I do not believe that a Christian can lose his relationship with Christ. (1Robin vs. KylixGuru)

1robin · Sep 26, 2012

kylixguru said:
We see it differently.

That can be likely in some verses. In this one there is no verse, sentence, or word that can possibly justify your position. If you can't admit a white wall is white what point is there in discussing grey walls?

You and I have a different view of salvation.

Mine is Biblical.

You are simply side-stepping my point.
When a gift is given to someone, they can care for it and use it properly or they can neglect it and ruin it.
Such is the grace of God.
Using it properly as God intended shall result in good results.
Using it improperly shall result in bad results.

When an false equality is pointed out that is not a side step it is the truth. How in any way do the dynamics that apply to toasters apply to salvation.
New Living Translation (©2007)
And through your faith, God is protecting you by his power until you receive this salvation, which is ready to be revealed on the last day for all to see
1 Peter 1:5 who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
Salvation is kept in heaven where it can't be corrupted. Toasters are not. Salvation is non material and is kept by the power of God. Toasters are material and not even kept from us.

You are twisting my words.
His death was necessary so that the put away bride Israel could become eligible to be remarried to Jehovah in a New Covenant.
Christianity isn't itself the New Covenant.

Is that why the new covenant (testament) began with Christianity. THe body of Christ is the Church. The Church is the actual bride of Christ. We belong to that body/church/groom the day we are saved.

It was the good news that Jehovah came and condescended and made Himself subject to death so that His bride was released from the law of her husband. This is just basic marriage law.
Christianity is the "good news" pointing forward to the time when Israel as the cleansed and redeemed Bride of Jehovah would be re-married to Him.
When that actual marriage takes place, that is when Israel shall be saved.

This is too narrow but as it does not help your position any way I will comment.

Jehovah sacrificed Himself to death so that He could lawfully receive Israel as a bride again.

Is that why he died to save all the lost?

We still have the process of going through the cleansing and purging of the Bride before she is made pure, clean and white and is worthy of remarriage to Jehovah. If you do not have upon you the wedding garment, you will be tossed out. If you are not wise and if you do not keep oil in your lamps, you won't make it.

Lamps and cloth having nothing to do with it. They are symbolic. The Robe is symbolic of the new perfect Body and mind that we will recieve when we are ressurected. These are said to be incorruptable. Our old filthy rags and sinfull nature is destroyed before we enter heaven.
New International Version (©1984)
I answered, "Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
1 Peter 1:5 who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
Isaiah 64:6
New International Version (NIV)

6All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

Isaiah 64:6 NIV - All of us have become like one who is - Bible Gateway
These among many others say we are ALL unrighteous and unclean but are made clean by the blood of Jesus when we enter heaven. Not made clean by effort or merit but by him. There is another verse where a prophet gets to Heaven still in his filthy rags and is then and only then given his white ones.

We need His help so that we can do those things that enables the Father's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. If we are not faithful, we forfeit our blessings and instead the warnings Jesus said shall be binding.

That could be done without the need for the death of Christ. His death is only necessary in my position. He came and suffered my penalty for me. He did not come and die to encourage me to do better. That makes no sence. He died in my place so I will not have to. That is gained by Grace through faith and kept in heaven as in the past tense applied at that moment many times in the bible. If I have it applied to my life and then at some point still die then you once again make God a liar. It never ceases to amaze me how a position can by so preffered that nothing no matter how simple, complex, or proven many times has any effect on it. It is simply amazing.

kylixguru · Sep 26, 2012

1robin said:
That can be likely in some verses. In this one there is no verse, sentence, or word that can possibly justify your position. If you can't admit a white wall is white what point is there in discussing grey walls?

My assessment of things is your manner of understanding does not make a consistent and natural fit. Your argument is unconvincing. Also, when you talk about what I'm trying to convey, you seem to not understand me. You keep coming back with notions that are not consistent with my views. I have complained many times that you are twisting things, but you don't ever seem very concerned about it. I'm getting the feeling that trying to discuss things with you is futile.

1robin said:
Mine is Biblical.

The difference is you have more reliance upon the orthodoxy and mine is from a perspective of washing away all the precepts of men and asking the Holy Spirit to give me the understanding that God wants us to have.

I have also had visions and angelic ministration since that time, including face to face conversations with the Son of Man. This doesn't make me a know it all, but it did provide me with the clarity I sought in certain matters. A proper understanding of the Father and His Kingdom was my greatest desire and I have sought diligently for such.

1robin said:
When an false equality is pointed out that is not a side step it is the truth. How in any way do the dynamics that apply to toasters apply to salvation.
New Living Translation (©2007)
And through your faith, God is protecting you by his power until you receive this salvation, which is ready to be revealed on the last day for all to see
1 Peter 1:5 who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
Salvation is kept in heaven where it can't be corrupted. Toasters are not. Salvation is non material and is kept by the power of God. Toasters are material and not even kept from us.

A false equity?
I'm simply addressing the concept of a gift.

1robin said:
Is that why the new covenant (testament) began with Christianity. The body of Christ is the Church. The Church is the actual bride of Christ. We belong to that body/church/groom the day we are saved.

You enter the straight and narrow way which leads to Eternal Life when you are baptized, which represents when you are born again.
It is still up to you to take those steps in faith that will get you there.
You still have to undergo the process of growth and development from a seed to maturity to bear the proper fruit the Father is looking for.
The grace of God is that everything necessary was accomplished so that path is open to you if it is something you truly desire. God won't force it upon anyone, even those who profess to believe in Him.

1robin said:
Is that why he died to save all the lost?

This is one of the essential aspects of law that Jesus fulfilled so that Israel could be eligible for redeemption. There are actually two levels of this that needed to be carried out. Jesus took care of the physical aspect, but the Holy Ghost has yet to carry out the spiritual aspect. However, this probably won't be something you will recognize since we are from such diverse backgrounds and experience. In a nutshell, Jesus didn't die spiritually. That part is left for the individual who performs the role of the 3rd personage of the Trinity. This person dies both physically and spiritually and like Jesus is redeemed from both physical and spiritual death. This is the mission of the Holy Ghost. This is the advent of Christ when Christ falls into transgression and is put to death both physically and spiritually. The redeemer of this individual is Jesus. This individual is the new Adam who comes to lay the foundation of the new Creation in the latter days of the previous Creation. He transgresses and falls and becomes the Holy Ghost. Even though he has become disembodied, he can still minister to those undergoing the time of trouble that results from his fall.

1robin said:
Lamps and cloth having nothing to do with it. They are symbolic. The Robe is symbolic of the new perfect Body and mind that we will recieve when we are ressurected. These are said to be incorruptable. Our old filthy rags and sinfull nature is destroyed before we enter heaven.

Destroyed by what process?
One that you are a conscious co-creator of?
Or, one that is miraculous that just imposes a new nature upon you?

1robin said:
New International Version (©1984)
I answered, "Sir, you know." And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
1 Peter 1:5 who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.
Isaiah 64:6
New International Version (NIV)

6All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

I don't much care for the NIV. There are very critical truths that it blurs out when compared with the original text.
But, even still, it said "through faith" and not "through grace alone".
That verse perfectly supports my perspective. He is referring to the future coming forth of the Father (Adam) and His Kingdom. But, we know that He transgresses and needs to be redeemed. The Father, like the Son, must undergo a sacrifice just as Jesus did, only in the case of the Father it is both physical and spiritual death. The name Adam actually means:
A = aleph = The head One.
D = daleph = Death
M = Ordained unto with implication of a double portion

Adam means: God the Father ordained unto death's double portion.

1robin said:
Isaiah 64:6 NIV - All of us have become like one who is - Bible Gateway
These among many others say we are ALL unrighteous and unclean but are made clean by the blood of Jesus when we enter heaven. Not made clean by effort or merit but by him. There is another verse where a prophet gets to Heaven still in his filthy rags and is then and only then given his white ones.

That could be done without the need for the death of Christ. His death is only necessary in my position. He came and suffered my penalty for me. He did not come and die to encourage me to do better. That makes no sence. He died in my place so I will not have to. That is gained by Grace through faith and kept in heaven as in the past tense applied at that moment many times in the bible. If I have it applied to my life and then at some point still die then you once again make God a liar. It never ceases to amaze me how a position can by so preffered that nothing no matter how simple, complex, or proven many times has any effect on it. It is simply amazing.

You do have some pretty stiff competition.

1robin · Sep 26, 2012

kylixguru said:
My assessment of things is your manner of understanding does not make a consistent and natural fit. Your argument is unconvincing. Also, when you talk about what I'm trying to convey, you seem to not understand me. You keep coming back with notions that are not consistent with my views. I have complained many times that you are twisting things, but you don't ever seem very concerned about it. I'm getting the feeling that trying to discuss things with you is futile.

