There is only one way to define words in the Bible or any book. It is supposed to be in accordance with how the words are used and these definitions are reported in dictionaries. Otherwise anyone can rewrite God's Word and many do.  

[Ray] That I agree; at the time I couldn't put that to words, in addition to our perception of what the words mean to us.  

[You are violating the rules of reading by adding your own perception of what words mean to us. Your perception DOES NOT COUNT. You must follow the normative rules of language, context and logic. The proof of this is that if you follow those rules you will prove out the inerrancy of God’s Word - its reliability - as well as the many contracts people make with one another that are adjudicated in court where perception is ruled out in favor of the established rules of language, i.e., through usage of the meaning of words in the light of the established rules of langage, context and logic]

[Ray] You said "That does not make sense. You can ONLY use the definition of repentance to determine what the word means"

But do you agree that the context can also dictate their meaning as well?  Luke 12:50 is the best example of it.
[No. The context dictates which established not imagined definition of a word is applicable - according to / as reflected in dictionaries. You keep missing that. No verse such as Lk 12:50 can be used to violate the normative rules of language, context and logic. THOSE ARE THE RULES THEY CANNOT BE BROKEN BY YOUR IDEA OF WHAT A SENTENCE SUCH AS LK 12:50 SAYS. Your ideas DO NOT COUNT!!!!!!!.

Unless these rules of communicating via language are followed, one cannot have a dependable method of communicating in which all individuals are on the same page as to what is universally accepted in any communication. Otherwise your own special perception would not be understood.

You have misinterpreted Lk 12:50 and want to use your misinterpretation to change the rules of reading / language AGAIN!!!! Another baptism is in view - Christ’s baptism / immersion into the sins of the whole world which were symbolized by His previous water baptism]

Believing involves the mind ONLY. The word “heart” = kardia is figurative for the mind. Look it up on my website. BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: HEART = MIND, A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE
[Ray] I believe that too, as believing occurs at the heart. 

[NO. You can’t say “I believe that too” and then contradict it. Believing does not occur at the heart. Believing involves the mind ONLY. The word “heart” = kardia is figurative for the mind. Look it up on my website. BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: HEART = MIND, A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE  biblestudymanuals.net/heart.htm]

[Ray] However, it is the person who decides whether to believe or not.  Otherwise, in order for it to be entirely not a work done by the person, you must then agree that it is given to him or her to believe.

[There is no “However”. The issue of the person’s volition to choose or not to choose is irrevelent to the issue of where the believing occurs in the human body. Believing is never a work anyway. It is not contributory to what Christ did on the cross for mankind is it!!! It is a non-contributory, passive acceptance as true that He died for your sins or to anything that one believes. What does one do if one believes that the sky is blue. There was nothing done. It does participate in anything such as making the sky blue. It is a volitional act that is entirely up to the will of man. On the other hand man is set against believing in Christ and God has given some the gift of faith in the sense of providing a special drawing to the elect which PERSUADES THEM TO CHOOSE OF THEIR OWN VOLITION TO BELIEVE. Have you ever been persuaded of your own volition to do something?]

[First comes the dictionary that reflects how words are used. Then comes the context which best suits a particular definition of a word. You cannot editorialize and make up your own definitions. That’s how you learned to read - by following the normative rules of language, context and logic. Otherwise anyone can decide what the words mean.]

[Ray] VERBATIM: That I agree; at the time I couldn't put that to words, in addition to our perception of what the words mean to us.


Without a consistent universally accepted set of rules of language, context and logic there will not be a consistent understanding in that communication. We must be diligent with what the author wrote – his intentions, NOT YOURS]

[Ray] But do you agree that the context can also dictate their meaning as well?  Luke 12:50 is the best example of it.

[No. Context dictates which available meaning is to be used from a list of established meanings a word ALREADY HAS which you can find in a dictionary which reports usage. Context does not dictate the available meanings of a word. Usage does that. Start using a dictionary properly. If you have your own idea of what a word means FORGET IT AND STICK TO THE DICTIONARY]

[But what the available meanings of that word are must be in accordance with usage / as reported in the dictionary. You must not invent what words can mean, which you seem to be doing. It is not about you, but about how words are used] 

[Ray] I understand, but do you understand see my point?

[Yes I see your point but it is wrong. Your point does not follow the normative rules of language, context and logic. You cannot make up your own rules of interpretation and expect God to go along with you, nor man to have an accurate understanding of the author’s words]

[Ray] Do you see how the context influence[s] what the word typically means?

