2 Peter 3:9

[narnia4]

No need to apologize Phillip, I didn't mean to sound terse or overly sensitive. We all get passionate about these things.

[1over137]

I think Rick's "gonna need a BIGGER boat!"

Where's the brotherly love? Why all the hatin?

I love ya Rick. See the good heart in you.

[1over137]

You know why am I interested in this stuff? I wanna see if the Bible can be seen in a consistent way. Now, need to finish my sleep then go to work and only after that get back to you guys.

[1over137]

To drop the P would have God really saving some people just to let them go at some point in their lives, and that violates both the logic of Calvinism and Scripture itself.

Where does that violates Scripture?

God certainly opens our heart so that we can believe. But opening our heart so that we can believe is not the same as regenerating us.

Not the same? I have a further question: Does God opens everybody's heart? If yes, then what to do with verses talking about election?

[Jac3510]

Where does that violates Scripture?

Verses like
Matt 28:20 - Jesus is always with you . . . unless He decides to let you go, of course
Heb 13:5 - Jesus will never leave you . . . unless He decides to let you go, of course
John 10:28 - Jesus gives you eternal life and you will never perish . . . unless He decides to let you go, of course

I could literally list dozens of these. God does not forsake His children, and everyone who believes are His children (John 1:12). And, again, if you have believed, then you can KNOW that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13). If God may regenerate you only to let you die later on, then you can't really KNOW you have eternal life after all, can you?

Not the same?

No, they aren't. To be regenerated is to be born again (that's the word word really means). To have your heart opened so that you can understand . . . how would someone even make that equation? The only way I can think of would be presume Calvinism. I mean, if you ASSUME that people are incapable of faith, then you can see how opening the heart so that one might respond could be equivalent to regenerating a person. But there's that eisogesis again. The text doesn't say that, and if you don't assume Calvinism, you can't get that interpretation. I take it to mean just what it says. Here was a lost woman. She heard the Gospel. The Lord opened her heart so that she could respond. Then what did she do? She responded. You can't say based on that that everyone whose heart the Lord opens necessarily responds. It seems, rather, that people can harden their hearts against the Gospel. I already posted many verses that say as much.

But, again, I don't want my more basic point to get lost in all of that. The verse does not say that opening the heart is the same as regeneration. To say that it does say that is to go further than the text. You have to assume the very doctrine you are trying to prove in order to get it, and that's just bad interpretation.

I have a further question: Does God opens everybody's heart?

The Bible doesn't use the phrase anywhere else. Interestingly, the Bible talks about the heart being closed (actually, it talks about the heart growing cold, the ears dull, and the eyes closed) in Matt 13:15 and again in Acts 28:27, there referring to Israel's rejection of the Gospel. Did God not open their hearts? When you read the Gospels and when you read Acts, it doesn't sound at all like God is preventing them from believing. On the contrary, Paul says in Acts 13:44-48 says

• 44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy. They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him.
  
  46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us:
  
  “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
  that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
  
  48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

Note that Paul says the Jews considered themselves unworthy of eternal life, and their rejection was based on jealousy. Specifically, it was really a type of racism. They didn't want Gentiles being offered a place in the Kingdom! In other words, they hated God's message. Again, Calvinists can appeal to TD to explain this, but I just don't see that being the point of the text. The Gentiles were glad and as a result of that gladness believed. I don't think we need to invent theological contructs to explain what appears to be to be easy and clear biblical data. Some people rejoice in the Gospel. Some hate it. And their acceptance or rejection of it is usually directly related to our desire for self-justification or to see God do things our way. More, it's related to our appreciation of grace. Those who hate grace (unmerited favor--they want to earn salvation or they want others to earn it) hate the Gospel. Those who love grace love the Gospel. I've talked to professed Christians who get ANGRY at me when I tell them that if Hitler ever believed the Gospel, even as a child, then he is in heaven. It ANGERS them I tell you. Why? Because Hitler, of ALL people, deserves to rot forever. How can a man like THAT be in heaven? To which I reply, I'm not saying he IS. I'm saying that IF he believed, he is. And then I point out that certainly Hitler doesn't deserve heaven, but neither do they. They want God to judge him from a standpoint of justice, but they want Him to judge them from a standpoint of grace. So they hate grace when applied to others, which is exactly what the Jews did. And it caused them to reject the Gospel.

