tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post7393958672843301902..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Poll - What was the "field" in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13)?James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-75820454383922658192009-11-20T20:48:57.871-05:002009-11-20T20:48:57.871-05:00The Catholic interpolation interprets the parable ...The Catholic interpolation interprets the parable as meaning that God and Satan both sow their people into the world, as though some people are created by Satan and some by God (how stupid!). In reality, the field is Scripture, and Jesus is saying that the devil will sow tares in Scripture (like Romans 9 for example), and that the servants (those who copy the text) should not removed them (pull up the tares) but rather leave that to the reapers (the readers) who will first bind the tares to be burned (not believed) and then gather the wheat (the true parts of the Scripture) into the barn. This interpretation has ancient support also in the Pseudo-Clementines, and in Faustus the Manichean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-62780189730176396502009-11-16T22:12:50.365-05:002009-11-16T22:12:50.365-05:00Likewise, if Mr. Bellisario can produce a sentence...<i>Likewise, if Mr. Bellisario can produce a sentence where the word "idiot" in this context is not designed to ridicule someone, I'll concede that point as well.</i><br /><br />Turritinfan might say that Matthew was using the term merely descriptively.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />TrollAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353069946995823072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83378961244453612152009-11-16T20:45:04.251-05:002009-11-16T20:45:04.251-05:00I asked Matthew Bellisario:
And maybe, just maybe...I asked Matthew Bellisario:<br /><br /><i>And maybe, just maybe, you'll have to answer to our heavenly Father for calling us all idiots. Ever think of that?</i><br /><br />Matthew said...<br /><br /><i>No, idiot fits you all perfectly, and is justified by the responses you have.<br /><br />I think it fits by definition. So I don't think it is uncharitable. I could be wrong, I am not infallible.</i><br /><br />Well, at least he <i>has</i> thought enough about it to look up the dictionary definition. Too bad it doesn't go beyond that to character introspection, though.<br /><br />Just so I understand this: as "world" can mean "Church" at a whim, calling someone an "idiot" is <i>not</i> uncharitable.<br /><br />If Mr. Bellisario will produce a parable from the Scriptures where the word "world" <i>does</i> mean "Church," I'll be happy to concede the point.<br /><br />Likewise, if Mr. Bellisario can produce a sentence where the word "idiot" in this context is not designed to ridicule someone, I'll concede that point as well.Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60641416811697905972009-11-16T16:43:30.659-05:002009-11-16T16:43:30.659-05:00First, I have to say that I'm ashamed of the n...First, I have to say that I'm ashamed of the name calling. We would never (hopefully) talk this way face to face. We're all Christians here, let's put on Christ.<br /><br />As far as the Scripture in question goes; Jesus compared the Kingdom of Heaven with the field, which is the world. Therefore, the Kingdom of Heaven, like the world is comprised of wheat and tares. <br /><br />The field is the world, it's not the Kingdom of Heaven, yet it is like the Kingdom of Heaven. What we need to be asking is not what Jesus meant by the field but what He meant by the Kingdom of Heaven.Richard Froggatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931363750222373223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33473139877365453412009-11-16T16:29:12.323-05:002009-11-16T16:29:12.323-05:00I will admit my minor error and revise my remarks ...<i>I will admit my minor error and revise my remarks thus:<br /><br />"Well, what ever they are, Jesus said they are the world, he did not say they are the Church. How much plainer can he be?"<br /><br />Happy now?</i><br /><br />Yes, I am happy now.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />TrollAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353069946995823072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44643160053819585592009-11-16T16:18:53.110-05:002009-11-16T16:18:53.110-05:00David:
Do you agree with the visible/invisible ch...David:<br /><br />Do you agree with the visible/invisible church distinction?<br /><br />-TurretinFan<br /><br />I think this is possibly the key distinction.<br /><br />By the way, we can also add Brown and Fitzmyer, the frequently cited catholic theologians who are here thought of more often than not as the supreme authority on Romanist biblical matters, to the list of interpreters who interpret the text contrary to Jesus.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />TrollAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353069946995823072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-31448937741910665872009-11-16T14:53:29.956-05:002009-11-16T14:53:29.956-05:00David:
