Featured Conditional Election

...says the person holding to a roman catholic theologians view.

 

Only the wayside soil is lost. The rocky soil and the soil among thorns received and believed the word. Anybody who believes is saved.

It does not say the rocky soil and the soil among thorns was lost, it says they did not BEAR FRUIT. This is where folks go wrong, they read into scripture what is not there.

Luk 8:13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

I believe Van's interpretation is error. Jesus himself said the rocky soil believed, so they are saved. But these persons bring forth no fruit, that is shown in the following verses.

Luk 8:14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

As you see, the soil among thorns is also saved, because they SPRANG UP. You must be alive to spring up, no dead thing springs up. However, this soil did not bring forth any fruit to perfection.

The last soil is the good soil that brought forth much fruit.

And what is the fruit of a believer? Other believers. A true disciple will diligently serve the Lord and bring others to Christ. It is all about reproducing ourselves.

But Van's view teaches that a believer can fall away and be lost. If this is so, we could not depend on any scripture that promises eternal life to those who believe.

The problem is not reading scripture carefully, it does not say one word about the thorny soil or the rocky soil being lost, it says they bear no fruit. HUGE difference.

 

What do you make of the phrase "falls away"?

 

I think I can agree with this post completely. I essentially accept the doctrine of "Total Inability" (although I am not a Calvinist). The only thing I would say........is that there is no meaningful distinction between "no Spiritual ability" and "enough to accept Christ" as you suggest here

To me, this is a distinction without meaning. If it isn't enough to come to faith in Christ, than....it is no ability at all.

But, that's just me nit-picking. There are a million angles one can take to suggest that it was in one way or another an intervention of God's Grace which enables sinful men to come to Christ. Even if "The Gospel" is itself somehow that means, or whether one believes in "Prevenient Grace" (which covers "Total Inability"); or whether there is some latent belief that somehow God has graciously granted men the option to respond in faith, without any particular form of direct intervention.......Man can still be (by nature) "Totally Inable".

Agreed. That would be the logical consequence of believing that those individuals were saved.

 

Well, they go back to a life of sin, they either fail to serve because of persecution (rocky soil), or they are sidetracked and carried away by the things of the world (thorny soil). It doesn't say they are lost, it shows that they do not go out and spread the word, the rocky soil because they cannot handle persecution, the thorny soil because they are too busy watching movies or sports on TV.

But they are saved, because both sprang up. You must be alive to spring up. Only the wayside soil that was taken away by the devil did not spring up, this is the only soil that is lost.

So, as much as I hate to admit it, this parable does not really refute Total Inability, although I believe there is MUCH scripture that easily refutes Total Inability, such as the scripture about both Cornelius and the Philipian jailer. Both of those stories easily refute Total Inability, but the parable of the soils does not.

 

The parable doesn't go into detail about the rest of their lives, only that they fall away.

Doesn't Jesus use "fruitful" or "produces much fruit" to identify those who are true believers?

If they "go back to a life of sin" and never return to Christ, would that indicate they are lost (never had salvation).

Doesn't Jesus say that those who persevere to the end will be saved? Isn't "falling away" indicative of being lost?

 

No, these are those who are saved "yet so as by fire"

1 Cor 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

At the judgment, all our works as believers will be tried or judged. If anything passes through the fire we shall receive a reward.

But if everything we do is burned up we will not receive a reward, yet we will still be saved.

This is an area Calvinism goes wrong. Just because someone drops out of church and goes back into the world does not necessarily mean they are not saved. If they truly trusted Jesus then they are assuredly saved, although they will not earn any rewards.

We've all heard "You can't take it with you" and that is true. The only thing you can possibly take with you into the next life is other believers that you brought to Christ. This is the fruit of a believer. When a tree produces fruit, it is feeding others, but it is also reproducing itself.

 

Maybe we can discuss the I Cor. passage next. You'll probably be surprised that I don't hold to that interpretation.

Considering those who "fall away" into a life of sin, and never return to Christ... doesn't I John 3 teach that (v.8) "the one who practices sin is of the devil...(9)no one who is born of God practices sin...(10)By this the children of God and children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God"

Clearly, those who live in a constant "practice" of sin and never return to Christ cannot have been saved, no matter what they have professed to believe in the past, right?

 

Real Christians can fall into sin, Samson killed 30 men over a gambling debt, walked off and left his wife, and went in to an prostitute on a regular basis, yet he was saved. Probably nobody would have believed him saved by observing his life. Noah got so drunk he passed out naked in his tent. David committed adultery and then had Uriah killed in battle, Solomon went after false gods in his old age. Lot had to flee Sodom for his life, and yet he had alcohol and committed incest with two of his daughters.

I don't know, you tell me, how much sin does a believer have to commit to be lost?

 

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/adverbclause.htm
Recognize an adverb clause when you see one.
An adverb clause will meet three requirements:

First, it will contain a subject and verb.

Where is the verb in, “through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth”?

ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας,
noun noun and noun noun

 

Well, I'm waiting . . .

 

Van vs The Citizens of Geneva

Hmmm..and if there are so many newbies on here, and your reasoning for not answering the post is because it was answered elsewhere, and yet you are still debating it, then why assume someone is ignorant simply because they are unfamiliar with the debate posted elsewhere? I haven't seen it anywhere, and you sure didn't prove your assumption by posting any link where this debate was raised elsewhere.

So I'll give you another legal lesson.

In the law, there are 2 defenses that can also be used to dismiss a complaint. One is called collateral estoppel and the other res judicata. Both defenses prevent a case from being litigated on the same grounds and facts as a previous complaint.

However, the burden of proof to prove res judicata is on the defendant. The defendants here have failed to meet the burden of proof in showing that this matter has been debated elsewhere. Therefore again....

JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 

Some nouns take on the form of a verb (like love can be a noun or a verb). This pistei in this case is in the objective genitive and is used as a verb

 

That is not the question. The question is if a person who has made a profession of faith "falls away" and never returns (your examples above all returned to God) were they ever saved?

I'm asking you to address the passage from I John 3. Isn't it teaching that those who never return (practices sin) are of the devil and not of God? That indicates they aren't saved to me.

 

So when a fool postulates that pigs have wings, and wise men abstain from answering him, the fool is granted the defacto status of being right?

Gotcha.

Two things—well, three things—you ain't the judge, God says you're wrong, and Van has been answered.

 

I was too but like you said the silents was........

 

I think he's in a PM huddle with Scandal et al :1_grouphug:

 

:laugh: Or it was a hit and run.

 

That does seem to be Van's main point, that the "Calvinist" doctrine of "total spiritual inability" is proven to be false because these folks (rocky soil, thorns) demonstrated "some" spiritual ability... but fell away.

I guess we need someone who knows about "Calvinism" to explain what "total spiritual inability" means in that system (preferably someone who actually follows "Calvinism": perhaps Iconoclast? or Preacher4Truth?), specifically addressing whether it means the unregenerate have no spiritual ability at all.

That would be helpful in determining whether we are using the same definitions.

Thanks for the input.