• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

What is the Calvinistic interpretation of salvation in Luke 8:12?

HELLO,

I have a new question and I have not found an answer so I ask you for help.

The question is from an Arminian perspective and I have difficulty defending my Calvinistic interpretation of salvation in LUKE 8:12:

If un-regenerated men are utterly, totally, and completely unable to respond to the gospel presented in any fashion until first being born-again, then why would Satan steal the word from their heart to prevent them from believing and being saved (like Jesus said) if they are totally unable to do so?

Why does Satan steal the word?? Jesus' answer - "so that they may not believe and be saved." After all, why steal the Word from a dead man? He is dead, he has no ability to respond to the gospel whatsoever!! It seems He is teaching that man has that ability and it is EXACTLY why Satan steals to the word - to prevent him from believing and being saved!

This seems also to refute Irresistible Grace because Jesus is teaching that by Satan stealing the word out of a person's heart he can prevent them from being saved. If Satan can prevent someone from being saved God's grace is not irresistible!

If Satan did not steal the word would any more people be saved than otherwise? After all, Jesus said it was to prevent men from believing and being saved. So if he did not steal the word, would any more men believe and be saved? If not, then what did he prevent? If not, then again I ask, Why does he steal the word?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP

-----

Response:

Thank you for reaching out with such a thought-provoking question. It is crucial for us to engage with Scripture and grapple with the implications of our theological convictions. In your question, you raise a significant issue regarding the Calvinistic interpretation of salvation in Luke 8:12 and the interplay between the roles of Satan, the unregenerate person, and God's grace in the process of salvation.

You rightly point out that the passage suggests Satan steals the word from people's hearts to prevent them from believing and being saved. This seems to imply that there is a potential for belief and salvation, which may appear, on the surface, to challenge the Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace. However, it is essential to remember that Calvinism does not teach that God saves people in a vacuum or apart from the means of grace, which is the proclamation of the Gospel.

The Calvinist understanding of the parable of the sower, as found in Luke 8:12, is that the seed represents the Word of God, and the various types of soil symbolize the different responses of human hearts to the Gospel. In the case of the seed falling on the path, Satan snatches away the word, preventing any belief or salvation from occurring.

While it is true that Calvinism teaches the total moral inability of the unregenerate person, who is hostile to Christ and unable to believe the Gospel, it does not negate the importance of the Gospel message itself. The presence of the Gospel is a necessary condition for the Holy Spirit to work in the heart of the unregenerate person. This is in line with Romans 10:17, which states that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." The Holy Spirit must germinate the seed of the Word of God in the heart of the person, enabling them to believe and be saved.

In this context, Satan's actions to steal the Word make sense. By removing the seed of the Word, he aims to hinder the work of the Holy Spirit and thwart the growth of faith that could result from the presence of the Gospel. Thus, Satan's actions do not contradict the Calvinist understanding of salvation; rather, they underscore the importance of the Gospel message as a necessary condition for the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the unregenerate person.

If I were to use an illustration, their argument seems to go along the following lines: imagine a farmer who sows his seed in the hope of a harvest, but an enemy comes along and steals the seed. Why does the crop not grow anyway? It rained so there still should have been a crop. Obviously because the rain requires the seed for it to actually grow. It does not produce a crop without it.

To bring this to the illustration into the bible inquiry that was brought up, it is like saying, if the seed of the word is snatched away, why doesn't the crop grow anyway. In the Calvinist interpretation (the critic reasons) the Holy Spirit can bring someone to faith anyway apart from the word. But this is not what Calvinists believe. God does not save people in a vacuum or apart from the word of God but through the preaching of the gospel. If the word is missing then we believe a person is inhibited from coming to faith. The Holy Spirit must germinate that gospel seed if there is to be life. Just because the passage in question does directly not talk about about the Holy Spirit does not mean that He is not necessary. This leads me to believe that the person asking the question is probably not an actual classic Arminian since people with that theological conviction also affirm the necessity of the Holy Spirit in salvation. It sounds more like a Semi-Pelagian or perhaps an Provisionalist.

