Can a tare become saved?

[grafted branch]

Jesus has the keys of death, so that cannot be right. People had a choice, and they chose poorly.

satan is powerless to stop anyone from seeing the light. The Lord has restrained him, paid the penalty for the peoples sins and has taken his goods. Unfortunately, not all find repentance and love for the Lord.

If a tare has a choice then a tare can be saved, right?

 

[Davidpt]

Are you aware that literally everyone will appear before the judgment seat of Christ to confess that Jesus is Lord and not just those in the body of Christ?

Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

So, the idea that the goats only represent unprofitable servants because they refer to Him as "Lord" the same as the sheep do is not a valid argument because literally all unbelievers, and not just unprofitable servants of Christ, will be confessing that He is Lord and will call Him Lord at the judgment.

As for how to identify the sheep, you seemed to indicate that anyone who helped feed and clothe the poor "would make them the sheep in that case". Remember, the sheep inherit eternal life in the kingdom of God. Does scripture say that we are saved and inherit eternal life by our works of helping the poor? There would be a lot of Christ rejecters and those who oppose God or don't believe in God inheriting eternal life in the kingdom of God if that was the case.

No, scripture says we are saved by grace through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, you can't say that everyone who has helped the poor is automatically among the sheep on that basis alone.

Notice that Jesus said that anything that is done for the least of these His brethren is done for Him. So, that means He is differentiating between those who love others and help the needy out of their love for Him and desire to serve Him and those who either don't help the needy at all or who do so out of the wrong motivations (trying to make themselves look righteous or trying to earn salvation) instead of out of a humble desire to serve and obey Him.

We are saved by grace through faith and not by our own works of righteousness (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5), but once we're saved God has good works prepared for us to do (Ephesians 2:10) which relate to loving others and helping the needy. So, what Matthew 25:31-46 is about is differentiating between those who are saved and belong to Christ and did the good works that God prepared for them and that reflect their faith and those who are not saved and therefore did not do the good works that God only prepares for those who are saved.

You do not get it. The judgment only involves those that claim a personal relationship with Christ. Unbelieving Jews, for example, can't remotely claim a personal relationship with Christ, as in, He is their Lord, He is their Savior. Nor can unrepentant atheists, etc. Nor can someone such as Cain, since it would be preposterous for someone who lived before Christ was even born, to then answer Christ like such--Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?


You cannot deny that all of the goats meant answered Jesus in the same manner. Just admit it, which doesn't mean you have to agree with my interpretation of the sheep and goats judgment, that you lack discernment altogether, that you threw it out the window, and have not even remotely interpreted the sheep and goats judgment correctly.

 

[Davidpt]

Yes, that’s why the idea of this parable being written from God’s perspective gets brought up. From God’s perspective He knows ahead of time who is or isn’t saved and that knowledge doesn’t change. So it is reasonable to say the parable is written from God’s perspective.

But if we continue with that notion then we also have to conclude that Satan isn’t bound from God’s perspective because from His perspective tares will always remain the children of Satan and they will never be wheat.

In Matthew 13:26 it’s the servants that are unaware of tares being sown in the field, some people on this thread have already claimed that the servants are the reapers/angels at the harvest. If that was so, then we have to conclude the angels aren’t aware of Satan’s activities and let’s not forget it’s an angel that binds Satan in Revelation 20 so that doesn’t fit. Also, that would make the reapers/angels incapable of removing a single tare at a time, else they will somehow be removing the wheat also. Based on that idea the reapers/angels appear to be clumsy or something because Hebrews 1:14 tells use the angels are ministering spirits to those who shall be heirs of salvation. So the reapers/angels can definitely tell the difference between tares and wheat but if someone claims they are the servants then it makes me wonder how Satan can be bound by one of these angels when they are unaware of his activities and they can’t even remove a single tare without uprooting wheat.

Excellent point about those that insist the servants are the reapers, the angels. But even when one demonstrates how absurd that is, such as you clearly did here, still, these same ones will continue to insist the servants are the reapers, the angels, regardless. It's as if something that is absurd should be acceptable and is perfectly normal. As if absurdity and perfectly normal mean the same thing.

 

[jeffweeder]

If a tare has a choice then a tare can be saved, right?

God commands all people everywhere to repent.
The tares are those that didn't.