So did God not open their heart? I think He did. I can't say that for sure, but it sure sounds like He did. If they had no concept of grace--if they didn't realize that God was offering the Gentiles salvation freely, then they would not have been jealous. Instead, the people of Israel as a whole hardened their own hearts against the Gospel (just as the did in OT times).

If yes, then what to do with verses talking about election?

God elects those who believe. See Eph 1:4. He elects those in Christ. He does not elect people to be in Christ. That's yet ANOTHER example of Calvinistic eisogesis.

In fact, when you remember that Paul was a Jew, it makes good sense to think that Paul likely got his idea of election from the Old Testament, right? And who is elect in the OT? Israel. And why did God elect them? Not because of anything they did (so by grace), but because of what HE did. He created them out of nothing. He didn't look at all the nations of the world and pick one (Israel). Rather, He created a nation that did not exist and then elected His creation (read Deuteronomy--that's a major theme of the book). So God elects based on HIS work.

That's easy to see in the NT as well. God didn't look at lost people and pick this one and that one to be saved. Rather, He created a people--the Church--and elected His creation, the Church. That's why Peter says that we are an elect people. Calvinism just makes a standard Western error of thinking to individualistically. Yes, we are individually elected, but the Jewish mind was communal. We as individuals are elected by we are part of an elect people--the Church. And the Church is elect because its head (Christ) is elect, just as Israel was elect because her head (Abraham) was elect.

So election to me is simple. God elects all those in Christ. He does not elect people to be in Christ, just like He did not elect people to be in Israel. To argue for Calvinistic election is to argue that the NT is completely cut off from the OT on this issue, that the OT did not inform the NT's meaning. And that, to me, is just silly. It is, again, bad methodology. It is to invent a theology and impose it on the text rather than letting the text create our theology. What we ought to do is get from the OT our doctrine of election and then read Paul as applying that doctrine to the Church. That is the right method: we go to the text for our doctrine; we don't go to the text with our doctrine.

[1over137]

Jac, you said these things:

I know am I elect because I believe, and all believers are elect. Calvinists, however, believe (necessarily) in a doctrine called the final perseverance of the saints (that's the P in the TULIP), which says that all believers will persevere in faith and good works until the end of their lives. But the fact is that some people do not persevere in faith and good works until the end of their lives (Jesus said as much Himself in Luke 8:13).
---
To drop the P would have God really saving some people just to let them go at some point in their lives, and that violates both the logic of Calvinism and Scripture itself.
---
I could literally list dozens of these. God does not forsake His children, and everyone who believes are His children (John 1:12). And, again, if you have believed, then you can KNOW that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13). If God may regenerate you only to let you die later on, then you can't really KNOW you have eternal life after all, can you?

So, not all persevere in faith, but despite that they have eternal life. Hey, now if I somehow loose my faith, I am already saved? Interesting.

Now gonna read further the NT. Interested if all verses can be viewed in one consistent way. I see that you do.

[Jac3510]

So, not all persevere in faith, but despite that they have eternal life. Hey, now if I somehow loose my faith, I am already saved? Interesting.

Now gonna read further the NT. Interested if all verses can be viewed in one consistent way. I see that you do.

That's right, Hana. Whoever believes has eternal life. How long is eternal? If I lose that life, then that means my life wasn't so eternal, now was it?!? Again, those who say that you have to maintain your faith are adding to the Gospel. Jesus does not say that everyone who believe and maintains that faith will be saved. He said that if you believe, then you have everlasting life. To say anything less is to disagree with Jesus on the Gospel.

In fact, it is evident to me that the NT expressly teaches that those who lose their faith are still saved. Look again the parable in Luke 8 I've already pointed to:

• While a large crowd was gathering and people were coming to Jesus from town after town, he told this parable: 5 “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds ate it up. 6 Some fell on rocky ground, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up with it and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown.”
  
