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

[kylixguru]

Again with the opinion sermons. Ok, last time. These sermons are far too long to ever get any where with. I think you are trying to get volume to do what quality should. I am only intereseted in this if we can actually get to the bottom of one thing before you post twenty more. Try this. Let's go back to the start. If you will, post the parable of the sower and the good seed, and your interpretation then we can really get to the bottom of that then go to the next thing. Please post that alone. I do not have the time to address these long rhetorical rambling opinions in any detail that would be helpfull. Please, the sower and the good seed and a simple interpetation only.

You asked a question and I answered it.
Sorry if you feel what I shared is a waste of your precious time.
I have already very clearly stated my position on the parable of the sower.
I think it would be a waste of our time to start going in more circles.

I'll try and succinctly rephrase my position since you requested it of me.

The "seeds" in the parable of the sower are representative of the Words of God.
To whatever degree a person receives the Words of God, they have birthed within them a new spiritual body that gives them the "breath of life" that makes of them a living soul. This is the resurrection that Jesus Christ brought. Being spiritually born again by way of the power of the Word of God in you is a necessary prerequisite to enter into the Father's Kingdom. Any human who has not had this spiritual awakening unto new life by the pure Word of God is not a candidate for entering in the Father's Kingdom.

The purpose of the parable is to give indication that there are many dangers that can cause a person who has received these seeds of life within them to fail to realize the full potential benefits.

There are some people who receive the Words of God but who do not safeguard them and give them adequate cover. They have their "born again" experience and rejoice in it, but because they are neglectful and not really seriously devoted to care for and nurture that new life within them properly, the birds standing by pluck those seeds from them and they lose their capacity to understand.

There are others who enable the seeds to germinate and start to develop into a more mature spirit but the way they are is like stony ground. This spirit is trying to grow within them and make of them a new spiritual creation but they just don't have the richness of soil in their heart and when adversity and persecution comes they do not safeguard the new growth and it becomes scorched and wilted and dies.

There are others who do have good nourishment in them so that the new spiritual creation can endure the elements but they get distracted by other things and do not give proper heed to what the spirit needs in order for it to develop properly to bring forth the fruit that is desirable.

There are others who do properly nourish and care for this spiritual growth and who discipline themselves to nurture and tend the growth with strict fidelity to the Word of God so that it will in due time bring forth the hoped for fruits instead of bringing forth no fruit or corrupted and bitter fruit.

My understanding/interpretation is that this is the seeds of the Tree of Life that all who have been "born again" have planted within them. And, the culmination of this tree growing within you is to eventually bear the fruit of Eternal Life, which is to know the Father and be received into His Kingdom.

I see Christianity as the vehicle of providing the seeds and the nurturing so that in due time there will be a faithful people ready to receive the Father and His Kingdom when He comes to establish it among them so that the spiritual creation growing within them could reach full maturity and bear the fruit of Eternal Life, which is to know the Father and dwell with Him in His Kingdom.

You have Christianity itself as the end goal.

That's why I said earlier that your interpretation breaks down.

You say that being a Christian is being "born again" and I agree with that definition. This is a person who has awakened unto a new life by way of receiving the Word of God.

But, if you say that only the person who has the seed bearing fruit in them is a Christian you are implying that to be "born again" means "producing fruit". You have entirely skipped all of the necessary growth and development prior to being able to "produce fruit". Before someone "newly born" can produce good fruit they need to survive the elements and develop in a healthy manner, which means to get married with a suitable companion, etc.

Christianity looks forward to the spiritual wedding with Christ that will take place when the Bridegroom comes so that all of the spirits growing within people will then have a place in the Father's Kingdom as the Bride (think 5 wise virgins) such that they then can bear good fruit.

Your interpretation jumps the gun and mine looks for the full and proper realization.

 

[1robin]

You asked a question and I answered it.
Sorry if you feel what I shared is a waste of your precious time.
I have already very clearly stated my position on the parable of the sower.
I think it would be a waste of our time to start going in more circles.

I'll try and succinctly rephrase my position since you requested it of me.

The "seeds" in the parable of the sower are representative of the Words of God.
To whatever degree a person receives the Words of God, they have birthed within them a new spiritual body that gives them the "breath of life" that makes of them a living soul. This is the resurrection that Jesus Christ brought. Being spiritually born again by way of the power of the Word of God in you is a necessary prerequisite to enter into the Father's Kingdom. Any human who has not had this spiritual awakening unto new life by the pure Word of God is not a candidate for entering in the Father's Kingdom.

The purpose of the parable is to give indication that there are many dangers that can cause a person who has received these seeds of life within them to fail to realize the full potential benefits.


There are others who do have good nourishment in them so that the new spiritual creation can endure the elements but they get distracted by other things and do not give proper heed to what the spirit needs in order for it to develop properly to bring forth the fruit that is desirable.

There are others who do properly nourish and care for this spiritual growth and who discipline themselves to nurture and tend the growth with strict fidelity to the Word of God so that it will in due time bring forth the hoped for fruits instead of bringing forth no fruit or corrupted and bitter fruit.

Christianity looks forward to the spiritual wedding with Christ that will take place when the Bridegroom comes so that all of the spirits growing within people will then have a place in the Father's Kingdom as the Bride (think 5 wise virgins) such that they then can bear good fruit.

Your interpretation jumps the gun and mine looks for the full and proper realization.

Ok I will start then. By the way you are not wasting my time but I do not have suffecient time to get to the bottom of a thousand opinions. Just for a change of pace let's go with the parable of the good seed.

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

25] But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26] But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27] So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28] He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29] But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30] Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
36] Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
Here it points out that Jesus was speaking to an unidentified mob. Not Christians just an anonymous group of people
37] He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38] The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one];
As pointed out here the tares grew from seed given by Satan. This points out more clearly than the sower does that this is not two distinctions with Christianity it is two in humanity, Christians and not Christians.

39] The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Now here we see that it is the seed of Satan which causes the damage to the crop. It is not thhe seed of God which was missused by the wheat (Christians) There are two distict groups here those that sprouted or were born by the seed of Satan and the ones born (or born again) bythe seed of God. You are splitting into sections what God does not.
40] As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41] The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42] And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43] Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Parable_of_the_Good_Seed
Words in black are mine.

Here we have two distinct classes. Notice what we are told here that these plants are both spung from different seed. One from Satan and one from God. Is there any way to make Christians that are born of God as to be the ones born from the seed of Satan. That makes no sence. Nor do we see that bad and good crops came from the same seed. So there is no way that they are two different groups of Christians. There is also no indication of a plant that began as wheat later became a tare. Again not two groups of Christians born again of the seed of God. I did find some interesting stuff about how the seeds are similar and the plants look similar but they compared that to sincere born again Christians with people who go to Church and act like they are good but were never born again.

and sowed tares among the wheat; by "the wheat", is meant the same with the "good seed", the children of God, true believers in Christ; who are comparable to wheat, for the choiceness of it, that being the choicest grain, so they are the chosen of God, and precious, and the excellent in the earth: and because it dies before it rises and springs up; so the saints do, and will do, both in a spiritual and corporal sense; and because of the purity and whiteness of it, so they are pure and white, being sanctioned by the Spirit, washed in the blood of Christ, and justified by his righteousness; and because of its substance, fulness, weight, and permanence, so they are filled from Christ's fulness, and with the fulness of God, and fruits of righteousness, and remain, and cannot be driven as the chaff is, but continue to live, because Christ their head lives; and because of its gradual increase, so they increase in spiritual light, grace, and experience; and because of the chaff that adheres to it, so sin and corruption cleave to the saints in this life; and lastly, because it needs both the flail and the fan, so believers need chastisements, afflictions, and corrections: by "the tares" sown among them, are meant "the children of the wicked one"; Satan, the enemy and adversary, as in Matthew 13:38 who are to be understood, not of profane sinners; though these are the children of the devil; but of professors of religion, men either of bad principles, or of bad lives and conversations; whom Satan, by some means or another, gets into churches, and they become members thereof: at first they look like wheat, like true believers, have a show of religion, a form of godliness, an appearance of grace, but are destitute of it; and prove tares, unfruitful, unprofitable, and of no account, yea hurtful, and whose end is to be burned.
Matthew 13:25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.

