But more serious replies . . .
narnia4 wrote: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.
Doesn't the line between what is clear and "the main point" and what is just your inference blur? You already said that Byblos made a legitimate inference. So a Calvinist cannot make legitimate inferences on secondary matters as well?
No, it doesn't. The main point is what Jesus intended to teach with the parable. Theological inferences are extrapolations we can make based on some of the details of the passage that are
not the main point. For example, consider the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The
point of that parable is that Pharisees in rejecting Moses will reject Christ. So the intended theological principle is that extra revelation won't convince us if we reject what we already have.
Now, Jesus gives us some details to make that point. He talks about Lazarus being in heaven and the rich man being in Hell. So we can
infer from that passage that Hell is a place of conscious torment, since it is unlikely that Jesus would have accommodated bad theology to make his point. We could also
infer that rich people go to Hell for being cruel to the poor. One of those two inferences is more likely than the other of being true! So one is
more valid than the other, and you could probably argue that the second isn't valid at all.
So back to our parable, Calvinists certainly can make legitimate inferences, but inferences ought to be backed by explicit doctrine elsewhere. Most of Calvinism's major tenants are NOT explicitly stated. Moreover, their inferences are often WRONG and illegitimate precisely because their basic theology is wrong. In Luke 8, they infer that the first three are unsaved and only the last group is saved. That's legitimate. I think it is incorrect, but it is legitimate. Unfortunately, they confuse that, often, with the POINT of the story. My point in raising it in the first place, however, is that the second group negates a major part of Calvinistic theology (that believers can never lose their faith). Jesus expressly says they can. Therefore, they have to make a very unwarranted assumption (not just an inference)--namely, that there are different kinds of faith under discussion. So THAT is where they fail in their interpretation of this passage. They don't so much make an unwarranted inference as they do an unwarranted assumption, for the supposed warrant for their assumption is their own theology. And all that is a long way of saying -- eisogesis.
Let me put it yet another way. You seem to accept that Byblos is doing valid exegesis, even if he's wrong. Why can't a Calvinist do the exact same thing? If he is doing valid exegesis, then there's no reason why a Calvinist couldn't. It looks to me like you're assuming the Calvinist is doing eisogesis before he even gets a chance to approach the text!
And who exactly inferred that the point is to warn us to persevere so that we might be saved? I didn't. I don't know of Calvinists who do. And I actually don't know that I deny that you can be saved without producing fruit.
Then maybe you aren't a typical Calvinist. A basic part of Calvinist theology is that only those who persevere in faith and good works are saved.
Off to dinner. Will post more later.