  When he said this, he called out, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”
  
  9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,
  
  “‘though seeing, they may not see;
  though hearing, they may not understand.’
  
  11 “This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. 14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. 15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop. (Luke 8:4-15, NIV

Look at the parts I underlined. Note that this is Jesus' own interpretation. Jesus says that the first group is unsaved because they did not believe. Here, Jesus AGAIN makes belief the only condition of salvation. Then look in verse 13. He says that some believed for a while but then fall away. Seems they are still saved . . . I mean, look at the third group. They never mature, which violates the final perseverance of the saints, and really the tone of Calvinism as a whole. For if the regenerate heart necessarily believes, and if God preserves our faith for us so that we always continue to believe, then how could we fail to mature? We couldn't! Which, by the way, is why Calvinists interpret this parable to teach that the first three all go to Hell and that only the fourth group is really saved. But Jesus says that only the first is unsaved.

[narnia4]

But Jesus says that only the first is unsaved.

That's not true. He doesn't say only the first is unsaved, he only says that the first group is unsaved. You can argue that the latter strongly implies the former, but that's not the same thing. Since the charge of eisogesis constantly comes up, that is what Calvinists accuse other parties of doing here. That would obviously be denied, rather other Scriptures inform their (non-Calvinists) interpretation of this Scripture. But that's the same thing Calvinists claim!

I do admit that Luke 8:13 is sometimes where "different types of faith" is preached by some Calvinists, and that's kind of problematic for me. But I'm not one to pretend I have everything figured out.

And this is why I shy away from debates like this. There's no such thing as a verse in a vacuum. The debate just becomes too big and involves too many verses and concepts. If I were going to argue with Jac here, I would probably have to go back to arguing a topic we just spent 10 pages or so on.... and to do that I would have to refer to a topic we spent 30 pages on a few months. And for me personally, debate actually leads to drawing a line in the sand and "digging in" on your side altogether instead of actually being open to change, the exact opposite of the intended effect.. That's one reason I've been considering giving up this forum altogether.

[Jac3510]

You are right, He does not use the words "only" the first is unsaved. But He does say that the first group doesn't believe and therefore is not saved, and the VERY NEXT GROUP He says believes for awhile.

And obviously this verse isn't to be interpreted in a vacuum. It's to be interpreted in its context. I have a general methodology problem with Calvinism's constant argument that we should take other parts of Scriptures and use them as a lens to interpret this particular part. That's using systematic theology to determine exegetical theology, which is backwards and is nothing but eisogesis. Each text should be interpreted on its own, in its own contexts, and then we take the results and place them side by side with other conclusions.

If I am wrong about Luke 8, you can show me where IN LUKE 8 I am wrong. But if Luke 8 says what I say it says--if I am correct in my understanding--then appealing to OTHER Scriptures doesn't prove your point. Because even if you have other Scriptures that contradict what I am saying in Luke 8, unless you show me where I am wrong IN LUKE 8, then you are just positing a contradiction in Scripture.

Now, we should let Luke be Luke, let Paul be Paul, let James be James, etc., and we should take it on faith that, in the end, they will not contradict each other. We should not start with our favorite doctrine that we got out of some book and use that as a lens by which we force everyone else to be interpreted. It is no surprise when there is no contradiction there. That takes no faith. That's just you FORCING the text to say something to line up with your preconceived notion. Let the texts speak for themselves. In Luke 8, Jesus ONLY says the first group is unsaved, and He ties that causally to their disbelief. He expressly says the second group believed for awhile and falls away. He says the third group never matures (which strongly implies that maintained their faith, but did not produce works as a result of that faith). Only the fourth group believes, maintains faith, and matures, and in doing so they produce good fruit. The point of the parable is to PRODUCE FRUIT. The warning implicit in the parable is that salvation doesn't guarantee fruit (contra Calvinism). It warns us to persevere so that we might bear fruit, not to persevere so that we might be saved. Again, only the first group is condemned.