Mine are perfectly consistent with that parable. Yours are not consistent with it. You can not show a single verse in it that argues against my point and you can't show a single verse that proves yours. The only claims in that very short very simple parable say wheat stays wheat.

The difference is you have more reliance upon the orthodoxy and mine is from a perspective of washing away all the precepts of men and asking the Holy Spirit to give me the understanding that God wants us to have.

Orthodoxy does't make a verse that says wheat stays wheat into one that says it can become a tare. That is the simple reading of very plain verse.

I have also had visions and angelic ministration since that time, including face to face conversations with the Son of Man. This doesn't make me a know it all, but it did provide me with the clarity I sought in certain matters. A proper understanding of the Father and His Kingdom was my greatest desire and I have sought diligently for such.

The mere assertion of that type of claim, expecially in the face of what is very easily shown to be inaccurate theology has no traction. I am very skeptical of people who claim these hyperbolic events. Without any type of proof, they do your case no good and in my eyes make them suspicious. However I do not claim to know for a fact what your experiences are. I have seen you also defend Islam or a Muslim anyway and that makes your claims suspect as well. The Quran says Christ did not Die, the Bible says he did. Both can't possibly be true so one is lieing and the other unGodly.

A false equity?
I'm simply addressing the concept of a gift.

Any lessons drawn from a certain type of gift that are then applied to a completely different type of Gift are meaningless. Things must be equivalent in order for them to have mutual dynamics and therefore lessons. Things true of a toaster are not true as they apply to the salvation of the soul that is kept in heaven by God. There is no value in the comparison.

You enter the straight and narrow way which leads to Eternal Life when you are baptized, which represents when you are born again.
It is still up to you to take those steps in faith that will get you there.
You still have to undergo the process of growth and development from a seed to maturity to bear the proper fruit the Father is looking for.
The grace of God is that everything necessary was accomplished so that path is open to you if it is something you truly desire. God won't force it upon anyone, even those who profess to believe in Him.

So I can enter through the correct gate without doing anything to deserve it but if I screw up exactly how many times and in what way is still a mystery that refuses an answer I am catapulted out of the pasture I guess. Now since Christ can't be crucified again I guess I am as well as every single human who ever lived and that sinned which is every one, now has no gate. If I was not kicked out and that pasture does not contain people who go to heaven then why enter at all.

This is one of the essential aspects of law that Jesus fulfilled so that Israel could be eligible for redeemption. There are actually two levels of this that needed to be carried out. Jesus took care of the physical aspect, but the Holy Ghost has yet to carry out the spiritual aspect. However, this probably won't be something you will recognize since we are from such diverse backgrounds and experience. In a nutshell, Jesus didn't die spiritually. That part is left for the individual who performs the role of the 3rd personage of the Trinity.

This just gets more fantastic every time. Jesus said he died for us so we will not have to. That meant thats either spiritual death or Physical death. We still die physically and so therefore that narrows it down doesn't it. Spiritual death is Hell and seperation from God. The Bible teaches he went to Hell (spiritual death) and took away the keys.

This person dies both physically and spiritually and like Jesus is redeemed from both physical and spiritual death. This is the mission of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost is no where in the Bible even suggested to die. You may not be at the edge of any known religios interpretation but you can see it from there.

This is the advent of Christ when Christ falls into transgression and is put to death both physically and spiritually.

Ok, now you are off the reservation completely. Christ dies once and that isn't good enough and so you invent a story where he sins and falls into transgression with himself. Wow.

The redeemer of this individual is Jesus.

Now here Jesus comes to save Jesus.

That's it. You are polite and respectfull and an intelligent person but your theology is not even remotely born out by the Bible I read. I suspected this kind departure from any reasonable interpretation was on it's way at some point. I just can't justify continueing to try and rescue what is so horribly shipwrecked when resisted at every effort. However I wish you well and God Bless, I am sure we will talk again soon but hopefully on something else.

kylixguru · Sep 26, 2012

1robin said:
Mine are perfectly consistent with that parable. Yours are not consistent with it. You can not show a single verse in it that argues against my point and you can't show a single verse that proves yours. The only claims in that very short very simple parable say wheat stays wheat.

Not once did I say wheat seed produces tares. I clearly explained this but you have summarily dismissed my understanding and you continue to hold to your contortions.
This is causing you to be blind to what I am actually attempting to contribute.

1robin said:
Orthodoxy does't make a verse that says wheat stays wheat into one that says it can become a tare. That is the simple reading of very plain verse.

Again, you are imposing a contortion upon what I said.
I already addressed this aspect so rather than ignore what I said how about you address it?

1robin said:
The mere assertion of that type of claim, expecially in the face of what is very easily shown to be inaccurate theology has no traction. I am very skeptical of people who claim these hyperbolic events. Without any type of proof, they do your case no good and in my eyes make them suspicious. However I do not claim to know for a fact what your experiences are. I have seen you also defend Islam or a Muslim anyway and that makes your claims suspect as well. The Quran says Christ did not Die, the Bible says he did. Both can't possibly be true so one is lieing and the other unGodly.

There is much misunderstanding on both sides. I only defend truth, regardless of where it is found.
One major reason why Islam because such a powerful religion is because it gathered up a number of disenfranchized Christians who "lost" the debates when many of the creeds were formed and then imposed by edict. When you carefully examine the history of these allegedly heretic factions of Christianity, you will find that the apparent contradictions are not so black and white as you think.

1robin said:
Any lessons drawn from a certain type of gift that are then applied to a completely different type of Gift are meaningless. Things must be equivalent in order for them to have mutual dynamics and therefore lessons. Things true of a toaster are not true as they apply to the salvation of the soul that is kept in heaven by God. There is no value in the comparison.

It was a very simple example to help you grasp what I was trying to communicate.
Evidently you are not very interested in acknowledging the point I was trying to make.

1robin said:
So I can enter through the correct gate without doing anything to deserve it but if I screw up exactly how many times and in what way is still a mystery that refuses an answer I am catapulted out of the pasture I guess.

It is a betrothal. The promise is there, but you are yet in the process of being readied for the marriage. If you wish to actually participate in the new covenant, then you need to keep faithfully participating in the preparations and purifications that will have you to be what God is looking for. He isn't going to force anyone and he is not looking to have a wife who just wants a sugar daddy. God wishes to have a genuine relationship with His Bride. The Gospel is all about giving the promise (betrothal) and assisting in the process to the completion (marriage).

1robin said:
Now since Christ can't be crucified again I guess I am as well as every single human who ever lived and that sinned which is every one, now has no gate. If I was not kicked out and that pasture does not contain people who go to heaven then why enter at all.

Jesus was only one advent of Christ.
There are three personages of God, which means there are three advents of Christ. But, this is not even considered by orthodox Christians so you will probably reject consideration of that right off.

kylixguru · Sep 26, 2012

1robin said:
Mine are perfectly consistent with that parable. Yours are not consistent with it. You can not show a single verse in it that argues against my point and you can't show a single verse that proves yours. The only claims in that very short very simple parable say wheat stays wheat.

There are other claims in there and I was not in contradiction with that aspect of it anyway.

1robin said:
Orthodoxy does't make a verse that says wheat stays wheat into one that says it can become a tare. That is the simple reading of very plain verse.

You totally missed where that was addressed by me. For the last time, I didn't say wheat becomes anything but wheat.
Wha I said was if we can destroy the old and plant anew in order to become wheat then the possibility exists that we could become mistaken and destroy the wheat and foster the tares.

1robin said:
The mere assertion of that type of claim, expecially in the face of what is very easily shown to be inaccurate theology has no traction. I am very skeptical of people who claim these hyperbolic events. Without any type of proof, they do your case no good and in my eyes make them suspicious. However I do not claim to know for a fact what your experiences are. I have seen you also defend Islam or a Muslim anyway and that makes your claims suspect as well. The Quran says Christ did not Die, the Bible says he did. Both can't possibly be true so one is lieing and the other unGodly.

You are assuming you understand them both correctly. Not a good idea.

1robin said:
Any lessons drawn from a certain type of gift that are then applied to a completely different type of Gift are meaningless. Things must be equivalent in order for them to have mutual dynamics and therefore lessons. Things true of a toaster are not true as they apply to the salvation of the soul that is kept in heaven by God. There is no value in the comparison.

You are being impossible.

1robin said:
So I can enter through the correct gate without doing anything to deserve it but if I screw up exactly how many times and in what way is still a mystery that refuses an answer I am catapulted out of the pasture I guess. Now since Christ can't be crucified again I guess I am as well as every single human who ever lived and that sinned which is every one, now has no gate. If I was not kicked out and that pasture does not contain people who go to heaven then why enter at all.

