"Repent of Your Sins" False gospel

[wretched]

1 minute ago, Jim_Alaska said:

OK, do you suppose that the following verse would include our sins or your sins? Luke 13:5 (KJV) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

I noticed that you did not address where you said: "The Book of Revelation is the only book in the NT that mentions repentance of sins"

Well that is because it is the only NT Book that associates repentance with sins directly Jim. Prior to that in the NT and before this current age ends repentance toward God is always the precursor of faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance in this current age is always described as changing of our misconception of God (whether atheist or religious) and our true purpose for existence and returning to the True God of all creation, the God of the Holy Bible. Returning because at birth we had an inherent knowledge of the God of creation but lost it to the world system after puberty. Romans 1:19-22.

[Jim_Alaska]

You are playing word games. Your specific statement was:  The Book of Revelation is the only book in the NT that mentions repentance of sins.

Now you change it to: "the only NT Book that associates repentance with sins directly Jim."

The words "mentions" and "associates" are two different words with very different meanings.  word games vs Scripture, I'll take Scripture thank you.

[wretched]

On 8/22/2017 at 11:22 AM, wretched said:

Our Lord never said (to us) to repent of our sins. The Book of Revelation is the only book in the NT that mentions repentance of sins (specific deeds or actions) and is directed to the harlot and those who remain during the tribulation.

Whatever it takes for the win Jim, you can have it my friend

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Acts 8:22 - "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee."

[wretched]

That is close Scott and was definitely considered but doesn't fit if the issue being considered is sinful acts and not the condition of the heart in unbelief. The context of Simon is His disingenuous "belief" of which repentance was needful. Does that make sense?

Edited December 7, 2019 by wretched

[Pastor Scott Markle]

23 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Acts 8:22 - "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee."

22 hours ago, wretched said:

That is close Scott and was definitely considered but doesn't fit if the issue being considered is sinful acts and not the condition of the heart in unbelief. The context of Simon is His disingenious "belief" of which repentance was needful. Does that make sense?

Yes, Brother Wretched, it makes sense . . . IF we are parsing sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance, and IF the wickedness of Simon was the sinful attitude of unbelief.  However, I myself would take issue with this for the following reasons:

1.  I would NOT parse sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance.  Rather, I would contend that the matter of repentance encompasses any and all sinfulness, including BOTH sinful actions and sinful attitudes, BOTH sinful speech and sinful thoughts.

2.  I would contend that Simon's wickedness was NOT the sinful attitude of unbelief, but was the thought that spiritual blessings can be purchases with carnal money (in principle - the thought that carnal means are the way to spiritual progress).  Consider Acts 8:18-23 -- "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.  But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.  Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.  Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.  For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."  Throughout this I do not see any place wherein Peter accuses Simon concerning the sinful attitude of unbelief.  Rather, it appears to me that Peter accused Simon concerning the sinful attitudes of materialism (as the means for spiritual progress) and of bitterness.  In fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God itself reports that Simon DID believe.  Even so, BEFORE the event of Acts 8:18-23, the opening line of Acts 8:13 reports, "Then Simon himself believed also."

[heartstrings]

18 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yes, Brother Wretched, it makes sense . . . IF we are parsing sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance, and IF the wickedness of Simon was the sinful attitude of unbelief.  However, I myself would take issue with this for the following reasons:

1.  I would NOT parse sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance.  Rather, I would contend that the matter of repentance encompasses any and all sinfulness, including BOTH sinful actions and sinful attitudes, BOTH sinful speech and sinful thoughts.

2.  I would contend that Simon's wickedness was NOT the sinful attitude of unbelief, but was the thought that spiritual blessings can be purchases with carnal money (in principle - the thought that carnal means are the way to spiritual progress).  Consider Acts 8:18-23 -- "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.  But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.  Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.  Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.  For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."  Throughout this I do not see any place wherein Peter accuses Simon concerning the sinful attitude of unbelief.  Rather, it appears to me that Peter accused Simon concerning the sinful attitudes of materialism (as the means for spiritual progress) and of bitterness.  In fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God itself reports that Simon DID believe.  Even so, BEFORE the event of Acts 8:18-23, the opening line of Acts 8:13 reports, "Then Simon himself believed also."

He certainly did!  Baby Christians have to be admonished, rebuked, chastened and corrected because we all do dumb stuff, just like Brother Simon. As a personal testimony, I myself did not repent of a list of sins, or any specific sin that I recall. I DID repent of being what I was: a low-down sinner. Repentence, in salvation, is simply turning to Jesus from sin and self. Not a step one, step two, step three thing. At least it was for me.