[It does not influence what a word means, it simply dictates which already established meaning is to be applied. Check your dictionary and limit yourself to what it provides as usage has dictated. On the other hand, there are words that a particular communication provides but that context will give you the definition of that word such as “ekklesian” meaning more than an assembly which the context coins the word establishing such a new meaning which is now included in dictionaries of today. See the newly coined meaning of the word in the first century was picked up in later dictionaries. It’s not up to you to make up your own meanings]

[The best available meaning for Sozo is preserved – longevity of the temporal life is in view not eternal life. Eternal life is not based on human doing]

[Ray] Assuming that you are right, the also makes that clear, but do you understand why I've used Sozo as an example as to why words do not always mean what is defined or what we think it means?

[No. You are wrong. There is no context in the Bible that coins a special meaning for Sozo that you have decided the word has. The dictionary meaning is the one to use since it reports how words have been used in the time, place and amongst the people living at that time. Stop trying to remake the rules, you are fighting God. Context of a passage depends upon you following the rules. If a context properly interpreted does provide a new meaning of a word such as assembly meaning “church” then that rare circumstance provides for a new meaning of that word. BTW the bible was written a good number of years again and the dictionaries provide for those new meanings. Check your local dictionary on church]

[Again, you refuse to go to the dictionary and restrict yourself to available meanings. Christ was water baptized symbolizing His real baptism of being immersed in the sins of the whole world = two baptisms, one symbolic, one actual. There are seven baptisms in the Bible. You have not done your homework BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: BAPTISM] 

[Ray] OK..., so is Baptism here in Luke 12:50 used symbolically, or was Jesus actually very anxious to get water baptized, again? 

[You are not paying attention to my answers so I have to repeat them over and over again.
[The context dictates which definition of a word is applicable. You keep missing that. No verse such as Lk 12:50 can be used to violate the normative rules of language, context and logic. THOSE ARE THE RULES THEY CANNOT BE BROKEN BY YOUR IDEA OF WHAT A SENTENCE SUCH AS LK 12:50 SAYS. Your ideas DO NOT COUNT!!!!!!!

You have misinterpreted Lk 12:50 and want to use your misinterpretation to change the rules of reading / language AGAIN!!!! Another baptism is in view Christ’s baptism / immersion into the sins of the whole world which were symbolized by His previous water baptism by John]

[Again you missed the point. To change the mind, one must have a mindset to begin with which one changes one’s mind to another mindset]

[Ray] Which does not strictly rules out a mind to no longer live in sin... right?  From the beginning you limited the definition to only mean believe.

[Again you missed the point. To change the mind, one must have a mindset to begin with which one changes one’s mind to another mindset. Whatever the mindset which might be that one can live in sin which THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE ESTABLISHES NOT YOUR PARTICULAR PERCEPTION, THE CONTEXT, THE CONTEXT THE CONTEXT is what the passage is saying is then what one must repent from. Jn 3:16 has the context of whoever believes is what one must repent to, from a context of unbelief: repent of not believing to believing. Acts 2:1-38 same context same repentance. Turning from sin NOT in the context, turning from not believing to believing is. I DID NOT LIMIT REPENT TO BELIEVING. READ MY ANSWERS AND I WON’T HAVE TO REPEAT THEM! That’s part of the normative rules of language, context and logic]

In some contexts, namely those about how to have eternal life, the mindset of not believing is changed to one of believing this is implied for example in Jn 3:16. I never said that the word repent is restricted to this. It is all about context, context, context. You are trying to pin me down to saying something I did not say.]

[Ray] So. why object to our calling to unbelievers to repent and believe?

[AGAIN context, context, context. Repent in that passage has in view not believing in order to arrive at believing!! Wow, are you that dense!!!! Since repent can mean a number of things to change the mind from, then it is necessary to convey what one is repenting to which is believe from not believing. Furthermore, hundreds of salvation unto eternal life passages indicate that salvation unto eternal life is by faith alone. So if the one in Mark is correct according and repent means turn from your sins, then you must destroy all those other passages that say you must repent in the sense of change your mind from not believing to believing in Jesus as they are all in error - for example, Jn 3:16]

[Ray] That is why we've begun this debate in the first place.  Why did you also object to my interpretation of Mark 1:15? 

[Mk 1:15 context: entrance into the kingdom of God = eternal life is in view. Repent from what to what is the question - there are a number of meanings of repent as determined by the context in which that word repent is located in. There is no mention of living in sin or anything to that effect. In the context of the previous verse: the gospel of God is in view plus the context in 1:15 of the imminency of the arrival of the Kingdom of God = eternal life is in view. Repent therefore is to change the mind in order to believe, so what one is to change the mind from is NOT BELIEVING. This is why Mk 1:15 reads repent and believe and not repent and turn from sin. This is not rocket science]

If you want to have a constructive conversation stop trying to find fault in what I am saying and use your reading skills that you began to learn in school: the normative rules of language, context and logic.]

