Can a tare become saved?

[claninja]

Yeah, so I said, "if you would start actually using your brain, that would be awesome"

And somehow that's equivalent to and deserving of being called "incredibly dishonest" (so a liar, Post 581), "holier than thou" (Post 583), "evil" (Post 585), "dummy" (Post 589)... (not an exhaustive list)...?

Hmmmm... <chuckles> I mean, it wasn't the nicest way to put it, admittedly, but actually, what I said was a compliment, really. I mean, to exhort someone to use his or her brain is to obviously have already made the implicit statement/acknowledgment that he or she has one and is capable of using it well, right? <chuckles>

Just having a little fun... <smile>

Grace and peace to you, claninja. Interesting moniker...

Yeah, so I said, "if you would start actually using your brain, that would be awesome"

And somehow that's equivalent to and deserving of being called "incredibly dishonest" (so a liar, Post 581), "holier than thou" (Post 583), "evil" (Post 585), "dummy" (Post 589)... (not an exhaustive list)...?

Hmmmm... <chuckles> I mean, it wasn't the nicest way to put it, admittedly, but actually, what I said was a compliment, really. I mean, to exhort someone to use his or her brain is to obviously have already made the implicit statement/acknowledgment that he or she has one and is capable of using it well, right? <chuckles>

Just having a little fun... <smile>

Grace and peace to you, claninja. Interesting moniker...

I mean, it does seem you were intentionally trying to rile him up, which I don’t think is appropriate either.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

I mean, it does seem you were intentionally trying to rile him up, which I don’t think is appropriate either.

Whatever you do, don't start sharing a bunch of scripture because this "riles" people up that don't accept the whole counsel of God who are following false teachers who teach the wisdom of men as though it were the wisdom of the Lord when it's not.

You know you're dealing with a tare when they try to tell you it's OK to ignore what God says in His Word and/or use extra biblical references as being "Truth" which is what the catholics do as do other cults

 

[claninja]

In Matthew 13:24-30 we have the parable of the weeds, then in verses 36-43 we have the explanation of the parable.

The Amil view has Satan bound from deceiving and keeping people in darkness during a current millennium. If Satan is bound and unable to deceive then it would seem to be possible for an undeceived tare to recognize they are a tare and accept Jesus as their savior. However in Matthew 13:40 the tares are gathered and burned in the fire.

We know weeds can’t literally turn into wheat plants, which would seem to be a major point of the parable, but that would require a Premil view of Satan not being bound and the tares continuing to be deceived and in darkness until the harvest.

So I’m asking a simple question, can a tare become saved? And a follow up question, how does this fit with Satan being bound or not bound?

In the context of the parable specifically , no, a wheat cannot become a tare or vise versa.

But how about this:

Jesus states, in the olivet discourse, that there will be a mass falling away.

Does the mass falling away apply to the wheat or to the tares?

 

[PinSeeker]

I mean, it does seem you were intentionally trying to rile him up, which I don’t think is appropriate either.

Point taken, but riling him up wasn't my intention. And my only point to him and you (and anyone else in making the comment I made) was more about actually thinking about what I said rationally and objectively. Now, did I say it in an overly pointed, non-fruit-of-the-Spirit way? Yes, so I offer belated apologies. But was it anywhere close to the level of a personal attack or name-calling? Certainly not.

Interesting that I respond by taking your point well, with humility and contrition, actually, while SI tells you to "mind your own business" and to "quit whining." That's interesting, no? <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

In the context of the parable specifically , no, a wheat cannot become a tare or vise versa.

But how about this:

Jesus states, in the olivet discourse, that there will be a mass falling away.

Does the mass falling away apply to the wheat or to the tares?

Good question. I say ~ in the context of the parable of the wheat and the tares ~ just as tares cannot/will not become wheat, so wheat cannot/will not become tares. Which is what you just said, which makes me wonder why you then asked the question you asked.

And about the mass falling away, I will point out the same thing I have pointed out many times concerning falling away... what John says in 1 John 2:19 of those who have already fallen away, that "(t)hey went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." It will be the same in the mass falling away Jesus speaks of. What you say ~ "a wheat cannot become a tare" is absolutely applicable. The only conclusion that can be reached in the case of a falling away of any number of folks is, though it may have seemed like it for a time to others and even to themselves is that they were never wheat.

