Does salvation automatically equate to 'knowing' God?

[Deborah13]

Yet, JLB, would you conclude with Jethro that there are people who are believers who don't know God at all? Or with my position that there are varying degrees to which believers know God, but all do know him.

I agree with you.
If one does not know God at all, then one has not been changed into a new creature, in Christ.
We grow in that knowledge as we mature. Knowledge shows maturing.

Heb 5:13 for every one who is partaking of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness--for he is an infant,
Heb 5:14 and of perfect men is the strong food, who because of the use are having the senses exercised, unto the discernment both of good and of evil.

At one point I could have almost promised the Jethro Bodine said this same thing, hmm... I must have been delusional and wishful thinking for a point of agreement.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I agree with you.
If one does not know God at all, then one has not been changed into a new creature, in Christ.
We grow in that knowledge as we mature. Knowledge shows maturing.

Heb 5:13 for every one who is partaking of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness--for he is an infant,
Heb 5:14 and of perfect men is the strong food, who because of the use are having the senses exercised, unto the discernment both of good and of evil.

At one point I could have almost promised the Jethro Bodine said this same thing, hmm... I must have been delusional and wishful thinking for a point of agreement.

I'm claiming relational knowledge, not just knowledge about God, which of course was promised to be so in Jeremiah where he speaks of the New Covenant.

We know God because of how he has revealed himself in Jesus, which is why we first come to love, because of the power of the gospel message, and the Holy Spirit pouring into our hearts the love of God. It is a supernatural work that makes us apart of that New Creation that God is making, and while we do grow and mature to know him deeper. It is incorrect to say that there are believers running around who don't know God, this is a perfect definition for the godless.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm claiming relational knowledge, not just knowledge about God, which of course was promised to be so in Jeremiah where he speaks of the New Covenant.

We know God because of how he has revealed himself in Jesus, which is why we first come to love, because of the power of the gospel message, and the Holy Spirit pouring into our hearts the love of God. It is a supernatural work that makes us apart of that New Creation that God is making, and while we do grow and mature to know him deeper. It is incorrect to say that there are believers running around who don't know God, this is a perfect definition for the godless.

Were you disagree with something I said?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I imagine you don't read Greek, which would explain why you stress the "may" from the NASB translation, which I disagree with.

I know that the 'may' is not represented by an actual Greek word, but is implied in the Greek word for 'know'. Apparently much smarter and educated people in ancient Greek than I knows that according to the sentence it's being used in it should be rendered 'may know'. But actually the point I emphasize in the passage is 'life'. He's not talking about immortality. He's talking about spiritual life. That's why God gives people to Jesus so he may give them the promise of the abundant spiritual life. Just getting born again doesn't give that. You have to grow up into that. Not everybody does, thus the nature of the 'may' in front of 'know' perhaps (the translators being aware of the 'zoe' life Jesus is talking about).

Here is how the ESV renders it.

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 (ESV)

Now why do these translations differ? The NASB wrongly stresses the subjunctive over the verb tenses, and thus creates an awkward translation. For instance, will God definitively give eternal life to those whom the Father has given? Or simply is it just a possibility or probability?

As I'm pointing out, I'm not in disagreement with that translation, because 'life eternal' is referring to 'zoe' life--spiritual life, not immortal literal life. It's a quality of life, not life itself.

Will God definitively give life (zoe) eternal to those whom the Father has given to Jesus? Some believers mature into that quality of life, some don't. It is indeed only a possibility. Not everybody matures in Christ in this life before they 'are like him' in the next life.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 (ESV)

There are actually two verbs in the subjunctive mood here, and if we applied the same methods it would read, "that whoever believes in him may not perish, but may have eternal life." Should we conclude that there is doubt expressed as to whether or not someone who genuinely believe to have eternal life?

In this life, 'yes'. That's my whole point. That's one of John's points in 1 John. The point of this thread.
All believers will possess 'zoe' life in the afterlife when their righteousness is perfected and they are walking in the light that gives 'zoe' life.

Is believing in Jesus only granting a person better odds at not perishing? Or would this translation, much like what you are presenting cause us to do damage to the interpretation? I submit that the latter is the case, and that the present tense of John 17:3 denotes that a person who has eternal life should know God presently and in the future.

Know them in salvation itself, but not necessarily in regard to 'zoe' life. You don't have to be unsaved to live in death. Believing Christians do that quite well. 'Zoe' life is what we can have instead of death in this life. Nothing you are saying locks out this understanding.

