Monthly Archives: March 2013

The Parable of the Four Soils

Posted on by
2

Over at the reformationtheology.com site (where I am one of the writers) John Hendryx responds to a visitor regarding his understanding of Jesus’ parable of the four soils:

First the visitor writes:

The Scripture is excessively clear that apostasy from authentic salvation is real. The texts are far too many to express here. However, I will mention one that I wrote my masters thesis on (my masters degree is in New Testament with an emphasis in Greek – I went to both a reformed and baptist seminary). In the parable of the soils, he says satan comes to take the seed from the first heart SO THAT the person will not have faith (pistos) and be saved (sozo) – obviously faith would have resulted in salvation. The second soil, Jesus uses the exact words to describe a person who believed (pistos = which equals salvation) …who believed for a while, but the apostatizes (aphistemi). This is a person who was saved for a time, but CHOSE to apostatize when trials came. Similar language is used for the next soil. Only the fourth soil is indicative of someone who is saved, and the onus is clearly on the one being saved to persevere. Obviously, so much more could be said…but not now. Peace friends. Thanks.

John Hendryx’s Response:

First of all there is PLENTLY of spurious faith out there among so-called Christians. I have an essay here on the visible vs. invisible church which discusses this topic.

I wish to also say this with respect but the interpretation of the four soils offered above is appalling. What it appears you are in fact teaching is salvation by works. Some people just happened to be born good (or have made their own “soil” good) while others are not. Is this really what makes people to differ? Those with naturally good hearts (good soil) believe and are fruitful and persevere; those who are wicked are unfruitful and fall away. But who do you think makes the soil good to begin with? The farmer! He plows up the fallow ground that it would be good a receive the seed and be fruitful. Anyone from an agrarian society would have known this. The bad soil is the soil which the farmer left to ITSELF.

This parable is not about showing that some people have natively good soil, as you contend. Or that the soil somehow magically made itself “good”. No one has good “soil” apart from God granting it (John 6:65). Did someone simply will themselves to be “good soil” and so bore fruit? Such teaching is, in fact, rank heresy and honestly has no place in the Christian faith. Where is Christ in all this? The emphasis on the parable is not where you are placing it.

Next, if one can lose his salvation, as you contend, then you implicitly believe there are some of your sins for which Christ did not die. That your faithfulness somehow makes up for where Jesus’ work falls short. So do we maintain our own just standing before God then. Thank the Lord for Jesus who provides EVERYTHING we need for salvation including a new heart to believe (1 Pet 1:3) and persevere. Left to myself (even partly) I would fail to persevere. Thank the Lord that He preserves us as well, or we would have no hope to do so. Our right standing before God is based on HIS FAITHFULNESS, not ours.

“May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do it.” 1 Thess 5:23, 24

Should Christians support the Pope?

Posted on by
1

The folk at Apologia Radio write:

Recently, Luis Palau, and more. But, has Rome changed her position on the gospel? Has Rome lifted and repented of its condemnation of the gospel taught by Christians? Has Rome lifted the numerous anathemas it pronounced upon every Christian who believes in justification by faith alone in Christ alone? The answer is a resounding: No!

How should Christians relate to Rome? Should we kiss the ring and return to Papa? Should Christians abandon the Gospel clearly communicated in Scripture in the light of the new age of religious tolerance? Should we submit to the Pope in Rome considering that the communion has taught that their is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church and submission to the Pontiff?

Our position can be summarized by Dr. R.C. Sproul: “We must remember that it is not we who anathematized Rome, but Rome that anathematized the gospel and thereby anathematized itself. The issue is not even really the condemnation of Protestants (those wounds are easy to heal) but the anathema against the gospel. The evangelicals who remain authentic witnesses to the gospel of grace alone through faith alone, therefore, are carrying on the Catholic faith.”

Today’s radio program where I was interviewed on this theme is now posted here.

Luther and Preaching

Posted on by
Reply

Carl Trueman’s inaugural lecture as the Paul Woolley Chair of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary (March 20, a good grasp of the technical skills necessary: ability to handle the biblical text, to communicate well and to speak with conviction on things that count. But it also depends upon a second, equally important but often neglected point: the need to understand preaching as a theological act. Only when this is done, when the preacher accurately understands what he is doing will he really do so well and with the confidence necessary.

And what better way to reflect upon preaching in Protestant context than to spend a few moments thinking about how Luther, the founder of the Protestant preaching feast, understood preaching as a theological act?

Paul Woolley Chair of Church History from Westminster Theological Seminary on Vimeo.

HT: JT