[Ray] With respect, you were the one objecting to me, saying, that no where in scripture does it say that we need to repent and believe in order to be saved, that 400 times the bible used the word faith and not to repent.

[I did not say that. Learn to read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The implication is no where in Scripture does it say that we need to repent IN THE SENSE OF TURN FROM COMMITTING SINS IN ORDER TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE!!!!!! But we do need to repent in order to have eternal life to believing in Christ, the implication being that one is not believing any longer, but instead changed the mind to believing – compare Jn 3:16, Acts 2:38, Mk 1:15]

[Ray] Furthermore, you answered my usage of Mark 1:15 by adding John the Baptist as a context which he tells them to produce fruits of faith.

[Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. Wow. Learn to read. You have already repented meaning you already have changed your mind from not believing in Christ as Messiah / Savior Who is here to bring in the Kingdom of God, Whereupon, i.e., THEN YOU ARE COMMANDED TO PRODUCE FRUIT i.e., turn from sin and do godly works that are consistent with your repentance unto faith in Christ. Learn to read]

[Ray] It was only when I pointed out what they were called that you began to acknowledge exceptions. 

[Wow. Learn to read. This is NOT an exception Producing fruit is not the same thing as repenting from not believing to believing. Get it??]

[Ray] But then, you objected to my usage of Matthew 7:15-20, saying that it is apples and oranges.  Did you understand that the word "Fruit" used by both Jesus and John are traits, of?

[Fruit is not a guaranteed trait / characteristic of being a Christian automatically. It is a work in progress and most Christians are not very successful at being faithful. Some will have little to show for it at the end of their temporal lives: hay, wood and stubble. Neither Jesus nor John taught this. You are reading that into the passage as usual. If John scolded the Pharisees to produce fruit in keeping with repentance then fruit is not automatically going to be produced. Otherwise why say it? There are no guarantees that a Christian will bear fruit. There are many passages that indicate that believers will have little if anything faithful to show at the Judgment Seat of Christ and all they will produce is hay, wood and stubble which will be burned up. And notice that nevertheless they will still make it to heaven. No passage guarantees that a believer will be faithful at all. As a matter of fact the New Testament contains multiple instructions to Christians to learn and obey which imply that such instruction is necessary BECAUSE FAITHFUL BEHAVIOR IS NOT AUTOMATIC WHEN ONE BECOMES A CHRISTIAN.]

[Ray] It seemed that you either ignoring the explanation, or Gaslighting me.

[Have no idea what you mean here]

[Ray] Unfortunately, I cannot copy and paste your words because earlier emails seemed to have been lost, but I know what I've read from you.

[So what? I still find what you have said here is incomprehensible]
[No it does not disagree. The fault lies in using Strongs Greek Lexicon of the kjv which limits itself to the kjv translation and does not include the overall language usage of koine Greek in the 1st century throughout the world at that time. Try looking up a koine Greek dictionary not affiliated with one particular translation. A good dictionary on this is [The New Analytical Greek Lexicon which is a dictionary of the koine Greek language of the Bible, (Wesley J. Perschbacher, Editor, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Ma; 1992, p. 329), ] 

[Ray] Thank you, I'll try to find one online.

[NO again. You did not read what I wrote. Stop imposing your thoughts on what I said or the Bible says. John and Jesus’ message was not to turn from sin but to believe in the coming Messiah the Lamb of God. The context never focuses on Israel’s sinfulness, but on Who Jesus is.] 

[Ray] This is why I believe you narrowed your definition of repentance to only mean "Believe".

[Wow. I never NEVER defined repentance to only mean believe. You don’t seem to read very well. It means to change the mind from one thing to another. The context will decide what that is and you then must select available meanings from the dictionary and from grammar books to determine what the context is – who, what, where, when, how, to whom, why - and then apply the available meaning of the word in question. Dictionaries to a good job in reporting how words are used. You cannot make up your own meanings, nor misapply an established meaning to the wrong context. For we are talking about Who Jesus is not about sinful behavior that must be corrected]

[Ray] Here, you cannot even acknowledge that repentance in vs 10 of ch 3 is repentance from sin.  So tell me, why did he call them "Brood of Vipers" rather than infidels, and then instructs them to bear the fruits is consistent with repentance?