Edited December 7, 2019 by heartstrings

[Pastor Scott Markle]

7 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

He certainly did!  Baby Christians have to be admonished, rebuked, chastened and corrected because we all do dumb stuff, just like Brother Simon. As a personal testimony, I myself did not repent of a list of sins, or any specific sin that I recall. I DID repent of being what I was: a low-down sinner. Repentence, in salvation, is simply turning to Jesus from sin and self. Not a step one, step two, step three thing. At least it was for me.

Brother Wayne, I myself would agree (I think).  For I would contend that the repentance necessary for salvation includes, NOT a repentance from individual sins of unrighteousness (per se) unto a walk of righteousness, BUT a repentance from utter sinFULness in character unto the Savior from all sinfulness.  (1st Note: I also believe that the repentance for salvation includes a repentance toward God (unto the truth) and a repentance from dead works (as a means of salvation).)  (2nd Note: I would acknowledge that a confrontation of an individual sin may be the means by which a lost sinner comes to recognize his or her utter sinFULness, as per the case of the Samaritan woman in John 4.)

[heartstrings]

6 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wayne, I myself would agree (I think).  For I would contend that the repentance necessary for salvation includes, NOT a repentance from individual sins of unrighteousness (per se) unto a walk of righteousness, BUT a repentance from utter sinFULness in character unto the Savior from all sinfulness.  (1st Note: I also believe that the repentance for salvation includes a repentance toward God (unto the truth) and a repentance from dead works (as a means of salvation).)  (2nd Note: I would acknowledge that a confrontation of an individual sin may be the means by which a lost sinner comes to recognize his or her utter sinFULness, as per the case of the Samaritan woman in John 4.)

certainly

[wretched]

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yes, Brother Wretched, it makes sense . . . IF we are parsing sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance, and IF the wickedness of Simon was the sinful attitude of unbelief.  However, I myself would take issue with this for the following reasons:

1.  I would NOT parse sinful actions from sinful attitudes in relation to the matter of repentance.  Rather, I would contend that the matter of repentance encompasses any and all sinfulness, including BOTH sinful actions and sinful attitudes, BOTH sinful speech and sinful thoughts.

2.  I would contend that Simon's wickedness was NOT the sinful attitude of unbelief, but was the thought that spiritual blessings can be purchases with carnal money (in principle - the thought that carnal means are the way to spiritual progress).  Consider Acts 8:18-23 -- "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.  But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.  Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.  Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.  For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."  Throughout this I do not see any place wherein Peter accuses Simon concerning the sinful attitude of unbelief.  Rather, it appears to me that Peter accused Simon concerning the sinful attitudes of materialism (as the means for spiritual progress) and of bitterness.  In fact, the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God itself reports that Simon DID believe.  Even so, BEFORE the event of Acts 8:18-23, the opening line of Acts 8:13 reports, "Then Simon himself believed also."

I understand your stand brother and respect it. I simply view it from the standpoint of consistency in the NT and I correlate it to tares which God's Word also tells us "believe". But this belief is only in the mind and not in the heart. Mental belief lasts only as long as it is reinforced from without, heart belief results in the new birth. I believe this is why our end days "churches" are filled with tares constantly being reinforced from without but the hearts are not right in the sight of God. These receive a "gospel" with the costs already counted for them and then repetitiously reinforced.

Take it from a former tare

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On 12/7/2019 at 11:57 AM, wretched said:

I understand your stand brother and respect it. 

Brother Wretched, I certainly appreciate your respect toward me (now and in the past).  Although we have not always agreed, I have definitely come to respect you a great deal through our various interactions.  Even so, I desire that the following post not be taken as disrespectful; for I do NOT intend it as such.  Nevertheless, I do intend it to be somewhat corrective (which some take as disrespectful).  (Note: I have pondered much on how to present the following.  I pray that it will truly be "good to the use of edifying.")
 

On 12/7/2019 at 11:57 AM, wretched said:

I simply view it from the standpoint of consistency in the NT and I correlate it to tares which God's Word also tells us "believe". But this belief is only in the mind and not in the heart. Mental belief lasts only as long as it is reinforced from without, heart belief results in the new birth. I believe this is why our end days "churches" are filled with tares constantly being reinforced from without but the hearts are not right in the sight of God. These receive a "gospel" with the costs already counted for them and then repetitiously reinforced.

