The Five Points of Calvinism

[chessman]

Personally, I believe that 3 were saved; soils 2-4. I believe the evidence is that in those 3 soils, plants germinated from the seed, which would indicate new life, or regeneration.

Personally, I believe that only soils 3-4 were ever saved. But it's speculation at best. After all, a germanated seed is still just a seed. I note that you said "plants germinated from the seed". Actually that's not accurate.

Soil #1, Matthew 13:4 and while he was sowing, some seed fell on the side of the path, and the birds came and devoured it [the seed, not the plant].
Soil #2, Matthew 13:6 But when the sun rose it [the seed] was scorched, and because it [the seed] did not have enough root, it withered. ​

A plant, in order to be called a plant, must contain a root system (moisture/nutrition), shuts (structure and moisture/nutrition distribution) and leafs (photosynthesis). Otherwise, it's just a seed, still.

The fact that the 2nd soil only believed for awhile doesn't mean they weren't saved.

That's correct. Nor does it mean they were saved simply by hearing/receiving the word with joy. It's best to stick to passages of Scripture that speak of salvation (or at least Eternal Life) to build doctirnal positions from. In fact, what does it say about soil #1? They were not 'saved". Yet it also says they heard the word and even had it in "their heart":

Luke 8:12 (LEB) and those beside the path are the ones who have heard. Then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they may not believe and be saved. ​

I'm personally a little uneasy using a parable for soteriology, in the first place. And note that the anti-P's frequently point out soil #2 as anti-OSAS 'proof' without direct evidence that's the case. The parable is about bearing fruit, not soteriology or anti-salvation.

Luke 8:15 But the seed on the good soil—these are the ones who, after hearing the word, hold fast to it with a noble and good heart, and bear fruit with patient endurance.
​

As with most, if not all, parables they basically make fools of the 1st Century Jewish leaders for not knowing their own Scriptures (Luke 8:10, so that‘Seeing they may not see,and hearing they may not understand.’

Psalm 80:8-9 (LEB) You [Yahweh] uprooted a vine from Egypt;you drove out the nations and planted it. You prepared a place before it,and it took deep root and filled the land.
​

The Jews (not just Evangelical Christians) were rooted by God and were supposed to spread God's Word to their neighbors.)

Proverbs 12:3 (LEB) A person will not be established by wickedness,but the root of the righteous will not be moved.

Matthew 13:20-21 And what was sown on the rocky ground—this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. But he does not have a root in himself, but lasts only a little while, and when affliction or persecution happens because of the word, immediately he falls away.

Proverbs 12:12 (LEB) The wicked covets the proceeds of evil,but the root of the righteous bears fruit.​

 

[FreeGrace]

Personally, I believe that only soils 3-4 were ever saved. But it's speculation at best. After all, a germanated seed is still just a seed. I note that you said "plants germinated from the seed". Actually that's not accurate.

Yes, that is accurate:
Matt 13:5 - “Others (seeds) fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they (plants from the seeds) sprang up, because they had no depth of soil.

Soil #1, Matthew 13:4 and while he was sowing, some seed fell on the side of the path, and the birds came and devoured it [the seed, not the plant]. No plant.
Soil #2, Matthew 13:6 But when the sun rose it [the seed] was scorched, and because it [the seed] did not have enough root, it withered. Not the seed, the plant. Seeds don't have ANY root. Only plants have root. ​

A plant, in order to be called a plant, must contain a root system (moisture/nutrition), shuts (structure and moisture/nutrition distribution) and leafs (photosynthesis). Otherwise, it's just a seed, still.

No one, including you, has ever seen any root system in any seed. Only plants have roots. Notice that 13:6 says that the plant didn't have ENOUGH root, and withered.

Have you really ever seen a seed wither? Only plants wither.

Mark 4 says the same as Matt 13.

Soil #2 not only germinated, but produced a plant that withered. The root system wasn't ENOUGH, which is why the plant withered.

Your view has seeds with a root system, and seeds that wither. Both are impossible.

That's correct. Nor does it mean they were saved simply by hearing/receiving the word with joy.

Luke records Jesus as saying that soil #2 "believed for a while" after noting the opposite of believing in soil #1 "lest they believe AND BE SAVED". Clearly, Jesus knew that anyone who believes is saved. And He said that soil #2 believed.

