Can a tare become saved?

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think a major difference between us is that I see the end of the age referring to when the old covenant vanished (not when it became invalid) and you see it as the end of this current heaven and earth.

Yes, of course. That's a huge difference. We can't possibly see the parable the same because of that. At least, not in terms of what happens at the end of the age.

But, you did make me realize we should look at this from God's perspective in terms of who the wheat and tares are rather than looking at it from our perspective of who currently fits the descriptions of the wheat (children of the kingdom) and the tares (children of the wicked one). From God's perspective, He knows which people who currently are children of the devil will repent and become children of the kingdom. So, from His perspective the wheat represent those who end up being children of the kingdom in the end even after previously being children of the devil while the tares represent those who God knows will never repent and remain as children of the devil. That makes sense and I didn't catch that was what you were trying to say before.

Whenever I've looked at this parable in the past I only referred to it as proving that all believers inherit "the kingdom of their Father" at the end of the age when Jesus returns while all unbelievers are cast into the fire at that time. So, I see the parable as supporting Amill because of that. So, I only thought of it in terms of who are the wheat and tares at the end of the age and not much about what the parable meant beyond that. You seem to be the opposite of that where your focus is more on who the wheat and tares are from God's perspective from the time the sowing began than on who the wheat and tares are revealed to be at the end of the age while looking at what happens to them at the end of the age.

 

[Aunty Jane]

All non-Christians, and not just "false Christians", fit the description that John gives of who are the children of the devil.

The “sheep and the goats” are another separation that Christ makes at the end of the age…..are the “wheat and the weeds” the same as the “sheep and the goats”?
Who are the goats?

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.

The devil is the cause of sin, and it is sin that leads to death. (Rom 5:12) All who sin willfully are of the devil, but there is no way anyone in sinful flesh can avoid the penalty of death because it is sin that causes it. Sin is therefore in all of us until we die.

We need a definition of “sin” that explains what the Bible means when it speaks about sin.

Strongs gives us a definition of sin that is pretty comprehensive….

The word is “hamartia” and it means…..

1. to be without a share in
2. to miss the mark
3. to err, be mistaken
4. to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5. to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin.”

The second definition is actually related to archery and it means to “miss the mark”…. we get that picture straight away. We aim for the bullseye but miss that target. This reinforces what Paul said about his own battle with sin in his flesh….

Rom 7:14-20…RSV….
”We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.”
If the apostle Paul had this battle, what about us? Are we exempt from this fight?

Paul went on to say….Vs 21-25…
”So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”

When was the battle won? When the law of his mind overcame the law of his flesh and he put his trust in the saving power of Christ’s blood. Only then was the dictation of the flesh overcome by the dictation of the spirit.

Paul was a man with a sinister past, and he was well aware of his crimes, once Jesus revealed himself to him, knowing that his evil actions were driven by a good motive….he just needed to get that fixed so that God could use his zeal for good and not evil. Was he a tare who became wheat? Or was he wheat all along, but just misdirected?

All non-Christians do "what is sinful" and do "not do what is right" or "do not love their brother and sister". All non-Christians are children of the devil and all Christians are children of Christ's kingdom.

But even non-Christians can show by their actions that they have no love for their fellow man of another nation, if they are happy and justified to kill them in the name of politics. If Christians support that world and engage or even give tacit support to the killing….then how can God and his Christ be with them? (Matt 5:43-44) What then separates the wheat from the weeds? Who is acting like a “Christian” in that scenario?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The “sheep and the goats” are another separation that Christ makes at the end of the age…..are the “wheat and the weeds” the same as the “sheep and the goats”?

Yes, I believe so. Obviously, with the wheat and sheep representing the same people and the weeds and goats representing the same people.

Who are the goats?

Those whose names are not written in the book of life. These verses are all about the same thing:

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Revelation 20:15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The devil is the cause of sin, and it is sin that leads to death. (Rom 5:12) All who sin willfully are of the devil, but there is no way anyone in sinful flesh can avoid the penalty of death because it is sin that causes it. Sin is therefore in all of us until we die.

The penalty of sin is not just physical death, but also the second death. Jesus didn't die for our sins to keep us from physical death, but rather to keep us from experiencing the second death, which is being cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14-15). Anyone who belongs to Christ and has had his or her sins covered by the blood of Christ will not experience the second death, but rather will inherit eternal life when He comes again (Matt 25:31-46).