It seems to me what we're all saying here is that a leopard cannot change his spots, so to speak. And in the context of the parable of the wheat and the tares, that's absolutely true. Which was a point I made long ago in this thread, that there really seems to be no argument here.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

That is not what those scriptures say.

Even though I quoted those Scriptures verbatim. Interesting. Again:

"I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God" (God, through Ezekiel, 11:19-20)

"I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules" (God, through Ezekiel, 36:26-27)

That is what the Scriptures say. Verbatim.

If that's what they said, then why does Ezekiel also say this...

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

And this...

Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ 12 “Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous.’

Sure, He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. I have never said otherwise. Your last statement here, "the righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous" seems to be a statement of your own making. Ezekiel is speaking there clearly of those who trust in their own righteousness and does injustice. They may have done some righteous things, but the issue is still trusting in their own righteousness Here is verse 13 (verbatim): "Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die."

If someone can only repent and believe if God gives them faith and causes them to believe...

What God does in removing the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh, in giving one a new spirit, in putting a new spirit within us, in putting His Spirit within us ~ in giving us this new birth in the Spirit ~ is causative of our walking in His statutes and keeping His rules and obeying them. But we are the ones who do the walking, the keeping His statutes and rules and obeying, and these are all voluntary acts of our will.

As I have said over and over again (and not just to you) it is not really about our will and whether it is free or not; of course we have free will, but we will not use it well... <smile> ...unless God changes our heart and gives us this new heart/spirit first. And then we will not fail to respond accordingly, because then, even in and of ourselves, we will be able to do no other... in the sense that, well, in the words of John Newton and his hymn Amazing Grace, we were blind but now we see.

No, the truth is that we are regenerated after putting our faith in Christ and repenting of our sins...

Your assertion here is absolutely backwards. Again, drawing on the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1, we cannot have God's assurance until He gives it to us... we are not convicted by the Spirit until He convicts us. And it's contradictory of Paul's statement in Romans 9:14-18 that it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy, that He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills. And contradictive of John's great statement in John 1:13, that all who did receive Jesus, who believed in Jesus's name were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And John later says, in 1 John 4, that "...by this (God abides in us and His love is perfected in us) we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of his Spirit... We love because he first loved us" (vv.12-19)

Do you agree that someone is regenerated when they receive the Holy Spirit?

Of course.

If so, tell me when the disciples believed and repented of their sins. Before or after this...

After.

The disciples obviously already believed and were repentant of their sins BEFORE they received the Holy Spirit.

No, Jesus even says to them exactly what He was doing there: "As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you... if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld." This was not their being born again of the Spirit but rather the commissioning of the apostles and the giving to them the ability to perform great signs and wonders and to forgive sins, filling them with the Spirit so much so that what they would be doing in performing these signs and wonders and forgiving of sins would actually be credited to God Himself.

Calvinism tries to make it the other way around...

Not at all; it was a different thing altogether... You remember what Jesus said to Peter when Peter confessed Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," right? He said, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father Who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:13-17). And this was by the work of God's Spirit, in the very same sense as Ezekiel 11:19-20 and 36:26-27, cited above. The Holy Spirit has been at work in Creation since the very beginning, from Genesis 1 (verse 2)... "...the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters..."

Good works don't save us, but are prepared for those who are saved by God's grace through the faith that we place in Jesus Christ for salvation and the forgiveness of our sins.

So we give God assurance and conviction? No, it's God's assurance, and conviction by the Spirit (the definition of faith, Hebrews 11:1 again). I mean, it's good that you're referring to what Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-10, but here it is verbatim:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."​

How you can continue to turn that around I cannot understand, but you do. But this is what Pelagius and Arminius did, and so it continues, but it is what it is.

Calvinists twist scripture... Calvinists fail to see that Paul was talking about the deep things of God... go ahead and make an excuse for yourself... you are a liar...

<eye roll> Neither Calvinists nor Arminians "twist Scripture" in any kind of intentional way. But the latter get it wrong regarding soteriology, at least, and who does what in salvation.

You have called my comments "dumb" and "stupid"...

I have. But that's far short of calling you "dummy" or "liar" or any other thing or making any kind of personal attack on you. I don't mind you doing that, really, as my identity is in Christ, so you can do that all you want, but if/when you do... I mean, that's on you. <shrug>

...you can stop acting innocent any time now.

