"Seven Reasons NOT to Ask Jesus into Your Heart"

[FFC]

I have no doubt as to my salvation and God's gift of eternal life. That is not the point here. The point here boils down to 'what is believing?"

. I'm sorry. I thought you were giving your testimony in a previous post.

Believing in Jesus is to wholly trust, rely, and accept that God's promise is true. This should result in gratitude, thankfulness, and service for God, however if a young christian does not bond with his savior by getting good instruction in the word and doesn't grow in Christ then he may not produce the kind of "fruit" that we as Christian want to see. I ask you, who's fault is that? And even if a Christian backslides to the point that you don't know him from a non Christian, how does that negate what God already promised him when he believed?

[Kerux]

How would you know that that 'young Christian' was even a Christian to begin with? Because he says he 'believes?'

"Yea, a man may say......"

Matthew 13:

3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop --a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 He who has ears, let him hear."

[FFC]

How would you know that that 'young Christian' was even a Christian to begin with? Because he says he 'believes?'

"Yea, a man may say......"

Matthew 13:

3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop --a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 He who has ears, let him hear."

Well since I'm not God I can only go on what he says he believes...as long as it's in line with the bible. Yes deeds and christian attributes help to distinguish but they aren't always visible are they?

Take you for instance. I didn't know you were a Christian until you came out and told me.

[Kerux]

You still don't know for sure do you? I could be lying.

"Well since I'm not God I can only go on what he says he believes..."

"You shall know them by their fruit."

[Jac3510]

Kerux,

Please read the thread if you are going to continue to make assertions on this issue. In your exchange with FFC, you continually quote Scriptures to prove your position that have been thoroughly discussed here. It would be one thing if the discussions took place elsewhere, but we've already had them in this thread. If, then, you wish to continue to use these as proof texts, please explain why with reference to the arguments against them.

God bless

[FFC]

You still don't know for sure do you? I could be lying.

Very true, but you don't answer to me do you?

"Well since I'm not God I can only go on what he says he believes..."

You shall know them by their fruit

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.

[FFC]

Kerux,

Please read the thread if you are going to continue to make assertions on this issue. In your exchange with FFC, you continually quote Scriptures to prove your position that have been thoroughly discussed here. It would be one thing if the discussions took place elsewhere, but we've already had them in this thread. If, then, you wish to continue to use these as proof texts, please explain why with reference to the arguments against them.

God bless

I apologize, Jac, I'm as much to blame...and I've been following this thread from the beginning.

[Jac3510]

haha, no apologies necessary. I actually was writing my post at the same time as your response . . . if someone wants to take the time to walk him through the passages again, I certainly don't care. So much the better, because the more something is written, the more visible it is. Had I noticed your reply, I probably would have waited to reiterate the point, but 'tis all good

BTW, you should really flesh out that idea in Heb 11 in the other thread. I wonder if PL will get around to addressing it, because it looks very on target to me. Really good stuff.

[FFC]

haha, no apologies necessary. I actually was writing my post at the same time as your response . . . if someone wants to take the time to walk him through the passages again, I certainly don't care. So much the better, because the more something is written, the more visible it is. Had I noticed your reply, I probably would have waited to reiterate the point, but 'tis all good

BTW, you should really flesh out that idea in Heb 11 in the other thread. I wonder if PL will get around to addressing it, because it looks very on target to me. Really good stuff.

Thanks, but unfortunately I deleted it. I'm not sure why.

[Kerux]

Kerux,

Please read the thread if you are going to continue to make assertions on this issue. In your exchange with FFC, you continually quote Scriptures to prove your position that have been thoroughly discussed here. It would be one thing if the discussions took place elsewhere, but we've already had them in this thread. If, then, you wish to continue to use these as proof texts, please explain why with reference to the arguments against them.

God bless

Mostly, I'm not making assertions. I'm just quoting what I believe are relevant Scripture and letting the Word of God speak for itself.

Are you say I shouldn't do that?

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.

You quoted entirely different passages from the Matthew 13 I quoted from. In Matt. 13 the fruit isn't the "teaching." [And I don't necessarily agree that the fruit in the passages you refer to 'are the teachings' but that is another topic].

And what's with all the rules? Seems like Phariseeism. Jesus Christ broke just about every rule the Pharisees laid down. And He was crucified for it.

[Felgar]

These rules like: Don't RE-post a scripture, without explanation or interpretation, in the same thread that it's already posted, esspecially when the original reference was examined and shown to support an entirely contradictory assertion. Well, these rules are not phariseeism so much as they are courtesy and respect for the original effort, and basic common sense.

[Canuckster1127]

Kerux,

Please read the thread if you are going to continue to make assertions on this issue. In your exchange with FFC, you continually quote Scriptures to prove your position that have been thoroughly discussed here. It would be one thing if the discussions took place elsewhere, but we've already had them in this thread. If, then, you wish to continue to use these as proof texts, please explain why with reference to the arguments against them.

