questioning eternal security

[John of Japan]

I agree and I would value your input on this. How would you explain what seems to happen occasionally where people seem to leave the faith, even after seeming to be saved and in some prominent and public cases, seeming to be greatly used in ministry for a long time? I tend to agree with the explanation @Martin Marprelate gave above. I came from a IFB background and some of those churches, and some of the evangelical churches in the US at least seemed to drift into a kind of easy believism where once you were save it didn't matter what you did later, you simply were saved, and living a Christian life, or avoiding sin, was a good but not essential option.

I believe that apostasy is a real thing (2 Thess. 2:3, 1 John 2:19, etc.). In other words, a person can seem to believe, even think they have believed, but be mistaken. My wife depended on a childhood prayer until she was 20, when she heard a sermon on Hell. She wept the whole sermon through, then was truly saved. So someone can deceive one's self into thinking he or she is saved, when they are not, due to depending on the wrong thing for salvation.

I have three nephews who grew up in an IFB home, but then in adulthood they all became atheists. Hebrews says it is impossible to renew such a person to repentance (Heb. 6:4-6), I also know that God is the God of the impossible, so I pray for them to be saved.

As for straying but still being saved, that's what Lot, Peter, and others did. It is possible to look unsaved for a while, but actually be saved. However, a truly saved person will come back to the Lord before too long.

I'm familiar with free grace theology and I know guys like Charles Ryrie were into that and maybe helped cause some of the drift I mentioned. But yet I know for a fact that many of the guys supporting that theology were exemplary in their Christian walk. In fact, some theologians say that nothing will encourage a true believer more to live a holy life than a full knowledge that he's forgiven unconditionally. Maybe I answered my own question but it just seems to me that in practice, what Russell is saying is much like the Puritan view, even though the theology that it is derived from is different. In other words, being concerned about the validity of your salvation or even your election might have the same practical result in a Christians life as being worried that you might begin to drift into sin and then turn away thus losing your salvation, which you would think about being a free will Baptist or a Wesleyan.

I pretty much agree here. There is such a thing as easy believism, and I've read the books by Hodges and Corcoris. I've read Ryrie also, but don't believe he goes near as far as the others.

 

[John of Japan]

The Reformed view replaces free will with predestination. The Eternal Security view replaces free will after one is saved. Both are wrong. Why won't you explain the present participle in John 3:16. I clearly teaches that continuous believing is required for salvation.

What you miss in John 3:16 is that the word "have" is a present active subjunctive, ἔχῃ. By your own principle of the present always being "continuous" (it is not, but sometimes one actioj), then we continuously have eternal life. John 3:16 does not disprove "once saved always saved" at all!

 

[Craigbythesea]

At issue, is at what point, is
an individual actually saved by God? God, without a doubt, is going to keep those whom He as saved.

Earlier than the Reformation, we do not find in any extrabiblical literature so much as a hint of any doctrine of eternal security—but now many Baptists have concocted several or more of them! If the any of the doctrines of eternal security are true, the Bible is so poorly worded that no one could understand even its fundamental teachings until a poorly educated French politician came along and explained it! And a bible so poorly worded as that could not possibly have been inspired by God.

The wages of sin is death, and on this side of the Jordan there are no get out jail free cards.

 

[JesusFan]

Earlier than the Reformation, we do not find in any extrabiblical literature so much as a hint of any doctrine of eternal security—but now many Baptists have concocted several or more of them! If the any of the doctrines of eternal security are true, the Bible is so poorly worded that no one could understand even its fundamental teachings until a poorly educated French politician came along and explained it! And a bible so poorly worded as that could not possibly have been inspired by God.

The wages of sin is death, and on this side of the Jordan there are no get out jail free cards.