None of us is innocent.

If you would like to agree for both of us to stop saying things like that, I'm fine with that.

Agree. <smile>

But, I figured you must not mind my saying things like that since you do so as well.

You "figured"... <smile> SI, you said what you said precisely because you thought I would "mind." <chuckles>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[ewq1938]

In the context of the parable specifically , no, a wheat cannot become a tare or vise versa.

But how about this:

Jesus states, in the olivet discourse, that there will be a mass falling away.

Does the mass falling away apply to the wheat or to the tares?

Well, the ones wo fall away fall away from Jesus so technically they were wheat.

Good people turn to sin and the devil and become bad people, and likewise bad people sometimes repent and accept Jesus.

 

[grafted branch]

In the context of the parable specifically , no, a wheat cannot become a tare or vise versa.

But how about this:

Jesus states, in the olivet discourse, that there will be a mass falling away.

Does the mass falling away apply to the wheat or to the tares?

That’s a good question and I think @PinSeeker gave a good answer that I agree with.

There is something that maybe you can give your thoughts on …

I think we would all agree that Satan can’t create the seeds or tares that he sowed. Satan can certainly produce lies and false doctrine to deceive people, although Amill will disagree with Satan deceiving after the cross. Currently, I’ve never heard anyone asking the question, who sowed you, the Son of man or Satan. So honestly I don’t think anyone seriously thinks Satan is creating new humans and sowing them.

In Matthew 13:38 it says specifically the good seed are the children of the kingdom and the tares are the children of the wicked one. It never says tares are seeds, I guess it’s just something we assume but they are never called seeds <4690> sperma.

From Luke 8:11 (a different parable) the seed is the word of God (although the word “seed” is a different Greek word).

So what are your thoughts on this, are the tares that Satan sowed, people or perhaps even angels, that he already corrupted through deception? And possibly the wheat seed (sperma) was produced by the Luke 8:11 seed (sporos)?

 

[claninja]

Good question. I say ~ in the context of the parable of the wheat and the tares ~ just as tares cannot/will not become wheat, so wheat cannot/will not become tares. Which is what you just said, which makes me wonder why you then asked the question you asked.

And about the mass falling away, I will point out the same thing I have pointed out many times concerning falling away... what John says in 1 John 2:19 of those who have already fallen away, that "(t)hey went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." It will be the same in the mass falling away Jesus speaks of. What you say ~ "a wheat cannot become a tare" is absolutely applicable. The only conclusion that can be reached in the case of a falling away of any number of folks is, though it may have seemed like it for a time to others and even to themselves is that they were never wheat.

It seems to me what we're all saying here is that a leopard cannot change his spots, so to speak. And in the context of the parable of the wheat and the tares, that's absolutely true. Which was a point I made long ago in this thread, that there really seems to be no argument here.

Grace and peace to you.

i think you hit the nail on the head

Wheat and tares are hard to distinguish when they are young. It’s when they are maturing, closer to harvest, that the wheat can be more easily distinguished from the tare. I think Jesus’ audience would have recognized that with the statement- “let them grow together until the harvest lest the wheat is uprooted with the tares”

That being said, you bring an excellent point with 1 John 2 - “they went out from us, but were not of us”. The only way John knew they were “not of us” is when the went out. That seems similar to how wheat and tares may seem almost indistinguishable when growing together.

So, a wheat cannot become a tare and vise versa, but also, the identity of the wheat and tare is not easily identifiable until closer to harvest time, or so it seems.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Point taken, but riling him up wasn't my intention. And my only point to him and you (and anyone else in making the comment I made) was more about actually thinking about what I said rationally and objectively.

As if I don't think about what you say rationally and objectively?

Now, did I say it in an overly pointed, non-fruit-of-the-Spirit way? Yes, so I offer belated apologies. But was it anywhere close to the level of a personal attack or name-calling? Certainly not.

LOL. There is no difference between telling someone to turn on their brain and calling them a name. That's hilarious.

Interesting that I respond by taking your point well, with humility and contrition, actually, while SI tells you to "mind your own business" and to "quit whining." That's interesting, no? <smile>

I don't believe that it is his business. You and I can talk it out ourselves without needing him to chime in. If you want to talk without including the personal jabs, I'm fine with that. We have been able to discuss things without that before.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Even though I quoted those Scriptures verbatim. Interesting. Again:

"I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God" (God, through Ezekiel, 11:19-20)

"I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules" (God, through Ezekiel, 36:26-27)

That is what the Scriptures say. Verbatim.

