“Full Assurance of Faith” (Hebrews 10:22)

[chessman]

We know the second type of soil was saved because it retained the word of God having started to grow (in contrast to soil #1).

Who's we? Did the disciples who heard Jesus explain it to them that day know that 'retaining the word' or 'starting to grow' meant being saved is the relavant question. Because they sure didn't get told that from Jesus' interpretation of the parables of the soils. He could have easily said "the soil retaining the word of God" represents salvation. But He didn't say that. Not to mention that soil#2 didn't "retain" the seed anyway. What do you even mean by that? Even if it did represent salvation. The seed sown ON soil 2, lay on the rocks (not retained in it). It sprang up and got scorched by the sun, remember? It was never 'retained' in the soil anyway. It did NOT have any depth into the soil.

Matt 13:5 (LEB) And other seed fell on the rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and it sprang up at once because it did not have any depth of soil.​

And speaking of contrast to soil #1. It is not until soil #4 that Jesus says that any of the soils (1-3) even understood the word of God. Which, BTW, is the reason Jesus said soil #1 was not saved. They didn't understand it. Neither did soil 2!

Soil4:

Matt 13:23 (LEB) But what was sown on the good soil—this is the one who hears the word and understands it...​

Soil1:

Matthew 13:19 (LEB) When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart (Luke 8:12 so that they may not believe and be saved) This is what was sown on the side of the path.​

Can you explain to me and others exactly how it is that a soil (a person, anyone) can become saved if they don't even understand the Word of God as soils 1-3 didn't? Jesus, not me, said that soil #4 was the one that understood it. Jesus, not me, says any soil that cannot understand the Word of God, is NOT saved, remember (see soil#1). Which is the only mention of salvation in the parable's interpretation. Jesus' interpretation that is.

As for John's and Paul's letters and what they do teach:

I cannot think of a better way to state the OSAS doctrine than:
1. "If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."

Now that's retention. He doesn't say, might, maybe or there's a good chance of it. But YOU ALSO WILL abide in not just the Son but the Father!

2. "the one who abides in the teaching (the teaching of Jesus Christ) he has both The Father and the Son".

Now that's protection, security and a promise that teaches OSAS (you also will abide/dwell with the Father). Throw in the Holy Spirit and wow, what a combo of protection. Now as for someone who does not abide (dwell in) the teaching of Christ, that person does not have God.

I don't see your point, even if I did think John was talking about the parable of the soil here, which he's not. These verses don't teach lose of salvation either. They teach OSAS and a promise of dwelling with the big guy upstairs (the Father). How do I know it's an OSAS passage? Read the next verse:

3. "This (what he just got thru saying) is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life."

And wow, what a Promiser God is. Here, again, I don't see your point at all of even posting these verses. They don't support your case anyway. And they certainly are not John's or Paul's further interpretation of soil#2 that Jesus just happened to leave out that day. That don't even say what you claim they do within the letters:

John has specifically warned about this spirit of antichrist at work in the church to deceive us about the truth about abiding in the word:

The "specific" "spirit of the antichrist" is NOT deception 'about the truth about abiding in the word'. Wow! The deception that John's letters specifically attributes to antichrist is those that teach "Jesus Christ (Messiah) not coming in the flesh", not some so called antichrist deception being taught about 'abiding in the word'. Which simply means to dwell/abide/reside in the Word. It does not mean to remain saved as you seem to think it does.

1 John 2:22 (LEB) Who is the liar except the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This person is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. ​

2 John 1:7 (LEB) For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the antichrist!​

John never says the spirit of the antichrist is deceiving us about 'abiding in the word'. You just make that up or what?

What John does say is:

1 John 2:1-2 (LEB) My little children, I am writing these things to you in order that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one, and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.​

I'm pretty sure that Jesus Christ is the righteous one and advocates with Our Father for our sins (all of them). He (Jesus) is the propitiation for our sins (all of them) not just some of them.