Acts 17
30 Therefore God overlooked and disregarded the former ages of ignorance; but now He commands all people everywhere to repent [that is, to change their old way of thinking, to regret their past sins, and to seek God’s purpose for their lives], 31 because He has set a day when He will judge the inhabited world in righteousness by a Man whom He has appointed and destined for that task, and He has provided credible proof to everyone by raising Him from the dead.”

 

[grafted branch]

God commands all people everywhere to repent.
The tares are those that didn't.

Acts 17
30 Therefore God overlooked and disregarded the former ages of ignorance; but now He commands all people everywhere to repent [that is, to change their old way of thinking, to regret their past sins, and to seek God’s purpose for their lives], 31 because He has set a day when He will judge the inhabited world in righteousness by a Man whom He has appointed and destined for that task, and He has provided credible proof to everyone by raising Him from the dead.”

Ok, if I have your view correct then … Satan sows the tares, the tares have a choice, but from the moment they are sowed it is known that they never will choose to repent.

Wouldn’t that mean Satan does have the power of death? Satan has a choice as whether he sows tare seeds or not, so if Satan wants to have another person who is in darkness and suffers the second death, all he has to do is sow a seed and it would be guaranteed that tare will burn in the fire.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So those that did get born again who backslid and went back to living in sin they are still saved?

Where did I say that? Nowhere. Anyone who does not have faith, even if they previously had it, is not saved.

No, they are children of the devil once more because they willingly turned their back on the Lord to go back in to darkness.

2 Peter 2:20 - For if after they have escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

That happens to some people, yes. Where did I say otherwise?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If one is taking the tares to mean all the lost in general, it is absurd to then insist tares can't be saved. Per that scenario, of course they can be saved. Yet it makes nonsense out of the parable by viewing it in that manner. It is not until the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also, that anyone even realized there was this tares issue to begin with. As if, assuming the tares represent all of the lost, no one even noticed that there were the lost in the earth in the meantime.

I don't know what it is about some interpreters at times? They literally just don't seem to care to carefully examine details that make their interpretation unlikely rather than likely. Details such as Matthew 13:26 and how that makes total nonsense out of an interpretation that is insisting the tares mean all the lost in general. Which includes atheists, unbelieving Jews, witches, satanists, etc, except no one even realized there were any of these throughout the earth until the blade the was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

Instead of trying to interpret this in light of Matthew 7, for instance, let's just ignore something Jesus said elsewhere that could shed more light on what He was meaning in Matthew 13:26 and let's just keep ignoring verse 26 and continue insisting that atheists, satantists, witches, etc, all resemble wheat in the early stages. Therefore, all of the wheat initially thought all of the lost were also them, the wheat. Some of these interpretations are downright laughable and can't be taken seriously. Such as, initially all of the wheat thought all of the lost was wheat. That's what some interpretations imply whether they want to admit it or not about their interpretation.

Read my post 549 and let me know your thoughts on it. You have definitely not given this nearly enough thought.

What your view forces you to conclude is that children of the devil, which is what the tares are (Matt 13:38-39), can't be saved despite the fact that all sinners are children of the devil before being saved.

John described children of the devil as being lost sinners in 1 John 3:8-10. How do you reconcile your understanding of the parable of the wheat and the tares with that passage? I explained how I do that in post 549.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, that’s why the idea of this parable being written from God’s perspective gets brought up. From God’s perspective He knows ahead of time who is or isn’t saved and that knowledge doesn’t change. So it is reasonable to say the parable is written from God’s perspective.

But if we continue with that notion then we also have to conclude that Satan isn’t bound from God’s perspective because from His perspective tares will always remain the children of Satan and they will never be wheat.

@Davidpt I see that you liked this post. But, he is failing to consider that the tares are described as the children of the devil (Matthew 13:38). Other scripture describes all sinners as children of the devil (1 John 3:8-10). Satan is bound in real time, not in eternity. Regardless of one's understanding of the thousand years as being literal of figurative, most of us agree that it has a beginning and an ending in real time rather than representing eternity. So, in real time, the wheat (children of the kingdom) all formerly fit the description of the tares (children of the devil) before they became saved children of the kingdom. But, the parable has nothing to do with that and rather has to do with which group people end up in at the end of the age at which point the judgment occurs.

