Perseverance? Luke 8 says no.

Jesus spoke in parables that the people could relate to and understand, so farming and shepherding were common subjects that people could understand.
I've done enough gardening to know that when a seed is planted, if it doesn't get enough water, it dies. If it doesn't have a root, it dies. It's growth is not stunted, it dies. It doesn't continue to live in a stunted state. It dies.

A seed can only sprout and continue to grow and live if it's planted in good soil and receives the proper sunlight and nutrients. Otherwise, it dies.

This is what Jesus is teaching. When God plants a seed (His word) in good soil (a heart which He has prepared), the Word takes root and not only survives, but grows. It produces fruit.

 

This is incorrect.


matt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

 

Some did understand.

My point was that Jesus told of ordinary things in order to make a spiritual point.

 

Sorry that my response was hermeneutically and exegetically inferior.

Maybe you'll get a more intelligent response from someone else.

 

Couldn't this approach be used to argue that any NT scripture and certainly any parable doesn't mean what it says and it really means what the reader wants it to say? I have a problem with that approach. The Parable of the Sower simply says what it seems to say.

 

........Which is?

 

Not me.

I think you shifted gears from perseverance to assurance. Related, but not the same. Do you want to discuss perseverence, assurance, or the relationship between the two?

I don't know who George Bryson is, nor am I familiar with his teachings, else I might attempt to defend his position. There is a small faction of calvinists called Auburn Avenue theologians or something like that, that fold works into perseverence (I'm not saying Bryson is one of them). Take that up with them. I don't think anybody around here believes that. BTW Auburn Ave has been roundly condemned by most reputable reformed theologians.

I quoted the 1689 in another thread, which accurately reflects my position on perseverence, and the position of most calvinists. Why don't you post that statement and we can compare it to scripture. Or, just post scripture and leave Bryson out of it.

Is this deja vu, only all over again? Isn't this the passage that Amy obliterated you on already? Man, give it a rest.

 

Excellent treatment of the issue, Alex!! Perhaps some will read it again and understand.

skypair

 

Umm, NO-O.

Parables were meant to say something that would be HIDDEN -- you know, as in "Israel is partially blind until the fulness of the Gentiles come in."

They, of course, are not meant to say what the reader wants them to say. They say what only the "spiritual man" can understand (1Cor 2:14).

However, many Calvinists are showing "fruitlessness" in their spiritual discernment in just these areas --- parables and mysteries given us in scripture.

skypair

 

Alex,
Your thread deserves only one response, utter condemnation. My post is written towards that end.

These statements are absolutely horrendous and a gross perversion of the word of God.
Again, I say to you Alex, repent.
This is false teaching and is leading God's people astray.

The apostle John's words completely destroy your position.

If you want Luke 8 to say that genuine belief was there without fruit(aka "unfruitful believers") in two of the soils, then you must be prepared to deal with Jesus' response to the Jews' professed belief in John 8.

And also in John 2:23-25:

Many believed in his name, but yet Jesus did not entrust Himself to these false professors for He knew their hearts.

Spurious faith is seen by God for what it is.
Genuine faith is seen by a holding, an abiding, a remaining to Christ's teaching. This is the mark of a true disciple, is what Jesus teaches those who profess belief. IOW, peseverence is the mark of one who is truly believing.

And please remember, it's far easier to propagate this false teaching in North America where the Christian life is "easy" compared to North Korea(et. al) where acceptance of Christianity practically guarantees horrific persecution, certain death and many other unthinkable atrocities.
Pastors of the persecuted church are far more committed to teaching and preaching the realities and duties of the Christian life and God's Spirit is at work creating a South Asian church that is predicted to outgrow it's North American and European counterparts within the next 50 years.
Anyone want to start a thread wondering why?
Gross perversion of salvation, discipleship and perservance in our land surely must be at the top of the list.
When the church is persecuted, yet perseveres, growth is the norm. Church history is replete with examples.

 

George Bryson is not a Calvinist.
Bryson is the author of the book, lamely entitled The Dark Side of Calvinism. I heard him "discuss" his views with James White several years ago on Hank Hanagraff's radio program, The Bible Answerman.
There is a YouTube video portion of another debate with White and Bryson easily found through a Google search.

The problem with the quote is that Bryson assigns a definition to "eternal security" that many non-Calvinists would not agree with.
Namely this:

Obviously here on this board, we have those who think this way about eternal security, but in my own experience this is not true for many of my synergistic friends.
Bryson paints with too broad a paintbrush, thus showing he lacks much credibility on this topic.

 

So salvation is based on how we behave?

 

Who suggested that?

 

"Obviously here on this board, we have those who think this way about eternal security, but in my own experience this is not true for many of my synergistic friends."

You did.

 

No, webdog, that is not what many are saying, at all, at least not directly. (Never mind what they may happen to "really, (and) truly, completely, absolutely, prayerfully, and genuinely believe". Yeah, I've heard all of the emboldened additions, plus a few more, added to the definition of believe, over the years.)

It is just that, apparently, many copies of Scripture exist, that seem to be missing two or three verses found in Romans Chapter 4, say, verses 1-25.



Ed

 

What my quote above mentions is that there are non-Calvinists on this board who agree with George Bryson about what the definition of eternal security entails.
Alex, right now, being a prime example of this.
But in my own experience, I know there are non-Calvinists who adhere to eternal security yet would not agree with Bryson's definition.