"Seven Reasons NOT to Ask Jesus into Your Heart"

[Felgar]

Well done FFC. What we have here now, is one persons explanation of the meaning behind a passage posted by another. It seems very reasonable to me, that the passage is not talking about the saved vs the undaved but instead about spreading the good news.

See how this adds to the conversation Kerux? We can now discuss why we may agree or disagree with FFC's interpretation. One would like to be able to do the same thing with your posts, but they are typically void of any communication of understanding and therefore do not contribute to the topic. It's almost as if you're relying on implication to state your position (i.e. the verses 'speak for themselves' and therefore imply your line of reasoning). There are two issues I see with this that work against effective communication: 1) Your implied position can be completely misunderstood because it is not explicitly stated, which can result in responses that are not even on-topic. 2) If all else fails you have 'an escape route' where you can ultimately say 'that's never what I thought, you misunderstood my meaning.' This is very unfortunate for the readers and discussion contributors who have invested their time in trying to come to a collective understanding.

Edit: Oh, I should note that you did post your opinion on the 1 Cor 5 passage. They were:

You refer to the I Co. 5 passage. There is no evidence that the person involved in the sin in question is even saved. You even point this fact out:

"is actively involved in what everyone will consider reprehensible sin and is unrepentent." You connect no repentance to this person.

Putting him out of the fellowship was for the purpose of making him think about his sin, to shake him from his 'everything I'm doing, even my gross sin, must be okay, because I'm still in fellowship with God's people and, of course, I "believe," to repentance.
...
Why would Paul turn a Christian over to Satan? The turning of the sinful person to Satan is for that person to come to the point where he realizes his sin and repents, turning to God, "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."

So we have two conflicting views. My view which you may have missed, is that the person is saved and unrepentant. Your view is that he is not saved and unreprentant. My evidence that he is saved is twofold: He is a member of the church, which presumes that he has confessed Jesus as his saviour. And second, that Paul says he will be saved on the day of the lord. (His flesh *may* be destroyed, indicated that he may or may not come to repentance to save his flesh, but the word may does not reference his spirit, as it will be saved regardless.)

What I think is missing here, is an explanation of the reasoning behind your interpretation. If we had that, we could compare both interpretations *and their supporting evidence* and possibly draw some conclusions about the most reasonable interpretation. Note that your main reasoning seems to be (once again implied) that *because* he was unrepentant he must not have been saved. But this entire thread is about the possibility of being uprepentant yet still saved. So really, that is just a reitteration of your position and not evidence in and of itself.

[Kerux]

My point is this. The passage is not about a person recieving the message of salvation and displaying evidence of that by bearing good works. It's about recieving the kingdom message with understanding despite external circimstances, in which that fruit is evidenced by the spreading of the kingdom message. The disciple were a good example of this. They spread the kingdom message against great odds, even unto death, and nothing grew as fast and/or as big ever.

Matthew 13

36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field." 37 He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40 "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

If the 'field is the world' don't you think that the harvested fruit are the 'righteous that will shine like the sun in the kingdom of the Father?"

He who has ears, let him hear.

[Kerux]

It seems very reasonable to me, that the passage is not talking about the saved vs the undaved but instead about spreading the good news.

"It's almost as if you're relying on implication to state your position (i.e. the verses 'speak for themselves' and therefore imply your line of reasoning).

It's God's Word, not ours. His Holy Spirit guides us unto all truth, not men.


John 16:13

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

You made a fatal and sadly common error by not studying the passages mentioned for yourself letting the Holy Spirit teach you.

"Who teaches like Him?" Job 36:22

[Kerux]

My evidence that he is saved is twofold: He is a member of the church, which presumes that he has confessed Jesus as his saviour. And second, that Paul says he will be saved on the day of the lord. (His flesh *may* be destroyed, indicated that he may or may not come to repentance to save his flesh, but the word may does not reference his spirit, as it will be saved regardless.)

"He is a member of the church.."

He is found in the midst of a gathering of people who call themselves Christians. No where is it stated that the man is saved, a born again Christian. That is an assumption you've made ["which presumes"] and have stated why you assume that, "He is a member of the church." Walking in a church building does no more make a person a Christian than walking into a pizza restuarant make a person a pizza.

And second, that Paul says he will be saved on the day of the lord.

Nope, not 'will' be saved, but 'may' be saved:

KJV

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

NASB

5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

His spirit 'may' be saved if he repents and turns to the Lord. The reason the man is to be put away, is to force him to consder his sin and repent.

