Can a tare become saved?

[TribulationSigns]

Strongs exhaustive concordance contains 1-2 word glosses of Greek words in regards to how the KJV translates it into English , not exhaustive contextual definitions. Even strong, in the preface of his dictionary, stated that his definitions are brief and further use of a lexicon should be used to determine word meaning.

Additionally, strongs doesn’t seem to have genea defined as family:

• Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
  age, generation
  From (a presumed derivative of) genos; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons) -- age, generation, nation, time.

Did you mean to say you are using thayer’s lexicon?

LOL. Look, you got confused because of your preconceived view of generation to fit your faulty 70AD doctrine and cherry picking on strong's. Nothing new under the sun. I am saying that you got the generation part wrong, but the Lord judges who is right, and I am comfortable with it.

 

[claninja]

By pulling up all who are currently children of the devil (tares) before the right time, the angels could be pulling up those who would later repent if given more time and would become children of the kingdom (wheat). Jesus instead wants the angels to allow things to play themselves out in the world until the end of this temporal age at which point it will be clear who is saved and who is not with time having run out for the children of the devil (sinners - 1 John 3:8-10) to repent.

Within the context of the parable, Wheat and tares don’t change into each other. The delay in harvest is NOT to give tares more time to become wheat. Instead, pulling up a tare prematurely may result in the harvester accidentally pulling up the wheat and burning it, as both plants look indistinguishable prior to maturation. That is why the master says to the servants “not yet”. I would argue, contextually, it’s to protect the indistinguishable young wheat from getting burned along with the tares.

Arguing the delay in harvest is about giving tares more time to become wheat goes beyond the scope of the parable, introducing an element that is from your framework, and not found in the parable nor even the explanation of the parable.

So, if the delay in pulling tares is to protect the indistinguishable young wheat from also being uprooted and burned, how does a delay in a cosmic, supernatural, general, and final judgment protect the young wheat?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Within the context of the parable, Wheat and tares don’t change into each other. The delay in harvest is NOT to give tares more time to become wheat. Instead, pulling up a tare prematurely may result in the harvester accidentally pulling up the wheat and burning it, as both plants look indistinguishable prior to maturation. That is why the master says to the servants “not yet”. I would argue, contextually, it’s to protect the indistinguishable young wheat from getting burned along with the tares.

Arguing the delay in harvest is about giving tares more time to become wheat goes beyond the scope of the parable, introducing an element that is from your framework, and not found in the parable nor even the explanation of the parable.

So, if the delay in pulling tares is to protect the indistinguishable young wheat from also being uprooted and burned, how does a delay in a cosmic, supernatural, general, and final judgment protect the young wheat?

Well, this discussion gets complicated because in real-time all children of the kingdom are formerly children of the devil since children of the devil are lost sinners (see 1 John 3:8-10).

But, if we look at this from God's eternal perspective of knowing who will end up as wheat (children of the kingdom) and who will end up as tares (children of the devil) at the end of the age, then, of course, that will make it seem as if the tares cannot become wheat since they cannot become wheat at the end of the age when it is too late as that is the time when the tares will be separated from the wheat and then burned in the fire.

But, when it comes to delaying the harvest and waiting for the right time to separate the tares from the wheat while saying basically "No, not yet", that seems to be something that is said from the real-time perspective instead of God's eternal perspective. The servants are asking in real-time whether it was the right moment to separate the tares from the wheat and not asking that from God's eternal perspective of knowing who would end up being the wheat and who would end up being that tares at the end of the age. So, from the real-time perspective, we know that children of the devil can become children of the kingdom because that happens every day since all children of the kingdom are formerly children of the devil. So, I was speaking from that perspective.

