I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

Yes… you believe you are forgiven by legal imputation. “Blotted out” in a legal sense but not out of the person - who is completely depraved, yet covered in His grace. That is my point… this is inconsistent with Scriptures, which speak of the actual change by “blotting out” in the sense of a cloth wiping out the detritus of sin from the soul, the light actually banishing darkness, etc. You disagree with the actual effects of justification if you hold to Calvin’s doctrine on justification.

Dead in trespasses and sins, born children of wrath, but made alive with Christ by the mercy of God, and a new creation to boot.

That all occurs under Paul’s teaching concerning the “imputation,” or “crediting of righteousness.” Sounds like an actual change to me.
Robert in SD:

You are confusing two sepate issues. Temporal punishment does not relate to eternal salvation. Temporal punishment deals with reparation due for already-forgiven mortal sins, and venial sins. It has nothing to do with salvation, or works. My point is that, unlike the scriptures and Catholic teaching, your point of view does not see justification as causing an actual change in the person by actual removal of sins. Instead, you said justification was a mere legal imputation… God “declaring” sins forgiven without actually sanctifying the person. I (and Paul, and Trent) disagree with you and Calvin. We speak of justification as effecting a real change in the person - something more than just a legal declaration of righteousness.

You’re attempting to spin this, Robert. Under Paul’s teaching of imputation I have the complete forgiveness of sins, and the complete forgiveness of the debt associated with those sins; therefore, if anyone’s sin’s have been blotted out, it would be mine.

Why do you think that Trent issued the anathema in canon 30 listed above?

Because it teaches that your sins have not been “blotted out,” that’s why, because you still owe a debt; ISTM that the teaching of your church finds Christ’s sacrifice incomplete—that’s not the position of Scripture. :tsktsk:
Robert in SD:

And I’m now assuming you’ve simply abandoned any attempt to answer the question that I keep asking… how does one know with absolute assurance that he or she is predestined for salvation? All you’ve done is cite Rom. 8:30 for the proposition that the predestined will be called, justified, sanctified; but Paul does not instruct that we all can know with absolute certainty that we are predestined. My simple question is how do you personally know you are predestined, with an assurance that negates the possibility that you are merely fooling yourself. Even Calvin seemed to acknowledge this possibility, i.e. that the damned may actually believe themselves saved - all the more reason to merit eternal punishment. Ouch!

I don’t agree with Calvin on that. :nope:

I think it’s certain that many of the damned believe themselves to be saved!

I haven’t abandoned your question; I’m sitting on it as it’s subjective, and I’m not yet ready to leave the current discussion.

 

[guanophore]

13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL our transgressions,

14 having canceled out the certificate of debt…against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

[/indent]

OTOH, you’re mistaken about your sins being completely blotted out:If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon 30).Your sins have not been “blotted out;” you still have a debt to pay.

This is talking about the temporal consequences of sin, and the need to make reparation. Our debt is to bear fruit that befits repentance, and reconcile and heal the harm caused by the sins we committed.

Just because the sin is blotted out, that does not mean the effects of it suddently disappear.

Look at the damage done by corrupt Catholic clergy selling indulgences?! I haven’t seen that one get “blotted out”.

Romans 8:50??Romans 7:21-23

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.

22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,

23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.Paul talks about the “principle of evil,” and the “law of sin,” but no mention of concupiscence.

Same difference.

 

[sandusky]

Same difference.

Cruel kindness.

 

[benedictus2]

Of course you do, however, as per your church, no one but her can correctly interpret the scripture; therefore, IMO, your taking her word for it, and her words contradicts the teaching of the Lord, the apostles, etc. (1 Jn 5:10-15 etc.)

Oky, if you think that interpretation of the scripture is open to all and that when you read it you are guided by the Holy Spirit, then how come there are so many variants of Protestantism.
Some believe in the Real Presence, some dont.
Some believe homosexuality is okay. Some don’t. Some believe infants should be baptised. Some don’t.

