Can a tare become saved?
- Thread starter grafted branch
- Start date
-
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!
Sister-n-Christ
Active Member
That's the first I've heard of the Unfeigned Bible. I'll have to look into it .
How do we reconcile that Exodus verse with this one?
Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Me? A leader in Israel? What on earth are you talking about?
I know what I believe being “born again” means, but I’d like to hear from those who claim it, what it means to them…
What does it mean to Brakelite?
Last edited:
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
The poster didn’t really convey the true meaning of something God said earlier in giving the nation of Israel his law…..
Exodus 20:4-6….RSV…
“You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
Do you see something there in similar words, but with more detail? God will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of those who hate him……those who would likely grow up reflecting their father’s personality, attitudes and actions…but only for four generations…..but he would show mercy to thousands who love him and keep his commandments.
He knows we are children of Adam, and prone to sin, but it’s our actions that speak to God rather than just our words. Parenting is a serious business and it’s their responsibility to raise their children with knowledge of God and an appreciation for his wonderful creation (Deut 6:4-7)….to see all good things as a gift from him. The truly important things don’t have a monetary value…they are free.
But parents who act selfishly or those who show hostility and bad manners, often these traits rub off on their children….and it’s not unusual to see generations of people whose activities end up in jail time….those who fail to respect the laws of the land, or other people’s property.
The scripture in Deut 24:16 is about capital crimes warranting the death penalty, rather than less serious offenses. God will not mete out the death penalty to anyone who does not deserve it….each will pay for their own crimes.
The funny thing to me is, GB, that you and SI seem to be agreeing but are just totally missing each other, like two ships passing in the night...
So to what you say here about Matthew 13:38, which SI cited previously, you're right; the two key words there are 'in' and 'of.' So yes, the "tares" of those of the evil one, those whose father is the devil (John 8), but the Kingdom of God is indeed here (though not yet in its fullness).
To look at it in a little different way, we Christians talk about being in this world but not of it, and so we are.
So, yes... and I think this is what you are saying, and I think SI would actually agree... that these children of the evil one are in the kingdom but not of it. Right? As we all know, Jesus does tell Nicodemus in John 3 that one cannot see the kingdom of God unless he (or she) is born again, right? But it is here, as He said many times. And His Kingdom is not of this world, just as he told Pilate before His crucifixion (John 18:36), right?
So again, I think you fellers are really kind of arguing the same thing... Which is kind of funny in a way... <chuckles>
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God" (Jesus, Matthew 5:9) <smile>
Grace and peace to you both.
I’m not so sure I would agree with that. A believer is in the world physically but not of it spiritually. A tare can’t really be in the kingdom spiritually but not of it.
Do you have any verses that might help explain how a tare can be in the kingdom of God?
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Well if you can sho any verse that proves god takes tares and turns them to wheat- you have something to stand on.
Jesus never said to go out and find goats to make them sheep nor did He say go out and gather the tares and when they hit the barns He will turn them to wheat! If you know different I am all ears.
Fair enough. But it does seem to be what you are saying.
Which is literally what I just said. LOL!
Well, two things directly opposing each other cannot both be true at the same time, yes. But this is... literally... not what I just said. So, in the Kingdom... the word 'in' there can be understood in two different senses, a) in, as in in the midst of, and b) in, as in part of. So, let me restate what you have just said, but in so doing clarify what I said: In this life, a "tare" can be in the midst of the Kingdom but still not a part of the Kingdom. And again, I think you... and SI... will both agree with that. If not, fair enough.
No, but there is no need; you seem to be attributing something to me contrary to what I literally just said. Hopefully, what I said directly above will clarify things for you.
Grace and peace to you.
Ok, that’s reasonable but then in Matthew 21:43 it says Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
The chief priest and Pharisees knew this was referring to them, the same people that are told they are of their father the devil. The tares are the children of the wicked one so it would seem the chief priest and Pharisees were tares yet they weren’t just in the midst of the kingdom, they had possession of it.
How would you reconcile a tare having possession of the kingdom? Would it be that the tares had possession of the kingdom but still weren’t part of the kingdom?
Seems to me you're over-analyzing things a bit, GB. :) Yes, they think they have all they need... Remember, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he (or she) cannot enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). So really, they don't even know it exists. They are of this world. And their father is the ruler of this world (John 12:31)... for now. <smile> The world is their oyster, so to speak; they think they have possession of... all they need possession of... <smile> The day is coming, though, when that will no longer be the case. <smile>
Grace and peace to you.
Or we could say people were entering the kingdom by way of the old covenant prior to the cross then after the cross only those born of water and Spirit could enter the kingdom. The kingdom was then purged of those tares who tried to remain under the old covenant, that removal happened some time later, at one of the harvests. Those events had to have happened to the chief priest and Pharisees else the kingdom was never taken from them and we would still be waiting for it to be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
If tares are meaning the lost in general, it then contradicts the following, for example. It's not unreasonable that a practicing atheist, for example, can become saved if he or she were to denounce atheism and accept Christ instead. Obviously then, since that is perfectly reasonable, therefore, tares can't be meaning the lost in general, such as atheists, etc. Which then doesn't contradict reality since no tares are somehow turning into wheat per this scenario. But they would be if tares are representing all the lost in general, such as atheists, etc.
tares = all the lost in general, such as atheists, etc, contradicts that atheists, for example, can become wheat if they denounce atheism and then accept Christ instead.
tares DO NOT = all the lost in general, such as atheists, etc, thus does not contradict that atheists can become wheat if they denounce atheism and then accept Christ instead. The fact, per this scenario, no tare is trying to change into wheat since no tare is meaning the lost in general, such as atheists, etc, to begin with.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
The analogy comparing man's spiritual state to physical wheat and tares is written for us to perceive it. Much of spiritual insight must be passed down to us in terms we can relate to.