The One who clearly taught and held to the eternal security of the saved was and is the Lord Jesus

 

[John of Japan]

The following are 15 of the 55 “believe” participles. When “believe” is fully translated, only those who “continuously” believe ---

This post makes it clear to me that you do not know Greek, and whoever taught you this did not know Greek.

will become “sons of God” (Jn 1:12),

This is not a participle, but an infinitive. Very different.

will “have everlasting life” (Jn 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24),

"Have" in 3:15 is not a participle, but a present active subjunctive verb. Very different.

will “not be condemned” (Jn 3:18),

While "believe" is a participle, "condemned" is not, but is present passive indicative, meaning it can be either point action (one time) or continuous. Context will win.

will be saved by the will of God (Jn 6:40),

I don't know what verse you mean, but it is not John 6:40. In that verse, once again the main verb is ἔχῃ, present active subjunctive, not a participle. "Saved" is not in the verse.

will receive “remission” of sins (Acts 10:43),

In this verse, "receive" is an aorist active indicative, meaning one time only. It does not prove your point, but proves you wrong.

will be “justified” (Acts 13:39),

The first "justified" in the verse is not a participle, but an aorist passive indicative, meaning one time only. The second "justified" is a present passive indicative, not a participle.

will receive salvation (Rom 1:16),

At last, a present active participle. But “will receive salvation” is not in the verse.

will be “righteous by faith” (Rom 3:22),

will have their “faith” “counted for righteousness” (Rom 4:5),

will receive “imputed” righteousness (Rom 4:24),

will receive the “promise” of faith (Gal 3:22),

will be “saved” (Heb 10:39),

will be “born again” (1 Jn 5:1),

can “know they are saved” (1 Jn 5:13)

--- all have Greek present participles of “believe” which mean continuous action.

I have to go get some bloodwork, so I have to stop here.

I had commented on all of these, but lost the post. I'll get back to this tomorrow. Suffice it to say, none of these proves your point. Some of them prove the exact opposite. And you don't know Greek, so you shouldn't try to use it like this.

 

[Craigbythesea]

What you miss in John 3:16 is that the word "have" is a present active subjunctive, ἔχῃ. By your own principle of the present always being "continuous" (it is not, but sometimes one actioj), then we continuously have eternal life. John 3:16 does not disprove "once saved always saved" at all!

True believers in Christ continue to have eternal life so long as they continue to believe (present active participle). The Greek present tense in the indicative and subjunctive moods NEVER implies that the continuance will last forever—and all too often it does not!

It is not an accident that the concept of eternal security was first conceived in the 16th century and that the concept of conditional security was universally taught throughout the first 1,500 years of the Church and that for all of the remaining years it has been by far the majority view.

Moreover, let us never cheapen or belittle the faith of the countless thousands of true believers in Christ who faithfully served Him for decades but who subsequently were overcome by temptations and became apostates.

 

[Reynolds]

Calvinism takes faith out of the equation. Eternal security takes faith out at the moment one accepts Christ. Arminianism taches that one is saved by grace through continuous faith (the present participle in Romans 4:5) and believers have the assurance of salvation because they maintain that kind of faith (the participle in 1 John 5:13).

Calvinism teaches that believers faith continues.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Amazing!!! Jesus clearly taught the eternal security of the saved but no one found such a thing anywhere in the Bible for 1,5000 years but they did find more than a hundred passages in the Bible that clearly refute such an absurdly false doctrine.

 

[Craigbythesea]

This post makes it clear to me that you do not know Greek, and whoever taught you this did not know Greek.

This is not a participle, but an infinitive. Very different.

"Have" in 3:15 is not a participle, but a present active subjunctive verb. Very different.

While "believe" is a participle, "condemned" is not, but is present passive indicative, meaning it can be either point action (one time) or continuous. Context will win.

I don't know what verse you mean, but it is not John 6:40. In that verse, once again the main verb is ἔχῃ, present active subjunctive, not a participle. "Saved" is not in the verse.

In this verse, "receive" is an aorist active indicative, meaning one time only. It does not prove your point, but proves you wrong.

The first "justified" in the verse is not a participle, but an aorist passive indicative, meaning one time only. The second "justified" is a present passive indicative, not a participle.

At last, a present active participle. But “will receive salvation” is not in the verse.


I have to go get some bloodwork, so I have to stop here.