1 John 5:18-21 (LEB) We know that everyone who is fathered by God does not sin, but the one fathered by God, he protects him, and the evil one does not touch him. ... And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, in order that we may know the one who is true, and we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life.​

So much for lose of salvation. God protects and keeps everyone that is fathered by God. Why? Because He's promised us that everyone who believes in the Son will dwell/abide with the Father. We are firmly planted and protected in the one who is true! Plain and simple.

 

[JLB]

Or it could be because eternal security is true and that the men that wrote the N.T. (and O.T.) were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write down carefully and with precise enough wording to depict exactly what God wanted them to write. To me, the Bible reads like no other book I’ve ever read. Hands down, by far, the most precision and exact intricate perfection ever.

Yes, and when those who push their unscriptural doctrine, they decide what was so precisely written, means "something else" than what it so precisely says.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6

The branches, which are connected to Him, draw their life from Him and are sustained by His eternal life.

When the branches are removed from Him, and are no longer connected to Him, they no longer have the eternal life that is provided by being connected to Him.

The admonition from the Lord, is to remain connected to Him, or wither and die, in which they will be gathered up and throw into the fire.

Branches were "in Him", then they branches were no longer "in Him".

I've heard every imaginable way people so deceitfully attempt to explain away this simple truth.

• Some say this is only an agricultural metaphor, and "shouldn't be taken literally".
• Other's say that cast into the fire and burned, should be interpreted as, "removed from Christian service".
• While other's claim this is just a reference to, "loss of fellowship".
• Then their are those who claim, the people as represented by the branches, still have eternal life, but they just lose their "rewards".

On and on, the redefining, and "special interpretation's" go, while the precise and simple truth is ignored or "redefined".

as Peter so aptly says:

...as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:16


Precise words indeed.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The "specific" "spirit of the antichrist" is NOT deception 'about the truth about abiding in the word'. Wow! The deception that John's letters specifically attributes to antichrist is those that teach "Jesus Christ (Messiah) not coming in the flesh", not some so called antichrist deception being taught about 'abiding in the word'.

The spirit of antichrist is the spirit of denial.
John's audience, who are presently in Christ, are being told not to be deceived into denying Christ (as did those whom he speaks of in 1 John 2:19 NASB), because if they do they will no longer abide in Christ and the Father and will lose their salvation.

21I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (1 John 2:21-24 NASB bold mine)

"12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." (1 John 5:12 NASB bold mine)

But OSAS says either believers are incapable of denying Christ, or that they can deny Christ and they will still have Christ/the Father and eternal life. Both are shown to be false in the passages above.

Jesus, not me, said that soil #4 was the one that understood it. Jesus, not me, says any soil that cannot understand the Word of God, is NOT saved, remember (see soil#1).

It's interesting that you would condemn yourself. And equally interesting that you who have fought so vehemently against the doctrine that only saved people bear fruit with questions like, "how much fruit bearing is required to be saved", would now say only the ones who bear fruit are saved, excluding the growth in Christ before and up to that fruit bearing as occurring within salvation.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I cannot think of a better way to state the OSAS doctrine than:
1. "If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."

You forgot to not include the 'if' at the beginning of the quote.

The 'if' makes the condition for abiding in the Son and the Father, and thus, being saved, conditional on holding fast and abiding in the word of the gospel by which you were saved. The condition that, both, John and Paul warn believers about.

"21I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (1 John 2:21-24 NASB)

"1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NASB)

 

[chessman]

The spirit of antichrist is the spirit of denial.

The spirit of antichrist is the spirit of denial of what, exactly? If you deny that atheism is true, do you have the spirit of the antichrist? No.
Or can you just insert whatever (fill in the blank) denial you'd like and 'call' that the spirit of antichrist. Yea, that's it. Just like you did previously. You first said that the spirit of the antichrist is specifically deception about the truth about abiding in the word.