Sigh.
If you understood the nature of the covenant you would know that it works like a marriage. The husband takes coviture of all that the wife does, so long as she has proper respect and deference to him. He bears the price of her sins as she does her best to be a faithful and devoted wife. If the wife starts taking her husband for granted and starts undermining him and wants to push her own agenda then there is a fundamental issue that will need to be resolved. We already saw how that worked with Jehovah and Israel in the first covenant. Jehovah was very patient and willing to forgive and forgive but the time eventually came when she was cast out and stoned. Being in a covenant with God requires you to have fidelity to Him. It always has and it always will. If it didn't there wouldn't be union and there wouldn't be any at-one-ment.

1robin said:
This just gets more fantastic every time. Jesus said he died for us so we will not have to. That meant thats either spiritual death or Physical death. We still die physically and so therefore that narrows it down doesn't it. Spiritual death is Hell and seperation from God. The Bible teaches he went to Hell (spiritual death) and took away the keys.

The Bible teaches that Christ does that. There are 3 personages in the Trinity who each have distinct roles that they all can be duly credited for.

1robin said:
The Holy Ghost is no where in the Bible even suggested to die.

Please tell me what a ghost is.

Here is the primary definition:

Ghost | Define Ghost at Dictionary.com
the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit
imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.

1robin said:
You may not be at the edge of any known religios interpretation but you can see it from there.

Ok, now you are off the reservation completely. Christ dies once and that isn't good enough and so you invent a story where he sins and falls into transgression with himself. Wow.

Now here Jesus comes to save Jesus.

No, Jesus as Son of Man redeems His Father Adam from His fall in order to restore Him to the throne of His Kingdom. The process by which this happens is Adam (as the Holy Ghost) and Son of Man (as the Son) enter into union. Together they manifest as the advent of the Father, holding the keys of death from Jesus and the keys of hell from Adam. In this way, Jesus shall ascend to sit upon the throne of the Father. Jesus becomes one with the Father. This is biblical, though its something the orthodox refuses to consider. The reason is because they don't know much about the Father and they don't listen very carefully to what Jesus says about the Father and pay no mind to how it is that Jesus obtains the throne of the Father.

1robin said:
That's it. You are polite and respectfull and an intelligent person but your theology is not even remotely born out by the Bible I read. I suspected this kind departure from any reasonable interpretation was on it's way at some point. I just can't justify continueing to try and rescue what is so horribly shipwrecked when resisted at every effort. However I wish you well and God Bless, I am sure we will talk again soon but hopefully on something else.

So you are saying you are done here.
As you wish. I will have no further participation here.

1robin · Sep 27, 2012

kylixguru said:
There are other claims in there and I was not in contradiction with that aspect of it anyway.

Find anything in there that says a Christian can be wheat and then not be.

You totally missed where that was addressed by me. For the last time, I didn't say wheat becomes anything but wheat.
Wha I said was if we can destroy the old and plant anew in order to become wheat then the possibility exists that we could become mistaken and destroy the wheat and foster the tares.

What? We are not planting the seeds. God and Satan are. We are the tares and wheat and have no power to uproot or foster anything. Stick to the verses.

You are assuming you understand them both correctly. Not a good idea.

I am assuming that people that say they have spoken face to face are in most cases making it up as the actual event is extremely rare. Either way it doesn't help your case because I can not verify your claim.

You are being impossible.

Applying dynamics that involve toasters to salvation is impossible.

Sigh.
If you understood the nature of the covenant you would know that it works like a marriage. The husband takes coviture of all that the wife does, so long as she has proper respect and deference to him. He bears the price of her sins as she does her best to be a faithful and devoted wife. If the wife starts taking her husband for granted and starts undermining him and wants to push her own agenda then there is a fundamental issue that will need to be resolved. We already saw how that worked with Jehovah and Israel in the first covenant. Jehovah was very patient and willing to forgive and forgive but the time eventually came when she was cast out and stoned. Being in a covenant with God requires you to have fidelity to Him. It always has and it always will. If it didn't there wouldn't be union and there wouldn't be any at-one-ment.

The husband in this case said he would never leave nor forsake the wife. That is not the case in human marriage. God meant marriage to be permanent. His marriages are permanent our are not. That is why God hates divorce and only allows it because we are stupid. Salvation is kept in heaven and God maintains it by his power not our. Please quit assuming parallels of unequal things that do not exist.
The Bible teaches that Christ does that. There are 3 personages in the Trinity who each have distinct roles that they all can be duly credited for.

Please tell me what a ghost is.

Ghost is an English word that means in Greek: pneuma
And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost , and prophesied saying
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
It is used over twenty times in the Bible.

Here is the primary definition:

Ghost | Define Ghost at Dictionary.com
the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit
imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.

Here is the Biblical definition which is a little more relevant.
1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the "Holy" Spirit)
b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of "Truth")
c) never referred to as a depersonalised force
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

No, Jesus as Son of Man redeems His Father Adam from His fall in order to restore Him to the throne of His Kingdom. The process by which this happens is Adam (as the Holy Ghost)

You ask me what Ghost is and then use it in the next statement. Adam is not in any way shape or form the Holy Ghost (spirit)

and Son of Man (as the Son) enter into union. Together they manifest as the advent of the Father, holding the keys of death from Jesus and the keys of hell from Adam. In this way, Jesus shall ascend to sit upon the throne of the Father. Jesus becomes one with the Father. This is biblical, though its something the orthodox refuses to consider. The reason is because they don't know much about the Father and they don't listen very carefully to what Jesus says about the Father and pay no mind to how it is that Jesus obtains the throne of the Father.

This stuff is why I punted on this discussion. Where do you get this from? It isn't in the Bible. It sounds like modern gnosticism that is trying to gain legitamacy by sounding Biblical.

kylixguru · Sep 27, 2012

1robin said:
Find anything in there that says a Christian can be wheat and then not be.

Because the wheat growing can have the seeds plucked away by birds, the tender growth of the wheat can not find good soil and die due to the heat and the elements, the wheat can become caught up in the cares of the world and fail to produce the kernels that qualify it to be garnered into the Father's Kingdom. Surely you accept that in order for the seed to grow sufficient to produce fruit that it must undergo this process of growth. You are who has an interpretation that says it isn't wheat until the kernel is produced. You have yet to explain in a natural way how that process works.

1robin said:
What? We are not planting the seeds. God and Satan are. We are the tares and wheat and have no power to uproot or foster anything. Stick to the verses.

Yes, I agree that we are merely in the position of being the recipient of the seeds. My point is that it is we who determine which seeds to give cover to and to nourish by the process of tending them with our belief.

1robin said:
I am assuming that people that say they have spoken face to face are in most cases making it up as the actual event is extremely rare. Either way it doesn't help your case because I can not verify your claim.

You are welcome to doubt this if that is your wish.

1robin said:
Applying dynamics that involve toasters to salvation is impossible.

Whatever. My point was simple. You can be given something as a gift and then neglect it. Having the promise of salvation (betrothal) and being bidden to enter into the new covenant (marriage) is a wonderful experience, but you still must actually complete the process.

This is why Christians are taught things like the parable of the 10 virgins.
This is why some spoke of having their calling and election made sure, as opposed to otherwise.
Christianity itself was created to enunciate in and prepare people for the coming of the Father's Kingdom.
What good is your betrothal if when the wedding comes you are not there?

1robin said:
The husband in this case said he would never leave nor forsake the wife.

But, the husband must also not forsake the law.
In order to get his wife back he has to satisfy the law.
Therefore, Jehovah came and tabernacled in Jesus and died.
This act released the bride from the law of the husband.
Therefore, Jehovah can return and receive Israel into a new Covenant.
Christianity is at the state of being the betrothed bride holding the promise.

1robin said:
That is not the case in human marriage. God meant marriage to be permanent. His marriages are permanent our are not. That is why God hates divorce and only allows it because we are stupid. Salvation is kept in heaven and God maintains it by his power not our. Please quit assuming parallels of unequal things that do not exist.

I am not assuming parallels.
Jesus himself said that he came to FULFILL the law, not do away with it.

1robin said:
The Bible teaches that Christ does that. There are 3 personages in the Trinity who each have distinct roles that they all can be duly credited for.

Ghost is an English word that means in Greek: pneuma
And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost , and prophesied saying
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
It is used over twenty times in the Bible.

Here is the Biblical definition which is a little more relevant.
1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the "Holy" Spirit)
b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of "Truth")
c) never referred to as a depersonalised force
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Nothing in the above definition contradicts with the understanding I offered.
I didn't say He was depersonalized.
I said He was disembodied.
If you are just going to call the Holy Ghost a general nebulous Holy Spirit, like the Spirit of Love or the Spirit of Truth then you are going to overlook that this disembodied personage was an actual person at some point, just like Jesus is an actual person. Each member of the Trinity is a personage, therefore you should look to see where in holy writ the other two personages are defined.

God's Word is self-sufficient if you let it be. It can totally unveil the identity of both the Holy Ghost and the Father in a real and personal way.