Take it from a former tare

With your linked phrase (tells us "believe"), you make reference unto the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  In relation to the parable of the sower, you speak about "tares" and seem to indicate that "they on the rock" should be viewed as such "tares."  However, I am compelled to contend that there are NO "tares" whatsoever at all in the parable of the sower.  The ONLY seed sown in the parable of the sower is the "good" (incorruptible - see for reference 1 Peter 1:23) seed of God's Word; and the ONLY sower in the parable of the sower is a "good" sower of the incorruptible Word (as implied by the fact that he is sowing the "good" seed of God's Word).  From my perspective, to indicate or imply that the incorruptible seed of God's Word can produce (germinate into) "tares" is somewhat offensive against the incorruptible character of God's Holy Word.

On the other hand, the only place wherein "tares" are directly referenced in the New Testament is in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43.  In the parable of the tares, there are TWO DIFFERENT kinds of seed that are sown: (1) "the good seed" and (2) the "tares" seed.  Furthermore, in that parable there are TWO DIFFERENT sowers of seed: (1) the good sower of the good seed, "the Son of man," and (2) the "enemy" sower of the "tares" seed, "the devil."  If we seek to correlate the two parables, it would seem to me that the correlation between them is at the point of "the good seed," the incorruptible seed of God's Holy Word.  This good, incorruptible seed of God's Word produces (germinates into) wheat, NOT tares.

Thus I would further contend that the "belief" presented in Luke 8:13 is genuine faith in the gospel of Christ, through which the Word of God germinates in their hearts and through which they pass from death unto life (as indicated by the very fact that there IS plant growth).  The germination and LIFE of God's Word in an individual's heart is itself an evidence that an individual is "born again." (See for reference 1 Peter 1:23)

Edited December 10, 2019 by Pastor Scott Markle

[wretched]

7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Wretched, I certainly appreciate your respect toward me (now and in the past).  Although we have not always agreed, I have definitely come to respect you a great deal through our various interactions.  Even so, I desire that the following post not be taken as disrespectful; for I do NOT intend it as such.  Nevertheless, I do intend it to be somewhat corrective (which some take as disrespectful).  (Note: I have pondered much on how to present the following.  I pray that it will truly be "good to the use of edifying.")
I will do the same brother Scott but must share this with you and cannot find a gentler way to express it. Please do not take it as a personal attack in any way but a pleading for you to give an ear for just a moment.

With your linked phrase (tells us "believe"), you make reference unto the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  In relation to the parable of the sower, you speak about "tares" and seem to indicate that "they on the rock" should be viewed as such "tares."  However, I am compelled to contend that there are NO "tares" whatsoever at all in the parable of the sower.  The ONLY seed sown in the parable of the sower is the "good" (incorruptible - see for reference 1 Peter 1:23) seed of God's Word; and the ONLY sower in the parable of the sower is a "good" sower of the incorruptible Word (as implied by the fact that he is sowing the "good" seed of God's Word).  From my perspective, to indicate or imply that the incorruptible seed of God's Word can produce (germinate into) "tares" is somewhat offensive against the incorruptible character of God's Holy Word.

Please consider the possibility that you have inserted an idea from I Peter 1: 23 plucking it out of its intended context to change the direct context of the Parables of the Sower and Tares. The sower and the tares are directly linked in the Gospels and are a continuation of each other. Please study prayfully the context in Matthew chapter 13 The context of the incorruptible seed of 1 Peter you linked is not related to the parables of the sower, seed and tares as I have bolded in the passage below.

Matthew 13: 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

On the other hand, the only place wherein "tares" are directly referenced in the New Testament is in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43.  In the parable of the tares, there are TWO DIFFERENT kinds of seed that are sown: (1) "the good seed" and (2) the "tares" seed.  Furthermore, in that parable there are TWO DIFFERENT sowers of seed: (1) the good sower of the good seed, "the Son of man," and (2) the "enemy" sower of the "tares" seed, "the devil."  If we seek to correlate the two parables, it would seem to me that the correlation between them is at the point of "the good seed," the incorruptible seed of God's Holy Word.  This good, incorruptible seed of God's Word produces (germinates into) wheat, NOT tares.

Please consider that your definition of "good seed" and "bad seed" is exactly what I am referencing above and explain thoroughly in What is a Tare. The "good" is the Word of God in it contexts as God intended as transcribed; the "bad" seed is His Word corrupted by its misuse. One of these misuses is plucking passages from His Word out of their direct contexts to negate the direct context of other passages. The "seed" is the Word of God in its context throughout the Parables of Sower and tares, It becomes corrupted or "bad" when plucked out, isolated or misapplied as God intended. This is corruption and religion and "theology". Satan misused God's Word at every turn, is the father lies and theology and religion.