Of the different factions with contrary beliefs, which one is being animated by the Holy Spirit. Surely not all of them.

This question relates to my issue with you before. Either Christ left **A **Church that He will lead into all truth or He didn’t.

Not all the differing beliefs in protestantism can be true. So which one has been truly guided by the Holy Spirit?

A born-again was tryiing to convert me when I was 16 and he asked me why I should be believe what the Church teaches and I asked her why I should believe her. She is against the Pope but in saying she can interpret the Bible by herself, she was in fact setting herself up as Pope, Bishop and the whole Magisterium.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

This is talking about the temporal consequences of sin, and the need to make reparation. Our debt is to bear fruit that befits repentance, and reconcile and heal the harm caused by the sins we committed.

Just because the sin is blotted out, that does not mean the effects of it suddently disappear.

Look at the damage done by corrupt Catholic clergy selling indulgences?! I haven’t seen that one get “blotted out”.

Stop trying to spin this; if you have a sin-debt to pay, which Trent says you do, then your sins are not blotted out.

 

[sandusky]

benedictus2:

Oky, if you think that interpretation of the scripture is open to all and that when you read it you are guided by the Holy Spirit, then how come there are so many variants of Protestantism.

C’mon; you’re projecting the Catholic dilemma on to others, and don’t even know it.

You have a codified set of beliefs that vary in understanding, misunderstanding and practice from Catholic to Catholic, and from diocese to diocese, and from church to church. I’ve read the Catholic complaints here on CAF concerning that.

ISTM that the problem of individual popes begins in the CC, herself.

 

[benedictus2]

C’mon; you’re projecting the Catholic dilemma on to others, and don’t even know it.

You have a codified set of beliefs that vary in understanding, misunderstanding and practice from Catholic to Catholic, and from diocese to diocese, and from church to church. I’ve read the Catholic complaints here on CAF concerning that.

ISTM that the problem of individual popes begins in the CC, herself.

Point 1:
True, individuals can disagree with what the Church teaches but the buck stops with Rome. A bishop could disagree as much as he wants with the Catholic teaching say regarding, abortion, homosexuality, contraception etc but the bishops point of view is still NOT the Church’s teaching. He will certainly be spoken to were he to persist in spreading erroneous teaching. I have many issues with some priests’s teaching and it is precisely because they deviate from the teaching of Christ’s Church.

Point 2:
True to form, you have again resorted to evasion. The crux of the question is individual interpretation of the Bible. And here is the rest of my post :

“… there are so many variants of Protestantism.
Some believe in the Real Presence, other’s don’t.
Some believe homosexuality is okay. Others dont.
Some believe infants should be baptized. Others dont.
Of the different factions with contrary beliefs, which one is being animated by the Holy Spirit. Surely not all of them.

This question relates to my issue with you before. Either Christ left **A **Church that He will lead into all truth or He didn’t.

Not all the differing beliefs in protestantism can be true. So which one has been truly guided by the Holy Spirit?”

Let’s make it simpler: If you a Calvinist do not believe in the Real Presence and the Lutherans do, which of you was guided by the Holy Spirit into this conclusion because you can’t both be right?

 

[RobHom]

It just occured to me that I have never regreted my conversion. When I was saved, no one told me that I have to leave the Catholic religion, I simply believed that Jesus Christ paid for my sins with his blood and I called upon him to save me: just like the Philipian jailer in Acts 16:31. He asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” He did, and he was. To the saved believer, the thought of someone trying to administer God’s grace through some ritual is the highest form of idolatry there is. Jesus said, “it is finished”, not ‘it’s begun’.

But the problem is this: While you have ascribed to a theology that makes you happy… you have neglected to subject yourself to what Christ Himself said. I’ll not bother to quote tons of scripture…you should already know of what I speak.