Please address only these verses and show how my comments were incorrect. Please do not start soap boxing all over the place. If you theory is right it will work here in detail or it won't work anywhere. If I had the time you could rail all you want and I would follow you around and rail away my self. I don't have the time and so must bare down and get to the bottom of less instead of the surface of more.

 

[kylixguru]

Just for a change of pace let's go with the parable of the good seed.

*snip*

I did find some interesting stuff about how the seeds are similar and the plants look similar but they compared that to sincere born again Christians with people who go to Church and act like they are good but were never born again.

This is a very important aspect of the parable that I am glad you see.

*snip* ... by "the tares" sown among them, are meant "the children of the wicked one"; Satan, the enemy and adversary, as in Matthew 13:38 who are to be understood, not of profane sinners; though these are the children of the devil; but of professors of religion, men either of bad principles, or of bad lives and conversations; whom Satan, by some means or another, gets into churches, and they become members thereof: at first they look like wheat, like true believers, have a show of religion, a form of godliness, an appearance of grace, but are destitute of it; and prove tares, unfruitful, unprofitable, and of no account, yea hurtful, and whose end is to be burned. Matthew 13:25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.

Again, this indicates that the tares are a crop of pretenders who have the form and appearance of the wheat, but in fact are "born again" by way of a corrupted seed that got slipped in with the good seed. They have the same claims as the wheat but they lack the real substance of being such and in the end the way God knows is at harvest time to see who brings forth the proper fruit and who does not.

The wheat and the tares are allowed to grow up together because the disruption that would be required to root out the tares would also destroy the wheat.

My understanding of the corrupted seed is that after the apostles "fell asleep" (died) they weren't available to protect the wheat crop and so the false precepts and traditions of men began to supplant the proper and original meaning of the teachings of Jesus.

This is why in Galatians 1 Paul warned that if the saints got off track and took up a different Gospel than what was given by Jesus and the apostles that instead of being blessed in the end time harvest they would be accursed. Paul marvelled that they were already so soon removed, meaning they were becomming corrupted seed that wouldn't bring forth the proper kernal if they continued that trend.

The position that puts you and I in is we need to very carefully distinguish if our spirit growing inside of us is being nurtured from good seed, meaning we truly understand God's Word as it was originally given, or from corrupted seed, meaning the spirit growing inside of us is more of a product of the precepts of men and the traditions of our fathers that are removed from that pure and correct Gospel as originally given.

This parable clearly teaches that none of us are really going to know for sure that we were "born again" from the good seed or the corrupt seed until the time of the harvest comes, which is when the Father sends His servants to reap the fields and gather in the fruits of the good seed.

You have already admitted to the distinction that there are pretender Christians who think they are "born again" of the proper seed, but who in fact are actually tares who don't develop the desired kernal within their soul to make them of any value. Therefore, you have already agreed with me in part and are also contradicting yourself in part.

How are you to know as a Christian who professes to be "born again" of the "good seed" that you in fact are such?
Upon what basis can you claim that my claim to be "born again" of the good seed is bogus?

The final exam is those Christians who actually are born of the "good seed" will have put into practice every character attribute that Jesus advocated such that the person will be properly and humbly looking for the coming of the Father's Kingdom. They will hunger and thirst for righteousness. They will be meek and patient. They won't be haughty or proud but they will also keep their candles in view and speak confidently about their love of Christ and lovingly reprove their brother if the need arises. They will be easily entreated and slow to judge, first making absolutely certain they don't have a beam in their own eye, and so on. That way, when the servants of the Father come to harvest, they will be found by them as having the true kernal of righteousness. If they do not have this kernal, they will fight against and reject and beat the Father's servants and reject the Kingdom. They will want to hold to the program that their corrupted seed embedded within them instead.

 

[1robin]

This is a very important aspect of the parable that I am glad you see.

I didn't see it before I read those commentators that everyone says are bogus when they dissagree with them.

Again, this indicates that the tares are a crop of pretenders who have the form and appearance of the wheat, but in fact are "born again" by way of a corrupted seed that got slipped in with the good seed. They have the same claims as the wheat but they lack the real substance of being such and in the end the way God knows is at harvest time to see who brings forth the proper fruit and who does not.

It is impossible to be born again by seeds that are sown by Satan. Satan can not save anyone. His seeds destroy they do not give spiritual life. The verse does not say born again, you are simply making it say that because you need it to. The difference that differentiates these two are that the wheat that has believed the good seed (been born again, which good seed does produce but bad seed does not) and has then grown up as wheat. Verses the other group that came from the seeds of Satan which can not make a man born again. These are not two divisions that started with the same seed and one went bad and the other went good. This says they started bad or started good and ended up the same way. If you attempt to refute this simple idea you must show that the seeds Satan sowed can cause a person to be spiritually born again as a Christian. I do not even think you would try that, and if not your case for this verse is not it any way possible. Of course we will keep going but without what I asked this verse is done.

The wheat and the tares are allowed to grow up together because the disruption that would be required to root out the tares would also destroy the wheat.

This might be taking the parable a little too far.

My understanding of the corrupted seed is that after the apostles "fell asleep" (died) they weren't available to protect the wheat crop and so the false precepts and traditions of men began to supplant the proper and original meaning of the teachings of Jesus.

Yes when Islam, Gnosticism, or even Catholic traditional dogma shows up and convinces people everything is fine and they are hanging out in the Churches with the Christians that have been born again by different seed then to destroy the Church if that is what you meant would destroy both.

This is why in Galatians 1 Paul warned that if the saints got off track and took up a different Gospel than what was given by Jesus and the apostles that instead of being blessed in the end time harvest they would be accursed. Paul marvelled that they were already so soon removed, meaning they were becomming corrupted seed that wouldn't bring forth the proper kernal if they continued that trend.

You are taking off to the great white north again. Paul spent most of his time fighting a particular false teaching. The one that God knew he was perfect for fighting. He dealt primarily with newly or potentially converted Jews that were because of tradition and peer pressure constantly trying to ressurect a form of law (or works) based salvation. Paul over and over again told them as he was am expert on the subject that the law never could and never did save a single person. That is normally works salvation people right out of the box do everything they can to dicredit and dismiss Paul. You references to him are a strange tactic. He said more on grace alone than all the rest put together. Now you have me rambling, back to the front.

This parable clearly teaches that none of us are really going to know for sure that we were "born again" from the good seed or the corrupt seed until the time of the harvest comes, which is when the Father sends His servants to reap the fields and gather in the fruits of the good seed.

This is the most rediculous by far and that is saying something claim you have made. If you are born again (actually I think I am beginning to see what is going on here) you would know without a doubt that the experience of being born again can leave no doubt what so ever as to what just happened. I had 27 years of guilt, shame, and remorse instantly removed in a blinding flash. Are you actually suggesting that seed from Satan could do this? I had my fear of death reduced, the first actual experience of true peace, and habits I had fought for years completely dissapeared. You think bad seeds did that? I felt the Holy spirit living in my heart and that is the most overwhelming sence of love and acceptance that can be imagined and I cried tears of Joy for hours and walked around for three days in a stste that can't be described while people were asking if I got a haircut or what was different about me. That certainly does not sound like Satan. He couldn't do a single one of those things even if he wanted to. I think the picture is starting to clear up here.

You have already admitted to the distinction that there are pretender Christians who think they are "born again" of the proper seed, but who in fact are actually tares who don't develop the desired kernal within their soul to make them of any value. Therefore, you have already agreed with me in part and are also contradicting yourself in part.

Not quite. THere are pretender Christians who falsely believe they are Christians who have never been born again. The ones who have rejected the bad seed and adopted the good (without which action they could never have been born again). You said some actual Christians can go to hell. I never said they could. I said if they do they were never actually born of Christ (the only one with good seeds to begin with) and so are not what you claim. Christians who later are not. Just like there was no mention of wheat that later became tares.

How are you to know as a Christian who professes to be "born again" of the "good seed" that you in fact are such?

I can not do so with certainty for anyone else. Given the description I gave only the good seed can do that. It exactly matches what Jesus told John he had to do, it matches the countless book that contain testimonies of great Christians. It matches every other reference to the event in the bible. Plus the fact that bad seed can't not do what I described.

Upon what basis can you claim that my claim to be "born again" of the good seed is bogus?

I never said that claiming good seed produces a born again experience is wrong or bogus. It's the only seed that can. Bad seed can't, however you seem to think that it can for some bizarre reason in your comments above. It is the only way that scripture means what you say it does.

