Does Matthew 13:11 support election and reprobation?

[Hammster]

Peter says hello.

Non sequitur

 

[hedrick]

I note, however, that Jesus isn't saying that everyone other than the disciples is damned.

Would you explain please?

Having looked more closely at the whole context, I'm going to make an adjustment. Jesus is saying to his disciples that the secrets of the Kingdom have been given to them. He seems to be speaking specifically to the disciples, which is why I said that he can't be speaking of salvation. Surely people other than the disciples are saved.

But given the whole context of 10-16, that's not so clear. Jesus is making a distinction between them and those who don't hear. The whole context suggests a contrast between those who understand him and those who don't. So I think it's reasonable to assume that the disciples are just an example of those who hear.

But as for election, let's look at the whole episode. Jesus definitely says that the disciples have been given the ability to know things that other haven't. But to establish predestination, it would have to be clear that this choice isn't based on anything about the people. I believe that is not the case.

11:12 strongly says that people who already have something (I'd assume some level of willingness to hear) are given more, and those who have nothing have even that little removed. This favors an idea that Jesus reveals himself to those who have a willingness to listen, or that there's something else about them.

Similarly the quote from Isaiah. Isaiah was sent to a people who were already disobedient. Isaiah 6:9 may well mean that God intentionally obscured his message in order to assure their punishment, but he didn't do this out of the clear blue sky. Interestingly, Jesus quotes a Greek text that is less prone to a predestinarian understanding that the original. 11:15 suggests that the people were already dull and hard of hearing.

 

[hedrick]

What is your position on unconditional election?

1 John 2:27 wasn't a typo, but I take your point.

My position is a sort of Lutheran one (though not necessarily Luther's -- there's debate about what his final position was). I believe there's a certain mystery about who believes and who doesn't. It's not the most intelligent, or wisest. God has chosen the foolish. If you set this up logically, it's easy to prove that God has chosen certain people, so those who don't believe weren't chosen, so he must have started out with a list of people he did and didn't want to be saved.

But there are two problems with this:

* We're trying to make deductions in an area where we just don't know much. We don't know what alternatives are available to God, nor do we see his final plan.

* The Bible has too many statements that God doesn't want anyone to be lost. This tends to lead to the idea that God has a revealed will that isn't his actual will. That's a bit too close to making him a liar for me to be comfortable.

I think it's safer to say that salvation comes as a gift to us which we don't deserve, but not to claim to know God's secret plan.

There's no question that there are predestinarian aspects in many books: Is 6:9, Matthew, John, and Paul, at the very least. They clearly see God as in control, and as electing people. (Much of his election is to a responsibility, though not for salvation or damnation in the abstract.) I'm not convinced, however, that they ever quite say that certain people were intended from creation to be damned. When reading Romans you have to look at the whole thrust of his argument, and not take individual passages in isolation.

For example, the famous potter and clay image in Romans. The problem with seeing that as predestination is that the overall argument he's making is that God's plan calls for Jews to be temporarily blind, to allow the full number of Gentiles to be brought in. He's talking about a role that is part of a plan which ends up with all people saved (or at least all categories of people). He's not saying God started out wanting to damn the Jewish people. Far from it. At any rate, the context of that image is a discussion of the people as a whole, not individuals, and it assigns the Jewish people a certain role in it that allows for their eventual salvation. It is *not* a rejection of the Jewish people, a point that he makes quite clear. This is a kind of election, but not a arbitrary election of individuals for salvation or reprobation.

 

[Skala]

How does that in any way refute what I have argued here?

What is clear is that Calvinists (including yourself) cite Matthew 13:11 as an example of Election and Reprobation.

The principle of the verse is that God chooses who to reveal himself to, and he chooses which hearts to harden and which to soften, as our hearts are, like the king's, "streams of water in the hands of the Lord, he turns it wherever He wills"

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

The principle of the verse is that God chooses who to reveal himself to, and he chooses which hearts to harden and which to soften, as our hearts are, like the king's, "streams of water in the hands of the Lord, he turns it wherever He wills"

God chooses to whom He reveals Himself and which hearts to harden and which to soften according to man's ways and deeds. This isn't rocket science.