Incorrect, read John 17 again, those who are given to Jesus in this context are the disciples.

Then that negates everything you've been saying. Eternal life, no matter it's definition in the passage, isn't even talking about us then. If so, why are you bringing up this passage as inapplicable to this discussion?

Grow up into eternal life? A person who believes already has eternal life.

They have the promise of never-ending literal life. But they have to grow up into 'zoe' spiritual life in this life. But like the promise of literal life everlasting, all believers will have 'zoe' life (life to the full) in the age to come.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Were you disagree with something I said?

Just clarifying my stance is all. You and I seem to be in agreement.

Here is a quote from him that I think sums up what he thinks.

The Bible says we don't know the Lord until we move toward the perfection of love. Until then, we don't know God, but can still be very much saved.

Positively disagree with this one, the Bible says no such thing.

 

[Deborah13]

Just clarifying my stance is all. You and I seem to be in agreement.

Here is a quote from him that I think sums up what he thinks.


Positively disagree with this one, the Bible says no such thing.

Here is a quote from the OP
"I personally did not start out in the kingdom loving as I should. I had to be educated about how to do that, and had to grow up into that love (which I'm still doing). But I'm 100% sure I've been saved all along. It makes me think that we've made a mistake in assigning the 'knowing' of God to salvation itself, instead of assigning the 'knowing of God' to that of having come into an understanding of God's love that saved us and then showing the evidence of that 'knowing' by returning that love to God through the keeping of the command to love others. "

This one statement says it all.
Not matter what is said in the rest of the statement, that in blue is a disclaimer to the rest of the theory.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I know that the 'may' is not represented by an actual Greek word, but is implied in the Greek word for 'know'.

The Greek word γινώσκωσιν is in the subjunctive case, but John's usage of the subjunctive as I have already established doesn't automatically mean that there is doubt or a possibility. Indeed, the present tense of the word "to know" describes a present state of being for those who have eternal life, not a future state they might possibly attain.

Apparently much smarter and educated people in ancient Greek than I knows that according to the sentence it's being used in it should be rendered 'may know'.

Apparently not all Greek scholars are convinced of this as I have pointed out, the two most accurate versions (in my book, especially the LEB) the ESV and LEB render it, "that they know you."

But actually the point I emphasize in the passage is 'life'. He's not talking about immortality.

Where did I disagree with this?

Look at what I said:

The eternal life, is the quality of life of the age to come. To live in the light and know God through his Holy Spirit, which is a down-payment of our future inheritance.

He's talking about spiritual life. That's why God gives people to Jesus so he may give them the promise of the abundant spiritual life.

Those given to the Son by the Father are the disciples, read John 17 again. To follow your interpretation means it 100% supports Calvinism, be careful.

ust getting born again doesn't give that. You have to grow up into that. Not everybody does, thus the nature of the 'may' in front of 'know' perhaps (the translators being aware of the 'zoe' life Jesus is talking about).

John 5 says that if a person believes, they have eternal life. Everyone does, counter to your unbiblical suppositions.

As I'm pointing out, I'm not in disagreement with that translation, because 'life eternal' is referring to 'zoe' life--spiritual life, not immortal literal life. It's a quality of life, not life itself.

I'm not talking about immortality... I too am talking about the quality of life, and John 5:24 says that every believer has it. Your argument is wholly refuted by that.

Will God definitively give life (zoe) eternal to those whom the Father has given to Jesus? Some believers mature into that quality of life, some don't. It is indeed only a possibility. Not everybody matures in Christ in this life before they 'are like him' in the next life.

You're basically saying that some believers don't have eternal life now, but will have it in the future...

Do you just make up whatever doctrine you want? I get mine from Scripture.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. John 5:24 (ESV)

The "has" is the Greek word "ἔχει" which is in the present tense, indicative mood. When a verb in the present tense is in the indicative mood it also draws upon the temporal meaning of the present tense, which definitively denotes that a person who believes presently at that moment has eternal life.

What a strange conception you have of what a believer is.. they don't know God, they don't have eternal life, they don't have to love or show any fruit... next you're going to tell me that they don't have to believe in God!

Whoever has the Son, has life, whoever does not have the Son does not have life. -The Apostle John

Know them in salvation itself, but not necessarily in regard to 'zoe' life. You don't have to be unsaved to live in death. 'Zoe' life is what we can have instead of death in this life. Nothing you are saying locks out this understanding.