John has specifically warned about this spirit of antichrist at work in the church to deceive us about the truth about abiding in the word

Which it wasn't true that John specifically warned us about that being antichrist then, and it's still is not true.
Now you just say the spirit of the antichrist is the spirit of denial ______. (fill in the blank). That's no way to perform Biblical exegesis. We are not left with a 'fill in the blank' exegesis with respect to exactly what the spirit of the antichrist is.

2 John 1:7 (LEB) For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the antichrist!​

A person that does not confess Jesus Christ (Messiah) coming in the flesh is the deceiver and the antichrist! It is NOT a person that denies your anti-OSAS doctrine (or whatever else you'd like to insert in the blank).

You even posted another Scripture that Biblically confirms to us what EXACTLY it is that Biblically fills in the blank:

22Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

It's not the one that denies something that Jethro thinks is true.

So now you just claim it's some general and unspecified 'spirit of denial'. Whatever that means. I guess so that you can fill in the blank with whatever denial comes to mind. It's quite obvious what you are doing here. And it's not Biblical exegesis.

It's interesting that you would condemn yourself. And equally interesting that you ... would now say only the ones who bear fruit are saved, ...

It's interesting that you'd claim that I would condemn myself and anyone that dos not bear fruit when I don't condemn myself or anyone that does not bear fruit.
Rather than spending your time posting that I've claimed something that I never claimed, can you answer my apologetically relevant questions reposted below, please. Here they are again:

1.

What do you even mean by that (soils retaining the word of God)?

2.

Can you explain to me and others exactly how it is that a soil (a person, anyone) can become saved if they don't even understand the Word of God as soils 1-3 didn't?

 

[chessman]

You forgot to not include the 'if' at the beginning of the quote.

Nope I didn't forget it. I believe every word of Scripture. Which is how I know exactly what the spirit of the antichrist is. And that Eternal Life is eternal.

 

[chessman]

those who push their unscriptural doctrine, they decide what was so precisely written, means "something else" than what it so precisely says.

Why did you just decide to push your unscriptural doctrine that says Eternal Life is not eternal?
Here's an example:

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6
...
When the branches are removed from Him, and are no longer connected to Him, they no longer have the eternal life that is provided by being connected to Him.

This verse doesn't say anything about Eternal Life, yet you push a twisted doctrine that claims it does say something about Eternal Life. In fact it doesn't even say anything about life (much less Eternal Life).

When the branches are removed from Him, and are no longer connected to Him, they no longer have the eternal life that is provided by being connected to Him.

John 15:4 (LEB) Just as the branch is not able to bear fruit from itself unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you, unless you remain in me.​

If you would have said; 'When the branches are removed from Him, and are no longer connected to Him, they no longer bear fruit' you'd have made a Biblically based statement. But as it stands, you twisted your statement into something non-Scriptural. Namely "they no longer have the eternal life" versus what Jesus precisely said "they no longer bear fruit".

Or

John 15:5 (LEB) “I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me and I in him—this one bears much fruit, for apart from me you are not able to do anything.​

If you would have said; 'When the branches are removed from Him, and are no longer connected to Him, they are not able to do anything, you'd have made a Biblically based statement. But as it stands, you twisted your statement into something non-Scriptural. Namely "they no longer have the eternal life" versus what Jesus precisely said "they are not able to do anything".

And I know that you are capable of making statements that are not twisting the Scripture. Here's an example:

The admonition from the Lord, is to remain connected to Him, or wither and die, in which they will be gathered up and throw into the fire.

Something I totally agree with based on what John 15:6 does say, versus what it doesn't say.

John 15:6 doesn't say anything about loosing salvation or loosing Eternal Life nor does it say thrown into the fire of Hell or the Lake of Fire. But Jesus easily could have said that, if that's what He meant.

 

[JLB]

This verse doesn't say anything about Eternal Life, yet you push a twisted doctrine that claims it does say something about Eternal Life. In fact it doesn't even say anything about life (much less Eternal Life).

