Can a tare become saved?

[Davidpt]

Sure, so do you place the tares and wheat getting separated after Satan’s little season? Or do you see the tares existing throughout the millennium and Satan’s little season?

The tares get separated during Christ's return at the end of this age and is meaning the sheep and goats judgment. And that the sheep and goats judgment and the great white throne judgment are not the same judgment, in my view. For one, nowhere in Revelation 20:12-14 does it give the impression the saved are lined up on the right, the lost on the left, and that all of the saved and all of the lost are answering Jesus in the same manner.

Matthew 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Matthew 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, 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?

Examples that prove who the sheep represent and who the tares represent, they all answer Jesus in the same manner. Which then contradicts the following if the following is also meaning the sheep and goats judgment.

and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works(Revelation 20:12)

and they were judged every man according to their works(Revelation 20:13)

Are some going to argue that not one single person that gets cast into the LOF never helped feed and clothe the poor, for instance? Keeping in mind that the ones who did that per the sheep and goats judgment were the sheep not the goats. And that it is not reasonable that some who cast into the LOF, that not one single one of them ever helped feed and clothe the poor in their lifetime.

But if they did, and surely some did, that would make them the sheep in that case. Therefore, these 2 judgments can't be one and the same and that the sheep and goats is only pertaining to those in the body of Christ, His profitable and unprofitable servants.

 

[grafted branch]

The tares get separated during Christ's return at the end of this age and is meaning the sheep and goats judgment. And that the sheep and goats judgment and the great white throne judgment are not the same judgment, in my view. For one, nowhere in Revelation 20:12-14 does it give the impression the saved are lined up on the right, the lost on the left, and that all of the saved and all of the lost are answering Jesus in the same manner.

Matthew 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Matthew 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, 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?

Examples that prove who the sheep represent and who the tares represent, they all answer Jesus in the same manner. Which then contradicts the following if the following is also meaning the sheep and goats judgment.

and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works(Revelation 20:12)

and they were judged every man according to their works(Revelation 20:13)

Are some going to argue that not one single person that gets cast into the LOF never helped feed and clothe the poor, for instance? Keeping in mind that the ones who did that per the sheep and goats judgment were the sheep not the goats. And that it is not reasonable that some who cast into the LOF, that not one single one of them ever helped feed and clothe the poor in their lifetime.

But if they did, and surely some did, that would make them the sheep in that case. Therefore, these 2 judgments can't be one and the same and that the sheep and goats is only pertaining to those in the body of Christ, His profitable and unprofitable servants.

Ok, so per your view there are no goats or tares in the millennium or Satan’s little season? They all got separated and removed at the second coming? I’m not arguing against that view, I just want to make sure I understand it.

 

[Davidpt]

I see the tares being sown as a one time event, then Satan went his way. That sowing took place prior to the cross and those literal people were separated, never to exist again among the wheat.

I can agree that the sowing of the good seed preceded the time of the cross. But what we have to factor in here, is this. Until men slept first, in the meantime there are no tares sown among the wheat. Which then raises the question. How much time elapsed between the good seed intially being soweed in the world and when satan intially plants the tares in the same field with the wheat?

Even if the latter preceded 70 AD, that does not prove the harvest involves 70 AD. To be burned obviously means to be cast into the LOF. No one was cast into the LOF 2000 ago, nor has there been anyone cast into it as of yet. This alone proves the harvest can't be involving 70 AD since only a full Preterist, thus a 100% heretic, could propose that unbelieving Jews were cast into the LOF in 70 AD.

Though, you are a Preterist, you are not a full Preterist. Therefore, your view doesn't allow for any of the unbelieving Jews to have been burned, thus cast into the LOF, in 70 AD since that would make you a 100% heretic like them since only 100% heretics could propose something unreasonable like that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Right, a person has to be saved first then they do the work of believing. A verse such as John 3:16 is telling us that if we are doing the work of believing then that is the evidence we are saved, it’s not saying we do the work of believing first then we become saved.

No, that is not what John 3:16 or any scripture says. A person becomes saved after first putting their trust in Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. Scripture repeatedly teaches that faith is something we are required to do in order to be saved.

Your doctrine does not line up with the following passage.

Acts 16:29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Your doctrine says that you are saved and then you believe. Paul and Silas clearly did not agree with your doctrine. The jailer asked them what he had to do to be saved. The answered the same way Jesus did in John 6:29 when He was asked that question. They said he had to "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved". Very clearly, they indicated that faith comes first and then salvation occurs.