As for what you are saying about the delay in pulling the tares, can you elaborate on that? I don't really know for sure what you're trying to say there. Are you saying the delay is for the reason of allowing the wheat to mature more first and become more distinguishable from the tares so that no wheat are accidentally pulled up with the tares and then burned? I suppose it could mean that, but at the same time we're talking about angels here. It seems odd that they would not be able to tell the difference. But, they're not God, either, so I suppose they need some help. But, then, why wouldn't God just tell them which people belong to which group? This parable is tricky and tough to discern as to what it's about beyond the obvious, which is at the end of the age the tares get separated from the wheat and are burned in the fire which represents the wicked (children of the devil) being separated from the righteous (children of the kingdom) and then being cast into a furnace of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Before more recently, I never really looked at the parable beyond looking at it from the standpoint of what happens to the wheat (children of the kingdom) and the tares (children of the devil) at the harvest (end of the age).

 

[claninja]

LOL. Look, you got confused because of your preconceived view of generation to fit your faulty 70AD doctrine and cherry picking on strong's. Nothing new under the sun. I am saying that you got the generation part wrong, but the Lord judges who is right, and I am comfortable with it.

No, I’m confused because You said you got the meaning of genea as “family” from Strongs. Where does Strongs exhaustive concordance define genea as “family”? I can’t seem to find that in Strongs concordance? I pasted Strongs “definition” in the previous post and it didn’t say family.

Additionally, I literally said in the previous post that Strongs 1 to 2 word glosses of how the KJV translates the Greek into English should NOT be used as a sole source for understanding word usage and meaning but a lexicon should also be consulted. This is even based on what strong himself said. That is literally the opposite of cherry picking.

Next, see below. A Lexicon provides a more exhaustive definition and usage of word. In Thayers lexicon, as well as the majority of lexicons, genea, in regards to Matthew 24:34 or Matthew 23:36, is defined as a multitude of men “living at the same time”. See bullet point #3 of thayers below.

To argue genea, in Matthew 24:34, means family or stock as found in bullet point # 2, while completely ignoring it’s definition and usage found in bullet point 3, because it contradicts your framework, is literally the definition of cherry picking.



Thayer's Greek Lexicon

γενεά, γενεάς, ἡ (ΓΑΝΩ, γίνομαι (crf. Curtius, p. 610)); the Sept. often for דּור; in Greek writings from Homer down;
1. a begetting, birth, nativity: Herodotus3, 33; Xenophon, Cyril 1, 2, 8, etc.; (others make the collective sense the primary significance, see Curtius as above).

2. passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family;

a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζεινΡ᾽αχαβην καί τήν γενεάν αὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 (ἑβδόμῃ γενεά οὗτος ἐστινἀπό τοῦ πρώτου, Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 2).

b. metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; (Acts 2:40).

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10; ἄνθρωποι τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 7:31; ἄνδρες τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 11:31; τήνδέ γενεάν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται, who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts 8:33 (from Isaiah 53:8 the Sept.) (but cf. Meyer, at the passage).


From : Strong's Greek: 1074. γενεά (genea) -- Generation


But hey, if you can produce a lexicon that defines genea in the context of Matthew 24:34 as family, I’d totally be open to listening.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

My view is that the seed was the word of God, in a different parable, in Luke 8:11, the seed is the word of God. So the seed (word of God) that was sown by the Son of man only produces wheat. Satan sowed a false gospel that only produces tares.

Yes, the dead turned the tares into wheat. Through the baptism of the spirit. As John said, Jesus will sift out the chaff and put the wheat in the barn

 

[claninja]

Well, this discussion gets complicated because in real-time all children of the kingdom are formerly children of the devil since children of the devil are lost sinners (see 1 John 3:8-10).

But, if we look at this from God's eternal perspective of knowing who will end up as wheat (children of the kingdom) and who will end up as tares (children of the devil) at the end of the age, then, of course, that will make it seem as if the tares cannot become wheat since they cannot become wheat at the end of the age when it is too late as that is the time when the tares will be separated from the wheat and then burned in the fire.

But, when it comes to delaying the harvest and waiting for the right time to separate the tares from the wheat while saying basically "No, not yet", that seems to be something that is said from the real-time perspective instead of God's eternal perspective. The servants are asking in real-time whether it was the right moment to separate the tares from the wheat and not asking that from God's eternal perspective of knowing who would end up being the wheat and who would end up being that tares at the end of the age. So, from the real-time perspective, we know that children of the devil can become children of the kingdom because that happens every day since all children of the kingdom are formerly children of the devil. So, I was speaking from that perspective.