Zechariah 1:6
Yet surely My words and My statutes, Which I commanded My servants the prophets, Did they not overtake your fathers? “So they returned and said: ‘Just as the Lord of hosts determined to do to us, according to our ways and according to our deeds, So He has dealt with us.’

 

[Skala]

God chooses to whom He reveals Himself and which hearts to harden and which to soften according to man's ways and deeds. This isn't rocket science.

Why does he need to soften the heart of someone who does good deeds already?

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Why does he need to soften the heart of someone who does good deeds already?

That's the way God chooses to do it. Any questions?

 

[Hammster]

That's the way God chooses to do it. Any questions?

That didn't answer the question.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

That didn't answer the question.

Sure it did. So the clay pot is going to question God. I see.

 

[Skala]

That's the way God chooses to do it. Any questions?

If someone already obeys God and is willing to follow God, then his heart isn't hard, and doesn't need to be softened.

Yet you're suggesting that God softens someone's heart who is already willing to do that stuff. Makes no sense.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

If someone already obeys God and is willing to follow God, then his heart isn't hard, and doesn't need to be softened.

Yet you're suggesting that God softens someone's heart who is already willing to do that stuff. Makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to me. Why question the way God does things? You read it for yourself.

 

[Skala]

It makes perfect sense to me. Why question the way God does things? You read it for yourself.

I only read a verse that was unrelated to the topic that you took out of context.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

I only read a verse that was unrelated to the topic that you took out of context.

Trying another avenue? I didn't take the verse out of context. Sorry Skala, but I give you credit for trying.

 

[Skala]

Trying another avenue? I didn't take the verse out of context. Sorry Skala, but I give you credit for trying.

The verse said nothing about God softening or hardening hearts based on if they, in and of themselves, obey.

 

[janxharris]

Having looked more closely at the whole context, I'm going to make an adjustment. Jesus is saying to his disciples that the secrets of the Kingdom have been given to them. He seems to be speaking specifically to the disciples, which is why I said that he can't be speaking of salvation. Surely people other than the disciples are saved.

Jesus wasn't just speaking to the twelve:

Mark 4:10,11
When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables​

But given the whole context of 10-16, that's not so clear. Jesus is making a distinction between them and those who don't hear. The whole context suggests a contrast between those who understand him and those who don't. So I think it's reasonable to assume that the disciples are just an example of those who hear.

But as for election, let's look at the whole episode. Jesus definitely says that the disciples have been given the ability to know things that other haven't. But to establish predestination, it would have to be clear that this choice isn't based on anything about the people. I believe that is not the case.

11:12 strongly says that people who already have something (I'd assume some level of willingness to hear) are given more, and those who have nothing have even that little removed. This favors an idea that Jesus reveals himself to those who have a willingness to listen, or that there's something else about them.

I agree that those who have a willingness to listen are 'given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God'.

Similarly the quote from Isaiah. Isaiah was sent to a people who were already disobedient. Isaiah 6:9 may well mean that God intentionally obscured his message in order to assure their punishment, but he didn't do this out of the clear blue sky. Interestingly, Jesus quotes a Greek text that is less prone to a predestinarian understanding that the original. 11:15 suggests that the people were already dull and hard of hearing.

Agreed.

Is 11:15 a typo?

 

[janxharris]

My position is a sort of Lutheran one (though not necessarily Luther's -- there's debate about what his final position was). I believe there's a certain mystery about who believes and who doesn't. It's not the most intelligent, or wisest. God has chosen the foolish. If you set this up logically, it's easy to prove that God has chosen certain people, so those who don't believe weren't chosen, so he must have started out with a list of people he did and didn't want to be saved.

But there are two problems with this:

* We're trying to make deductions in an area where we just don't know much. We don't know what alternatives are available to God, nor do we see his final plan.

* The Bible has too many statements that God doesn't want anyone to be lost. This tends to lead to the idea that God has a revealed will that isn't his actual will. That's a bit too close to making him a liar for me to be comfortable.

I think it's safer to say that salvation comes as a gift to us which we don't deserve, but not to claim to know God's secret plan.