The reason that the parable gives no indication that the tares can become wheat is because it is spoken from God's eternal perspective. God knows who will repent or not and who will end up as children of the kingdom (wheat) or children of the devil (tares), so the parable is told from that perspective. And the primary point of the parable is to show what will happen to the children of the kingdom (the saved) and the children of the devil (the lost) at the end of the age.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You do not get it.

No, you do not get it. At all.

The judgment only involves those that claim a personal relationship with Christ.

That is not true. Where does it say that? Nowhere.

Unbelieving Jews, for example, can't remotely claim a personal relationship with Christ, as in, He is their Lord, He is their Savior. Nor can unrepentant atheists, etc. Nor can someone such as Cain, since it would be preposterous for someone who lived before Christ was even born, to then answer Christ like such--Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

I addressed the reason why even the goats called Him "Lord". Why do you just ignore that without addressing it? Do you deny that literally all people will one day bow before Christ and confess that He is Lord? Do you deny what this scripture says?

Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

You cannot deny that all of the goats meant answered Jesus in the same manner. Just admit it, which doesn't mean you have to agree with my interpretation of the sheep and goats judgment, that you lack discernment altogether, that you threw it out the window, and have not even remotely interpreted the sheep and goats judgment correctly.

LOL! You are so incredibly silly. When did I deny that? Never. Are you capable of making anything but strawman arguments? Can you admit that even someone like Adolf Hitler will call Jesus "Lord" when he stands before the judgment seat of Christ?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Excellent point about those that insist the servants are the reapers, the angels. But even when one demonstrates how absurd that is, such as you clearly did here, still, these same ones will continue to insist the servants are the reapers, the angels, regardless. It's as if something that is absurd should be acceptable and is perfectly normal. As if absurdity and perfectly normal mean the same thing.

I'll tell you what's absurd. The idea that human beings would be expected to separate other human beings from each other rather than the angels doing that. That's not the job of humans, it's the job of angels. It's absurd to think otherwise.

Matthew 13:30 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

So, the servants are clearly qualified to separate the tares (children of the devil) from the wheat (children of the kingdom), but Jesus told them it wasn't yet the time to do that, but instead to let them grow together until the harvest (end of the age). If the servants are human beings then why wouldn't Jesus have told them that they couldn't pull up the tares at that time, but could do so instead at the harvest (end of the age)? He didn't tell the servants that they were not qualified to pull up the tares and separate them from the wheat, He just said not to do it yet at that time. We all know that it's angels who end up doing that, so why would the servants be human beings when Jesus never told them that they were not the ones who should separate the tares from the wheat, but instead only told them that it wasn't the right time yet?

If the servants and the reapers are not the same, then why did Jesus not explain who the servants represented when He explained what the parable meant?

Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. 37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

You expect me to believe that He explained what every other entity represented in the parable except for the servants? No, I will not believe that. He didn't mention the servants within Matthew 13:36-39 because the servants are the reapers.

 

[ewq1938]

This thread is tareable.

 

[PinSeeker]

Calvinism is one of satan's most favorite deceptions, right up there with islam, catholicism, and environmentalism (worshipping the crated instead of the Creator)

Might be interesting to hear you try to back that up with any modicum of actual substance, Dash, instead of making such a thoughtless, drive-by statement. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Well, I'm clearly not an Arminian then, even though you have called me that in the past...

Well, you're cutting in on an exchange between me and another poster; I wasn't talking to you at all there. Which, certainly, you can do what you want... as if you needed my approval... <chuckles> ...which you don't, of course... <smile>

At any rate, I don't recall having actually "called you an Arminian," but rather said that some of the statements you have made are Arminian in nature. What you said in this post (#489), mainly that good works were the result and evidence of our faith, in contrast to James's "dead faith," which is a claimed faith without good works) was good. You're right, faith is not a work, which another poster was inadvertently making it out to be.

Grace and peace to you.that SI.

 

[PinSeeker]

The judgment only involves those that claim a personal relationship with Christ. Unbelieving Jews, for example, can't remotely claim a personal relationship with Christ, as in, He is their Lord, He is their Savior. Nor can unrepentant atheists, etc. Nor can someone such as Cain, since it would be preposterous for someone who lived before Christ was even born, to then answer Christ like such--Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Ahhhhh, I see what you are saying, and at least in a sense I agree. Yes, in Matthew 25, in Jesus's graphic portrayal of the final Judgment, he has two exchanges, first with those on His right, and then with those on His left:

Those on His right: They know they had a relationship with Christ; all those with true God-given faith do, but they even question themselves, in a way, asking Jesus, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?" They are not denying that they had a personal relationship with Christ, but just not fully aware of it. And Jesus says He will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." So like, when did we do these good works? And Jesus will affirm the personal relationship ~ and the good works that they have done because of the relationship.

