Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A good point!The gospel should be preached every service, and for believers.
It shouldn’t be preached for conversion. The saved are saved. It should be preached because the gospel is central to our lives.A good point!
Catholics (or some at least) have something this reminds me of -- the idea that conversion is a lifelong process.
Conversion can be a lifelong journey
Right -- to you and me, 'conversion' is a special moment of coming to faith. It happens and then we are new.It shouldn’t be preached for conversion. The saved are saved. It should be preached because the gospel is central to our lives.
Sure. At the same time, I'm not sure that's the point of Jesus bringing up the stony ground. It seems the point is that there are different degrees of receptiveness to the gospel. The seed penetrates into all the soils except the wayside ground.No.
If I said to some folks that they could live forever if they just followed the teachings of a man, do you suppose that I could get some folks to join my group?
I thought the discussion was to find out how this passage fits with Reformed Theology and depravity. I see I was mistaken.Sure. At the same time, I'm not sure that's the point of Jesus bringing up the stony ground. It seems the point is that there are different degrees of receptiveness to the gospel. The seed penetrates into all the soils except the wayside ground.
The stony-ground hearers not only "receive the word with joy" but "believe" (Gr. pisteuo, the verb form of pistis, "faith"). We're saved by faith (c.f. Eph. 2:8-10), so it appears they were saved. This is what the devil prevented for the wayside hearers, "lest they should believe and be saved" (v. 12, emphasis mine). The stony-ground hearers' problem doesn't seem to be insincerity but that they "have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (v. 13, emphasis mine).
It appears that the thorny-ground hearers (v. 14) actually last longer. Instead of not receiving the seed at all (like the wayside) or lack roots (like the stony ground), these sprout but are involved in other things. They don't appear to be totally depraved from God but try to serve God and mammon (c.f. Luke 16:13). Eventually, they're "choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity" (8:14).
Only the good soil (v. 15) lasts. So while this does show that there are only two paths, doesn't it show that there are multiple degrees of receptiveness? Instead of it being where either you're totally unable to receive the truth or you're permanently changed by it, doesn't it seem there's such a thing as those who aren't totally depraved but not totally, unchangeably converted either? Thanks!
I more intended the discussion to be on if the passage fits with Reformed Theology and depravity. I'm not currently a Calvinist because of these Scriptures, but I want to see if my interpretation of the passages can be reasonably refuted. If so, perhaps I'm in the wrong.I thought the discussion was to find out how this passage fits with Reformed Theology and depravity. I see I was mistaken.
It does fit with Reformed Theology. I’ve explained how. In short, if you are born again, you will bear fruit.I more intended the discussion to be on if the passage fits with Reformed Theology and depravity. I'm not currently a Calvinist because of these Scriptures, but I want to see if my interpretation of the passages can be reasonably refuted. If so, perhaps I'm in the wrong.
I think I see. Your view is that each of the soils were prepared beforehand by God. Are you thinking of Romans 9:19-24?Some received the word with joy, but walked away when hardships came. shows they were not trusting in the living God, they were living on emotions, not on an internal transformation of their hearts into the good soil. The good soil was of the heart prepared beforehand for the word to grow in them and bear much fruit, and they were the only ones saved as they were the only ones to bear good fruit. That good soil was of their nature, so then was God given to them
The leopard can not change his spots, but with God, all things are possible. Nothing is too hard for Him.
I think I understand. Your understanding is that, like a wild butterfly, a person who follows Christ might not truly desire to stay with Him. God made the butterfly wild by nature, and He made the non-good soils corrupt by nature, the way you see it.I think wayside ground is shown to have more than one distance to Christian community in the Bible.
As we see in Mark 9: 38-40:
"John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will not be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us.'"
It was clear the man had enough exposure to the teachings to know there was power in the name of Christ - and how to use that power - but never cared to be a follower of Jesus and the disciples.
This man was a different kind of soil than an enemy of God, but still not a follower of Jesus.
Many have exposure to Christians and Christianity and find some safety there but are not with us.
There is a butterfly on my front door atm, weathering out the terrible storm raging outside. He has found a place of relative safety, with his little butterfly wings wrapped around his tiny butterfly body making it through the deluge.
He is finding some benefit to a human being, without being "with me" to say he's not in the house, as a beloved and cared for pet, hes outside, hanging on to the door, under the overhang part of the roof where he has some safety.
It might look like he's with me, he's even benefiting from a close proximity to me, but that doesn't mean he's actually with me.. he's still a wild thing who will fly off as soon as the rain stops falling.
The Bible speaks of people who are in some way in a close proximity to us many times, and who appear like they are one of us, but they aren't.. they are still wild things who will fly off, because their hearts were never with us.