Yes, the act of “believing in Christ” is paramount, because one cannot be saved by works…but if you claim to believe that the Bible is “truth”, then you are required by that “claim and truth” to abide by the facts that Christ Himself told us what we had to do in order to “get to the Father”…and as James said: Faith without works is “dead”. To deny Christ’s words, and ignore what James said…is for one to make of one’s self; a false christian.

Further, there is no “idolatry” in Catholicism. You have been “duped” by a false theology. And in addition to that, you have violated Christ’s Word. You have cast a judgment, when He said:
Judge not lest ye be judged. Me, I’ll not judge you…I am merely expressing an opinion regarding your post.

I just hope that people will see that God’s grace is through faith in Christ and not in some man made rituals. May the Lord truly bless every one who is seeking to know him in truth.

Just as I hope that one day…you will see that God’s grace and the salvation he offered to us involves more than a weak grasp on a “BK” theology…

May God bless you and may the Holy Spirit guide your steps, and lead you back to the Catholic Church.

 

[benedictus2]

As I’ve said, In the case of infants, and those whose reasoning abilities are extremely impaired, grace is gifted to them; however, it’s not on the basis of faith, but purely grace. (Why is that so difficult for you to understand?)

But I do understand that, which is why I said in my post (unless you failed to read this bit) good point. I actually acknowledged that you made a valid point here.

My problem was with the differentiation you made. Infants will be saved this way, those with full faculties this way. And I said that scripture just did not make that kind of distinction.

So you direct me to
sandusky;4271837I:

disagree with you, and would direct you to 2 Sam 12:21-23, and Dt 1:34-40.

And here are those two passages.

2 Sam 12:21-23
His servants said to him: “What is this you are doing? While the child was living, you fasted and wept and kept vigil; now that the child is dead, you rise and take food.” He replied: “While the child was living, I fasted and wept, thinking, ‘Perhaps the LORD will grant me the child’s life.’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba. He went and slept with her; and she conceived and bore him a son, who was named Solomon. The LORD loved him

And Deut 1:34-40
When the LORD heard your words, he was angry; and he swore, ‘Not one man of this evil generation shall look upon the good land I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb, son of Jephunneh; he shall see it. For to him and to his sons I will give the land he trod upon, because he has followed the LORD unreservedly.’ "The LORD was angered against me also on your account, and said, ‘Not even you shall enter there, but your aide Joshua, son of Nun, shall enter. Encourage him, for he is to give Israel its heritage. Your little ones, who you said would become booty, and your children, who as yet do not know good from bad–they shall enter; to them I will give it, and they shall occupy it. But as for yourselves: turn about and proceed into the desert on the Red Sea road.’

Where in the above does it support your contention that this is the way to salvation for infants but the only way for reasoning-faculty-intact (RFI) persons is to confess Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.?

And it’s your conclusion that “baptizing households” means infants as well, so where does that leave us?

It is a more reasonable conclusion that some of them would have infants than to say that none of them had any. This is why the early Church practiced infant baptism.

Scripture instructs that salvation, and the reception of the HS is predicted upon 1) Grace, and 2) FAITH.

Aah yes, but only on some passages in the Bible. Other passages say you need works as well. So how do square these two?

Included in belief is the necessity of repentance; infants are incapable of either; therefore, baptizing them may make the baptizers feel “warm and fuzzy,” however, I don’t find that it profits the infant.

“You don’t”. But that is of the magisterium that is Sandusky speaking.

One repents of sins one has commited. Infants have no sin to repent of, but by virtue of us all being offsprings of Adam, we all have original sin. It is this that is removed in the Baptism of Infants.

So you recon it is not profitable for the infant to be saved from original sin?

Your difficulty issues from the incorrect Gospel proclaimed by your church.

Ahh, but I do not have difficulty at all because what I am questioning here is the logic of your belief. And I just knew you would end up with predestination

My Church. Which Christ founded on Peter and actually came up with the canon of the Bible as opposed to your church whom you cannot even say is Christ’s church? Based on historical and Biblical evidence I think I would put my bet on my Church.