As for what you are saying about the delay in pulling the tares, can you elaborate on that? I don't really know for sure what you're trying to say there. Are you saying the delay is for the reason of allowing the wheat to mature more first and become more distinguishable from the tares so that no wheat are accidentally pulled up with the tares and then burned? I suppose it could mean that, but at the same time we're talking about angels here. It seems odd that they would not be able to tell the difference. But, they're not God, either, so I suppose they need some help. But, then, why wouldn't God just tell them which people belong to which group? This parable is tricky and tough to discern as to what it's about beyond the obvious, which is at the end of the age the tares get separated from the wheat and are burned in the fire which represents the wicked (children of the devil) being separated from the righteous (children of the kingdom) and then being cast into a furnace of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Before more recently, I never really looked at the parable beyond looking at it from the standpoint of what happens to the wheat (children of the kingdom) and the tares (children of the devil) at the harvest (end of the age).

solely from a contextual and grammatical standpoint, the wheat does not turn into a tare nor vise versa. The parable is simply not about repentance and coming to Christ, whether earlier or later. It’s about delaying the removal the tares until harvest, so that the wheat isn’t prematurely uprooted.

In the agricultural context, wheat and tares look almost indistinguishable until maturation/time of the harvest. In other words if a farmer had a field full of young tares and young wheat, he’d have no idea which one was which. If he attempted to uproot the young tares, he may accidentally uproot the young wheat as well. Matthew 13:29’s warning fits well with this - “do not remove the tares yet as you may uproot the wheat. Wait until the harvest”. So yes, the delay is so that the harvesters can distinguish.


But then Why would a premature cosmic, supernatural, and final judgement of the tares prior to the end of the age put the wheat at risk? Why would a supernatural, cosmic judgement need to wait until the end of the age in order to differentiate between wheat and tares?

 

[ewq1938]

If wheat refers to all righteous of mankind in general and tares refer to all unrighteous of mankind in general, why would removing the unrighteous prematurely, also hurt the righteous, if this harvest refers to the 2nd coming at the end of the age?

They look the same before presenting ripened fruit so the harvest has to happen at a certain time and not early/before ripened fruit. I think that means God will give all time to show the fruits of the spirit before a harvest would happen.

I mean Then they were never really wheat. They may have looked like wheat for a time, but they were not. Only wheat goes into the barn and only tares are burned

It's a Schrödinger's Cat Experiment. Since the wheat and tares look identical, each is a wheat and a tare at the same time at least in potential and that only changes when fruit is presented, then we shall know who is a tare and who isn't.

 

[PinSeeker]

It's not up to you to decide who is thinking rationally and objective or not.

Apologies, but this is a ridiculous statement. Okay, right... <chuckles> ...but I can decide for myself many things, including if someone is thinking rationally and/or objectively or not, based on what he or she has said, and that's what I have done here... <chuckles>

You are highly overestimating how much I care about it, which is very little.

As evidenced by the fact that you're so highly indignant and keep going on and on about it. Yes. Sure. <chuckles>

You are making it clear that you're not interested in that, so I think we need to just end this "discussion" soon.

Oh, I'm interested in discussion; that's why I'm still here. But the issue has always been... well, three-fold, at least...

• what "discussion" apparently is to you
• what the "discussion" is about; with me it has become about what I (and Calvinists in general) do or don't believe
• how you... conduct yourself... in these "discussions"... and that's not just with me but also a number of other posters here...

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

So, you believe everyone has a legit opportunity to repent and continue living their lives physically...

Um... "continue living their lives physically"...? Okay that's a really odd way to put it, but okay, yes...

...but you don't think everyone has the opportunity to repent unto salvation...

Of course they do. Why do you keep trying to pin this on me? Or Calvinists in general? Even though I keep telling you I and Calvinists in general do think everyone has the opportunity to repent unto salvation. Yeah, that's a curious thing.