I had commented on all of these, but lost the post. I'll get back to this tomorrow. Suffice it to say, none of these proves your point. Some of them prove the exact opposite. And you don't know Greek, so you shouldn't try to use it like this.

This post if all too typical of believers in false doctrines who are unable to defend their beliefs so they attack the person of their dissenters! What an abomination!

 

[Silverhair]

No, I prefer exegesis over eisegesis. We need to properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine.

1 Timothy 4:1 - Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, (reminds me of Roman Catholicism) and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. The faith in this context means the apostolic faith, the New Testament apostolic body of doctrines. Some who are in a state of professing adherence to the apostolic faith, nevertheless, will in both doctrine and practice depart from it, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. Some "nominal" Christians/superficial believers will abandon the Christian faith, the New Testament apostolic body of doctrines for cults or false religions. That does not prove they had saving faith in Christ and were previously born again. (1 John 2:19)

Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition. In context, going back to Hebrews 10:26, to "sin willfully" here carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is continuous action, a matter of practice. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows continuous, willful, continuous action. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God. (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9) Confidence is rooted in the sacrificial death and blood of Jesus, yet those who draw back to perdition and do not believe to the saving of the soul (Hebrews 10:39) demonstrate a lack of full confidence which culminates in a lack of perseverance.

Those who are truly born of God are partakers of the divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4) They have been transformed from pigs and dogs into sheep. The change is more than just cosmetic, as in 2 Peter 2:20.

*These cleaned up on the outside dogs and pigs were never sheep.

Compare 2 Peter 1:4 - "partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption - Strongs #5356 that is in the world through lust with 2 Peter 2:20 - with they escaped the pollutions - Strongs #3356 (different Greek word) of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, yet they are again entangled therein, and overcome.

*Notice that 2 Peter 2:20 did not mention them being "partakers of the divine nature." Corruption is deeper than pollutions/defilements on the outside: it is decay on the inside.

Having the knowledge of Jesus Christ does not save a person if there is no heart submission to that knowledge. The latter end is worse than the beginning for these men because rejecting this knowledge will make them more accountable at the judgment. Judas Iscariot is a good example of someone who rejected the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ yet was never saved. (John 6:64-71; 13:10-11)

Well then show me the specific words "lose or lost salvation" in scripture or perhaps the words UN-regenerated or UN-sealed by the Holy Spirit. That would be conclusive proof for your argument. One can fall away from a position they professed to hold after considering the truth for a time, then a hardened heart and departure from God became their final answer. Such people were exposed to the truth and may have even been on the verge of embracing the truth, but they chose to permanently fall away instead. We see this throughout the book of Hebrews. (Hebrews 3:6-14; 4:1-11; 6:4-9; 10:26-39; 12:15) I may decide that I'm going to walk across the Brooklyn bridge and walk right up to the bridge and just before I take one step onto the bridge turn away and depart from the bridge. I don't actually need to be on the bridge in order to depart from it.

The word "IF" in Colossians 1:23, having here the idea of "assuming that you continue in the faith." That is, continuance would show that the person's faith was firmly rooted and established in the hope of the gospel to begin with. Failing to continue demonstrates otherwise.

Just as we see in 1 Corinthians 15:1,2 - Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast (demonstrative evidence of faith being firmly rooted and established) that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.

To believe in vain is to believe without cause or without effect, to no purpose. If as some are saying in Corinth, there is no resurrection, then faith is vain and worthless (vs. 14). The people who fail to hold fast to the word (the gospel) that Paul preached in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, demonstrated that they "believed in vain" (did not truly believe unto salvation in the first place).

All the letters in the NT are written to Christians, but that does not mean that everyone in these large groups of professing Christians are all genuine Christians. Once again, it makes sense that Paul would speak this way because he is addressing groups of people who all "profess" to be Christians without being able to infallibly know the actual state of every person's heart. How can Paul avoid giving them false assurance of salvation here when in fact some of them may not be saved? Paul knows that faith which is firmly grounded and established in the gospel from the start will continue. Those who continue in the faith demonstrate that they are genuine believers. Those who fail to continue demonstrate otherwise.

