dave_l — 2017-02-08T09:46:18-05:00 — #1
“And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.” (Matthew 13:57–58)
Did the believers in Jesus’ audience reflect the true number of believers everywhere? Do the skeptics suggest most people might believe for the wrong reasons, just as the skeptics would, had they not known Jesus?
lu1 — 2017-02-08T15:09:41-05:00 — #2
I am not understanding the question... personally for me this is a hard question to answer because of the generality of it.
If you are asking that many in a church are tares? How would we possible know that answer...
dave_l — 2017-02-08T15:40:21-05:00 — #3
Thanks for helping explore this. In Jesus' day there were two types of believers. Those who believed with the flesh or mind because of the miracles. Jesus did not commit himself to these. And believers like Peter who believed supernaturally, by Divine revelation. So I believe this passage helps demonstrate this. And might help answer if the Tares (flesh level believers) are in control of many churches today.
lu1 — 2017-02-08T18:22:19-05:00 — #4
It is interesting to note that both the wheat and the tares sit alongside each other in the House of God (Matthew 13:24–30, 38). And both the wheat and tares call Jesus “Lord” (Matthew 7:21). It is not always easy to discern the wheat from the tares because it takes the wisdom from on high. Here is the wisdom or discernment being offered.. The false convert will show his spirit by, dividing the Body of Christ in two, rather than giving grace. The Tare will cut a body of believers in half with vicious gossip. He sows discord among the brethren. He is a slave to his tongue, which is a worldly look at James 3:6 concerning the tongue
However, the true convert controls his mouth by the power of the Lord, and will immediately back away from words that would divide a local church. He knows that the beginning of strife is as when one lets out water Proverbs 17:14.
He doesn’t become involved in idle talk. He is a peacemaker, a child of God. The fear of God is his guide. He knows that there is not a word on his tongue that God doesn’t know, and that on Judgment Day he will give an account for every idle word he speaks. So that is how it should relate to the Church.
So what does Jesus mean?
In the parable of the Wheat & the Tares. It seems that Jesus is correcting the idea that the kingdom is going to come immediately and all at once. As he begins to sow the seed, immediately what is seen is the enemy. Satan begins to sow another seed. He also begins to pick up his work and sows a seed that is very similar to the seed that is being sown for the coming of the kingdom.
What we’re being told here is that the kingdom is already here; the seed is being sown, but it’s not yet come in fullness. Should they tear out these tares? The answer is: “No, allow them to continue and at the end they will be separated.” Resistance to the kingdom is not to be overcome by violence but is to be tolerated until the final judgment? It seems so.
We’re also told in the following parables, it connects with I believe, that is the parable of the Net, that the final judgment’s not going to come immediately. With the coming of salvation and that’s what the Jews expected that God’s judgment would fall along with the coming of salvation; the two went hand in hand. But according to these two parables, it’s not going to be until later. Gather in the fish, the separation comes later. Gather in the harvest, the separation between the Tares and the Wheat will be separated later. The final judgment does not come immediately. It comes at a later date. Is it reserved for the future? It seems so.
Since Jesus was speaking to the Jews first and to us later with the understanding of Who Jesus is and what He does for those who believe. It is in my mind an important distinction.
lu1 — 2017-02-08T18:28:03-05:00 — #5
I am concerned with this point... I think for many this is the case but not for all. I hope I will be watchful that I don't become deceived...like so many are it seems...
dave_l — 2017-02-08T18:40:25-05:00 — #6
Thanks for helping develop this thread. In Jesus' first teaching about the Tares, he said it was while men slept an enemy did this. So possibly it means the churches let down their guard or it came at a time of weakness. But I believe we can identify Tare churches and Tare believers in one simple way. And that is by the gospel they preach and believe. In the NT, the gospel is simply Jesus died for our sins, was buried and God raised him from the dead on the third day. And this word creates the New Birth and faith in those who hear on a spiritual level. As Peter says we are born again by the Word of God 1 Peter 1:23. Repentance and Baptism follow.
