2 Peter 3:9

[Byblos]

Narnia, I look at this parable in a similar way that you do. And I certainly see eternal security, with the third group.

As for the second group:14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.

Notice that the text says "for those who hear", not "for those who hear AND BELIEVE".

I understood the parable as fitting in with eternal security, and only the third group as being the true believers. AND, I didn't look at it that way through a Calvinism lens. That's just how I read it, and interpreted it.

There is a clear demarcation line between the first 3 groups and the last one that not only sets it apart from them but also groups the first 3 into one. Here's what I mean, if you take verses 12 to 15 separately you will see the following:

12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved

13 Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.

15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

The difference between verses 12, 13, & 14 on one hand, and 15 on the other is rather obvious by the use of the word 'BUT'. This is the demarcation line I was referring to and which sets the group in verse 15 apart from the rest which are understood to be grouped together. Since 12, 13, & 14 are grouped together and 12 are unsaved, it logically follows that 13 & 14 are unsaved too and only the group in 15 is saved. There is a reason Jesus chose to separate them as such and I think that is clear from the text without inference or eisogesis.

[Jac3510]

Another thing to keep in mind is that this parable is in two other Gospels, and neither of those use the word "believe". Do I think that shows that the word believe doesn't belong there? Absolutely not! But in my opinion, if you pretend that other texts don't exist, you are less likely to come away with the true meaning of the text. Why? Because Scripture is inerrant, inspired, and coherent.

That's because Matthew's theological emphasis is different from Luke's. It's a common mistake to try to read all the parallel accounts of any story in the Gospel and put all the details together to try to get the "full" meaning. We look at the parallel accounts to find the differences, and that helps us see the theological emphasis that the Holy Spirit inspired that particular author to focus on. But if you think that the "right" way to get the "true" meaning is to fill in all the details from all the various parallel accounts, then you are basically accusing each individual author of not giving you enough information to get the "right" interpretation on your own.

The interpretation I just provided Byblos on Luke 8 above you can get using nothing but Luke 8. You don't need Matthew. Why? Because I'm letting Luke be Luke.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:Narnia, I look at this parable in a similar way that you do. And I certainly see eternal security, with the third group.

As for the second group:14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.

Notice that the text says "for those who hear", not "for those who hear AND BELIEVE".

I understood the parable as fitting in with eternal security, and only the third group as being the true believers. AND, I didn't look at it that way through a Calvinism lens. That's just how I read it, and interpreted it.


Rick, the verse you referenced (14) IS the third group. I would also note that the word "believe" is not used with the fourth group, which all agrees are saved. Belief is implied in both the third and fourth groups since in the parable belief is parallel with germination. The first group never germinates since it is taken away. The next three all germinate (they all believe, which is why Jesus says that explicitly in the second group), but of the last three, the first two fail to produce fruit--which is the purpose of a crop. Jesus wants more than our initial faith. He wants us to persevere in that faith so that we do not fail to produce fruit.

Thanks Jac. I fixed my post. Sorry for the confusion. And, I see your interpretation, too.

[Jac3510]

15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

The difference between verses 12, 13, & 14 on one hand, and 15 on the other is rather obvious by the use of the word 'BUT'. This is the demarcation line I was referring to and which sets the group in verse 15 apart from the rest which are understood to be grouped together. Since 12, 13, & 14 are grouped together and 12 are unsaved, it logically follows that 13 & 14 are unsaved too and only the group in 15 is saved. There is a reason Jesus chose to separate them as such and I think that is clear from the text without inference or eisogesis.

Sorry, John, the "BUT" is an English thing. In Greek, that word is de and it provides a weak connective, not a strong contrastive. The strong contrastive you are looking here would have been alla.

In fact, the contrast you are talking about disappears completely in Greek. Here's the text:

• (οἱ δὲ) Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 (οἱ δὲ) Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. 14 (οἱ δὲ) The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. 15 (οἱ δὲ) But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

The οἱ δὲ is pronounced "hoi de" and is literally translated "now the." Notice that the English here only uses the word "but" for the fourth group. But the same phrase is present and introduces ALL FOUR groups.

So there is no such contrast. At least, not a linguistic one.

[RickD]

Narnia, I look at this parable in a similar way that you do. And I certainly see eternal security, with the third group.

As for the second group:14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.

Notice that the text says "for those who hear", not "for those who hear AND BELIEVE".

I understood the parable as fitting in with eternal security, and only the third group as being the true believers. AND, I didn't look at it that way through a Calvinism lens. That's just how I read it, and interpreted it.

There is a clear demarcation line between the first 3 groups and the last one that not only sets it apart from them but also groups the first 3 into one. Here's what I mean, if you take verses 12 to 15 separately you will see the following:

12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved

13 Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.

