• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Perseverence of the Saints

J.D.

Active Member
Site Supporter
One thing to remember about parables is that while they illustrate doctrine, they are not doctrine themselves. That fact that continuance in faith is an evidence of the new birth is proven throughout the NT (it's in the OT also, but with a different economy). The parable of the sower simply illustrates this doctrine. Be careful about trying to build doctrine FROM parables.

IMO The purpose of almost all of the parables is to show the Jews the spiritual nature of the Kingdom, and the coming New Covenant economy. And this parable is a good example of this. It shows us that the Kingdom consists of those who's hearts are right (genuine believers) - not those who's heritage is "right" (Jews), and not disingenuous believers of any sort.
 
Allan said:
What it makes clear is they believed for a while. You do realize this means that after that 'while' where they did believe the gospel, they NO LONGER believed the GOSPEL message. Thus the believed for 'a while' and then fell away. Not that they believed for a while but did nothing more with it. It is the phrase 'believed for a while' that is important here because of the implication of what they no longer believed after that and thus their falling away - which implies desertion, shunning, departure from.
The problem however, is still that they believed.

The Scriptures are clear, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved".

Obviously you know this but if we agree it is the gospel that is being believed and they believed then the promise of salvation applies and as it describes clearly they came to life, they simply did not take root.

Taking root is analogous to the growth process, not the birth process. Remember verse 6 in the Luke parable makes it clear that they "SPRUNG UP". They indeed did come to life and are treated as coming to life just as though who "SPRANG UP" but got choked. and those that "SPRANG UP" and bore mature fruit. All 3 are treated as coming to life through springing up (which is exactly what springing up is, coming to life).

1.Did not come to life.
5A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
11Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
12Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.


2.Came to life, "SPRUNG UP" but did not progress beyond infancy.
6And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.
13They 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.


3.Came to life, "SPRANG UP" came to life but did not grow beyond adolescence and bore no mature fruit (fruit to perfection).
7And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
14And 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.


4.Came to life, "SPRANG UP". Mature and Scripturally ideal believer.
8And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
This is not in dispute so I will just post the interpretation verse.
15But 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.

The one that withered, the one that got choked and the one that bore fruit are treaded identically (SPRINGING UP) regarding having come to life. The first is the only one that is treated as never coming to life lest they believe and be saved.

So if the 2nd one "SPRUNG UP" and the 3rd and 4th one "SPRANG UP" as did the 2nd one, you have a problem claiming two are believers with life and the other isn't when they are all three treated identically regarding their coming to life and only the 1st is treated otherwise.

Summation:

1. Never came to life. Did not believe and be saved.
2. "SPRUNG UP". Came to life but did not progress beyond spiritual infancy.
3. "SPRANG UP". Came to life but did not progress beyond spiritual adolescence (immature fruit).
4. "SPRANG UP" Came to life and bore mature fruit.

Allan said:
Q. What happens when one no longer believes the gospel of salvation that saves?
In the text why do they wither? No moisture. Meaning no life sustaining water that softens the soil and enables rooting to take place. Not taking in moisture (the water of the Word) is treated as unbelief. When one neglects taking in Bible doctrine to mature they are indeed acting in unbelief. Does this mean the very gospel they believed to be saved can also be denied? Yes, one can do that though the text is not necessarily requiring you to conclude that since again, "moisture" is analogous to taking in the Word after coming to life, i.e. "SPRUNG UP". Most valid is the few that their believing for a while and falling due to temptation is the post-salvational indoctrination that enables our faith to grow, hence the analogy of moisture. But can a person who has been saved as some point actually contend they no longer believe the gospel? Yes, of course.

Why?

Because when a man or woman believes the gospel, from that point onward it is the integrity of Christ that guarantees its promise of redemption, not man's attempt to maintain his faith. Should a person not deny the gospel, of course they shouldn't but the Bible documents believers who have fallen from their faith, even denying the Lord that bought them.

Allan said:
Q. Can one be saved and not believe the Gospel?
A volitionally accountable person cannot be saved if they have NEVER believed the Gospel and one who has believed the gospel is obviously saved. One might ask, can a person believe the gospel and then deny it (when I state "believe the gospel" that means saved. There is no in between in the Bible, either you believe or don't). The answer is yes, they can deny even the Lord that bought them. It is the Lord that will never leave us.

Allan said:
However, the main thrust of the sentence still stands. You are saved IF YOU KEEP... Therefore, what do you presume happens to one (according to this) who does not keep that faith in gospel whereby they were saved.

Notice also, that it has all the elements of parable passage we are discussing. So it's relevence is specific.

Do you see that it still maintains what I was getting at. If you no longer believe (keep in memory) the gospel it establishes you were never saved, thus saved is stated with an "IF" you keep/believe what was preached. "IF" not you are not saved.

Therefore it is the difference between a mental accent (head knowledge) of the truth which changes easily if the argument is convincing enough, and a heart of conviction about the truth, which will not budge regardless of the argument. Only one of the two will save you.
The Corinthians passage I believe isn't qualified to be used to interpret this parable, however. The contexts are not the same. Discovering what Paul is saying is worthwhile and I do not agree with your conclusion, but the parable itself is self-interpreting and qualified on its own.

But per this passage, Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

He is not talking about believing the truth in vain, he is talking about believing a corrupt gospel which WOULD be belief in vain. Remember, the issue is that they were saying the resurrection had not happened. The resurrection is part of the message and promise of redemption.

His point is that they are to "keep in memory what I preached unto you" which also included the RESURRECTION promise which was being denied.

His point isn't that they MIGHT believe and and not REALLY be saved as you are contending "believe in vain" means but that to deny the resurrection by default makes a person to have believed in vain since that is the ultimate purpose of redemption, our resurrection through Christ.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top