Why was it necessary for Christ to hide truth in a parable

TomL said:
Well scripture refutes you

John 12:40 (ESV) — 40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”

John 20:31 (ESV) — 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Click to expand...
You need to ditch post modern/post truth thought that seeks to raise man above His station. John 20:31 does nothing to lessen the truth and impact of John 12:40 at that time, which was a judgment against Israel. It was also, again, mercy, because the more they understand and still reject, the worse their eternal torment. The worse their punishment. One way to consider eternal punishment is that the level of torment/punishment is directly proportional to how much one knew of the truth and rejected. While Dante may have been wrong in his depiction of the afterlife, the idea of gradations of punishment may not be far from the mark. Jesus, through His judgments of people and places, showed that there is a level of punishment/culpability, when He said that Sodom and Gomorrah would have it easier in judgment then those who rejected Jesus words.
TomL said:
That is begging the question. You simply assume that those being saved wer firstregeneration but in
Click to expand...
And you will have to keep begging the question, because God never gives an answer. We have no empirical evidence of what you are saying. That is a symptom of post modern thought. A way to attempt to weasel out of a situation by putting the onus on God.
TomL said:
John 20:31 (ESV) — 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is why the words are written. It doesn't say it will happen, for only God would know that, and God has told us what He has done. Yet there are some who will read, and believe that Jesus is the Christ, so this is NOT out of place. Trying to squeeze more out of it then there is, is too much.
TomL said:
one believes before given life (regeneration)
Click to expand...
But Paul says one cannot believe without spiritual understanding, which requires spiritual life. (not salvation, but a spirit that is alive and understanding spiritual truth. That moment for Paul on the road to Damascus is when He ran into Jesus and was knocked off his ride. Jesus knocked some sense into Saul. Saul was never more alive (spiritually, his spirit, not the Holy Spirit), and never more dead (unsaved) the moment He met Jesus on that road.
TomL said:
and many other place as well

Sorry you took the verse out of context. It refers to bearing fruit not believing the gospel.
Click to expand...
So, when the disciples ask Jesus "who then can be saved", they were asking who then can bear fruit? Jesus didn't say that with non-gardening man it is impossible. With man, salvation is impossible, but with God, even that becomes possible. Yet, that makes God the focal point of salvation, and not man, which is what you believe is the focal point of salvation. If God does not intervene, if God is not involved, if God is not around, there can be no salvation.
 
armylngst said:
You need to ditch post modern/post truth thought that seeks to raise man above His station. John 20:31 does nothing to lessen the truth and impact of John 12:40 at that time, which was a judgment against Israel. It was also, again, mercy, because the more they understand and still reject, the worse their eternal torment. The worse their punishment. One way to consider eternal punishment is that the level of torment/punishment is directly proportional to how much one knew of the truth and rejected. While Dante may have been wrong in his depiction of the afterlife, the idea of gradations of punishment may not be far from the mark. Jesus, through His judgments of people and places, showed that there is a level of punishment/culpability, when He said that Sodom and Gomorrah would have it easier in judgment then those who rejected Jesus words.
Click to expand...
Have you not just assumed I am raising man above his station. you are assuming your theology correct thus you beg the question

Further you have not addressed the difficulty these verses pose for Calvinism

Both show man as capable of belief. The onus is on you to show these verses are compatible with your doctrine

I do not see that you have met it



armylngst said:
And you will have to keep begging the question, because God never gives an answer. We have no empirical evidence of what you are saying. That is a symptom of post modern thought. A way to attempt to weasel out of a situation by putting the onus on God.
Click to expand...
Er God spoke already. The Holy spirit inspired Jesus and John to quote those words

It is your onus which has not been met
 
TomL said:
How does that not show men had a capability to believe

Contrary to what Calvinism claims.
Click to expand...
It's like how Moses was the only one from the prophets that spoke to God directly, and everyone else got the symbolism treatment.

The mystery of God is hidden even from pastors, it goes beyond belief.
 
Frank Russell said:
It's like how Moses was the only one from the prophets that spoke to God directly, and everyone else got the symbolism treatment.