But when evangelists add to this, and make the gospel conditional, we move into a gospel tailored for the self-righteous. A gospel any unregenerate soul can apply. And this would explain the adrenalin and entertainment driven churches of today. Not to mention the Word of Faith "gospel". Although the problem is much broader than this.
lu1 — 2017-02-09T12:46:31-05:00 — #7
How so? What are example of a adrenalin and entertainment driven churches of today? Are they cultic in nature or actual churches that are in Christ?
dave_l — 2017-02-09T13:03:47-05:00 — #8
I believe many Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are adrenalin driven. Just as sport fans are. Also the "Christian Rock" churches produce the same affects in the audience as any secular Rock Concert. Based on personal experience.
I believe the ones I attended were cults in the genuine sense of the word. But Christians are mixed up in them just as I was.
lu1 — 2017-02-09T17:59:57-05:00 — #9
So is it safe to say you generally have a problem with Pentecostal movement? Which started at the end of the 1800's beginning of the 1900's but has it's roots in the Holiness movement in the mid 1800's or the Moravian Church movement in the mid 1600's as well as the In the 1600's and 1700's for the mysticism movement in the church? Putting aside the Charismatic movement considering that it's beginning was a Catholic reaction to Pentecostalism in the 60's/ 70's ..but later morphed into a category onto itself in the 70's / 80's . What is your thought concerning their basic Assembly of God Pentecostal / Charismatic tenant that believe in Christ, Christ Crucified and the Resurrection, as well as Pentecostalism also believes the Scripture Romans 10::9-10 concerning salvation and an adherence to Sola Scripture. Generally Pentecostalism and Charismatics fall in two categories. Tongues are evidence of Salvation or one of the evidences of salvation is that problematic for you? How they engage worship is an issue, which is counter cultural?
As well as the Ministry of the Holy Spirit for mankind today?
I'm trying to get an understanding why...I'm just wondering.
dave_l — 2017-02-09T19:17:05-05:00 — #10
Thanks for your questions. It isn't just the Pentecostal movement, but any group that adds conditions to the gospel. That is, any group who makes salvation conditional. Turning it into salvation by works instead of grace. But the Pentecostals and Charismatics further cloud our understanding with their erroneous beliefs about the Holy Spirit, Baptism of the Holy Spirit in particular and the gifts of the Spirit. I believe many Christians live under their delusions just as many live under the Catholic or (your denomination's name here) delusions.
lu1 — 2017-02-10T14:57:46-05:00 — #11
Well I disagree with your collective assessment, however it is difficult for me to dialogue with such random generalizations... Such broad strokes doesn't help me understand your position I could spend days giving what ifs. But I not sure that would be helpful... Good day
dave_l — 2017-02-10T15:29:32-05:00 — #12
It is simple. If you believe in salvation by grace, salvation is a free gift. If you believe salvation is of works, then you must do something to save yourself. It doesn't get any simpler than that. But thanks for your time.
lu1 — 2017-02-10T18:54:30-05:00 — #13
Going around the world sharing Christ to all has given me insights ...This I know the more I think to put God in a box the less I'm about doing my Father's business... Christ gives radical grace abundantly. He is my example... Seen it over and over again... Calvinism, Arminianism Lutherism isn't what saves people... I have a hard time understanding such generalizations when God is a personal God...Christ is a personal Savior... The Holy Spirit is a personal Spirit... Who desires relationship ... Just an observation sounds like some pain there.
dave_l — 2017-02-10T19:10:16-05:00 — #14
Thanks for your evangelism efforts. What I'm concerned about is those who add to the gospel making salvation depend on the hearer. In the NT Paul outlines the gospel as Christ dying for our sins according to the Scriptures, being buried, and God raising him from the dead on the third day. This in itself produces eternal life in those who hear at a spiritual level. Jesus says “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath [already has] everlasting life.” (John 6:47).
When evangelists deny this and make people perform acts of the will in order to complete their salvation, one of two things happen. Either they help pack the churches with Tares, or they confuse true believers making them believe they saved themselves.
The spoken word creates both the New Birth and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers before any act of the will takes place. So there is nothing further to do but have them repent, be baptized and live a holy life.
gao_lu — 2017-02-10T20:10:14-05:00 — #15
The Gk is not quite that way about past tense if I understand correctly.
ὁ πιστεύων ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον
“the one believing has life eternal”
πιστεύων (believe) is present tense active
We can fiddle with the English in this passage and make it sound as if only those who already are saved will then start believing, but if that is true, I don't see it in these words.