We have the same problem today, but on a much much bigger scale. Unsaved people are allowed into fellowship as if they are saved, they live like the unsaved, because they are, but because they 'believe' and go to church and are 'accepted' into fellowship, think everything is okay with God.

But this entire thread is about the possibility of being uprepentant yet still saved.

I thought this thread was about "Seven Reasons Not to Ask Jesus Christ Into Your Heart?"

[Felgar]

If the 'field is the world' don't you think that the harvested fruit are the 'righteous that will shine like the sun in the kingdom of the Father?"

He who has ears, let him hear.

K, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt again, and assume this was an honest mistake. But Matthew 13:36-43 which you just posted is an explanation of the Parable of the Weeds Matthew 13:24-30, whereas The Parable of the Sower Matthew 13:1-9 which you posted earlier as evidence of faith producing works is explained in Matthew 13:18-23 which states:

Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

This passage does not state that the withered and choked out seeds are unsaved, but only that someone who falls back into sin will not produce a crop (more saved people). It says that those who produce fruit have the chance to become instruments of God's salvation; yielding many more saved people.

Nevertheless, can we tie it to the parable of the weeds? Perhaps. Notice that the Sower is one man scattering seeds. This is the spreading of the message of the kingdom (as stated in the 1st part of the explanation) Now in the Parable of the Weeds it is said "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. " What's this? A second sower? What is said about the crops of both sowers? "The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil."

So then my interpretation is that all of the good crop are sons of god, regardless of whether they are continuing to produce good fruit. Why? Because all were sowed by the Good Sower, and are good crop (are wheat). The weeds are naturally those who were never sowed by God and who "hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart."

[Felgar]

Nope, not 'will' be saved, but 'may' be saved:

KJV

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

NASB

5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Point taken. I was going by the NIV and this really underscores the need for good exegesis of the passages in question. Whether this man is certainly saved or not is very relevent to the discussion. If he most certainly will be saved then my interpretation stands as evidence for salvation not necessarily producing good works. If he only may be saved, then your interpretation seems more credible and would then have no bearing on the original question, which was about whether your imaginary unrepentant sinner could be saved.

[Kerux]

K, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt again, and assume this was an honest mistake.

Thanks, it was, because I looked in the e-Bible so I could copy and paste and not my own printed Bible. I'll have to get back to this when I have time.

[FFC]

If the 'field is the world' don't you think that the harvested fruit are the 'righteous that will shine like the sun in the kingdom of the Father?"

Definately! When we spread the "kingdom of God" message to them, and ideally when they spread the messgage, and so on, and so on... of course it's all God and not us.

[Kerux]

If he only may be saved, then your interpretation seems more credible and would then have no bearing on the original question, which was about whether your imaginary unrepentant sinner could be saved.

I thought my original question was if an imaginary unrepentant sinner was saved, not could be save. An unrepentant sinner, who repents, can be saved.

[Felgar]

I thought my original question was if an imaginary unrepentant was saved, not could be save. An unrepentant sinner, who repents, can be saved.

Sorry, yes it was whether he WAS [and IS] saved. I added the caveat that only if he genuinely believed and wasn't just lying. Poor choice of words on my part.

[FFC]

I thought my original question was if an imaginary unrepentant was[/] saved, not could be save. An unrepentant sinner, who repents, can be saved.

Yeah but who's on first....? I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.

[ttoews]

FFC, it seems that I miss a day or two and all of a sudden I am several pages behind....I thought I would take the time to comment on this of yours:

Mat 12:33 ¶ Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit.


Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.


Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.


Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.


Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

The fruit are the teachings. They can be good or evil. If they testify of Christ in truth they are good. If they don't they aren't.

I am not sure why you think the "fruit are the teachings". The passage in question speaks of fruit, speaking, stuff from the heart, idle words, and words justifying and condemning. No where is "teachings" mentioned and the type of talk that is mentioned is "idle". "Idle" talk is not synonymous with teaching and is suggestive of gossip and the like.
Also, I think you should bear in mind the audience's background. The Jews hearing the words would have been familiar with the OT and in particular verses such as Proverbs 1:31 which reads:


Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices

this verse appears to connect fruit to the consequences of actions and thoughts and not to teachings alone.
Further, Jesus' ministry was preceded by John's and he utilized the fruit metaphor and so the audience would have (quite possibly?) been familiar with John's usage. Both Matt's and Luke's (apart from fruit of the womb) first mention of fruit is John's statements. Luke 3:8 - 10 reads:

Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
3:9
And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
3:10
And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
3:11
He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

Note the question is not, "What shall we then teach?" but, "what shall we then do" and the answer relates to deeds not doctrine.