1robin said:
You ask me what Ghost is and then use it in the next statement. Adam is not in any way shape or form the Holy Ghost (spirit)

Adam was our God ordained King over a Kingdom that was given dominion over the entire Creation.
Adam was in the exact likeness and image of God.
He became a transgressor and died physically and spiritually as a result of that.
In this state of physical and spiritual disembodiment, Holy Ghost seems an apt title.

Add: Please see additional post below.

1robin said:
This stuff is why I punted on this discussion.
Where do you get this from?
It isn't in the Bible.
It sounds like modern gnosticism that is trying to gain legitimacy by sounding Biblical.

It is in the Bible.

You are rejecting it because it doesn't mesh with the precepts of men and the traditions of the fathers.

As you wish.

kylixguru · Sep 27, 2012

You can see that I share Paul's understanding about who the Holy Ghost and the Father are.

He made it pretty obvious when he said:

And so it is written,
The first man Adam was made a living soul;
the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
(1 Cor. 15:45)

Adam in the beginning is the Father.
Adam in the ending is the Holy Ghost.
Adam is the Alpha and the Omega.

Adam comes in the latter days and is given a garden paradise and dominion over all Creation.
Adam transgresses and falls and becomes a king who needs a redeemer. He becomes a Holy Ghost.
Adam is redeemed from His state of disembodiment by way of entering into union with Son of Man.
Adam becomes again a living soul in an embodied state to dwell again among men ruling over the righteous in His Kingdom.
Upon Adam's redemption and the Kingdom obtaining the victory, Adam commences to give birth to a new Creation.
He performs this great work throughout his nearly 1,000 year lifespan, which takes place during the Millennium.
The Millennium is the Lord's Day, the Sabbath Day, our Judgment Day, etc.
When Adam gives all the "creatures" their "new names" He is organizing them into the next cycle of Creation.
He is fore-ordaining all of the people who lived in the prior cycle to their station in the next cycle.
The Father, the union of the Son and the Holy Ghost, rules and reigns during the Millennium.

Add: This means that Jesus and some other personage who transgressed and fell shall manifest through a 3rd personage that is redeemed and enthroned in victory.

Add: This is what Isaiah was speaking of in chapter 44 verse 6:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, [Michael the king in the latter days]
and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; [Jehovah as Son of Man in the latter days]
I am the first, and I am the last; [The Alpha and the Omega, Adam-Christ]
and beside me there is no God. [Eloheim, king redeemed in victory, union of Jehovah and Michael]

1robin · Sep 27, 2012

kylixguru said:
Because the wheat growing can have the seeds plucked away by birds, the tender growth of the wheat can not find good soil and die due to the heat and the elements, the wheat can become caught up in the cares of the world and fail to produce the kernels that qualify it to be garnered into the Father's Kingdom. Surely you accept that in order for the seed to grow sufficient to produce fruit that it must undergo this process of growth. You are who has an interpretation that says it isn't wheat until the kernel is produced. You have yet to explain in a natural way how that process works.

Please pay close attention to this: A parable is never perfectly a match for what it is compared to. It is only adaquite to deal what what it's purpose is. That is why they confused everyone including you appparently. I can read into parables things I can get from it's actual parallel in reality that it does not say to prove anything I wish. For example I could say this parable proves predestination. Some are born as wheat at birth to be saved, and some at birth to be tares. That is not what this parable is talking about. You are inventing all kinds of lessons drawn from any reality you find similar to the parable. The parable does not say anything about birds or what is necessary to grow. When you start using words that are not in the verses and outside the context of the purpose of the parable you are in the realm of dangerous opinion.

Yes, I agree that we are merely in the position of being the recipient of the seeds. My point is that it is we who determine which seeds to give cover to and to nourish by the process of tending them with our belief.

You are welcome to doubt this if that is your wish.

See above. Wheat remains wheat. It does not change into tares based on cover but seed.

Whatever. My point was simple. You can be given something as a gift and then neglect it. Having the promise of salvation (betrothal) and being bidden to enter into the new covenant (marriage) is a wonderful experience, but you still must actually complete the process.

That is not true of a gift that is maintained by an omnipotent. being. If God maintained the integrety of my toaster in heaven as he does salvation no force in the universe could damage my toaster.

This is why Christians are taught things like the parable of the 10 virgins.
This is why some spoke of having their calling and election made sure, as opposed to otherwise.
Christianity itself was created to enunciate in and prepare people for the coming of the Father's Kingdom.
What good is your betrothal if when the wedding comes you are not there?

You are assuming and speculating again. If you can't concede this first obvious parable why would I move to another?

But, the husband must also not forsake the law.
In order to get his wife back he has to satisfy the law.
Therefore, Jehovah came and tabernacled in Jesus and died.
This act released the bride from the law of the husband.
Therefore, Jehovah can return and receive Israel into a new Covenant.
Christianity is at the state of being the betrothed bride holding the promise.

The covenant of Grace already exists. It is by grace not merit we get to heaven. Jesus obeyed the law perfectly. His obedience is credited to my account when I believe not when I perfectly obey it. Why once that happened is it uncredited when I do not obey. It is unsustainable. I did not get it through obedience but you say I can lose it through dissobedience.

I am not assuming parallels.
Jesus himself said that he came to FULFILL the law, not do away with it.

See above. You nor any other person who ever lived will ever come close to fullfilling the law. It is hopeless.

Nothing in the above definition contradicts with the understanding I offered.
I didn't say He was depersonalized.
I said He was disembodied.
If you are just going to call the Holy Ghost a general nebulous Holy Spirit, like the Spirit of Love or the Spirit of Truth then you are going to overlook that this disembodied personage was an actual person at some point, just like Jesus is an actual person. Each member of the Trinity is a personage, therefore you should look to see where in holy writ the other two personages are defined.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The Holy Ghost and the Holy spirit are the same thing.

God's Word is self-sufficient if you let it be. It can totally unveil the identity of both the Holy Ghost and the Father in a real and personal way.

I wish you would let it be. 90% of what you say is contained in the verses and parables you link it to. There are no birds or growth in that parable yet you invented them.

Adam was our God ordained King over a Kingdom that was given dominion over the entire Creation.
Adam was in the exact likeness and image of God.
He became a transgressor and died physically and spiritually as a result of that.
In this state of physical and spiritual disembodiment, Holy Ghost seems an apt title.

Adam was a man who sinned and could not create anything. God did not sin and created everything. There is not exact to it.

Add: Please see additional post below.

It is in the Bible.

You are rejecting it because it doesn't mesh with the precepts of men and the traditions of the fathers.

As you wish.

I didn't get my theology from men. I reject yours because it is non Biblical and you make up stuff that isn't in the Bible or confuse what is, to justify it. I do not need to draw strange parallels and add words to verses.

kylixguru · Sep 27, 2012

1robin said:
Please pay close attention to this: A parable is never perfectly a match for what it is compared to. It is only adequate to deal what what it's purpose is.

I understand that. I'm saying my manner of reading it is more natural and complete than yours.
You keep twisting what I say to make it seem unworkable when it is only your obstinate mind that refuses to properly consider how I read it.

1robin said:
That is why they confused everyone including you apparently.

So far I understand what you have tried to say about that parable quite well.
The only one confused here seems to be you because you keep making what is clear to me into something I am not saying.

1robin said:
I can read into parables things I can get from it's actual parallel in reality that it does not say to prove anything I wish. For example I could say this parable proves predestination. Some are born as wheat at birth to be saved, and some at birth to be tares. That is not what this parable is talking about.

I agree that isn't what this parable is talking about.
I have already stated that I oppose this position.
This is why I say that we must tend the good seed properly.
We must tend it because predestination is not the way it works.

You are denying that the wheat starts as a seed within us.
You are denying that this seed can be snatched away by the birds.
You are denying that this seed can fail to take root properly.
You are denying that this seed can be neglected and fail to produce fruit.

You are claiming being a Christian automatically jumps you to bearing fruit.
I am saying being a Christian who is "born again" must continue to grow and develop.

1robin said:
You are inventing all kinds of lessons drawn from any reality you find similar to the parable. The parable does not say anything about birds or what is necessary to grow. When you start using words that are not in the verses and outside the context of the purpose of the parable you are in the realm of dangerous opinion.

There are two parables we have been using.

Matthew 13:4
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

Mark 4:4
4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.

I am not making it up. I am simply rendering a plain reading that conveys a natural process with appropriate parallels.

1robin said:
See above. Wheat remains wheat. It does not change into tares based on cover but seed.

Why are you being so obstinate?
I am not saying wheat changes into tares.
Would you please put in some effort to sincerely understand me instead of pounding me repeatedly as if I am saying something I am not saying?

1robin said:
That is not true of a gift that is maintained by an omnipotent being. If God maintained the integrity of my toaster in heaven as he does salvation no force in the universe could damage my toaster.