LOL. I was obviously talking about your interpretation of the scriptures, not the scriptures themselves. Wow.

You say that these scriptures tell us that God gives us a new heart in order to repent and believe. That is not what these scriptures say. I think you probably don't know what the word "repent" means just like you have shown you don't know what the words "faith" and "choose" mean. Those verses say nothing about God giving us a new heart and spirit in order to be able to repent and believe. Read it more carefully. The new heart and spirit he gives us is for the purpose of being able to obey Him and to do the good works that He prepared for us to do AFTER we become saved (Ephesians 2:8-10). Repentance and faith are not part of walking in His statutes and obeying His commands. They are not part of the good works He has for us to do.

Repentance and faith involve changing one's mind about their spiritual status and acknowledging that they are a sinner and cannot save themselves and need Jesus and His shed blood to save them instead. It is AFTER that when God gives us a new heart and spirit.

The disciples received the Holy Spirit AFTER they had repented and believed in Christ (John 20:22).

Sure, He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. I have never said otherwise.

But, you believe that He does nothing to give them any opportunity to repent and live instead even though it cleary says He would rather they repent and live than to die in their wickedness. How do you reconcile that with your doctrine?

Your last statement here, "the righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous" seems to be a statement of your own making.

LOL. What? That is scripture. That's wasn't my statement. I quoted this passage...

Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ 12 “Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous.’ (NIV)

Ezekiel is speaking there clearly of those who trust in their own righteousness and does injustice. They may have done some righteous things, but the issue is still trusting in their own righteousness Here is verse 13 (verbatim): "Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die."

Of course. Where did I say otherwise? What I want you to address is what it says in Ezekiel 33:11. In your doctrine, it does not seem to be the case that God would rather that the wicked had repented and live than to have died in their wickedness. In your doctrine God gives repentance to some and those who are the ones who He wants to repent. And they do, without fail. In your doctrine He does not want the rest to repent because they can only repent if He gives them repentance. So, your doctrine contradicts verses like Ezekiel 18:23 and Ezekiel 33:11.

What God does in removing the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh, in giving one a new spirit, in putting a new spirit within us, in putting His Spirit within us ~ in giving us this new birth in the Spirit ~ is causative of our walking in His statutes and keeping His rules and obeying them. But we are the ones who do the walking, the keeping His statutes and rules and obeying, and these are all voluntary acts of our will.

Yes, God is the One who helps us do the good works that he has prepared for those who choose to repent and believe unto salvation. Jesus said that apart from Him, we can not bear fruit (John 15:5). We need the Spirit of Christ to give us the strength to do what God has for us to do. And through Him, we can do all things that God has for us to do (Philippians 4:13. But, it does not say that we can not repent and believe in Him apart from Him doing that for us. Repentance and faith involve us acknowledging that we can't save ourselves and can't do anything worthwhile apart from Christ. He wants us to humbly admit that while submitting to Him, so that He can then give us a new heart and start working through us.

As I have said over and over again (and not just to you) it is not really about our will and whether it is free or not;

As I have said over and over again (and not just to you) it IS about our will and whether it is free or not in terms of deciding whether or not to repent and believe. God makes us responsible to choose to do that.

When Joshua told the Israelites to choose who they would serve (Joshua 24:14-15), did he indicate that God had to give them a new heart first before they could make that decision?

of course we have free will, but we will not use it well... <smile>

.unless God changes our heart and gives us this new heart/spirit first.

That definition of free will is ridiculous. Free will implies that we are fully capable of deciding between two viable options. But, in your view, everyone will make the same "choice" "unless God changes our heart and gives us this new heart/spirit first.". That's not free will. That's all about God's will alone without us having a will/mind of our own. Scripture never teaches such a thing.

What is amazing to me is that Calvinists will acknowledge that all people are capable of choosing to glorify God and be thankful to Him or not without God having to give us a new heart in order to make that choice (Romans 1:18-21). It's hard to deny that when it says that no one has any excuse for not glorifying God and being thankful to Him. Yet, somehow, people are able to make a decision like that without having to be given a new heart to do so, but they cannot also make a decision on whether or not to repent and put their trust in Christ without having to be given a new heart to do so. How does this make any sense?