Regardless of how long one believes, they are saved.

It's best to stick to passages of Scripture that speak of salvation (or at least Eternal Life) to build doctirnal positions from. In fact, what does it say about soil #1? They were not 'saved". Yet it also says they heard the word and even had it in "their heart":

Luke 8:12 (LEB) and those beside the path are the ones who have heard. Then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they may not believe and be saved.​

They never believed is the point.​

I'm personally a little uneasy using a parable for soteriology, in the first place.

This isn't about soteriology. It's about believers and various responses from believers. Some only believe for a while because of temptation/testing. Some plants were choked out because of life's worries, riches and pleasures (distractions). And some produce a crop from a good heart.

And note that the anti-P's frequently point out soil #2 as anti-OSAS 'proof' without direct evidence that's the case. The parable is about bearing fruit, not soteriology or anti-salvation.

Yes, absolutely. But there can be no argument that Luke's account is clearest, and soil #2 did believe, and did produce plants.

Luke 8:6: Some fell on rock, and when it (plants) came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture. NIV

Seeds don't wither. And seeds don't "come up". Plants come up from germinated seeds.

Matthew 13:20-21 And what was sown on the rocky ground—this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. But he does not have a root in himself, but lasts only a little while, and when affliction or persecution happens because of the word, immediately he falls away.

One cannot ignore the plain words of Luke's account in 8:13, "they believed for a while".
​

 

[chessman]

No one, including you, has ever seen any root system in any seed

Yes I have. It's called a seedling. And they have embryotic roots.

Seedling development starts with germination of the seed. A typical young seedling consists of three main parts: the radicle (embryonic root), the hypocotyl (embryonic shoot), and the cotyledons (seed leaves).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seedling

If you'd like to see it happen yourself, there's a video.​

But there can be no argument that Luke's account is clearest, and soil #2 did believe, and did produce plants.

Luke 8:6: Some fell on rock, and when it (plants) came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture. NIV

Only in the idea of the NIV committee and other less literal people (like yourself) does the word "plant" appear. No other, more literal, translation uses the word plant for that reason. Which is why you had to post the NIV for the verse to have it in there. It ain't there, in the original. Which is why I prefer the more literal translations more than the NIV.

The fact of the matter is Luke, Matt and Mark didn't record the word for "plant" in the Greek text. They all said that Jesus said the seeds sprang up and withered. Quite literally he said the seed sprang up and withered. Which is what happens to seedlings that germinate on a rock. You can believe me or not, I don't care. But I'm right.

Go check it out, if you don't believe me. You might learn something.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/8.htm

Seeds don't wither. And seeds don't "come up". Plants come up from germinated seeds.

seedlings do wither and have roots (embryonic roots).

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes I have. It's called a seedling. And they have embryotic roots.

You think Jesus was speaking of "embryonic" roots? Let's look at at Matt and Mark's account of soil #2:

Matt 13:5 - “Others (seed) fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. NASB

Are you going to argue that seeds "sprang up"? What springs up are plants, not seeds.

Then, v.6 is clear: “But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

We know that there WAS soil, from the phrase "they did not have much soil". The soil was present, but shallow. As a result, the germinated seed produced a plant that sprang up quickly.

Seeds don't spring up. Plants do spring up from germinated seeds.

This is from Luke 8:5 - “Other seed fell on rocky soil, and as soon as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. NASB

The phrase "it grew up" obviously refers to plants, as seeds don't "grow up". Seeds germinate and plants grow up or spring up from the seed.

And seeds don't "wither away". That's only for plants with no root system.

Seedling development starts with germination of the seed. A typical young seedling consists of three main parts: the radicle (embryonic root), the hypocotyl (embryonic shoot), and the cotyledons (seed leaves).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seedling

If you'd like to see it happen yourself, there's a video.

Thanks, but I don't need a video. Matt, Mark and Luke were all clear enough.​

Only in the idea of the NIV committee and other less literal people (like yourself) does the word "plant" appear. No other, more literal, translation uses the word plant for that reason.

I've shown from the NASB, which used formal equivalence (literal) that only plants are being described.

Which is why you had to post the NIV for the verse to have it in there. It ain't there, in the original. Which is why I prefer the more literal translations more than the NIV.

See above. I quoted the NASB.