Thus I would further contend that the "belief" presented in Luke 8:13 is genuine faith in the gospel of Christ, through which the Word of God germinates in their hearts and through which they pass from death unto life (as indicated by the very fact that there IS plant growth).  The germination and LIFE of God's Word in an individual's heart is itself an evidence that an individual is "born again." (See for reference 1 Peter 1:23)

Brother Scott, this is what I mean here when I warn men not to see and use God's Word as a reference for their already settled, "theological ideas" but to treat it as God intended as the Bread of Life; The Living Water.

Please believe me my dear friend when I tell you that I do not want to win temporary debates on forums, I want all of us who have received seed to win the war satan has waged on our souls through the traditions (theology) of men.

 

 

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

13 hours ago, wretched said:

Brother Scott, this is what I mean here when I warn men not to see and use God's Word as a reference for their already settled, "theological ideas" but to treat it as God intended as the Bread of Life; The Living Water.

Please believe me my dear friend when I tell you that I do not want to win temporary debates on forums, I want all of us who have received seed to win the war satan has waged on our souls through the traditions (theology) of men.

Indeed, Brother Wretched, I also am not concerned about winning debates, but am much concerned about exalting Biblical truth.

Even so, I must contend that my primary point from my posting above still stands - (Even if we remove any reference unto 1 Peter 1:23)  There are NO tares in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  You implied that there were, but our Lord Jesus Christ Himself NEVER mentioned them therein.

Indeed, in relation to this my primary evidences also still stand:

1.  In the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is ONLY ONE seed that is sown.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined that ONE seed as the Word of God.  (Luke 8:11 -- "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God."  Mark 4:14 - "The sower soweth the word.")  However, in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43, there are TWO DIFFERENT seeds sown: (1) The good/wheat seed and (2) the tares seed.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined the good/wheat seed as "the children of the kingdom" and defined the tares seed as "the children of the wicked one."  (Matthew 13:38 - "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one.")  It is worthy of notice that our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT even define the "good" seed from each of these two parable in the same way.  In the parable of the sower, the "good" seed is the WORD of God; whereas in the parable of the tares, the "good" seed are the CHILDREN of the kingdom.  (For your consideration, our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT define the two different seed in the parable of the tares as: (1) the Word of God rightly divided and (2) the Word of God corrupted by misuse.  Indeed, I would plead with you to consider your own warning above about seeing and using God's Word as a reference for already settled "theological ideas.")

2.  In the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is ONLY ONE sower of the seed.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did not directly define this one sower, but He did only reference ONE sower.  However, in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43, there are TWO DIFFERENT sowers of seed: (1) the sower of the good seed in his own field and (2) the enemy who sowed tares among the wheat.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined the sower of the good seed as "the Son of man" and defined the enemy as "the devil."  (Matthew 13:37 - He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man."  Matthew 13:39a - "The enemy that sowed them is the devil.")  Now, in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is NO enemy sowing a different seed than that of the "good" sower of God's Word.  Indeed, the wicked one, Satan, the devil IS present in the parable of the sower; however, he is NOT sowing any seed in that parable.  Rather, he is taking AWAY the seed of God's Word out of individual's hearts.  (Matthew 13:19 - When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.  This is he which received seed by the way side."  Mark 4:15 - And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts."  Luke 8:12 - Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.")  

So then, since there is ONLY ONE seed sown in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the seed of GOD'S HOLY WORD - IF there are tares in the parable of the sower, then the seed of God's WORD had to produce (germinate into) those tares.  Furthermore, since there is ONLY ONE sower in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the "good" sower of God's Word - IF there are tares in the parable of the sower, then the "good" sower had to be responsible for sowing them.  Yet since in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, the ENEMY who sowed the tares is the devil, and since in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the devil is NOT SOWING ANY SEED, but is actually STEALING AWAY the good seed of God's Word, then we have NO grounds for inserting the idea of tares into the parable of the sower.  The correct context for tares is the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, NOT the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  Thus I repeat again - There are NO tares in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15. 

__________________________________________________________________

Concerning any correlation between the seed in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the seed in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, and the seed in 1 Peter 1:23, consider the Biblical definition for the "good" seed in each case -

1.  The case of the parable of the sower: Luke 8:11 -- "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God."  Mark 4:14 - "The sower soweth the word."