The final exam is those Christians who actually are born of the "good seed" will have put into practice every character attribute that Jesus advocated such that the person will be properly and humbly looking for the coming of the Father's Kingdom. They will hunger and thirst for righteousness. They will be meek and patient. They won't be haughty or proud but they will also keep their candles in view and speak confidently about their love of Christ and lovingly reprove their brother if the need arises. They will be easily entreated and slow to judge, first making absolutely certain they don't have a beam in their own eye, and so on. That way, when the servants of the Father come to harvest, they will be found by them as having the true kernal of righteousness. If they do not have this kernal, they will fight against and reject and beat the Father's servants and reject the Kingdom. They will want to hold to the program that their corrupted seed embedded within them instead.

Sermon...........

Please specifically address my comments and maybe we can soon get to the bottom of at least one parable. If you notice except for the 1 deviation necessary to address your original deviation, I stayed on target.

 

[kylixguru]

I didn't see it before I read those commentators that everyone says are bogus when they dissagree with them.

Commentaries can be helpful at times. The authority isn't the commentary itself, but the extent to which they aid in better understanding the Word where the true authority is vested.

It is impossible to be born again by seeds that are sown by Satan. Satan can not save anyone. His seeds destroy they do not give spiritual life.

Why did Jesus say to the Pharisees and Sadduccees that their father was the Devil then?
Being "born again" in and of itself isn't salvation.
Being "born again" of the "good seed" is where salvation comes from.
The whole point of this parable is that you can be spiritually born by way of a corrupted seed instead of a good seed.
Tares also come up from seed as well as the wheat.

As I said before, the trouble you are having is equating the true pure Christian who is saved in the Father's Kingdom to the juncture of merely being "born again".

Being "born again" is the beginning of the process that leads you to the Father's Kingdom. Baptism by fire is the entry way, not the final destination. If you are true and faithful and reach the point of having your calling and election made sure, then you are at the level you seem to be referring to.

Well, actually, there are yet some risks that remain if you have your calling and election made sure and you aren't diligent when in that calling as the elect. The last place you should be is gathered in with the elect if you are not diligent. There are some brought to this level that are not diligent and when they fall it is a very sorrowful fall, one that cannot ever be recovered from, worlds without end. An example of those who fall from this level of accountability are the "Sons of God" spoken of in Genesis 6:2. Their cursed seed was totally annihilated in the flood and was the cause that necessitated the flood to start with.

The verse does not say born again, you are simply making it say that because you need it to. The difference that differentiates these two are that the wheat that has believed the good seed (been born again, which good seed does produce but bad seed does not) and has then grown up as wheat. Verses the other group that came from the seeds of Satan which can not make a man born again.

You are who is projecting into the parable an inconsistent context.

If receiving good seed leads to a good birth and development of wheat then why wouldn't receiving corrupt seeds lead to a corrupt birth and development of tares?

I'm saying this:
Good seed = Good Birth
Corrupt seed = Corrupt Birth

You are saying this:
Good seed = Birth
Corrupt seed = No birth.

The parable says this:
Good seed = Wheat
Corrupt seed = Tares

How do you propose the Tares got there if they also didn't experience birth?

 

[kylixguru]

These are not two divisions that started with the same seed and one went bad and the other went good. This says they started bad or started good and ended up the same way. If you attempt to refute this simple idea you must show that the seeds Satan sowed can cause a person to be spiritually born again as a Christian. I do not even think you would try that, and if not your case for this verse is not it any way possible. Of course we will keep going but without what I asked this verse is done.

Well, it depends upon what your definition of a Christian actually is.

I think by now we have established that even though a person may claim they are a "born again" Christian of "good seed", they may yet be a tare regardless of what they think of themself.

When I started this thread, what I meant by Christian is all those of today who profess to be such, not some special flavor that cannot be clearly defined that you can keep dancing around with. Do you wish to make a clear definition of "Christian" as another modification to our debate?

It would be modified to:
I do not believe that a [true] Christian can [unknowingly] lose his relationship with Christ.

 

[kylixguru]

This might be taking the parable a little too far.

I don't think so, that's what the parable says itself.

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

Yes when Islam, Gnosticism, or even Catholic traditional dogma shows up and convinces people everything is fine and they are hanging out in the Churches with the Christians that have been born again by different seed then to destroy the Church if that is what you meant would destroy both.

The question is what did Jesus mean because he is who said that.
I get the idea that it was fellow Christians side by side as wheat and tares.
When destroying the tares, Jesus had the wheat as "with them".

You are taking off to the great white north again.

I consider this manner of discussion quite rude.
We are not working on any time constraints here are we?

Paul spent most of his time fighting a particular false teaching. The one that God knew he was perfect for fighting. He dealt primarily with newly or potentially converted Jews that were because of tradition and peer pressure constantly trying to ressurect a form of law (or works) based salvation. Paul over and over again told them as he was am expert on the subject that the law never could and never did save a single person. That is normally works salvation people right out of the box do everything they can to dicredit and dismiss Paul. You references to him are a strange tactic. He said more on grace alone than all the rest put together.

Paul also made sure to temper what he taught to those struggling to adjust so that they reached a proper balance.
If you ignore what Paul said to yet end up with the proper balance, you will fall off the wagon on the other side by totally dismissing the foundation of the law.

My point is that it isn't a battle between grace and the law. A healthy respect for the foundation of law is essential. They just needed help understanding the grace aspects of it. Paul was teaching them how to tap in to the spiritual power Christ makes available in order to have the Law of God written in our hearts so that the law lives in and through us rather than us living under it. His grace, properly understood and applied, gives the nature to be in harmony with the law, not excused from the law.

This is the most rediculous by far and that is saying something claim you have made. If you are born again (actually I think I am beginning to see what is going on here) you would know without a doubt that the experience of being born again can leave no doubt what so ever as to what just happened. I had 27 years of guilt, shame, and remorse instantly removed in a blinding flash. Are you actually suggesting that seed from Satan could do this? I had my fear of death reduced, the first actual experience of true peace, and habits I had fought for years completely dissapeared. You think bad seeds did that? I felt the Holy spirit living in my heart and that is the most overwhelming sence of love and acceptance that can be imagined and I cried tears of Joy for hours and walked around for three days in a stste that can't be described while people were asking if I got a haircut or what was different about me. That certainly does not sound like Satan. He couldn't do a single one of those things even if he wanted to. I think the picture is starting to clear up here.

All of that sounds wonderful and I believe there is much genuine goodness. Nothing I am saying should be taken to discount the good there.

But, if you get puffed up in pride and think your salvation is now guaranteed and you cease to walk before God in humility and you end up fighting against the Father's servants when they bring to you the opportunity to be a part of His Kingdom, where will you end up?

Not quite. There are pretender Christians who falsely believe they are Christians who have never been born again. The ones who have rejected the bad seed and adopted the good (without which action they could never have been born again). You said some actual Christians can go to hell. I never said they could. I said if they do they were never actually born of Christ (the only one with good seeds to begin with) and so are not what you claim. Christians who later are not. Just like there was no mention of wheat that later became tares.

You are missing my point. You are not acknowledging that there are some Christians who claim to be "born again" of the good seed but who actually are merely deceiving themselves. My OP takes that factor into consideration.

I can not do so with certainty for anyone else. Given the description I gave only the good seed can do that. It exactly matches what Jesus told John he had to do, it matches the countless book that contain testimonies of great Christians. It matches every other reference to the event in the bible. Plus the fact that bad seed can't not do what I described.

So whoever really truly believes they are a good seed Christian is one?

I never said that claiming good seed produces a born again experience is wrong or bogus. It's the only seed that can. Bad seed can't, however you seem to think that it can for some bizarre reason in your comments above. It is the only way that scripture means what you say it does.

I'm pretty sure I pointed out that bad seed can produce a birth.
How did the tares come to be without any birth?

Both wheat and tares experience birth, growth and development.
They are a symbol of the kind of spiritual body we have grow up within us.

Ultimately, one of them bears fruit in the Father's Kingdom and the other does not.
The criteria I use to decipher the quality of the seed is the degree to which a person understands what the Father's Kingdom actually is or at the least how earnestly they hunger and thirst for a better knowledge and understanding of it.