Furthermore, I remind you, that although they are wrong, your church teaches the notion of “invincible ignorance.”

I know what my Church teaches and I believe that, but that has more to do with my question about the Muslims to which you replied:

Since God has ordained that faith must come through the hearing of the Gospel (Rom 10:17), it’s an easy progression to the truth that He will ensure the hearing of the Gospel by those He intends to save.

So let me get this straight. Christ dying for All really was for show, because God had already handpicked from the beginning only those that He wants to hear the Gospel.

Ergo. God has created a lot of human beings (we’re talking millionis here), whom He has no intention of saving from the very beginning, because “He will ensure the hearing of the Gospel only by those He intends to save.”

Since we know that many have died not hearing the Good News, therefore, God never intended to save them anyway.

So the Doctrine according to Sandusky goes**: God created millionis of people for the sole purpose of sending them to hell.**

I said before in a reply to you that it is sad because you had an awful image of God. I never realized it was this awful.

 

[pete_29]

How do you know you’re about John 6?

Since you made the statement, how do you know you’re right?

 

[guanophore]

Stop trying to spin this; if you have a sin-debt to pay, which Trent says you do, then your sins are not blotted out.

The debt, certainly related to sin, is not a “sin debt” as you understand it. When a person is absolved of their sins, they are completely washed of all debt from those sins. We believe this happens in baptism, reconciliation, and annointing of the sick.

Although the sin itself is separated from us as far as the East is from the West, the conseqences usually are not. I will say that there are times when these are also blotted out, in His mercy, but there are times when we are expected to take action to correct the wrong that has been done. The type of this is David with his first child from Bathsheba. His sin was blotted out, he was forgiven, but there was still a consequence to pay. David fasted and prayed that the consequence would also be set aside, but it was not.

One must read the conciliar documents in their context, and that is the Reformation. This teaching was specifically directed to the issue of the temporal effects of sin.

 

[guanophore]

Romans 7:21-23

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.

22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,

23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.Paul talks about the “principle of evil,” and the “law of sin,” but no mention of concupiscence.

"guanophore:

same difference

Cruel kindness.

Do you see a difference? You are probably not very familiar with the Latin rendering of this phenomenon as concupiscence, but the essence of the concept is the same, it seems to me.

 

[guanophore]

Dead in trespasses and sins, born children of wrath, but made alive with Christ by the mercy of God, and a new creation to boot.

That all occurs under Paul’s teaching concerning the “imputation,” or “crediting of righteousness.” Sounds like an actual change to me.

Yes. This is what we believe the infusion of grace causes in baptism.

Did you know that, in the intertestamental period, the word baptize was used in pickle recipes? Once a cucumber (or whatever) is “baptized” in the brine, it is forever changed. It can never go back to being a cucumber.

You’re attempting to spin this. Under Paul’s teaching of imputation I have the complete forgiveness of sins, and the complete forgiveness of the debt associated with those sins; therefore, if anyone’s sin’s have been blotted out, it would be mine.

This is exactly the Reformed teaching that Trent was addressing with that canon.

Why do you think that Trent issued the anathema in canon 30 listed above?

Because we received from the Apostles that temporal effects remain, and that it is our responsibility to address them. Another example of this is the thief on the cross. He testified himself

Luke 23:40-43
40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Jesus assured him of salvaton, and he was saved by his profession of faith (and some Catholics would say the baptism of blood). Yet, we notice that Jesus did not take him along when His work was finished. Jesus left him there on the cross to suffer for the rest of the day. He had his legs broken too, after his sins were blotted out. All this suffering was part of “what we deserve for our deeds”. He still paid some of that temporal debt from his sins, though they were nailed to the cross.

Because it teaches that your sins have not been “blotted out,” that’s why, because you still owe a debt; ISTM that the teaching of your church finds Christ’s sacrifice incomplete—that’s not the position of Scripture. :tsktsk:

You are misunderstanding the canon of Trent, and I can see how you would come to this conclusion because of it.