1robin said:
You are assuming and speculating again. If you can't concede this first obvious parable why would I move to another?

If you cannot actually sincerely participate in this dialog over a simple parable with some integrity of mind, there probably isn't any point in continuing further.

1robin said:
The covenant of Grace already exists. It is by grace not merit we get to heaven.

If it weren't for grace there would be no way at all that anyone could enter the Father's Kingdom.
It yet remains up to us whether we prepare to have fidelity to the terms of the new Covenant and that we accept them.
The terms of the new Covenant will be given by the Father when He comes to establish His Kingdom in victory.
You will either have been a wise virgin and prepared yourself and have oil in your lamp to know where to go and when, or the Bridegroom will come and the doors shall close before you are able to enter in.

1robin said:
Jesus obeyed the law perfectly. His obedience is credited to my account when I believe not when I perfectly obey it. Why once that happened is it uncredited when I do not obey. It is unsustainable. I did not get it through obedience but you say I can lose it through disobedience.

Jesus didn't come to save you in your sins.
Jesus came to save you from sin altogether.
Faith and repentance are essential parts of the Gospel.
If you think the gift of salvation (the promise) is simply to wipe away guilt alone, and you have the notion that you can just go on sinning, then you are crucifying Jesus afresh. I can think of no better way to slap Jesus in the face than to use his offering as a license to go on sinning.
If it is yet in your nature to sin, your spiritual rebirth is far from complete.
How can you claim to be a new creation if the old sinful ways are allowed to continue?
It is a process of growth and development until the fruit of eternal life is mature in us.

1robin said:
See above. You nor any other person who ever lived will ever come close to fullfilling the law. It is hopeless.

You are telling Jesus that He died in vain then.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect,
even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Romans 12:2
And be not conformed to this world:
but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,
that ye may prove what is that good,
and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Philippians 3:15
Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded:
and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded,
God shall reveal even this unto you.

James 1:4
But let patience have her perfect work,
that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

These passages speak very definitely about a process of patient growth and nurturing of the new creation within us so that the day shall come when we shall be joint-heirs with Christ and become perfect with Him, just as He commanded us to become.

1robin said:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
The Holy Ghost and the Holy spirit are the same thing.

The Holy Ghost operates by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Ghost is an actual disembodied personage.
The Holy Spirit is a frame of mind that enables the Holy Ghost to dwell in us.

1robin said:
I wish you would let it be. 90% of what you say is contained in the verses and parables you link it to. There are no birds or growth in that parable yet you invented them.

It says fowls. Pardon me for saying birds instead of fowls.
Is that something to make a big deal over?

1robin said:
Adam was a man who sinned and could not create anything. God did not sin and created everything. There is not exact to it.

Adam transgressed and fell and was redeemed.
He was commanded to "name" all the "creatures".
That is the process of fore-ordaining people to certain levels of glory in the next creation.
Adam is who organizes the new Holy Family for another round of Creation.
He is redeemed shortly after being cast out of the garden.
He regains His throne in victory and completes the work He was given to do.
Adam is our Father and our God.

1robin said:
I didn't get my theology from men. I reject yours because it is non Biblical and you make up stuff that isn't in the Bible or confuse what is, to justify it. I do not need to draw strange parallels and add words to verses.

Are you claiming to be an omniscient authority on 100% of what the Bible says?

1robin · Oct 2, 2012

kylixguru said:
I understand that. I'm saying my manner of reading it is more natural and complete than yours.

Since my way of reading it was to simply read it then I dissagree, You are the one that added birds and germentation priciples and must have wheat become tares which is not in the parable. The way it is written is fine for me.

You are denying that the wheat starts as a seed within us.

No I am not.

You are denying that this seed can be snatched away by the birds.

We are discussing a single parable there are no birds and snatching in that parable. If you can conceded that this parable does not prove your point you can look for birds in another parable. If you can't then what is the point you will just warp whatever you find.

You are denying that this seed can fail to take root properly.

There are no roots or wheat that is not always wheat. If you wish to conceded that then look for one that does say that, this one doesn't.

You are denying that this seed can be neglected and fail to produce fruit.

That is not in that parable. I did this on purpose. I wanted to see if you can honestly admit that any teaching even one as point blank and obvious as this does not support your position. You can't. I did this to establish reliability in your ability to recognise your own bias and your security in your position. If you were secure then it would not be necessary to insist every parable especially this one proves your case. You would have said it was not born out in this one but we should look at another one. You didn't. You kept inserting birds and roots where they are not.

You are claiming being a Christian automatically jumps you to bearing fruit.
I am saying being a Christian who is "born again" must continue to grow and develop.

I am saying I do not get to heaven by producing fruit. Jesus gets me there, no fruit is involved with salvation. That is why wheat remains wheat. Some wheat bears much and some a little but it is still wheat.

There are two parables we have been using.

I bore down on this one for the above reasons.

Matthew 13:4

4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

Mark 4:4
4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.

I have already shown that I and every commentator I have seen all conclude that only the good soil concerns Christians.

I am not making it up. I am simply rendering a plain reading that conveys a natural process with appropriate parallels.

You are completely making up what soil you say concerns Christians. You are doing so in ways that make the parable rediculous. Salvation is the first fruits of faith. You have soild that produces nothing in the parable as applying to a Christian who has already recieved this first and greatest fruit. It makes no sense.

Why are you being so obstinate?
I am not saying wheat changes into tares.
Would you please put in some effort to sincerely understand me instead of pounding me repeatedly as if I am saying something I am not saying?

First let me say I apologise if I have been unduly sarcastic. I debate by a philosophy. I think a sharp knife cuts cleaner and heals quicker than a dull one. I believe that certain teachings are not just wrong they are evil. Works salvation is one. I not only find it rediculous and completely unjustifiable I find it dangerous. There have been been more new Christians made to feel hopeless, unworthy, and have eventually given up and lived a life of insecurity and fear because of this one teaching more so than any other. The Catholics are the fathers of this diabolical teaching and used it and others to make entire nations feel completely dependant on them. I think it is rooted in arrogance and pride and I literally hate it. Now that I have said all that I am not insinuating why you believe it. I know it is a confusing issue and many people feel sincerely like they should live better and better but falsely connect that with earning salvation instead of living a Godly life out of thanks. The only issue I have with you is that you are using very bad arguments and warping well understood scriptures to fit it. I wanted to test you and see if you would even admit that a scripture so simple and easy to understand at least did not prove your point. You failed. Now what do I do? I am stuchk with a person who will apparently defend a theory at any cost. Tell you what in the interest of your appeal we will start over with any post after this one you make.

If it weren't for grace there would be no way at all that anyone could enter the Father's Kingdom.
It yet remains up to us whether we prepare to have fidelity to the terms of the new Covenant and that we accept them.

So I get there on Christ's merit but my merit must keep me there. That makes no sense.

The terms of the new Covenant will be given by the Father when He comes to establish His Kingdom in victory.

This makes no sense but if he hasn't done so then how can anyone fail a test that has not been given yet.

Jesus didn't come to save you in your sins.
Jesus came to save you from sin altogether.

Yep, he came to save me specifically from the ultimate punishment from my sins. He died physically and spiritually to take it for me. Now you say I have to avoid it through effert. Then why did he die? I could make the effort without that.

Faith and repentance are essential parts of the Gospel.
If you think the gift of salvation (the promise) is simply to wipe away guilt alone, and you have the notion that you can just go on sinning, then you are crucifying Jesus afresh. I can think of no better way to slap Jesus in the face than to use his offering as a license to go on sinning.
If it is yet in your nature to sin, your spiritual rebirth is far from complete.
How can you claim to be a new creation if the old sinful ways are allowed to continue?

You are calling God a liar. God says you are fooling yourself. I will go with God.
New Living Translation (©2007)
If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth.

Romans 3:23 says, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." First John 1:8 adds, "If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him."
Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin | Catholic Answers
What can be any clearer. Hyperbolic words like any man and all. Leave no room for your claims.

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of.asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. (Rom. 3:10-14)
Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin | Catholic Answers

You are telling Jesus that He died in vain then.

No I am not, you are. His death has no role or purpose if I can reach sinless perfection. It has a role if it is a substitutionary atonement. It can't get any clearer.

Matthew 5:48

Be ye therefore perfect,
even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This is a goal not a destination. I can't do this any more today. I will try later.

kylixguru · Oct 2, 2012

1robin said:
Since my way of reading it was to simply read it then I dissagree, You are the one that added birds and germentation priciples and must have wheat become tares which is not in the parable. The way it is written is fine for me.

I am beginning to lose my patience with you.
How many times have I tried to clarify the whole "wheat become tares" notion you persist at? Are you talking to a person or are you just talking with some fantasy I am giving you the ability to interact with?
I didn't add in the birds. See the quote below.
Seeds germinate and grow into a mature plant.
To what length of desperation are you going to go to here to resist common sense?