So these that are "in Him" don't have eternal life, is that what you are now attempting to teach.

He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 1 John 5:12

Has -

1. to have, i.e. to hold
   
   1. to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as
      
2. to have i.e. own, possess
   
   1. external things such as pertain to property or riches or furniture or utensils or goods or food etc.
   2. used of those joined to any one by the bonds of natural blood or marriage or friendship or duty or law etc, of attendance or companionship
      
3. to hold one's self or find one's self so and so, to be in such or such a condition
4. to hold one's self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to
   
   1. to be closely joined to a person or a thing
      

Connected to Him in relationship as a branch is connected to the Vine, and draws it's life from the Vine, and is dependent on the Vine.

Here is the definition Jesus gave for eternal life:

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. John 17:3

"Know" - Strong's G1097 - ginōskō

1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
   1. to become known
2. to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
   1. to understand
   2. to know
3. Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
   
   
4. to become acquainted with, to know
   

To be joined to Him is eternal life. When we believe the Gospel, we are joined to the Lord as a man and woman are joined and become one in relationship.

But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 1 Corinthians 6:17


That is where I get the idea that being connected to Him in relationship, is eternal life; is being connected to eternal life.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6


Jesus is our life. Our eternal life.

Knowing Him is eternal life.



JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You first said that the spirit of the antichrist is specifically deception about the truth about abiding in the word.
[...]
Which it wasn't true that John specifically warned us about that being antichrist then, and it's still is not true.

Any denial of the Father and the Son is not abiding in the word of the gospel:

"This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22 NASB bold mine)

That's no way to perform Biblical exegesis. We are not left with a 'fill in the blank' exegesis with respect to exactly what the spirit of the antichrist is.

Here, read it again:
"This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22 NASB bold mine)

2 John 1:7 (LEB) For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the antichrist!
A person that does not confess Jesus Christ (Messiah) coming in the flesh is the deceiver and the antichrist! It is NOT a person that denies your anti-OSAS doctrine (or whatever else you'd like to insert in the blank).

That obviously fits into the definition of an antichrist as John defined it in 1 John 2:22 NASB as quoted above--one who denies the Father and the Son.

When OSAS says you can not abide in the gospel and you are still in the Father and the Son they are antichrists that John warns us believers not to follow, but says instead for us to continue in the word we heard in the beginning.

It's interesting that you'd claim that I would condemn myself and anyone that dos not bear fruit when I don't condemn myself or anyone that does not bear fruit.

But you do condemn yourself when you live a type 2 or 3 soil while claiming that only type 4 soil is saved soil.

What do you even mean by that (soils retaining the word of God)?

Do I have to now give you an agricultural lesson? Nobody looks at a field of failed growth and claims the soil is retaining what was planted in it--except OSASer's I'm guessing. And, obviously, to defend an erroneous doctrine that can't be defended with the Bible.

Can you explain to me and others exactly how it is that a soil (a person, anyone) can become saved if they don't even understand the Word of God as soils 1-3 didn't?

Obviously, all the soils understood the word to the extent of what it produced. If soil #2 & #3 did not understand the word of God at all (as you are suggesting) there would have been no growth at all.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Nope I didn't forget it. I believe every word of Scripture. Which is how I know exactly what the spirit of the antichrist is. And that Eternal Life is eternal.

What I'm saying is, you should have left the 'if' off of the quote in order to remove the condition for abiding in the Son and the Father, and as a result, having eternal life, in order for the passage to (falsely) support your OSAS doctrine:

"If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father." (1 John 2:24 NASB)

You can't just ignore the 'if' in the verse. But that is exactly what you are doing.

 

[JLB]

If you would have said; 'When the branches are removed from Him, and are no longer connected to Him, they no longer bear fruit' you'd have made a Biblically based statement. But as it stands, you twisted your statement into something non-Scriptural. Namely "they no longer have the eternal life" versus what Jesus precisely said "they no longer bear fruit".

