Christs parables

I want to add that I am not saying that other views can't be valid, scripturally and otherwise--just that I want to test this one again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i don't think they do, i think they refer to those sown in the same field, that is Christians and those who profess to be Christians, atheists and Muslims are not sown in the same field and look quite different spiritually speaking. No it could not be any type of weed, they would need to look similar for the parable to make any sense.

The field represents the whole world. We are all in this world inspite of what you want to believe about being no part of this world. The weeds were recognized easily. That was not the problem. The problem in removing them was that some of the wheat might be rooted up with the weeds. So it does not matter what the weeds looked like, because rooting any of them up might also root up some of the wheat. Get that, Numbnuts?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The field represents the whole world. We are all in this world inspite of what you want to believe about being no part of this world. The weeds were recognized easily. That was not the problem. The problem in removing them was that some of the wheat might be rooted up with the weeds. So it does not matter what the weeds looked like, because rooting any of them up might also root up some of the wheat. Get that, Numbnuts?

The Instructor

no they were not, infact they were not realised until they had both grown together you imbecile.

Originally posted by vistesd
The key is to realize that the wheat and tares are aspects of character, not whole people (unless one believes that the Adversary sews/generates/creates actual people). The fire is the fire of God’s agape, and is curative, cleansing/purging/removing hamartia. (And hamartia/sin is an affliction.) All of the other metaphors in the parab ...[text shortened]... le-predestination—and/or a pure works-salvationism (after all, the righteous do not need grace).

The key is to realize that the wheat and tares are aspects of character, not whole people

Within the context of the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth, this makes little sense. Jesus repeatedly spoke in terms of dichotomy. "born of the flesh" vs. "born of the spirit" (John 3), "good tree" vs. "bad tree" (Luke 6), "slave of committing sin" vs. "free of committing sin" (John 8). In all of the above examples, Jesus made it clear that one is either one or the other - even to the point of redunancy.

Taken as a whole, Jesus spoke of transformation from unrighteous beings to righteous beings.

Matthew 5
20“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven...48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The weeds actually represent all unbelievers including atheists. However, I just wanted to give the Muslims and the JWs a special little dig for my own fun. 😏

By the way, there is nothing specifically about any bearded darnel in that parable, even though it could be included among the many types of weeds available to Satan the devil.

The Instructor

I can understand your point of view,
but why do you put atheists in the same
basket as those who are evil?

I see atheists as floating voters who have not
yet made up their mind that there is a God and
a heavenly kingdom.

Just because they are atheists does not mean they are evil.

Many atheists are very decent honourable human beings and would
be righteous and do good to others. Unlike some of the so called
Christians that you might hang out with.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]The key is to realize that the wheat and tares are aspects of character, not whole people

Within the context of the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth, this makes little sense. Jesus repeatedly spoke in terms of dichotomy. "born of the flesh" vs. "born of the spirit" (John 3), "good tree" vs. "bad tree" (Luke 6), "slave of committing s of heaven...48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.[/b]

Well, if you feed those dichotomies directly into this parable, you end up with the wholly righteous versus the wholly wicked from birth--sewn, born as such--one group destined for the retributive, not purgative/curative fire.

That really doesn't fit, I think, with your Matthew quote. But if the tares are what need to be purged, then that becomes part of the process of perfection (which, in the Greek, means wholeness/ripeness/maturity). If the trees are originally bad from the root, then there's nothing to be done.

If that's you're view, you're likely in some good Calvinist company. If not, then you cannot read the wheat and tares as thoroughly righteous or thoroughly wicked persons from origination (when they are sewn as such).

___________________________________________

EDIT: That aside, does God's activity (e.g., charis), both in the past and ongoing, have anything to do with it in your paradigm? Other than giving the once-and-for-all teaching? I can't recall. If not, then there certainly isn't room for any salvation-as-healing (really, a soterias of soterias).

LATE EDIT: I wonder how you address the trilemma in my "Salvation Trilemma" thread?