The mystery of God is hidden even from pastors, it goes beyond belief.
Click to expand...
It more like Christ had a mission to accomplish and to accomplish it he hardened an already rebellious people in their rebellion so as to accomplish the crucifixion.
 
civic said:
@Frank Russell @TomL I think what both of you are saying is true. There are many facets to Gods word and what it can accomplish. It can blind, reflect, convict, reveal, be understood, misunderstood, its literal, spiritual, tears down, builds up , a mirror etc.......
Click to expand...
My initial comment was to say, the interpretation of the poster was a reflection of his own situation and perhaps mission. What is "the interpretation" for one person, is not the case for everyone.
 
TomL said:
Have you not just assumed I am raising man above his station. you are assuming your theology correct thus you beg the question

Further you have not addressed the difficulty these verses pose for Calvinism

Both show man as capable of belief. The onus is on you to show these verses are compatible with your doctrine

I do not see that you have met it
Click to expand...
However, Jesus said that with man it is impossible, in response to the disciples question "Then who can be saved?" One can infer that it started with them being astonished/shocked by Jesus response prior, that they understood that Jesus was saying that for the rich man, it isn't going to happen. [It may have been an object lesson, and the rich man could have all of a sudden had his love affair with money turn to hate, but the Bible doesn't talk about this. It speaks more to his love for money being final.] If God does not awaken man to the understanding of spiritual truth, man will continue going the way they have always gone, lost in sin. Or, are we to believe that Saul should have just woken up one day a new man?
TomL said:
Er God spoke already. The Holy spirit inspired Jesus and John to quote those words

It is your onus which has not been met
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I strongly disagree.
 
armylngst said:
However, Jesus said that with man it is impossible, in response to the disciples question "Then who can be saved?" One can infer that it started with them being astonished/shocked by Jesus response prior, that they understood that Jesus was saying that for the rich man, it isn't going to happen. [It may have been an object lesson, and the rich man could have all of a sudden had his love affair with money turn to hate, but the Bible doesn't talk about this. It speaks more to his love for money being final.] If God does not awaken man to the understanding of spiritual truth, man will continue going the way they have always gone, lost in sin. Or, are we to believe that Saul should have just woken up one day a new man?

Sorry, but I strongly disagree.
Click to expand...
Context. That involved men rich with money. And it stated nothing about the man's understanding

You may disagree, but you have not rebutted the scripture quoted so you are disagreeing contrary to scripture
 

Why was it necessary for Christ to hide truth in a parable​

TomL said:
Mark 4:10–12 (NASB 2020) — 10 As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve disciples, began asking Him about the parables. 11 And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those who are outside, everything comes in parables, 12 so that WHILE SEEING THEY MAY SEE, AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR, AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND IT WOULD BE FORGIVEN THEM.”

Why if man is born with no ability to receive biblical truth is Christ hiding the truth in a parable?

How is it that this is to prevent a circumstance in which they might otherwise return (repent) and be forgiven?
Click to expand...
Hello @TomL,

Why did you ask the question of the subject heading within this section of the forum, where Calvinism vs. Arminianism is the topic? Was it intended to be considered in the light of the topic, or independent of it?

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
 
TomL said:
Context. That involved men rich with money. And it stated nothing about the man's understanding

You may disagree, but you have not rebutted the scripture quoted so you are disagreeing contrary to scripture
Click to expand...
The context speaks a lot to the rich man's understanding, however, it showed what the rich man could not accept, and would not accept. Jesus provided point blank knowledge on what it would take to enter the kingdom, and the rich man could not accept it. Jesus told him that he would have to do something he just couldn't do. Did Jesus change the requirements afterwards and say, "Ok, I understand. How about I do this?" The standard NEVER changes.

