Applications of the parable of the soils for believers?

[Luke2427]

It is a cryin' shame you give absolutely no consideration to context.

1 Corinthians 3 is not talking about general works. Paul is talking about building on the foundation he laid. The implication is that this is the members of the church building up the church.

If you want to keep on considering your errant position, consider the Fig Tree that Jesus Himself cursed for...bearing no fruit.

Those that bear no (good) fruit are not believers.

The Archangel

You are better at it than me, no doubt, but I hope you can see why I get so hot sometimes- dealing with this junk is unnerving.

I do not know why I keep doing it. I honestly have no idea.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm not attacking anyone's interpretation. I am pointing out, however, that you have wrongly interpreted a particular passage (in this case; many in other cases) because you are proof-texting.

As for your snide comment "You should think twice before you judge people," that's a non sequitur comment. You falsely assume that because I disagree with your errant interpretation that I am judging people who, like Sampson, "do not fit my conception of a good Christian."

I am doing nothing of the sort. Biblical context seems to be only one of your contextual inabilities. I am simply pointing out that you are interpreting the 1 Corinthians 3 passage you quoted and the parable of the sower in a way the Bible itself contradicts.

The Archangel

Some have misunderstood my position on education before. Let me clarify while I have you on.

Ignorance is OK. Many godly people who bear the lion's share of ministry are far from theologians. Thank God for them.

Arrogance is not too terrible, if the one who is arrogant is brilliant and right- not good- but not the worst condition. Douglas MacArthur was pretty arrogant but he was right and brilliant and used mightily.

The HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE thing is when the two get together. When someone is ignorant AND arrogant- that is a wretched thing.

They literally have nothing to offer and go about haphazardly throwing wrenches in the cogs of the work of God. And they are so ignorant that they think they are doing good and so arrogant that they cannot be persuaded to consider that they need to reexamine their deeds.

I am not patient enough to help these types. I hope that God can use you to do what I, apparently, cannot.

 

[Don]

Good to read what you wrote here, Luke. One caution about your use of Douglas MacArthur, though: don't forget how he got a little too big for his britches and was relieved of command.

 

[Luke2427]

Good to read what you wrote here, Luke. One caution about your use of Douglas MacArthur, though: don't forget how he got a little too big for his britches and was relieved of command.

Yes, that is the price of being firmly principled. He should NOT have been relieved of command, imo. It was that very action that began this horrible practice ever since that we do not fight wars to win them any more.

We have not really won a war since MacArthur was relieved.

Jesus was relieved of his life for it.

Martyrdom is the common end of the greats.

But you are right, he was arrogant.

 

[Don]

Luke, on this one, you're missing the point: yes, it was bad US policy...but what gave him the right to undermine those God had placed in leadership over Him? Because he was firmly principled?

Don't forget that Truman consulted with other military leaders, to include Omar Bradley, before making the decision; it wasn't just Truman vs. MacArthur.

Not trying to degrade the brilliance or contributions of a great leader; just cautioning that he allowed his brilliance to grow a haughty spirit, which caused him to forget the biblical instruction to obey the rulers placed over him.

 

[The Archangel]

This may come as a real shock to you, but just because you disagee with my interpretation of this parable and the verses in 1 Corinthians does not mean I am wrong.

Ann asked for opinions on this parable, I gave mine. She nor anyone else has to agree if they think I am in error.

And this might be quite a shock to you...but, just because you have an interpretation of the parable of the sower and 1 Corinthians 3, doesn't mean it's the right interpretation.

I'm pretty comfortable saying your interpretation of the parable of the sower is horribly wrong because Christ Himself gives the interpretation of this Parable. And, if your interpretation disagrees with His, which it does, you are wrong.

The Archangel

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, on this one, you're missing the point: yes, it was bad US policy...but what gave him the right to undermine those God had placed in leadership over Him? Because he was firmly principled?

Don't forget that Truman consulted with other military leaders, to include Omar Bradley, before making the decision; it wasn't just Truman vs. MacArthur.