Nominal Christians outnumber genuine Christians by far in the "professing" Christian world. If you attended a very large church on Sunday and the Pastor greeted the congregation that morning with, "good morning brothers and sisters in Christ" would you automatically assume that everyone who attended church that Sunday morning must be a genuine brother or sister in Christ because of that greeting? The Bible talks about wheat and tares and the tares outnumber the wheat.

Again, there are genuine Christians and there are "nominal" Christians. There are genuine believers and there are superficial believers mixed together throughout the Bible, throughout various churches and throughout various Christian forum sites. If a genuine born-again Christian could lose their salvation, then these verses would be a lie, God forbid. (Psalm 37:28; Proverbs 24:16; John 5:24; John 6:37-39; John 10:27-29; Romans 8:30-39; 11:29; 1 Corinthians 1:13-14; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 10:10, 14; 1 Peter 1:3-5; Jude 1:1, 24-25)

You write a lot but till circle back to the same point, your opinion is that those that fall away really did not believe. But the question you do not answer is, then why the warning passages?

Those that believe and continue to believe will be saved. Those that believe and latter reject Christ will be lost.

 

[DaveXR650]

Earlier than the Reformation, we do not find in any extrabiblical literature so much as a hint of any doctrine of eternal security—but now many Baptists have concocted several or more of them!

What literature are you referring to? Because what I would wonder is if in that literature they dealt with the concept of being "born again". If they did, then how did they handle the concept and how did it work that one would be un-born. What little I have read in pre-reformation literature seems to be often that Jesus is the Lord and can forgive sin, which is fine, or some type of belief that you must continuously feed on Christ's body and blood in a literal sense, which is not fine. Could it be that the early writings just did not develop any theology that they recorded at the time, or what makes you think that they could not possibly be the one's in error. We have more scripture and more accurate translations.

Yes, a lot of the early literature said nothing of eternal security but it didn't try to explain how the atonement worked either, and they had to have special councils to work out the meaning of the Trinity and the specifics of the divinity of Christ as well. Assuming that the further back you go is always going to be more accurate is not a good idea. And if you get into Roman Catholic literature you will really find error.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with Russel's view on this as he has stated it. I think it is very close to the Reformed view in practice, although different reasoning is used to get there. And I have no problem with a OSAS theology like traditional Baptists use - as long as sin and Christian living is properly taught as the inevitable result of true regeneration.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The faith in this context means the apostolic faith, the New Testament apostolic body of doctrines.

Who was the chowder head who told you this?

Eph. 4:4. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling,
5. one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6. one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.
7. But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ's gift.

 

[DaveXR650]

You write a lot but till circle back to the same point, your opinion is that those that fall away really did not believe. But the question you do not answer is, then why the warning passages?

There is nothing odd about giving a warning about something that is unthinkable should it actually happen. The warning in Hebrews chapter 6 is an example in that verse 9 the writer specifically says he doesn't think this has actually happened to those reading the letter.

 

[Jesus Saves!]

I thought of these scriptures as I was reading through these post. We have to separate the inward and outward man. God saves the inward man when we are born again. This outward man is in our hands to crucify daily, because it wants to rise up against the inward man. It’s a constant warfare. I feel like this scripture speaks of the saved inward man that has the seed of Christ in them. God saves us for Christ sake and not our doings.
1 John 3:9 KJVS
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Romans 7:14-25 KJVS
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. [15] For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. [16] If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. [17] Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [18] For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. [19] For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. [20] Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [21] I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. [22] For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: [23] But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. [24] O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? [25] I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

[Silverhair]

There is nothing odd about giving a warning about something that is unthinkable should it actually happen. The warning in Hebrews chapter 6 is an example in that verse 9 the writer specifically says he doesn't think this has actually happened to those reading the letter.

I agree that warnings as in this matter are concerning something that is unthinkable, but that is the reason for the warning. If as @MMDAN suggests that only false believers could actually fall away then the warnings are of no use as according to his view they were not saved anyway. He even went so far as to say that a true believer could not fall away so again the warnings would be of no use as they could not loose their salvation as they would never turn away.