If the Father's Kingdom coming to earth so that the Father's will is done on earth as it is in heaven doesn't seem significant to them, then I will know they either have some substantial growth and development in order or that they got bad seeds to start with that have them aimed at some other destination.

Sermon...........

Pardon me for underscoring the whole central point of the parable.

Please specifically address my comments and maybe we can soon get to the bottom of at least one parable. If you notice except for the 1 deviation necessary to address your original deviation, I stayed on target.

My sermon was directly on target.

What is your aversion to the Father's Kingdom?

 

[1robin]

Commentaries can be helpful at times. The authority isn't the commentary itself, but the extent to which they aid in better understanding the Word where the true authority is vested.

Agreed

Why did Jesus say to the Pharisees and Sadduccees that their father was the Devil then?
Being "born again" in and of itself isn't salvation.

The Pharisees were not born again. They were no more right with God than any atheist. That is why Jesus spoke to them alone with such scorching words. They were pretending to be rightous but were not. He spoke more kindly to the unrightous who did not think they were. This is proven by the fact that Nicodemus was a priest as they were and Jesus told him he must be born again because he was not. He was a good priest in that he knew Jesus was from God. If he was not born again then they were even farther from it. Making these incorrect assumptions is the evidence that your theory is not on track.

Being "born again" of the "good seed" is where salvation comes from.
The whole point of this parable is that you can be spiritually born by way of a corrupted seed instead of a good seed.
Tares also come up from seed as well as the wheat.

Parables are never perfectly descriptive of what they represent. That is why they are confusing to so many people. In fact it is logically impossible that a parable could ever perfectly parralel its real world counterpart. You are looking for support from things the parable does not address specifically. Let's stick to what it does address effectively.
Bad seed = What people believe that is not from God. It can never, has never, and will never make someone a true Christian. Teachings of Satan have no ability to make one born again spiritually. It is the default position that every single person ever born is in until they are saved.
Good seed = The teachings of God. Mainly the Gospel which leads to a born again experience. That has never failed nor never will it ever fail to satasfy God's requirements for entrance into heaven.
Tares = People who were germenated in the wisdom of the world (and thereby Satan's seeds).
Wheat = People who were germenated (born by) the seed of God.

The only way this parable could mean what you claim is if either bad seed (Satan) can make one a Christian, or that the wheat later became a tare. Neither one are in this parable. It just doesn't work.

As I said before, the trouble you are having is equating the true pure Christian who is saved in the Father's Kingdom to the juncture of merely being "born again".

Nope, you are assuming something that the parable does not say. See above.

Being "born again" is the beginning of the process that leads you to the Father's Kingdom. Baptism by fire is the entry way, not the final destination. If you are true and faithful and reach the point of having your calling and election made sure, then you are at the level you seem to be referring to.

God requires pefection in order for us to dwell with him eternally. In my system and the vast majority of Christian's system Christ's perfection is legally transfered to my account when I am born again and so I am legally declared perfect by his merit and can dwell with God. He was declared legally guilty and my record was placed on him and he paid the price. That is why the theologians call it substitutionary atonement. In your system you say the price was not paid and that I am still at risk until I do what I can never do and you can't even explain either, which only some Catholics and heretics believe. Salvation does not mean what it says, and we must afterward become what the bible makes clear we can't. We can not be perfect in our own effort and so must rely on Christ 100%. Christ said he came to save the lost not give them an opportunity to do what God said they could not do. That appeals to pride, arrogance, and little faith in Christ. He also said that he who believes is already saved and he who does not is already condemned.

Well, actually, there are yet some risks that remain if you have your calling and election made sure and you aren't diligent when in that calling as the elect. The last place you should be is gathered in with the elect if you are not diligent. There are some brought to this level that are not diligent and when they fall it is a very sorrowful fall, one that cannot ever be recovered from, worlds without end. An example of those who fall from this level of accountability are the "Sons of God" spoken of in Genesis 6:2. Their cursed seed was totally annihilated in the flood and was the cause that necessitated the flood to start with.

There about as many theories as to what the sons of God are as there are letters in genesis. The most accepted is they were angels. I will not debate something so little understood. There is absolutely no need. This is very common. People who have strange theories will never stay on any verse or specific event that shows their theory incorrect they just bounce around all over the place cherry picking little understood things or stripping the contyext off others to attept to gain justification. If your theory was true then the parable alone would show that. It doesn't so off to the races we go.

You are who is projecting into the parable an inconsistent context.

My interpretation is perfectly consistent with it. The teachings of Satan and the world produce false crops. The teachings of God produce the desired wheat, and at no point does teh wheat become a tare. Perfectly consistent.

If receiving good seed leads to a good birth and development of wheat then why wouldn't receiving corrupt seeds lead to a corrupt birth and development of tares?

I do not think whatever idea of new birth you have is actually what it is. There is natural birth and spiritual birth. Bad seed is what ruins aevery person born naturally. God's seed is the only one that can produce spiritual birth. I am really beginning to doubt you understand what being born again means. Keep in mind it is not the type of faith that comes from sincerely accepting a view point. Nicodemus had already done that before Jesus told him he must be born again. It is a spiritual experience that removes sin, quickens the concience, restores hope, removes fear, makes one a son of God, inparts the Holy Spirit into our heart, and is what baptism is a symbol (only) of. This happens in a few seconds at countless alter calls and other places every week. It is not some adoption of a theological view point. It is spiritual and unmistakable and you are never the same from then on. Bad seed does not do that.

How do you propose the Tares got there if they also didn't experience birth?

That is where the imperfection of a parable to perfectly illustrate a real principle breaks down. That is true in all parables and is why it requires the Holy Spirit to understand them. Bad seed is infact what keeps you from being born again. That is what makes someone a tare. Your looking for help in the cracks between where a parable is accurately descriptive and where it is not.
THE TARES - "The tares are the sons of the wicked one"
THE ENEMY - "The enemy who sowed them is the devil"
The Parables Of Jesus - The Wheat And Tares (Mt 13:24-30,36-43)
This parable is so clear that no wheat, ever becomes a tare that it has caused many problems as people used it to insist that the Church should not enforce any discipline. It is also used specifically by once saved always saved people. You are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[1robin]

Well, it depends upon what your definition of a Christian actually is.

My definition is exactly what Jesus said Nicodemus must do to be one.

I think by now we have established that even though a person may claim they are a "born again" Christian of "good seed", they may yet be a tare regardless of what they think of themself.

Only if they never actually were in the first place. If you have had that unmistakable experience then at that moment you were born of the seed of God and are therefore wheat. If you did not have that experience and istead substituted some other definition for born again that is not what Jesus meant in John then you never were anything but a tare and still are. That is true I don't care how many times you go to church, how much you know about the bible, how much money you tithe, missions you go on, or times you falsely claim that God is talking to you. Without that atoneing experience you are still a tare.

When I started this thread, what I meant by Christian is all those of today who profess to be such, not some special flavor that cannot be clearly defined that you can keep dancing around with. Do you wish to make a clear definition of "Christian" as another modification to our debate?

That was not my claim that was Jesus'. He said we must be born again. The fact that that is a subjective experience that can't be objectively proven does not mean that it is not absolutely true. I have always said this, the bible says it, and it is a well established almost universal core doctrine. I can not clarify that in any other way. I believe that there is no external proof for a reason. The bible requires faith, proof negates the need for faith. I do not believe my brother exists I know he does. Salvation is perfectly consistent with that. I may know I was born again and I believe that means I will be in heaven, but that can never serve as proof for an unbeliever. It is exactly what it should be. I was and always have discussed the hypothetical case of someone we assume has been truly born again vs someone who has not regardless of what they would claim. Yes there are many people who claim to be Christians and are not no matter how they put on a show. That is why that parable used a wheat like tare and real Wheat in it's example. It also said that God would know in the end who was truly born again (wheat) and who was only faking it (tare). Two people may go to Church and on missions, both may give money, and both may act morally but it is the one born by the spirit who will be in heaven not the one who was pretending. Two people may not attend church, give any money, and both may have moral flaws but the one born of God will be in heaven and the other will not. I agree that this is not how the world does things. It is performance driven. God's ways are not ours and he said even if a man has no works the man himself will be saved but as through fire (barely) if he was truly born again.

It would be modified to:
I do not believe that a [true] Christian can [unknowingly] lose his relationship with Christ.