Do you agree with the visible/invisible ch...David:<br /><br />Do you agree with the visible/invisible church distinction?<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30559132274991592212009-11-16T14:15:04.911-05:002009-11-16T14:15:04.911-05:00BTW, all the chest thumping by the RCs here is rat...BTW, all the chest thumping by the RCs here is rather illuminating. It is as if they believe such a display will cover up the bankruptcy of their arguments:<br /><br />1) Though Christ says the field is the world, he meant it is the Church<br /><br />2) Though Christ said the field is the world, we are free to apply that in any way we see fit<br /><br />3) Though Christ says the field is the world, other prominent Protestants said otherwise, and as everyone knows, Protestants are beholden to their leaders<br /><br />All these are beside the point. Why not just admit that saying the field is the Church is not reading what was said, but reading into what was said--no matter who makes the claim.<br /><br />It is quite obvious that the RCs here are so invested in being right that simply accepting Jesus' own interpretation of his own parable is some kind of daft interpolation into what was said.<br /><br />I mean really, come on!Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-19799642558853626742009-11-16T14:04:59.109-05:002009-11-16T14:04:59.109-05:00David,
My oh my, just because you follow Calvin&#...David,<br /><br />My oh my, just because you follow Calvin's et al. errors does not make the error non-error. <br /><br />If Christ says the field is the world, who are you, Calvin or anyone else to instruct him?<br /><br />C'mon, just admit you are wrong. Be honest.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-85156407033056503622009-11-16T13:55:01.579-05:002009-11-16T13:55:01.579-05:00Hello Edward,
You said:
>> Just admit you ...Hello Edward,<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />>> Just admit you guys are wrong, and stop grasping at straws to "prove" you are "right". The desperation and over the top rhetoric is really unbecoming when the wrongness of the interpretation offered by the RCs here is so patently obvious. As I said earlier, this plays right into your opponents' hands.>><br /><br />Me: My-oh-my, have you been reading any of the quotes I have provided? John A. Broadus, David Brown, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, R.C. Ryle, and Geerhardus Vos are not “RCs”!!! IMO, what is becoming “patently obvious” is that you are unable follow the solid and consistent theological constructs provided by the above Biblical scholars. Ultimately, your ‘beef’ is with the above men, and not this simple beachbum, for I am merely siding them on this issue. <br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26205012883625065522009-11-16T13:23:30.092-05:002009-11-16T13:23:30.092-05:00No, idiot fits you all perfectly, and is justified...No, idiot fits you all perfectly, and is justified by the responses you have.<br /><br />Idiot.<br />–noun<br />1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.<br />2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.<br /><br />I think it fits by definition. So I don't think it is uncharitable. I could be wrong, I am not infallible.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-35774197149555758742009-11-16T13:09:55.737-05:002009-11-16T13:09:55.737-05:00Once Jesus has explained Himself, we have no justi...Once Jesus has explained Himself, we have no justification for creating other interpretations from this text.<br /><br />At issue is the question of other <i><b>possible applications</b></i> of the words wheat and tares within the Church. However, the word <i><b>world</b></i> never means <i><b>Christ's Church</b></i>, so that idea should be abandoned.<br /><br />Applications and interpretations are two different issues here, and we should be mindful of the distinction.<br /><br />And maybe, just maybe, you'll have to answer to our heavenly Father for calling us all idiots. Ever think of that?Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13923477767588536442009-11-16T13:04:10.101-05:002009-11-16T13:04:10.101-05:00BTW, Matthew's increasing ad-hominem quotient ...BTW, Matthew's increasing ad-hominem quotient is a sure sign he knows the game is up and he is in the wrong.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-46845136328409664992009-11-16T13:02:31.175-05:002009-11-16T13:02:31.175-05:00Alex,
Very well, I will revise my statement.