If your doctrine was true they would have instead answered something like this: "There is nothing you must do to be saved. If God saves you some day then you will believe in the Lord Jesus, but there is nothing you must do to be saved. All you can do is hope that one day God saves you.".

 

[Davidpt]

Ok, so per your view there are no goats or tares in the millennium or Satan’s little season? They all got separated and removed at the second coming? I’m not arguing against that view, I just want to make sure I understand it.

Assuming the millennium follows the 2nd coming, those that the tares represent, they won't be present during the millennium. But the ones Meant in Zechariah 14:16 will be present during the millennium. Except these are not meaning the tares nor the saved. Some interpreters just don't get it, that there is also a third group. Some interpreters insist there are only 2 groups, the wheat and the tares. The tares are dealt with at Christ's return and that Zechariah 14:16 is also meaning after Christ has returned.

Obviously, the ones meant in Zechariah 14:16 can't be meaning the tares since the tares are sent away into everlasting punishment during Christ's return. Nor can they be meaning the saved that are in immortal bodies as of Christ's return if they are being threatened with punishments for failing to comply with what has been commanded of them to do. Therefore, there is a 3rd group that are neither wheat nor tares.

 

[grafted branch]

But what we have to factor in here, is this. Until men slept first, in the meantime there are no tares sown among the wheat.

John 9:3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

These verses tell us when men didn’t work and presumably slept.

No one was cast into the LOF 2000 ago, nor has there been anyone cast into it as of yet. This alone proves the harvest can't be involving 70 AD since only a full Preterist, thus a 100% heretic, could propose that unbelieving Jews were cast into the LOF in 70 AD.

In Luke 16 we have the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Won’t couldn’t this be used as evidence of people being in the lake of fire?

 

[grafted branch]

Your doctrine says that you are saved and then you believe. Paul and Silas clearly did not agree with your doctrine.

Well clearly Jesus calls believing a work. So salvation has to come first else its a works gospel.

Oh, and don’t tell me what my doctrine is, I’ll tell you. That’s how we are supposed to treat each other, right?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I still agree that the parable should be viewed from God’s perspective. However I have a different interpretation than you do, based on my interpretation a person like Hitler should’ve been stopped and we did the right thing in WWII.

First, you say you agree it should be viewed from God's perspective, and then you talk about something from your own real time perspective. I don't get that, but whatever.

A simple question for you, should we let someone like Hitler grow together with the rest of humanity or not? Yes or no?

I don't even understand this question, so I can't answer it until I understand it. We, of course, should always try to help prevent evil however we can. That's obvious. Is that all you're asking? If not, then explain exactly what you are asking and why.

 

[Scott Downey]

John 9:3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

These verses tell us when men didn’t work and presumably slept.


In Luke 16 we have the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Won’t couldn’t this be used as evidence of people being in the lake of fire?

From, my POV, the rich manis in hell fire right now still today.
While Lazarus was in paradise.
Interestingly, they could each talk to the other side, and see the other side, meaning it was not heaven.
They were divided by a gulf between them which prevented a crossing over.
That also tells me they could move around in both of those places, just not cross to the other side.

On the good side, the angels of God ministered to those who would obtain eternal life and they received comfort and good things,
.
On the bad side they received bad things, and were tormented.

 

[Scott Downey]

The rich man in torment also knew his brothers when they died, would be with him in that fiery torment.
And asked for help to send someone back from the dead, but Abraham said they won't believe even if someone came back from the dead to warn them.
Well Christ was dead and came back from the dead, and they still don't believe,
Nor did God give the jews a mind to understand or ears to hear to this very day
Even with all the miracles they saw that God did among them

Deuteronomy 29
These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made with them in Horeb.

2 Now Moses called all Israel and said to them: “You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land— 3 the great trials which your eyes have seen, the signs, and those great wonders. 4 Yet the Lord has not given you a heart to [a]perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day. 5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn out on your feet.

 

[grafted branch]

I don't even understand this question, so I can't answer it until I understand it. We, of course, should always try to help prevent evil however we can. That's obvious. Is that all you're asking? If not, then explain exactly what you are asking and why.

From God’s perspective only He knows who is or isn’t a tare and from God’s perspective tares should not be pulled or killed by anyone or any angel lest wheat is pulled or killed also. Why would any Christian not want to do the will of God? If it’s God’s will that a person like Hitler be allowed to exist and continue then Christians shouldn’t attempt to stop that else they are pulling what could be wheat for all we know.

Claiming Hitler should’ve been stopped contradicts any interpretation that has the tares as all the unsaved in general. It’s quite obvious.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well clearly Jesus calls believing a work. So salvation has to come first else its a works gospel.