There's no question that there are predestinarian aspects in many books: Is 6:9, Matthew, John, and Paul, at the very least. They clearly see God as in control, and as electing people. (Much of his election is to a responsibility, though not for salvation or damnation in the abstract.) I'm not convinced, however, that they ever quite say that certain people were intended from creation to be damned. When reading Romans you have to look at the whole thrust of his argument, and not take individual passages in isolation.

For example, the famous potter and clay image in Romans. The problem with seeing that as predestination is that the overall argument he's making is that God's plan calls for Jews to be temporarily blind, to allow the full number of Gentiles to be brought in. He's talking about a role that is part of a plan which ends up with all people saved (or at least all categories of people). He's not saying God started out wanting to damn the Jewish people. Far from it. At any rate, the context of that image is a discussion of the people as a whole, not individuals, and it assigns the Jewish people a certain role in it that allows for their eventual salvation. It is *not* a rejection of the Jewish people, a point that he makes quite clear. This is a kind of election, but not a arbitrary election of individuals for salvation or reprobation.

Interesting - thank you. I agree with much of what you say.

Romans 9 is a difficult chapter, but Paul's summary does seem to suggest that, as you say, we are not talking about individual salvation:

vv. 30-33
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”​

It would seem that Paul has this in mind throughout the chapter. Do we assume that the 'baton' has been passed to the Gentiles whilst Israel is temporarily blind - until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in? Is God working, in general, through Gentile believers (though, obviously, not exclusively) until the Jewish nation, as a whole (and especially the Jewish religious leaders) come to the point when they finally recognise Jesus for who he really is?

Matthew 23:39
For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’​

 

[Skala]

Interesting - thank you. I agree with much of what you say.

Romans 9 is a difficult chapter, but Paul's summary does seem to suggest that, as you say, we are not talking about individual salvation:

vv. 30-33
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”​

It would seem that Paul has this in mind throughout the chapter. Do we assume that the 'baton' has been passed to the Gentiles whilst Israel is temporarily blind - until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in? Is God working, in general, through Gentile believers (though, obviously, not exclusively) until the Jewish nation, as a whole (and especially the Jewish religious leaders) come to the point when they finally recognise Jesus for who he really is?

Matthew 23:39
For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’​

It's talking about salvation. Did you see the part where he said stuff like "mercy" and "harden" and "vessel of wrath"? Did you see the part where he said "even us whom he called, not only from jews, but also from the gentiles"?

 

[janxharris]

The principle of the verse is that God chooses who to reveal himself to, and he chooses which hearts to harden and which to soften, as our hearts are, like the king's, "streams of water in the hands of the Lord, he turns it wherever He wills"

By using the word 'principle', are you suggesting that Jesus was not necessarily exposing a particular group of individuals as damned and another group of individuals as elect? If he was just establishing a principle, why did he actually single out two distinct groups and then proceed to give knowledge to the group whose hearts weren't calloused.

Mark 4:10,11
When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables

Matthew 13:11
He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

Did Jesus actually give knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven to the twelve (and others that were with him) or not?

 

[janxharris]

The principle of the verse is that God chooses who to reveal himself to, and he chooses which hearts to harden and which to soften, as our hearts are, like the king's, "streams of water in the hands of the Lord, he turns it wherever He wills"

Jesus establishes the principle of election (as defined under Calvinism) by selecting a group of individuals that includes a reprobate? He includes the son of perdition? Only by forcing unconditional election on Matthew 13:11 (see also Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10) does such an anomaly arise. Jesus said:

Matthew 13:12
Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

Matthew 13:15
For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.

Election is conditional. Jesus says so.

 

[harrisrose77]

“I Speak in Parables So They WON’T Understand.”

PLEASE FOCUS ON THE CONCLUSION OF THIS EXPOSITION. THANK YOU.

God's timing is the ALL important thing. It wasn't because they were not to be saved, (those outside the 12), but that after the Crucifiction, they MAY be saved.
The 12 had to be seen as an example of the elect, just as Israel is an example of being the CHOSEN Nation, of ALL Nations. And Israelites being set appart, just as Jesus has set appart His Bride, (Church), etc, etc....
Even the 12 did not all understand, but the mysteries were implanted spiritually.