Can a tare become saved?

[claninja]

Don't worry about it. I'm speaking the language that he understands. He said "if you would start actually using your brain, that would be awesome". Why are you not saying anything to him? He clearly is fine with talking that way, so he should not have a problem with someone talking to him that way. But, if he does, then he should think about how he was talking to me and whether or not he should have worded things the way he did.

Seems like you are trying to justify why you can be rude back - ie name calling. It’s not a fruit of the spirit.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Seems like you are trying to justify why you can be rude back - ie name calling. It’s not a fruit of the spirit.

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.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

name calling. It’s not a fruit of the spirit.

Jesus told the pharisees they were of their father the devil and he called Herod a fox (sissy)

Was Jesus experiencing issues with His walk in the Spirit too?

 

[claninja]

Jesus told the pharisees they were of their father the devil and he called Herod a fox (sissy)

Was Jesus experiencing issues with His walk in the Spirit too?

You believe childish mockery is the same as Jesus, the lamb of God, calling the Pharisees sons of devils and Herod a fox?

 

[claninja]

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.

It’s a public forum, if you don’t like me calling you out on your rude behavior, ie name calling, report me

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You believe childish mockery is the same as Jesus, the lamb of God, calling the Pharisees sons of devils and Herod a fox?

Was Elijah being childish when he mocked the prophets of Baal after their false god failed to come through for them?

1 Kings 18:25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under. 26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It’s a public forum, if you don’t like me calling you out on your rude behavior, ie name calling, report me

LOL. No, I think I'd prefer to just tell you directly to mind your own business instead of whining to someone and reporting you to them. But, by all means, continue on in your holier than thou act if that's what you want to do.

 

[claninja]

Was Elijah being childish when he mocked the prophets of Baal after their false god failed to come through for them?

1 Kings 18:25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under. 26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

OT principal of an eye for eye?

 

[claninja]

LOL. No, I think I'd prefer to just tell you directly to mind your own business instead of whining to someone and reporting you to them. But, by all means, continue on in your holier than thou act if that's what you want to do.

I hope that if ever lose my temper and partake in childish mockery. Someone calls me out on it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I hope that if ever lose my temper and partake in childish mockery. Someone calls me out on it.

I'll be sure to do that when you do then.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

OT principal of an eye for eye?

Was my question too hard? Was Elijah being childish when he mocked the prophets of Baal?

Was my question about why you called me out instead of calling him out for saying to me: "if you would start actually using your brain, that would be awesome" too hard, also? Is it because you are a Calvinist and are taking his side? Do you think he is offended if someone talks to him the same way he talks to others? That would be rather strange if he is.

 

[PinSeeker]

Say what now? What did I say that isn't true about what you believe?

Hm. Well you do it in this very post. Your whole post is saturated with it:

You think that salvation is entirely up to God's choice and not up to man's choice at all, right?

No. <smile>

...you believe that people are created with "total depravity" in the sense that they have no ability to ever do anything that God commands them to do, such as to believe and repent, without Him giving them faith and repentance that is then guaranteed to result in them believing and repenting. Right?

No. <smile>

So, you think that God, who is love (1 John 4:8), decided to save some and not even offer any opportunity at all for the rest to be saved...

No. <smile>

So, that means you believe it was God's will and His choice that a majority of people would end up suffering eternal torment.

No. <smile>

...like you believe He hates Esau, for no real reason?

No. <smile> But He did hate Esau, as He Himself stated. And Esau is representative there of a whole lot of people. So we have to come to grips with that somehow... <smile> Yes, God is love, as you say, but He is also capable of hate. So what does that say about love and hate and their... supposed... opposition to each other? <smile>

Which would then mean, in your view, God is partially love and partially hate.

No. <smile>

Or partially love and partially indifferent and uncaring...

No. <smile>

I don't mean this in a bad way or to be insulting at all, but I don't care what you think...

Ah, so that's why you've spent so much time here arguing... I see... <smile>

Is it not possible that both belief systems contain some truth even though they disagree on the TULIP doctrines and such?

