What must I do to be saved

Only those on good ground were saved, period

So you're telling me when God's workers sow the word of God it's not God sowing the seed?

Why do you condemn yourself?

10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BEDISAPPOINTED.”
13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” -Romans 10:10-11,13

...except if you have rocks in your heart, or if you have the worries of this life in your heart. Then you will just think that you were saved when you believed and called on the name of the Lord but you will 'not really' be saved.

"whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

8“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire."-Matthew 18:6,8

Why is Jesus saying it's better for young, weaker, immature believers to cast off the person who causes stumbling rather than to keep him and go to the eternal fire with him if the church is so sure that believers in Jesus can never ever stumble so as to go to the eternal fire?

Is this another case of those who 'don't really' believe in Jesus, they just think they do? If so, Jesus is being awfully defensive of fake believers.

He was not speaking to the body of Christ which did not exist back then

How does that change the fact that he said believers in Him can go to the eternal fire because of those who cause stumbling?

You replacement theologists are funny

Nation of Israel, different dispensation...the NT is not in force as of that time...rightly divide...

Amen.

I'm telling you the sower is not identified in the parable.

Look at 1 Cor 3:6-9

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.


Who planted? Paul
Who watered? Apollos
Who gave the increase? God
Who labored together with God? Paul and Apollos

And note vs 7 … neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth.

Perhaps that is why the sower is not identified in the parable. Those who plant/water are not anything. Now God, Who gives the increase, He is Everything!!! And He calls us labourers together with Him.

Then
No matter what worker it is, it is God who is ultimately doing the sowing. But if you want to go on record that it could have been the devil who sowed the seed in the 4th type of soil, so be it.

So then Jesus 'didn't really' mean this when he said it in that dispensation?

"40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life..."-John 6:40

We know that.

The point is we know it isn't the devil sowing his seeds and raising up tares in soil #2 that are then pulled up by the roots, as was suggested earlier. God is doing the sowing here (through whatever vessel he is using--doesn't matter) and raising up the fruit of the kingdom in believers, not raising up the believers themselves.

The growth being referenced in Jesus' statement, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots" can't be used to suggest that the 2nd type of soil is not saved (because the growth there got uprooted). Doing that is called 'mixing metaphors'. What the metaphor of the growth represents in each case is different and so can not be compared to one another.

The believer is found in soil #4. It amazes me to see how certain people will shout "faith without works is dead" from the rooftops in James chapter 2, but then turn around and say that "fruitless" faith is saving faith in the parable of the soils. Seems these people have a double standard.

When did I say no earth at all? Mark 4:5 -Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly (it sprang up quickly, but no crop sprang up) because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.

Multiple translations in Luke 8:13 say "no root" and "no moisture" in Luke 8:6, yet you disagree with the word of God in order to accommodate your biased doctrine. When are you going to accept the truth?

I already thoroughly explained that in post #398 - https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/what-must-i-do-to-be-saved.177680/page-20 but unfortunately, the truth just went right over your head.

No, it's you who is projecting your NOSAS bias on the passage by saying, "how is it that the word of God grew in soil #2 with NO earth, NO root, NO moisture?" yet I showed you otherwise in (Mark 4:6; Luke 8:6, 13). You are arguing with the word of God and not with me.

People who hear and receive the word with joy (emotional response) and believe (in a shallow way) without a good and honest heart, and without having "root" do not experience real salvation. *There was shallow, temporary belief that had no root, lacked moisture, produced no fruit and withered away. *You are confusing soil #1 with soil #2 (Luke 8:6,13; Mark 4:5-6). *You need to be honest Ralph.

And unsaved people (James 2:19; John 2:23-25; 8:31-59) as I already explained in post #398.

Emotional response from a shallow, temporary belief that had no root, lacked moisture, produced no fruit and withered away. Doesn't should like saving belief to me, in CONTRAST we read in Matthew 13:23 - "And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who INDEED BEARS FRUIT and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty." *Only the 4th soil produced crops of any size.* FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD.

It's you who is projecting your NOSAS bias on the passage. I clearly explained the truth and refuted your argument in post #398 - https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/what-must-i-do-to-be-saved.177680/page-20

An emotional, joyful response does not mean this was the fruit of joy from the Holy Spirit. I've seen Roman Catholics and Mormons become very joyful over becoming converts to those false religions. Does that mean it was the fruit of the Spirit? Don't be so naive Ralph.

Those who truly are born again keep believing. Those who have a shallow, temporary non-saving belief stop believing.

Once again, in Romans 8:30, we read - Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. ALL of them. *Notice how Paul uses the past tense for a future event in order to stress it's certainty.

I think you probably weren't following closely enough to what me and mailman were talking about.

He tried to say that since Jesus said all plants not planted by the Father will be uprooted shows that soil #2 was not planted by the Father and was, therefore, not saved. First of all, it's plain to see that it is God's work of planting that is going on in the Parable of the Sower. And secondly, the plants being spoken of that will be pulled up are not the same plantings being spoken of in the Parable of the Sower.

You agree that the sower is not identified in the parable of the soils.

Then you insist [again] that "God is doing the sowing here".




Yet you mix metaphors between the parable of the soils and the parable of the tares.

And that is okay with you.

Actually, that is not what I was trying to say. A good lawyer gets his facts straight.

1) Soil #2 had the fruit of joy. So it was not fruitless.
2) Every sensible person knows believers grow up into fruitful works and that James is speaking broadly of the works of the one who professes faith. Are you not saved because your faith was dead yesterday? Are you going to claim he is being the legalist that your Catholic friends are? Probably not. If you want to interpret it that way then you need to look at your own double standard, friend.