How is it even possible for someone who is supposedly "totally depraved" to have the ability to glorify God and be thankful to Him while having no excuse for not doing so, but at the same time they have no ability to repent and believe without God giving them a new heart first?

And then we will not fail to respond accordingly, because then, even in and of ourselves, we will be able to do no other... in the sense that, well, in the words of John Newton and his hymn Amazing Grace, we were blind but now we see.

How is that free will? Free will with only one possible choice? That's not free will.

Your assertion here is absolutely backwards. Again, drawing on the definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1, we cannot have God's assurance until He gives it to us... we are not convicted by the Spirit until He convicts us.

You don't get it. We are responsible to respond to the conviction of the Spirit by humbling ourselves and putting our faith in Christ. Some resist the Holy Spirit instead. God doesn't force Himself upon anyone.

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And it's contradictory of Paul's statement in Romans 9:14-18 that it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy, that He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills.

You don't understand what that means. You do not look at ALL of scripture to form your doctrine. You just cherry pick scripture instead.

Yet, it's true that it is entirely up to God to decide who He will have mercy on and who He will harden. But, that's not the end of the story!

Romans 11:30-32 makes it clear that He wants to have mercy on all people. Why do you never refer to that passage? In order to reconcile both passages together, it should be clear that God's decision on who to have mercy on is not by some mysterious reason that only He knows, but rather is based on whether or not someone repents and believes. That was God's sovereign decision to do things that way, not man's. Romans 9:14-18 is not saying that God's mercy is not based on making man responsible to repent and belive, it's saying that man has no say in how God determines whether or not to have mercy on someone. God decided, without man's input, to have mercy on those who repent and believe the gospel.

Paul used Pharaoh as an example of someone God hardened. But, Pharaoh had already hardened his own heart before that. That's why God chose Pharaoh to make an example out of him. God has every right to do that with anyone whose heart is hardened towards Him if He so desires.

And contradictive of John's great statement in John 1:13, that all who did receive Jesus, who believed in Jesus's name were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And John later says, in 1 John 4, that "...by this (God abides in us and His love is perfected in us) we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of his Spirit... We love because he first loved us" (vv.12-19)

That is not saying that we are not born again after choosing to repent and believe. That is saying that the actual process of being born again involves something that God does, not man. When we receive the Holy Spriit, we don't need to help Him come into us and give us a new heart. That is His doing. That has nothing to do with the act that He does this AFTER we have repented and believed in Christ. You get the order of things wrong.

Ephesians 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Notice here that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit AFTER we first trust in Christ. You have it the other way around.

After.

John 20:19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

This was after Christ's resurrection. You are trying to tell me you don't think they repented and believed in Christ until after they received the Holy Spirit? That is clearly not the case. They clearly were repentant and believed in Christ before receiving the Holy Spirit.

No, Jesus even says to them exactly what He was doing there: "As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you... if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld." This was not their being born again of the Spirit but rather the commissioning of the apostles and the giving to them the ability to perform great signs and wonders and to forgive sins, filling them with the Spirit so much so that what they would be doing in performing these signs and wonders and forgiving of sins would actually be credited to God Himself.

I thought you agreed that we are born again when we receive the Holy Spirit? When do you think they were born again if not when they received the Holy Spirit?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So we give God assurance and conviction?

Do you actually think I would say yes to this silly question? I don't think you read what I say very carefully because in no way, shape or form did I say we give God assurance and conviction. You are not understanding at all what Hebrews 11:1 is saying.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

This says that faith is our own confidence in what we hope for and is our assurance (assurance relates directly to our faith/confidence) about what we do not see.

Look at verse 3. Is the faith we have "that the universe was formed at God's command" given to us by God? Paul indicated that all people understand who God is by what He has made and have no excuse for not believing that He created all things because of the evidence we can all see by what He has made. So, I'm sure that you would not try to say that the faith we have that God is the Creator of the universe was not given to us because in that case everyone would believe that since no one has any excuse not to believe that (Romans 1:18-21).

So, with that in mind, why would you think that the faith referenced in Heberews 11:3 is our own faith that we choose to have without God having to give it to us, but the faith referenced in verse 1 is not and is instead given to us by God?

