Just some food for thought here...

The Word of God in toto, and the life as the same, okay, I agree with your point. We either receive it or we don't, we are either good soil or bad.

However, have you considered that during this life, we receive parts of the Word of God, and parts of it we don't as yet understand or they are unfrutiful in our lives? Liken this to 2 Peter 1, where the Apostle tells his hearers to add things to their lives so that they might not become unfruitful in their knowledge of God.

In a garden or farm, you have different crops, different seeds, and yes, different soils.

In some areas we are abiding and God is producing much fruit, some less, and in some areas we haven't yet produced.

Yes, eventually any seed in good soil will sprout, but to what degree?

Perhaps my carrots are doing fine, and my peas are coming up nicely, but my potato patch just isn't what it should be. I need to till the soil, or perhaps God will never allow the crop to come. Or maybe I need to shift the patch to another site (possibly another church?).

I realize the passage seems to point to an overall sort of thing, but consider the trees parable as well. By their fruits ye shall know them...a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and vice versa...

Well, you can say all you want about pressing experience into scripture, but there has never been a human, save the One, that hasn't produced any bad fruit. Are we to conclude that all are bad trees? Or are these scriptures perhaps pointing to a more full understanding?

To wit, many trees...if two people are placed in the same situation (soil), whichever one does the righteous thing, they have the good tree. But when one is placed in a good situation for growth, and the other is not, you may be looking at apples and oranges. Not so as to compare with others, but to understand that different climates produce different degrees of fruitfulness. This is perhaps why so many see the soils as individual parts of life. Although I grant you the passage doesn't seem to be adressing that primarily, the application may indeed fit.

By their fruits ye shall know them, when they are planted in the same circumstance.

This would also point out how God tests us, so that we may see for ourselves what kind of teas we are when placed in the boiling water.

Not trying to justify a position, but to articulate what some may be believing.

 

Daniel, could you perhaps define the following terms:

seed

sprang up

fruit

God bless,
Jim

 

Jim - Congrats!

Perhaps, before we get into that, you could read the exegesis portion of the following article by James White.

I trust that you are not asking me to define these words because you don't understand them yourself, but because you imagine that my understanding of them is lacking, or perhaps that in defining these terms I will inadvertantly bolster a point you wish to make.

I don't mind giving these words my scrutiny, but I prefer to do so in the context of the new testament - so I provide the link so that you will have an idea where I will be going with it.

 

Daniel, thanks...we had a blessed time with the birth, and mom and baby are doing great.

Believe it or not I actually read quite a bit of that post today. It seems to me that there are some fundamental differences in interpretation among a fair number of passages.

Praise God we are in agreement on the basic means of salvation.

When I think of fruit, I think of the product of the plant or tree. In this case fruit would be the reproduction of its kind, IOW, more believers. As a heathy christian will beget more healthy christians, not in the physical sense but as the byproduct of a godly and anointed life.

If we make the fruit something that is rather intangible and nebulous, does this not lead to introspection and second guessing as to the validity of the soil (person) and the genuineness of their salvation?

I have heard it said that the fruit would be the fruits mentioned in Gal. 5:22 which I think are certainly valid as well. However, how do we definitively ascertain the degree or quality of the fruit? It seems rather subjective?

 

BTW, Daniel,

there are exegetical approaches to the passage under discussion that aren't necessarily driven by "personal experience" as you assert! In other words there are exegetes who use the literal grammatical historical approach to interp. whom do not come to your same conclusion. In fact I would assertively argue ;-) that you are interpreting this passage through the lens of "your particular" theological "experience" (or tradition), as much as those whom you chastize! In other words you didn't provide any perspective on the broader context of this parable that would lead me to believe that this pericope actually is "framed" the way you say it is!

 

Bobby - I don't deny that our hermeneutic is going to play a major role in our interpretation of this parable - that is, I don't mean to suggest that the -only- way one can interpret the parable so that all the soils represent saved brethren is by allowing their personal experience to bias their interpretation. Truly, I suspect that there are all sorts of ways a person might come to that conclusion. I merely pointed out what I feel is likely the most common reason - and it isn't a careful, scholastic exegesis that uses a narrow, well defined hermeneutic! ;-) My expectation is that most people tend to go with their gut feeling - and then later blame it on careful exegesis. My post was addressing that.

I do not doubt that my blog would have a different flavor if I couched every assertion in detailed and anticipatory apology. I might attract a more scholastic readership, and the resulting meta would no doubt be far more verbose and academic than it presently is - but that wouldn't change the discussion, except to make it more erudite.

I didn't intend to sound chastising when I offered my opinion - perhaps what I think of as confidence comes across as snark? I hope not.

 

Jim - the "fruit" in John 15, as I understand it, is the "life of Christ" - what is "produced" by the Vine is "the life of Christ" living in and through us.