We need a definition of “sin” that explains what the Bible means when it speaks about sin.

Strongs gives us a definition of sin that is pretty comprehensive….

The word is “hamartia” and it means…..

1. to be without a share in
2. to miss the mark
3. to err, be mistaken
4. to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5. to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin.”

The second definition is actually related to archery and it means to “miss the mark”…. we get that picture straight away. We aim for the bullseye but miss that target. This reinforces what Paul said about his own battle with sin in his flesh….

Rom 7:14-20…RSV….
”We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.”
If the apostle Paul had this battle, what about us? Are we exempt from this fight?

Paul went on to say….Vs 21-25…
”So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”

When was the battle won? When the law of his mind overcame the law of his flesh and he put his trust in the saving power of Christ’s blood. Only then was the dictation of the flesh overcome by the dictation of the spirit.

Paul was a man with a sinister past, and he was well aware of his crimes, once Jesus revealed himself to him, knowing that his evil actions were driven by a good motive….he just needed to get that fixed so that God could use his zeal for good and not evil. Was he a tare who became wheat? Or was he wheat all along, but just misdirected?

Well, I was just talking to grafted branch about this. From God's eternal perspective, Paul would've been wheat all along because He knew Paul would repent and become a child of the kingdom, which is what the wheat are (Matthew 13:38).

But even non-Christians can show by their actions that they have no love for their fellow man of another nation, if they are happy and justified to kill them in the name of politics. If Christians support that world and engage or even give tacit support to the killing….then how can God and his Christ be with them? (Matt 5:43-44) What then separates the wheat from the weeds? Who is acting like a “Christian” in that scenario?

The wheat are children of the kingdom and the tares are children of the wicked one. John differentiates between the children of the kingdom and children of the devil here:

1 John 3:10 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, the difference is that the wheat are those who are children of God and born of God and do what is right while the tares are those who do "not do what is right" and "does not love their brother and sister". The wheat are repentant of their sins and the tares are not. Now, from the real time perspective, of course, a person who is currently not repentant and fits the description John gives of a child of the devil might repent at some point. So, from God's perspective, knowing what that person will do, He would consider that person to be wheat and not a tare. So, it depends on what perspective you look at this. We don't know who will repent or not, so it's best to just look at this from God's perspective and not try to speculate who are the wheat and who are the tares. We should just focus on living our lives the way the wheat are expected to which is in humble submission to our God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13). Who the wheat and tares are will be revealed at the end of the age.

 

[Davidpt]

One would be the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13). Obviously, in reality, only one virgin marries a bridegroom, not ten or five. And, in reality, a virgin being worthy of marrying her bridegroom is not dependent on her having oil in her lamp or not. And, in reality, a bridegroom would not tell someone he was engaged to that he doesn't know her.

Though, you have a valid point here, how do you get past all of the following then?

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

When this is initially true, the following isn't even true yet.

Matthew 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.


You cannot argue that there were already tares being sown with the wheat before men slept first, and that his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

That presents a problem if tares are meaning the lost in general. As if there was not already the lost in general, not only before a man sowed good seed in his field, but when he did as well.

It looks like this. The lost in general are already present in the world before a man sowed good seed in his field. Which might explain the sowing of good seed in his field. In order for them, the children of the kingdom, to bring hope to the presently lost in the world. And when a man sows this good seed in his field, the lost in general are already present in the world. Now maybe there is hope for some of them, thus the children of the kingdom providing this hope for them. It is not until men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

How can tares possibly be meaning the lost in general based on what I argue above, and in light of the following?

Matthew 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

BTW, has it ever crossed your mind to maybe compare verse 26 with the following in Matthew 7?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Do you also think this is meaning all the lost in general? Which would include unrepentant atheists, unrepentant unbelieving Jews, so on and so on?

But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also(Matthew 13:26)---Ye shall know them by their fruits(Matthew 7:16). Obviously, someone with very little to no spiritual discernment is going to see a connection between Matthew 13:26 and Matthew 7:16. But that does not mean the connection is not there.

 

[grafted branch]

Though, you have a valid point here, how do you get past all of the following then?

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

When this is initially true, the following isn't even true yet.

Matthew 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.


You cannot argue that there were already tares being sown with the wheat before men slept first, and that his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

That presents a problem if tares are meaning the lost in general. As if there was not already the lost in general, not only before a man sowed good seed in his field, but when he did as well.