The only reason there is a "five points of Calvinism" is that each one of Jacobus Arminius's five "objections," as they were called, were refuted from Calvin's far greater exposition of systematic theology. John Calvin's full body of work goes far, far beyond just those five points. But in answer to your question, the point is that Arminius's chief aim was to refute what Calvin said about those five things. So no, it's not possible that both belief systems contain some truth because they are diametrically opposed on those matters; this was Arminius's intent. To state it logically, 'A' and 'Not A' cannot both be true at the same time. And to you question about your self-contradictive statements, it's generally because you hold to at least a little of both.

For example, I put a major emphasis on God's sovereignty, as do Calvinists. Yet, I'm not a Calvinist.

I think, from some of the things you've said, Spiritual Israelite, that if you did not have such an aversion to Calvinism, you would realize you're more ~ maybe far more ~ Calvinist than you even now know. <smile>

Does that fact alone make my view contradictory?

No. <smile>

Of course not. I just understand His sovereignty differently than Calvinists do in some ways (and agree in other ways). To me, man is required to choose whether or not to repent and believe because God sovereignly chose to make man responsible to do that.

Hmmm... I might state that slightly differently, but yes, man is required to do these things, sure. The way I would say it is, God's grace comes to us initially free, but certainly demands that we respond accordingly. But, I would then quickly say that because of the Holy Spirit's continuing work in us, we will respond accordingly. Philippians 2:13 again...

... unlike Calvinists, I do not see faith, which is something we are responsible to do, as scripture teaches (Acts 16:30-31, John 6:27-29), as being of the type of works that do not save us.

Uh... what? Faith is something we are responsible to do? Let's substitute in the Biblical definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1 and see if that makes any sense... <smile>:

"The assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, is something we are responsible to do."

When put that way, isn't the implication of that that we assure and convict ourselves? Which is to say that we work this in ourselves, which is to make faith out to be a work of man? No, God gives us this assurance, and the Spirit convicts us of these things, which I think ~ I think ~ you agree with. We are required to act on the faith we've been given, for sure ~ which, again, I think... I think... you agree with. So, maybe that's what you're trying to say...?

So I'm going to cut out a couple of phrases set off by commas in what you said above: So you said here, "I do not see faith as being the type of works that do not save us." I have a hard time making any sense of that comment. Are you saying that Calvinists do see faith as a work that saves us? If so, that's absolutely not true; any Calvinist worth his salt would say ~ as I have many times ~ that faith is not a work at all but the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8)... a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:9). By definition (Hebrews 11:1) it has to be; the assurance and conviction can only be given by God by His Spirit.

Calvinists think faith would be of that type of work that doesn't save if it was possible for someone to choose to repent and believe rather than being something that God has to give someone in order for them to believe.

Ugh. Sorry. No. I mean here's the thing, Spiritual Israelite. And I have said this many, many times, not only to you but also to others, in this and other threads: No one ~ denies that we choose, and choose freely, one way or the other. No Calvinist, not John Calvin himself... no one. But it's not really about our choosing or our will. At any given time, our will always depends on our heart... who we are at our core, the spirit in us. This is what always drives the will.

Now, that should be enough; if you can accept that, then it might still be hard, but that should start the dominoes falling, so to speak... but I'll continue... <smile>

The incontrovertible fact is that someone... anyone... will choose to repent and believe only if... taking this language from the prophet Ezekiel (11:19-20; 36:26-27) again... only if God first gives him or her a new heart, puts within him or her a new spirit, removes the heart of stone from his or her flesh and gives him or her a heart of flesh, puts His Spirit within him or her. This is what happens when one is born again of the Spirit. And faith, which, again, is God's assurance and conviction by the Spirit, is the vehicle through which this happens (Ephesians 2:8). In this way, we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:10. As a result of that, we are then a new creation, and yes, we choose to repent and believe, because of this newness of life.