The "fruit" of the Spirit of Christ is recorded in Galatians 5:22-23 is a practical list of things you should notice when God is living in and through you.

An unsaved person may love his spouse - but really, it is not a selfless love - but a selfish love. An unsaved person might have patience, but it isn't a patience that comes from contentment in Christ, but a patience that is learned through the suppression of self (such as in buddhism), etc. There are counterfeits to the Spiritual fruits, and it is pointless to try and judge another's fruit - but we can easily judge our own - am I trying to be loving because I know I am supposed to be loving - or do I love because I love Christ? Am I trying to be patient because that is what I am supposed to be, or am I so content in the Lord that nothing bothers me? etc.

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and not the evangelist - If Satan knocked on a thousand doors and shared the gospel with everyone who answered - he would get some converts - not because they are his spiritual fruit - but because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

Surely life begets life - I would be concerned about an able bodied, well spoken, and amiable believer who never shares the gospel. But having said that - I would not presume the fruit in the parable to mean "converts" - what about the theif on the cross - he didn't share the gospel with anyone!

Because it is the gospel that saves and not the believer - I do not equate the fruit of the vine or the fruit of the seed with spiritual offspring. We are all children of God, no one is a grand-child. We are all saved through the same gospel, and therefore brothers and sisters. So I don't equate the "fruit" spoken of in the parable of the sower as "more seeds" as though the plant were producing "sowers" if that makes any sense.

Like I say, I would be concerned about a Christian who never witnesses - but I wouldn't think a man fruitless just because he hasn't any notches on his soul winning "gunslinger" belt yet.

Awesome news about the little one - God be praised!

 

Daniel, you make some valid points regarding the nature of fruit. Nevertheless, fruit must by its very nature be a product of its environment.

An apple tree will bear apples, not oranges. Wheat produces wheat, etc.

While we don't produce christians, the life of Christ within us should (if properly active) produce faith in others.

My only dilemma here is that this interpretation is entirely subjective and indeterminate...IOW, where is the definitive proof of the fruit?

If I base my salvation solely upon the presence or absence of fruit, I will become introspective and self examining. This will inevitably lead to a works based living.

I don't think you can get much more "experiential" than that, and I fail to see an objective hermeneutic in there?

This is definitely an area where I need to pray and study over more.

May God grant us all much more light to see as He sees.

In Christ,
Jim

 

Daniel said:

"I do not doubt that my blog would have a different flavor if I couched every assertion in detailed and anticipatory apology. I might attract a more scholastic readership, and the resulting meta would no doubt be far more verbose and academic than it presently is - but that wouldn't change the discussion, except to make it more erudite.

I didn't intend to sound chastising when I offered my opinion - perhaps what I think of as confidence comes across as snark? I hope not."

Daniel, to your first paragraph above, what's the difference between being academic and "gut level"?

To your second paragraph, I don't necessarily think of "chastizing" as being arrogant; rather chastizing, I think, can be seen as offering a corrective, if done in the right way (cf. all of Paul's epistles). I thought that you were trying to chastize, say Rose, on her approach to this parable?

In Christ,

Bobby

 

The objective of the seed is to produce a crop. Three of the four soils failed and thus were worthless.

These four soils are compared one by one with four types of hearers of the word. One hearer never even professed faith. Two types of hearers gave false professions and only one type produced a Christian. This one and only successful type produced Christians of different effectiveness.

We can talk about what the meaning of seed is and how the farmer could cut the thorns away making that soil productive (coulda, woulda, shoulda) and muddy the water all we want, but this is the bottom line as Daniel and orthodox commentaries point out.

Jazzycat

 

Bobby - what's the difference between being academic and "gut level"?

Usually, not much... ;-).

But seriously in academia we are trained to strengthen/bolster our opinions by citing famous people who previously held the same opinions. It happens therefore, for some, that they come to a certain interpretation of a passage which they have not learned from scripture directly - but have been spoon fed indirectly through the opinions of those whom they either admire, or who have taught them that this is the right interpretation.

Most of us assume that those who instruct us are qualified, and correct, so it stands to reason that we follow their interpretation - initially at least. It may be a long time before we are able to arrive at an interpretation solely through prayerful, meditative study of a passage - and whatever baggage we have inherited through our indoctrination only encumbers us.

If I remember correctly, you are one who finds fault in both Calvinism and Arminianism - so I think, in this at least, I am preaching to the choir.

The one who has been trained to parrot with citations their theological mentors and heroes typically has a "gut level" assurance that their chosen hero is correct in their interpretation - and will come to the text expecting to find that same interpretation there. You know already that this is called eisegesis.