This of course borders on the argument between points of view of that either God chose us or we chose Him. Free will can become or appear arrogant and prideful point of view.
Predestination is scriptural and some wrestle with that one, misinterpreting and redefining it. But to me, if God is in control (which is what sovereignty means) and He has a perfect plan (which is prophetically written and always is fulfilled), then man's "free will" cannot alter it. Nothing can alter His plan before the foundation of the world and since we cannot grasp personally how our future lives (spiritually and physically) can contain specific details already ordained by God, we are presented with this conundrum.
Satan lies and deceives everyone.
God draws all men to Himself. Yet Satan cannot take any whom God has chosen. God sends a message that appears to be for all men, but in reality, it's not. It is sent out to His sheep, whom the Father has given to the Son. Only His sheep can hear I guess most struggle with that fate, that He created many so that a few can survive.
God's infinite plan gradually plays out and His sheep eventually hear His call and come to agree with it. He enables us to cooperate and yet we pridefully think we have a lot to do with the outcome. He persuades us and we say yes. "Whosoever believes ..."? It's presented that way because we just don't know who will receive the Word and who won't nor how all this takes works out uniquely with each individual - up to their last moments. So the gospel message goes out to all - so that the few will hear.
The message and terms can only be presented to us as it has been, as an apparent unsolved mystery, yet already ordained.
This is our reality, a tension between the already but not yet, to discover if we are wheat or tares. It appears that only people who discover truth are the wheat. Still it is confusing when it states a tare is without excuse ( Rom. 1:26). If God made them that way, born reprobate, that would be their excuse: "You made me this way!" God has revealed himself through His invisible attributes and in His creation and man still chooses to go the other way. What does this mean? It sounds like a tare had the opportunity to come to God but blew it. It sounds like it's our fault, we chose our way - and that God did not make us to be a tare ... we became one. ??
Forrest Gump was my all time favorite movie. The writer if that movie describes this conundrum we are faced with ik Forrests question about life:" I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe it's both."
>> So predestination and "life is what you make it" coexists on parellel plains of existence. That is the tension between the two realms.
As you can see, I wrestle with these concepts and can't quite understand them because it is beyond our ability to fully grasp. I just accept God's plan, received Jesus as my Lord and Savior and understand my way didn't work; but He somehow allowed it it to play out fo so long and fit into His plan perfectly.
Yes, I agree. There seems to be quite a few people that simply want to say a tare can become wheat, because a tare represents all the lost, even though that contradicts the reality that a tare plant can’t become a wheat plant and this parable would then be the only parable based on an untrue reality.
Hmmm, well, you can, but I wouldn't... <smile> Hebrews 11 says otherwise, that all Christians are saved the same way, regardless of when it actually occured for any of them/us...
We are all lost from the beginning, GB. But for some, they are found. You've sung Amazing Grace before, no? "I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I see..." <smile>
What we should understand about these tares is that, yes, there is a sense in which they cannot become wheat... there are certainly those that were not chosen by God before the foundation of the world to be conformed to the image of Christ Jesus (in Paul's words in Ephesians 1:4-5), and they will never be. But there are also some that were, and they certainly will be. <smile> Jesus turned the water to wine, you know. <smile>
Grace and peace to you.
Well tares aren’t saved, right? They are thrown into the fire.
I agree that from our perspective we don’t know who will or won’t be saved. I was lost and then became saved, but I don’t consider myself as a tare prior to becoming saved. I was a lost sheep but I wasn’t a goat.
Right...
Yes, if they remain tares. And about that "throwing into the fire..." <smile>
Right... And really, we don't know exactly who has been saved, either, in that we can't see the heart; only God can do that. Except for ourselves... this is what faith is... God's assurance, and the conviction of the Spirit (Hebrews 11:1).
Fair enough, as I said previously. But you were; there is no "neutral." You were a child of the devil; he was your father previously... as was the case with all of us Christians before we were born again of the Spirit... we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind, as Paul puts it in Ephesians 2:3.
I don't consider this a point between us that just has to be resolved. <smile>
Grace and peace to you.
Sister-n-Christ
Active Member
True. Wheat and tares,in the parable, are separated at the end of the age.
In today's harvesting,tares can be left and then plowed under to nourish the soil due to their decomposition that feeds the soil.
Interesting idea, another thing might be to consider where the tare seeds come from in the first place. Does Satan have his own field where he grows tares to harvest the seeds and then plant those seeds in His (Jesus’) field?
I don’t want to keep going around in circles on this either, so let me ask you this…
If church(A) interprets the parable of the tares as rule that their church(A) should allow people who they know are tares to grow along side the wheat, wouldn’t that church(A) be vastly different than a church(B) that didn’t have that rule? Church(B) would be able to remove people they recognize as causing harm to their church while church(A) would want to keep those people in their church until the harvest.
Similar threads