No, it's God's assurance, and conviction by the Spirit (the definition of faith, Hebrews 11:1 again). I mean, it's good that you're referring to what Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-10, but here it is verbatim:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."​

How you can continue to turn that around I cannot understand, but you do. But this is what Pelagius and Arminius did, and so it continues, but it is what it is.

You argue against things that you don't even understand, which makes no sense. It's not possible to refute something you don't even understand. Straw man arguments never refute anything. Hopefully, with my comments relating to Hebrews 11:1,3 above, I have now clarified my view enough for you to at least understand it, so that you can actually address what I believe instead of whatever you think Pelagius and Arminius believed.

I have. But that's far short of calling you "dummy" or "liar" or any other thing or making any kind of personal attack on you.

Telling me to turn my brain on is a personal attack because saying that implies you think my brain was turned off and that I was being a "dummy" or "liar". There's no difference in what you did and what I did. I just said out loud what you were thinking of me (that I was dumb or was lying) as evidenced by your comments that I needed to turn my brain on.

Anyway, I really don't want to make things personal, but I have a tendency to react when someone else makes things personal. That's on me and there's no one to blame for that but me, but at the same time I felt that if you don't mind saying things like that, then you wouldn't mind me saying things like that to you, either.

Of course, that's not the right way to think even if it was true that you didn't mind that. But, the reality is that neither one of us wants to have things like that said to us, so let's just stop doing that. I know we can both do that. We've done it before.

So, I'm trying to work this out directly with you, which is my preference. That's why I told claninja to mind his own business. I believed you and I can work this out ourselves without his input. We've done that before and we were able to have respectful discussions, but then we slipped and made things personal again. Let's give it one more shot to try to eliminate that. If it ever happens again, then let's just agree to not talk to each other anymore since it would seem, in that case, that we just can't avoid doing that.

I don't mind you doing that, really, as my identity is in Christ, so you can do that all you want, but if/when you do... I mean, that's on you. <shrug>

Calling someone or their comments dumb or stupid is no different than calling them "dummy", in my opinion, so this is just another thing that we disagree about.

You "figured"... <smile> SI, you said what you said precisely because you thought I would "mind." <chuckles>

I didn't know if you would or not. I think it's quite reasonable to believe that someone who talks a certain way to someone would not mind if that person talked to them the same way. Otherwise, why are you talking to the person in a way that you would not like to be talked to as well? That's what I was thinking. But, I can see that the reality is that you don't like it any more than I do. So, let's stop doing that. If we can't stop doing that (I think we can) then it would be best to just not talk to each other at all.

 

[claninja]

That’s a good question and I think @PinSeeker gave a good answer that I agree with.

There is something that maybe you can give your thoughts on …

I think we would all agree that Satan can’t create the seeds or tares that he sowed. Satan can certainly produce lies and false doctrine to deceive people, although Amill will disagree with Satan deceiving after the cross. Currently, I’ve never heard anyone asking the question, who sowed you, the Son of man or Satan. So honestly I don’t think anyone seriously thinks Satan is creating new humans and sowing them.

In Matthew 13:38 it says specifically the good seed are the children of the kingdom and the tares are the children of the wicked one. It never says tares are seeds, I guess it’s just something we assume but they are never called seeds <4690> sperma.

From Luke 8:11 (a different parable) the seed is the word of God (although the word “seed” is a different Greek word).

So what are your thoughts on this, are the tares that Satan sowed, people or perhaps even angels, that he already corrupted through deception? And possibly the wheat seed (sperma) was produced by the Luke 8:11 seed (sporos)?

Contextually:
A tare cannot become wheat or vise versa, And wheat, prior to maturation, is just about indistinguishable from a tare until the harvest. So much so, that prematurely removing the tares will also uproot the wheat - Matthew 13:29

Interpretively:
Looking at Matthew 13:29, IF the parable is about the universal and final judgement on all mankind, how could it put the wheat at risk, if it occurred prematurely? Is Gods supernatural universal and final judgement unable to differentiate between wheat and tares until a certain time? Or Are God’s instruments in a supernatural universal and final judgement unable to differentiate until a certain point in time? MAYBE, is there another type of judgement that would indeed not be able to distinguish between wheat and tares, and would result in the destruction of the wheat along with the tares if done prematurely? For example in an audience relevance and historical contextual analysis, if the wheat represented the Jews that accepted the gospel, and the tares represented the Jews that rejected/distorted the gospel, both growing together while still zealously following the laws of Moses and worshipping in Jerusalem, what would have happened to the wheat, in this case, if the Romans came a destroyed Jerusalem and the temple within 1 to 3 years after Christ ascended to heaven?