That would imply that a true Christian, born again by the seed of God was once wheat but is now a tare, and I do not believe that.

 

[1robin]

I don't think so, that's what the parable says itself.

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

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.

The question is what did Jesus mean because he is who said that.
I get the idea that it was fellow Christians side by side as wheat and tares.
When destroying the tares, Jesus had the wheat as "with them".

That makes no sence at all. How can bad seed make one a Christian. This is rediculous.

I consider this manner of discussion quite rude.
We are not working on any time constraints here are we?

Yes, I am. I work in a defence electronics lab and post during down time. Even if that were not the truth I care very little for the wisdom of men who can demonstrate no reason to regard them as knowledgable. I do not like long opinions without step by step jsutification. I can't stand all these ideas people come up with about religion. I am grounded in the Bible which after many years has left me certain that it alone is the authority. That plus competant scholarly commentary is about all I have found reliable. I have no use for long opinion sermons.

Paul also made sure to temper what he taught to those struggling to adjust so that they reached a proper balance.
If you ignore what Paul said to yet end up with the proper balance, you will fall off the wagon on the other side by totally dismissing the foundation of the law.

At no point did Paul say anything that modifies by grace and grace alone. You may have wanted him to do so so much that you have read that into something. I spent several years on this one issue more committed to it and it alone than you can possibly imagine. I on three occasions believe God to have shown me the answer through miracles and on countless occasions by my sheer will and research. The person I believe he led me to was Charles Stanley if your interested.

My point is that it isn't a battle between grace and the law. A healthy respect for the foundation of law is essential. They just needed help understanding the grace aspects of it. Paul was teaching them how to tap in to the spiritual power Christ makes available in order to have the Law of God written in our hearts so that the law lives in and through us rather than us living under it. His grace, properly understood and applied, gives the nature to be in harmony with the law, not excused from the law.

The fact the Bible says that those under grace are no longer under a law means that any type of personal merit gained by obedience and concerning heaven is impossible. There are endless technical scriptural ways to show this but you stay so much in opinion and very rarely get into rigourus exegesis of verses that I am reluctant to do so. You also show a willingness to make things say as in the above example things they can't possibly say that I do not think it would help.

All of that sounds wonderful and I believe there is much genuine goodness. Nothing I am saying should be taken to discount the good there.

However you are discounting it's role and effect by saying that I have the power to add or detract from an act of God. Salvation is the gift of God, it is not partly the gift of God but he needs my help so I must abide by some system of rules that you haven't and can't list in a meaningfull way. It is God and God alone.

But, if you get puffed up in pride and think your salvation is now guaranteed and you cease to walk before God in humility and you end up fighting against the Father's servants when they bring to you the opportunity to be a part of His Kingdom, where will you end up?

So Jesus said he would not forsake me and you say he can. Jesus said the Holy spirit would never leave me but you say he can. Jesus said when you believe then you are already saved, and you say that is not true. Paul said it was grace and grace alone, you say plus some unknown amount and type of works. Jesus told Nicodemus that to get in the kingdom he must be born again and said nothing else, but you say Christ should have added things he did not. The Bible says we can never earn our way to heaven but you insist we must. Jesus said he came to save and you say it is instead only the opportunity to then do what the Bible says we can't. I can go on for days.
The Bible makes it very clear that works are important as they should be. It also makes it very clear that works have no power to get us to heaven. In fact is says specifically that the man with NO works will still be saved.

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.
(You are laying a foundation that contains Christ plus another layer that contains obedience and so is another 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.
These verses alone say point blank what my view is. Bolding mine. This man had not a single act of obedience that met God's standards yet he is in heaven. Good luck with that one.
</title> </head> <body link="#003399"> <font size="2"> <html> <head> <meta name="description" content="Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing th
It does not get any simpler than this and that is why Paul is the champion of grace alone and usually works people like you must get rid of him. Apparently you have inetead just reinterpreted things he says in strange ways that no commentator, clear reading of the text, or the biblical narrative supports.

You are missing my point. You are not acknowledging that there are some Christians who claim to be "born again" of the good seed but who actually are merely deceiving themselves. My OP takes that factor into consideration.

Then they never were Christians and so are not proof of your claim.

So whoever really truly believes they are a good seed Christian is one?

Believing the Good seed (word) is what makes a Christian a Christian and born again. If he is not born again into the kingdom of God, he does not truly believe and no matter what they claim are not a Christians.

I'm pretty sure I pointed out that bad seed can produce a birth.
How did the tares come to be without any birth?

You are simply interpreting a crack in the parable. No parable is, was, or can be a perfect representation of an actuall thing. Explain just how bad seed can cause a person to be born again spritually. Also how would a person be a non believer and not be a tare. In other words if non believers are not what the tares are then what are they and how could they not be tares. This is just silly. The things that are appealed to by sheer desperation never cease to amaze me. You are over literalizing a symbolic verse.

Both wheat and tares experience birth, growth and development.
They are a symbol of the kind of spiritual body we have grow up within us.

There is no possible way bad seeds produce even a brand new Christian. Which if you will remember is what we are discussing. Only good seed produce wheat, and it never says wheat turns into tares.

Ultimately, one of them bears fruit in the Father's Kingdom and the other does not.
The criteria I use to decipher the quality of the seed is the degree to which a person understands what the Father's Kingdom actually is or at the least how earnestly they hunger and thirst for a better knowledge and understanding of it.

You are actually going to support your position on the claim that Bad seed can produce a Christian (wheat). Simply amazing.

If the Father's Kingdom coming to earth so that the Father's will is done on earth as it is in heaven doesn't seem significant to them, then I will know they either have some substantial growth and development in order or that they got bad seeds to start with that have them aimed at some other destination.

So for this to be true then the seeds of Satan put them in the kingdom of God and make them wheat but later on they become Tares even though it does not say that. I think your position is far more valuable to you than what the Bible says and so the Bible is adapted to your position by any means necessary.

Pardon me for underscoring the whole central point of the parable.

My sermon was directly on target.

What is your aversion to the Father's Kingdom?

I have no reason to value an opinion by a person who's claims produce impossabilities and are so drastically inconsistant with the over all narrative and virtually all core teachings. Do not assume my position on the Kingdom of God based on my rejection of your position. I believe your position is outside the kingdom and my aversion to it is consistent with my inclusion in the kingdom. You are laying a new foundation not me.

 

[kylixguru]

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.

That makes no sence at all. How can bad seed make one a Christian. This is rediculous.

I didn't say that.

Bad seed makes a person who thinks they are a true Christian and who has the appearance of being a true Christian but who actually is a tare that will not end up garnered into the Father's Kingdom when His servants come to gather in the wheat.

I have no use for long opinion sermons.

Your opinions matter to me. That's how I get to know who you are and what you believe. And, just because your opinions matter, doesn't mean I am beholden to them as if they have any authority. So, when I share my opinions, I am giving you the opportunity to know who I am and what I believe. If that doesn't matter to you, then perhaps you are a person who is not worthy of my time.

At no point did Paul say anything that modifies by grace and grace alone.

Everyone who is saved will most definitely confess in humility that it is only in and through the grace of Jesus Christ that they could be saved.

This doesn't preclude a person from falling from grace and crucifying Jesus afresh and losing the salvation they could have had by the grace of God.

You may have wanted him to do so so much that you have read that into something. I spent several years on this one issue more committed to it and it alone than you can possibly imagine. I on three occasions believe God to have shown me the answer through miracles and on countless occasions by my sheer will and research. The person I believe he led me to was Charles Stanley if your interested.

Charles Stanley would be welcome to approach me and exchange ideas. I've found that God doesn't lead me to men and the only men I really put much stock in simply trying and lead me to Christ and to have fidelity to Him.

The fact the Bible says that those under grace are no longer under a law means that any type of personal merit gained by obedience and concerning heaven is impossible. There are endless technical scriptural ways to show this but you stay so much in opinion and very rarely get into rigourus exegesis of verses that I am reluctant to do so. You also show a willingness to make things say as in the above example things they can't possibly say that I do not think it would help.

Actually, your interpretations seem the most disjointed and tainted with injections. I'm happy to belabor it as I think you would eventually come around to see that my point of view is a reasonably consistent reading.

However you are discounting it's role and effect by saying that I have the power to add or detract from an act of God. Salvation is the gift of God, it is not partly the gift of God but he needs my help so I must abide by some system of rules that you haven't and can't list in a meaningfull way. It is God and God alone.