What?

Then that negates everything you've been saying. Eternal life, no matter it's definition in the passage isn't even talking about us. If so, let's move on from this passage as inapplicable to this discussion.

No... it is applicable. Let's look at the passage, and work on our reading comprehension.

"since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." John 17:2-3 (ESV)

Jesus is praying for his disciples from verses 1-20, where he then says, "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word." In this first section, Jesus is talking about the authority given to him to give eternal life to those whom the Father has given (the disciples). He then defines what eternal life is.

It is not right for us to say, "we are those whom the Father has given to the Son," that's Calvinism and you don't seem like a Calvinist. It is however right to use Jesus' definition of what eternal life is, because it directly pertains to every believer who according to John 5:24, also possesses eternal life.

They have the promise of never-ending literal life.

A promise of something to come? My, you like to add words to Scripture wherever you please now don't you. A believer has eternal life, not just the hope of it.

They have to grow up into 'zoe' spiritual life in this life. But like literal life, all believers will have 'zoe' life in the age to come, also.

I'll side with John on this one, and assign your man-made doctrines to the trash bin.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Here is a quote from the OP
"I personally did not start out in the kingdom loving as I should. I had to be educated about how to do that, and had to grow up into that love (which I'm still doing). But I'm 100% sure I've been saved all along. It makes me think that we've made a mistake in assigning the 'knowing' of God to salvation itself, instead of assigning the 'knowing of God' to that of having come into an understanding of God's love that saved us and then showing the evidence of that 'knowing' by returning that love to God through the keeping of the command to love others. "

This one statement says it all.
Not matter what is said in the rest of the statement, that in blue is a disclaimer to the rest of the theory.

He is basing all of this doctrine and has a presupposition of it's truthfulness when coming to these texts, where John is describing this mythical person who doesn't know God yet is born again and saved.

He is trying to create a theological basis for how he could have been saved prior to his coming to maturity, and he has gone to the extreme by saying that all believers have a state at the beginning where they 1) Don't know God, and 2) don't have eternal life, only the hope of getting it in the future.

The reason I am so passionately against this is because of the promises of God for the New Covenant, and also the clarity of what it says regarding all believers having eternal life presently, there is not two distinct categories of believers for those who have attained eternal life and then those who haven't matured to that yet. Eternal life is obtained upon believing, not reaching maturity.

 

[Deborah13]

He is basing all of this doctrine and has a presupposition of it's truthfulness when coming to these texts, where John is describing this mythical person who doesn't know God yet is born again and saved.

He is trying to create a theological basis for how he could have been saved prior to his coming to maturity, and he has gone to the extreme by saying that all believers have a state at the beginning where they 1) Don't know God, and 2) don't have eternal life, only the hope of getting it in the future.

The reason I am so passionately against this is because of the promises of God for the New Covenant, and also the clarity of what it says regarding all believers having eternal life presently, there is not two distinct categories of believers for those who have attained eternal life and then those who haven't matured to that yet. Eternal life is obtained upon believing, not reaching maturity.

I completely agree. And from the statement I quoted from the OP, the author is in agreement. Even though he tries to interpret this scripture to not be a salvation scripture.
First saved " I did not love as I should but I was saved" [para]
So in his own statement he is saying that one does not have to love perfectly to be saved.
He argues against his own interpretation of the scripture.

I do understand why you are passionate about this interpretation. And I would not say that I think that you should just drop it, I believe it is a valid argument. :nod

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I completely agree. And from the statement I quoted from the OP, the author is in agreement. Even though he tries to interpret this scripture to not be a salvation scripture.
First saved " I did not love as I should but I was saved" [para]
So in his own statement he is saying that one does not have to love perfectly to be saved.
He argues against his own interpretation of the scripture.

I do understand why you are passionate about this interpretation. And I would not say that I think that you should just drop it, I believe it is a valid argument. :nod

I don't think a person should love perfectly to be saved, I just believe that the degree to which you know God will correspond with the degree to which you love. It is a path of maturity, and just as a person will come to love more, they will also come to know God more. However, I came to know God through the Gospel message, when I heard and saw his glory in the crucified Son. That is how every believer comes to know God, and that is how every believer comes to love, because he first loved us.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I agree with you.
If one does not know God at all, then one has not been changed into a new creature, in Christ.
We grow in that knowledge as we mature. Knowledge shows maturing.