So when someone says that the middle two groups are condemned, they go far beyond the text. When someone says that it is impossible to believe only for a little while, or that it is impossible to fall away once you believe, then they contradict the text. When someone says that the people in Luke 8:13 didn't REALLY believe, they contradict the text. All that is just eisogesis. Let the text be the text. Let Jesus be Jesus. Anything less and Jesus is not your authority; Scripture is not your authority; rather, your own theology is your own authority.

[Byblos]

So when someone says that the middle two groups are condemned, they go far beyond the text. When someone says that it is impossible to believe only for a little while, or that it is impossible to fall away once you believe, then they contradict the text. When someone says that the people in Luke 8:13 didn't REALLY believe, they contradict the text. All that is just eisogesis. Let the text be the text. Let Jesus be Jesus. Anything less and Jesus is not your authority; Scripture is not your authority; rather, your own theology is your own authority.

It cuts both ways Jac, by that logic you can't assume they are saved either. All one can do is look at the natural progression of the text and draw an inference based on that. To me the natural progression of the text strongly suggests that only the last group is saved. To state otherwise is to read too much into the text.

[narnia4]

Of course you let Paul be Paul and Luke by Luke. But they don't preach different Gospels. If I extract a general theological principle or "favorite doctrine" from Paul, what do I do if Luke or John appears to contradict that principle? Do I decide that Scripture is fallible, or perhaps that I am fallible? Maybe that my exegesis could be incorrect. Scripture leaves room for paradox and mystery, but not for contradiction.

There is a grave danger in sneaking your own presuppositions and theology into a text. A grave danger for everyone, not just Calvinists. The thing is that I deny doing eisogesis and say I do exegesis. I say that when you talk about implicit messages in the text, you are assuming theology that is derived from other texts and from your own theology. So where does that leave us? Like I said, it leaves you right back at the beginning.

Another thing with studying any text is that it isn't a mathematical formula that leaves no room for other possible interpretations. I would think that even you would admit that Scriptures can be read in different ways, but that some are less likely or appear to be more "forced" than other interpretations. If you claim to have never felt like there were on the face of it multiple possible interpretations and chose the interpretation that jives with other Scripture, well I'd just say you were wrong and must have done it subconsciously.

[narnia4]

So when someone says that the middle two groups are condemned, they go far beyond the text. When someone says that it is impossible to believe only for a little while, or that it is impossible to fall away once you believe, then they contradict the text. When someone says that the people in Luke 8:13 didn't REALLY believe, they contradict the text. All that is just eisogesis. Let the text be the text. Let Jesus be Jesus. Anything less and Jesus is not your authority; Scripture is not your authority; rather, your own theology is your own authority.

It cuts both ways Jac, by that logic you can't assume they are saved either. All one can do is look at the natural progression of the text and draw an inference based on that. To me the natural progression of the text strongly suggests that only the last group is saved. To state otherwise is to read too much into the text.

Let me go off what Byblos just said. From this text, do we get "eternal security"? Looks to me like you could argue that only the last group retains or holds to the word and is saved. I contend that both you and I do the exact same thing and interpret this text in light of other texts that indicate that we are eternally secure. If you don't do that, you can easily do your exegesis in an inconsistent way and come to wrong conclusions (including the possibility that Scripture is contradictory).

Also, "Scripture as authority" and "Jesus as authority" are not the same thing. The Gospel message is not accepting Scripture as inerrant. I do believe its inerrant and supplied by God, but I think this should be said.

[RickD]

So when someone says that the middle two groups are condemned, they go far beyond the text. When someone says that it is impossible to believe only for a little while, or that it is impossible to fall away once you believe, then they contradict the text. When someone says that the people in Luke 8:13 didn't REALLY believe, they contradict the text. All that is just eisogesis. Let the text be the text. Let Jesus be Jesus. Anything less and Jesus is not your authority; Scripture is not your authority; rather, your own theology is your own authority.

It cuts both ways Jac, by that logic you can't assume they are saved either. All one can do is look at the natural progression of the text and draw an inference based on that. To me the natural progression of the text strongly suggests that only the last group is saved. To state otherwise is to read too much into the text.

