"Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." (Luke 8: 11-15)
My opponent brought up this parable the second night of the debate while he was in the negative and made affirmative arguments about it which was contrary to the rules of debate. I had intended to bring it up while I was in the negative as a reason for believing that the cases of apostasy that he was expected to introduce were not good ground hearers, but rather shallow or thorny ground hearers. My opponent affirmed that the shallow and thorny ground hearers were truly saved Christians and that their apostasy brought about a loss of salvation.
My major argument to prove that only the good ground hearers were genuinely saved and converted was due to the fact that the ground was a symbol put for the heart and the shallow and thorny ground hearers did not have good hearts, and thus could not have been saved by hearing the word because one cannot be saved by hearing or believing the word without a good heart. This argument was never refuted by my opponent. He was forced to admit that people may be saved who receive the word without a "good and honest heart." Jesus said, in interpreting the parable:
"But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." (Luke 8: 15)
The word "but" denotes a contrast. The shallow and thorny ground hearers did not have a heart that was good and honest. If one affirms that these professing Christians were saved, then he must affirm that one can be saved without receiving the word with a good and honest heart, which is absurd.
My opponent, while ignoring this absurdity, nevertheless made arguments to prove that the shallow ground hearer was saved nonetheless. He argued that the shallow ground hearer had "received" the word. I argued, however, that this was no proof because the wayside hearer, who we both agreed was never saved, also is said to have received the word. "He that received the seed by the wayside." He then argued that the text says that the shallow ground hearer "believed." I responded by saying that this would prove salvation before beging baptized in water for men believe before baptism. My opponent believes that one is not saved until he is baptized in water. I also responded by saying that simple believing is no proof of genuine conversion or having been born of God. Believing without an honest heart does not produce real conversion. "The simple believe every word." (Prov. 14: 15) Insincere faith does not produce a genuine new birth.
My opponent argued that the shallow ground hearer "received the word with joy" and that this was proof that he was saved. I responded to this by saying that this also, if true, would prove that one is saved before being baptized. When did my opponent receive the word with joy? Was it before or after being baptized? I also said that this would prove that I was saved because I have received the word with joy. But, my opponent does not believe that I am saved. I gave examples where people who were not saved had nevertheless received the word with joy.
"He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light." (John 5: 35)
"For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly." (Mark 6: 20)
Neither Herod nor the unbelieving Jews were saved and yet they rejoiced in the preaching of the Baptist. Thus, my opponent's argument was disproven.
I also argued that the shallow and thorny ground hearers were plants that had no fruit which proves that they had not been genuinely born again. Faith is a "fruit" of the Spirit. (Gal. 5: 22,23) Therefore, not having any fruit, they did not have saving faith. The shallow and thorny ground hearers were what the old writers called "leaveless Christians." I referred to Jude 1: 12 where the same apostates referred to in II Peter chapter two are described as being "without fruit," or as Berry translates as "auntumnal." They were leaves only professors. Their being "twice dead" denoted the fact that they were dead in both root and branch (fruit).
The shallow ground hearer "had no root" in himself or in his believing and so was not a genuine convert.
All of the examples of apostates brought up by my opponent to prove that genuinely saved individuals lost salvation were not examples of good ground hearers but of shallow and thorny ground hearers. I asked my opponent these questions.
1) How many of the shallow and thorny ground hearers persevered?
2) How many of the good ground hearers apostasized?
My opponent evaded these questions but basically argued that some of the good ground hearers fell away and that some of the shallow and thorny ground hearers persevered. Yet, the text is clear that all of the good ground hearers persevered and none of the shallow and thorny ground hearers persevered.
Those apostates in II Peter chapter two who were compared to dogs and hogs were examples of shallow and thorny ground hearers only.
No comments:
Post a Comment