Not trying to degrade the brilliance or contributions of a great leader; just cautioning that he allowed his brilliance to grow a haughty spirit, which caused him to forget the biblical instruction to obey the rulers placed over him.

I understand. And I don't want to hijack this thread, but...

To rebel against leaders is not always a violation of Scripture.

Peter was firmly principled which eventually cost him his life upon an upside down cross and he said, "We ought to obey God rather than man."

So was Paul, who wrote most of what we use to support the idea of following leaders. Paul would NOT be silenced by government leaders and it cost him his life.

It is hard to justify the American Revolution if you hold to a strict, never-withstand-authority position.

MacArthur was right. All the others were wrong. You concede that. That ought to be enough, imo.

 

[Don]

I understand. And I don't want to hijack this thread, but...

To rebel against leaders is not always a violation of Scripture.

Peter was firmly principled which eventually cost him his life upon an upside down cross and he said, "We ought to obey God rather than man."

So was Paul, who wrote most of what we use to support the idea of following leaders. Paul would NOT be silenced by government leaders and it cost him his life.

MacArthur was right. All the others were wrong. You concede that. That ought to be enough, imo.

1) You used MacArthur as an example of arrogance mixed with brilliance.
2) You now compare MacArthur's situation to that of Peter's & Paul's preaching of the gospel; this is an error.
- MacArthur was questioning the policies of man, not of God
- MacArthur, a military general, questioned the policies of the civilian government he was accountable to; due to his popularity, that raised a question about his loyalty to those God had placed over him
- How much more good could MacArthur have accomplished if he had tempered his arrogance? Instead, his arrogance got the best of him, and we were all robbed of the additional good he could have done.
3) If using men as examples, one has to examine them the same way we do scripture: In their entire context. We can't simply focus on one factor; otherwise, we might all be saying that Saul was chosen by God, and was a great man, while ignoring how he ended up. You and I agree that MacArthur was right about the US policy; you and I apparently don't agree that MacArthur was wrong about how he went about voicing his opinion of that policy.

Every one of us--no one in particular--reading or participating in this thread should remember the caution that you provided about ignorance coupled with arrogance that leads to a prideful, willful condition...but let us not fail to remember that brilliance coupled with arrogance can also lead to a prideful, willful condition.

 

[Luke2427]

1) You used MacArthur as an example of arrogance mixed with brilliance.
2) You now compare MacArthur's situation to that of Peter's & Paul's preaching of the gospel; this is an error.
- MacArthur was questioning the policies of man, not of God
- MacArthur, a military general, questioned the policies of the civilian government he was accountable to; due to his popularity, that raised a question about his loyalty to those God had placed over him
- How much more good could MacArthur have accomplished if he had tempered his arrogance? Instead, his arrogance got the best of him, and we were all robbed of the additional good he could have done.
3) If using men as examples, one has to examine them the same way we do scripture: In their entire context. We can't simply focus on one factor; otherwise, we might all be saying that Saul was chosen by God, and was a great man, while ignoring how he ended up. You and I agree that MacArthur was right about the US policy; you and I apparently don't agree that MacArthur was wrong about how he went about voicing his opinion of that policy.

Every one of us--no one in particular--reading or participating in this thread should remember the caution that you provided about ignorance coupled with arrogance that leads to a prideful, willful condition...but let us not fail to remember that brilliance coupled with arrogance can also lead to a prideful, willful condition.

We agree for the most part here. MacArthur was arrogant. Great people tend to be arrogant. Arrogance and drive seem to be united. Drive tends to lead to greatness.
Even Paul struggled with arrogance. God had to give him a thorn in the flesh to keep him from being "exalted above measure".
Peter struggled with it.

I disagree with Bradley's influence upon Truman to fire MacArthur. I think if America falls, she will fall to China. She is already owned by China. The kind of strength and ferocity that MacArthur displayed was what made the US strong and a world power. The further we get from Patton and MacArthur type leadership the weaker we become. A stiff upper lip in handling China then might have made a difference in our crumbling before her now.

And you did not respond to my statements about the American Revolution.