The fact of the matter is Luke, Matt and Mark didn't record the word for "plant" in the Greek text. They all said that Jesus said the seeds sprang up and withered.

But we all know that seeds don't "spring up" or "wither". That's what plants do.

Quite literally he said the seed sprang up and withered.

This is impossible. Seeds just lie there in the soil, or on the soil. What does spring up from a seed is a plant. However stunted it may be, due to soil conditions, such as shallow or thorny.

Which is what happens to seedlings that germinate on a rock. You can believe me or not, I don't care. But I'm right.

You are correct about a seed germinating. This proves life from the seed, the very thing that God's gospel brings; life to those who believe. Which has been my point.

The FACT that the seeds in the shallow and thorny soils germinated proves life.

seedlings do wither and have roots (embryonic roots).

You speaking of microscopically? No one in the first century would have been aware of that. Again, seeds don't "spring up". That's what plants do. And plants wither. Seeds don't wither.

This is what Wikipedia says about "seedling"": A seedling is a young plant sporophyte developing out of a plant embryo from a seed. Seedling development starts with germination of the seed.

Did you notice the words "young PLANT"?? Which proves my point. A seedling isn't a seed anymore than a zygote is just a female egg. A zygote is a fertilized egg, on the way to be a human being.

The images I found when I googled "seedling" were ALL of plants. Plants that came from seeds.

Your admission of seedlings sinks your boat. Seedlings are young plants. Not seeds.

I rest my case. Plants were produced from soils 2-4.

 

[chessman]

Matt 13:5 - “Others (seed) fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. NASB

Are you going to argue that seeds "sprang up"?

Again, yes. Why? Because that is what this text says. And furthermore, that is what happens in nature.

"They sprang up..." They = "others" = seeds. That IS my point.

You even say "Others (seed)" fell... That is correct, "others" is Jesus' reference to other seeds falling on rocky places, referring back to "seeds". Moving along in the text:

where they did not have much soil​

Again, "they" is a reference to seeds. Moving along more in the text:

and immediately they sprang up,​

Again, "they" is a reference to seeds.

because they had no depth of soil​

Again, "they" is a reference to seeds.

Seeds don't spring up.

Yes they do. See Matt 13:5 or Luke 8:5 or watch a seed germinate.

This is from Luke 8:5 - “Other seed fell on rocky soil, and as soon as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. NASB

The phrase "it grew up" obviously refers to plants, as seeds don't "grow up".

No, it refers to seeds. Obviously.

I've shown from the NASB, which used formal equivalence (literal) that only plants are being described.

No, you've shown something about how you have reinterpreted what Jesus actually said. But you've not shown seeds don't "spring up". That's for sure.

But we all know that seeds don't "spring up" or "wither". That's what plants do.

I know seeds "spring up" and seedlings "wither" if they don't get proper moisture. So when you say "we all know", exclude me from your "all".

I rest my case. Plants were produced from soils 2-4.

Your 'case' rests on your ideas of what the texts meant to say but don't actually say. Again, the word "plant" doesn't even appear within any of Matt, Mark or Luke's record of Jesus' parable. But seed does numerous times. And the pronouns to go with them.

 

[FreeGrace]

Again, yes. Why? Because that is what this text says. And furthermore, that is what happens in nature.

You already refuted yourself by your admission that they were seedlings. It is a seedling that springs up. Or, iow, a young plant. You acknowledged that yourself.

"They sprang up..." They = "others" = seeds. That IS my point.

Again, a plant springs up from a seed. When it is said that "they sprang up", it obviously refers to what comes up and out of seed, which is a seedling, or young plant.

Google "seedling" and see what kind of images you get. It's not gonna be any seeds.

You even say "Others (seed)" fell... That is correct, "others" is Jesus' reference to other seeds falling on rocky places, referring back to "seeds". Moving along in the text:

where they did not have much soil​

Again, "they" is a reference to seeds. Moving along more in the text:

and immediately they sprang up,​

Again, "they" is a reference to seeds.

Nope. Seedlings, or that which springs up from the seed; a seedling, or young plant.

No, you've shown something about how you have reinterpreted what Jesus actually said. But you've not shown seeds don't "spring up". That's for sure.

And you've not shown that seeds can spring up. In fact, your last post identified what does spring up: seedlings, which are young plants.