Those on His left: They will find out that they never had a personal relationship with Christ even though they might have thought they did; they will say, "Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?" In that question itself you can see their obliviousness; it's really a statement that, in effect, "We never saw you or knew you." And of course, Jesus will say to them, "as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." Elsewhere He says He will say, "I never knew you." So He will finally and definitively say, there never was any personal relationship, and there were never any good works evidencing any kind of relationship.And these will be... sent away.

So, in a certain way, I agree: all will claim a personal relationship with Christ, either truly or falsely. Perhaps ~ perhaps ~ this is what you're saying. But I disagree with your statement on it's face ~ at face value, if this is what you're saying ~ that the final Judgment will not involve all but only some. All are in view here, and it is in keeping with Jesus's statement recorded by John in John 5:28-29, that "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment," and Paul's statement in Romans 2:6-8, that "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury."

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Read Post #539 again. You posted that according to my browser. What you were responding to at the time is what you have quoted by @grafted branch having asked. Meaning this---So I’m asking a simple question, can a tare become saved? That's what my browser indicates you were replying to in particular.

You then answered that question with this---No.
Tares are a result of satan's seed, not the saving words of the Lord.

You can't say 'no' if you really mean 'yes'. And you clearly said 'no' not 'yes', to this question being asked that you quoted in particular---So I’m asking a simple question, can a tare become saved?

Maybe it's my browser and that you quoted more than my browser indicates you quoted pertaining to @grafted branch post you were addressing? My browser shows that you only quoted this part--So I’m asking a simple question, can a tare become saved?

And that you then answered that with this part---No.
Tares are a result of satan's seed, not the saving words of the Lord.

Matt 13
27 The servants of the owner came to him and said, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Then how does it have weeds in it?’

I think the resolution to this whole... conundrum <smile> ...is that there are really two different senses of this tares vs. wheat argument; and that there is not really much disagreement here, I think, even though some so strenuously... <smile> ... disagree with each other:

A. If we think of the wheat and the tares in the sense that Paul talks about the elect in Romans 9, that God "says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion' ... He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills"... that "the potter has the right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use... God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles..." then no, a tare cannot become wheat.

B. If we think of the wheat and tares in the sense of God's grace, that none of us deserve God's mercy and compassion and that all of us, even from conception, deserve quite the opposite, that we are by nature children of wrath, but God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace we have been saved ~ and raised us up with Him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, then yes, a tare can become wheat.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, you're cutting in on an exchange between me and another poster; I wasn't talking to you at all there. Which, certainly, you can do what you want... as if you needed my approval... <chuckles> ...which you don't, of course... <smile>

Of course I don't. But, this is a public forum, so anyone can "cut in" on any exchange at any time and it should not be a problem. If you don't want anyone to "cut in" on a discussion you're having, then take it private.

At any rate, I don't recall having actually "called you an Arminian,"

I recall otherwise.

but rather said that some of the statements you have made are Arminian in nature.

Here is one statement you have made to me...

<chuckles> And because of your Arminian soteriology (whether you attribute that to yourself or not)... same back atcha. Plus, you're... well, I won't say 'confused" about it but you're mis-attributing certain things to Calvinism itself.

You refer to my "Arminian soteriology", but that's not basically the same thing as calling me an Arminian? I don't think so.

What you said in this post (#489), mainly that good works were the result and evidence of our faith, in contrast to James's "dead faith," which is a claimed faith without good works) was good. You're right, faith is not a work, which another poster was inadvertently making it out to be.

Most of the Calvinists that I've come across on these forums and other sites online, try to claim that faith is a work and therefore anyone who tries to say that faith comes from us believes in salvation by works. It's a strawman argument that I'm glad you don't make.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ahhhhh, I see what you are saying, and at least in a sense I agree. Yes, in Matthew 25, in Jesus's graphic portrayal of the final Judgment, he has two exchanges, first with those on His right, and then with those on His left:

Those on His right: They know they had a relationship with Christ; all those with true God-given faith do, but they even question themselves, in a way, asking Jesus, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?" They are not denying that they had a personal relationship with Christ, but just not fully aware of it. And Jesus says He will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." So like, when did we do these good works? And Jesus will affirm the personal relationship ~ and the good works that they have done because of the relationship.

