We know that. But we know it's not the devil as mailman tried to (unknowingly?) suggest.
It's not the devil. That's the point. But ultimately it's surely God. You don't need to keep defending yourself to me. Go home. You have no horse in this race.
God does the sowing in that he gives the seed to the sower and sends him out. But surely, the seed is literally sown through the spoken words of God's servants, not the enemy's.
Pointing out your contradictory statements is not "contentious".
Please provide Scripture reference which indicates God is the sower in the parable of the soils.Ralph said:
If anyone is defending self, it would be you. Just own up to the fact that Scripture does not tell us who the sower is.Ralph said:
Yes. God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. That is why it is so important for us to preach Scripture. God brings increase to His Word planted in the heart of those to whom we speak. We are encouraged to be wise masterbuilders in our laboring together with God. God will not increase my faulty reasoning.
The "contentious jerk" would be the one who keeps insisting he is right even though he is shown in Scripture that what he says is not Scripturally supported, has agreed with Scripture, then turns right around and goes back to his error.
Romans 2:1.Ralph said:
Your fallacy is unsupported.Ralph said:
"We know that" Scripture does not reveal who the sower is in the parable of the soils. In agreement.Ralph said:
I believe you were the one who first suggested anything about the devil sowing seed in your post #447. You say things in error then infer that others were the ones who said it. You did the same to me and I called you on it (yet I'm the one who's "contentious" )Ralph said:
Apparently your defense of your statement fails but rather than admit you were wrong about Scripture (which, may I remind you, is God's Word and should be handled as such), you continue to insist something that is wholly unsupportable in Scripture.Ralph said:
Hot topic and gutsy to start the continued contreversy on here..lol..i dont believe in the elected ones..God KNOWS who will ultimately recieve Him but He doesnt manipulate or coherse us..we have freedom of will like with other things in our lives.
You completely messed up what we were talking about. And now you won't listen when I try to get you down to what mailmandan was saying. He tried to use another use of the planting metaphor to suggest the 2nd type of soil was not planted by the Father (because what grew got uprooted) and therefore represents an unsaved person. And now you want to argue about the passage not saying exactly who sowed the seed in the Parable of the Sower. Good grief, man. You really messed this one up big time.The "contentious jerk" would be the one who keeps insisting he is right even though he is shown in Scripture that what he says is not Scripturally supported, has agreed with Scripture, then turns right around and goes back to his error.
Romans 2:1.
Your fallacy is unsupported.
"We know that" Scripture does not reveal who the sower is in the parable of the soils. In agreement.
I believe you were the one who first suggested anything about the devil sowing seed in your post #447. You say things in error then infer that others were the ones who said it. You did the same to me and I called you on it (yet I'm the one who's "contentious" )
Apparently your defense of your statement fails but rather than admit you were wrong about Scripture (which, may I remind you, is God's Word and should be handled as such), you continue to insist something that is wholly unsupportable in Scripture.
Rather than paint me as "contentious", or suffering from some malady of your own imagination, or "defending myself", why don't you just let Scripture say what God intended? You just might be blessed by God.
There is a lesson here. I wonder if you'll "get it"?
It seems that the argument is the security of salvation comes from being one of God's elect (meaning you were purposely created to be a believer and there's nothing you can do to change that) and not from accessing the salvation that is secure by trusting in Jesus.
Quit acting like a drama queen. I didn't mess up anything. You can't convince mailmandan of something you believe and mailmandan cannot convince you of something he believes. That does not equate to me having "messed this one up big time". sheesh!
It's a Parable. This is God sowing the seed in the Parable of the Sower through whatever unnamed way or person he is doing that. You're being needlessly contentious in every negative sense of the word.
Please provide chapter and verse which indicates God sows the seed in the parable of the sower.
It is important to me because God's Word is important to God. What is important to God is important to me (and to you if you'd ever admit it).Ralph said:
Not again Ralp, you just inserted "contiinue to believe" where the scriptures says "believe" on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Acts 16:31 Romans 1:16 is not about continuing to believe for salvation. John 1:12 says "believe" and scores of scritures that does say believe, trust, receive, faith in Christ alone.
You continue to believe by always presently believing. The promises are for those who believe (present tense), not for those who used to believe. The word has to remain in you for you to remain in Christ and the Father. The condition for remaining in the Son is that the word remain in you:
And how is present believing not 'faith in Christ alone'?
Right, we don't earn our justification/salvation through righteous works. We access the grace of God for justification/salvation through our believing, not our works--our present tense believing. Not past believing. Not believing that has ended.
The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th soils have the word of God in them. Everyone who has the word of God in them is a believer. They have God's testimony in them:
I knew you would not be able to relate your contention to what we were talking about. I get very clearly that your contention has nothing to do with what mailmandan and I were talking about. Loud and clear. You're being contentious for the sake of being contentious. And I suspect what provoked your contention is you can't stand that I don't agree with your sacred 'once saved always saved' doctrine.