There are aspects that God and God alone does to affect our salvation, but God is not into the business of forcing people to do their part to cherish and use the gift He has given properly. It is possible for people to neglect and lose the gift they are given by their own irresponsiblity.

So Jesus said he would not forsake me and you say he can.

No, you are twisting my words again. We already went over this.

We can forsake Him. We can neglect and misuse the gift He gives us and lose it.

Jesus said the Holy spirit would never leave me but you say he can. Jesus said when you believe then you are already saved, and you say that is not true. Paul said it was grace and grace alone, you say plus some unknown amount and type of works. Jesus told Nicodemus that to get in the kingdom he must be born again and said nothing else, but you say Christ should have added things he did not.

You are twisting my words again. I didn't say Christ should have added things he did not. I read his parable about the seed as depicting the spiritual birth he taught Nicodemus of that takes place within us that if nurtured and cared for properly will develop and mature and eventually enable us to enter the Father's Kingdom, just as Jesus said.

The Bible says we can never earn our way to heaven but you insist we must. Jesus said he came to save and you say it is instead only the opportunity to then do what the Bible says we can't. I can go on for days.
*snip*
It does not get any simpler than this and that is why Paul is the champion of grace alone and usually works people like you must get rid of him. Apparently you have instead just reinterpreted things he says in strange ways that no commentator, clear reading of the text, or the biblical narrative supports.

This OP isn't about a contest between works vs. grace.

This OP is more or less investigating whether a Christian can fall from grace or not.

Then they never were Christians and so are not proof of your claim.

I'm trying to have a practical conversation here that is meaningful in the world we live in. If you do not mean any professing Christian then we need to alter the OP such that your more specific meaning for Christian is considered.

Believing the Good seed (word) is what makes a Christian a Christian and born again. If he is not born again into the kingdom of God, he does not truly believe and no matter what they claim are not a Christians.

Jesus didn't say being born again was immediate entrance into the Father's Kingdom. Jesus said that before you are eligible to be received into the Father's Kingdom you must first be "born again". His parable goes on to clarify that you also need to be nurtured and nourished and developed as a new spiritual creation so that you can "bear fruit" in the Father's Kingdom. This means that you start from seed and you grow and develop and in time if you are of good seed and you don't get snatched away by the birds or wilt and die or get distracted and fail to produce the kernal that you will have a tassel of wheat kernals that the Father's servants shall garner into safety. Then, you become seed stock that the Father uses to sire a new Creation from. That is the simple and clear reading of the parable of Jesus.

You are simply interpreting a crack in the parable. No parable is, was, or can be a perfect representation of an actuall thing.

I'm simply taking it in a straight forward manner drawing consistent parallels throughout.

Explain just how bad seed can cause a person to be born again spritually.

Because they grow and develop into a tare.
How can anything grow and develop into something without being born?

Also how would a person be a non believer and not be a tare. In other words if non believers are not what the tares are then what are they and how could they not be tares. This is just silly. The things that are appealed to by sheer desperation never cease to amaze me. You are over literalizing a symbolic verse.

A tare is a believer in the bad seed they are nurturing.

A non-believer either never received any seed (word) to start with or they are someone who didn't safeguard their seed properly and the birds snatched it away from them such that there is no more spiritual life (belief) remaining.

You have to keep the context of the parable consistent throughout.

The life of the wheat is nourished and developed through belief. As the seed grows and develops, the level of belief grows.

Non-belief means the growth is being starved or is already dead.

Therefore, a living tare is representative of someone who has belief, but belief based upon a corrupt understanding such that they do not produce the desired kernals of wheat when it comes time for the Father to harvest.

There is no possible way bad seeds produce even a brand new Christian. Which if you will remember is what we are discussing. Only good seed produce wheat, and it never says wheat turns into tares.

We can receive more than one seed into the soil of our hearts and minds.
We are constantly being bombarded with "words" that can try and take root in us.
We are responsible to be wise and only nourish (believe) the good seed (words) and starve (disbelieve) the bad seed (words).

This is a good place for you to apply your point above by not taking a parable too literally and, for example, erroneously deriving from it the idea that once a person is spiritually born that this locks them in forever to only be a wheat or a tare with nothing more they can do about it. That's clearly taking things too far.

You are actually going to support your position on the claim that Bad seed can produce a Christian (wheat). Simply amazing.

I said the wheat is what is garnered in by the harvesters of the Father and so those who are actually garnered in are who was the wheat. That's the bottom line.

 

[kylixguru]

So for this to be true then the seeds of Satan put them in the kingdom of God and make them wheat but later on they become Tares even though it does not say that. I think your position is far more valuable to you than what the Bible says and so the Bible is adapted to your position by any means necessary.

I didn't say that either. You are twisting my words again.

Let's take you for an example first and then we will do me second.

You claim to be a "born again" Christian who is a completely TRUE Christian in every respect sufficient that your salvation in the Father's Kingdom is now guaranteed regardless of what you might think, say or do in the future.

I claim to be a "born again" Christian who believes I must be careful and responsible in nurturing that budding spiritual life within me so that I will be worthy to be saved in the Father's Kingdom in the future when that time comes.

You claim that your spiritual birth was of good seed and that this is now the only seed that is operative in the growth and development of your spirit and that because of this you will survive all elements unconditionally and produce wheat.

I claim that my spiritual birth was of good seed but that I can also have bad seed thrown in with the good as well. I believe I am responsible to carefully nurture the wheat and starve out the bad so that my final efforts will have the desired result.

Which person more consistently exemplifies what Jesus advocated in these parables?

If you believe you are, where in the parable did Jesus say that the good seed would be guaranteed to grow from birth and bear good fruit to be garnered in the Father's Kingdom?

I have no reason to value an opinion by a person who's claims produce impossabilities and are so drastically inconsistant with the over all narrative and virtually all core teachings. Do not assume my position on the Kingdom of God based on my rejection of your position. I believe your position is outside the kingdom and my aversion to it is consistent with my inclusion in the kingdom. You are laying a new foundation not me.

You are assuming the foundation given to you by the orthodoxy is the correct foundation.

 

[1robin]

I didn't say that either. You are twisting my words again.

Let's take you for an example first and then we will do me second.

You claim to be a "born again" Christian who is a completely TRUE Christian in every respect sufficient that your salvation in the Father's Kingdom is now guaranteed regardless of what you might think, say or do in the future.

I claim to be a "born again" Christian who believes I must be careful and responsible in nurturing that budding spiritual life within me so that I will be worthy to be saved in the Father's Kingdom in the future when that time comes.

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. You are looking and describing something outside what this parable claims. Parables are never perfect matches but they usually contain accurate dynamics. The only option for the wheat is that the word of god made them from their first second wheat (From the moment of new birth). You might balk and say well if we are all tares, the parable does not show any tares becoming wheat. Well the Bible also says that when we are born again our old self has been crucified and destroyed and now we are a new person. So in reality from our first moment of our new life we are wheat. Our old tare life was already put in the furnace and destroyed in Christ's crucifixion. This may be a lttle ambitious but as I have said parables are never perfect. It does not mention any kind of either Satan producing wheat or wheat that later became tares. It just is not there. It might be some where else but this parable is perfectly consistent with my position. If you can agree with that then we may move on to another verse that you can attempt to use to justify your position. I do not like to build on a bad premise so we must resolve this before we can move on. That parable in no way resembles what ever version of works based salvation you subscribe to. Good seed produces wheat and there is no mention of anything else.

You claim that your spiritual birth was of good seed and that this is now the only seed that is operative in the growth and development of your spirit and that because of this you will survive all elements unconditionally and produce wheat.

Now we are operating in a field that parable is not designed to address. Instead of macro identities and general status determinations you want to address detailed aspects of things that that parable has no input on. That is fine as parables are not perfect. The Bible teaches that every man that ever lived will have bad and good on his record. The bible records two judgements. The first to determine where we wind up. Born again by the seed of God and we go to Heaven, born (by default by the seed of the world or Satan and we go to Hell, but we still have another judgement coming. The next judgement is about rewards in Heaven (I have no idea what they are) That is when everything I have ever done is tested by holy fire. The Godly acts are kept and the unGodly ones burned up. That perfectly describes the verse I gave you where the man with no works has all his works burned up but is still saved. It is perfectly just IMO. I do not like these opinion like discussions but I guess we are stuck with them but keep them short please as I will try to. You and I both will show up with both bad and good works. In my system since we are born again we are saved. In yours no one knows, there is no actuall standard, it is a vague concept that strips one of the boldness suggested in the Bible.