The fact that Satan can attempt to hinder the work of the Gospel does not refute the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. Irresistible Grace teaches that when the Holy Spirit effectively calls someone to salvation through the gospel, the person will inevitably come to faith in Christ. The power of God's grace is irresistible, but the means of grace, the proclamation of the Gospel, can be hindered by Satan's efforts.

As an aside, this type of unaided reasoning is reminiscent of non-Reformed individuals who assert that God's commands in Scripture indicate that people must therefore possess the moral ability to obey them. However, as Romans 3:19-20 illustrates, it does not follow that a command inherently demonstrates ability (through the law we become conscious of sin), nor does it alleviate our responsibility any more than someone who cannot repay their debt is absolved of responsibility. In the case of Luke 8:12, the same principle applies. The mere fact that a seed is snatched away does not imply that a person can come to faith apart from the Word. There is a crucial element missing from their analysis: the Word and the Spirit work together. This underscores the importance of embracing the whole counsel of Scripture, rather than developing an entire doctrine based on an isolated text and drawing conclusions from unaided reasoning powers.

Lastly this highlights the importance of prayer. The spiritual battle surrounding the proclamation of the Gospel, as evidenced by Satan's efforts to snatch away the Word, underscores the importance of prayer in evangelism. Believers are called to pray for the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who hear the Gospel, asking God to overcome any hindrances and bring about faith and repentance.

In conclusion, the Calvinistic interpretation of salvation in Luke 8:12 acknowledges the significance of the Gospel message as a necessary condition for the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the unregenerate person. Satan's actions to steal the Word serve to emphasize the importance of the Gospel and do not contradict the doctrines of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace. Instead, they highlight the ongoing spiritual battle that surrounds the proclamation of the Gospel and the necessity of God's sovereign grace in bringing about the salvation of His elect.

I hope this answer provides you with a better understanding of the Calvinistic perspective on this passage and how it relates to the broader Reformed theological tradition. May you continue to search the Scriptures diligently and grow in your understanding of God's sovereign grace and love.
 
Everything. . .
Aww. So God is the author of evil. Got it.

Keeping in mind that the human will does not operate in a vacuum, it is governed by the disposition; I.e., what we prefer.
Yes.. and some of us realised how we were lost with no hope. And wanted to be saved.
God works in the disposition, giving the elect to prefer his will.
Once again, then that person has no free will..
The spiritually dead in sin (Eph 2:1) cannot spiritually see (Jn 3:3-5), nor can they rebirth themselves.
They must be rebirthed by the sovereign (whose choice is as unaccountable as the wind, Jn 3:6-8) Holy Spirit in order to see, believe and be justified.
Lol

Once again, this is not true

Moses put the serpent up for everyone. Everyone had the ability to get saved, they just had to look in faith

Not everyone looked. So not everyone was saved.

Jesus used this as an example of what he did. As moses lifted the serpent. So too must the son of man be lifted up that all who believe

But he died for the world.

The things that seperates the lost and found is belief, not anything else.

He who believes, vs who who does not believe
 
But what did God determine?
Everything
Yes. But he does not force. nor does he prevent.

People suffer for their free will choices..
Not to say that he does force, but how does the propositional statement follow, that: IF "People suffer for their free will choices" THEN, "He does not force, nor does he prevent".

But, regardless, he 'causes' is not the same as to say he 'forces'. This mindset difference is partly paralleled in the mindset of those who say that the Calvinist has no need to choose to do anything, since what God has determined is going to happen regardless, automatically. But the Calvinist sees that what God has determined is SURE to happen, and not at all automatically. God uses means, to include our decisions.
the fatalistic view is one is born again first. then that persons eyes are opened. then he believes. and Then his is justified.
You may be aware that there is a huge variety in the way Calvinists and the Reformed express this "ordo salutis". The fact that we (I say, as if I was one of them, but I am so only in heart) try to lay out the logical order in which these 'mechanics of salvation' happen, is to maintain the absolute notion of Grace in the mind and heart. This does not mean that they must happen in sequence of time, but rather, that certain Biblical facts are not to be denied —to wit, that the unregenerate heart, per (at least) Ephesians 2 and Romans 8, is unwilling, dead, unable to accept the things of God, which includes faith which pleases God. Salvific faith is impossible for the dead to generate. It MUST be given by God, and it is so, by the indwelling Spirit of God, by which faith given, one believes salvifically, having been born again, transformed from dead to alive. I could on, about the lack of value in or of our commitment and knowledge, vs that of the Holy Spirit, but I think you get the point here.