By their fruit you will know them..
And with the butterfly you wouldn't determine that I'm in the wrong for not opening the door and allowing the butterfly in, firstly, because he's not knocking and secondly, he wasn't created to be a pet, he was created a wild thing..
So in the same way we don't say to the Potter why or that He was wrong, but that doesn't mean there aren't people who are hanging onto the door instead of knocking for entrance. They are happy where they are even though there are far greater things inside.
Sure yes, why not.I think I see. Your view is that each of the soils were prepared beforehand by God. Are you thinking of Romans 9:19-24?
I think I understand. Your understanding is that, like a wild butterfly, a person who follows Christ might not truly desire to stay with Him. God made the butterfly wild by nature, and He made the non-good soils corrupt by nature, the way you see it.
Would you say that the parable of the soils at least goes against a strict understanding of total inherited depravity, though? The butterfly saw some value being you, and the stony-ground hearer sees some value in the gospel. This is unlike the wayside hearer, who better seems "totally" separated from Christ. My understanding of total depravity could be wrong, though.
When you mention God as Potter, are you alluding to Romans 9:19-24? Thanks!
Haha! Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the Potter imagery in Scripture is actually that God will prepare you for honor or dishonor based on decisions you make. Notice 2 Timothy 2:20-21 for a concise example (emphasis mine):Sure yes, why not.
In your view, when did man's sin nature begin. Were Adam and Eve created totally depraved, since they were made of flesh, or is sin nature not inherent in flesh, coming afterward? Thanks!But about being made corrupt, people corrupt themselves because of their sinful natures, meaning they are inclined that way and will at some point sin. Everyone goes to hell for the sins they commit. God did not make them sin, God did not help them to not sin by giving to them grace to understand and know Him by making them regenerated. People born by nature according to the flesh will commit sin
In Romans it says the body (flesh) is dead because of sin.
John 3
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born [a]again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Okay, I might be misunderstanding total depravity. I guess those who "receive the word with joy" and "believe" (though temporarily, Luke 8:13) can still be totally depraved? As said before, I don't want to knock down a straw man.It does fit with Reformed Theology. I’ve explained how. In short, if you are born again, you will bear fruit.
No natural affection for God.Okay, I might be misunderstanding total depravity. I guess those who "receive the word with joy" and "believe" (though temporarily, Luke 8:13) can still be totally depraved? As said before, I don't want to knock down a straw man.
How would you define total inherited depravity?
I see total depravity as different than you...
[...]
I am totally depraved... because there was nothing good in me, there was no choice I was capable of making. The only thing worthy in me now is Christ... not me.
I have a feeling that these examples will help us better understand each other. As an atheist who clearly was going to church in pretense, having ulterior motives, he seems to be to be a wayside hearer to me. What type of soil would you consider this individual?I once knew an atheist who went to church faithfully every Sunday in order to network for business connections..
He saw a benefit in pretending to be Christian, but only in so much as it benefited him financially.
This example seemed hard for me to categorize at first. These people apparently agree with a lot of teachings found in the Bible but don't understand their true purpose. Matthew 13:19 says, "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside" (NKJV, emphasis mine). Therefore, I'd consider these people to be wayside hearers as well.Other people see a benefit socially to following God's moral law, and espousing the same without truly believing it themselves.
Others are raised as Christians and think they are, because they simply don't know the meaning... nothing ever really sank in. They call themselves Christian, but still live like hell, and show up to church on the rare holiday - certain they are saved for that magic sentence they recited decades ago.
They are still totally depraved..
And yes, the Potter comment is a reference to both scripture and God..
Okay, then maybe I wasn't too far off. Doesn't it seem that the wayside hearers have no natural affection for God, the stony- and thorny-ground hearers have some natural affection for God, and the good-ground hearers have full natural affection for God?No natural affection for God.
I would say that in Reformed Theology that the stony and thorny ground hearers have an affection for religion. We see that everywhere.Okay, then maybe I wasn't too far off. Doesn't it seem that the wayside hearers have no natural affection for God, the stony- and thorny-ground hearers have some natural affection for God, and the good-ground hearers have full natural affection for God?
I think I understand. In Reformed Theology, they have no affection for God but have affection for religion. Is this correct?I would say that in Reformed Theology that the stony and thorny ground hearers have an affection for religion. We see that everywhere.
Correct.I think I understand. In Reformed Theology, they have no affection for God but have affection for religion. Is this correct?
I think I'm starting to see. I try as much as possible to be objective in interpreting Scriptures. It seems this passage goes against total depravity, but I've also learned that total depravity can be understood something differently than I thought. I still have some questions, but I'm starting to see I could be wrong with using this passage as a proof text.Correct.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?