It Is Impossible ?

[MarkT]

The distinction that most believers tend to fall into is that they are only 'good ground' while other people are not 'good ground.' There are just several mistakes made with that understanding.

All of us started with a position of 'not good ground.' So there is mistake. We are all initially blinded by the 'god of this world' in our minds/bodies and unable to 'hear' the Gospel. On this ground all are internally defiled in their ground. Every last one of us.

God made us. He gave us a heart to believe (also a spirit to hear and to understand) and he planted his seed. There's no starting with a position of 'not good ground'. Either a man has a believing heart when he hears the word of God or he does not.

The second bad sight is that there is only a 'one shot seed' planted. I addressed this earlier. There is in fact a never ending stream of Living Word pouring down onto the ground. It's never a 'one shot deal' with Seed and The Seed Is The Eternal and Ever Living God.

The seed is the word of God. This is what is planted in the heart. The vegetation that springs up is the branch of the true vine.

The third error, and the biggest that most contend with is that they think their own ground is untouchable by sin, which is exactly what the writer of Hebrews is pointing to. Ground that produces thorns and thistles, which in the spiritual senses is SIN. We all have that issue. The matters to observe for this is the source of sin, which is of the devil. Most believers get blindsided in the worst way at this point of fact, thinking they don't sin or that their internal evil defiling thoughts are not sin or ultimately that such sin is not invoked internally by the tempter within their minds to do so. When this latter factual party comes into the equations, THEN it can be clearly understood WHO will never repent as it is impossible for the tempter to do anything but RESIST Gods Words. That is what the tempter does IN people, and yes, also in believers.

I don't think there is a poster in this thread that has dealt with the spiritual reality that scripture does deal with entities that are NOT MAN, but are WITHIN man. And that would be the devil and his messengers working internally in the forms of temptations that defile the ground FIRST by evil thoughts, THEN evil words emitted from the ground and eventually evil deeds culminating in slaveship to SIN.

We sin because we are weak. We are weak because we are human, not because Satan is in us.

Indeed we are God's temple if we believe. Satan can't enter us. No. Satan is the ruler of this world. He is outside. We are inside, in Christ Jesus. The Devil can tempt us all he wants. We don't follow him.

But as regarding sin, I'm not saying we do not sin. We are temporarily in a tent of flesh and blood that urges us to seek pleasure, to covet, to take what isn't ours. Sin, as Paul said, dwells in the body. We don't sin deliberately, but we do sin. But we have an advocate in Christ. He speaks for us. Our prayers do do up to God continuously - Our Father who art in heaven, forgive us our trespasses.

 

[smaller]

God made us. He gave us a heart to believe (also a spirit to hear and to understand) and he planted his seed. There's no starting with a position of 'not good ground'. Either a man has a believing heart when he hears the word of God or he does not.

As if God in Christ plays no role? Or the god of this world who blinds the minds of the unbeliever has no role?

I can't justify the 'man's sole hearing' basis. I might even say that people who see that only want to hear that themselves or perhaps even how they are led to not hear.

Both God and the god of this world DO have a roles directly related to these subjects in the matters of every man.

The seed is the word of God. This is what is planted in the heart. The vegetation that springs up is the branch of the true vine.

It's not a one shot seed planting. How many times did you 'hear' the Gospel before it struck home?

We sin because we are weak. We are weak because we are human, not because Satan is in us.

Paul tells us flat out that he had a messenger of Satan in his flesh. Are we to toss that so casually aside in favor of our imaginations of immunity?

Indeed we are God's temple if we believe. Satan can't enter us. No. Satan is the ruler of this world. He is outside. We are inside, in Christ Jesus. The Devil can tempt us all he wants. We don't follow him.

Again, to say we have no temptation in mind (internally) by the tempter isn't a credible scriptural discussion.

Jesus Himself was tempted by Satan. Why should any of us be exempt?

But as regarding sin, I'm not saying we do not sin.

Well of course not. That is theological suicide.

We are temporarily in a tent of flesh and blood that urges us to seek pleasure, to covet, to take what isn't ours. Sin, as Paul said, dwells in the body. We don't sin deliberately, but we do sin. But we have an advocate in Christ. He speaks for us. Our prayers do do up to God continuously - Our Father who art in heaven, forgive us our trespasses.

Well, at least you got warmer on the subject.

IF the god of this world blinds the minds of the unbeliever and IF even we, prior to our salvation walked according the prince of the power of the air, the spirit of disobedience, it is quite IMPOSSIBLE to remove that party from these equations and equally IMPOSSIBLE to see that party as anything but a resistor to GOD IN CHRIST and therefore IMPOSSIBLE to turn to repentance. It's not just about man, but about man and his evil CAPTOR. That is the New Testament narrative.