15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

The difference between verses 12, 13, & 14 on one hand, and 15 on the other is rather obvious by the use of the word 'BUT'. This is the demarcation line I was referring to and which sets the group in verse 15 apart from the rest which are understood to be grouped together. Since 12, 13, & 14 are grouped together and 12 are unsaved, it logically follows that 13 & 14 are unsaved too and only the group in 15 is saved. There is a reason Jesus chose to separate them as such and I think that is clear from the text without inference or eisogesis.

Byblos, I fixed my post, so your quote of mine is off. I tried doing this on my ipod, and it didn't work out too well. I switched to my laptop, and fixed it.
Basically, I saw the parable as only the last group as being the ones who are saved. And, it wasn't through any specific lens. AND, it was before I gave much thought to eternal security.

[narnia4]

Another thing to keep in mind is that this parable is in two other Gospels, and neither of those use the word "believe". Do I think that shows that the word believe doesn't belong there? Absolutely not! But in my opinion, if you pretend that other texts don't exist, you are less likely to come away with the true meaning of the text. Why? Because Scripture is inerrant, inspired, and coherent.

That's because Matthew's theological emphasis is different from Luke's. It's a common mistake to try to read all the parallel accounts of any story in the Gospel and put all the details together to try to get the "full" meaning. We look at the parallel accounts to find the differences, and that helps us see the theological emphasis that the Holy Spirit inspired that particular author to focus on. But if you think that the "right" way to get the "true" meaning is to fill in all the details from all the various parallel accounts, then you are basically accusing each individual author of not giving you enough information to get the "right" interpretation on your own.

The interpretation I just provided Byblos on Luke 8 above you can get using nothing but Luke 8. You don't need Matthew. Why? Because I'm letting Luke be Luke.

Well this depends what you mean by "full meaning". It has "a" meaning and that meaning is not incomplete, but you can't extrapolate the Gospel from one Scripture. One Scripture does not fully express everything that God has to say. Heck, that's how cults start. They name themselves after one verse and run with it. What I'm trying to say is that there is a danger of what was described in 1 Corinthians 1:12 happening.

To go back to your interpretation for a moment-

The point of the parable is to PRODUCE FRUIT. The warning implicit in the parable is that salvation doesn't guarantee fruit (contra Calvinism). It warns us to persevere so that we might bear fruit, not to persevere so that we might be saved.

Doesn't the line between what is clear and "the main point" and what is just your inference blur? You already said that Byblos made a legitimate inference. So a Calvinist cannot make legitimate inferences on secondary matters as well?

Let me put it yet another way. You seem to accept that Byblos is doing valid exegesis, even if he's wrong. Why can't a Calvinist do the exact same thing? If he is doing valid exegesis, then there's no reason why a Calvinist couldn't. It looks to me like you're assuming the Calvinist is doing eisogesis before he even gets a chance to approach the text!

And who exactly inferred that the point is to warn us to persevere so that we might be saved? I didn't. I don't know of Calvinists who do. And I actually don't know that I deny that you can be saved without producing fruit.

Ok Rick, I misunderstood you there. Won't bother editing my other post but I see what you mean.

I just don't know that this is a unique problem to Calvinists is all I'm saying. Its the Reformed DA Carson that popularized the phrase ""A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text."

[neo-x]

Sorry, John, the "BUT" is an English thing. In Greek, that word is de and it provides a weak connective, not a strong contrastive. The strong contrastive you are looking here would have been alla.

In fact, the contrast you are talking about disappears completely in Greek.

I am not actually advocating Byblos' position but just to play along, could we perhaps argue that even the Greek text is more of a hint in the right direction rather than a dictation for a purposeful meaning in the same sense that we are reading it. Could it be possible that those who wrote it had a mindset of their own and their own understanding of theology which may have varied like us today, although may not be this much branched. I know it a far fetched speculation but then so is reading the text literally and thinking it is free of any theological mindset in which it might have been written.

But I think the main question is, is belief in Christ a one time requirement or a continuous one?

If its a one time requirement which I think Jac is saying (correct me if I am wrong) then we need to decide if belief in Christ a one time requirement in a life of a person to be saved or belief in Christ a must as long as one is alive. Because the way I am reading it, it seems that if someone believes in Christ and then falls away like in the parable, he is still saved?

[Byblos]

Rick, your correction is noted. My post is still on point though.

15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

The difference between verses 12, 13, & 14 on one hand, and 15 on the other is rather obvious by the use of the word 'BUT'. This is the demarcation line I was referring to and which sets the group in verse 15 apart from the rest which are understood to be grouped together. Since 12, 13, & 14 are grouped together and 12 are unsaved, it logically follows that 13 & 14 are unsaved too and only the group in 15 is saved. There is a reason Jesus chose to separate them as such and I think that is clear from the text without inference or eisogesis.