This is the background into which Jesus utilizes His metaphor with "fruit". Finally Paul clarifies, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,..." Clearly, fruit is not limited (by Paul) to teachings and I know of no passage that requires the metaphorical use of "fruit" to be understood as a reference to teachings alone...so I believe (in this case I mean that I am absolutely certain) that at most you should say "it might be that "fruit" in this passage means teachings only....but that is an interpretation that is only warranted if one has bought into (pun intended) the free grace soteriology."

As an added extra, please tell me, is there any lexicon out there that states that "fruit", when used metaphorically, should be limited to teachings? What is it that those lexica say wrt "fruit"?

Yeah but who's on first....? I'm sorry. I couldn't resist

...but you should have...'cuz I thought I was the designated wise acre for this thread...is there room for two?

[FFC]

FFC, it seems that I miss a day or two and all of a sudden I am several pages behind....I thought I would take the time to comment on this of yours:

Mat 12:33 ¶ Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit.


Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.


Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.


Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.


Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

The fruit are the teachings. They can be good or evil. If they testify of Christ in truth they are good. If they don't they aren't.

I am not sure why you think the "fruit are the teachings". The passage in question speaks of fruit, speaking, stuff from the heart, idle words, and words justifying and condemning. No where is "teachings" mentioned and the type of talk that is mentioned is "idle". "Idle" talk is not synonymous with teaching and is suggestive of gossip and the like.
Also, I think you should bear in mind the audience's background. The Jews hearing the words would have been familiar with the OT and in particular verses such as Proverbs 1:31 which reads:


Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices

this verse appears to connect fruit to the consequences of actions and thoughts and not to teachings alone.
Further, Jesus' ministry was preceded by John's and he utilized the fruit metaphor and so the audience would have (quite possibly?) been familiar with John's usage. Both Matt's and Luke's (apart from fruit of the womb) first mention of fruit is John's statements. Luke 3:8 - 10 reads:

Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
3:9
And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
3:10
And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
3:11
He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.

Note the question is not, "What shall we then teach?" but, "what shall we then do" and the answer relates to deeds not doctrine.

This is the background into which Jesus utilizes His metaphor with "fruit". Finally Paul clarifies, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,..." Clearly, fruit is not limited (by Paul) to teachings and I know of no passage that requires the metaphorical use of "fruit" to be understood as a reference to teachings alone...so I believe (in this case I mean that I am absolutely certain) that at most you should say "it might be that "fruit" in this passage means teachings only....but that is an interpretation that is only warranted if one has bought into (pun intended) the free grace soteriology."

As an added extra, please tell me, is there any lexicon out there that states that "fruit", when used metaphorically, should be limited to teachings? What is it that those lexica say wrt "fruit"?

Yeah but who's on first....? I'm sorry. I couldn't resist

...but you should have...'cuz I thought I was the designated wise acre for this thread...is there room for two?

ttoews, I'm glad you called me on this. when I first read through the passage it seemed clear that the fruit indicated teachings because of the numerous mention of "words" in there. How about this, teachings may be a part of it but not necessarily all of it. I'm also beginning to see that fruit means differnt things in different scripture passages.

[ttoews]

How about this, teachings may be a part of it but not necessarily all of it. I'm also beginning to see that fruit means differnt things in different scripture passages.

works for me.

[Jac3510]

Nope, not 'will' be saved, but 'may' be saved:

You are incorrect. The Greek here is:

hina ta pneuma swthe en te hemera tou kuriou

The phase "may be saved" is a translation of swthe. That word is 3rd person aorist passive subjective from the word swzw (pronouced SOE-dzoe). The important thing is that it is in the subjunctive. We had a discussion on the purpose of the subjunctive some time ago in which I noted that "[t]he subjunctive is frequently used in statements of purpose. The clause is often introduced with hina." (See Mounce, Greek for the Rest of Us, Zondervan, 2003, p.187).

The word hina is often translated "that," but it is used to introduce purpose clauses. So, hina + the subjunctive does not mean that something "might" happen, but that the purpose of the previous statement is this. This is the same way "may" was used in old English, which is why the KJV translated it as it does. Therefore, in this passage, Paul is not saying that this person's soul MIGHT be saved on the Day of the Lord, as if he were uncertain. In fact, the exact opposite idea is expressed, which is that this person's soul WILL be saved on the day of the Lord, and that is the reason that his flesh is given over for destruction.

God bless

ttoews: note than on Aug 8 I provided that word study. Of major importance is the root meaning of aman as certainty (which backs my original argument) and the complete lack of any concept in the words of commitment or repentance. Both the Hebrew and Greek ideas of "to believe" simply mean "to reply upon." Waiting for your thoughts.