As long as we are "in Him", which is to say, we "have Him", or we are "joined to Him", and are "partakers of Him", then we are "partakers" of the Life; The Eternal Life that is "in Him".

The branches are no longer connected to Jesus Christ, and as you can plainly see, they are gathered up and thrown into the fire and burned as a result.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:6

Case Closed.


JLB

 

[JLB]

John 15:6 doesn't say anything about loosing salvation or loosing Eternal Life nor does it say thrown into the fire of Hell or the Lake of Fire. But Jesus easily could have said that, if that's what He meant.

More, redefining?

Now your going to try and redefine what the fire is... thrown into the fire and burned.

Ok, please show from the scriptures what The fire is, if it isn't hell.

Here's mine:

Here are some other examples that refer specifically to the fire.

Here Jesus specifically links THE FIRE with hell -

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—

And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Matthew 3:10

His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Matthew 3:12 [Unquenchable means everlasting fire]


But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22


Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Matthew 7:18


“If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. Matthew 18:8

The Fire that Jesus warned us about, in His teaching from John 15, is described by Him or John the Baptist as being both hell and everlasting.


The fire, as mentioned by Jesus in John 15, and many other places, refers to the everlasting fire of hell.

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Matthew 7:18



JLB

 

[chessman]

You can't just ignore the 'if' in the verse. But that is exactly what you are doing.

Nope. Let me repeat.

Nope I didn't forget it. I believe every word of Scripture.

Here, let me show you:

"If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."

If what Chessman heard from the beginning abides in Chessman, Chessman also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

This is completely OSAS compatible without 'ignoring the if'. And I take complete assurance in the verse. Especially the part about dwelling in the Father.

Or let's take this imaginary anti-OSAS example person. Let's call him antiOSAS.

If what antiOSAS heard from the beginning abides in antiOSAS, antiOSAS also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

Again, completely compatible with OSAS. I'm not the one with a logical problem with this verse. You are!

You think antiOSAS once had the Son abiding (living) in him yet will not abide with the Son and the Father in the New Heaven.
I don't think antiOASA ever abided with the Son to begin with.

You are the one with a logical problem with this verse (an a whole bunch of others too). I have zero problem with.

I really don't understand your point.

 

[smaller]

Romans 11:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

James 1:23
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

What manner of man is this? A "natural man."

The natural man forgets from "whence" he fell and was divided from.

Rev. 2:
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Ephesians 2:
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

The natural man forgets this, and thinks it's foolish, that the spirit of disobedience blinded him in the flesh. In this they are blinded, yet again.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Romans 11:
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

The natural man never got it, never gets it, never will get it.

These are known by their falling away from what? Uh, yeah. GODS GOODNESS.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

"IF THOU CONTINUE IN HIS GOODNESS."

 

[chessman]

But you do condemn yourself when you live a type 2 or 3 soil while claiming that only type 4 soil is saved soil.

Well there you go again. No, I do NOT condemn myself (even if I did live a life like soil 2, which I haven't. I'm a good soil man all the way). Plus, I didn't claim that only type 4 soil is saved. You are the one making the claim that type 2 soil is saved (with no Biblical support for the claim). So defend that claim by answering how it is that type 2 soil could be saved if it is true (and it is true, see Matt 13:23) that the type 4 soil was the only soil type that even understood the word. I have a perfectly reasonable answer. You are the one that has presented a reasoned answer (nor has JLB) which is why it seems like you are avoiding the question.
I asked:

"the soil retaining the word of God" represents salvation. ... What do you even mean by that?

You answered:

Do I have to now give you an agricultural lesson?

No. Been farming my whole life. How about answering my reasonable questions (just two little questions) though and defend your position on soil 2. You're the one that said it "the soil retaining the word of God represents salvation" to you. So surely you know what you meant by that with a little more detail than to just say "agricultural lesson". I just asked you to explain what you meant by it. Surely you have a more detailed explanation since that's the 'exegesis' that leads you to the conclusion that soil #2 was saved (then unsaved). Otherwise, I'm kind of left wondering/assuming what you meant by the phrase. You can just say, I don't know what it means if you like.