[It is NOT repentance from sin at all. Futhermore, I have no idea what you are referring to. That’s part of your problem. You expect me to read your mind. If you are speaking of Mt 3, you did not bring up v. 10 to me at all. So how can you accuse me of not acknowledging something you have not told me.
After John exclaimed to the Pharisees and Sadducees, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance," (Mt 3:7-8);

John told them "And do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' " (Mt 3:9a), which further corroborated that they did not choose to believe in John's message, nor did they think they had to produce fruits worthy of repentance to avoid the temporal wrath to come. This implied that they believed that since they were physical descendants of Abraham, then they were automatically qualified for entrance into the eternal Kingdom of Heaven without having to repent to exercise a moment of faith in the Messiah or produce fruit in keeping with that repentance. But they were mistaken and would be disqualified as true children of Abraham to enter the Kingdom until they believed in John's message - repent here means believe. Furthermore, they evidently did not produce fruits of godly works and hence were subject to God's temporal wrath when He came to establish His Kingdom. John went on to say, "God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones," (Mt 3:9b), evidently referring to stones nearby or in the waters of the Jordan. John implied by this that the prophecy of the Kingdom of Heaven being fulfilled through the descendants of Abraham would be fulfilled not with such as the Pharisees and Sadducees or any physical descendant of Abraham who did not believe, but with those children of Abraham by faith, even if the LORD had to raise stones up to be Abraham's children. Evidently there would be a remnant of children of Abraham who would be the people of God who would dwell with Him in the Kingdom of Heaven by faith alone as Scripture promised.

John went on to say, "And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire," (Mt 3:10). Since this verse has as its emphatic initial phrase, "And even now," with present tenses which point to the time frame of John the Baptist; and since this verse follows the context of previous statements of John: "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, i.e., imminent; "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Mt 3:7b); and since the word rendered "fire" in Scripture is often used to mean temporal judgment depending upon the context; then one can conclude that the Kingdom would bring with it the fire of temporal judgment for all those who did not choose to believe in the coming Messiah and / or refused to produce godly fruit having opposed Him in His establishment of His Kingdom. So then temporal, not eternal punishment, i.e., early physical death, is in view in Mt 3:10.

In the same way that orchard keepers cut down trees that don't bear good fruit and immediately put them into the fire to be physically destroyed; so in a figurative sense, those individuals in their mortal bodies who did not produce good fruit - works of a righteous / godly quality up to the inception of the Everlasting Kingdom of Heaven - will immediately be cut down and figuratively "be thrown into the fire" of temporal judgment at the time of the LORD's coming. They will be physically destroyed; i.e., face early physical death. No one who has refused to exercise a moment of faith alone in the LORD alone or who has been characteristically unfaithful, who is in his mortal body at the time of the LORD's coming when He begins His Everlasting Kingdom can have a part in that Kingdom. 

In the final analysis, whenever eternal judgment is in view, specific modifying phrases or words such as "eternal," or "unquenchable" are present. On the other hand, those that do not repent, i.e., change their minds to express a moment of faith alone in the coming Messiah alone to deliver them from their sins unto entrance into the Everlasting Kingdom of Heaven will also suffer eternal judgment as noted in verse 12 with the picture of the separation of wheat from chaff, wherein those represented by the chaff, i.e., unbelievers will suffer God's judgment in "unquenchable fire."
[I argue via the normative rules of language, context and logic. Not interested in Hebrew Parallelism.]   

[Ray] Hebrew Parallelism is a Hebraic way of adding emphasis. You see that in Proverbs with statements on the subject being repeated (The wicked shall not... the wicked shall not... the wicked shall not...), and Jesus in John 5:24 "Truly truly, I say to you..." then in John 6 "I am the bread of life...".

This, is normative in Jesus' time, and times afore in Israel. Not ours, so of course you do not see it in our world, but you do see it in scripture.  That is why one studies to understand the language, grammar, and others used in scripture so as to better interpret it.  Use our present norm of ours it will not make sense to us, unless we notice a certain pattern in our reading.

[Who cares. Actually the pattern of emphasis is OBVIOUS in English without knowing any Hebrew or Jewish customs. All one needs to know is how to read a good English translation. The emphasis is obvious. Knowing about Hebrew Parallelism is not needed to properly read God’s Word. Actually English has it’s own parallelism and so does koine Greek. All three are so similar that all you have to know is how to read in English. If Hebrew Parallelism were needed and it radically differed from English / Greek parallelism then that would disqualify 99% of the world’s population who will never study Hebrew Parallelism because they would not be educated about this. Don’t you get that?? Besides this, learning to read English includes an understanding of this concept which is sufficient in English, or French, or German, etc without going to Seminary and learning Hebrew]

[Ray] This, is normative in Jesus' time, and times afore in Israel.  Not ours, so of course you do not see it in our world, but you do see it in scripture.  That is why one studies to understand the language, grammar, and others used in scripture so as to better interpret it.  Use our present norm of ours it will not make sense to us, unless we notice a certain pattern in our reading.