I claim that my spiritual birth was of good seed but that I can also have bad seed thrown in with the good as well. I believe I am responsible to carefully nurture the wheat and starve out the bad so that my final efforts will have the desired result.

It is an absolute certainty that you will until you die remain flawed and needfull of grace. The Bible says that if any man claim to be without sin he is a liar. Not until he reaches some exalted state or sinless perfection. There are things at stake however but salvation is not one because that was by Christ's merits and ours thank God has no bearing on the issue.

Which person more consistently exemplifies what Jesus advocated in these parables?

The same could be said about those new Jewish converts that Paul who was an expert on the law told they were making Christ without effect and trampling underfoot the most precious gift in human history. They like you are trying to go back and ressurrect some form of salvation by obedience. It did not work then, in fact never has, and never will. Either you must obey the law perfectly or be condemned. There is no way to construct an arbitrary level of obedience which makes grace unnecessary and merit, justify salvation. If grace is necessary then what is it that the grace of God can't handle? How did you arrive at that?

If you believe you are, where in the parable did Jesus say that the good seed would be guaranteed to grow from birth and bear good fruit to be garnered in the Father's Kingdom?

The fact that there is not a single mention of wheat becoming non-wheat is all that is necessary. It implied and may have even stated that wheat stays wheat. In nature that this parable is based in that is certainly so.

You are assuming the foundation given to you by the orthodoxy is the correct foundation.

Do I sound like I just accepted what was orthedox? I spent my first two years as a Christian seperate from any traditional doctrine. I threw my VCR in the lake and read the Bible several times cover to cover and then studied the core issues. Once I had a good idea about what I believed I then and only then selected a Church.

You might think I am argueing for some easy way to heaven. That is not exactly accurate. I think there are very important and profound issues that are wrapped up in obedience. I believe that obedience can lead to honor and a very intimate relationship in our daily lives with the father. I believe that dissobedience can result in God killing us in extreme circumstances or a lack on intimacy and harmony. However any God that would have such a bizarre, contradictory, and vague method of getting to heaven as what you have described is not worth believing in. Salvation should logically have a defined line to reach. (In mine there is, in yours there is not). This and only this allows for security and boldness needed to spend a lifetime on missionary work or facing martydom. Now I am sermonizing. I will get back to verese in teh next post.

 

[kylixguru]

I think just this parable alone for now should be sufficient to work this through.
You agree that the parable isn't able to be taken as a 100% perfect parallel.
So, what we are left with is an exercize to distil the perfect principles from it.
Each manner of interpreting it will have implications on how it affects us.
You touched on some implications in your post. Let's continue to explore them.

You mention that a person is born into an evil state with a natural tendency to sin.
This seems to be the "original sin" concept where all mankind are born in sin.
In a manner of speaking, this indicates our default trajectory is to become a tare.
But, when a person comes into contact with and receives good seed, the old bad seed is destroyed and the good seed becomes operative.

Therefore, you subscribe to the potentiality a person has to clear away something that was there in order to make room for something else. So, you seem to accept that there is some direct competition between the good and the bad seed within us. So, it's not that I'm saying wheat becomes a tare or visa-versa. I'm saying that wheat or tares can be destroyed or created anew within us.

My understanding is we are the final arbiters of what seeds sown in us are nurtured and nourished by way of our belief. When we come to believe in good seed and we no longer believe in bad seed, then we become a new spiritual creation with the old destroyed by lack of nourishment (belief) and the new germinating and developing and moving us towards whatever end result those seeds point you to. And, that you need to continue to nurture and protect them in order to reap whatever fruit they produce.

The question I have for you is if we can destroy the bad seed and replace it with the good seed during our life, how do you get from that parable that once the good seed is in you that it cannot ever be destroyed and replaced with something else?

To me, the more natural reading suggests that the good seed is just as susceptible to being uprooted and removed as the bad seed is. The parable suggests that no matter what seed is planted that the growth of it is subject to the elements.

 

[kylixguru]

I'll address your comment about how you say my approach has no real standard that people cannot actually know if they are saved or not. I recognize that the way I approach things is uncomfortable to accept because it considers the possibility that you could falter and fail to produce the fruit the Father is looking for. This has a person walking in a more humble and lowly mindset knowing that if at anytime they strayed from God that they would forfeit most if not all of their blessings.

The standard I have been trying to open your mind to is the very premise of the parable. Matthew 13:19 says "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom". This means that the "good seed" is what properly points the believer to what the Kingdom of the Father is. That is the standard we should seek to.

This is what the parable boils down to:

If you actually know what the Father's Kingdom is and what is entailed to be found worthy to enter and you strive to do such in faith while relying upon the grace of God to empower you in such, then you have good seed operating in you.

If you have an abberant understanding about what the Father's Kingdom is or a false notion about what qualifies you to be found worthy to enter or you take God's grace and use it in a way He didn't intend, then you have bad seed operating in you.
​

The ultimate and final determining factor is:
When are we actually in the Father's Kingdom or have we perhaps put ourself in an illegitimate fantasy we believe is such when in fact it isn't what the Father had in mind?

My perspective is that as we work out our salvation with fear and trembling (humility) before God and our fellow men and we constantly seek for the proper understanding of exactly what the Father's Kingdom is that we shall bear fruit.

If and when that wonderful day comes, everyone shall surely feel to exclaim that it was only by the grace of God that we could have been able to have the Father's mind and will revealed to us and by God's help we were able to become joint-heirs with Christ.

Matthew 13:43
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Matthew 7:21
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
​

 

[1robin]

I'll address your comment about how you say my approach has no real standard that people cannot actually know if they are saved or not. I recognize that the way I approach things is uncomfortable to accept because it considers the possibility that you could falter and fail to produce the fruit the Father is looking for. This has a person walking in a more humble and lowly mindset knowing that if at anytime they strayed from God that they would forfeit most if not all of their blessings.

The standard I have been trying to open your mind to is the very premise of the parable. Matthew 13:19 says "When any one heareth the word of the kingdom". This means that the "good seed" is what properly points the believer to what the Kingdom of the Father is. That is the standard we should seek to.

Well I am glad to see that this is finally going to be attempted. In contradiction to your claim that this "other" theology produces humility, it is a well known teaching and issue is Christianity that people's desire to earn what they can't instead of simply reliance on what God provided not only shows a shallow faith but is the result of pride and arrogance. I am not applying this to you just the philosophy you are suggesting. It is a well known sympton of pride that it cause self focus, never wants to be given anything, and thinks it can gain through it's brilliance or effort what is only available as a gift. It takes our eyes off God and puts them on us and we become either hopeless or arrogant. Telling Christ that what he went through did not accomplish what it was meant to is to lessen the significance. Telling Christ who bled and died in agony to accomplish what we never could, that instead we think we are good enough to make up what he couldn't get done is abhorent IMO. Anyway let's check it out.

This is what the parable boils down to:

That parable was never intended and never can give a suffecient understanding of what is required even if some obedience is necessary to get to heaven. That issue is dealt with in other verses if any where. This parable was simply an explenation of the fact that the judgement was a future judgement and would seperate the ones born again (by the good seed) from the ones who are not. You are attempting to make some doctrinal understanding as the standard by which we get into Heaven. That determination could be done without Christ haveing to die or really any work being done. You are drastically simplifying a very complex issue that for one, IMO is wrong to begin with but even if true can not be based upon this parable.

If you actually know what the Father's Kingdom is and what is entailed to be found worthy to enter and you strive to do such in faith while relying upon the grace of God to empower you in such, then you have good seed operating in you.

I notice you are purposelly being very vague. I am sure you would not think a single transgretion would get us kickout out, I am also sure that at some point you arbitrarily chose you would determine that a person has been rejected. Those issues even if true are so complex as to defy description. You are giving a vague and generalised description of something I do not believe scriptural and even if it was would be impossible to quantify in a practical way. I want specifics. If you do not have them your contention is useless even if true.