But if agriculture is 'kind of' what you meant and are not going to explain it any more than that, then, yes, I can envision an agricultural field with seed being sown in it, sure. I do that myself. I'll just assume that's what you meant. And simply note that the seed which Jesus said was sown on what we reference as 'soil 2' was never sown into an agricultural field to begin with. It specifically says that it fell on the rock, not into an agricultural field. So, I'm left wondering how that even matters to your reasoning.

The other important question that you didn't answer is:

Can you explain to me and others exactly how it is that a soil (a person, anyone) can become saved if they don't even understand the Word of God as soils 1-3 didn't?

And the reason it's apologetically relevant to the position you and JLB take on soil #2 (that soil was saved, then un-saved) is because Jesus said this:

Matthew 13:23 (LEB) But what was sown on the good soil—this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces, this one a hundred times as much, and this one sixty, and this one thirty.”​

What's your thoughts/exegesis (we're in A&T) on this verse? How do explain your claim that soil #2 was saved, then un-saved since Jesus said the good soil was the one soil that understand the word? Please spend your time examining and explaining your thoughts on this verse, versus telling me what I think about soil 2. I already know what I think about soil 2 (told you a long time ago) and it DOES NOT condemn me or soil type 2 (rock). And if you, what's the word you keep using...oh yah, ignore the exegesis of this verse, I'll just think you're ignoring the verse. which BTW is Jesus Himself telling the disciples what the parable meant. Not Paul or John talking about a different subject. I've already explained my exegesis of all those verses you keep posting in response to the parable itself.

 

[chessman]

22Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 (LEB) and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

2 John 1:7 (LEB) For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the antichrist!
​

Compare the various ways that John describes (telling us) what the spirit of antichrist is to your statement of what the spirit of antichrist is. They don't match. That's the issue! A major issue, IMO. Not that it had anything to do with whether soil type 2 in Jesus' parable was once saved then not saved or not.

John has specifically warned about this spirit of antichrist at work in the church to deceive us about the truth about abiding in the word

John describes the spirit of the antichrist as this:
1. one who denies that Jesus is the Christ
2. one who denies the Father and the Son
3. every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God
4. those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.

Four different way to say essentially the same thing. A spirit of deception deceiving the church that Jesus is not the Christ (Messiah), The Son of God, from God, Messiah in the flesh.

Yet you say the spirit of antichrist is:

1. this spirit at work in the church to deceive us about the truth about abiding in the word

Hogwash. You just made that description up with absolutely zero Biblical support for it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Can you explain to me and others exactly how it is that a soil (a person, anyone) can become saved if they don't even understand the Word of God as soils 1-3 didn't?

I answered that already.
You're mistakenly making knowledge in the parable only about the knowledge of salvation. Obviously, they understood enough for the seed to become planted in them and start growing. That represents salvation. We know that because no growth represented no salvation in soil #1.

Soils #2 & 3 did not understand and apply the knowledge required beyond the knowledge of salvation to produce fruit. Since the learning curve from going from salvation to producing the actual fruit of the kingdom is rather long we see that most of the church is in soil #2 & 3 stage of growth.

"3 ...you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God (you are saved).
8But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.9Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him" (Colossians 3: NASB)

It's a process. In the beginning we only know Him in regard to salvation and the milk truths of the faith. But then we grow up into the full stature of Christ through a more intimate knowledge of him. The careful study is the one who will know and understand the knowledge of God that produces the fruit of the kingdom and who then knows God in that intimate way, not just according to the knowledge of salvation.

So you can see, the knowledge of salvation is not absent from soils #2 &3. The intimate knowledge of God that produces the fruit of the kingdom is the knowledge they lack. But they will not stay in that state....if they keep believing. Otherwise, they will dry up and be uprooted at the end of the age and cast into the furnace.