[Totally wrong. If you had to have in mind every point of ancient cultures from Adam & Eve, preflood period, postflood age, Abraham & the patriarchs, the time of Moses and Israel, the church age that would effect the meaning of the text, since such information is NOT largely available for people around the world to learn today, or even available at all given cultures that go back thousands and thousands of years, such as in Moses' time, Noah's time, the time of Adam and Eve and even those times BEFORE THE FLOOD which flooded over the entire planet destroying all kinds of cultural evidence - with little records archeological or otherwise discovered so far, then the Bible is completely useless. On the other hand, today's cultural points throughout the world are effectively similar / even the same as needed - especially considering those particular cultural descriptions stipulated in Scripture itself - to determine the proper meaning of every verse, regardless of the lack of detailed information of every single culture that is in view in every single verse in the Bible. This familiarity with all the signficant points of ancient cultures is simply not needed for a proper interpretation of God's Word. If it were needed then God is not the God of the Bible but a god who is an idiot for not knowing this.

Furthermore, the interpretation of Mk 1:15 does not need to allow for Hebrew parallelism BECAUSE THE CONTEXT RULES IT OUT. There IS nothing in the context leading up to Mk 1:15 which has in view sinful behavior. The rest of the Bible also does not stipulate that turning from sins is required in order to have eternal life. Eph 2:8-9 and many passages rule out human doing such as turning from sins. SO IT IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT HEBREW PARALLELISM AT ALL which is in view in Mk 1:15. It is simply telling you to what one changed ones mind to: to believing from NOT BELIEVING – and thereby changed ones mind FROM not believing, just as says in Jn 3:16-18]

[Ray] So, if you so chose, you could have cited the parallelism in Mark 1:15, if you hold to the belief that Jesus is only telling them to believe.

[I don’t have to cite Hebrew parallism here in Mk 1:15. Mark did not write his gospel in Hebrew, he wrote it in Greek with the expectation that his audience would not be limited to Hebrews or need a knowledge of ancient Hebrew customs. BTW most languages have similar parallelism because that’s they way most languages work - humans are creatures of habit. Besides there is NO EMPHASIS THROUGH USE OF DIFFERENT WORDS SUCH REPENT AND BELIEVE TO EXPLAIN THE THING. This is so because the word repent refers to the change of mind to believing two different concepts not the same concept. One is a change of mind, the other is what one changed ones mind to: believing]

[Because you don’t impose such things on the text, you simply read from the words not into the words some idea of hermeneutics. People should not apply such rules on the text but read the text as it stands in accordance with how you learned to read in school. Hence all people of accountable age can understand God’s Word, not limited to those who went to Seminary]

[Ray] OK, so tell me why did he mention their idolatrous practices if he simply wanted them to believe in the right God?  Did he not correct them in vs' 24-25?  In fact, in vs 16 he was not dismayed by their unbeliefs but their... idolatry.

[vv. 24-25, 16 of Mk 1???? What are you talking about. You’ve got your verses mixed up. You are running me all over the bible with no detailed exegesis at all and without telling me what passage you are writing about. You make no sense and quote verses that are not part of what we were talking about]

[Paul in his address on Mars Hill in Acts 16:22-32 [I figured out what you are referring to. Next time mention the passage you are talking about]. Paul is not addressing their sins at all except for the sin that they believe in idols and that they should repent of believing in idols and instead believe in Jesus, the unknown God. He is presenting Jesus to them as the unknown God. Paul is not telling them to repent of all of their sins. You have read that into the text. They are told to repent of the sin of worshipping / believing in idols and instead to worship / believe in Jesus the Unknown God for their salvation; i.e., to repent of believing in idols and believe in Jesus. The same format you have in Mk 1:15!!!!!]

 You are not an editor or coauthor.

[Ray] It maybe hard for you to believe it, but I interpreted that passage exegetically, which is why I've included the many verses preceding vs 30.

[You don’t know what exegesis means. Where is your complete verse by verse exegesis????? Where are your citations of each verse and a word by word interpretation - point for point explanation for each interpretative statement? So far all I have is a little here and a little there without adequate explanation ]

[Besides that Paul wrote many times that salvation unto eternal life is by grace through faith, not of yourselves, gift of God, not by works such as repenting of sins. So if you are right, you have uncovered a serious contradiction in the Bible, so burn it and become a Buddhist which religions permits contradictions] 

  [Ray] It is no contradiction.