So either the warnings were real or the Holy Spirit was being shall we say less than honest.

 

[Craigbythesea]

What literature are you referring to? Because what I would wonder is if in that literature they dealt with the concept of being "born again". If they did, then how did they handle the concept and how did it work that one would be un-born. What little I have read in pre-reformation literature seems to be often that Jesus is the Lord and can forgive sin, which is fine, or some type of belief that you must continuously feed on Christ's body and blood in a literal sense, which is not fine. Could it be that the early writings just did not develop any theology that they recorded at the time, or what makes you think that they could not possibly be the one's in error. We have more scripture and more accurate translations.

Yes, a lot of the early literature said nothing of eternal security but it didn't try to explain how the atonement worked either, and they had to have special councils to work out the meaning of the Trinity and the specifics of the divinity of Christ as well. Assuming that the further back you go is always going to be more accurate is not a good idea. And if you get into Roman Catholic literature you will really find error.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with Russel's view on this as he has stated it. I think it is very close to the Reformed view in practice, although different reasoning is used to get there. And I have no problem with a OSAS theology like traditional Baptists use - as long as sin and Christian living is properly taught as the inevitable result of true regeneration.

I am referring to the massive amount of literature of all kinds that was written during the 1,500 years prior to the Reformation in which the issue of apostasy was raised, and to the even more massive amount of literature of all kinds that was written during the 1,500 years prior to the Reformation in which the issue of salvation was raised. All of this literature that has come down to us has been digitalized and studied and studied—especially by Calvinists who realize that the total silence about eternal security and the abundance of literature in which conditional security is raised is an irremovable nail in the coffin in which their theology rests.

However, these facts should not come as a surprise to anyone who is familiar with the history of the development of Christian doctrine. The doctrines that fall under the umbrella of eternal security did not originate through careful New Testament exegesis, but rather through deductive logic—the premise being that God is sovereign and man, therefore, cannot do anything to bring about his salvation or the loss of it. Moreover, the teaching that God is absolutely sovereign is not found in any Judeo-Christian literature prior to 1,600—and not in any Jewish literature at any time. Indeed, Jewish rabbis have always taught, including during the intertestamental period, that God created man with a free will:

Ecclesiasticus 15:14. When God, in the beginning, created man,
he made him subject to his own free choice.
15. If you choose you can keep the commandments;
it is loyalty to do his will.
16. There are set before you fire and water;
to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand.
17. Before man are life and death,
whichever he chooses shall be given him.
18. Immense is the wisdom of the LORD;
he is mighty in power, and all-seeing.
19. The eyes of God see all he has made;
he understands man's every deed.
20. No man does he command to sin,
to none does he give strength for lies. (NAB)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This post if all too typical of believers in false doctrines who are unable to defend their beliefs so they attack the person of their dissenters! What an abomination!

On the contrary, I find it helpful if someone who has specialist knowledge explains the mistakes in a post. Otherwise we are all floundering in ignorance. As for attacking the persons of "dissenters:"

Who was the chowder head who told you this?

The pot calls the kettle black.
With regard to your claim that no one before the 16th Century believed in Eternal Security, I wonder who told you that? I think that if you look hard enough you can find almost any doctrine in the Church Fathers, and if you were to study the works of Augustine, or of any of his followers such as Fulgentius of Ruspe, you would find that the opposite to what you are claiming is true.
An upholder of Eternal Security at a later date was Gottschalke of Orbais (805-869) Here is an extract from one of his supporters:

"According to the catholic faith, almighty God - even before the foundation of the world, and before He created anything - from the very beginning predestined souls to His kingdom, by His own free love, according to the sure, righteous, unchangeable motives of His own eternal purposes. None of these souls shall perish, for His mercy protects them......"
[From "Reply to the Three Letters," Chapter 10. Usually ascribed to Remigius of Lyons. Taken from "2,000 Years of Christ's Power" Vol 2, by Dr. N.R. Needham]

N.B. Quoting from Roman Catholic sources does not mean that I agree with them on other things.