Heb 5:13 for every one who is partaking of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness--for he is an infant,
Heb 5:14 and of perfect men is the strong food, who because of the use are having the senses exercised, unto the discernment both of good and of evil.

At one point I could have almost promised the Jethro Bodine said this same thing, hmm... I must have been delusional and wishful thinking for a point of agreement.

That's funny because I quoted, or made reference to, this very scripture if I remember correctly, lol.

We don't start out in the maturity the author is saying the Hebrews do not have. We have to grow up into it. Then we can say we have the 'knowing' that John talks about. Until then we do not know God in the way he describes.

 

[Deborah13]

That's funny because I quoted, or made reference to, this very scripture if I remember correctly, lol.

We don't start out in the maturity the author is saying the Hebrews do not have. We have to grow up into it. Then we can say we have the 'knowing' that John talks about. Until then we do not know God in the way he describes.

lol, you probably did.

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1 John 4:7-9 NASB)
This scripture does not say that one must love perfectly, anymore than the Hebrews scripture does.
But just with this scripture in John, we know there will be love if one is born again.
It may only be a tiny mustard of love at first, like only loving Jesus because He died for you.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

lol, you probably did.

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1 John 4:7-9 NASB)
This scripture does not say that one must love perfectly, anymore than the Hebrews scripture does.
But just with this scripture in John, we know there will be love if one is born again.
It may only be a tiny mustard of love at first, like only loving Jesus because He died for you.

In regard to your quote, John has qualified the 'knowing' he's talking about in his letter as having come into a mature relationship with God of loving others. The one who does not love others is the one who has not come into this mature 'knowing'. It's certainly true that you have to know God in salvation itself to ever get to the place of knowing God in regard to loving others, so the verse you quoted is certainly true that way. But in the context of the letter he's taking aim at this mature knowing of God--loving others--not simply the knowing we all have in salvation itself.

So it is love for God that can then be seen in love for others that constitutes this mature 'knowing' that he's talking about. I did not hate God in those first couple of years I was born again. Hardly! I think I cried tears of love and joy for six months straight after being born again. But to say that love had begun to manifest in a genuine lifestyle and character change of being able to love others? Not a chance. That 'knowing', the 'knowing' of a changed character John is talking about, came later.

You should have been there two days after my profound salvation experience. My car got stuck in the snow in the driveway......and that's all I'm going to say about that. You'd have to press me pretty hard to get the same reaction today that I had that day. I've grown up. I'm not stuck in the immature love for God only. I got educated about what a mature loving relationship with God is all about....and how to tell if I have it. Still growing up in to it, too. I expect to until my last day on earth.

 

[Deborah13]

In regard to your quote, John has qualified the 'knowing' he's talking about in his letter as having come into a mature relationship with God of loving others. The one who does not love others is the one who has not come into this mature 'knowing'. It's certainly true that you have to know God in salvation itself to ever get to the place of knowing God in regard to loving others, so the verse you quoted is certainly true that way. But in the context of the letter he's taking aim at this mature knowing of God--loving others--not simply the knowing we all have in salvation itself.

So it is love for God that can then be seen in love for others that constitutes this mature 'knowing' that he's talking about. I did not hate God in those first couple of years I was born again. Hardly! I think I cried tears of love and joy for six months straight after being born again. But to say that love had begun to manifest in a genuine lifestyle and character change of being able to love others? Not a chance. That 'knowing', the 'knowing' of a changed character John is talking about, came later.

You should have been there two days after my profound salvation experience. My car got stuck in the snow in the driveway......and that's all I'm going to say about that. You'd have to press me pretty hard to get the same reaction today that I had that day. I've grown up. I'm not stuck in the immature love for God only. I got educated about what a mature loving relationship with God is all about....and how to tell if I have it. Still growing up in to it, too. I expect to until my last day on earth.

I agree with you that we all grow in love as time goes by, this is sanctification as you know. I think it's all about love. It's love that teaches us not to sin (all kinds of sin).
I'll have to read 1John from start to finish again, before I could address the theme of the whole book.
Blessings to you, Jethro

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. John 5:24 (ESV)


...and every believer not just the mature have eternal life. Therefore, your argument is refuted.

But we don't all have the manifestation of the eternal 'zoe' life that comes to us via the Holy Spirit.