[You don't seem to understand the definition of contradiction. Look it up. If one passage like Jn 3:16 says believe and you have eternal life and another says you have to do something else that’s a contradiction. If you cannot see that, then we are done. That is so elementary that you have to be mentally incompetent to go further. But I think you are just stubborn and want to have your own concept of what the Bible says because you do not accept what God's Word actually says. One sentence says believe and you have eternal life, another sentence in another passage says turn from sin and you have eternal life – THAT’S A CONTRADICTION]

[Ray] There is a reason why Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist, etc, commanded people to repent and believe... is the same reason why you call on the hearers to believe, and that is if they don't do it, they won't do it.

[Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist, Mark, the Apostle John, Peter, Luke made statements to repent and believe either literally or by implication in order to have eternal life. The context of each and every one of these statements indicates a change of mind from not believing to believing - never from committing sins to not committing sins. Since there are a number of meanings for the word repent in the usage of Greek, Hebrew, English, etc; then one must stipulate what one must change ones mind from doing to what one must do, such as believe. Notice you wrote, "you call on the hearers to believe" not to repent of their sins. You left out the turning from sins as part of what one must do to have eternal life; and rightfully so because that is not what one must do in order to have eternal life. Consider Acts 16:30-31 NASB:

30  and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."]

THERE IS SO MUCH WRONG WITH YOUR STATEMENT. You call people to believe, your call people to repent, you are not responsible for the results. The phrase “if they don’t do it, they won’t do it” is incomprehensible and irrelevant. Your statement does not make sense. You are not responsible for their choices. So why make this statement? We are not responsible nor is Paul, Peter, Apollos, et al. It is the individual who makes up his own mind, hence the whoever in Jn 3:16]

[Ray] You can argue that our approach is unnecessary because they'll repent anyways as the Holy Spirit will have already convict them of their sins.  

[Nonsensical. Your whole approach is full of contradictions, does not follow Scripture. Don’t even know what your approach is. The bible teaches us to share our faith especially the gospel. We are not responsible for the results. That’s God’s job yet He leaves it up to the individual not imposing His will upon us to believe. Not everyone is going to be convicted of sins. No one is capable nor is going to repent of his sins unto righteousness. There is so much wrong with this that it is not worth addressing]

[Ray] Well, using that rationale, I can argue that against your approach as well.  That is, if they hear the Gospel message, then you do not have to tell them to believe for they will naturally do so upon hearing the Gospel.

[That does not make sense. I never said / wrote that. The Gospel message is one which says to believe in Christ’s payment for one’s sins and you will have eternal life - as in Jn 3:16 and hundreds of other passages. There is no ‘naturally do so.’ They have to hear the message / read it and decide of their own volition to believe it or not. It's up to them. If it does not include being accurate then there is no point in sharing anything. You are totally not making sense]

[There is NO OVERALL. It is true PERIOD. 

[Ray] I say that because one wouldn't repent in the first place unless there is a reason to do so, and so with regard to the Gospel there is no better reason to repent.

[Which repent are you talking about??????? Change your mind and believe or change your mind and don't sin, or change your mind and walk in a different direction, etc., etc. You don’t know what the gospel is. The gospel is NOT a message which requires you to turn from sin, that’s bad news because man cannot turn from sin in order to have eternal life, that requires God’s justification / declaration of His perfect righteousness not your attempt to act better, that’s works, not grace.]

[Ray] But to you, that is all they need to do, to believe. 

[Correct. Now you have it!!!! Jn 3:16 and hundreds of passages say so]

[Ray] You can argue that once they believe, they will naturally repent,

[Irrelevant. There are no passages in the bible that says this and I NEVER SAID THIS. Even for a believer they do not / cannot naturally repent. The natural man is hopelessly enmeshed in sin even when he becomes a born again child of God]

[Ray] but I say that unless you also tell them to repent then they will not. 

[That’s not the gospel. You cannot repent. Besides salvation is by grace not by works. Repentance from sin is a work and works disqualify one from receiving the free gift of salvation unto eternal life. BTW when you tell someone to do something there is no guarantee they will do it or not. This idea is not in Scripture]

[Ray] In fact, in their carnal state if they're only told to believe then they will, not because that is the most important thing the unbelieving should do, that is, believe in the Lord Jesus 

[Not in the Bible. You don’t know this. Not in the bible. The gospel is telling one they only have to believe. Wow!!! And the Bible does not say that when people are told something they will not do it, or do it]

[You cannot change the meaning and usage of a word according to usage and context. The believing is in Jesus paying for your sins, that is the context / content of what the passage indicates one is to believe IN ORDER TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, AND NOTHING ELSE. That is how the word believe is used.]  