 

[PinSeeker]

i think you hit the nail on the head

Wheat and tares are hard to distinguish when they are young. It’s when they are maturing, closer to harvest, that the wheat can be more easily distinguished from the tare. I think Jesus’ audience would have recognized that with the statement- “let them grow together until the harvest lest the wheat is uprooted with the tares”

That being said, you bring an excellent point with 1 John 2 - “they went out from us, but were not of us”. The only way John knew they were “not of us” is when the went out. That seems similar to how wheat and tares may seem almost indistinguishable when growing together.

So, a wheat cannot become a tare and vise versa, but also, the identity of the wheat and tare is not easily identifiable until closer to harvest time, or so it seems.

Right, but in a certain sense, we are all tares from birth. The natural human condition from birth ~ as a result of the Fall ~ is that we are at enmity with God.

Grace and peace to you, claninja.

 

[PinSeeker]

As if I don't think about what you say rationally and objectively?

No. You think about it from your own... place.

There is no difference between telling someone to turn on their brain and calling them a name.

Not so. By "using your brain," I meant to... well, turn off your own personal biases and predispositions. Not even close to calling names.

I don't believe that it is his business.

Okay, but who cares?

You and I can talk it out ourselves without needing him to chime in.

But he can do what he wants, can he not? You get angry and indignant when posters "tell you what to do" (as if they really do that anyway...), don't you? I mean really, who cares? Who cares? Who. Cares. Let it go, man.

If you want to talk without including the personal jabs, I'm fine with that.

But you can take all the personal jabs you want, yeah? <smile>

We have been able to discuss things without that before.

Ah, "discuss"... Weeeeellllllllllll... <chuckles>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[claninja]

Well, the ones wo fall away fall away from Jesus so technically they were wheat.

Good people turn to sin and the devil and become bad people, and likewise bad people sometimes repent and accept Jesus.

Well, when we consider the parable of the wheat and the tares - prematurely uprooting the tares may uproot the wheat as well (matthew 13:29). This seems to be an agricultural reference as to how wheat and tares may look very similar prior to the harvest. It could be possible that the falling away reveals in a sense who the tares are, and not necessarily that the wheat has fallen away?

 

[TribulationSigns]

Well, when we consider the parable of the wheat and the tares - prematurely uprooting the tares may uproot the wheat as well (matthew 13:29). This seems to be an agricultural reference as to how wheat and tares may look very similar prior to the harvest. It could be possible that the falling away reveals in a sense who the tares are, and not necessarily that the wheat has fallen away?

Matthew 12:34

• "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."

The Generation of vipers, the wicked generation, the generation of evil exists since Cain, even unto today. It is the family of Satan, the wicked and perverse generation. It never meant only those people living at the time of Christ. And this generation shall not pass until all be fulfilled. Therefore, the Wheat and the Tares grow together until Christ's coming--which wasn't AD 70.

 

[PinSeeker]

I was obviously talking about your interpretation of the scriptures, not the scriptures themselves.

Right, my interpretation, but putting your own "slant" on it... and yes, not the scriptures themselves. Yes, that's absolutely obvious. <chuckles>

You say that these scriptures tell us that God gives us a new heart in order to repent and believe. That is not what these scriptures say.

No, I don't say that. Not "in order to repent and believe." That's how you want to paint it (over and over again), but I do not say those Scriptures tell us that. God does give us a new heart... puts a new spirit in us... gives us His Spirit... but not "in order to repent and believe."

I think you probably don't know what the word "repent" means just like you have shown you don't know what the words "faith" and "choose" mean.

<eye roll> It seems to me, Spiritual Israelite, that you just will not accept the clear Biblical definition of 'faith' as given in Hebrews 11:1.

Those verses say nothing about God giving us a new heart and spirit in order to be able to repent and believe.