Now, back to Acts 16 and John 6, which you cited above. In both cases, do you not see a desire in the... question askers... to be saved (Acts 16:30) and to do the works of God, to have the bread that saves (John 6)? They don't quite get it, obviously, kind of like Nicodemus didn't quite get what Jesus was saying about being born again in John 3). But I way they want to do these things because they have been given this new spirit by God; this is why they know they need these things, why they want to do these things... otherwise they would think it all foolishness,

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

You do realize as a believer in the doctrines of grace like this, the tares cannot turn into wheat. I don't believe such a thing either.

In the sense that God made some for noble use and others for common use, I do, too. Yes, He only chose some to be conformed to the image of His son before the foundation of the world (they are the wheat) and others He did not (they are the tares). It was that way from before the foundation of the world, and it will never change.

However, we are all by nature ~ from birth, even conception ~ children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). But some are born again of the Spirit... So in that sense, there are some "children of wrath" that, from the point of being born again of the Spirit, are no longer children of wrath but in Christ Jesus and children of the living God.

I'm... pretty sure we're all on the same page, here, Scott. At least I... hope so... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

...trying to justify why you can be rude back - ie name calling. It’s not a fruit of the spirit.

Yeah, so I said, "if you would start actually using your brain, that would be awesome"

And somehow that's equivalent to and deserving of being called "incredibly dishonest" (so a liar, Post 581), "holier than thou" (Post 583), "evil" (Post 585), "dummy" (Post 589)... (not an exhaustive list)...?

Hmmmm... <chuckles> I mean, it wasn't the nicest way to put it, admittedly, but actually, what I said was a compliment, really. I mean, to exhort someone to use his or her brain is to obviously have already made the implicit statement/acknowledgment that he or she has one and is capable of using it well, right? <chuckles>

Just having a little fun... <smile>

Grace and peace to you, claninja. Interesting moniker...

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No. <smile> But He did hate Esau, as He Himself stated. And Esau is representative there of a whole lot of people. So we have to come to grips with that somehow... <smile> Yes, God is love, as you say, but He is also capable of hate. So what does that say about love and hate and their... supposed... opposition to each other? <smile>

I don't have to come to grips with your misinterpretations of scripture. God didn't hate Esau's soul. That's just another false belief of Calvinism. Do you also think we are supposed to hate our family members?

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

The only reason there is a "five points of Calvinism" is that each one of Jacobus Arminius's five "objections," as they were called, were refuted from Calvin's far greater exposition of systematic theology. John Calvin's full body of work goes far, far beyond just those five points. But in answer to your question, the point is that Arminius's chief aim was to refute what Calvin said about those five things. So no, it's not possible that both belief systems contain some truth because they are diametrically opposed on those matters; this was Arminius's intent. To state it logically, 'A' and 'Not A' cannot both be true at the same time. And to you question about your self-contradictive statements, it's generally because you hold to at least a little of both.

Nope. You just don't understand what I believe, so you perceive imaginary contradictions in my statements.

I think, from some of the things you've said, Spiritual Israelite, that if you did not have such an aversion to Calvinism, you would realize you're more ~ maybe far more ~ Calvinist than you even now know. <smile>

LOL. You say silly things. Often.

Hmmm... I might state that slightly differently, but yes, man is required to do these things, sure. The way I would say it is, God's grace comes to us initially free, but certainly demands that we respond accordingly. But, I would then quickly say that because of the Holy Spirit's continuing work in us, we will respond accordingly. Philippians 2:13 again...

LOL. You always want to say things differently because you don't want to say what you really believe. Calvinists start to squirm violently whenever the implications of their beliefs are spelled out.

Uh... what? Faith is something we are responsible to do?

Uh...yeah. Are the following scriptures not in your Bible?

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

John 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” 28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Let's substitute in the Biblical definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1 and see if that makes any sense... <smile>:

Let's not substitute anything and just accept what scripture teaches.

"The assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, is something we are responsible to do."

Yes, it is. You make Jesus Himself, Paul and Silas all out to be liars by denying that. You clearly would not answer the question of what someone has to do to be saved the same as Jesus did or the way Paul and Silas did.

When put that way, isn't the implication of that that we assure and convict ourselves?

Hebrews 11:1 (NIV) Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Faith is our own confidence and assurance in what we hope for, but do not yet see which is "the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" at which point we will inherit eternal life that is promised to those who believe in Him.