That is not fatalistic.
I am not sure what you believe, but this is what I have been told by calvinists for years. (not saying your calvinist either)
I don't remember any Calvinist, nor Reformed, calling it a fatalistic view. I'm wondering if that isn't your word, you consider implied by what they believe.

But, since you mention "what you (I) believe", you should know I came to what I believe, besides through many means not necessary to be mentioned here, not by being taught Calvinism/Reformed, but by being taught many opposing self-contradictory and otherwise lopsided priorities of the faith, mixed with very good teaching directly from the Bible, and growing up memorizing scripture.

And, in some ways, the average Calvinist goes too far, and in other ways, not far enough, for me. Just remember WHY "we" say what we do. Salvation is ABSOLUTELY by Grace through faith, and that, not of ourselves. It is the GIFT of God. And that means that it cannot be hinged upon our decision.

As for "free will", to discuss further will be to get off track here, I think. I will be happy to do so on another thread, if you would like to start one, but be aware that definitions will be necessary, in order to have a common basis for understanding one another.
 
Last edited:
Everything

Not to say that he does force, but how does the propositional statement follow, that: IF "People suffer for their free will choices" THEN, "He does not force, nor does he prevent".

But, regardless, he 'causes' is not the same as to say he 'forces'. This mindset difference is partly paralleled in the mindset of those who say that the Calvinist has no need to choose to do anything, since what God has determined is going to happen regardless, automatically. But the Calvinist sees that what God has determined is SURE to happen, and not at all automatically. God uses means, to include our decisions.
Are you saying God determined, it was Gods will for Adam and Eve to sin and cause the fall of mankind?
You may be aware that there is a huge variety in the way Calvinists and the Reformed express this "ordo salutis". The fact that we (I say, as if I was one of them, but I am so only in heart) try to lay out the logical order in which these 'mechanics of salvation' happen, is to maintain the absolute notion of Grace in the mind and heart. This does not mean that they must happen in sequence of time, but rather, that certain Biblical facts are not to be denied —to wit, that the unregenerate heart, per (at least) Ephesians 2 and Romans 8, is unwilling, dead, unable to accept the things of God, which includes faith which pleases God. Salvific faith is impossible for the dead to generate. It MUST be given by God, and it is so, by the indwelling Spirit of God, by which faith given, one believes salvifically, having been born again, transformed from dead to alive. I could on, about the lack of value in or of our commitment and knowledge, vs that of the Holy Spirit, but I think you get the point here.
Lets try this.

The wage of sin is death, the gift of God is life

And we, who were dead in *(because) of tresspasses and sin, he made alive.

How can one be made alive while still under the wage or penalty of sin?

Yes. A natural man can not understand why people who suffer greatly can look with Joy, and do all these things which are foolish to him.

But he can know he is lost (Romans 1 says he not only knows this, but he hides this truth in his heart. So God gave them to a depraved mind)

And if they can know if they are lost. Is not the only thing that needs to happen, is for God to convict them of sin righteousness and judgment?
That is not fatalistic.
I disagree
I don't remember any Calvinist, nor Reformed, calling it a fatalistic view. I'm wondering if that isn't your word, you consider implied by what they believe.
They would not. It is what others call their view. We call it fatalistic because it states everything that will happen is already set in stone, we have no bearing on the outcome. Our eternity is already predestined. No matter what happens. This is fatalistic, as we have no choice in the matter, even if I somehow wanted to get saved. I would never be able to be saved unless God makes me alive first.
But, since you mention "what believe", you should know I came to what I believe, besides through many means not necessary to be mentioned here, not by being taught Calvinism/Reformed, but by being taught many opposing self-contradictory and otherwise lopsided priorities of the faith, mixed with very good teaching directly from the Bible, and growing up memorizing scripture.
Well this is Good praise God
And, in some ways, the average Calvinist goes too far, and in other ways, not far enough, for me. Just remember WHY "we" say what we do. Salvation is ABSOLUTELY by Grace through faith, and that, not of ourselves. It is the GIFT of God. And that means that it cannot be hinged upon our decision.
Then it is not through faith. It is solely of grace,