It looks like this. The lost in general are already present in the world before a man sowed good seed in his field. Which might explain the sowing of good seed in his field. In order for them, the children of the kingdom, to bring hope to the presently lost in the world. And when a man sows this good seed in his field, the lost in general are already present in the world. Now maybe there is hope for some of them, thus the children of the kingdom providing this hope for them. It is not until men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

How can tares possibly be meaning the lost in general based on what I argue above, and in light of the following?

Matthew 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

BTW, has it ever crossed your mind to maybe compare verse 26 with the following in Matthew 7?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Do you also think this is meaning all the lost in general? Which would include unrepentant atheists, unrepentant unbelieving Jews, so on and so on?

But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also(Matthew 13:26)---Ye shall know them by their fruits(Matthew 7:16). Obviously, someone with very little to no spiritual discernment is going to see a connection between Matthew 13:26 and Matthew 7:16. But that does not mean the connection is not there.

I don’t want to open up this can of worms again but don’t forget that if the tares represent all the unsaved then someone like Hitler should’ve been allowed to grow together with the wheat.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Though, you have a valid point here, how do you get past all of the following then?

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

When this is initially true, the following isn't even true yet.

Matthew 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

We have to determine when the sowing started in order determine what Jesus was talking about here. I believe this is in relation to the preaching of the gospel. Who first responded to the gospel message? The disciples. And they believed it. So, at first, there was only wheat. But, then after the gospel started being heard by others, some people, like the Pharisees and scribes, rejected it. So, they are the tares that were sown among the wheat. At least, the ones who never repented.

After talking to grafted branch about the parable, I realized that we should look at this from God's eternal perspective rather than from just our non-eternal real time perspective. So, when I say the Pharisees and scribes who rejected it represent the tares, I'm not talking about any who repented later. Any who repented later would be included among the wheat from God's eternal perspective.

You cannot argue that there were already tares being sown with the wheat before men slept first, and that his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

You are correct. That would not fit what Jesus said. And, that's why I don't argue that.

That presents a problem if tares are meaning the lost in general. As if there was not already the lost in general, not only before a man sowed good seed in his field, but when he did as well.

Again, I believe the parable is in relation to NT times in particular when the gospel has been preached. The wheat represent those who are in Christ's kingdom and no one was officially in Christ's kingdom yet before He came to the earth and become the Savior of mankind. Obviously, OT saints were going to enter His kingdom once He came as well, but the parable is not about OT times, but rather NT times. This is something I disagree completely with grafted branch about, as he thinks the parable is about OT times rather than NT times.

Anyway, the starting point of the sowing in relation to the parable, in my view, is when the gospel started being preached during Christ's ministry with Jesus Himself first preaching it to His disciples and others in His close circle like Mary Magdalene and some other women. So, from that perspective, there were only wheat in the field at first before some people started rejecting the gospel because after hearing it "then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart" (Matthew 13:19). The devil started doing his own sowing at that point.

It looks like this. The lost in general are already present in the world before a man sowed good seed in his field. Which might explain the sowing of good seed in his field. In order for them, the children of the kingdom, to bring hope to the presently lost in the world. And when a man sows this good seed in his field, the lost in general are already present in the world. Now maybe there is hope for some of them, thus the children of the kingdom providing this hope for them. It is not until men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

Well, obviously, many lost people have become saved. So, from that real time perspective, a tare can become wheat. But, what I realized after talking to grafted branch is that we should look at the parable from God's eternal perspective. You always try to say that I think I know everything and can't be wrong, but I was wrong about the perspective in which we should look at the parable in terms of whether we should look at it from God's eternal perspective or our real time perspective.

From God's eternal perspective, He knows who will repent and who will not. So, from His eternal perspective, He would see people as being wheat who right now fit the description of the tares instead because they haven't repented yet. So, looking at it from that perspective, that would explain how there is no indication that the tares could possibly become wheat. From God's eternal perspective, He doesn't just look at what happens in real time, but can see the end result of whether someone ends up repenting and becoming a child of the kingdom or does not repent and remains a child of the wicked one. But, from a real time perspective, it clearly is possible for a child of the wicked one (the devil) to become a child of the kingdom because the following passage shows that all lost sinners are children of the devil and, obviously, some lost sinners repent and become children of the kingdom instead.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Would you agree, based on this description, that all lost sinners are children of the devil? This shows us who the tares are because Jesus specifically indicated that they are the children of the devil. So, to be consistent, whoever you think John is describing as the children of the devil are the same ones who are the tares. But, just remember to think of that from God's eternal perspective and not from our non-eternal perspective since some who are currently children of the devil can repent and become children of the kingdom later. From God's perspective, they are wheat regardless of having previously fit the description of tares.