Sorry, John, the "BUT" is an English thing. In Greek, that word is de and it provides a weak connective, not a strong contrastive. The strong contrastive you are looking here would have been alla.

In fact, the contrast you are talking about disappears completely in Greek. Here's the text:

• (οἱ δὲ) Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 (οἱ δὲ) Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. 14 (οἱ δὲ) The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. 15 (οἱ δὲ) But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

The οἱ δὲ is pronounced "hoi de" and is literally translated "now the." Notice that the English here only uses the word "but" for the fourth group. But the same phrase is present and introduces ALL FOUR groups.

So there is no such contrast. At least, not a linguistic one.

I checked practically every version translation and every single one makes that distinction with verse 15 as opposed to the rest so clearly the translators disagree with you that there is no linguistic contrast. I wonder why that is and if that is an issue then maybe we all ought to learn Greek and stop reading translations.

[RickD]

Rick, your correction is noted. My post is still on point though.

15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

The difference between verses 12, 13, & 14 on one hand, and 15 on the other is rather obvious by the use of the word 'BUT'. This is the demarcation line I was referring to and which sets the group in verse 15 apart from the rest which are understood to be grouped together. Since 12, 13, & 14 are grouped together and 12 are unsaved, it logically follows that 13 & 14 are unsaved too and only the group in 15 is saved. There is a reason Jesus chose to separate them as such and I think that is clear from the text without inference or eisogesis.

Sorry, John, the "BUT" is an English thing. In Greek, that word is de and it provides a weak connective, not a strong contrastive. The strong contrastive you are looking here would have been alla.

In fact, the contrast you are talking about disappears completely in Greek. Here's the text:

• (οἱ δὲ) Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 (οἱ δὲ) Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. 14 (οἱ δὲ) The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. 15 (οἱ δὲ) But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

The οἱ δὲ is pronounced "hoi de" and is literally translated "now the." Notice that the English here only uses the word "but" for the fourth group. But the same phrase is present and introduces ALL FOUR groups.

So there is no such contrast. At least, not a linguistic one.

I checked practically every version translation and every single one makes that distinction with verse 15 as opposed to the rest so clearly the translators disagree with you that there is no linguistic contrast. I wonder why that is and if that is an issue then maybe we all ought to learn Greek and stop reading translations.

I'm game, Byblos. Μάθε με ελληνική

[Byblos]

I'm game, Byblos. Μάθε με ελληνική

Είναι όλα ελληνικά μου.

[Jac3510]

I suspect it's just theological bias on the one hand, Byblos, and the desire to keep as much of the traditional wording as possible on the other. Here's the actual Greek text:

12 οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν εἰσιν οἱ [e]ἀκούσαντες, εἶτα ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, ἵνα μὴ πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν. 13 οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας οἳ ὅταν ἀκούσωσιν μετὰ χαρᾶς δέχονται τὸν λόγον, καὶ οὗτοι ῥίζαν οὐκ ἔχουσιν, οἳ πρὸς καιρὸν πιστεύουσιν καὶ ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ ἀφίστανται. 14 τὸ δὲ εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας πεσόν, οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκούσαντες, καὶ ὑπὸ μεριμνῶν καὶ πλούτου καὶ ἡδονῶν τοῦ βίου πορευόμενοι συμπνίγονται καὶ οὐ τελεσφοροῦσιν. 15 τὸ δὲ ἐν τῇ καλῇ γῇ, οὗτοί εἰσιν οἵτινες ἐν καρδίᾳ καλῇ καὶ ἀγαθῇ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον κατέχουσιν καὶ καρποφοροῦσιν ἐν ὑπομονῇ.

I put in bold the the words we are talking about. Notice that they begin EVERY verse. Here's a link to an interlinear to help you see the connection more clearly: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/luk8.pdf

You will notice in the interlinear that hoi de is rendered "THE YET." hoi is the definite article and has the idea here of "tho ones," and de is usually post-positive, as it is here, which means it comes a word or two into the sentence. The simple fact is that there is NO linguistic basis on which to say "but" at the beginning of 15 and not at the beginning of 12-14. I should also note that change from οἱ δὲ (hoi de) to τὸ δὲ (to de) just to be complete. This is not significant, as the difference--hoi to to--is only a difference in the form of the article. It just represents a plural verses a singular: those seeds that versus the seed that. I also checked, just out of curiosity, the parable in Matthew 13. The exact same construction is used there in each case (well . . . just with a different article again. There it is ho de).

Double check it by all means. I know you know a few other people who are good with Greek. Send them the text and see what they say.

I'll get to the other posts a bit later. I'll also post a literal translation of the passage in question with a vocabulary and transliteration of the Greek this evening.