It isn't a problem restricted to academics however. Surely there are those who pride themselves as having "learned their bible" in utter isolation - and instead of drawing bias from their lyonized academic predecessors, they are in danger of becoming biased by their own unchecked assumptions. Do they think that God is loving at the expense of being just? Do they think that God is evil in the OT but nice in the new? etc.

I think one of the most difficult things we do, in studying scripture, is to identify our own biases and "gut instincts" (for we all have them) and set them aside as we examine scripture.

To that end I wouldn't pit academia against gut instinct as though they were mutually exclusive.

I thought that you were trying to chastize, say Rose, on her approach to this parable?

Rose did offer her support of Mr. Da Rosa on his blog (which would seem to suggest that her view would closely parrot his) when in the meta of her blog, in her first post on the parables that particular interpretation of the parable of the sower was suggested.

I haven't read any new posts over at Rose's though I did anticipate that she would expand on her thoughts - notwithstanding, my post isn't directed at Rose or anything she has expressed, though I suppose in part, both she and Mr. Da Rosa brought to my attention what I consider to be an errant interpretation of that parable.

In that sense, I suppose the meta from her blog, my discourse with Mr. Da Rosa at his blog, and the desire to clarify a previous post were the factors that precipitated this particular post.

I think my post was selectively corrective - that is, I wasn't suggesting that the only way one could possibly interpret the bad soils as producing genuine faith was to eisegetically read our own "Christian failures/weakness" into the bad soils - I was merely pointing out that most people who come to that conclusion, do so because they make this error.

There is a distinction, of course, between no fruit at all, and some fruit. Agriculturally speaking, every plant produces superfluous growth (leaves and shoots), not necessarily because the soil is rocky, but because it is condusive to growth - likewise, good soil produces weeds as well, which will hinder a plant - but if the plant is well rooted, and adequately watered - it produces fruit in the midst of such hinderances. Christ doesn't expand the parable to include these agricultural truths, but we see them described in John 15 (the Vine, branch, and Vinedresser), as well as the parable of the fig tree, etc.

So my point was to identify (from the greater framework of scripture) how we mustn't take our failures and impose them upon the bad soils - since if we have borne any fruit in our Christian walk whatsoever, we cannot equate ourselves with the seeds who never, ever bear fruit.

My expectation therefore is that most of the people who are convicted by their own failure with regards to worldliness, and shallowness, that is, who, although saved, continue to walk in the flesh (at least some of the time), see the description of carnality applied to themselves, and presume therefore that it must describe Christianity - albeit, a weak, beggarly, failure ridden and carnal Christianity.

We are right to feel convicted for our worldlines, and shallowness - we ought to be walking in the Spirit and not the flesh - and anyone who is born of God knows this without being told. But we are wrong when we take a picture that paints utter fruitlessness and because of our guilt, we apply it to ourselves - and thereby make the parable say something it isn't saying.

That was my point. Not a personal correction - but a general one brought about of course, by present events, but not directed at anyone. As I have said, I haven't read any new posts at Rose's, though I expect to get around there if I have time.

Thanks for your thoughts and questions Bobby - I have no editor or proofreader - so I never know see the holes in what I have written until someone comes along and asks good questions. ;-)

 

Jazzcat, what do you mean by a crop? Please define in a tangible way.

 

Jim,
I just posted on this subject on my site. Crop is defined there.

Jazzycat

 

Jim said:
While we don't produce christians, the life of Christ within us should (if properly active) produce faith in others.

Amen! Christ builds His church, and if He is in us, we should expect to be used to that end.

If I base my salvation solely upon the presence or absence of fruit, I will become introspective and self examining. This will inevitably lead to a works based living.

Indeed - that is likely. If, rather than having faith in Christ to justify the ungodly, we instead place our faith in the consistency of our walk in Christ; Then our assurance would rest not in what Christ has done, but in what we are presently doing.

My only dilemma here is that this interpretation is entirely subjective and indeterminate...IOW, where is the definitive proof of the fruit?

Let's be definitive here - in the parable of the sower we are talking about the gospel (the seed) being received by those who hear it (the various soils). When the gospel is preached it either produces a Christian, or it doesn't. That is the core lesson in the parable - and when we talk about "fruit" in the context of this parable, we are talking about whether or not the gospel produces the life of Christ in a person.

Since the Spirit of Christ indwells every genuine believer (every genuine believer is an earthen vessel housing the "divine Treasure") - we understand that the fertile soil represents someone in whom the word of God produces the same life that was planted. The other soils represent people who hear the word of God, but for whom that knowledge doesn't produce the life of Christ - either because they don't believe the truth (the hardened path), they neglect the truth and continue to pursue worldliness (the thorny soil), or they fail to thirst for Christ Himself, and embrace religion instead, so that their "faith" is all for show, and has no strength to persevere (the rocky soil).

The "definitive proof" that a person is saved is that God indwells that person.