 

[JLB]

Well there you go again. No, I do NOT condemn myself (even if I did live a life like soil 2, which I haven't. I'm a good soil man all the way). Plus, I didn't claim that only type 4 soil is saved. You are the one making the claim that type 2 soil is saved (with no Biblical support for the claim). So defend that claim by answering how it is that type 2 soil could be saved if it is true (and it is true, see Matt 13:23) that the type 4 soil was the only soil type that even understood the word. I have a perfectly reasonable answer. You are the one that has presented a reasoned answer (nor has JLB) which is why it seems like you are avoiding the question.
I asked:

You answered:

No. Been farming my whole life. How about answering my reasonable questions (just two little questions) though and defend your position on soil 2. You're the one that said it "the soil retaining the word of God represents salvation" to you. So surely you know what you meant by that with a little more detail than to just say "agricultural lesson". I just asked you to explain what you meant by it. Surely you have a more detailed explanation since that's the 'exegesis' that leads you to the conclusion that soil #2 was saved (then unsaved). Otherwise, I'm kind of left wondering/assuming what you meant by the phrase. You can just say, I don't know what it means if you like.

But if agriculture is 'kind of' what you meant and are not going to explain it any more than that, then, yes, I can envision an agricultural field with seed being sown in it, sure. I do that myself. I'll just assume that's what you meant. And simply note that the seed which Jesus said was sown on what we reference as 'soil 2' was never sown into an agricultural field to begin with. It specifically says that it fell on the rock, not into an agricultural field. So, I'm left wondering how that even matters to your reasoning.

The other important question that you didn't answer is:

And the reason it's apologetically relevant to the position you and JLB take on soil #2 (that soil was saved, then un-saved) is because Jesus said this:

Matthew 13:23 (LEB) But what was sown on the good soil—this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces, this one a hundred times as much, and this one sixty, and this one thirty.”​

What's your thoughts/exegesis (we're in A&T) on this verse? How do explain your claim that soil #2 was saved, then un-saved since Jesus said the good soil was the one soil that understand the word? Please spend your time examining and explaining your thoughts on this verse, versus telling me what I think about soil 2. I already know what I think about soil 2 (told you a long time ago) and it DOES NOT condemn me or soil type 2 (rock). And if you, what's the word you keep using...oh yah, ignore the exegesis of this verse, I'll just think you're ignoring the verse. which BTW is Jesus Himself telling the disciples what the parable meant. Not Paul or John talking about a different subject. I've already explained my exegesis of all those verses you keep posting in response to the parable itself.

Personally, I'm glad you now see that those in the fourth group are the ones who are saved, as it is those who produce fruit that Jesus recognizes as being saved, on the Day of judgement.

Those who hold fast [keep] the word that was preached to them in the beginning, until they bear fruit.

11 “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. 14 Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15 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. Luke 8:11-15


Keep it, and bear fruit with patience.

So it is not just believing for a while, that a person is saved.

It is the continuing to believe, and keeping and holding fast the word, with patience until fruit is produced.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Nope. Let me repeat.


Here, let me show you:

"If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."

If what Chessman heard from the beginning abides in Chessman, Chessman also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

This is completely OSAS compatible without 'ignoring the if'. And I take complete assurance in the verse. Especially the part about dwelling in the Father.

Or let's take this imaginary anti-OSAS example person. Let's call him antiOSAS.

If what antiOSAS heard from the beginning abides in antiOSAS, antiOSAS also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

Again, completely compatible with OSAS. I'm not the one with a logical problem with this verse. You are!

You think antiOSAS once had the Son abiding (living) in him yet will not abide with the Son and the Father in the New Heaven.
I don't think antiOASA ever abided with the Son to begin with.

You are the one with a logical problem with this verse (an a whole bunch of others too). I have zero problem with.

I really don't understand your point.

"If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father."

This plainly shows that the Gospel message must continue to abide in the person who heard, and remain in the person, so that the person remains in the Son and the Father.