 

[guanophore]

B2, clearly your church changed the Gospel of Jesus Christ when it added, as a requirement for salvation, the belief in certain of the Marian doctrines.

No, the fullness of the faith was deposited “once for all” to the Apostles. God’s intention for Mary was included in that prior to any Apostle being chosen It was not the doctrine that was added, but our understanding of it. The need to proclaim it was a result, as have been all the proclamations of councils, of relinquishing that doctrine, and the attacks against what we received from the Apostles.

 

[cazayoux]

The elect are identified as those chosen in Christ by the Father “before the foundation of the world,” and further, those “foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified” by the Father in eternity (Eph 1:3ff; Rom 8:29ff), and yes, I find the scripture to state that the elect are the only ones who will be saved.

God does not operate on the basis of a “roll of the dice,” but He is purposeful in what He does; therefore, nothing is by fate, or by chance, which are purposeless.

By ‘chance’, I didn’t mean a purposeless roll of the dice, but wondering if a person that is of the ‘elect’ could possibly NOT go to heaven, because they may have lost their salvation by being an unrepentant sinner.

Let me know if I state your stance correctly or not.
If you are of the elect, you are saved and go to heaven. (period)
You cannot become saved.
You cannot lose salvation.
You are already saved.

If the above is what you think, how am I to square this with the explanation of the parable of the seeds that fell on/near the path?

Luke 8 : 12-15
[12] The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, that they may not believe and be saved.
[13] And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.
[14] And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.
[15] And as for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bring forth fruit with patience.

What would be the point of hearing the word if you are of the elect?
What does ‘falling away’ mean?

michel

 

[sandusky]

Since you made the statement, how do you know you’re right?

I take it you don’t really know how you know; that’s alright Pete, keep thinking about it.

 

[Ronald_E]

By ‘chance’, I didn’t mean a purposeless roll of the dice, but wondering if a person that is of the ‘elect’ could possibly NOT go to heaven, because they may have lost their salvation by being an unrepentant sinner.

Let me know if I state your stance correctly or not.
If you are of the elect, you are saved and go to heaven. (period)
You cannot become saved.
You cannot lose salvation.
You are already saved.

If the above is what you think, how am I to square this with the explanation of the parable of the seeds that fell on/near the path?

Luke 8 : 12-15
[12] The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, that they may not believe and be saved.
[13] And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.
[14] And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.
[15] And as for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bring forth fruit with patience.

What would be the point of hearing the word if you are of the elect?
What does ‘falling away’ mean?

michel

Michel,
I am happy you referred to these verses. We are just beginning to study the parables and an early 20th century theologian stated that if we interpret the parables from a human perspective which in essence validates our world view then we are critically mistaken. We will lead people astray.
Mark 4:11-13 reads “…The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables, so that they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven…Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand any of the parables?”
I read in posts objecting to Catholic interpretation a strong identification with Paul’s letters. If they are isolated from Christ’s own words then something is incomplete.
On the objection to Mary’s status it appears that they do not understand that the perfection of Mary is what we all can expect through our faith.
With the above parable it appears that we are given the mystery of the kingdom of God in order to show others through out actions what God’s Love reveals in respect to the forgiveness of everyone and not only those who do not know Him.
We either influence others to come to God through our living and acting through God’s Love or we cause others to sin because we lack the understanding of God’s Love. In another parable about the wheat and the chaffe Jesus tells us that if we cause others to sin we will be separated from the wheat, but not those who we cause to sin.

 

[Good_Fella]

Biblical hope is confident hope, it’s not “I hope so,” hope.

In his letter to the Philippians, Paul states the believer’s “citizenship is in heaven” (Php 3:20), and elsewhere, he encourages every believer to be hopeful with a confident hope.