In John 15, Christ is the true vine - God the Vinedresser, and genuine believers are those branches that produce the fruit of the vine. Any branch that isn't connected to the vine, is alien to the vine - and cannot produce the fruit of the vine. The Vinedresser gathers these for the fire. Any branch that is connected to the vine produces the fruit of the vine, as well as superfluous growth - which the Vinedresser prunes so that the branch is more productive.

This is a similar picture. The good soil is the true vine, and the seed that is planted in the good soil is akin to the branch that abides in the vine. The seed that is not planted in good soil produces a useless, fruitless growth - which is exactly the same as the branch that doesn't abide in the vine. Both the "bad soil plants" and the "unabiding branches" have this in common - they wither, die, and fail to ever manifest the life of Christ.

Only genuine believers manifest the life of Christ - a manifestation that is described as fruit, in John 15, and in Galatians five - and if one is willing to see it - in the harvest produced by the "good soil" of the parable of the Sower.

 

Thanks for your response, Daniel! Yes I don't believe that any of our beliefs come to us in a vacuum, as you've noted. And it truly is the struggle of the believer to become aware of his/her pre-understandings, and test those in light of what scripture communicates. Thank you for the time you put into your response, Daniel . . . much appreciated!

 

Daniel,
Your latest answer to Jim was really good. I do not know why some want to make this a complicated parable. The seed/word either produces a crop/Christian in a soil/hearer or is doesn't. Only one type soil/hearer accomplished the objective.

Jazzycat

 

Could you apply the seed as being not the Word in total,but parts of the Word, i.e., they haven't received that yet, i.e., the doctrines of grace?

Think about it...

Someone answer me please, it's a legitimate question. Yes I believe I have an answer, but there are many who believe this way. Perhaps these scriptures don't speak directly to this, but to salvation alone, however, might they apply nonetheless?

In case any are wondering, as far as soteriology is concerend, I am closer to John Gill than John Wesley, by far...(no rabbit trails on "double pre intended, BTW)

 

Jazzy - I didn't always see it this way. At one time I was quite convinced that the other soils represented Christians as well - it gave me comfort to do so, since I knew that my devotion was imperfect - that is salvation didn't suddenly remove all superficiality and worldliness from my character - and so when I read of the other soils, they convicted me. I brought that bias into my exposition of that verse - and concluded that since I was saved, and since these described me - they must represent those Christians who, like myself, were struggling.

Having made up my mind on it, I no longer examined it critically, and my opinion became "set" over time.

I don't know when I began to understand that my interpretation was flawed on account of my own bias (projecting my own Christian struggles into the text), but when I realized what I was doing, I re-examined the text and saw that my struggles fit into the good soil - that is not everyone was an hundred fold - some were thirty and sixty (struggling). I realized that the other soils had this in common - no crop, and understanding the parable to be speaking of salvation - I suddenly understood where and why I was making errors before.

Not every Christian is going to produce fruit an hundred fold (in every area of their life), and not ever Christian is going to produce fruit sixty fold (in most of their life) - but every Christ will at least produce thirty fold (in some of their life).

It is plain as day when you see it, but until then it is obfuscated.

 

JD - Christ (in describing the seed that falls upon the path) says that the devil comes and takes away that seed out of their hearts "so that they may not believe and be saved" (emphasis added - c.f. Luke 8:12).

While the seed is described synoptically by Christ as "the word of God" we understand through Christ's own exposition that He was speaking specifically about salvific truth.

For that reason, I wouldn't try to "interpret" this text as describing anything other than salvation. ;-)

Notwithstanding - I believe however that you are suggesting (or asking whether it is possible to be) "applying" what we learn in this parable to the truth (of the word) in general, such as with the doctrines of grace.

I think there is some merit in that.

Psalm 25:14 tell us, "The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant."

John says something similar in 1 John about walking in the light in order to fellowship with God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us that the natural doesn't receive the things of the Spirit of God, that they are foolishness to him, nor can he understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

I conclude that those who "walk in the light" are given more light (to him who has, more is given) - such that those who are penitent can expect to understand more scripture than those who are impenitent.

I think we could press the parable of the sower into this application - but we wouldn't have to - since this point is plainly made elsewhere in scripture.

That is just my "off-hand" take.

 

I concur, just wanted you to spell it out for some folks who might venture over here...

 

"Because most of us reason that our Christian experience -must- always line up with scripture - we must (if we wish to have a consistent faith) make an apology for every discrepancy, or seeming discrepancy."
I used to feel like this, but thank God for the gospel! When I realized that the Gospel covers even the little discrepancies it was like a weight lifting off.

I did a post on this very parable a while ago, taking a different viewpoint of course, but thought it was worth mentioning. It can be found here: http://www.iseedaylight.com/2005/11/parables-humility-and-phil-johnsons.php