It's interesting how you don't bother to clarify what you mean.

LOL! What color are the skies in your world, SI? If anything I tend to go beyond what's needed in clarifying what I mean. Goodness gracious.

Why would God only care about people repenting just so they can continue to live physically for awhile longer, but not give them the opportunity to repent unto salvation?

So again, apologies, but this is another ridiculous question...

Huge eye roll here.

Cool. RIght back atcha.

You do not believe that God wants everyone to repent unto salvation...

Hmmm, you mean even though He says He does want everyone to repent unto salvation in His Word, and I have acknowledged that many times? Sigh...

because if that was the case then everyone would be saved since you believe that repentance unto salvation is something that God gives to people and that people don't choose to do without God giving it to them.

Okay, well again, you're trying to pin something on me that cannot be pinned on me.

Here is where Calvinism makes no sense whatsoever. You believe that He, from the foundation of the world, purposely made it so that His desires can't possibly come to fruition.

Nope. This is only what you... I guess... want to pin on me, or at least how you understand ~ misunderstand, misconstrue ~ what I do believe. So again, yeah, all these things... I mean, I guess you do have all these things firmly in your head, that these are the things that I and Calvinists believe, and you state them pretty much opposite to what I and Calvinists in general believe just about every... single... time... over and over and over again. And even when I correct or clarify what you have said about what I and other Calvinists believe, you still say the same things over and over and over again. It's quite incredible.

Explain how this makes any sense at all.

No need; see above. And here we are in this "discussion" yet again.

How can He genuinely want people to repent and come to knowledge of the truth when He knows that they can't because it was His choice from the foundation of the world as to who would repent or not? That doesn't even begin to make any sense. Not even a tiny bit.

To you. Yeah, I get it. But at least part of the problem is how you state that. In other words, how someone says something to you or how you say something is very often just as important and impactful as what that someone says to you or what you say. So it is here. And also, you underestimate (to put it mildly) the impact of Adam's fall in Genesis 3 on the entire human race... and even all of creation, just as Pelagius and Arminius did.

PinSeeker: 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).​

That has nothing to do with someone's ability to see how weak they are and how unable they are to be righteous. That has nothing to do with one's ability to recognize and acknowledge that they are a sinner who can't save themselves and need Jesus to save them instead. What you're talking about is one's ability to do good works and to act righteously in a consistent manner. No one can do that without the Holy Spirit's help. But, that doesn't have anything to do with who is able to repent and believe or not.

Right, not directly, no, but that was not why I said what I said here; it was really about God and His ability to bring to pass all that He ordains without fail. I'm not even sure why you responded to what I said in this way. But to what you do say here, okay, good, yes, no one can do that without the Holy Spirit's help ~ which is very close to being a Calvinistic statement, actually. What you get back to, though ~ "who is able to repent and believe or not" ~ gets us back to the impact of Adam's fall on the human race... and your underestimation of it, which is a very Arminian thing...

You know, the labels ('Arminian' and 'Calvinist') are what they are, but we should put them aside, really, because people have this "knee-jerk" reaction to one or the other which results in a loss of objectivity and a sidetracking of the discussion before it ever takes place. The discussion shouldn't be about Calvin or Arminius at all.

That has nothing to do with one's ability to recognize and acknowledge that they are a sinner who can't save themselves and need Jesus to save them instead.

No one, if he or she remains in his or her natural state, will ever do that. "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." That's Paul, in Romans 3, quoting Psalm 14:1-3 and 53:1-3... So again, yes, no one can save themselves and need Jesus. But, everyone ~ everyone ~ can... so "has the ability"... but no one ~ if he or she remains in his or her natural state ~ will. All have turned aside. So yes, we need the Holy Spirit's help... <chuckles> If one remains dead in his/her sin, he/she will never turn to God, not because he or she woodenly "cannot," but he or she will remain of his or her father the devil and therefore doing his (Satan's) will, and absolutely inclined away from God. This is the natural state of man.

According to your doctrine, He know they CAN not repent because He PURPOSELY did not give them that ability and opportunity to do so.