How can tares possibly be meaning the lost in general based on what I argue above, and in light of the following?

Matthew 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

See above. Also, I think we both have made the mistake of only looking at this from a temporal, real-time perspective rather than from God's perspective of who the wheat and tares are. To have a view where those who fit the description of the tares (children of the devil) can't become what the wheat represent (children of the kingdom) contradicts other scripture which says that all lost sinners are children of the devil (1 John 3:8-10). Obviously, some lost sinners become children of the kingdom instead, so we can't reasonably hold to a view that doesn't allow someone who fits the description of a tare to ever become someone who fits the description of the wheat instead.

BTW, has it ever crossed your mind to maybe compare verse 26 with the following in Matthew 7?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Do you also think this is meaning all the lost in general? Which would include unrepentant atheists, unrepentant unbelieving Jews, so on and so on?

The tares certainly include those false prophets (at least, any who never repent), but I don't see why the tares should be limited to just false prophets. Do you not consider the following passage, which I already posted earlier, as well when determining who the tares are? Remember, they represent the children of the wicked one/devil (Matthew 13:38-39).

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Do you think this passage is only referring to false prophets or to lost sinners in general? It's clear to me that it refers to lost sinners in general. So, this passage supports my view that the tares, who are the children of the devil, represent lost sinners in general. From God's eternal perspective, the tares represent the children of the devil who never repent. They are the ones who will be cast into the fire at the end of the age.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don’t want to open up this can of worms again but don’t forget that if the tares represent all the unsaved then someone like Hitler should’ve been allowed to grow together with the wheat.

Well, of course, children of the kingdom (the wheat) and children of the wicked one (the tares) live together in the world, so why is that an issue?

 

[grafted branch]

Well, of course, children of the kingdom (the wheat) and children of the wicked one (the tares) live together in the world, so why is that an issue?

Well WWII was fought and I would think a Christian would agree that Hitler should’ve been stopped. Do you think WWII was a mistake and we should’ve just let Hitler continue on?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well WWII was fought and I would think a Christian would agree that Hitler should’ve been stopped. Do you think WWII was a mistake and we should’ve just let Hitler continue on?

So, when I speak generally of the children of the wicked one you think the worst of them represents all of them? Do you think all unrepentant sinners should just be killed right now rather than wait until the end of the age and leave it up to God to decide when that should happen? Is that what you're saying? I doubt that, so what exactly are you trying to say here?

 

[PinSeeker]

But that’s a major point, a tare can’t be excommunicated...

Dude. Any member of a particular church can fall under church discipline and possibly be excommunicated for various reasons.

a tare has to be allowed to grow together with the wheat.

Yeah, we're talking about two different things now. Yes, to what you say here, but any member of a church can be excommunicated if the situation calls for that, meaning preserving the "peace and purity" ~ which essentially means in love, unity, and repentance, striving together in Christ and the like ~ of the church.

A person that qualifies for excommunication can’t be a tare by definition.

All I'll say to this is that there are false sons in every church.

Is your understanding of excommunication something along the lines of condemnation? I hope not. If excommunication is to occur, it is a pronouncement of exclusion from the sacraments (communion, baptism) and a cutting off from the fellowship of the church. But the hope and prayer is then that by God's blessing this solemn action may result in the repentance and restoration of the offender, and in the establishment of all true believers. So, quite the opposite of condemnation, and actually redemptive in purpose.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

You are saying that we actually agree and don't realize it. No, we don't. How are grafted branch and I saying the same thing when I say that the tares are NOT in His kingdom while he says that they ARE in His kingdom?

The key is that little word 'in.' You and he, even by saying "in His kingdom," mean it in two very different senses. And, I think if you were to understand what he means by "in the kingdom," you would go, "Oh, well yeah." And the same is true if he understood the sense in which you are saying "in the kingdom," he then likewise would say, "Oh, well yeah." But... at this point, who cares, right? You seem to be getting at this very thing in your Post 279 above, where you're responding to his Post 276. You seem to be both catching on... <smile> Which... makes me chuckle a bit. <smile>

Also, keep in mind that what I was saying in my post was in relation to what grafted branch has been saying and not in relation to what you believe. I can see that you didn't catch that.