Agree. <smile>

The new heart and spirit he gives us is for the purpose of being able to obey Him and to do the good works that He prepared for us to do AFTER we become saved (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Interesting. From our perspective, yes, I agree, and I have said this many, many times. From God's perspective, everything He does is for His own glory. But yes, we are His workmanship; we do good works ~ walk in the Spirit ~ as a result of having been the recipients of God's mercy and compassion, of having been born again of the Spirit, of having been saved through faith ~ even though we were formerly dead in our sin and thus children of wrath like the rest of mankind ~ by the grace of God.

Repentance and faith are not part of walking in His statutes and obeying His commands. They are not part of the good works He has for us to do.

I have never said or even insinuated such.

Repentance and faith involve changing one's mind about their spiritual status and acknowledging that they are a sinner and cannot save themselves and need Jesus and His shed blood to save them instead.

Repentance is turning away from something ~ regarding the Bible that would be sin ~ and turning to... and living unto... the other thing ~ regarding the Bible, to and unto God. And actually I would call that a work of the one born again of the Spirit, but even so we are led the Spirit into true repentance, so much so that it is a work of the Spirit in us, and this is an ongoing thing in this life, in the Christian walk.

Faith, though, is a matter of the heart.

So both, really, are works of God in us. So we pray ~ should, anyway ~ to God for a deep, lasting repentance (because in this life we are still sinful) and that He would give us more faith ~ which again is His assurance, and conviction by the Holy Spirit of things hoped for and unseen.

It is AFTER that when God gives us a new heart and spirit.

The giving of faith is in the new birth. Belief and repentance ~ and good works; we agree on that, at least ~ are the indirect results of this new birth; we are then no longer of the devil but of God, no longer slaves to unrighteousness but slaves to righteousness.

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

The disciples received the Holy Spirit AFTER they had repented and believed in Christ (John 20:22).

In the context of John 20, but again, Jesus was giving them for a time His power for a time to begin the spreading of the Gospel to all nations. This was not their salvific experience; that resulted in their repentance and belief, just as it does for all Christians.

But, you believe that He does nothing to give them any opportunity to repent and live...

Everyone has this opportunity to repent and live. As Paul says in Romans 1:19-20, what can be known about God is plain to all, even unbelievers, because God has shown it to them... God's invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So no, I believe (again) quite the opposite of what you way I believe here.

What? That is scripture. That's wasn't my statement. I quoted this passage... 'The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous.’ (NIV)

Ah, the NIV. Yes, I knew you quoted Scripture, I just wasn't sure what version. So the NIV... which I like, by the way... is a bit unclear there, which is why I quoted the same verse from the ESV... which I like (at least concerning that verse) better... <smile> ...because it is clearer: "I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die." What the NIV says there in Ezekiel 33:13 is not "wrong," but there is a lack of clarity and faithfulness to the Hebrew there; the ESV (and the NASB ~ "When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.") are much better English translations there.

What I want you to address is what it says in Ezekiel 33:11.

I did. We agree on it; yes, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. What is there to disagree on about that? It is what it is. But I will say this, that death of the wicked satisfies God's perfect justice. The only question there is, regarding any one person, does he or she have a Savior Who satisfies God's justice on his or her behalf... or not?

In your doctrine, it does not seem to be the case that God would rather that the wicked had repented and live than to have died in their wickedness.

Understood. I have always understood why it seems that way to you (and you're certainly not alone in reckoning that), but that's not the case.

In your doctrine God gives repentance to some and those who are the ones who He wants to repent.

No, again, that's only... in your own words... how it seems to you. And I get it. The way I would state this is, God gives repentance to those He has predestined ~ from before the foundation of the world ~ to be conformed to the image of His Son. The others, even while desiring they would come to knowledge of the truth, because they have actively exchanged the truth for a lie, He gives up to their own selfish passions and desires., even enduring them with such great patience.

And they do, without fail...

All do, eventually, according to their own heart. Without fail. "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth and making it bear and sprout, so will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:10-11).

In your doctrine He does not want the rest to repent...

Nope. But He does know that they will not...

they can only repent if He gives them repentance.

They will only repent if He gives removes their heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh. Because of Adam's fall, this is the natural state of all mankind; we are all, from birth, even conception, children of wrath. But then there is grace, which God gives to those to whom He chooses to give it. Why does He give it to some and not to others? Well, as Paul says, "who are (any of us), O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles..." (Romans 9:20-24).

So, your doctrine contradicts verses like Ezekiel 18:23 and Ezekiel 33:11.

Not at all. See above.

Continued...