I know seeds "spring up" and seedlings "wither" if they don't get proper moisture. So when you say "we all know", exclude me from your "all".

You are excluded. And it is the seedling (young plant) that springs up from a seed. You continue to be mistaken.

Your 'case' rests on your ideas of what the texts meant to say but don't actually say. Again, the word "plant" doesn't even appear within any of Matt, Mark or Luke's record of Jesus' parable. But seed does numerous times. And the pronouns to go with them.

It was your own post and definition that refutes your position. Seeds sprout, and when they do, you have a seedling, or a young plant.

Seeds that don't sprout don't produce seedlings, or plants. All the texts indicate that plants came up from soils 2-4.

Seeds don't "come up". They stay in the ground. What "comes up" is the plant, from the seed.
I can't believe I'm having this argument.

Please go back and read your previous post (#323), where you mention "seedling". Then google "seedling".

 

[chessman]

I can't believe I'm having this argument.

You could put this plant vs seed vs root argument to bed if you'd simply address my original point (the root of the issue :
I started with this point and you've not addressed it:

A plant, in order to be called a plant, must contain a root system (moisture/nutrition),

And backed it up with the very words of Jesus. Speaking about soil (people) #2:

Matthew 13:20-21 And what was sown on the rocky ground—this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. But he does not have a root in himself...

How can a soil (a person) be classified as saved person without The Root in himself is the 'root' of our minor disagreement?

What you said about this main point was merely:

The root system wasn't ENOUGH, which is why the plant withered.

Which misses the original point that I posted (not to mention assumes a plant has developed from a seed germinated on a rock with a little dust on it). Your quote was from the parable itself, is the problem. When Jesus gave the interpretation (clarification) that I posted, He didn't say the seed didn't have ENOUGH root, He said the person "does not have a root in himself". Frankly, it's a little hard to believe a plant develops from a seed that does not have roots. But my point was/is/remains that Jesus doesn't come right out and say this soil didn't have Jesus within him, but it's not a far stretch seeing how He said they didn't have a root (The Root).

Address that please.

Also (not that it matters about what Jesus said about soil #2) you said:

Please go back and read your previous post (#323), where you mention "seedling". Then google "seedling".

I did. What I found was that the person that described a Seedling said the same thing that I did, that seedling development starts with embryonic roots. Furthermore, root development (embryonic roots) happens even while the seed is still contained within it's hull (prior to springing open). Which contradicts your statement that seeds don't have roots.

Notice that the radicle (which is an embryonic root) is even inside the "seed" much less still there once the hull springs open, as I said in my first post.

Yes I have. It's called a seedling. And they have embryotic roots.

Seedling development starts with germination of the seed. A typical young seedling consists of three main parts: the radicle (embryonic root),

You can say seeds don't have roots, seeds don't have roots, ... 1000 times over. That doesn't mean it's true. The fact is, seeds do have roots.

 

[FreeGrace]

You could put this plant vs seed vs root argument to bed if you'd simply address my original point (the root of the issue :
I started with this point and you've not addressed it: "A plant, in order to be called a plant, must contain a root system (moisture/nutrition),"

And backed it up with the very words of Jesus. Speaking about soil (people) #2:

How can a soil (a person) be classified as saved person without The Root in himself is the 'root' of our minor disagreement?

The point is that a plant withered in soil 2. Not a seed, as you suppose.

What you said about this main point was merely:
Which misses the original point that I posted (not to mention assumes a plant has developed from a seed germinated on a rock with a little dust on it). Your quote was from the parable itself, is the problem. When Jesus gave the interpretation (clarification) that I posted, He didn't say the seed didn't have ENOUGH root, He said the person "does not have a root in himself". Frankly, it's a little hard to believe a plant develops from a seed that does not have roots.

I think it is much harder to believe that a seed withers. Or that a seed "springs up". Both are terms applied to plants.

But my point was/is/remains that Jesus doesn't come right out and say this soil didn't have Jesus within him, but it's not a far stretch seeing how He said they didn't have a root (The Root).

Actually, all this talk about seeds vs plants misses the real point: Jesus said plainly that they believed. That settles all issues of whether or not soil #2 was saved. Since we know from Luke 8:12 and many other verses, belief results in salvation, there is no question that soil #2 was saved. Because Jesus said they believed.