Eternal life, as in immortality, is to be given at the resurrection, not now. And we do indeed have all the potential 'zoe' abundant life contained in us right now via the Holy Spirit, but we spend a lifetime learning to walk in and realize that potential. When we do come to the point where we are realizing that potential because of a genuine change of character inside of us John says we have come to 'know' God in the way that John is talking about--the way of love for others.

This is not love for God in tears and emotions and good feelings towards God (as genuine as they may certainly be), but in a genuine love acted out toward others. I wish it were true that all of us believers knew God that way, the way John talks about. But simple observation shows that simply is not true. But that hardly means those who don't are categorically not saved. It may mean that, but it hardly means that as a matter of rule.

The eternal life, is the quality of life of the age to come. To live in the light and know God through his Holy Spirit, which is a down-payment of our future inheritance.

Eternal life is not something received in the future, it is had the second a person believes because of the supernatural work God does in them.

The promise of eternal life is received when you are born again. A promise that is realized in regard to 'zoe' abundant spiritual life as we grow up into his character. And a promise that is realized in regard to immortality at the resurrection. Provided we have believed to the very end.

The "'knowing' of being conformed to the image of Christ"? What are you talking about?

John defines the 'knowing' he is talking about as knowing God in such a way that you love others in a lifestyle of a changed character that looks like Christ. When you know God this way you are conformed to the image of Christ...and to the image of Christ to the same extent that you love others.

As one comes to know God more and more, they will further be shaped and matured by the Holy Spirit to be like Jesus, nothing about that verse denotes that a person doesn't know God prior to that.

These are the ridiculous kind of inferences you have been making.

Remember, John is defining the knowing God that he is talking about as loving others in a lifestyle of a sincere, changed character. With that in mind, how can you know God in the way of being shaped and matured by the Holy Spirit before you are shaped and matured by the Holy Spirit? What's ridiculous is the suggestion that a person already knows God--the way John defines that knowing--before that person knows God that way.

In Matthew 13 it is, but in Mark 4 it is about the growth of the Kingdom, not the individual believer.

You transpose your understanding of a different parable onto a totally unrelated parable and therefore do damage to the interpretation of the parable.

I have more than established that they are two distinct and separate parables and you need to handle each on their own terms.


1. Mark 4 is about the Kingdom, how can I make this anymore clear...
2. Nothing in these parables is about knowing God.
3. Your argument continues to be completely built off of self-serving inferences.


You couldn't be more wrong....

He uses Wheat in Matthew 13 because it has a weed called dandel which looks almost exactly like wheat but has poisonous seeds. He isn't using this imagery to denote the growth of a believer (he makes no such inference in this context), but rather he uses the wheat to tell the parable about people who appear to be among believers who will be separated from those who are true at the coming of the Kingdom in glory (the second coming).

Again, more self-serving inferences that are built off of an utter lack of understanding of the text.

You seem pretty frustrated over this, lol.

It's really quite simple:

"28 The soil produces crops by itself; first the blade, then the head, then the mature grain in the head." (Mark 4:28 NASB)

The seed of God's word takes root in the soil of the earth (men's hearts) and a planting of God springs forth (the Christian) that eventually, like all plants, produces mature fruit in keeping with the seed of which it was born (the fruit of the Spirit). Surely you know all the supporting scriptures for what I just said(?)

Why insist on destroying this simple and perfectly Biblically consistent argument for the sake of avoiding the truth that we have to grow up into the knowing of God--this love for others, the fruit of the Spirit--that John says we do. Even if you disagree that Mark 4 is a parallel teaching to Matthew 13, surely you see Matthew 13 all by itself illustrates this truth of growing up into a mature planting of God that bears fruit.

Now, when you bring this up again in another misguided effort to unfairly frustrate the simplicity of these parables I'm simply going to ask you, "What are you so afraid of? Why are you so afraid to admit that our love for God does not immediately manifest in a mature and educated love for others that you have to make sure the parables of the growing seed are not understood that way?"

 

[JLB]

Doulos Iesou said -

Yes, and every believer not just the mature have eternal life. Therefore, your argument is refuted.

Does that mean you are insisting once a person believes, they are a believer for life.

I would say this is not what the scriptures teach. The scriptures teach us a believer has eternal life if that person continues to believe to the end of their faith.

If a person who believes in 1970 and continues to believe through to the year 2014, then that person is more mature in their believing that a person who started believing in 2013.

