.
This was given by Jesus to the Jews, who were at that time under the covenant of obedience that God made with the nation Israel at Mt. Horeb. And this parable accurately illustrates the demand of the Law, and what will happen if it is not kept. It echoes the prophecies given by Ezekiel as a part of this same covenant, that the righteous acts of a person will be forgotten if they turn to wickedness, and that the wicked acts will be forgotten if they turn back to righteousness.
Seemingly Jesus could have continued in saying, but if that servant should forgive his fellow servant, he could again find forgiveness from his master. Of course I'm not suggesting we add to this parable.
Under the covenant of obedience that Israel as a nation had agreed to, these were the terms. Blessings for obedience, cursings for disobedience. Cursings would end when they became obedient, blessings would end when they became disobedient.
Notice the fate of the unforgiving servant. He'd be put in prison til he'd paid every penny. That's not equivalent to "lost eternal life", or "lost sonship from God", like that.
The story, the parable, is to illustrate the difference in the degree of forgiveness that God offers compared to what God demands. Jesus is telling the Jews, who are in this covenant, this is your covenant, this is the way it is. You don't do these things, and you will not be forgiven.
There is nothing in this parable to suggest an equivalency between having the debt cancelled with being regenerated, except that it reminds you, others, of this, in the commonality of being forgiven. But that was under the Law covenant also, and particularly, in that covenant, it could change like that. But not under the New Covenant, under which Paul wrote the things I've shared, which show something different.
Whether or not you agree with my interpretation, that I can show this directly from Scripture at the very least would demonstrate, if not that this is in fact the accurate view, that there is more than one legitimate view, if we grant that others are legitimate, that is, demonstrable from the text.
Which is to say, this parable does not give a clear specific teaching on whether or not being born again is forever, or if you can return to the death you were in before being regenerated.
Much love!