Just to head this off at the pass, there are no verses that speak to duration of belief regarding salvation. Actually, just the opposite; Jesus noted that believers HAVE eternal life WHEN they believe, per Jn 5:24.

Also (not that it matters about what Jesus said about soil #2) you said: "Please go back and read your previous post (#323), where you mention "seedling". Then google "seedling"."

I did. What I found was that the person that described a Seedling said the same thing that I did, that seedling development starts with embryonic roots. Furthermore, root development (embryonic roots) happens even while the seed is still contained within it's hull (prior to springing open). Which contradicts your statement that seeds don't have roots.

Notice that the radicle (which is an embryonic root) is even inside the "seed" much less still there once the hull springs open, as I said in my first post. You can say seeds don't have roots, seeds don't have roots, ... 1000 times over. That doesn't mean it's true. The fact is, seeds do have roots.

Did you notice the images of "seedling" when you googled it? They were all of plants, young plants.

Regardless of your radical (sp) seeds, , Jesus said that soil #2 believed. That seals it for me. They were saved, though they only believed for a while and in time of testing, they fell away.[/QUOTE]

 

[WIP]

We seem to be drifting quite a ways off the topic and this back-and-forth argument is not likely to change anyone's mind. Let's get back to the topic of the thread, please.

 

[chessman]

Jesus said plainly that they believed.

Actually Luke's account is the only one of the three that says they believed. Evidently Matthew and Mark didn't think their believing was central to Jesus' interpretation of their soil type (rocky).

But the question we both don't have the answer to is; Believed what?

God's word (the seed) seems obvious enough. But God's Word contains both salvific power and condemnation of sin. And as I pointed out, what we do know is they received God's Word with "immediate joy". I don't think they received the condemnation part and skipped right past it and repentance to the joy part. Rock hard heads, so to speak.

 

[chessman]

We seem to be drifting quite a ways off the topic and this back-and-forth argument is not likely to change anyone's mind. Let's get back to the topic of the thread, please.

I posted prior to seeing this. Sorry. Delete it if you think it best. I was through, anyway.

 

[chessman]

In eternal salvation, the action of believing in Christ is tantamount to calling (yelling) for help.

Yah. What he said^

I don't think they received the condemnation part and skipped right past it and repentance to the joy part. Rock hard heads, so to speak.

 

[FreeGrace]

Actually Luke's account is the only one of the three that says they believed.

I don't think that has any relevance to the topic. Luke, known for his detailed explanations as a man of science (medical doctor), quoted Jesus. Because the 2 other accounts didn't mention the word "believe" doesn't negate that he did mention it. Also, the other 2 accounts all noted that the 2nd soil received the word with joy. And fell away.

Evidently Matthew and Mark didn't think their believing was central to Jesus' interpretation of their soil type (rocky).

I wouldn't make that assumption at all.

But the question we both don't have the answer to is; Believed what?

I think the context is clear; believed for salvation. Recall the words of Jesus in 8:12 - "lest they believe and be saved". Then, in v.13 Jesus said the 2nd soil "believed for a while". I cannot assume that Jesus had some other kind of belief or object of belief between v.12 and 13.

God's word (the seed) seems obvious enough. But God's Word contains both salvific power and condemnation of sin. And as I pointed out, what we do know is they received God's Word with "immediate joy". I don't think they received the condemnation part and skipped right past it and repentance to the joy part. Rock hard heads, so to speak.

I'd say that's quite an assumption.

How do you explain the "falling away" part for the 2nd soil? What did they fall away from, specifically?

The only thing that makes sense from the text is their faith. iow, they quit believing due to a time of testing.

 

[chessman]

I don't think that has any relevance to the topic.

Hmm, you don't think the eyewitness parallel acounts have any relevance to the topic??? I do.

I think the context is clear; believed for salvation. Recall the words of Jesus in 8:12 - "lest they believe and be saved". Then, in v.13 Jesus said the 2nd soil "believed for a while". I cannot assume that Jesus had some other kind of belief or object of belief between v.12 and 13.

You do realize that v12 is a different soil than v13, right? The rocky soil's immediate joy is in context too. I think the context is clearer; soil #2 believed for joy. Quite obviously the point of the four soil types is to distinguish four different kinds of beliefs. Me thinks you're stretching here by accusing me of recognizing a different belief between soils 1 and 2.
But so I know how you've come to your conclusion, how about soil type #1; did they have a different kind of belief when the word was sown in them?