Sigh... And here we are yet again... No, that's not "according to my doctrine" at all...

...that makes no sense at all.

I agree; what you say is according to my doctrine ~ in addition to not being acccording to my doctrine ~ makes no sense. <smile>

In that case why does He say that He wants the people to repent and believe who He knows can not repent without Him doing that? It seems to me that your doctrine makes God out to be very insincere.

Yes, how things seem to you is the issue. <smile> Huge. <smile>

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

No, not from birth. Nowhere does scripture teach this.

This can clearly be seen in Genesis 3, but more explicitly, David says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). In the New Testament (as if that makes any difference, really) ~ and this too has been cited many times ~ Paul says in Ephesians 2 we "were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind... (and) ...even when we were dead in our trespasses... (God) made us alive together with Christ..." He specifies no age or even level of development here, and that silence speaks volumes. We were this way by nature, which is to say from birth, even from conception. This was ~ was, for us Christians, those of us who have been born again of the Spirit ~ our condition; we were dead in our sin; there was no condition previous to that.

Will all people eventually sin at some point because of an inherited sinful nature? Yes. But, do people sin from birth? Absolutely not. How can a newborn sin? Ridiculous.

Ah, so I agree with you, here, Spiritual Israelite, but the age at which sin manifests itself in us whther it is at age 1 or 10 or 100 is not relevant. The issue is the sinful nature, our sinful hearts, not whether we ~ even infants ~ have actually sinned or not. Because we have this nature, we ~ even babies ~ are already fall short of the glory of God and are thus guilty.

God's wrath is not on newborns or younger children.

Of course not. God's wrath is not on anyone... yet.

Paul made it clear that he was not dead in his sins until he became aware of them...

We talked about that before (more than once... I think). Yeah, these things come up over and over again... Disagree. Very strongly. In Romans 7, he's acknowledging that because of the new life in the Spirit he's received, he now knows the deadness ~ sinfulness ~ of his body, and thus finally says, "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" But then he says, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind..." ~ and this is because He has been made alive spiritually ~ "...but with my flesh I serve the law of sin" ~ because for now, the "old man," which is dead in sin, is still with him. All of what he says there is in explanation of the statement he has made just before, which is:

"...(we) have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that (we) may belong to another, to Him Who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."​

And this is because we have been born again of the Spirit.

and never taught that people are dead in sins from birth.

He did. See above.

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

He graciously offers salvation to all people and then requires all people to choose whether to accept it or not.

This is the general call of the Gospel. And, we can say that He "requires all people to choose whether to accept it or not," but His granting of mercy and compassion does not depend on our choosing (on human will or exertion, as Paul puts it in Romans 9:16), but on God, Who has mercy, and... He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills.

Titus 2:11 (NIV): For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

Or, if you prefer, from the ESV...

Titus 2:11 (ESV): For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

The general call of the Gospel. Offered/given to everyone. Yes.

You are taking this scripture out of context.

Nope.

You are interpreting this passage in such a way that contradicts all the scriptures which say that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world...

No, because the context of this passage (Romans 9) is different than that in which Jesus died for the sins of the whole world." What Paul is elaborating on in Romans 9 is what he has alluded to in Romans 8, which is "those whom He foreknew," which is ~ irrefutably ~ a limited number of folks, and not everyone. Yet again, there are two very different senses here, and both are true: Jesus's death is sufficient for the salvation of everyone (the whole world), but only effectual for God's elect (a limited number of people and not everyone).

...God wants everyone to repent and to be saved.

He does, yes, this is His heart. But He will not compromise His justice or His glory.

Continued...

 

[TribulationSigns]

No, I’m confused because You said you got the meaning of genea as “family” from Strongs. Where does Strongs exhaustive concordance define genea as “family”? I can’t seem to find that in Strongs concordance? I pasted Strongs “definition” in the previous post and it didn’t say family.

Additionally, I literally said in the previous post that Strongs 1 to 2 word glosses of how the KJV translates the Greek into English should NOT be used as a sole source for understanding word usage and meaning but a lexicon should also be consulted. This is even based on what strong himself said. That is literally the opposite of cherry picking.