 

[MMDAN]

You write a lot but till circle back to the same point, your opinion is that those that fall away really did not believe. But the question you do not answer is, then why the warning passages?

Those that believe and continue to believe will be saved. Those that believe and latter reject Christ will be lost.

I did answer why the warning passages in post #68. Only those who truly believe will continue to believe. (1 Corinthians 15:1,2) Those that believe and later reject Christ demonstrate that they had a shallow, temporary belief that had no root and was in vain, as we see in the parable of the sower in Luke 8:4-15. Not all belief is the same (compare James 2:19 with Acts 16:31 - same Greek word for believe "pisteuo" in both verses) and answer are the demons saved?) Now even though this shallow ground hearer in Luke 8:13 is said to have "believed," yet he is never said to have been "saved." How do we know that the shallow ground hearer was never actually "saved"? Allow me to explain the reasons.

First, his heart condition is contrasted with that of the "good ground" hearer in the 4th soil, who's heart was "good" and "honest." Thus, his heart was not "good," being like the soil to which it corresponds, being "shallow" or "rocky," lacking sufficient depth. Such soil represents a sinner not properly prepared in heart. People who "believe" and "rejoice" at the preaching of the gospel without a prepared heart, and without a good and honest heart, and without having "root" in themselves, do not experience real salvation.

IN CONTRAST TO - Mark 4:8 - But other seed fell on good ground and yielded a crop that sprang up, increased and produced: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred. Luke 8:15 says, But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience. So, the rocky soil represents a person not properly prepared in heart, so the seed planted ends up with a lack of "root" (lack of being firmly planted or established) and good soil represents a person properly prepared in heart who having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keeps it and bears fruit with patience.

*Unlike saving belief, temporary, shallow belief is not rooted in a regenerate heart. How can no depth of earth, no root, no moisture, no fruit, represent saving belief? It can't.

 

[MMDAN]

You write a lot but till circle back to the same point, your opinion is that those that fall away really did not believe. But the question you do not answer is, then why the warning passages?

Those that believe and continue to believe will be saved. Those that believe and latter reject Christ will be lost.

I did answer why the warning passages in post #68. Only those who truly believe will continue to believe. (1 Corinthians 15:1,2) Those that believe and later reject Christ believed in vain and demonstrated that they had a shallow, temporary belief that had no root, as we see in the parable of the sower in Luke 8:4-15. Not all belief is the same (compare James 2:19 with Acts 16:31 - same Greek word for believe "pisteuo" in both verses) and answer are the demons saved? Now even though this shallow ground hearer in Luke 8:13 is said to have "believed," yet he is never said to have been "saved." How do we know that the shallow ground hearer was never actually "saved"? Allow me to explain the reasons.

First, his heart condition is contrasted with that of the "good ground" hearer in the 4th soil, who's heart was "good" and "honest." Thus, his heart was not "good," being like the soil to which it corresponds, being "shallow" or "rocky," lacking sufficient depth. Such soil represents a sinner not properly prepared in heart. People who "believe" and "rejoice" at the preaching of the gospel without a prepared heart, and without a good and honest heart, and without having "root" in themselves, do not experience real salvation.

IN CONTRAST TO - Mark 4:8 - But other seed fell on good ground and yielded a crop that sprang up, increased and produced: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred. Luke 8:15 says, But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience. So, the rocky soil represents a person not properly prepared in heart, so the seed planted ends up with a lack of "root" (lack of being firmly planted or established) and good soil represents a person properly prepared in heart who having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keeps it and bears fruit with patience.

*Unlike saving belief, temporary, shallow belief is not rooted in a regenerate heart. How can no depth of earth, no root, no moisture, no fruit, represent saving belief? It can't.

 

[MMDAN]

Who was the chowder head who told you this?

Eph. 4:4. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling,
5. one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6. one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.
7. But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ's gift.

So, you don't believe "the faith" (1 Timothy 4:1) covers the body of truth from the apostles, which includes the truth about Jesus and salvation through faith in Him (but does not exclude everything else regarding the Christian faith) that was once for all delivered to the saints? (Jude 1:3)