Have you thought your response; "I cannot assume that Jesus had some other kind of belief or object of belief between v.12 (soil 1)and 13 (soil 2)" through completely? That's your final answer, all things considered?

How do you explain the "falling away" part for the 2nd soil? What did they fall away from, specifically?

Umm, their joy!

The only thing that makes sense from the text is their faith. iow, they quit believing due to a time of testing.

Both Matthew and Mark record precisely, word for word their "testing" was in fact "affliction" and "persecution". I think their joy fell away during a time of affliction and persecution. Their belief didn't test true for it had no external Root, merely their personal root of joy. Sounds pretty contextual to me.

Plus, Where do you find their "faith" in the text?

Luke says they believe (πιστεύω).
Faith is a differet word (πίστις).
Here are a couple of uses:

Luke 8:25 And he said to them, “Where is your faith?” But they were afraid and were astonished

Mark 2:5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven.”

 

[FreeGrace]

Hmm, you don't think the eyewitness parallel acounts have any relevance to the topic??? I do.

This is what I referenced about having no relevance: "Actually Luke's account is the only one of the three that says they believed."

Such a statement essentially says that because Luke is the only writer who used the word "believe", that we should discount that word. Why do you insinuate that Luke wasn't an eyewitness?

You do realize that v12 is a different soil than v13, right?

All four soils are different, of course.

The rocky soil's immediate joy is in context too. I think the context is clearer; soil #2 believed for joy. Quite obviously the point of the four soil types is to distinguish four different kinds of beliefs.

The Bible never distinguishes "kinds of belief". Ever. But your opinion here is noted. While Luke didn't mention 'belief' regarding the 3rd soil, it is real clear that the plant that sprang up was choked out by weeds. Something that could never happen to a mere seed.

Me thinks you're stretching here by accusing me of recognizing a different belief between soils 1 and 2.

Kinda an odd statement, given what you just said about "four different kinds of beliefs".

But so I know how you've come to your conclusion, how about soil type #1; did they have a different kind of belief when the word was sown in them?

Soil #1 had no belief, which I believe is quite clear from Luke 8:12. "lest they believe and be saved". iow, the devil stole the gospel from soil #1 "so that they wouldn't believe and thereby be saved".

Have you thought your response; "I cannot assume that Jesus had some other kind of belief or object of belief between v.12 (soil 1)and 13 (soil 2)" through completely? That's your final answer, all things considered?

Yes. Soil #1 did not believe, supported by Luke 8:12. Soil #2 believed because Jesus said so, supported by Luke 8:13. Soil #3 believed because the plant that sprouted from the seed was choked out by weeds.

Umm, their joy!

My view is that the phrase "fell away" refers back to "believe for a while". iow, when testing came, they quit believing.

Both Matthew and Mark record precisely, word for word their "testing" was in fact "affliction" and "persecution". I think their joy fell away during a time of affliction and persecution.

Since Jesus was clear about their belief for "for a while", it makes much more sense to me that Jesus was referring to their short lived faith, which fell away in time of testing. In fact, there are many cases where Christians have fallen away from their faith (quit believing) because of trials, testing, etc.

Their belief didn't test true for it had no external Root, merely their personal root of joy. Sounds pretty contextual to me.

Sounds pretty opinionated to me. I have found no verses that support the idea of "true belief". People either believe or not.

Plus, Where do you find their "faith" in the text?

By the fact that Jesus said they believed. If they believed, they had faith. No one can believe yet not have faith.

Luke says they believe (πιστεύω).
Faith is a differet word (πίστις).

The word 'believe' is a verb. The word 'faith' is a noun. The noun (faith) is the substance of what is believed.

 

[chessman]

Why do you insinuate that Luke wasn't an eyewitness?

Because he wasn't:

Luke 1:1-2 (LEB) Since many have attempted to compile an account concerning the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning passed on to us,​

Luke got his info passed on to him from Peter and other eyewitness disciples like Matthew and Mark who were there when Jesus told the parable.


Chessman said: "Actually Luke's account is the only one of the three that says they believed."

Such a statement essentially says that because Luke is the only writer who used the word "believe", that we should discount that word.