Did you not read my post 501 which was directed to you?

Believing is a work only in the sense that it's something we are required to do (Acts 16:30-31), but it is not the kind of work of which someone can boast about that is not required for salvation or else it would not be true that we are saved by grace through faith but not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Paul differentiated between the faith that saved and the works that do not save. Why don't you?

In your view, it seems that we can't be saved by grace through faith and not by works because you say faith is a work. So, you are contradicting Ephesians 2:8-9 in that case.

Paul contrasted faith with works and so did James in James 2. James said "faith without works is dead" (James 2:17). But you say faith is a work. So, your doctrine contradicts James, also. Based on what you're saying, it's not possible for such a concept as "faith without works" since you say that faith itself is a work. It is a work in a sense, but clearly not the type of work of which faith is dead without it. Otherwise, James would be saying that faith without works like faith is dead, which clearly makes no sense. Faith is not the type of work of which does not result in salvation or else it would not be true that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works.

So, think about it. What is faith? It is the act of acknowledging that we can't save ourselves and we are trusting in Christ for our salvation instead. Paul made it clear that we're not saved by works or else we could boast of saving ourselves. But, how could anyone boast about acknowledging that only the blood of Christ can save us rather than us being able to save ourselves? That's the opposite of boasting. Scripture never says that salvation is not by faith, it says that salvation is not by works of righteousness like providing shelter, food and clothing to the homeless and such

Oh, and don’t tell me what my doctrine is, I’ll tell you. That’s how we are supposed to treat each other, right?

LOL. I simply repeated exactly what you said. If you repeat exactly what I say, I will certainly not accuse you of telling me what my doctrine is. But, that's not what you do. Instead, you misinterpret what I say and use your own words to misrepresent what I believe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

From God’s perspective only He knows who is or isn’t a tare and from God’s perspective tares should not be pulled or killed by anyone or any angel lest wheat is pulled or killed also. Why would any Christian not want to do the will of God? If it’s God’s will that a person like Hitler be allowed to exist and continue then Christians shouldn’t attempt to stop that else they are pulling what could be wheat for all we know.

There's this thing called prison. I don't know why you act as if the only way to stop someone is to kill them. Do you think God want us to kill all evil people? Or at least the ones we deem to be the worst of them? Which would mean if we lived in Paul's day when he was Saul instead of Paul, we would have killed him? Of course not, right? So, I just don't understand where you're coming from here.

Claiming Hitler should’ve been stopped contradicts any interpretation that has the tares as all the unsaved in general. It’s quite obvious.

You say you understand that the parable should be looked at from God's perspective, but then you proceed to only look at it from your own limited perspective. Why? If you want to talk about the parable and what it means, then stay consistent and look at it from God's perspective instead of your own limited, real-time perspective.

But, let's look at this from the real time perspective, which is not the way to look at the parable. How are the tares described? As children of the devil, right (Matthew 13:38)? In real time, who are the children of the devil? The following passage says that all sinners are children of the devil.

1 John 3:8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

So, every time someone is saved they go from being a child of the devil to being a child of God and His kingdom. But, the parable has nothing to do with this because it's not intended to talk about what is the case before the wheat become wheat, which is that they match the description of the tares (children of the devil) before that. The parable is not looking at the past of those represented by the wheat before they become wheat, but it looks instead at God's eternal perspective of who will end up being children of the kingdom in contrast to who end up remaining as children of the devil, which all lost sinners are.

 

[grafted branch]

Did you not read my post 501 which was directed to you?

Nope, I don’t agree with your hermeneutics so why would I want to try to see your opinion? We would have to agree on how the Bible should interpreted first before we can go any further.

LOL. I simply repeated exactly what you said. If you repeat exactly what I say, I will certainly not accuse you of telling me what my doctrine is. But, that's not what you do. Instead, you misinterpret what I say and use your own words to misrepresent what I believe.

I have repeated exactly what you said in another post and you give me the same treatment. I think it’s best we avoid each other, clearly we have different methods of interpreting scripture that lead to completely different doctrines.

 

[Davidpt]

In Luke 16 we have the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Won’t couldn’t this be used as evidence of people being in the lake of fire?

Most of us were taught since youth that when the lost die they then wake up in burning flames the next second. Equally, most of us were taught since youth that Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy are real. Eventually we grow up and no longer believe in things we believed in when we were still young and naive. The point being, maybe that's what some need to do in regards to the former, grow up and quit believing some of the things we believed when we were still young, thus still naive about things.

