2 Peter 3:9

[Jac3510]

Something else- couldn't these verses be taken as evidence for determinism? Seeds don't control where they are thrown, after all.

I don't take it that way, but couldn't it be taken that way?

I don't think so, at least, not based on my understanding of determinism. The Gospel doesn't control where it is thrown, either. The point is how people respond. In all four cases, the seed is the same. What is different is the type of soil is is thrown into, so the power to respond is in the soil, not the seed itself. But here I think we've already gone too far. Non-Calvinists might want to take that last sentence and infer that the power to respond is therefore in people and therefore people can respond to the Gospel if they so choose, which violates Calvinist theology. And while I think that is TRUE, I don't think you can get that from this passage, because I think you'd be pressing the details of the parable too far. So here, we'd have an inference I think is true insofar as it is a correct proposition, but it would be an unwarranted inference. Now if we can't say that about free will, then how much less can we say that about a lack of free will? And since determinism necessarily means there is no such thing as free will, then I don't see how one can infer it one way or the other from this passage.

[narnia4]

But more serious replies . . .

Well this depends what you mean by "full meaning". It has "a" meaning and that meaning is not incomplete, but you can't extrapolate the Gospel from one Scripture. One Scripture does not fully express everything that God has to say. Heck, that's how cults start. They name themselves after one verse and run with it. What I'm trying to say is that there is a danger of what was described in <a target="_blank" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="1 Corinthians 1.12" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/1%20Cori ... %201.12">1 Corinthians 1:12</a> happening.

What do you mean by "you can't extrapolate the Gospel from one Scripture"? This reminds me of something someone said to me years ago. They asked me, "How many verses do you need to get the Gospel?" My reply was, "Uhm, none." If you understand the words of John 3:16, for instance, that's all you need. One verse. If you need other verses to understand the meaning of the terms "Son," "world," "eternal life," etc., then fine. But that's what the whole book of John is about.

In any case, the parable in Luke 8 doesn't contain the Gospel (although it certainly presumes it). Beyond that, you really didn't address much of my point here. Luke 8's version of the parable stands as it is. Matthew 13's does, too. They contain different elements. It is bad procedure to take the elements "missing" from Luke's account (or Matthew's!) and fill them in with the other, because that presumes that something is missing. But nothing is missing. Everything the author needed to make his point is there, and his point is the point we ought to be after. Any point you come up with by "filling in" with other details runs the risk of being YOUR point, and not the biblical point, which means it is not inspired.

I basically mean that yes, even John 3:16 needs other verses to understand "Son", "world", and so on.

I'll use the example of the crucifixion. One account has Christ saying one thing. Another has him saying another. What if a historian wants to give an account of everything that Christ said (that we know of). He can't get "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?" from Luke. That doesn't mean that Luke is incomplete, it means that Luke accomplishes what the Holy Spirit led him to accomplish.

Should add a disclaimer for everyone- I'm not saying that anyone thinks this, but please don't assume that when I post I'm picking a fight or arguing with you. I probably have a frustrating posting style, I post meandering, speculative posts that don't necessarily represent what I believe or that I think you are wrong or whatever. Just because I have a roundabout posting style (and perhaps don't use the proper words all the time), it doesn't necessarily mean I am disagreeing with you.

Now as far as determinism (just determinism, I'm leaving Calvinism alone) in this passage- Made a silly mistake, the word is sewn, not the people.