 

[Don]

We agree for the most part here. MacArthur was arrogant. Great people tend to be arrogant. Arrogance and drive seem to be united. Drive tends to lead to greatness.
Even Paul struggled with arrogance. God had to give him a thorn in the flesh to keep him from being "exalted above measure".
Peter struggled with it.

Am I to assume that your unspoken message here is that you disagree with me about brilliance, coupled with arrogance, can (not does, but can) lead to a prideful, willful condition?

I disagree with Bradley's influence upon Truman to fire MacArthur. I think if America falls, she will fall to China. She is already owned by China. The kind of strength and ferocity that MacArthur displayed was what made the US strong and a world power. The further we get from Patton and MacArthur type leadership the weaker we become. A stiff upper lip in handling China then might have made a difference in our crumbling before her now.

Has nothing to do with this conversation.

And you did not respond to my statements about the American Revolution.

I started in this at the top of Page 7, with only the intention of pointing out a mis-use of a certain person as an example (using him as an example of arrogance coupled with brilliance, with no regard for how his situation actually turned out, or the implications of why the situation went the way it did). I've seen nothing since the top of Page 7 about the American Revolution.

 

[BobinKy]

I do not know why I keep doing it. I honestly have no idea.

...Bob

 

[Luke2427]

Am I to assume that your unspoken message here is that you disagree with me about brilliance, coupled with arrogance, can (not does, but can) lead to a prideful, willful condition?


Has nothing to do with this conversation.


I started in this at the top of Page 7, with only the intention of pointing out a mis-use of a certain person as an example (using him as an example of arrogance coupled with brilliance, with no regard for how his situation actually turned out, or the implications of why the situation went the way it did). I've seen nothing since the top of Page 7 about the American Revolution.

Reread post 67 at your convenience.

Brother Don, I have agreed with you that arrogance is a problem and that MacArthur was arrogant and that it is such a problem that God struck Paul with a thorn to keep him from being exalted above measure.

But I do NOT agree that arrogance by itself is even comparable by way of peril, to ignorance and arrogance combined.

Ignorance is a problem MOST of the time. "MY people perish for lack of knowledge" God said.

But it is not necessary to be a theologian to be greatly used of God.

Arrogance is often a problem and is never in and of itself a good thing. But arrogance is typically the problem of great men who benefit the Kingdom of God and the human race greatly. But it can be and most of the time is a great detriment.

And I think a word for the strong distinction between arrogance and great confidence ought to be spoken.

It is when the two come together, arrogance and ignorance, that hellish things happen.

 

[Luke2427]

...Bob

I do not disagree. It may very well be. God bless!

 

[Don]

It is hard to justify the American Revolution if you hold to a strict, never-withstand-authority position.

Figured out where I missed this; you went back and added it after I had already quoted what you originally said.

Suffice to say, I'm willing to comply with you about not hijacking this thread, and keeping it to what you were commenting about at the top of Page 7 - arrogance coupled with ignorance...which, in itself, may be a hijack, considering the original title and premise of this thread (although the thread has mutated into more of the same "intellectual vs. ignorant" tripe that many of these threads devolve into).

 

[Don]

Brother Don, I have agreed with you that arrogance is a problem and that MacArthur was arrogant and that it is such a problem that God struck Paul with a thorn to keep him from being exalted above measure.

Thank you; it wasn't clear to me that you had.

But I do NOT agree that arrogance by itself is even comparable by way of peril, to ignorance and arrogance combined.

Wasn't a point I was trying to make. I agree that arrogance coupled with any other trait can be dangerous.

Ignorance is a problem MOST of the time. "MY people perish for lack of knowledge" God said.

He also said: For in much wisdom [is] much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. (Ecc 1:18)

Now that it's clear that we agree, I agree with you that the end of the matter is at hand. Good night.

 

[Luke2427]

Thank you; it wasn't clear to me that you had.


Wasn't a point I was trying to make. I agree that arrogance coupled with any other trait can be dangerous.


He also said: For in much wisdom [is] much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. (Ecc 1:18)

Now that it's clear that we agree, I agree with you that the end of the matter is at hand. Good night.

Aye, and God bless you with rest and enjoyment of him this Lord's Day!