2.  The case of the parable of the tares: Matthew 13:38 - "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one."

3.  The case of 1 Peter 1:23: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

It appears to me that in BOTH the case of the parable of the sower and the case of 1 Peter 1:23, the "good" seed is Biblically defined as the same thing, as "THE WORD OF GOD."  However, it appears to me that in the case of the parable of the tares, the "good" seed is Biblically defined as something completely different, as "the children of kingdom."  So then, I would ask -- Of the three cases, IF there is any correlation, which cases correlate between better with each other?

[wretched]

2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, Brother Wretched, I also am not concerned about winning debates, but am much concerned about exalting Biblical truth.

Even so, I must contend that my primary point from my posting above still stands - (Even if we remove any reference unto 1 Peter 1:23)  There are NO tares in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  You implied that there were, but our Lord Jesus Christ Himself NEVER mentioned them therein.

Indeed, in relation to this my primary evidences also still stand:

1.  In the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is ONLY ONE seed that is sown.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined that ONE seed as the Word of God.  (Luke 8:11 -- "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God."  Mark 4:14 - "The sower soweth the word.")  However, in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43, there are TWO DIFFERENT seeds sown: (1) The good/wheat seed and (2) the tares seed.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined the good/wheat seed as "the children of the kingdom" and defined the tares seed as "the children of the wicked one."  (Matthew 13:38 - "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one.")  It is worthy of notice that our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT even define the "good" seed from each of these two parable in the same way.  In the parable of the sower, the "good" seed is the WORD of God; whereas in the parable of the tares, the "good" seed are the CHILDREN of the kingdom.  (For your consideration, our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT define the two different seed in the parable of the tares as: (1) the Word of God rightly divided and (2) the Word of God corrupted by misuse.  Indeed, I would plead with you to consider your own warning above about seeing and using God's Word as a reference for already settled "theological ideas.")

2.  In the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is ONLY ONE sower of the seed.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did not directly define this one sower, but He did only reference ONE sower.  However, in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43, there are TWO DIFFERENT sowers of seed: (1) the sower of the good seed in his own field and (2) the enemy who sowed tares among the wheat.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself defined the sower of the good seed as "the Son of man" and defined the enemy as "the devil."  (Matthew 13:37 - He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man."  Matthew 13:39a - "The enemy that sowed them is the devil.")  Now, in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, there is NO enemy sowing a different seed than that of the "good" sower of God's Word.  Indeed, the wicked one, Satan, the devil IS present in the parable of the sower; however, he is NOT sowing any seed in that parable.  Rather, he is taking AWAY the seed of God's Word out of individual's hearts.  (Matthew 13:19 - When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart.  This is he which received seed by the way side."  Mark 4:15 - And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts."  Luke 8:12 - Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.")  

So then, since there is ONLY ONE seed sown in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the seed of GOD'S HOLY WORD - IF there are tares in the parable of the sower, then the seed of God's WORD had to produce (germinate into) those tares.  Furthermore, since there is ONLY ONE sower in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the "good" sower of God's Word - IF there are tares in the parable of the sower, then the "good" sower had to be responsible for sowing them.  Yet since in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, the ENEMY who sowed the tares is the devil, and since in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the devil is NOT SOWING ANY SEED, but is actually STEALING AWAY the good seed of God's Word, then we have NO grounds for inserting the idea of tares into the parable of the sower.  The correct context for tares is the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, NOT the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15.  Thus I repeat again - There are NO tares in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15. 

__________________________________________________________________

Concerning any correlation between the seed in the parable of the sower as recorded in Matthew 13:3-8, 18-23, in Mark 4:3-9, 14-20, and in Luke 8:5-8, 11-15, the seed in the parable of the tares as recorded in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-48, and the seed in 1 Peter 1:23, consider the Biblical definition for the "good" seed in each case -

1.  The case of the parable of the sower: Luke 8:11 -- "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God."  Mark 4:14 - "The sower soweth the word."

2.  The case of the parable of the tares: Matthew 13:38 - "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one."

3.  The case of 1 Peter 1:23: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."

It appears to me that in BOTH the case of the parable of the sower and the case of 1 Peter 1:23, the "good" seed is Biblically defined as the same thing, as "THE WORD OF GOD."  However, it appears to me that in the case of the parable of the tares, the "good" seed is Biblically defined as something completely different, as "the children of kingdom."  So then, I would ask -- Of the three cases, IF there is any correlation, which cases correlate between better with each other?

I respect your decision brother.

[mbkjpreacher]

If the meaning of repentance is a change of mind from unbelief to belief, is the sinner who repented already has exercised belief in Christ when he repented?  If so, why did Paul give a distinction to repentance and faith if repentance is the same as belief in Christ?