[Ray] That is the wider context, I know, Mr. Robert;

[There is no wider context there, it is only the context of a passage be it a verse, word, chapter paragraph. Stop making things up]

[Ray] but that does not cancel or dismiss the fact that words can have different meanings.

[More often than not words have a number of meanings. So select the meaning of a word that best fits into the context FROM A DICTIONARY, NOT FROM YOUR OWN PERCEPTION. I did not say that they cannot. You are rambling all over the place. Ever consult a dictionary???? The trick is to apply a meaning of a word according to universally accepted meanings as reflected in dictionaries to a passage that fits the context]

[Ray] You know that even in our English language we have words that means one thing in a sentence, but quite another with a different sentence.

[I did not say they did not have different meanings. I've been repeatedly saying this over and over and over and over and over again. Shall I say it again/???? You apply a meaning of a word that is established according to usage which is best applicable to the context in a sentence FROM THE AVAILABLE MEANINGS ACCORDING TO USAGE AS IT CAN BE READ FROM A DICTIONARY. That’s called proper reading]

[Ray] For example, the word Light means in one usage means brightness, but in another use, it means of little weight.

[Agreed. Why are you telling me this???]

[Ray] In fact, do you know how many meanings in Greek for the word "Eis"?  You've been in seminary, you should know this.

[I don’t care. I know how to read. To answer this question is simply to consult a dictionary. What does seminary have to do with it. Most people who went to seminary have memorized a lot of garbage that has little to do with accurately reading the Bible]

[Ray] [you must believe in Christ in order to have eternal life.  However, that is not all that they must do. 

[Yes it is all that one must do because the context of every salvatioin passage indicates that the result of believing in Christ’s payment for sins AND THAT ALONE results in that passage in eternal life PERIOD. You cannot add anything else / any other stipulation into that passage or any passage. You are not an editor. Stop changing the rules of reading or the words in the text.]

  [Ray] The words used in verse 10 is exactly the words used by Jesus when He warned his disciples against false teachers in Matthew 7.   

[Don't know what you are referring to.

It seems you are comparing Mt 3 with 7. Mt 3 is another passage another context. False teachers who do works that indeed are supernatural in Jesus’ name but not under His power and He never knew them, in the sense of never BELIEVED IN HIM and therefore were never saved is the context not believing in Christ as Savior / Messiah so that the Kingdom will commence with all of a generation of Israel being saved unto eternal life and becoming a nation of priests to serve as a priesthood for the nations of the world in that Kingdom. You are mixing your contexts once more. And when you compare two passages you have to do your homework and prove out your case - verse by verse] 

[Ray] OK... well here's my case:

Cross referencing vs 10 of Matthew 3 with Matthew 7:15-20, when Jesus says "You shall know them by their fruits" where do you see in that that the fruits Jesus spoke of, is unbelief?

Let's say that it does mean what you claimed?  So there are no other traits of false prophets we should know of, such as they characterized by greed (Philippians 3:19), teach false doctrines (Deuteronomy 13:1-4, Galatians 1:6-9, & 1 John 4:1-2), utter false prophecies (Deuteronomy 18:19-23).  Or that they often seem perfectly righteousness in terms of look and speech so don't be fooled (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)? 

[You cannot add to Mt 7 from some other passage. Matthew wrote what he wrote. Consider a contract you make with someone to build an addition onto his house. You cannot go back and add to that contract from another contract.] 

[Ray] Mr. Robert..., telling me that I cannot add Matthew 7 to chapter 3, as if it is a basic hermaneutical rule, does not answer how Jesus and John the Baptist used the word "Fruit", and I proved that, exegetically. 

[The contexts are different. You have proved that you don’t know how to read: the who, what, where, when, how, to whom DO NOT LINE UP. That's not exegetical. You have to list each and every word in each passage and explain it as you learned how to read]

[Ray] You need to prove to me that both used the word "Fruit" differently. 

[One produced fruit which was godly the other produced fruit that came from an ungodly source not of Jesus’ power in Mt 7. Jesus said He never knew those who produced miracles they claimed were in Jesus name. You still don’t know how to read. Check out what I have written on these two passages verse by verse and see biblestudymanuals.net/indxm.htm and this time do your homework. Maybe you’ll learn something]

[Ray] Claiming that both were in different context as John was talking to Pharisees and Jesus to His disciples is both wholly insufficient and silly.