It should say it is by grace we have been saved, not of works lest anyone should boast. At least in my view

As for "free will", to discuss further will be to get off track here, I think. I will be happy to do so on another thread, if you would like to start one, but be aware that definitions will be necessary, in order to have a common basis for understanding one another.
If that is what you want to do. And I agree. We have to have a defenition. What one calls free will may not be what another calls it.. If we call it different things, we have no basis for which to discuss
 
@Eternally-Grateful

Are you saying God determined, it was Gods will for Adam and Eve to sin and cause the fall of mankind?

Yes, it was His predetermined plan that Adam sin and bring sin into the world, for God had already before the world began, before Adam was created, determined Christ would be the redeemer of His People 1 Pet 1:18-20

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
 
Aww. So God is the author of evil. Got it.


Yes.. and some of us realised how we were lost with no hope. And wanted to be saved.

Once again, then that person has no free will..

Lol

Once again, this is not true

Moses put the serpent up for everyone. Everyone had the ability to get saved, they just had to look in faith

Not everyone looked. So not everyone was saved.

Jesus used this as an example of what he did. As moses lifted the serpent. So too must the son of man be lifted up that all who believe

But he died for the world.

The things that seperates the lost and found is belief, not anything else.

He who believes, vs who who does not believe

Belief and faith are interchangeable in the Bible.

Where does faith come from to believe?
 
Are you saying God determined, it was Gods will for Adam and Eve to sin and cause the fall of mankind?

Lets try this.

The wage of sin is death, the gift of God is life

And we, who were dead in *(because) of tresspasses and sin, he made alive.

How can one be made alive while still under the wage or penalty of sin?

Yes. A natural man can not understand why people who suffer greatly can look with Joy, and do all these things which are foolish to him.

But he can know he is lost (Romans 1 says he not only knows this, but he hides this truth in his heart. So God gave them to a depraved mind)

And if they can know if they are lost. Is not the only thing that needs to happen, is for God to convict them of sin righteousness and judgment?

I disagree

They would not. It is what others call their view. We call it fatalistic because it states everything that will happen is already set in stone, we have no bearing on the outcome. Our eternity is already predestined. No matter what happens. This is fatalistic, as we have no choice in the matter, even if I somehow wanted to get saved. I would never be able to be saved unless God makes me alive first.

Well this is Good praise God

Then it is not through faith. It is solely of grace,

It should say it is by grace we have been saved, not of works lest anyone should boast. At least in my view


If that is what you want to do. And I agree. We have to have a defenition. What one calls free will may not be what another calls it.. If we call it different things, we have no basis for which to discuss
Perhaps it will be a Biblical definition of free will?
 
Belief and faith are interchangeable in the Bible.

Where does faith come from to believe?
Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is a trust, an assurance. Not just mere belief.

Abraham had faith God would raise his sone from the dead. That God would keep his promise. So he left his father’s house. And out of this faith, he believed God and God accounted it to him as righteousness.
 
Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is a trust, an assurance. Not just mere belief.

Abraham had faith God would raise his sone from the dead. That God would keep his promise. So he left his father’s house. And out of this faith, he believed God and God accounted it to him as righteousness.
How did Abraham get that faith?
 
@Eternally-Grateful



Yes, it was His predetermined plan that Adam sin and bring sin into the world, for God had already before the world began, before Adam was created, determined Christ would be the redeemer of His People 1 Pet 1:18-20

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
God provided the plan to savemankind

This does not mean he caused adam to sin.
 