This is what holding fast to the word that was preached, or keeping the word that was preached, or continuing in the faith and not being moved away from the hope of the Gospel, all means throughout the new testament.

Believing for a while, then because of persecution, renouncing or denying the Son, is what we are warned about.

20 But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles.
Matthew 13:20-21


10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.
11 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.”’
Revelation 2:10-11



JLB

 

[chessman]

Can you explain to me and others exactly how it is that a soil (a person, anyone) can become saved if they don't even understand the Word of God as soils 1-3 didn't? Jesus, not me, said that soil #4 was the one that understood it.

I answered that already.

No you didn't answer it previously. Quote where you addressed my question (reposted above) before now, if you did. Maybe I missed where and you've explained a reasonable answer to this question back then. I did spend some time looking for your previous answer and couldn't find one, BTW.

You're mistakenly making knowledge in the parable only about the knowledge of salvation. Obviously, they understood enough for the seed to become planted in them and start growing. That represents salvation.

Your answer here makes no sense Biblically speaking. Jesus said they didn't understand "it" = "the word about the kingdom" and yet you turn right around and say they understood enough of it to be saved. Just exactly how much understanding of "it" does it take to become saved, 10%-90%??? (actually don't worry about answering that question. I know the answer).

Matthew 13:19 (LEB) When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, [b]​

Jesus is very clear about what the "it" is that only soil #4 understood. Another reason to study Greek. The Greek Text specifies what the "it" is. It is precisely the word about the kingdom that only the good soil understood. And I have NOT mistaken that fact. I know and understand what He said.

... the seed to become planted in them and start growing. That represents salvation.

The seed was sown (not planted, BTW) and four different locations are described; a path, rocky ground, among the thorn and in good soil.

Luke 8:5-6 (LEB) “The sower went out to sow his seed, and while he was sowing, some seed fell on the side of the path ... 6 And other seed fell on the rock, ...

Do I need to give you an agricultural lesson? Agriculturalist, do NOT plant seed on paths or rock or in thorn bushes. Sometimes they fall on these places though as you are sowing them in good soil.

It's only generally understood by some as 'The parable of the soils'. Most people actually call this parable; The Parable of the Sower. I've just been following your lead and referring to them as soil#1, soil#2, etc. because it's easier to type. Technically, there is only one "soil" mentioned by Jesus, "the good soil". The seed fell and landed on a path, rock and among the thorns while he was sowing them. It wasn't "planted" there.

Actually, I'm beginning to wonder if you've even studied this parable at all. Where did that come from "planted in them"??? Or for that matter 'retaining the seed' and/or now 'starting to grow' represents salvation. Maybe you are the one that's ... what's the word you used??? Oh yah, "mistaken".

Anyway, previously you said: 'retaining the seed' represented salvation. Which I asked you to explain further (twice) and all you said was that I needed an "agricultural lesson". Now you say that "understanding enough of the seed to become planted in them and start growing' represents salvation. Where did you get these interpretations from??? Did Jesus say either of these images represented salvation in His parable??? No, he didn't. But let's just go with it. None of the seeds were "planted". Poof, none were saved then, according to your newly revised interpretation of what represents salvation. And your 'justification' for your claim:

We know that because no growth represented no salvation in soil #1.

This is called circular reasoning. A prime example to boot. Being planted and starting to grow represents salvation because we know no growth represented no salvation in soil #1. As circular as it gets right there. The word "saved" only even appears one time in the parable or it's interpretation. Jesus never said the rocky soil was "saved". What we know (because He said it) was that the only one that understood the word about the kingdom was the good soil.

So in conclusion, Jesus directly said in the interpretation that the one that understood the word about the Kingdom was the good soil. When asked how then could the rocky ground become saved if they did NOT understand the word about the Kingdom, you say

Obviously, they understood enough

JLB said to the same question:

The ones in example #2 & #3, did understand,