The only strange part is that the fact is missed entirely.

 

[MarkT]

As if God in Christ plays no role? Or the god of this world who blinds the minds of the unbeliever has no role?

I can't justify the 'man's sole hearing' basis. I might even say that people who see that only want to hear that themselves or perhaps even how they are led to not hear.

Both God and the god of this world DO have a roles directly related to these subjects in the matters of every man.

What matters? God made us. He gave us a spirit of understanding and a believing heart.

It's not a one shot seed planting. How many times did you 'hear' the Gospel before it struck home?

Once.

Paul tells us flat out that he had a messenger of Satan in his flesh. Are we to toss that so casually aside in favor of our imaginations of immunity?

Paul tells us the thorn was in his flesh, and the context of the letter tells us he is referring to a painful condition or an ailment that would not leave him - like a thorn in his flesh. The thorn was the 'messenger'. He is not talking about sin here.

Why did the Jews beat him? What message were they sending? The Jews who beat him were of Satan.

Again, to say we have no temptation in mind (internally) by the tempter isn't a credible scriptural discussion.

Jesus Himself was tempted by Satan. Why should any of us be exempt?

Did Satan enter Jesus? No. There is only one instance in the Bible, I know of, where Satan entered into a man, and that was Judas, and Judas was a devil. Eve was tempted by the Devil, but it was her own desire that caused her to sin. No doubt Satan planted the seed of doubt in Peter's mind. The Bible doesn't say Satan entered him.

IF the god of this world blinds the minds of the unbeliever and IF even we, prior to our salvation walked according the prince of the power of the air, the spirit of disobedience, it is quite IMPOSSIBLE to remove that party from these equations and equally IMPOSSIBLE to see that party as anything but a resistor to GOD IN CHRIST and therefore IMPOSSIBLE to turn to repentance. It's not just about man, but about man and his evil CAPTOR. That is the New Testament narrative.

The only strange part is that the fact is missed entirely.

The Bible says we were sinners not unbelievers.

 

[smaller]

I have a great deal of respect for Word of God facts.

Those facts revolve around 3 parties.

God
man
and Satan

There is cause to don the armour of God INTERNALLY.

Going without the helmet of salvation is not suggested.

 

[By Grace]

Well, I guess from now on you can call me strawman.
You have my permission.
I don't know Greek.
But if you think you know Greek better than the King James translators, then all the power to you.
Until you receive some sort of worldly recognition as being better than the King James, I'll stick with my "if".

In the post to which you reply, there is an unfortunate choice of words used:

Doulos Iesou said: ↑
I appealed to the original Greek, to show you why the new translation is correct and the KJV is wrong.

That is because EVERY translation is a product of its time, and there is no exception. At its time of publication, the KJV was the best in the English-speaking world. However, because languages evolve, words that were once apt become anachronistic. Because we are looking at a version of the KJV revised in the 1700s, we are reading a document re-translated by the same generation of scholars who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution.

If you read any of Shakespeare in high school or college, then you are reading English that was common in the time of the KJV. Therefore DI is correct in the fact that those who have formal schooling in the language help others to understand what the real meaning of the original text. However, as to his statement about "the KJV being wrong" IMO he is in error. I also have strong opinions about him teaching himself about Greek, but that is an issue inappropriate for here at this time because I have addressed the substance of that opinion in other discussions.

If you are really interested in knowing the precise words behind some of the Greek words in the NT, I recommend that you look at the Amplified Bible. I t takes some Greek word words and expands on them in such as a way that you can get the Greek lexicon definition in English.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

In the post to which you reply, there is an unfortunate choice of words used:


That is because EVERY translation is a product of its time, and there is no exception. At its time of publication, the KJV was the best in the English-speaking world. However, because languages evolve, words that were once apt become anachronistic. Because we are looking at a version of the KJV revised in the 1700s, we are reading a document re-translated by the same generation of scholars who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution.

If you read any of Shakespeare in high school or college, then you are reading English that was common in the time of the KJV. Therefore DI is correct in the fact that those who have formal schooling in the language help others to understand what the real meaning of the original text. However, as to his statement about "the KJV being wrong" IMO he is in error. I also have strong opinions about him teaching himself about Greek, but that is an issue inappropriate for here at this time because I have addressed the substance of that opinion in other discussions.

If you are really interested in knowing the precise words behind some of the Greek words in the NT, I recommend that you look at the Amplified Bible. I t takes some Greek word words and expands on them in such as a way that you can get the Greek lexicon definition in English.

Thank you for your courteous and informative post.