Let me go off what Byblos just said. From this text, do we get "eternal security"? Looks to me like you could argue that only the last group retains or holds to the word and is saved. I contend that both you and I do the exact same thing and interpret this text in light of other texts that indicate that we are eternally secure. If you don't do that, you can easily do your exegesis in an inconsistent way and come to wrong conclusions (including the possibility that Scripture is contradictory).

Narnia, I look at this parable in a similar way that you do. And I certainly see eternal security, with the last group.

As for the second group:6 Some fell on rocky ground, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture

Explained here:
13 Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

I understood that as since they had no root, they had no saving faith. Maybe just an understanding of the gospel, but didn't trust Christ for their salvation.

and the third group:14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.
Notice this group hears, but doesn't believe.

I understood the parable as fitting in with eternal security, and only the fourth group as being the true believers. AND, I didn't look at it that way through a Calvinism lens. That's just how I read it, and interpreted it.

[Jac3510]

It cuts both ways Jac, by that logic you can't assume they are saved either. All one can do is look at the natural progression of the text and draw an inference based on that. To me the natural progression of the text strongly suggests that only the last group is saved. To state otherwise is to read too much into the text.

Agreed. I think the inference that they are saved is more natural than the inference that they are unsaved, but in both cases, it is an inference. The actual point of the text--the doctrine being taught--is that we are to persevere so that we might bear fruit. This, of course, means that not all believers bear fruit! To be more sermonic about it: there are four points:

1. Some people hear the Gospel and don't believe it - they are not saved (don't be like them)
2. Some people hear the Gospel and believe it so long as it's easy (don't be like them)
3. Some people hear the Gospel and believe it but don't make it a priority and so they don't produce fruit (don't be like them)
4. Some people hear the Gospel and believe it and make it a priority and so they produce fruit (be like them)

Where this text directly contributes to the debate over eternal security relates to FPS. The text flatly denies the Calvinistic version in the second group. The only way to justify it on Calvinism is to say that they didn't have true faith, but that, I hope we can agree, is obviously eisogesis. Jesus says they can agree, and further, the homiletical point is lost if you argue that the middle two had a different kind of faith than the final group. For then, the homiletical point is not "persevere so that you might produce fruit," but rather it is, "have the right kind of faith so that you will persevere." On my view, this is a parable about four kinds of soil (four kinds of responses to the Gospel); on the Calvinist view, this is a parable about four kinds of seed (four kinds of faith: no faith; temporary faith; ineffective faith; saving faith). But it seems to me that the onus of the story is clearly on the hearer to imitate the behavior of the fourth group. It's not making--it seems to me--a philosophically theological point about the nature of faith.

Of course you let Paul be Paul and Luke by Luke. But they don't preach different Gospels. If I extract a general theological principle or "favorite doctrine" from Paul, what do I do if Luke or John appears to contradict that principle? Do I decide that Scripture is fallible, or perhaps that I am fallible? Maybe that my exegesis could be incorrect. Scripture leaves room for paradox and mystery, but not for contradiction.

You ask if they are really contradictory. A lot of times, they aren't. And if they truly are contradictory, you ask if you have made a mistake in interpretation. In either case, you don't use the one as a lens by which to read the other. That's eisogesis.

There is a grave danger in sneaking your own presuppositions and theology into a text. A grave danger for everyone, not just Calvinists. The thing is that I deny doing eisogesis and say I do exegesis. I say that when you talk about implicit messages in the text, you are assuming theology that is derived from other texts and from your own theology. So where does that leave us? Like I said, it leaves you right back at the beginning.

We all deny practicing eisogesis. The question is whether or not we do it. You don't discover the answer to that by comparing theologies. You answer that by comparing methodologies and looking at the exegetical theology that comes from the Scripture itself. Look at Byblos' comments to me above. That is a very good example of how it is done.

In short, it does not leave us right back at the beginning. It leaves us with a better understanding of how we reached the theological conclusions of any given text that we are examining.