1robin said:
No I am not.

You just did above by saying I added the principle of germination to the parable as if it has no place in it.

1robin said:
We are discussing a single parable there are no birds and snatching in that parable. If you can conceded that this parable does not prove your point you can look for birds in another parable. If you can't then what is the point you will just warp whatever you find.

My oh my. Matthew 13:4 and Mark 4:4 make it very clear that some seeds, yes even wheat seeds, fell by the way side and the fowls came and devoured them up. This is because the recipients of those valid and good seeds did not provide adequate cover and protection for them so that they could properly germinate.

1robin said:
There are no roots or wheat that is not always wheat. If you wish to conceded that then look for one that does say that, this one doesn't.

Now you are saying there is no roots for the wheat plants?
Jesus mentioned the seeds that couldn't get rooted, they perished in the heat of the sun.

You have seeds that don't germinate.
You have wheat fruit produced from a plant that has no roots?

You are getting very desperate to hold onto a very messed up reading of this parable.

1robin said:
That is not in that parable.

It is too.

Matthew 13:22
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word;
and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word,
and he becometh unfruitful.

This clearly indicates neglect. Though they had the wheat seed germinated within them, they failed to care for it properly in order to produce the desired kernels of fruit. The looked like wheat but in the end produced no kernels of wheat as fruit.

1robin said:
I did this on purpose. I wanted to see if you can honestly admit that any teaching even one as point blank and obvious as this does not support your position. You can't. I did this to establish reliability in your ability to recognise your own bias and your security in your position. If you were secure then it would not be necessary to insist every parable especially this one proves your case. You would have said it was not born out in this one but we should look at another one. You didn't. You kept inserting birds and roots where they are not.

Which parable are you talking about?
Seems to me there is some kind of a major confusion on your part.
There is clearly mention of fowl and roots in the parable of the sower.

1robin said:
I am saying I do not get to heaven by producing fruit. Jesus gets me there, no fruit is involved with salvation. That is why wheat remains wheat. Some wheat bears much and some a little but it is still wheat.

And some doesn't produce any fruit.
And some doesn't get good root and dies in the heat of the sun.
And some gets gobbled up by the fowls by the wayside.

1robin said:
I bore down on this one for the above reasons.

I have already shown that I and every commentator I have seen all conclude that only the good soil concerns Christians.

Well, I care about what Jesus said and mention of seeds germinating and getting snatched away by fowls and failing to get root are all things that were factors that could prevent a "born again" (from seed) spirit from developing to the point that it could be harvested and garnered away to safety in order to become seed stock for a new planting.

You have the Christian "born again" experience as not coinciding with the actual birth of the Word of God as seeds planted in you. You have the "born again" experience pertaining to some very advanced stage of the parable far past what would have been the birth of the wheat plant.

That seems very unnatural to me and it seems motivated by your desire to suppose to yourself that being a Christian means your place in the Kingdom is 100% secured. What you have presented here is the extent to which you are willing to excuse major portions of a parable (proper cover, germination, getting root, getting nourished, etc.) because you think you are beyond being scorched in the heat of the sun and that you are beyond being choked out by the cares of the world. Your interpretation is one of the most textbook examples of eisegesis I have seen.

1robin said:
You are completely making up what soil you say concerns Christians. You are doing so in ways that make the parable rediculous. Salvation is the first fruits of faith. You have soild that produces nothing in the parable as applying to a Christian who has already recieved this first and greatest fruit. It makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to me, all of it. I don't have to dismiss germination, roots, getting choked, etc.
I accept that I need to tend and care for the spiritual birth that germinated with me and is growing and developing within me so that when the time the Father comes to gather in the harvest I will have produced the fruit that He is looking for.

kylixguru · Oct 2, 2012

1robin said:
First let me say I apologise if I have been unduly sarcastic. I debate by a philosophy. I think a sharp knife cuts cleaner and heals quicker than a dull one. I believe that certain teachings are not just wrong they are evil. Works salvation is one. I not only find it rediculous and completely unjustifiable I find it dangerous. There have been been more new Christians made to feel hopeless, unworthy, and have eventually given up and lived a life of insecurity and fear because of this one teaching more so than any other. The Catholics are the fathers of this diabolical teaching and used it and others to make entire nations feel completely dependant on them. I think it is rooted in arrogance and pride and I literally hate it. Now that I have said all that I am not insinuating why you believe it. I know it is a confusing issue and many people feel sincerely like they should live better and better but falsely connect that with earning salvation instead of living a Godly life out of thanks. The only issue I have with you is that you are using very bad arguments and warping well understood scriptures to fit it. I wanted to test you and see if you would even admit that a scripture so simple and easy to understand at least did not prove your point. You failed. Now what do I do? I am stuchk with a person who will apparently defend a theory at any cost. Tell you what in the interest of your appeal we will start over with any post after this one you make.

I have simply made a complete reading of the parable and drawn a natural simple conclusion from it.
There are many other warnings of how a person can draw back unto perdition, fall from grace, etc.

I know for a fact that I am not into a works based salvation because I acknowledge that if it wasn't for what Jesus did there is no way possible that any works I did could make one bit of difference. It is only in and through the offering of Jesus Christ that I have any hope of salvation. There is a fine line where you can fall off the other side of the balance in the matter. The offering of Jesus Christ wasn't just to make everyone happy as they continue to live in sinful ways. His offering truly is to save us from sin, not in our sins. If you go too far the other way you truly are crucifying Jesus afresh and putting Him to an open shame. It is possible for anyone to fall from grace. Even the "Sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6 burned in their lust for women they took as wives and for worldly acclaim and turned away from their exalted station and as Jude said left their place of habitation. These were extremely high and advanced men functioning in the highest level of authority and covenant possible, yet they fell from grace and became the most cursed and reviled of the fallen angels. Anyone can fall from grace. Even Adam, a great King, Priest and Prophet fell into transgression and suffered death both physically and spiritually for it. No matter how much you want the fantasy of "Ok, I've made it, I'll never need to worry about being charged with sin again" then you do not understand reality. What Jesus offers, if fully utilized, gives a person the strength of intelligence and wisdom to stand at a very high level of accountability and do much good, despite being tempted with more and more temptations. Jesus himself was sorely tempted. That is something that shall always be around. If we yield then a price is paid. One Jesus redeems someone, if they draw back they nullify His offering on their behalf.

Hebrews 10
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

If you come in and accept and rejoice in the offering of Christ and you do not become a new spiritual creation and you just carry on in your sins, this is how someone draws back unto perdition. It is the doctrine of seducing false spirits that gives men the notion that Jesus offered them a license to continue in sin free of guilt.

1robin said:
So I get there on Christ's merit but my merit must keep me there. That makes no sense.

We do have responsibility in the matter.
We are who must take the steps in the direction of Eternal Life after we have entered the gate.

Matthew 7
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate:
for wide is the gate, and broad is the way,
that leadeth to destruction,
and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate,
and narrow is the way,
which leadeth unto life,
and few there be that find it.

Does this sound like Jesus is going to drag you there and make you do everything required to follow the strait and narrow way until you attain to Life Eternal?

Entering the gate is our baptism when we are spiritually born. This marks the beginning of our journey to make real our faith in Jesus Christ and to make use of the gift He has given us so that we can ultimately be garnered into the Father's Kingdom, which is to obtain Life Eternal.

You seem to want to just automatically bypass the walking upon this strait and narrow path just as your interpretation of the parable of the sower bypasses the proper covering, germination, getting root and nourishing the seed so that in due time you produce the fruit that qualifies for harvest.

This is a fantasy that necessitates you to dismiss so much of what is in the scriptures just so that you can harbor a false sense of security. Eisegesis in the extreme.

1robin said:
This makes no sense but if he hasn't done so then how can anyone fail a test that has not been given yet.

It has been given and Christianity failed. That's my point.
The advent of the Father came and He was rejected.
Christianity considered Him a fool.

1robin said:
Yep, he came to save me specifically from the ultimate punishment from my sins. He died physically and spiritually to take it for me. Now you say I have to avoid it through effert. Then why did he die? I could make the effort without that.

I already explained that at length in the past.
He died in order to make Israel eligible to be remarried to God.
But, all those of Israel are like the virgins. If they are not wise, they miss the wedding.
Christianity is the result of the Gospel of the good news of the coming Kingdom to prepare the "lost sheep of Israel" to come to the wedding. It is spiritual Israel being betrothed to be remarried to God.

1robin said:
You are calling God a liar. God says you are fooling yourself. I will go with God.
New Living Translation (©2007)
If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth.

Romans 3:23 says, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." First John 1:8 adds, "If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him."
Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin | Catholic Answers
What can be any clearer. Hyperbolic words like any man and all. Leave no room for your claims.

