Can a tare become saved?

[Spiritual Israelite]

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>

Dude, your reading comprehension skills are not good. I explained what does bother me and what doesn't, so there's nothing to drop in relation to what doesn't bother me. Good grief.

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.

Dude, you are so incredibly dishonest. You called my soteriology "Arminian soteriology". Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's your middle name.

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

No, it turns out that something you said later in your post is exactly what I said they were saying. LOL. I need to go back to not talking to you again. What a waste of time.

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

Okay. Case closed. Hopefully. My goodness.

How is it not what you were saying? Wait...forget it. I don't care.

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'm simply saying that if you look at the parable a certain way as some do, it can cause a contradiction with other scripture. Clearly, children of the devil, as the tares are described (Matthew 13:38) can become children of the kingdom, as the wheat are described. That happens every time a lost sinner (child of the devil - 1 John 3:8-10) becomes saved.

 

[PinSeeker]

Dude, your reading comprehension skills are not good.

<eyeroll>

I explained what does bother me and what doesn't...

You did, but actions speak louder than words. The fact that you keep going on about it tells me otherwise. But, really, who cares?

...there's nothing to drop in relation to what doesn't bother me.

I agree. <smile> But that's... not what I was talking about. <smile>

Good grief.

Good grief! <pounds the table; smile>

Dude, you are so incredibly dishonest.

<eyeroll>

You called my soteriology "Arminian soteriology"

Again, perception is not always reality. It's really no big deal, but you perceived what I said wrongly... you misunderstood what I was saying. And that happens; it's no big deal. Well... should be no big deal anyway... <smile> And you know, I'll be happy to take the blame for conveying the wrong message, but no, I did not.

. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's your middle name.

<eyeroll>

No, it turns out that something you said later in your post is exactly what I said they were saying. LOL.

Which was? <chuckles> Nope. That would have made me a bad Calvinist. <smile>

I need to go back to not talking to you again.

Ohhhh, but you just can't help it. I get it. <smile>

What a waste of time.

I agree. <smile> In addition to saying stupid things, you're wasting our time. <smile>

How is it not what you were saying?

<eyeroll> Maybe you could just take my word for it, yeah?

Wait...forget it. I don't care.

Apparently you do. Maybe if you say that to yourself enough, maybe you'll start to believe it. But still, actions speak louder than words... <smile>

I'm simply saying that if you look at the parable a certain way as some do, it can cause a contradiction with other scripture.

And to this... and this is what I was saying before... outside of the context of the parable itself, there is more than one sense that people can see wheat and tares, ergo, what those on the two sides of the fence were saying was not untrue, if their context in saying the two seemingly opposite things was what it seemed to be. It seems to me that's not that difficult to understand.

Clearly, children of the devil, as the tares are described (Matthew 13:38) can become children of the kingdom, as the wheat are described. That happens every time a lost sinner (child of the devil - 1 John 3:8-10) becomes saved.

I totally agree, SI, and I actually think the ones who seemed to be on the opposite side of the fence as you might agree, too, if they were speaking in the same context as you, but they were not. That was my point. Their context was different, so I think it is entirely possible that both you and they were right. If they were to place what they said in your context, then they would acknowledge that what they were saying was wrong in that context. Likewise, I think if you were to place what you were saying in their context, then you would acknowledge that what you were saying was wrong in that context. You see?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You did, but actions speak louder than words. The fact that you keep going on about it tells me otherwise. But, really, who cares?

I don't keep going on about the thing that didn't bother me that you thought bothered me. But, naturally, you don't care if you misrepresent what I was saying.

Which was? <chuckles> Nope. That would have made me a bad Calvinist. <smile>

Let me answer the question instead of you answering it for me. The point was that those bad Calvinists, with which you agree, say that if faith comes from us rather than God giving it to us, then that can be called works based salvation despite the fact that faith is contrasted with the works that don't save us in scripture. You agree with those bad Calvinists that if someone believes that faith is our own faith rather than God giving it to us, then it means that person is believing in works based salvation. So, I guess you too are a bad Calvinist.

Ohhhh, but you just can't help it. I get it. <smile>

I like to correct your mistakes. Yes, it's hard to resist that.

I agree. <smile> In addition to saying stupid things, you're wasting our time. <smile>

Look at holier than thou PinSeeker telling me I'm saying stupid things. Now, that wasn't very nice, Mr. PinSeeker. Go in the corner and think about what you've done.

<eyeroll> Maybe you could just take my word for it, yeah?

Nah, I don't take your word for anything because you say too many stupid things for me to just take your word for anything.