Next, see below. A Lexicon provides a more exhaustive definition and usage of word. In Thayers lexicon, as well as the majority of lexicons, genea, in regards to Matthew 24:34 or Matthew 23:36, is defined as a multitude of men “living at the same time”. See bullet point #3 of thayers below.

To argue genea, in Matthew 24:34, means family or stock as found in bullet point # 2, while completely ignoring it’s definition and usage found in bullet point 3, because it contradicts your framework, is literally the definition of cherry picking.



Thayer's Greek Lexicon

γενεά, γενεάς, ἡ (ΓΑΝΩ, γίνομαι (crf. Curtius, p. 610)); the Sept. often for דּור; in Greek writings from Homer down;
1. a begetting, birth, nativity: Herodotus3, 33; Xenophon, Cyril 1, 2, 8, etc.; (others make the collective sense the primary significance, see Curtius as above).

2. passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family;

a. properly, as early as Homer; equivalent to מִשְׁפָּחַה, Genesis 31:3, etc. σῴζεινΡ᾽αχαβην καί τήν γενεάν αὐτῆς, Josephus, Antiquities 5, 1, 5. the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy: Matthew 1:17 (ἑβδόμῃ γενεά οὗτος ἐστινἀπό τοῦ πρώτου, Philo, vit. Moys. i. § 2).

b. metaphorically, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race: Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 16:8; (Acts 2:40).

3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10; ἄνθρωποι τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 7:31; ἄνδρες τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 11:31; τήνδέ γενεάν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται, who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts 8:33 (from Isaiah 53:8 the Sept.) (but cf. Meyer, at the passage).


From : Strong's Greek: 1074. γενεά (genea) -- Generation


But hey, if you can produce a lexicon that defines genea in the context of Matthew 24:34 as family, I’d totally be open to listening.

I won't write a book here, but my friend wrote an article with a link below that echoes my position on generation. The confusion exists because so many Christians are unaware that there are several ways that this Greek word [genea] that is often translated generation, is used in the Bible. It is often in contrast to extra-Biblical or secular dictionary definitions. First of all, this word is from the root [genos], meaning a common birth or kin relationship, such as family.

This Generation Shall Not Pass, Till All These Things be Fulfilled

 

[PinSeeker]

... you do not believe that man has any choice when it comes to salvation.

No, but I don't believe that man's salvation depends on his choosing. Which is exactly what Paul says in Romans 9:16.

You will probably try to deny that, but it's clearly true in your doctrine.

Nope. <smile> I mean, yes, I will deny that, because... it is clearly not true in "my doctrine." <smile>

Nowhere does scripture teach that a person would always regard any need for repentance or a Savior to be foolish without being born again.

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).

When you are born again you have been made righteous...

Well, made righteous in the sense that we have been clothed in the righteousness of Jesus... credited with His righteousness. But yes, since we have been born again of the Spirit, sure, and thus believe God. Just like Abraham.

God did not give us saving faith and scripture never teaches such a thing.

• Ephesians 2:8... "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..."
• 1 Corinthians 12:4-10... "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills."
• Hebrews 12:1-2... "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."

Not an exhaustive list... <smile>

We are responsible to choose how to respond to the gospel and to the Holy Spirit speaking to our hearts.

Absolutely.

Many people resist...

No one who received God's inward call by His Spirit and is thus born again of the Spirit will resist that.

that and God makes everyone responsible to choose.

Certainly.

God doesn't make that choice for us.

Agreed.

No one is so totally depraved that they can't acknowledge their sins.

That would be utter depravity. Calvin's idea of total depravity is quite different than that, as I said before. See above.

...the point is that you think all people are able to believe in God and to glorify Him and be thankful to Him without any excuse for not doing so...

And they are; we agree...

, but you think people are not also held responsible to repent and believe in Christ.

No I don't... <smile> No decent Calvinist does... <smile>

You can't try to claim that no one has any excuse for not repenting and believing in Christ ...