I think John is speaking here of faith. While the ability to have faith at all is a gift from God, faith doesn't mean "faith" if it is something God puts within a man who has none and wants none. Rather than redefine the word to fit a theological construct, let's figure out just what this means.
Dave, I may think about free will a little differently than you do, but this is my day to better understand your perspective. I appreciate your patience in helping understand.
will_scholten — 2017-02-10T22:16:29-05:00 — #16
“Explain to us the parable of the darnel sown in the field.” 37 He replied, “The sower of the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 the field is the world; the good seed, the sons of the Kingdom; the darnel, the sons of the Evil one. 39 The enemy who sows the darnel is the devil; the harvest is the Close of the age; the reapers are the angels. 40 As then the darnel is collected together and burnt up with fire, so will it be at the Close of the age. 41 The Son of Man will commission His angels, and they will gather out of His Kingdom all causes of sin and all who violate His laws; 42 and these they will throw into the fiery furnace. There will be the weeping aloud and the gnashing of teeth. 43 Then will the righteous shine out like the sun in their Father’s Kingdom. Listen, every one who has ears!
Weymouth, R. F. (1903). The New Testament in Modern Speech: An Idiomatic Translation into Everyday English from the Text of “The Resultant Greek Testament.” (E. Hampden-Cook, Ed.) (Mt 13:36–43). London: James Clarke and Co.
Who gets thrown into the fire? ALL WHO VIOLATE YHWH'S LAWS!!
They are not only for the OT Jews, are they!!
gao_lu — 2017-02-10T22:27:57-05:00 — #17
Hey, Will, here is a way to think about it that might work.
Are the Law of God and the Law of Moses the same thing? Well...yes and no.
The Law of Moses was a written description, real laws, for Israel to keep. They were the Laws of God. But, the thing is, we want to keep the Law of God--that is the heart and will of God, not merely the letter of the Law, of how Moses presented them to Israel.
So yes, we do keep God's Law, but not in the prescription of them given to Israel. If you think of it this way, perhaps all the Bible passages will snap into clear focus. We can understand how and why God writes His Laws on our hearts. We can understand how we can say that we indeed must keep God's Laws, but that the Old Law given for the nation of Israel is passed away, or rather superseded and taken up in the Law Keeping performed by the Holy Spirit in our hearts. Like Hebrews says so many times, so many ways--what we have no is SO MUCH BETTER!
It is so much better that Paul (who scrupulously knew the Law, and at one time kept it) could say that it brings death. He knew! That is why he preached for all he was worth the Gospel, the new and better way. Whew! Hallelujah! Amen?
dave_l — 2017-02-11T05:20:54-05:00 — #18
Thanks for contributing to this thread. To have something in the present tense lends itself to my usage. It is not future but present. And in the case of eternal life, it is without beginning or end. So if you have eternal life, there is never a time when you did not have it. The gospel tells us the good news of our salvation.
We need to understand that spiritually dead souls cannot have faith. But the New Birth raises the dead soul into new life with a nature that discerns and believes truth. Faith to the Born-Again is like breathing is to a baby. They want to breath. They do not want to stop breathing. Moreover, eternal life IS God. And if we have eternal life in our souls, we have God (the New Birth and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit) in our souls.
The free will gospel is for those not born again. It enables them to believe with the flesh or mind. But they are not saved. If a person must decide to believe, it is of the flesh. If a person has confidence in Christ from hearing the gospel, it is spiritual and New Birth faith. You can try to will confidence all you want, but it is impossible unless something convinces you of it's credibility. And this comes from outside of us.
dave_l — 2017-02-11T05:39:56-05:00 — #19
Yes, but true believers keep the Two Great Commandments which cover all laws. Those who do not keep all of the Ten Commandments are cursed and thrown into the fire. Unless they abandon them and embrace Christ for their righteousness.
gao_lu — 2017-02-11T05:41:57-05:00 — #20
It may just be semantics yet this wording concerns me. Within your context the meaning seems clear, but to clarify, God is more than "eternal life." He is eternal living, but that is an adjectival statement not nominatival. I mean God is very much a person or being who lives eternally, not just an "eternal life force."
I think I asked this before, so forgive me, but I am not finding your answer. Do you then think that Free Will is something only unchosen have but that the chosen have no free will?
next page →