Scripture teaches we are responsible to "hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory" and to "hold our original conviction firmly to the very end".

Hebrews 3:6 But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory....14 We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.

Calvinism tries to remove all responsibility from man and make it as if it's entirely God's choice as to who is saved or not, but that contradicts many scriptures.

Which is to say that we work this in ourselves, which is to make faith out to be a work of man?

LOL. The way Calvinism twists things is always very comical. Nowhere does scripture say that faith is the type of work that doesn't result in salvation. Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, but not by works that man could boast about. To make faith the type of work that man could boast about contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9.

You don't even know what faith is, apparently. Faith is the opposite of boasting. Faith involves putting our trust completely in Christ for our salvation and forgiveness of sins while acknowledging that we can do nothing to save ourselves. When defined that way, how can faith be the type of work that Paul said we could boast about?

No, God gives us this assurance, and the Spirit convicts us of these things, which I think ~ I think ~ you agree with.

We have to respond to the gospel that we hear and to the Spirit speaking to us with faith. We must choose to either accept or reject the truth that is shown to us.

We are required to act on the faith we've been given, for sure ~ which, again, I think... I think... you agree with. So, maybe that's what you're trying to say...?

No, I would not put it that way. After all the discussions we've had about this, you are not aware that I disagree with the notion of God giving us faith? God certainly initiates everything. The first thing He did was send His Son to die for our sins. Man didn't do that, obviously. Man didn't decide to do that. That was all God's work. What we are required to do is respond to what God has done and to the preaching of the gospel. We are made responsible to choose to either accept Christ's work on the cross and believe that He rose from the dead and that our only hope for salvation is in Him or to reject what He did for "the whole world" (1 John 2:1-2) while putting our trust in ourselves or other things instead.

So I'm going to cut out a couple of phrases set off by commas in what you said above: So you said here, "I do not see faith as being the type of works that do not save us." I have a hard time making any sense of that comment.

Of course you do because you're a Calvinist. You do not differentiate between faith that saves and works that don't like scripture does. We all agree that we are saved by grace. But, we are also saved by believing in Jesus which entails putting our trust in Him for salvation instead of ourselves. But, we are NOT saved by works of righteousness (Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:5) which would include things like feeding the hungry, providing shelter for the homeless, helping little old ladies cross the street and so on.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Are you saying that Calvinists do see faith as a work that saves us?

Yes, that is how Calvinists see it if faith comes from us, from our own decision to believe, rather than faith being given to us by God.

If so, that's absolutely not true; any Calvinist worth his salt would say ~ as I have many times ~ that faith is not a work at all but the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8)... a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:9). By definition (Hebrews 11:1) it has to be; the assurance and conviction can only be given by God by His Spirit.

LOL. Of course that wouldn't be true if faith was given to us, but it's not. We've been over this several times before, so it's quite funny that you didn't already know how I see this.

Ugh. Sorry. No. I mean here's the thing, Spiritual Israelite.

<eye roll>

Here we go...

And I have said this many, many times, not only to you but also to others, in this and other threads: No one ~ denies that we choose, and choose freely, one way or the other. No Calvinist, not John Calvin himself... no one.

LOL. Oh, really? It seems that you not only do not know what the word faith means, but you also do not know what the word "choose" means. If everyone chooses freely as you claim you believe, then do you believe that those who are in hell right now could have chosen differently? Could they have chosen to accept and believe instead of rejecting the gospel? A choice implies that there were at least two viable options to choose from.

In Calvinism, though, everyone has only one choice, which is the choice God made for them before the foundation of the world. In Calvinism, those who believe do so because God gave them faith. There is no chance that they could have chosen to not have faith because God chose for them to have faith. In the case of everyone else, according to Calvinism, the only choice they had was to not have faith since they could not choose to have faith without God giving them faith, which He chose not to give them.

But it's not really about our choosing or our will.

Yes, it is. God makes us responsible to choose whether to believe or not.

How would you answer a random person who asked you what he or she had to do to be saved?