[narnia4]

Something else- couldn't these verses be taken as evidence for determinism? Seeds don't control where they are thrown, after all.

I don't take it that way, but couldn't it be taken that way?

[Jac3510]

Είναι όλα ελληνικά μου.

In Koine . . .

τα παντα ελλην προς εμε
(ta panta hellen pros eme)

I hadn't actually looked at much modern Greek, but there really are a lot of differences. I can see why a modern would look at Koine as we do Shakespeare. :p

[Jac3510]

But more serious replies . . .

Well this depends what you mean by "full meaning". It has "a" meaning and that meaning is not incomplete, but you can't extrapolate the Gospel from one Scripture. One Scripture does not fully express everything that God has to say. Heck, that's how cults start. They name themselves after one verse and run with it. What I'm trying to say is that there is a danger of what was described in <a target="_blank" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="1 Corinthians 1.12" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Cori ... %201.12">1 Corinthians 1:12</a> happening.

What do you mean by "you can't extrapolate the Gospel from one Scripture"? This reminds me of something someone said to me years ago. They asked me, "How many verses do you need to get the Gospel?" My reply was, "Uhm, none." If you understand the words of John 3:16, for instance, that's all you need. One verse. If you need other verses to understand the meaning of the terms "Son," "world," "eternal life," etc., then fine. But that's what the whole book of John is about.

In any case, the parable in Luke 8 doesn't contain the Gospel (although it certainly presumes it). Beyond that, you really didn't address much of my point here. Luke 8's version of the parable stands as it is. Matthew 13's does, too. They contain different elements. It is bad procedure to take the elements "missing" from Luke's account (or Matthew's!) and fill them in with the other, because that presumes that something is missing. But nothing is missing. Everything the author needed to make his point is there, and his point is the point we ought to be after. Any point you come up with by "filling in" with other details runs the risk of being YOUR point, and not the biblical point, which means it is not inspired.

Doesn't the line between what is clear and "the main point" and what is just your inference blur? You already said that Byblos made a legitimate inference. So a Calvinist cannot make legitimate inferences on secondary matters as well?

No, it doesn't. The main point is what Jesus intended to teach with the parable. Theological inferences are extrapolations we can make based on some of the details of the passage that are not the main point. For example, consider the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The point of that parable is that Pharisees in rejecting Moses will reject Christ. So the intended theological principle is that extra revelation won't convince us if we reject what we already have.

Now, Jesus gives us some details to make that point. He talks about Lazarus being in heaven and the rich man being in Hell. So we can infer from that passage that Hell is a place of conscious torment, since it is unlikely that Jesus would have accommodated bad theology to make his point. We could also infer that rich people go to Hell for being cruel to the poor. One of those two inferences is more likely than the other of being true! So one is more valid than the other, and you could probably argue that the second isn't valid at all.

So back to our parable, Calvinists certainly can make legitimate inferences, but inferences ought to be backed by explicit doctrine elsewhere. Most of Calvinism's major tenants are NOT explicitly stated. Moreover, their inferences are often WRONG and illegitimate precisely because their basic theology is wrong. In Luke 8, they infer that the first three are unsaved and only the last group is saved. That's legitimate. I think it is incorrect, but it is legitimate. Unfortunately, they confuse that, often, with the POINT of the story. My point in raising it in the first place, however, is that the second group negates a major part of Calvinistic theology (that believers can never lose their faith). Jesus expressly says they can. Therefore, they have to make a very unwarranted assumption (not just an inference)--namely, that there are different kinds of faith under discussion. So THAT is where they fail in their interpretation of this passage. They don't so much make an unwarranted inference as they do an unwarranted assumption, for the supposed warrant for their assumption is their own theology. And all that is a long way of saying -- eisogesis.

Let me put it yet another way. You seem to accept that Byblos is doing valid exegesis, even if he's wrong. Why can't a Calvinist do the exact same thing? If he is doing valid exegesis, then there's no reason why a Calvinist couldn't. It looks to me like you're assuming the Calvinist is doing eisogesis before he even gets a chance to approach the text!

And who exactly inferred that the point is to warn us to persevere so that we might be saved? I didn't. I don't know of Calvinists who do. And I actually don't know that I deny that you can be saved without producing fruit.

Then maybe you aren't a typical Calvinist. A basic part of Calvinist theology is that only those who persevere in faith and good works are saved.

Off to dinner. Will post more later.

[RickD]

Then maybe you aren't a typical Calvinist.

Yes, I don't believe Narnia is a typical Calvinist. I believe he's better than, or above a typical Calvinist, and I was trying to think of a term to describe him. Since better than, or above a typical Calvinist comes to mind, how about hyperCalvinist?