If a person believes in 1970 and in 1990 decide to believe in Islam, and practice Islam, then that person no longer believes, nor has eternal life.

Every believer who believes to the end, has eternal life.

Every believer who does not believe to the end does not have eternal life.

A person's believing will be more mature at the end than at the beginning.

Thus your argument is refuted.

JLB

 

[Deborah13]

But we don't all have the manifestation of the eternal 'zoe' life that comes to us via the Holy Spirit.

Eternal life, as in immortality, is to be given at the resurrection, not now. And we do indeed have all the potential 'zoe' abundant life contained in us right now via the Holy Spirit, but we spend a lifetime learning to walk in and realize that potential. When we do come to the point where we are realizing that potential because of a genuine change of character inside of us John says we have come to 'know' God in the way that John is talking about--the way of love for others.

This is not love for God in tears and emotions and good feelings towards God (as genuine as they may certainly be), but in a genuine love acted out toward others. I wish it were true that all of us believers knew God that way, the way John talks about. But simple observation shows that simply is not true. But that hardly means those who don't are categorically not saved. It may mean that, but it hardly means that as a matter of rule.



The promise of eternal life is received when you are born again. A promise that is realized in regard to 'zoe' abundant spiritual life as we grow up into his character. And a promise that is realized in regard to immortality at the resurrection. Provided we have believed to the very end.



John defines the 'knowing' he is talking about as knowing God in such a way that you love others in a lifestyle of a changed character that looks like Christ. When you know God this way you are conformed to the image of Christ...and to the image of Christ to the same extent that you love others.



Remember, John is defining the knowing God that he is talking about as loving others in a lifestyle of a sincere, changed character. With that in mind, how can you know God in the way of being shaped and matured by the Holy Spirit before you are shaped and matured by the Holy Spirit? What's ridiculous is the suggestion that a person already knows God--the way John defines that knowing--before that person knows God that way.



You seem pretty frustrated over this, lol.

It's really quite simple:

"28 The soil produces crops by itself; first the blade, then the head, then the mature grain in the head." (Mark 4:28 NASB)

The seed of God's word takes root in the soil of the earth (men's hearts) and a planting of God springs forth (the Christian) that eventually, like all plants, produces mature fruit in keeping with the seed of which it was born (the fruit of the Spirit). Surely you know all the supporting scriptures for what I just said(?)

Why insist on destroying this simple and perfectly Biblically consistent argument for the sake of avoiding the truth that we have to grow up into the knowing of God--this love for others, the fruit of the Spirit--that John says we do. Even if you disagree that Mark 4 is a parallel teaching to Matthew 13, surely you see Matthew 13 all by itself illustrates this truth of growing up into a mature planting of God that bears fruit.

Now, when you bring this up again in another misguided effort to unfairly frustrate the simplicity of these parables I'm simply going to ask you, "What are you so afraid of? Why are you so afraid to admit that our love for God does not immediately manifest in a mature and educated love for others that you have to make sure the parables of the growing seed are not understood that way?"

imo
Both of those parables are about the growth of the kingdom of God.
Not individual peoples growth.
Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

 

[Deborah13]

Does that mean you are insisting once a person believes, they are a believer for life.

I would say this is not what the scriptures teach. The scriptures teach us a believer has eternal life if that person continues to believe to the end of their faith.

If a person who believes in 1970 and continues to believe through to the year 2014, then that person is more mature in their believing that a person who started believing in 2013.

If a person believes in 1970 and in 1990 decide to believe in Islam, and practice Islam, then that person no longer believes, nor has eternal life.

Every believer who belies to the end, has eternal life.

Every believer who does not believe to the end does not have eternal life.

A person's believing will be more mature at the end than at the beginning.

Thus your argument is refuted.

JLB

DL said "Yes, and every believer not just the mature have eternal life."

So are you saying Only Mature Believers have eternal life?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

imo
Both of those parables are about the growth of the kingdom of God.
Not individual peoples growth.
Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

The best Bible interpreter is the Bible itself. Especiilly when it comes to parables.

Just think of other parables that Jesus says are like the kingdom and how you can see they are talking about people. But this one can't be that? Why is it important that we not see these as parables of people bearing the fruit of the kingdom. What's the rub? What are we afraid of?

 

[JLB]

imo
Both of those parables are about the growth of the kingdom of God.
Not individual peoples growth.
Mar 4:26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
Mat 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

What is your opinion about the the parable of the Sower?


JLB