Context, the disciples question was "Then who can be saved?" It wasn't about rich men, but about ANYONE. Why? Think about Job. Job's friends had an opinion about God and how life works. They were wrong, but they still had one. The disciples also had an opinion about how life works, and Jesus just told them they were wrong. So if they were wrong on rich people being blessed by God because God really wanted them, and they were at the front of the line at the gate for entrance to the Kingdom, but Jesus just said that they have no chance, then who has a chance? Jesus said... NO ONE. NO ONE has a chance, accept God allow it. That is, with man it is impossible, but with God (God must act), everything is possible. Jesus just underscored that it is in fact God who gets to choose who spends eternity with Him. We don't get to tell God who He must accept, or He is evil, or anything like that.
 
Hello @armylngst , 🙂

'The Rich Young Ruler'
[Matthew 19:16-30 ; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30]

The rich young ruler trusted in his riches (Mark 10:24) selling all that he had would require that he trust God for everything. He had come running, and knelt before the Lord Jesus Christ, he was not lacking in zeal and humility, therefore, or in obedience to the law of God. He was a ruler, a rich young man, a man who sought to walk uprightly before God, and was willing to do what was required of Him to receive eternal life, except to sell all that he had, for he trusted in his wealth to secure his position in society, to keep him in the manner to which he was accustomed. To step out in faith from such a height that he occupied as a rich young ruler in that society, was a price too high for him to pay.

We are in no position to judge such a man, for we were saved by grace, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing was demanded of us, except that we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and trust Him as our Saviour and Lord. For with God all things are indeed possible.

Praise His Holy Name!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
 
Last edited:
armylngst said:
The context speaks a lot to the rich man's understanding, however, it showed what the rich man could not accept, and would not accept. Jesus provided point blank knowledge on what it would take to enter the kingdom, and the rich man could not accept it. Jesus told him that he would have to do something he just couldn't do. Did Jesus change the requirements afterwards and say, "Ok, I understand. How about I do this?" The standard NEVER changes.

Context, the disciples question was "Then who can be saved?" It wasn't about rich men, but about ANYONE. Why? Think about Job. Job's friends had an opinion about God and how life works. They were wrong, but they still had one. The disciples also had an opinion about how life works, and Jesus just told them they were wrong. So if they were wrong on rich people being blessed by God because God really wanted them, and they were at the front of the line at the gate for entrance to the Kingdom, but Jesus just said that they have no chance, then who has a chance? Jesus said... NO ONE. NO ONE has a chance, accept God allow it. That is, with man it is impossible, but with God (God must act), everything is possible. Jesus just underscored that it is in fact God who gets to choose who spends eternity with Him. We don't get to tell God who He must accept, or He is evil, or anything like that.
Click to expand...
No one believes man can save himself that is a non sequitur

The issue is man's capability to believe

Nothing there is affirming man is incapable of belief

these plainly show otherwise

Luke 8:13 (NASB 2020) — 13 Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; they believe for a while, and in a time of temptation they fall away.

This clearly shows man capable of understanding and belief

John 12:40 (NASB 2020) — 40 “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WILL NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED, AND SO I WILL NOT HEAL THEM.”

This shows man capable of understanding and belief which would be saving if not prevented

John 20:31 (NASB 2020) — 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in His name.

This clearly shows some might believe and as a result be saved through the reading of scripture

to deny that is to deny scripture
 
Complete said:

Why was it necessary for Christ to hide truth in a parable​


Hello @TomL,

Why did you ask the question of the subject heading within this section of the forum, where Calvinism vs. Arminianism is the topic? Was it intended to be considered in the light of the topic, or independent of it?

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Click to expand...
Certainly, in the light of it.

Calvinism teaches men are incapable of belief unless first regenerated.

That would make the necessity to hide truth in parables superflous.
 

Similar threads

T
Refuting effectually caused faith
61 62 63
Replies
1K
Views
7K
TomL
T
Lily
The Parable of the Ten Virgins
Replies
2
Views
65
Lily
Lily
civic
The 4 soils in the parable refute T.U.L.I.P.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
680
TomL
T
civic
Who are the dead and what does it mean to be dead in Calvinism ?
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
941
Administrator
Administrator
koberstein
Yeshua the Messiah: Master Teacher and Storyteller
Replies
1
Views
122
TedT
T
Back
Top Bottom