Another thing with studying any text is that it isn't a mathematical formula that leaves no room for other possible interpretations. I would think that even you would admit that Scriptures can be read in different ways, but that some are less likely or appear to be more "forced" than other interpretations. If you claim to have never felt like there were on the face of it multiple possible interpretations and chose the interpretation that jives with other Scripture, well I'd just say you were wrong and must have done it subconsciously.

Good to know you are judging my subconscious motives!

But to answer the implied question here, you are making a basic exegetical mistake. All theology is not created equal. We must distinguish between the intended point--the meaning--of the passage, which is primary, and theological implications drawn from secondary details, which is secondary. The former cannot be legitimately read in different ways. People do get the intended meaning wrong, but that's because they are not careful exegetes. You can, however, have legitimately different readings of secondary matters. Luke at Luke 8. The point is clear, and I think it is what I said above to Byblos. It's relationship to eternal security, though, is a secondary matter. I draw an obvious inference from the fact that the first group is expressly said to be lost because of their disbelief and the next group is said to lose their faith, and yet no condemnation is issued on them. Byblos has a valid inference in seeing all of the first three groups as unsaved, because that is a SECONDARY POINT of the text. I think his inference is less likely than mine for some of the reasons I suggested above (and others as well). But it is legitimate. On the other hand, the Calvinist notion of FPS seems to me ILLEGITIMATE insofar as the secondary detail offered by Jesus regarding the temporary nature of the faith of the second group directly contradicts their doctrine. In order to remedy that, they must bring in a theological construct from outside the text and say that the second group had a different kind of faith than the fourth group. But that's not what Jesus said. That is an illegitimate reading of the text.

So again, in short form, we cannot claim that the main point of any given text can be legitimately read different ways, for doing so is to deny the nature and clarity of special revelation itself. We can, however, claim multiple legitimate theological inferences from secondary details found in the text, for that has to do with speculative philosophy, and that is why a good rule of thumb is never go beyond what the text actually says.

To the extent I or anyone else violates the above, we are wrong in our exegesis. To the extent I subconsciously adopt a view because it harmonizes with another text, I am practicing eisogesis and am wrong in doing so. In those cases, where I am mistaken, you can show me objectively.

Let me go off what Byblos just said. From this text, do we get "eternal security"? Looks to me like you could argue that only the last group retains or holds to the word and is saved. I contend that both you and I do the exact same thing and interpret this text in light of other texts that indicate that we are eternally secure. If you don't do that, you can easily do your exegesis in an inconsistent way and come to wrong conclusions (including the possibility that Scripture is contradictory).

My comments above should answer this. Note also the general context of my usage of Luke 8. I did not raise it to promote eternal security. I raised it to challenge the Final Perseverance of the Saints. That my view on this passage is consistent with eternal security is merely an interesting aside.

Narnia, I look at this parable in a similar way that you do. And I certainly see eternal security, with the third group.

As for the second group:14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.

Notice that the text says "for those who hear", not "for those who hear AND BELIEVE".

I understood the parable as fitting in with eternal security, and only the third group as being the true believers. AND, I didn't look at it that way through a Calvinism lens. That's just how I read it, and interpreted it.

Rick, the verse you referenced (14) IS the third group. I would also note that the word "believe" is not used with the fourth group, which all agrees are saved. Belief is implied in both the third and fourth groups since in the parable belief is parallel with germination. The first group never germinates since it is taken away. The next three all germinate (they all believe, which is why Jesus says that explicitly in the second group), but of the last three, the first two fail to produce fruit--which is the purpose of a crop. Jesus wants more than our initial faith. He wants us to persevere in that faith so that we do not fail to produce fruit.

[narnia4]

Rick- you interpreted it that way because you believe in eternal security already. How would you interpret it if you had never read any other chapter in the Bible before? I have no idea, that's why I think the sort of objective exegesis that gets every detail right in a neat, tidy way is a pipe dream.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this parable is in two other Gospels, and neither of those use the word "believe". Do I think that shows that the word believe doesn't belong there? Absolutely not! But in my opinion, if you pretend that other texts don't exist, you are less likely to come away with the true meaning of the text. Why? Because Scripture is inerrant, inspired, and coherent.