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of.asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. (Rom. 3:10-14)
Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin | Catholic Answers

Get real! Of course we all have sinned and while we are in our period of growth and development we will continue to make mistakes, for which we can repent of and be cleansed again. That is the purpose of the sacrament. We make a renewal of our covenant and receive grace on a continual basis. It is a cycle of purification. We first have faith, then we repent, then we are washed clean and then we receive the Holy Spirit, which increases our faith, then we see new things to repent of, then we are washed clean again by renewing our covenant and we receive a greater manifestation of the Holy Spirit and on and on until the perfect day comes when we have grown in stature sufficient to be worthy to sit upon a throne in the Father's Kingdom as a joint-heir with Christ. If at any point a person does not keep taking steps in this strait and narrow path of perfection and refinement then they fall short and fail to receive Eternal Life.

1robin said:
No I am not, you are. His death has no role or purpose if I can reach sinless perfection. It has a role if it is a substitutionary atonement. It can't get any clearer.

Nobody can get to a state of sinless perfection without the atonement of Jesus Christ, but they have to be willing to truly believe in Jesus and pay heed to all the warnings He gives and to repent of their sins and to act with honor and dignity.

1robin said:
This is a goal not a destination. I can't do this any more today. I will try later.

Getting into the Father's Kingdom where we enjoy a relationship with Him face to face is a destination.

1robin · Oct 4, 2012

kylixguru said:
I am beginning to lose my patience with you.

I think you are just frustrated because I am not buying what you are working so hard at selling.

How many times have I tried to clarify the whole "wheat become tares" notion you persist at? Are you talking to a person or are you just talking with some fantasy I am giving you the ability to interact with?
I didn't add in the birds. See the quote below.
Seeds germinate and grow into a mature plant.
To what length of desperation are you going to go to here to resist common sense?

I will not say this again. Parables are not perfect metaphors for actuall things. You can not go on to extrapolate all kinds of agricultural based metaphors to attempt to justify you position. Apparently I am the only one that feels a need to stick with what the parable actually says. Yes you added birds and much more and here it is.

Because the wheat growing can have the seeds plucked away by birds, the tender growth of the wheat can not find good soil and die due to the heat and the elements, the wheat can become caught up in the cares of the world and fail to produce the kernels that qualify it to be garnered into the Father's Kingdom. Surely you accept that in order for the seed to grow sufficient to produce fruit that it must undergo this process of growth. You are who has an interpretation that says it isn't wheat until the kernel is produced. You have yet to explain in a natural way how that process works.

I bolded everything that is not actually in the parable but in the agricultural extrapolation you invented. I know how agriculture works, but this discussion is about salvation. Salvation does not obey every natural law you dream up that is associated with plant life. The parable has limited scope. It is not some pliable rubber band that may be stretched to form whatever you choose. There is no fruit in that parable. There are no birds in it, nor heat, bad soil, kernels, growth, or death of the wheat. You made all that up and none of it is in that parable. You made it up in order to attempt to justify something that parable does not say. That was the purpose of my suggesting it. I knew it did not contain a single thing that could be used for your position. I wanted to see if you were capable of admitting that a fact is a fact even if it does not help you. You failed. There are many places in the Bible that your contention can be used to support your position (even if ultimately wrong) but this was not one. If you are willing to deny very simple, obvious, and plain truth to justify your position why would I trust your thinking concerning more complex passages that are harder to evaluate. I am dealing with someone who can not objectively evaluate Bible verses. You are so commited to your ideaology that it determines what things say for you. That is backwards. What the Bible says should determine what we believe not the other way around. I see this a lot and have learned it is of no use to debate with an emotional or idealogical pre commitment to a view point. You are intelligent and fairly civil but you are not capable of examining these issues without seeing what you wish to see. That was the purpose of what I chose to discuss and I can't justify spending time simply argueing with someone who is incapable of seeing things in ways that are contrary to what he has chosen to believe. I added all this to other instances where you have credited the Quran with divine knowledge, which it doesn't have and other verses you have added to or taken from things it does not say. I think you would be interesting to debate if you hadn't proven you can't even consider that you may be mistaken and would do anything to justify your position. The Bible does have some errors (less than 5%) but on the whole it is astronomically accurate. Places where commas are used and specific tenses of the original Greek and Hebrew must be consulted and must determine what we belive. Instead you actually draw parallels and use words and lessons that verses do not even contain. I do not know how else to say it. I spent many years researching this issue almost obsessively. I spent many many hours in prayer on it. IMO I believe prayers were directly answered and the issue concluded by God in absolute terms. Only grace and grace alone can get is to heaven. I honestly still allow that I may have been mistaken but the terrible arguments and the stretching of scripture and the contradictions that causes keep reenforcing what I believe God showed me years ago. This discussion is a perfect example.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.
New International Version (©1984)
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (Jesus and Jesus alone, not Jesus plus works, not Jesus plus effort, not Jesus plus our own merit) you are laying a different foundation.
12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each mans work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each mans work.
14 If any mans work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
15 If any mans work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
What can be any simpler. This man hod no Godly works at all. Everything he had ever done was judged substandard and was destroyed. Yet he was saved. Why because it was not by his works he was judged but by his faith through grace. There is no way possible your theology is consistent with these verses. I could supply a hundred more but I do not think it would help. Please do not get frustrated because I reject your position. It is nothing personal, I have been debateing this issue for years and can quickly see if a conversation will be productive. I can but haven't countered the other verses you use to justify your position. I do agree that several verses do on the surface suggest that more than grace are needed. I also know that eithet those or the many that suggest it is suffecient are being interpreted wrong because both can't be truely saying what you and I claim. However if you could not concede that issue about that one parable I think you would be far less likely to concerning the less obvious verses.

kylixguru · Oct 4, 2012

1robin said:
I think you are just frustrated because I am not buying what you are working so hard at selling.

I get frustrated when you continue to contort what I am saying so that you can dismiss it.

1robin said:
I will not say this again. Parables are not perfect metaphors for actual things. You can not go on to extrapolate all kinds of agricultural based metaphors to attempt to justify you position. Apparently I am the only one that feels a need to stick with what the parable actually says. Yes you added birds and much more and here it is.
I bolded everything that is not actually in the parable but in the agricultural extrapolation you invented. I know how agriculture works, but this discussion is about salvation. Salvation does not obey every natural law you dream up that is associated with plant life. The parable has limited scope. It is not some pliable rubber band that may be stretched to form whatever you choose. There is no fruit in that parable. There are no birds in it, nor heat, bad soil, kernels, growth, or death of the wheat. You made all that up and none of it is in that parable. You made it up in order to attempt to justify something that parable does not say. That was the purpose of my suggesting it. I knew it did not contain a single thing that could be used for your position. I wanted to see if you were capable of admitting that a fact is a fact even if it does not help you. You failed.

I failed? Have you completely lost your mind?

All of those aspects are explicitly mentioned by Jesus in the parable of the sower, and in his own interpretation of it. I'll bold them for you, yet again.

Matthew 13
3 ... Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
...
18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

All of the items you say I invented are plainly in the above passages.

1robin said:
There are many places in the Bible that your contention can be used to support your position (even if ultimately wrong) but this was not one. If you are willing to deny very simple, obvious, and plain truth to justify your position why would I trust your thinking concerning more complex passages that are harder to evaluate.

I have not denied things as you say.
You are who doesn't even seem to have read the parable at all.

1robin said:
I am dealing with someone who can not objectively evaluate Bible verses.

I wonder if you are looking at an entirely different parable?

1robin said:
You are so commited to your ideaology that it determines what things say for you. That is backwards. What the Bible says should determine what we believe not the other way around.

I agree with this principle but I am astounded that you don't even see mention of birds (fowls) in it.
I mean, something else, some kind of a misunderstanding must be in the mix here.

1robin said:
I see this a lot and have learned it is of no use to debate with an emotional or idealogical pre commitment to a view point. You are intelligent and fairly civil but you are not capable of examining these issues without seeing what you wish to see. That was the purpose of what I chose to discuss and I can't justify spending time simply argueing with someone who is incapable of seeing things in ways that are contrary to what he has chosen to believe. I added all this to other instances where you have credited the Quran with divine knowledge, which it doesn't have and other verses you have added to or taken from things it does not say. I think you would be interesting to debate if you hadn't proven you can't even consider that you may be mistaken and would do anything to justify your position. The Bible does have some errors (less than 5%) but on the whole it is astronomically accurate. Places where commas are used and specific tenses of the original Greek and Hebrew must be consulted and must determine what we belive. Instead you actually draw parallels and use words and lessons that verses do not even contain. I do not know how else to say it. I spent many years researching this issue almost obsessively. I spent many many hours in prayer on it. IMO I believe prayers were directly answered and the issue concluded by God in absolute terms. Only grace and grace alone can get is to heaven. I honestly still allow that I may have been mistaken but the terrible arguments and the stretching of scripture and the contradictions that causes keep reenforcing what I believe God showed me years ago. This discussion is a perfect example.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.
New International Version (©1984)
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (Jesus and Jesus alone, not Jesus plus works, not Jesus plus effort, not Jesus plus our own merit) you are laying a different foundation.
12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
What can be any simpler. This man hod no Godly works at all. Everything he had ever done was judged substandard and was destroyed. Yet he was saved. Why because it was not by his works he was judged but by his faith through grace. There is no way possible your theology is consistent with these verses. I could supply a hundred more but I do not think it would help. Please do not get frustrated because I reject your position. It is nothing personal, I have been debateing this issue for years and can quickly see if a conversation will be productive. I can but haven't countered the other verses you use to justify your position. I do agree that several verses do on the surface suggest that more than grace are needed. I also know that eithet those or the many that suggest it is suffecient are being interpreted wrong because both can't be truely saying what you and I claim. However if you could not concede that issue about that one parable I think you would be far less likely to concerning the less obvious verses.