God provided the plan to savemankind

This does not mean he caused adam to sin.
How would you explain this verse....

2 Samual 24:1 And again the anger of Yahweh burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
 
How did Abraham get that faith?
Lets let paul answer

Romans 4: 16. Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be [ sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17. (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 ;and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

Contrary to hope (evidence) in hope (the substance of things hoped for) believed (trusted God) he was not weak in faith. More did he waver at the promise of God, but was strengthened (By God) being fully convinced.

Now lets look at a difference between this and mere belief

1. A person who just believes will not in hope belief, they will want more evidence.
2. A reason who just believes has no faith. For even faith of a mustard seed can move a mountain
3. A person who just believes will waver, he goes back and forth. He does not make the decision
4. A person who has mere belief is not convinced..
 
How would you explain this verse....

2 Samual 24:1 And again the anger of Yahweh burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
So your saying david numbering a nation is so evil and thus God created evil?

I never really thought of this passage.

But I would not use this to say God caused evil to befall mankind
 
Lets let paul answer

Romans 4: 16. Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be [ sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17. (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 ;and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

Contrary to hope (evidence) in hope (the substance of things hoped for) believed (trusted God) he was not weak in faith. More did he waver at the promise of God, but was strengthened (By God) being fully convinced.

Now lets look at a difference between this and mere belief

1. A person who just believes will not in hope belief, they will want more evidence.
2. A reason who just believes has no faith. For even faith of a mustard seed can move a mountain
3. A person who just believes will waver, he goes back and forth. He does not make the decision
4. A person who has mere belief is not convinced..
This does not answer the question where his faith came from.

Do you think that faith came from Abraham or the Lord?
 
So your saying david numbering a nation is so evil and thus God created evil?

I never really thought of this passage.

But I would not use this to say God caused evil to befall mankind
I never said God created evil.

1 Chronicles 21:1 Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.

The Lord sovereignly and permissively used satan to accomplish His divine will.

Perhaps that is what happened with Adam in the garden?
 
This does not answer the question where his faith came from.

Do you think that faith came from Abraham or the Lord?
Actually I believe I did

God gave the promise

Abraham trusted God Abraham did not trust Self.

It is the giver who is either trustworthy enough to trust. Or not trustworthy enough.

How did abraham come to trust God. By one conversation with god. Or had God shown him through many things and many events he was a god who could be trusted?
 
I never said God created evil.

1 Chronicles 21:1 Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.

The Lord sovereignly and permissively used satan to accomplish His divine will.

Perhaps that is what happened with Adam in the garden?
David could have chose not to number could he have not? (I Believe so)

The word translated move means to entice away, or to mislead.

Is that not what he did to eve, could eve had withstood satan? More importantly Could Adam have withstood them?

And if God caused adam to sin, would it not be God who created the fall of mankind?
 
Actually I believe I did

God gave the promise

Abraham trusted God Abraham did not trust Self.

It is the giver who is either trustworthy enough to trust. Or not trustworthy enough.

How did abraham come to trust God. By one conversation with god. Or had God shown him through many things and many events he was a god who could be trusted?
God sovereignly chose Abraham, and not because of anything he did. Genesis 12.
 
This does not answer the question where his faith came from.

Do you think that faith came from Abraham or the Lord?
That is, @Eternally-Grateful

Is saving faith generated by the human, or generated by the Spirit of God indwelling them?

Consider, in your answer, the value or worth of what it takes to produce such a thing as salvific faith: full of wisdom, understanding, constancy of dedication, love for God, infinite, exhaustive knowledge of all the terms of the gospel, the drive for accomplishing God's purposes and so on. Only God has that.
 
Actually I believe I did

God gave the promise

Abraham trusted God Abraham did not trust Self.

It is the giver who is either trustworthy enough to trust. Or not trustworthy enough.

How did abraham come to trust God. By one conversation with god. Or had God shown him through many things and many events he was a god who could be trusted?
Forgive my bad manners.

Welcome to the forum friend.
 
Back
Top