I ...Alex,<br /><br /><br />Very well, I will revise my statement.<br /><br />I wrote "Well, what ever they are, Jesus said the field is not the Church. How much plainer can he be?"<br /><br />I will admit my minor error and revise my remarks thus:<br /><br />"Well, what ever they are, Jesus said they are the world, he did not say they are the Church. How much plainer can he be?"<br /><br />Happy now?Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-21807942024451997162009-11-16T12:59:04.343-05:002009-11-16T12:59:04.343-05:00Edward, you specifically said, even pretending to ...Edward, you specifically said, even pretending to quote Jesus, "The field is not the Church".<br /><br />Jesus did not say that. <br /><br />I don't think this qualifies as semantic games.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />TrollAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353069946995823072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-53203281612119952572009-11-16T12:51:56.057-05:002009-11-16T12:51:56.057-05:00I never said that the passage didn't refer to ...I never said that the passage didn't refer to the world you idiots. You people are really starting to make asses out of yourselves. Where did any Catholic on any of these threads say that Jesus was wrong in that the passage refers to the world? We have said at least 10 times now that it is not the ONLY, read, ONLY, interpretation, and that it indeed also refers to the Church as cited by the Fathers and by Calvin as well. You Protesters dishonestly quote us, and I am tired of it. I never said Jesus was wrong, and you all are going to have to answer for your dishonesty in all of this.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-7208996083200042822009-11-16T12:45:22.995-05:002009-11-16T12:45:22.995-05:00Alex,
You are playing silly semantic games. The w...Alex,<br /><br />You are playing silly semantic games. The world is not the Church, it is the world. I might as well ask where does it say the field is not New York City?<br /><br />Just admit you guys are wrong, and stop grasping at straws to "prove" you are "right". The desperation and over the top rhetoric is really unbecoming when the wrongness of the interpretation offered by the RCs here is so patently obvious. As I said earlier, this plays right into your opponents' hands.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-28056772710671452652009-11-16T12:41:50.347-05:002009-11-16T12:41:50.347-05:00It means "the world" - just as Scripture...<i>It means "the world" - just as Scripture/Jesus says it does. Does that mean this parable ONLY applies to the world? Are Jesus' parables all one-dimensional? Or, could one apply the same parable to the Church?</i><br /><br />I think that as much as the Church continues until the return of Christ as a mixed bag of wheat and tares, sheep and goats, etc., it has an application.<br /><br />However, I would argue that the field in this parable is not the Church.<br /><br />I will stick with Jesus' interpretation of His own parable, with all due respect.Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3390591248244149002009-11-16T12:34:10.815-05:002009-11-16T12:34:10.815-05:00It started when I suggested earlier in this combox...<i>It started when I suggested earlier in this combox that Christ’s visible Church has both “wheat and tares” in it. Pretty amazing…aye???</i><br /><br />And since the Bible never uses that imagery, I pointed out that Jesus corrected you, and you've stubbornly refused to acknowledge His correction ever since. <br />What you should have said was: "Oops, you're right. What I meant to refer to was 1 Cor 5, 1 Thess 4, Matt 18, etc, where church discipline is actually taught, rather than mixing up my parables. I stand corrected."Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59604648340038383522009-11-16T12:32:09.593-05:002009-11-16T12:32:09.593-05:00Edward, where does he say that the field is not th...Edward, where does he say that the field is not the church? I read him saying that the field is the world, but as David has shown this is understood as the kingdom when looking at the full context.<br /><br />Sincerely, <br /><br />TrollAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353069946995823072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22228832290192310212009-11-16T12:14:07.473-05:002009-11-16T12:14:07.473-05:00Hi Louis,
