[OBW]

But you miss the question and instead go to other passages written concerning other things. The passage in front of us says that there is a debtor (who was a servant) that gets turned over to the torturers until all is paid. There is the clear reference up front to having been forgiven by the master before this happened. So we are not talking about pagans or outsiders.

Also note that it does not say that the servant was put into a condition in which he could not pay, then required to pay anyway. He was only given to torturers until he paid. We can surmise what that could mean, but it is not certain. And it is also unclear how much of the story to take as instructive.

But in any case, the set-up establishes someone who has been forgiven by the master. And there is a reference to his having a time or discipline until a debt is paid. As I mentioned before, scripture has generally not minced words about shortness or temporal-ness of punishment where it was perdition that was being discussed. Why now? To trick us into false hope?

Are you therefore arguing an Arminian position that the forgiveness can be withdrawn ( and salvation can be lost)? You claim you are not. But your analysis of this parable, or decision to skip it, leaves your position on "weeping and gnashing of teeth" only meaning hell/perdition as sketchy, at best. Probably full of holes.

And pointing to an Arminian understanding. Even if you don't see it as such.

I have no problem with you holding to that general belief. But you need to at least acknowledge that there are things that do not seem to agree with it that you have not managed to explain adequately. And if that is the case, then you would not be so strong to come insisting on the correctness of your position. Mine is clearly not insisted on as correct because I am not sure what it is. I just am pretty sure that what you are pushing is not adequately supported by scripture, or at least not sufficiently so for me to simply take it and move on.