Indeed, as long as the believer perseveres in faith, he can be confident, but not absolutely sure until he has run the race victoriously. We can never know for sure whether we are counted among the elect until we pass from this world into the next. Those whom God has predestined to be saved are the ones who have persevered to the end in collaboration with God’s grace. Any one of us may eventually fail to persevere before the race is over. Meanwhile God alone knows who will and who won’t persevere in faith through loving obedience to his will. (Mt. 13: 1-9; Heb 5:9)

And by faith I do not mean an intellectual apprehension of Christ and the merits of his Passion and Death, nor of the preached gospel. I mean that same faith - the law of faith - that antecedes Mosaic Law and runs through the spirit of it beneath the coat of formalism: the acknowledgement of the law of love and freedom that is written in the heart of each human being, and acted upon, whether Jew or Gentile who, however, are made righteous before God not by their own merits but by the merits of Christ’s blood through the forgiveness of sins (Rom 3, 21-31; Gal 5:6).

You are absolutely correct in acknowledging that the Christian virtue of hope is not an “I hope so” kind of hope. As long as we remain faithful and repentant in those unfaithful moments to the end, our salvation is assured by our Lord’s promise to us. We can be confident on that score. It’s more a provisional “I know so” kind of hope. We must hope that we never forfeit our salvation by willingly resisting God’s actual grace and failing to persevere.

This saying is trustworthy:
If we have died with him
we shall also live with him;
if we persevere
we shall also reign with him.
But if we deny him (disobedience and (name removed by moderator)enitence)
he will deny us.
If we are unfaithful,
he remains faithful (disobedience and repentance),
for he cannot deny himself.
2 Timothy 2, 11-13

PAX

 

[wina]

I think I’ve missed a lot this discussion.

Sandusky, one question for you, do you think that you are saved?

 

[sandusky]

cazayoux:

By ‘chance’, I didn’t mean a purposeless roll of the dice, but wondering if a person that is of the ‘elect’ could possibly NOT go to heaven, because they may have lost their salvation by being an unrepentant sinner.

I find nothing in the scripture saying the elect will not attain salvation. I recognize that there are difficult passages that seem to suggest that; however, when one organizes and prioritizes all of the soteriological passages, and moves from the stronger to the weaker passages, the difficulty disappears.

Remember, the CC as well, teaches that there is a specified and definite group of people, fixed in number, who have been predestined by God to “blessedness.” Where they err, I find, is that they also maintain that God has predestined another definite group, fixed in number, to “grace” only. The possibility of heaven with respect to those people is entirely in their hands; therefore, they’ll fail.

cazayoux:

Let me know if I state your stance correctly or not.
If you are of the elect, you are saved and go to heaven. (period)

Yes.

cazayoux:

You cannot become saved.

No, the elect must be saved (Eph 2:1-10).

cazayoux:

You cannot lose salvation.

Correct.

cazayoux:

You are already saved.

Me personally, yes.

cazayoux:

If the above is what you think, how am I to square this with the explanation of the parable of the seeds that fell on/near the path?

Luke 8 : 12-15
[12] The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, that they may not believe and be saved.
[13] And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.
[14] And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.
[15] And as for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bring forth fruit with patience.

I don’t know how you’ll square that parable with what I’m saying.

IMO, the important verse in the passage is v 18, "…take care how you listen” [to the word].

Notice as well, the role of “hearing” in each of the soils.

And don’t forget, it’s a parable, and designed to make one point, and the the point of that parable is that three out of four ways to “hear” result in the word being “taken away.” So Jesus says, “Take care how you hear.” It is infinitely important whether we hear like the three soils and lose what we heard, or hear like the fourth soil and bear fruit with what we heard.

cazayoux:

What would be the point of hearing the word if you are of the elect?

The elect are not born saved, but are born “in Adam” and need to be re-born “in Christ,” and the means of communicating that need is through the Gospel, thus Paul says:**Romans 10:14, 17

14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.**

cazayoux:

What does ‘falling away’ mean?

With respect to the parable it means to abandon what had been heard.