Sure I did. That's totally beside the point.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The key is that little word 'in.' You and he, even by saying "in His kingdom," mean it in two very different senses.

I know that. I'm trying to get him to see that what verse 41 means is the same thing as verse 49 says in the parable of the fishing net. It's not a case of the tares being in His kingdom and taken out of it at the end of the age. It's a case of the children of the wicked one (the wicked) being separated from the children of His kingdom (the righteous) at the end of the age, as Matthew 13:49 indicates.

And, I think if you were to understand what he means by "in the kingdom," you would go, "Oh, well yeah."

I already know what he means by that. But, I'm trying to get him to see that it contradicts Matthew 13:38 which says the wheat represent those who are in His kingdom and not the tares who are instead children of the wicked one (children of the wicked one's kingdom instead of Christ's kingdom).

And the same is true if he understood the sense in which you are saying "in the kingdom," he then likewise would say, "Oh, well yeah."

I think he understands the sense in which I'm saying that, but I can never be sure of how he is understanding what I'm saying.

But... at this point, who cares, right?

Well, I care what he thinks, so that's why I'm talking to him about it.

Sure I did. That's totally beside the point.

You replied to one thing I said by saying in effect: "But, I believe such and such.". Not those exact words, of course. I can't see the exact quote and don't care what it was exactly. It just showed that you didn't seem to understand that my points were only in relation to his view, not yours.

Grace and peace to you.

Peace and grace to you as well.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Dude. Any member of a particular church can fall under church discipline and possibly be excommunicated for various reasons.


Yeah, we're talking about two different things now. Yes, to what you say here, but any member of a church can be excommunicated if the situation calls for that, meaning preserving the "peace and purity" ~ which essentially means in love, unity, and repentance, striving together in Christ and the like ~ of the church.


All I'll say to this is that there are false sons in every church.

Is your understanding of excommunication something along the lines of condemnation? I hope not. If excommunication is to occur, it is a pronouncement of exclusion from the sacraments (communion, baptism) and a cutting off from the fellowship of the church. But the hope and prayer is then that by God's blessing this solemn action may result in the repentance and restoration of the offender, and in the establishment of all true believers. So, quite the opposite of condemnation, and actually redemptive in purpose.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Brakelite]

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?

Post 238

 

[grafted branch]

So, when I speak generally of the children of the wicked one you think the worst of them represents all of them? Do you think all unrepentant sinners should just be killed right now rather than wait until the end of the age and leave it up to God to decide when that should happen? Is that what you're saying? I doubt that, so what exactly are you trying to say here?

The problem is you are associating the tares with all the unsaved. All the unsaved include people who are Nazis, KKK, terrorist, serial killers, and so on. We are told to allow the tares to grow together <4885> to grow together, to increase together until the harvest.

I can understand if you have an issue with just standing by and watching these kinds of evil organizations grow but then that’s what it means when tares are interpreted as the unsaved in general. What we should be doing is not allowing evil to grow, we should resist the devil.

James 4:7 Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

2 Corinthians 10:4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.

 

[grafted branch]

Yeah, we're talking about two different things now. Yes, to what you say here, but any member of a church can be excommunicated if the situation calls for that, meaning preserving the "peace and purity" ~ which essentially means in love, unity, and repentance, striving together in Christ and the like ~ of the church.

Right, we should be able to see that it’s Biblical to excommunicate a person and we should also be able to see that a tare has to be allowed to grow together with the wheat until the harvest and not removed at anytime soon than the harvest. Logically we should be able to conclude that a tare can’t have any of the attributes that allow for excommunication, a tare can’t be all the unsaved in general.

 

[Davidpt]

The following are solely my thoughts and conclusions except I let chatgpt rewrite them for me in order to at least be easier to follow, if nothing else. And this is in regards to the parable of the net in Matthew 13, that this allegedly proves the tares are meaning all the lost in general.
----------------------
chatgpt then said to me:

Based on what you’ve written and what you're trying to communicate, here’s a polished version of your post that keeps your message intact while improving clarity, flow, and emphasis:

Post Draft:

The context of Matthew 13:47–50 is the kingdom of heaven, and it's important to carefully consider what the parable is actually saying. The first key detail is that the net doesn’t catch every single fish in the sea—it gathers "of every kind." The point isn't total capture, but rather that among those drawn in, there is a mixture of both good and bad.

