LOL! Right back atcha, NTR. <smile>
Grace and peace to you.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
LOL! Right back atcha, NTR. <smile>
It can't both be true that once a person is saved they can't lose their salvation and once a person is saved they can lose their salvation.
I'm in the minority of Christ followers that believe that Jesus can and will save ALL in order to reconcile "all things" back to our Father in Heaven.
“6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. ”
Exodus 34:6-7 KJV
Unfeigned Bible in.6
And He never said tares can become wheat
That is easily resolved by looking at Matthew 13:38 to see that the tares are not children of His kingdom and only the wheat are children of His kingdom and by looking at this similar parable:I agree, and since in reality a tare weed never becomes wheat in a farmers field, it would seem best to say the parable should be understood from God’s perspective.
Here’s another problem to consider though, in Matthew 13:39-42 at the harvest the angels gather the tares out of His kingdom and they are burned with fire. In John 3:5 no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and Spirit. The tares are sown by Satan and removed from the kingdom at the harvest yet a tare can’t enter the kingdom to begin with unless they are born of water and Spirit.
What do you make of this apparent contradiction?
Right. That's what I was saying. LOL.That's false doctrine. You're welcome.
Disagree. Here is what Paul says, quoting from Isaiah 45 and Ezekiel 18 in doing so:...some are more spiritually minded, which leads them to seek God…
Absolutely. Even what you say here is a vast understatement.Sin has very far-reaching effects and none of them have good outcomes.
Yeah, you're preaching to the choir, here, AJ. <smile> But yes, absolutely.God never wanted us to suffer, but in Satan’s world, pain and suffering are the ‘norm’.
This is why Christ came, to undo all the damage, and to restore life for those who lost it under so many different circumstances. God never intended this life for us, but it was the only way he could show us where disobedience leads us. He tried to tell us, but we had to have a first hand demonstration of where disobedience takes those who think they can do things better their way.
Absolutely. But there is no need for pessimism, even in the face of all this, right? As Paul says:Who can look at the state of the world today and not dread the future?... Things have to get worse before they get better….so we must be patient. God has it all in hand….we can trust that when the time is right, he will act to bring satan and all who follow him to justice.
Your whole thinking on this doctrine is very skewed and based on false premises.That came out of false reformed theology that claims God decided who would be saved before the foundation of the world and it was his will for all others to go to hell longer before they were ever even born
It's possible according to God's Word for all to get saved because all things are possible with God
Just because God knows the end from the beginning does not mean He is preventing most people from getting saved as the devil's false teachers claim
That is a very astute observation.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.
Your whole thinking on this doctrine is very skewed and based on false premises.
Right. That's what I was saying. LOL.
LOL. No offense, but you were no help at all. You first misrepresented my view. I then corrected you with what I actually said. You then said what I actually said was false doctrine and that is what I was saying. I was saying that the view I was describing was false. And you agree.Glad to be able to help out.
LOL. No offense, but you were no help at all. You first misrepresented my view. I then corrected you with what I actually said. You then said what I actually said was false doctrine and that is what I was saying. I was saying that the view I was describing was false. And you agree.