[One was commanded to produce fruit which was godly the other produced fruit that came from an ungodly source not of Jesus’ power in Mt 7. Jesus said He never knew those who produced miracles they claimed were in Jesus name. You still don’t know how to read. Go here and read properly: biblestudymanuals.net/mt3_observe.htm#IC and biblestudymanuals.net/mt7_observe.htm#IG]

[Ray]You need to show me that John is telling them to believe when He used the word "Fruit" opposed to Traits, otherwise, my cross reference of ch. 7 valid.

[Your sentence is incomprehensible. I cannot answer nonsense. John told them to produce fruit in keeping with their having believed. He wasn’t telling them to believe. Your phrase “”Fruit” opposed to Traits” does not make any sense. Your cross reference is not valid because those who performed miracles were not believers. Those in Mt 3 were presumed to be believers because they were declared by John to have repented / believed.]

[Ray] If it is as you claimed it be then all we have to do is ask them if they believe in Jesus, and once they say "Yes we do" like the LDS often claimed, also Catholics, then we can go our way with assurance that they are of us.  

[YUP. That’s what the context implies IF THEY DID BELIEVE. You can say you believed, but you have to actually express a moment of faith alone in Christ alone + nothing else. BTW 1 Jn 5:9-13 the message of assurance of ones salvation unto eternal life is solely based on ones expression of a moment of faith alone in Christ alone plus nothing else. Go read it.]

[Ray] Not in Matthew 3 when John commands them to bear the fruits in keeping or consistent with repentance. 

[Again, to produce fruit in keeping with repentance presumes you have believed because producing fruit means doing godly works, i.e., turning from sin toward doing godly works. It is redundant to say produce fruits in keeping with having produced fruit. Don’t you get that? If you don’t then you are beyond my help]

[Ray] And if you claim wider context, then you're ignoring that passage. 

[There is no such thing as wider context. There is only context: who, what, why, where, to whom, how. The context of a passage only has it’s context. The context of a whole book has it’s context. Stop making things up]

Read 1 Jn 5:9-13: assurance come solely from recalling that you believed and that alone] 

[Ray] Good point, but I say it is a given that a believer repented of their sins, just as it is a given that the same already believes in the Trinity.

[You cannot say anything. You can only report what the passage says. There is no given that the believer repents of his sins, because the passage rules that out. There is no given at all. You cannot say good point because then you refuted the good point. Don’t you get that??? You cannot say that the believer even believes in the Trinity, because the passage does not say that either. You cannot rewrite the Bible. You are not an editor, only a reader. You never learned that when you were being taught to read.]

[It’s not the case because the words indicate it’s not the case. You cannot add or read into the passage, you can only read from that passage and add nothing. That’s how the rules of reading work. So you cannot add a second stairway to your housing contract if it is not stipulated in that contract]

[Ray] Then you will have to prove to me, that the word Fruit in Matthew 6:15-20, doesn't mean traits of, but belief.

[Already did numerous times over!!!!The word “fruit” does not appear in Mt 6:15-20. Your reading capacity and reasoning is so far off that you are beginning to waste my time. Follow the rules of reading. Stop editing and adding to a passage and making things up. Just read the words that are there and report what they actually say.]

[There is no such thing as a true believer, that is redundant. Can you falsely believe or just not believe.

[Ray] So what do you call one who claimed to believe, or who thinks they believe, but really they do not?  As the basis of their claim is that they grew up in a Christian congregation, participate in congregational activities, but privately lived like an unbeliever?

[You tell me. You either believe or you don’t. You can say that you are a believer but if you have not believed you are not a believer, you are an unbeliever. Don’t you get that//???]

You are mixing your contexts once more. And when you compare two passages you have to do your homework and prove out your case] 

[Ray] Mr. Robert... if all you could do is tell me that I'm wrongly "comparing passages again" and that "I have to do my homework" without proving to me that the word "Fruit" is not the same a resulting "Trait", then you are not only grasping at straws but committing Ad-Homonym Circumstantial by making me look ignorant and unqualified.  I don't appreciate that.

[the word fruit is not a trait look it up in the dictionary]

[Ray] Once and for all, prove to me how the word "Fruit" used by John and Jesus in Matthew 3 and 7 is the opposite of my claim, or humbly admit you're wrong.

[Already proved it to you. YOU ARE WRONG. The fruit in one is godly fruit the fruit in the other is ungodly fruit:

That which is produced; the effect or consequence of any action; advantageous or desirable product or result; disadvantageous or evil consequence or effect; as, the fruits of labor, of self-denial, of intemperance..

A distinguishing or marked feature; a peculiarity.]

[Ray] Since this is a constant response of yours I will ignore all other points you've made - until - you prove me wrong on my understanding on the word "Fruit".

[Already done that multiple times but you won’t accept it. You cannot make up your own rules of reading]