At any given time, our will always depends on our heart... who we are at our core, the spirit in us. This is what always drives the will.

Now, that should be enough; if you can accept that, then it might still be hard, but that should start the dominoes falling, so to speak... but I'll continue... <smile>

LOL. I will never accept Calvinism. That should be clear by now.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The incontrovertible fact

<eye roll>

Here we go again...

is that someone... anyone... will choose to repent and believe only if... taking this language from the prophet Ezekiel (11:19-20; 36:26-27) again... only if God first gives him or her a new heart, puts within him or her a new spirit, removes the heart of stone from his or her flesh and gives him or her a heart of flesh, puts His Spirit within him or her.

Nope. That is not what those scriptures say. If that's what they said, then why does Ezekiel also say this...

Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

And this...

Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ 12 “Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous.’

If someone can only repent and believe if God gives them faith and causes them to believe, then why would God say that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and instead wants them to repent before they die? Why would He purposely make it so that they can't repent and believe unless He gives them faith and repentance when He wants all people to repent and believe (2 Peter 3:9, Acts 17:30-31)? Why would He purposely thwart His own desires? That makes no sense.

No, the truth is that we are regenerated after putting our faith in Christ and repenting of our sins (changing our minds about our sins). Do you agree that someone is regenerated when they receive the Holy Spirit? If so, tell me when the disciples believed and repented of their sins. Before or after this...

John 20:19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

The disciples obviously already believed and were repentant of their sins BEFORE they received the Holy Spirit. Calvinism tries to make it the other way around, but that is not what scripture teaches.

This is what happens when one is born again of the Spirit. And faith, which, again, is God's assurance and conviction by the Spirit, is the vehicle through which this happens (Ephesians 2:8). In this way, we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:10. As a result of that, we are then a new creation, and yes, we choose to repent and believe, because of this newness of life.

Good works don't save us, but are prepared for those who are saved by God's grace through the faith that we place in Jesus Christ for salvation and the forgiveness of our sins.

Now, back to Acts 16 and John 6, which you cited above. In both cases, do you not see a desire in the... question askers... to be saved (Acts 16:30) and to do the works of God, to have the bread that saves (John 6)?

Yeah. So? Lots of people desire to be saved who decide that they can be saved some other way than believing in Jesus Christ.

They don't quite get it, obviously, kind of like Nicodemus didn't quite get what Jesus was saying about being born again in John 3). But I way they want to do these things because they have been given this new spirit by God;

This is how Calvinists twist scripture. There is no indication whatsoever that they were given a new spirit by God before they ask how to be saved. After being told what they need to do to be saved, they then need to decide whether they will do that or not (believe in Jesus or not).

this is why they know they need these things, why they want to do these things... otherwise they would think it all foolishness,

Nope. You are obviously alluding to 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 here, but Calvinists fail to see that Paul was talking about the deep things of God (the solid food of His word) in that passage and not the simple gospel message.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yeah, so I said, "if you would start actually using your brain, that would be awesome"

And somehow that's equivalent to and deserving of being called "incredibly dishonest" (so a liar, Post 581), "holier than thou" (Post 583), "evil" (Post 585), "dummy" (Post 589)... (not an exhaustive list)...?

Yes, just go ahead and make an excuse for yourself that it's okay what you said as long as I said similar things more than you did. Nice logic there.

Hmmmm... <chuckles> I mean, it wasn't the nicest way to put it, admittedly, but actually, what I said was a compliment, really.

LOL! I'm going to say again that you are a liar, because you absolutely are. That is a flat out lie. That is not the way to give a compliment and you know it.

I mean, to exhort someone to use his or her brain is to obviously have already made the implicit statement/acknowledgment that he or she has one and is capable of using it well, right? <chuckles>

LOL. Wrong.

Just having a little fun... <smile>

Yes, you are just making light of your own rude remarks while acting as if it's only wrong if I say those types of things. You have called my comments "dumb" and "stupid" several times before as well, so you can stop acting innocent any time now. If you would like to agree for both of us to stop saying things like that, I'm fine with that. But, I figured you must not mind my saying things like that since you do so as well.