Those on His left: They will find out that they never had a personal relationship with Christ even though they might have thought they did; they will say, "Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?" In that question itself you can see their obliviousness; it's really a statement that, in effect, "We never saw you or knew you." And of course, Jesus will say to them, "as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." Elsewhere He says He will say, "I never knew you." So He will finally and definitively say, there never was any personal relationship, and there were never any good works evidencing any kind of relationship.And these will be... sent away.

So, in a certain way, I agree: all will claim a personal relationship with Christ, either truly or falsely. Perhaps ~ perhaps ~ this is what you're saying. But I disagree with your statement on it's face ~ at face value, if this is what you're saying ~ that the final Judgment will not involve all but only some. All are in view here, and it is in keeping with Jesus's statement recorded by John in John 5:28-29, that "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment," and Paul's statement in Romans 2:6-8, that "He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury."

Grace and peace to you.

I hope I don't offend you by "cutting in" here, but since he sometimes never responds to some posts, I thought I'd let you know that, yes, his argument is that Matthew 25:31-46 does not include all people, as you and I believe, but rather just those who have actually, literally professed faith in Christ.

He thinks that because of how even the goats will refer to Him as "Lord". But, I have pointed out that all people will refer to Him as "Lord" when they appear before the judgment seat of Christ and I gave this scriptural evidence for that...

Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[PinSeeker]

Of course I don't. But, this is a public forum, so anyone can "cut in" on any exchange at any time and it should not be a problem...

It's not. It was really a good-natured comment I made, SI.

You refer to my "Arminian soteriology", but that's not basically the same thing as calling me an Arminian? I don't think so.

Yes, at least some of your soteriology is Arminian. It is. If that bothers you, I'm sorry, but it is what it is. But I did not call you an Arminian; that was your perception only... which you even say here ~ "I don't think so" ~ ...which I understand. So, I'm poking you a bit here, all in good fun: are you going to start an argument about that? <smile>

Most of the Calvinists that I've come across on these forums and other sites online, try to claim that faith is a work and therefore anyone who tries to say that faith comes from us believes in salvation by works.

If they do, they're making a point absolutely, unequivocally contrary to John Calvin ~ and far, far more importantly, of course, the Bible. If they say they're Calvinists and make such a statement, then that should cause the hearer to question their Calvinism ~ and far, far more importantly, their understanding of God's Word. Making faith out to be a work of man, that he somehow then deserves God's mercy and compassion (grace, which is unmerited favor, so likewise to make God's grace into something very different than grace), is an implication of Jacobus Arminius's "points." namely the first one, and those who whether they realize it or not have been influenced by him.

It's a strawman argument that I'm glad you don't make.

"Strawman argument?" <chuckles> I mean, just wrong is what I'd call it... <smile>

I hope I don't offend you by "cutting in" here...

Nope. Don't care. All it was was, you responded to me as if I had made some sort of comment directed at you or that I was actually conversing with you in that instance, and I was not.

I thought I'd let you know that, yes, his argument is that Matthew 25:31-46 does not include all people, as you and I believe, but rather just those who have actually, literally professed faith in Christ.

I mean, this is a purely rhetorical question, SI, but why? Why in the world would you feel compelled to "let me know" that? No offense intended of course, but yeah, again, no answer asked for here, but really just a question posed to make a point.

And I'll say again ~ in the same vein, really ~ as I said in post #575 above, this "can a tare become wheat" thing seems to really be an argument where there really is no disagreement, but just kind of a missing each other.

Hey. It's okay, right? It's okay. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, at least some of your soteriology is Arminian. It is. If that bothers you, I'm sorry, but it is what it is.

That does not bother me. But, saying that I have an Arminian theology comes across as if you're saying I'm an Armininan. I don't know how you can deny that.

But I did not call you an Arminian; that was your perception only... which you even say here ~ "I don't think so" ~ ...which I understand. So, I'm poking you a bit here, all in good fun: are you going to start an argument about that? <smile>

How can a non-Arminian hold to "Arminian soteriology"? When you made the comment you did not say it in the sense that I only agree with Arminian soteriology on some things.