God bless

Mostly, I'm not making assertions. I'm just quoting what I believe are relevant Scripture and letting the Word of God speak for itself.

Are you say I shouldn't do that?

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.

You quoted entirely different passages from the Matthew 13 I quoted from. In Matt. 13 the fruit isn't the "teaching." [And I don't necessarily agree that the fruit in the passages you refer to 'are the teachings' but that is another topic].

And what's with all the rules? Seems like Phariseeism. Jesus Christ broke just about every rule the Pharisees laid down. And He was crucified for it.

It's not enough in a thread like this to simply post a scripture without demonstrating the context and what the point is that you are drawing from it.

Please check the Discussion Guidelines, refer to Felgars post and if you need further direction feel free to pm a moderator.

[Kerux]

Maybe I'm a dummy, but all I have done in the last couple of posts is quote Scripture. Now even that seems to be against the 'rules,' if the same Scripture has been posted in this thread previously and the person who posted the verse proves, at least to himself, that the verse "was examined and shown to support an entirely contradictory assertion."

That rule in of itself leads to conflict instead of an open discussion and examination of Scripture. Shown to who? Did you take a vote as to what the examined verse showed? Did a majority win the debate?

Does that mean I can go back in this and every other thread, read your point of view and I won't need to study any more? What if I don't want to 'explain and interpret", but just let Scripture speak for itself?

That's not allowed?

If I quote a scripture and you disagree and you wrote a missive that is posted earlier in this thread, why not just go back yourself, copy and paste what you wrote previously to refute the assertions made by new posters? Then that new poster can reply.

Seems to me you're stifling discussion w/all these rules and dos and don'ts.

[Canuckster1127]

Maybe I'm a dummy, but all I have done in the last couple of posts is quote Scripture. Now even that seems to be against the 'rules,' if the same Scripture has been posted in this thread previously and the person who posted the verse proves, at least to himself, that the verse "was examined and shown to support an entirely contradictory assertion."

That rule in of itself leads to conflict instead of an open discussion and examination of Scripture. Shown to who? Did you take a vote as to what the examined verse showed? Did a majority win the debate?

Does that mean I can go back in this and every other thread, read your point of view and I won't need to study any more? What if I don't want to 'explain and interpret", but just let Scripture speak for itself?

That's not allowed?

If I quote a scripture and you disagree and you wrote a missive that is posted earlier in this thread, why not just go back yourself, copy and paste what you wrote previously to refute the assertions made by new posters? Then that new poster can reply.

Seems to me you're stifling discussion w/all these rules and dos and don'ts.

Quoting Scripture without indicating how you believe it applies to the topic of the thread, especially when that Scripture has been quoted earlier and expounded on doesn't add anything to the thread.

Of course you can quote the Scripture again for the ease of those reading to see the passage. Explain why you believe it should be understood differently if you disagree with previous points.

If you want to repeat what you've said earlier in a thread, you can create a link back to it rather than reposting it.

Majority has nothing to do with it. Minority views are welcome within the context of the Discussion Guidelines and the Board's statement of faith.

Simply quoting verses that have already been referred to without adding to the thread doesn't accomplish much. You need to explain what you believe they are teaching or why they need to be understood differently than others are contesting, or you may agree and simply reinforce a previous statement.

We're not trying to stifle communication. We're trying to keep it moving.

It's especially important in threads like this which are very long and very technically precise in terms of the exegesis and doctrinal discussion.

We try not to be too strict as moderators. We do the best we can to uphold the standards of the board and to keep conversation moving.

Not always perfectly, mind you. But we do the best we can and appreciate the understanding and support that most give in attempting to do that.

[FFC]

You quoted entirely different passages from the Matthew 13 I quoted from. In Matt. 13 the fruit isn't the "teaching." [And I don't necessarily agree that the fruit in the passages you refer to 'are the teachings' but that is another topic].

Your right. I'm sorry. I'm not so good at following the rules myself lately.

I just got done reading the Matthew 13 passage that you reffered to. It is very interesting. Let me honesty share what I see there, ok? I'm not good at going into long winded explanations so I'll just keep it simple. If you want me to I'll try to elaborate.

1. God plants the seed.
2. The seed is the teaching of the Kingdom message, the gospel, christianity.
3. The different types of soil are the hearts of the people who recieve the seed. Because of worry, fear, persecution etc the first 3 guys didn't bear fruit.
4. The fruit or lack of depends on whether of not the seed/teaching was understood when it was recieved.
5. The fruit grows and increases to different degrees when it is recieved in understanding.
6. The fruit is the promoting and spreading of the Kingdom message.

Previously in the chapter Jesus told His disciples that He spoke in parables because because He didn't want the people to automatically understand. He quotes Isaiah and explains that they couldn't understand because they were stubborn and held on to their preconcieved ideas and in essence rejected the truth.

I think this is why Jesus didn't just spell the message out for them. He wanted to give them the opportunity to humbly exercise their faith with an open mind.

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.

That's the way I see it anyway.