Really? I essentially said that we should discount Luke's word??? That's funny in an ironic way. I'm here to correct you. I never said what you accused me of. Just as Luke never said plants sprang up.

The Bible never distinguishes "kinds of belief". Ever. ... No one can believe yet not have faith.

who's Bible? Mine does.

James 2:19 (LEB) You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe, and shudder! ​

The word 'believe' is a verb. The word 'faith' is a noun. The noun (faith) is the substance of what is believed.

Excellent. Soil 2's substance was lacking any Root. That's my point.

 

[FreeGrace]

Because he wasn't:

Luke 1:1-2 (LEB) Since many have attempted to compile an account concerning the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning passed on to us,​

Luke got his info passed on to him from Peter and other eyewitness disciples like Matthew and Mark who were there when Jesus told the parable.

Excuse me, but Mark is actually John Mark, who was a later convert, and who deserted Paul during one of his journeys. He wasn't an eyewitness. And my study Bible notes that the preaching of Peter is the source of most of Mark's writings. So it appears that only Matthew was present when Jesus taught the parables. But if you consider Luke's account as Holy Spirit inspired, then his account does not differ from Matthew's. Only that Luke spoke about belief, while neither Matt nor Mark did.

I said this:
"The Bible never distinguishes "kinds of belief". Ever. ... No one can believe yet not have faith."

who's Bible? Mine does.

James 2:19 (LEB) You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe, and shudder! ​

OK. This verse is specific about monotheism. Not saving faith. How about the verses were we find "believe" but no object is mentioned? What do you do with all those?

btw, James 2:19 is not a different kind of belief. All belief is trusting. 2:19 is believing that God is One, or belief in monotheism, as opposed to polytheism, which was very common among Gentiles.

Excellent. Soil 2's substance was lacking any Root. That's my point.

"Substance"? What do you mean by "substance"? The substance in soil is the soil. And a seed was planted in that soil. And it sprang up. Seeds don't spring up. Plants spring up from seeds.

And your own research noted that what you are describing is a seedling, which is a young plant. It is what a seed becomes.

btw, believers who don't have any root refer to believers who haven't grown spiritually. They are still saved, but without any growth. Just like your seedling. Paul spoke directly about such believers in 1 Cor 1 and 3. In fact, most of 1 Corinthians is about the problems manifesting from immature believers who weren't producing fruit, but committing sins.

 

[WIP]

Excuse me, but Mark is actually John Mark, who was a later convert, and who deserted Paul during one of his journeys. He wasn't an eyewitness. And my study Bible notes that the preaching of Peter is the source of most of Mark's writings. So it appears that only Matthew was present when Jesus taught the parables. But if you consider Luke's account as Holy Spirit inspired, then his account does not differ from Matthew's. Only that Luke spoke about belief, while neither Matt nor Mark did.

I would like sources for this information. Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace]

I would like sources for this information. Thanks.

This is what I posted:
"Excuse me, but Mark is actually John Mark, who was a later convert, and who deserted Paul during one of his journeys. He wasn't an eyewitness. And my study Bible notes that the preaching of Peter is the source of most of Mark's writings. So it appears that only Matthew was present when Jesus taught the parables. But if you consider Luke's account as Holy Spirit inspired, then his account does not differ from Matthew's. Only that Luke spoke about belief, while neither Matt nor Mark did."

My study Bible, the NIV Rainbow Study Bible. I'm unaware of any reference to John Mark during the life of Jesus on earth. If there is, I stand corrected.

 

[chessman]

How about the verses were we find "believe" but no object is mentioned? What do you do with all those?

Hopefully the same thing you do. That is to determine from the context what the object of their belief is.

I've never accused your take on soil #2 as being outlandish. I see your point in that for soil #1 Luke ties their "belief" to potential salvific belief. Normally, given any other section of Scripture, you'd have convinced me a long time ago. Most texts wouldn't be changing gears so quickly. But this parable does.

My objection to your idea that soil 2 was saved is that this particular parable is clearly making a prfound distinction (a transition so to speak) from verse 12 to verse 13 as they are different soil types. Thus, a clearly different object of their belief. Plus, the text tells us the object of soil #2's belief. It's not monotheism, sure. Or a belief that Seattle would win the Superbowl.

To me, the object of soil 2's belief was joy (good times). Thus they were surprised (scorched) by their affliction. But never saved.