If they do, they're making a point absolutely, unequivocally contrary to John Calvin ~ and far, far more importantly, of course, the Bible.

It's not "if they do". I know what I've read. Plenty who call themselves Calvinists try to say that if someone claims that our own faith and trust in Jesus Christ is required for salvation then that means that person believes in works based salvation. I have seen that argument many times by self-proclaimed Calvinists.

If they say they're Calvinists and make such a statement, then that should cause the hearer to question their Calvinism ~ and far, far more importantly, their understanding of God's Word.

But, Calvinists believe that God gives people faith and that we don't manufacture the faith in and of ourselves. So, I can understand, from that perspective, why those Calvinists claim that if faith comes from us then it would be considered works based salvation because Calvinism does not claim that any part of salvation originates with us. Of course, everything originates with God. We all believe that. But, I'm talking in the sense of our response to God's commands, such as the command to repent and to believe the gospel.

Making faith out to be a work of man, that he somehow then deserves God's mercy and compassion (grace, which is unmerited favor, so likewise to make God's grace into something very different than grace), is an implication of Jacobus Arminius's "points." namely the first one, and those who whether they realize it or not have been influenced by him.

Okay, there it is. So, you do say that faith is a work if it's something that we do. I'm showing that is not the case.

James said that he proved his faith by his works (James 2:18). And he said that faith without works is dead (James 2:17). If what you were saying was true, then that would mean James was saying that he proved his faith by works like his faith and that faith without works like faith is dead, which obviously would be a nonsensical thing to say.

"Strawman argument?" <chuckles> I mean, just wrong is what I'd call it... <smile>

I was talking about an argument that doesn't even address what I believe. That is called a strawman argument.

Nope. Don't care. All it was was, you responded to me as if I had made some sort of comment directed at you or that I was actually conversing with you in that instance, and I was not.


I mean, this is a purely rhetorical question, SI, but why? Why in the world would you feel compelled to "let me know" that?

I told you why. He often does not respond to posts. He just leaves a discussion abruptly without responding. So, I thought I would tell you what he believes because I don't expect him to actually address your post. That's how he typically does things. He engages for a short time and then disappears for several days or weeks. I figured you shouldn't have to wait that long. It's amazing to me that you would be offended by me just trying to get you an answer sooner than you would have received otherwise, if you ever received one at all.

And I'll say again ~ in the same vein, really ~ as I said in post #575 above, this "can a tare become wheat" thing seems to really be an argument where there really is no disagreement, but just kind of a missing each other.

It can seem like the parable contradicts other scripture unless you look at it from God's eternal perspective. The parable itself does not indicate that tares can become wheat, but we know that from a real-time perspective children of the devil have often become children of the kingdom because 1 John 3:8-10 defines children of the devil as lost sinners and all children of the kingdom are formerly children of the devil in that sense. So, clearly, the parable has nothing to do with that. It instead focuses on the status of the wheat and tares at the harvest (end of the age).

 

[PinSeeker]

That does not bother me..

You do a great job of... displaying, I guess... otherwise. <smile> Maybe you could prove that by, you know, just letting it go, by dropping it... <smile>

...saying that I have an Arminian theology...

I didn't say that. I said you made at least one or two Arminian-sounding statements. That's all. Dude, come on. Drop it.

...you did not say it in the sense that I only agree with Arminian soteriology on some things.

I did. Oh great, it is turning into an argument.... <sigh>

Plenty who call themselves Calvinists try to say that if someone claims that our own faith and trust in Jesus Christ is required for salvation then that means that person believes in works based salvation. I have seen that argument many times by self-proclaimed Calvinists.

Okay, fine; that makes them... bad Calvinists. <smile> That is very un-Calvinistic.

Okay, there it is. So, you do say that faith is a work if it's something that we do...

Well, I guess I would be... if that were actually what I was saying... LOL!

Okay. Case closed. Hopefully. My goodness.

the parable has nothing to do with that....

In what I said, I was not really talking about the parable itself, but just the differing senses in which people may think about the wheat and the tares... really more so Christians and non-Christians at any given time, and I was clear on that. I was really trying to help folks realize, "hey, maybe there's not such an opposite-sides-of-the-fence thing going on here..." It seems to me there's really not.

I guess this is what I get for trying to make peace among the brethren here... Goodness gracious. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.