Once again, thanks for responding. You ...Hi Louis,<br /><br />Once again, thanks for responding. You posted:<br /><br />>> I see. I'm still not sure one has to read it that way though.>><br /><br />Me: I concur, one does not have to agree with Augustine, Brown, Calvin, Edwards, Ryle, Vos, et. al.—Catholics and Protestants have representatives for both positions—THIS IS NOT A CATHOLIC/PROTESTANT ISSUE. <br /><br />>>It's his field, because it's his world. God of course reigns over all the earth, but the kingdom of heaven generally refers to something more specific. So the bad seed is not planted in exactly the same realm/kingdom; but the good seed is planted, bringing the kingdom of heaven with it.>><br /><br />Me: It can (and has) be read that way, but I side with the gents I have been quoting; IMO, the interpretation I have been defending is a better fit with subsequent parables of Matt. 13 (i.e. leaven, mustard-seed, and fish-net).<br /><br />>>I guessed I missed the first half of this debate, which must have started on another thread. What is the point of this disagreement anyway?>><br /><br />Me: It started when I suggested earlier in this combox that Christ’s visible Church has both “wheat and tares” in it. Pretty amazing…aye???<br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-54833355436927779292009-11-16T12:09:18.911-05:002009-11-16T12:09:18.911-05:00David,
Jesus himself interpreted his own words--h...David,<br /><br />Jesus himself interpreted his own words--he said "The field is not the Church". You want to re-interpret them differently. I don't know what else to say. You ask "what is the world" and "what is the field". Well, what ever they are, Jesus said the field is not the Church. How much plainer can he be?<br /><br />You claim to take the Lord's words seriously while you are saying they say something he himself says they do not mean.<br /><br />Matthew,<br /><br />"This thread is dead, and unless you guys are willing to admit that this passage obviously has a deeper meaning to it that just the world, then you deserve to remain in your obstinate ignorance."<br /><br />How is it ignorant to say what the Lord himself said about his own parable: The field is not the Church?<br /><br />All your huffing and puffing does not change the fact that you feel free to correct the Lord himself. <br /><br />Astonnishing.<br /><br />Cath Apol:<br /><br />"It means "the world" - just as Scripture/Jesus says it does. Does that mean this parable ONLY applies to the world? Are Jesus' parables all one-dimensional? Or, could one apply the same parable to the Church?"<br /><br />Saying it is applicable is different to other things is different from what your RC apologist buddies are basically saying: that it means the Church even if Christ himself says it does NOT mean the Church. Don't you find it a little disconcerting that your fellow apologists insist that simply believing Jesus means what he says when he interprets a parable he himself used is some kind of weird interpolation?<br /><br />And if it is applicable, what does that do for Church discipline? <br /><br />Finally, I think what we have seen here from the RC side is a desire to win, and never give even a nanometer--a Protestant must be wrong in all circumstances, even if it means going against what Jesus Christ himself says. If you guys can't be honest and state that the field is not the Church and instead look for some deeper meaning behind everything, aren't you playing right into prot arguments that you don't bother following the Scriptures--even when they are rather, shall we say, clear? It really seems that no mater what the Scriptures say, yo uguys will simply re-arrange everything to fit a pre-conceived outcome. No matter what.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-26853667367657904682009-11-16T12:01:21.151-05:002009-11-16T12:01:21.151-05:00There will be a post on that, Louis, in about an h...There will be a post on that, Louis, in about an hour.<br />The central issue here is that our Romanist friends on these threads can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-14463604210608639892009-11-16T11:54:57.556-05:002009-11-16T11:54:57.556-05:00David,
I see. I'm still not sure one has to r...David,<br /><br />I see. I'm still not sure one has to read it that way though. It's his field, because it's his world. God of course reigns over all the earth, but the kingdom of heaven generally refers to something more specific. So the bad seed is not planted in exactly the same realm/kingdom; but the good seed is planted, bringing the kingdom of heaven with it.<br /><br />I guessed I missed the first half of this debate, which must have started on another thread. What is the point of this disagreement anyway?louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447894010657835114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-30012653343909563922009-11-16T11:48:43.959-05:002009-11-16T11:48:43.959-05:00This has more to do with modern day Puritanical th...This has more to do with modern day Puritanical theology read back into Scripture than anything else. It is the hidden "true church" that provokes the thoughts of Rhology et al.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353069946995823072noreply@blogger.com