Matthew 13:47-49 (KJV)
“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.”

Notice the sequence: the net is cast, it gathers a mixture, and only when it is full—at the end of the age—is the separation made. That means right now, the net (representing the outreach of the kingdom, possibly the gospel or the visible church) is still in the water. It’s not gathering every person on earth, but it is drawing in a wide variety of people. And among those gathered, there are both the righteous and the wicked—just as Jesus explains in verse 49, the wicked are separated from among the just at the end.

This harmonizes with the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22:

Matthew 22:9-14 (KJV)
“Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests...”

Even though they gathered both good and bad guests, clearly they didn’t gather every bad person on earth. The focus is on those who respond to the invitation. Later in the parable, one guest is found without a wedding garment—symbolizing someone who outwardly accepted the invitation but was inwardly unprepared. He is cast out, just like the bad fish in the previous parable.

These parables aren't teaching that the wicked are in the kingdom in its final form and then removed. Rather, they show that the kingdom’s call draws in many, and a separation comes at the end—between those truly belonging and those who do not.

In summary: The wicked aren’t being removed from a pure kingdom—they’re being separated out of a mixed group that the kingdom’s message has gathered. The net is still in the sea, the feast still being filled, and the final sorting is still to come.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Post 238

Post 238 was not a response to me…..I am none the wiser….
Please tell me what you meant…….?

 

[Brakelite]

Post 238 was not a response to me…..I am none the wiser….
Please tell me what you meant…….?

From Blindness to Freedom to Hope.

Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have m…

brakelite.wordpress.com

 

[Zao is life]

The following are solely my thoughts and conclusions except I let chatgpt rewrite them for me in order to at least be easier to follow, if nothing else. And this is in regards to the parable of the net in Matthew 13, that this allegedly proves the tares are meaning all the lost in general.
----------------------
chatgpt then said to me:

Based on what you’ve written and what you're trying to communicate, here’s a polished version of your post that keeps your message intact while improving clarity, flow, and emphasis:

Post Draft:

The context of Matthew 13:47–50 is the kingdom of heaven, and it's important to carefully consider what the parable is actually saying. The first key detail is that the net doesn’t catch every single fish in the sea—it gathers "of every kind." The point isn't total capture, but rather that among those drawn in, there is a mixture of both good and bad.

Matthew 13:47-49 (KJV)
“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.”

Notice the sequence: the net is cast, it gathers a mixture, and only when it is full—at the end of the age—is the separation made. That means right now, the net (representing the outreach of the kingdom, possibly the gospel or the visible church) is still in the water. It’s not gathering every person on earth, but it is drawing in a wide variety of people. And among those gathered, there are both the righteous and the wicked—just as Jesus explains in verse 49, the wicked are separated from among the just at the end.

This harmonizes with the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22:

Matthew 22:9-14 (KJV)
“Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests...”

Even though they gathered both good and bad guests, clearly they didn’t gather every bad person on earth. The focus is on those who respond to the invitation. Later in the parable, one guest is found without a wedding garment—symbolizing someone who outwardly accepted the invitation but was inwardly unprepared. He is cast out, just like the bad fish in the previous parable.

These parables aren't teaching that the wicked are in the kingdom in its final form and then removed. Rather, they show that the kingdom’s call draws in many, and a separation comes at the end—between those truly belonging and those who do not.

In summary: The wicked aren’t being removed from a pure kingdom—they’re being separated out of a mixed group that the kingdom’s message has gathered. The net is still in the sea, the feast still being filled, and the final sorting is still to come.

I agree with the above because it makes sense, and also because of the difference between what happens when the elect are gathered as opposed to when all nations are gathered:

All nations:

Matthew 25
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

He Himself is separating the nations. But in the verses below, the angels are being sent out to gather His elect:

The elect:

Matthew 24
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Again His angels are being sent out to gather the bad out of his Kingdom below:

Matthew 13
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;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Again His angels are severing the wicked from the just below:

47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
49 So shall it be at the end of the age: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just.

Paul said,

1 Corinthians 6
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.