Certainly, I do not; never have and never will...

...when, at the same time, you say that people are only able to do so if God gives them repentance and faith.

Just faith. Repentance and belief follow.

That is a great excuse for not repenting and believing if you are simply not able to do so without God giving it to you.

Well, it would be, yes, but... <smile>

Your doctrine makes God responsible for people not repenting and believing rather than man being responsible for it...

Nope.

...your doctrine makes the choice to repent or not completely up to God and not up to man.

Not at all.

Grace and peace to you, SI.

 

[PinSeeker]

Apologies to everyone on behalf of myself and Spiritual Israelite for taking up so much bandwidth here... <GRIN>

Grace and peace to you all!

 

[Marilyn C]

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?

Tares are of the devil as God`s word says. So they will go into the fire after the GWT.

 

[rockytopva]

I believe the one church is made of seven generalized congregations with many scriptural interpretations...

1. Ephesus - Messianic - Challenging post interpretations - In which they have a right to do!
2. Smyrna - Oriental Orthodox - The Book of Enoch was a long time in the hands of Ethiopians
3. Pergamos - Greek Orthodox - The Septuagint
4. Thyatira - Catholic - Originally the Latin Nova Vulgata
5. Sardis - Protestant - Many versions translated from previous versions
6. Philadelphia - Wesleyan - Many versions translated from previous versions
7. Laodicean - Word of Faith - Many versions translated from previous versions

Seven candlesticks - Seven generalized congregation - All unique one to another
Seven seals - Those names written in the Lambs Book of Life
Seven stars - Those messengers to the congregations

So... Who is saved? Who are the good Catholics? Who are the right Protestants? Who are the revived Philadelphians? Who in Laodicea took their materialism too far? Who are the good wheat? Who are the unsaved tares?

Regarding the Lamb's Book of Life... Sealed with seven seals...

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. - Revelation 5

The answer is... We do not know! We are not worthy to open the Lamb's Book of Life to see who is where! All we can do is...

6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. - Romans 10

All we can do is call on the name of the Lord and believe that we are saved!

 

[Marilyn C]

I believe the one church is made of seven generalized congregations with many scriptural interpretations...

1. Ephesus - Messianic - Challenging post interpretations - In which they have a right to do!
2. Smyrna - Oriental Orthodox - The Book of Enoch was a long time in the hands of Ethiopians
3. Pergamos - Greek Orthodox - The Septuagint
4. Thyatira - Catholic - Originally the Latin Nova Vulgata
5. Sardis - Protestant - Many versions translated from previous versions
6. Philadelphia - Wesleyan - Many versions translated from previous versions
7. Laodicean - Word of Faith - Many versions translated from previous versions

Seven candlesticks - Seven generalized congregation - All unique one to another
Seven seals - Those names written in the Lambs Book of Life
Seven stars - Those messengers to the congregations

So... Who is saved? Who are the good Catholics? Who are the right Protestants? Who are the revived Philadelphians? Who in Laodicea took their materialism too far? Who are the good wheat? Who are the unsaved tares?

Regarding the Lamb's Book of Life... Sealed with seven seals...

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. - Revelation 5

The answer is... We do not know! We are not worthy to open the Lamb's Book of Life to see who is where! All we can do is...

6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. - Romans 10

All we can do is call on the name of the Lord and believe that we are saved!

Hi rocky,

I agree with alot of what you say, however the `tares` are to do with Israel. The Body of Christ was NOT known at that time and not revealed until Jesus ascended and told the Apostle Paul about the Body of Christ. Still I agree that only the Lord knows who are His whether in Israel or the Body of Christ.

 

[Helen]

Mind your own business. If I want to show someone what it's like to be talked to the way they were talking to me, I can do that.

You forget , this is public domain , it’s everybody’s business ….

 

[grafted branch]

Yes, the dead turned the tares into wheat. Through the baptism of the spirit. As John said, Jesus will sift out the chaff and put the wheat in the barn

So who or what is it that was sown by the Son of man in the first place? Are you agreeing that it was the Word of God?

Matthew 23:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;