If you have an abberant understanding about what the Father's Kingdom is or a false notion about what qualifies you to be found worthy to enter or you take God's grace and use it in a way He didn't intend, then you have bad seed operating in you.

Since this is a true fact for every single human that has ever been born withe the exception of Christ then you have condemned us all. No one ever has been, is, or ever will be perfectly obedient. So Grace must make up the slack, and you are for some reason are saying that the slack it will take up is limited and that at some point which you will not and can not actually define in any way that makes the effort meaningfull God just can't get the job done.

The ultimate and final determining factor is:
​

When are we actually in the Father's Kingdom or have we perhaps put ourself in an illegitimate fantasy we believe is such when in fact it isn't what the Father had in mind?

The born again experience is of such a nature that I do not think possible to have and not know for sure you are in the kingdom of God. I am not sure what you think being born again is and mine are the same thing. That parable does not mention anything about laws, duty, or obedience. It says born of the good seed (born again) and that very second you are wheat and at no point in the future does it even suggest that we are not wheat. This is a very simple and a very limited in scope parable. I for some reason thought if it was simple enough and direct enough that you could not read things into it that it does not say or even imply. I was wrong. That parable is perfectly consistent with my claims and mentions nothing that validates yours.
​

My perspective is that as we work out our salvation with fear and trembling (humility) before God and our fellow men and we constantly seek for the proper understanding of exactly what the Father's Kingdom is that we shall bear fruit.

This scholar (respected commentator) says it better than I could have.

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; which is to be understood not in such a sense as though men could obtain and procure for themselves spiritual and eternal salvation by their own works and doings; for such a sense is contrary to the Scriptures, which deny any part of salvation, as election, justification, and calling, and the whole of it to be of works, but ascribe it to the free grace of God; and is also repugnant to the perfections of God, as his wisdom, grace, and righteousness; for where are the wisdom and love of God, in forming a scheme of salvation, and sending his Son to effect it, and after all it is left to men to work it out for themselves? and where is the justice of God in admitting of an imperfect righteousness in the room of a perfect one, which must be the case, if salvation is obtained by men's works? for these are imperfect, even the best of them; and is another reason against this sense of the passage; and were they perfect, they could not be meritorious of salvation, for the requisites of merits are wanting in them. Moreover, was salvation to be obtained by the works of men, these consequences would follow; the death of Christ would be in vain, boasting would be encouraged in men, they would have whereof to glory, and their obligations to obedience taken from the love of God, and redemption by Christ, would be weakened and destroyed: add to all this, that the Scriptures assure us, that salvation is alone by Christ; and that it is already finished by him, and not to be wrought out now by him, or any other
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

If and when that wonderful day comes, everyone shall surely feel to exclaim that it was only by the grace of God that we could have been able to have the Father's mind and will revealed to us and by God's help we were able to become joint-heirs with Christ.

That is contradictory to the obvious and undeniable fact that by your system I would have worked or merited at least in part my salvation and am therefore entitled to boast. Grace specifically means to recieve that which we have not merited. That means we get it even though we will NEVER merit it. I do not know how anything could be simpler or more obvious. Grace and merit are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[kylixguru]

Well I am glad to see that this is finally going to be attempted.

My previous attempts were ignored or dismissed by you as "irrelevant". This has been my standard all along when understanding this parable.

Salvation is a gift given to us by the grace of God. This gift has a very specific purpose. If I gave you a toaster as a gift, you would make use of that to toast bread. Usually there are instructions that come with things so that you know how to make proper use of them. Christ gave us the precious gift of salvation and He gave us instruction on how to make proper use of that gift. I am not trying to advocate anything other than that we make proper use of His grace. You are reading into my words things that just are not there. I know that my salvation is only by the grace of God and I know also that God is now watching with great hope and anticipation to see how I make use of that gift He gave me.

 

[1robin]

My previous attempts were ignored or dismissed by you as "irrelevant". This has been my standard all along when understanding this parable.

That is because your claims are supported by that parable. There is not a single word in that parable that validates your point. If you can agree we can move on to one that might but if we can't I don't see the point.

Salvation is a gift given to us by the grace of God. This gift has a very specific purpose.

But you claim that gift doesn't have the power to produce what it's very name implies. It does not produce salvation in your claims and should not be called salvation. If it was called a chance for salvation of made you a candidate for it then maybe you could be right. If it does result in being saved from hell it is not salvation and God is a liar.

you would make use of that to toast bread. Usually there are instructions that come with things so that you know how to make proper use of them.

Christ didn't die to supply us with a toaster. Attempting to equate the unequal or draw lessons from some completely dissimilar concepts does not help.

Christ gave us the precious gift of salvation

No he died to give us the opportunity in your view to earn what he said never can be earned. I can obey or dissobey rules without his needing to die. He did not take my punishment for me if I still recieve it even after I believe.

He gave us instruction on how to make proper use of that gift.

He said on the cross it is finished, he didn't say well my part is finished it is up to you. Which in effect means absolutely nothing of significance.

I am not trying to advocate anything other than that we make proper use of His grace.

Grace means recieving what you do not deserve. My position is perfectly consistent with that. Your is completely contradictory to that.

You are reading into my words things that just are not there. I know that my salvation is only by the grace of God

It says specifically it is by grace alone in this verse.
New International Version (©1984)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
Not by grace plus, not by grace and, not by grace if but by grace without respect of what we do (not of our selves). Note it also says have been saved (past tense).

and I know also that God is now watching with great hope and anticipation to see how I make use of that gift He gave me.

I agree but not in any sence that concerns your destination. That is not what he says and makes the Bible incoherent and salvation through what Christ dead almost meaningless. I believe God accomplished what he set out to do, you think he needs our help even the he only requires our faith. How is what you are saying any different that those new Chrstian Jews that were trying to go back to justification by law or merit to whom Paul said they were trampling under foot what Christ had provided and their only hope. The fact the Bible's greatest expert on law said more on grace and unmerited salvation than all the rest combined is inescapable.

 

[kylixguru]

Here's where we differ:

You view not being held responsible for your sins as salvation from your sins.
You view that Jesus paid the price for all of your sins as long as you believe this.
You get to go on living your life in the peace and security of knowing you are saved.

I can concur with these statements as well, provided that you keep them in context.

I accept that my sins have been forgiven because Jesus paid the price for them.

Where I draw the line is I believe it is possible for a person to become corrupted in their beliefs such that they miss out on being a partaker of the Father's Kingdom.

All 10 virgins were bidden to the wedding, but only 5 were wise and were able to attend.
What made the difference between the two groups? Some were wise and some were not.

You are saying the wedding has already happened.
I am saying I am still keeping vigil with oil in supply.

 

[kylixguru]

That is because your claims are supported by that parable. There is not a single word in that parable that validates your point. If you can agree we can move on to one that might but if we can't I don't see the point.

We see it differently.

But you claim that gift doesn't have the power to produce what it's very name implies. It does not produce salvation in your claims and should not be called salvation. If it was called a chance for salvation of made you a candidate for it then maybe you could be right. If it does result in being saved from hell it is not salvation and God is a liar.

You and I have a different view of salvation.

Christ didn't die to supply us with a toaster. Attempting to equate the unequal or draw lessons from some completely dissimilar concepts does not help.

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.

No he died to give us the opportunity in your view to earn what he said never can be earned.

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. 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.

I can obey or dissobey rules without his needing to die. He did not take my punishment for me if I still recieve it even after I believe.

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

He said on the cross it is finished, he didn't say well my part is finished it is up to you. Which in effect means absolutely nothing of significance.

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.

Grace means recieving what you do not deserve. My position is perfectly consistent with that. Your is completely contradictory to that.

You are creating your own standard and then patting your own back for satisfying it.

It says specifically it is by grace alone in this verse.
New International Version (©1984)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
Not by grace plus, not by grace and, not by grace if but by grace without respect of what we do (not of our selves). Note it also says have been saved (past tense).


I agree but not in any sence that concerns your destination. That is not what he says and makes the Bible incoherent and salvation through what Christ dead almost meaningless. I believe God accomplished what he set out to do, you think he needs our help even the he only requires our faith. How is what you are saying any different that those new Chrstian Jews that were trying to go back to justification by law or merit to whom Paul said they were trampling under foot what Christ had provided and their only hope. The fact the Bible's greatest expert on law said more on grace and unmerited salvation than all the rest combined is inescapable.

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.