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, if you feed those dichotomies directly into this parable, you end up with the wholly righteous versus the wholly wicked from birth--sewn, born as such--one group destined for the retributive, not purgative/curative fire.

That really doesn't fit, I think, with your Matthew quote. But if the tares are what need to be purged, then that becomes part o ughly righteous or thoroughly wicked persons from origination (when they are sewn as such).

Calvin, spit ding! he tried to ban us from dancing and drinking whiskey in direct opposition to the Great King Solomon's inspired words,

(Ecclesiastes 3:12, 13) I have come to know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good during one’s life and also that every man should eat and indeed drink and see good for all his hard work. It is the gift of God.






,

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Calvin, spit ding! he tried to ban us from dancing and drinking whiskey in direct opposition to the Great King Solomon's inspired words,

(Ecclesiastes 3:12, 13) I have come to know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good during one’s life and also that every man should eat and indeed drink and see good for all his hard work. It is the gift of God.






,

Well, I might still have some vestiges of Lutheran doctrine, but never was in the Calvin camp. With that said, thinkofone has always had good arguments on the works side (contra Luther). In the East they speak of faith/works synergy. But I'm not really addressing that now.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, I might still have some vestiges of Lutheran doctrine, but never was in the Calvin camp. With that said, thinkofone has always had good arguments on the works side (contra Luther). In the East they speak of faith/works synergy. But I'm not really addressing that now.

There is a Calvinist streak down the entire west coast of Scotland, 'drinking and dancing', they say, 'its the ruination of Scotland'! bah! think of one is harbouring the delusion that righteousness is absolute, it cannot be, for men are sinful and prone to aberration.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, if you feed those dichotomies directly into this parable, you end up with the wholly righteous versus the wholly wicked from birth--sewn, born as such--one group destined for the retributive, not purgative/curative fire.

That really doesn't fit, I think, with your Matthew quote. But if the tares are what need to be purged, then that becomes part o room for any salvation-as-healing (really, a soterias of [b]soterias).[/b]

if you feed those dichotomies directly into this parable, you end up with the wholly righteous versus the wholly wicked from birth--sewn, born as such

You sound as confused as Nicodemus - assuming only one "birth". However in John 3 (which I cited earlier), Jesus taught of being "born again". This is the "transformation" of which I spoke.

Also consider Jesus' explanation of the meaning of this parable. Note that the "tares" are those who "commit lawlessness" vs. the "wheat" who are "righteous" which again is in "terms of dichotomy" and coheres with my earlier examples. One is either unrighteous or righteous when all is said and done.

Matthew 13
36Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40“So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41“The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43“Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Jesus is clearly speaking in terms of individuals as a whole - as being either unrighteous or righteous.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, if you feed those dichotomies directly into this parable, you end up with the wholly righteous versus the wholly wicked from birth--sewn, born as such--one group destined for the retributive, not purgative/curative fire.

That really doesn't fit, I think, with your Matthew quote. But if the tares are what need to be purged, then that becomes part o
LATE EDIT: I wonder how you address the trilemma in my "Salvation Trilemma" thread?

EDIT: That aside, does God's activity (e.g., charis), both in the past and ongoing, have anything to do with it in your paradigm? Other than giving the once-and-for-all teaching? I can't recall. If not, then there certainly isn't room for any salvation-as-healing (really, a soterias of soterias).

LATE EDIT: I wonder how you address the trilemma in my "Salvation Trilemma" thread?

Just saw the above edits. Not sure what your asking. Perhaps an explanation of where I'm coming from will suffice. Based upon the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth, the bottom line is that one must make the changes necessary to become "one with God", i.e., "righteous" in order to have in order to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". Can you reframe your questions with that in mind?

FWIW, the following seems compatible to what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth (with the caveat that the concepts are applicable to the condition of one's heart rather than just one's actions):

Ezekiel 33
10“Now as for you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus you have spoken, saying, “Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we are rotting away in them; how then can we survive?”’ 11“Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord GOD, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’ 12“And you, son of man, say to your fellow citizens, ‘The righteousness of a righteous man will not deliver him in the day of his transgression, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he will not stumble because of it in the day when he turns from his wickedness; whereas a righteous man will not be able to live by his righteousness on the day when he commits sin.’ 13“When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die. 14“But when I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die,’ and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness, 15if a wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statutes which ensure life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16“None of his sins that he has committed will be remembered against him. He has practiced justice and righteousness; he shall surely live.

