Parable of the Sower Interpretation

[Filter]

I have been reading through Matthew in my morning devotionals, and this morning I was reading the Parable of the Sower. I had taken a class on the life and teachings of Jesus three years ago, and I was reminded of a document we were assigned to read on the parables (which I still have on my computer).

The article is by Arnold Fruchtenbaum (it was a dispensational school), and I am interested by what I read. The summary statement for each group of seed is thus:

Those who fall by the wayside: This is the response of unbelief

Those Who Fall on the Rocky Places: While they are saved, they never produce the kind of fruit that believers need to produce

Those Who Fall among the Thorns: They also believe...[but] are not stabilized and also do not produce the kind of fruit they should

Those who fall on good ground: These are the people who believe and are rooted in the Word of God...they are productive in their spiritual life.

Is this a common interpretation from a certain hermeneutic? I don't think I've heard anyone else claim that three of the four types of seeds are saved besides this article (and the school's apparent endorsement). How do they come to this conclusion?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This interpretation is more typical (I can't say "typical" b/c I don't know) among non-Reformed Bible studies. It seems theologically connected to both a "once-saved-always-saved" (OSAS) commitment, as well as the "free grace" idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_grace_theology). The fact that most of the proponents of those ideas also embrace dispensationalism might lead one to reason for a direct relationship; however, I think it is more of an affiliation of ideas.

As to how their conclusion comes about, the "reception" of the seed/word implies "faith" to such a model; and the permanence of salvation together with a parable that would seem to confirm their notions of saved-but-not-committed yields an interpretations that confirms the bias.

The parable is also more "balanced" than it sometimes gets credit for being. There are three unfruitful-ground, which is Jesus' primary teaching emphasis; and there are three types or strengths (30, 60, 100) of the fruitful-ground. A more patient study of the parable shows the other interpretation is tendentious. Jesus' presents the parable as a warning to all different sorts who might reject his kingdom, including not a few who only seem to belong to it.

 

[JennyGeddes]

This interpretation is more typical (I can't say "typical" b/c I don't know) among non-Reformed Bible studies. It seems theologically connected to both a "once-saved-always-saved" (OSAS) commitment, as well as the "free grace" idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_grace_theology). The fact that most of the proponents of those ideas also embrace dispensationalism might lead one to reason for a direct relationship; however, I think it is more of an affiliation of ideas.


Thank you for this reply (and thanks to you, Filter, for asking).
I’ve never heard of this alternate interpretation before, but I can see how some may favor it to fit their “carnal Christian” philosophy.

*Edited to separate my reply from the quoted part. *

Thank you for this reply (and thanks to you, Filter, for asking).
I’ve never heard of this alternate interpretation before, but I can see how some may favor it to fit their “carnal Christian” philosophy.

 

[KMK]

I once heard a pastor teach that this parable encourages us to choose which soil we want to be.