And to this... and this is what I was saying before... outside of the context of the parable itself, there is more than one sense that people can see wheat and tares, ergo, what those on the two sides of the fence were saying was not untrue, if their context in saying the two seemingly opposite things was what it seemed to be. It seems to me that's not that difficult to understand.

I agree, yet we have a few posters here who cannot understand what you're saying here. But, I do because it's the same thing I've been trying to tell them.

I totally agree, SI, and I actually think the ones who seemed to be on the opposite side of the fence as you might agree, too, if they were speaking in the same context as you, but they were not. That was my point. Their context was different, so I think it is entirely possible that both you and they were right. If they were to place what they said in your context, then they would acknowledge that what they were saying was wrong in that context. Likewise, I think if you were to place what you were saying in their context, then you would acknowledge that what you were saying was wrong in that context. You see?

Yes, but the point is that we need to look at the parable of the wheat and tares from the right perspective or we can cause contradictions with other scripture. To look at the parable and decide that children of the devil cannot be saved and become children of the kingdom is a clear case of not looking at the parable the right way and missing the point of the parable.

 

[PinSeeker]

I don't keep going on about the thing that didn't bother me that you thought bothered me. But, naturally, you don't care if you misrepresent what I was saying.

LOL! You know, at this point, I'm just getting a kick out of keeping you going. <smile> Obviously, it bothers you, and you can't let it go; it's kind of funny at this point. <chuckles>

Let me answer the question instead of you answering it for me.

To be honest, I really don't even remember asking a question.

Oh, wait, now I remember... but I didn't really ask you a question at all; I was very explicit in saying that by doing so, I was just making a point, and not asking for any kind of answer. But by all means, keep going... <smile>

The point was that those bad Calvinists, with which you agree, say that if faith comes from us rather than God giving it to us, then that can be called works based salvation...

Good Calvinists wouldn't say this at all, Spiritual Israelite. Quite the opposite. And I've been very clear about this. But... yeah, keep going...

despite the fact that faith is contrasted with the works that don't save us in scripture.

Which is absolutely a fact, which I've been very clear about. But keep going...

You agree with those bad Calvinists that if someone believes that faith is our own faith rather than God giving it to us, then it means that person is believing in works based salvation.

Hmmm, well it is our own faith, in that yes, God has given us this assurance, and we have it and are convicted of it... that conviction being of the Holy Spirit. Which I've said many times. So no, I don't agree with those... bad Calvinists; no good Calvinist believes other than what I've said here, and like I said, many times previous. Behold, who is without question not a Calvinist, was the one saying what you're saying here about "bad Calvinists," and he was the one I was so strongly debating on that point. So now the question is... and again, rhetorical... how long are you going to keep attributing otherwise to me? But... I don't care.

Oh, wait, I do care... I care a whole lot... like I so super-care! I need to keep you going, for humor's sake, you know... <smile>

So, I guess you too are a bad Calvinist.

Well now that depends on the sense in which you mean "bad"... LOL! I mean, HEY! I'M SUPER-BAD! OWWWWWW! (my best James Brown scream) <grin> Get up offa dat thing! <smile>

I like to correct your mistakes. Yes, it's hard to resist that.

And I like to keep you thinking you are... and going, and going, and going...

Look at holier than thou PinSeeker telling me I'm saying stupid things.

I mean, it is what it is... LOL!

Now, that wasn't very nice, Mr. PinSeeker.

You're right, but it was fun. <smile> Then again, for you to say this is... kind of hypocritical... LOL!

Go in the corner and think about what you've done.

Well, my computer is in a corner of this big room. That counts, right?

Nah, I don't take your word for anything because you say too many stupid things for me to just take your word for anything.

Ah, okay, even though you agree with me quite a bit. Gotcha...

I agree, yet we have a few posters here who cannot understand what you're saying here.

I think it's more because they just don't want to.

But, I do because it's the same thing I've been trying to tell them.

Yes, but the point is that we need to look at the parable of the wheat and tares from the right perspective....

Sure, but it's perfectly okay to talk about wheat and tares in general.

To look at the parable and decide that children of the devil cannot be saved and become children of the kingdom is a clear case of not looking at the parable the right way and missing the point of the parable.

Right, but again, there is a sense in which the tares will never become children of the living God ~ from the perspective of... or, well, in view of God's sovereignty, and His elect, none of whom are really tares. What you say here in a different sense, that from our perspective and the knowledge that none of is deserving of salvation, but even so God does, according to His grace, foreknow (forelove), predestine, call, justify, and glorify those He has chosen before the foundation of the world. So, like I said several posts ago, depending on the sense in which it is said, both are true.

And I think you agree. But if you don't, fair enough. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

Oh wait, I need to say something mean, so I can keep you going... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.