17“Yet your fellow citizens say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right,’ when it is their own way that is not right. 18“When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it. 19“But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness, he will live by them. 20“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways.”

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]if you feed those dichotomies directly into this parable, you end up with the wholly righteous versus the wholly wicked from birth--sewn, born as such

You sound as confused as Nicodemus - assuming only one "birth". However in John 3 (which I cited earlier), Jesus taught of being "born again". This is the "transformation" of which I spoke.

in terms of individuals as a whole - as being either unrighteous or righteous.[/b]

In the parable, the wheat are righteous from origination (sewing, as "sons of the kingdom" ); the tares are wicked from origination (sewing, as "sons of the evil one" ). Now is this sewing the first or second birth?

Remember, in the parable, those sewn righteous are righteous into maturity, and those sewn wicked are wicked into maturity--and then each are harvested to their fate. If that represents persons, then it is straight Calvinist double-predestination, and there is no room for your "making the changes necessary" (that does answer my questions--but it also means that you have to re-examine this parable, unless this sewing is the second birth: then I'll ponder it).

Originally posted by vistesd
In the parable, the wheat are righteous from origination (sewing, as "sons of the kingdom" ); the tares are wicked from origination (sewing, as "sons of the evil one" ). Now is this sewing the first or second birth?

Remember, in the parable, those sewn righteous are righteous into maturity, and those sewn wicked are wicked into maturity--and then each a o re-examine this parable, unless this sewing is the second birth: then I'll ponder it).

Now is this sewing the first or second birth?

Perhaps it will help to look at the two in parallel:

John 3
5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7“Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

Matthew 13
37And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.

So the "sons of the evil one" are analogous to those "born of the flesh" and the "sons of the kingdom" are analogous to those "born of the spirit". So "wheat" are "born of the spirit" ("second birth" ).

Does this sufficiently address your question?

With this in mind, I don't see why any of this is necessarily "straight Calvinist double-predestination".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Now is this sewing the first or second birth?

Perhaps it will help to look at the two in parallel:

John 3
5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7“Do not be ama don't see why any of this is necessarily "straight Calvinist double-predestination".[/b]

Just be straightforward, ToO: is the parable referring to the first or second birth?

Again, in the parable, the righteous (the wheat) are sewn as the righteous, and the wicked (the tares) are sewn as the wicked--and remain so. There is no room, in this parable, for change or perfection. Period. (As long as the wheat and tares stand for actual persons--which is what you claimed.)

If you bring in other texts, then it is up to you to show how they impact the meaning of this one.

It's really simple and straightforward: if the origination (the sewing) of the wheat and tares here represent actual persons in the first birth, then two things follow--

(1) The "evil one" generates/creates (sews) actual, whole persons; and

(2) There is no redemption (by faith or works) from whatever one is originally (i.e., double predestination)--it is clear in the parable that whatever was sewn, by God or the evil one, is what is harvested in the end, without perfection, changes, or anything else.

If what is sewn is not the person-itself, then there is the possibility of change/perfection/redemption (under whatever model); if what is sewn represents the person-itself, then the end is prefigured in the sewing--under the clear terms of the parable.

Look carefully at the terms of the parable.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
I can understand your point of view,
but why do you put atheists in the same
basket as those who are evil?

I see atheists as floating voters who have not
yet made up their mind that there is a God and
a heavenly kingdom.

Just because they are atheists does not mean they are evil.

Many atheists are very decent honourable human beings and ...[text shortened]... and do good to others. Unlike some of the so called
Christians that you might hang out with.

There are only two baskets, one for believers and the other one for unbelievers. So it makes no difference how good you think someone is. There are those that hear the word of Christ's truth and believe and accept Him and then there are all the others that do not believe or accept Him.

The instructor