Think about the following. When a soul departs the body and awaits either in heaven or hell until the time of their bodily resurrection, does it seem reasonable that something disembodied has parts that only bodies have? Such as a tongue, fingers, etc? After all, in the parable you brought up, the rich man obviously has body parts at the time. A number of things are being contradicted via the way some are interpreting this parable. Instead of using Scripture to interpret Scripture they interpret this parable without the aid of other Scriptures.

Scriptures that teach, such as, first, one dies, then they are bodily resurrected, then they are judged and sentenced. The way some are interpreting this parable they ignore that the person being tormented bodily in fire, as the parable shows, has to be bodily resurrected first before they can even be bodily tormented.

If the rich man already has a body that is being tormented in hell as we speak, why then does he need to be bodily resurrected in the future, judged then sentenced if all of these things were already true the moment he died then woke up the next moment in a body being tormented in hell?

My view is that the parable is a prophecy about the fate in the LOF in the future, and not a current reality instead, based on what I argue above. I'm not promoting soul sleep, though. Yet others are promoting that departed souls, when they leave the body, it is a souls with body parts that are leaving it. After all, a tongue and a finger, if that is not describing something bodily, I don't know what is?

My view might be better described like this. When the lost dies and awaits in hell it could be likened to someone that has been charged with a crime but has yet to be judged and sentenced. In the meantime, assuming they get sentenced to prison eventually, they are temporarily in a city or county jail. Maybe the following might be a better example. Assuming they get sentenced to an execution, they don't get executed while they are still in a city or county jail before it's even decided that they get executed.

 

[Dash RipRock]

Come back when you grow up

That's code for come back when you actually mean what you said, got it.

John Calvin was right in his expositions of the Bible

Yep, that's what satan says and tries to get as many as possible to believe.

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

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nope, I don’t agree with your hermeneutics so why would I want to try to see your opinion?

Why in the world are you talking to me if you don't want to even try to see my point of view? Please stop talking to me then. I'm done talking to you since I would prefer to talk to someone who at least tries to see my point of view.

We would have to agree on how the Bible should interpreted first before we can go any further.

That will never happen, so we should not go any further.

I have repeated exactly what you said in another post and you give me the same treatment. I think it’s best we avoid each other, clearly we have different methods of interpreting scripture that lead to completely different doctrines.

Let's please never talk to each other again during this lifetime. At least not about Bible doctrine. It's just not worth it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Most of us were taught since youth that when the lost die they then wake up in burning flames the next second. Equally, most of us were taught since youth that Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy are real. Eventually we grow up and no longer believe in things we believed in when we were still young and naive. The point being, maybe that's what some need to do in regards to the former, grow up and quit believing some of the things we believed when we were still young, thus still naive about things.

Think about the following. When a soul departs the body and awaits either in heaven or hell until the time of their bodily resurrection, does it seem reasonable that something disembodied has parts that only bodies have? Such as a tongue, fingers, etc? After all, in the parable you brought up, the rich man obviously has body parts at the time. A number of things are being contradicted via the way some are interpreting this parable. Instead of using Scripture to interpret Scripture they interpret this parable without the aid of other Scriptures.

Scriptures that teach, such as, first, one dies, then they are bodily resurrected, then they are judged and sentenced. The way some are interpreting this parable they ignore that the person being tormented bodily in fire, as the parable shows, has to be bodily resurrected first before they can even be bodily tormented.

If the rich man already has a body that is being tormented in hell as we speak, why then does he need to be bodily resurrected in the future, judged then sentenced if all of these things were already true the moment he died then woke up the next moment in a body being tormented in hell?

My view is that the parable is a prophecy about the fate in the LOF in the future, and not a current reality instead, based on what I argue above. I'm not promoting soul sleep, though. Yet others are promoting that departed souls, when they leave the body, it is a souls with body parts that are leaving it. After all, a tongue and a finger, if that is not describing something bodily, I don't know what is?

My view might be better described like this. When the lost dies and awaits in hell it could be likened to someone that has been charged with a crime but has yet to be judged and sentenced. In the meantime, assuming they get sentenced to prison eventually, they are temporarily in a city or county jail. Maybe the following might be a better example. Assuming they get sentenced to an execution, they don't get executed while they are still in a city or county jail before it's even decided that they get executed.

The rich man's torment is described figuratively. There is no indication whatsoever that Jesus is talking there about the future time when people will be cast into the lake of fire. He was talking about a current reality at the time. He said the rich man is in hell/Hades, not the lake of fire. Hell/Hades will be cast into the lake of fire in the future (Revelation 20:14).