Well, I don't think I've botched the parable of the sower as you seem to think I have.
If we cannot even have a rational discussion about those simple verses, that do include mention of birds (fowls) then I agree trying to discuss things more involved would be even less worthwhile. But, I'll patiently bear with you as long as you wish to continue.

1robin · Oct 4, 2012

kylixguru said:
I get frustrated when you continue to contort what I am saying so that you can dismiss it.

I failed? Have you completely lost your mind?

All of those aspects are explicitly mentioned by Jesus in the parable of the sower, and in his own interpretation of it. I'll bold them for you, yet again.

Hold the phone grumpy. We had been discussing the good seed parable and somehwere you switched to the sower. I did not catch that so my comments are not accurate. Yes the sower does have birds etc.... but the mistake there is you have for some reason assumed that the seed they are eating pertains to Christians and it does not. Different problems with different parables. I do not know when or why you went back to the sower from the seed parable but I didn't notice and my comments are not accurate concerning it. You did originally add birds to the good seed parable we were discussing and that is what I was discussing.

kylixguru · Oct 4, 2012

1robin said:
Hold the phone grumpy. We had been discussing the good seed parable and somehwere you switched to the sower. I did not catch that so my comments are not accurate. Yes the sower does have birds etc.... but the mistake there is you have for some reason assumed that the seed they are eating pertains to Christians and it does not. Different problems with different parables. I do not know when or why you went back to the sower from the seed parable but I didn't notice and my comments are not accurate concerning it. You did originally add birds to the good seed parable we were discussing and that is what I was discussing.

I thought we were discussing them both taken together as a whole.

1robin · Oct 4, 2012

kylixguru said:
I thought we were discussing them both taken together as a whole.

I wanted to limit it and attempted to do so and thought it was understood to the good seed to start with. You initially jumped around so much and quoted so many things that I wanted to test your willingness to concede something and wanted to begin with something so simple that it could easily be thuroughly debated to a conclusion. You have (I am almost certain) linked birds and other things to that parable instead of simply saying that the parable does not bear out your conclusions and then we would have went to another verse, story, or parable, that may have helped your case. I lost faith in your competance after that and at some point you switched back to the other parable and many other verses and statements and I did not notice. I apologize for making a judgement partially based on a missunderstanding of not catching a switch I had no reason to suspect. I have asked several times and will do so one last time. If you can agree that the parable of the good seed contains no teaching that bears out your theory we can move on to something else that might.

kylixguru · Oct 4, 2012

1robin said:
I wanted to limit it and attempted to do so and thought it was understood to the good seed to start with.

I don't recall agreeing to limit this to only one part of that overall parable. You cannot properly understand the part focusing on the good seed and the bad seed unless you are relying upon the foundation of the parable of the sower just immediately prior to that.

1robin said:
You initially jumped around so much and quoted so many things that I wanted to test your willingness to concede something and wanted to begin with something so simple that it could easily be thuroughly debated to a conclusion.

Even if I had agreed to limit the discussion to the parable of the good seed, you cannot separate it from the parable of the sower because that is foundational to that parable.

1robin said:
You have (I am almost certain) linked birds and other things to that parable instead of simply saying that the parable does not bear out your conclusions and then we would have went to another verse, story, or parable, that may have helped your case. I lost faith in your competance after that and at some point you switched back to the other parable and many other verses and statements and I did not notice. I apologize for making a judgement partially based on a missunderstanding of not catching a switch I had no reason to suspect.

A switch you had no reason to suspect?
I was talking about both parables as a whole the entire time.
I did not agree, that I recall, to omit consideration of anything else but the wheat and tare addition to the sower parable.

1robin said:
I have asked several times and will do so one last time. If you can agree that the parable of the good seed contains no teaching that bears out your theory we can move on to something else that might.

You are trying to put me in a little pigeon hole.

You cannot and should not separate the parable of the sower from the parable of the wheat and the tares. They together create a more complete and proper model to get a better understanding of the whole.

1robin · Oct 4, 2012

kylixguru said:
I don't recall agreeing to limit this to only one part of that overall parable. You cannot properly understand the part focusing on the good seed and the bad seed unless you are relying upon the foundation of the parable of the sower just immediately prior to that.

I was not attempting to. I thought and still think you are so commited to your pet theory that you will read it into anything you see. This parable was a test of that idea. It was not to decide the issue it was to determine if you were reasonable and honest even if it was not in your favor.

Even if I had agreed to limit the discussion to the parable of the good seed, you cannot separate it from the parable of the sower because that is foundational to that parable.

I did not limit it to that parable. I said let's settle that issue first and then move on. You started out to do so but got frustrated and started bouncing all over the place. I brought the issue back to it again and thought we were on track just to find out later a switch was made somewhere recently.

A switch you had no reason to suspect?
I was talking about both parables as a whole the entire time.
I did not agree, that I recall, to omit consideration of anything else but the wheat and tare addition to the sower parable

Here is a section from the discussion. We are talking about a single parable. Not both.
This is the reason that he would not do it at that time. If God destroyed the earth outright then the wheat would be destroyed with the tares. Instead he will seperate them at the judgement day and throw the tares that were never born of his seed into the furnace with Satan and the old Earth.
He didn't say anything about destroying the earth. He said that the tares would not be plucked out from among the wheat because it would cause too much disturbance in the field and damage the wheat. The tares would be left right in and among the wheat and they would be indistinguishable until the time of harvest when the Father's laborers would come to garner the wheat to safety and burn the tares. So, the final analysis is whether or not you are garnered into the Father's Kingdom.

Once again this contradicts every verse I posted and the parable in question. In the parable there is no mention of wheat having elements within them that eventually make them destined for the furnace. There is only two groups and no intermingleing. That is also evident in the verses I gave.

Every thing above is concerning that one parable.

You are trying to put me in a little pigeon hole.

This is strange coming from someone who has in the last few posts said that I let scholars tell me what the Bible says and that I had no idea who my God was. Both of those are untrue. What is worse is that even if they were true you still wouldn't know it. My claim was easily known and reasonable even if potentially based on incorrect information to a certain extent. Who is pigeon holeing who?

You cannot and should not separate the parable of the sower from the parable of the wheat and the tares. They together create a more complete and proper model to get a better understanding of the whole.

As I said I went back and examined this claim. I do not think it has suffecient merit. These are simple and distinct sories that are completely seperate entitys. They concern the same issues but are not in any way continuations of each other. It is obvious by most of their titels or subjects. The sower, weeds, mustard seed, hidden treasure and pearl, parable of the net, honor. You can not import aspects of one into another without potentially compromising it's specified purpose. They are to be read as seperate descriptions of similar subjects. Parables are delicately balanced and have a very very narrow application and dynamic as I have said many times. Cross importing elements may upset that delicate balance. It might not but there is no reason or necessity to make the effort. The parable of the sower is not part one of a story which the weeds are the second part of. They are both independant, dynamic unique, and seperate stories concerning aspects of a single issue. It makes sense to read them within close proximity it does not make any sense to mix and match aspects of each. When you mentioned this I did not think this would be the case. I thought they would have been two parts to the same story. They are not. However they will and do have perfect harmony and so any mixing and matching is pointless. What is true in one is true in the other. Wheat (Christians) are always Wheat (Christians) and are gathered in to heaven without exception in the weeds and the 3 bad soils are not Christians and the good soil is, in the sower. They both use different stories and dynamics to say the same thing. By the way I mistakenly said the weeds was the seeds. I was wrong about the title a few times but didn't see that you noticed. All you had to do to avoid all this was be straight up and say the weeds does not bear out your theory but that you thought other scriptures did. I would have concluded you are reasonable and honest and have went where ever you wanted to go next. That did not happen and I am therefore reluctant to trust you.

I do not believe that a Christian can lose his relationship with Christ. (1Robin vs. KylixGuru)

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist

Well-Known Member

Christian/Baptist