Confusing The Fruit in Mark 4:20

0:02 Looking at our world from a theological perspective. This is the Theology Central podcast, making Theology Central. Good morning everyone. It is Friday, September sixth, twenty twenty four. It is currently ten fifty seven am Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Well. I know I have presented to you so many questions, so many differing opinions on Mark Chapter four, verses three through twenty, and I know that I've presented those things to you, but I haven't really presented a lot of answers. And hopefully today we'll start working on some answers. I'm going to give you something to consider and think about in your interpretation of that particular section of Scripture. I never intended for us to really kind of get into this, but that's one of the things I love about this podcast is sometimes we never know where things are going, and we just kind of let things lead us to wherever it leads us, and wherever we find ourselves is where we find ourselves and then we make the most out of it.

1:14 It all started, if you remember, I got a study Bible right here that I brought home from the church. I haven't used this study Bible very much. And whenever I have a book that I haven't used a lot or done much with it or taken notes taught from it, I get very bothered because I want to get the most out of every single book Bible that I own. So I picked up the Bible started going through it, and there's an article right before you get to Genesis about how to read and study the Bible, and I'm like, okay, I mean, I've been teaching Bible study methods, you know, the twelve major methods. I've been teaching them for literally forever from Nebraska to Texas and anywhere else that people will give me the opportunity to teach them, because I think Christians need to know exactly how to study the Bible by not being given, you know, vague platitudes are just little cliches, but be given actual methods of Bible study.

2:09 So I've been teaching them and teaching them. So when i see an article about how to read and how to study the Bible, I'm like, Okay, great, let's see what perspective they put forth, because it may help give me new ideas, new tools that may challenge the way I do. Maybe it's going to give me a new method, et cetera, et cetera. So I'm like, let's do this. So we started, and almost instantaneously we found ourselves with a little bit of a problem because the study Bible put forth this argument. To be an effective Bible student, for the Bible to actually have any impact in your life, this is where you start, not with your mind, not with Bible study methods, not with hermeneutical principles. You start with the heart. You start with the heart. The Bible will have no impact in your life. It will be of no value unless the condition of your heart is right.

3:06 And that sounds so good, it sounds so spiritual. If you were to say that in church, depending on the type of church or in you may get a lot of amen's. That's right, brother, you preach it, you may get a lot of people yay, that's so true. We start with the heart, not with the mind. It's the condition of the heart that matters. And it sounds so good, it really does, and it preaches good. But sometimes things that preach good and things that sound good, in many cases are just logically flawed. Because here's what Christians do. So if you start with this premise, hey, the Bible will do you, it will be of no value, It'll be no good. It's not going to accomplish anything unless you get your heart right. Well then typically Christians will say, what do you need to get your heart right? Well, you need the Bible to get your heart right. But if the Bible can won't do anything unless I already have my heart right, well then I don't need the Bible to get my heart right. I have to get my heart right before the Bible will do anything. And if my heart is already right, then why do I need the Bible to get my heart right? Since my heart's already right. So it's like this circular reasoning, this contradictory thing, and Christians and I get constantly frustrated with Christians who say and do things they're just circular reasoning, contradictory, fifty different logical fallacies. Okay, I know there's not fifty. Okay, yeah, I can go through the major logical fallacies and it's like it can be said and down and Christians will be like, old, it was the greatest sermon. Oh, praise God,

4:40 And I'm like, what are you talking about you know, the big one. You know, a pastor will stand before the congregation when you became a Christian, you are a new creature. Old things are passed away, all things have become new. And then I'll take a breath, and we continue to fight against sin that's inside of us. We continue to fight the flat wha wait, wait, wait, wait wait. If I'm a new creature and old things have passed away and all things are new, then what am I fighting against? Because everything is new? That would mean the eradication of the sinful nature. Because everything is new. So then where does sin come from? And so they and they'll say that, and nobody will catch on and again to me, Now that one's a simple solution. If anyone is in Christ, he's a new creature. Old things are passed away, all things have become new. That is speaking of our position in Christ, not our practical reality. In my position, I am perfect, I am holy, I am righteous, and my practice I'm not. Why am my position different because my position is based off an imputed righteousness, not an infused righteousness. And that's why my position is different than my practice. Because my practice, I'm still a sinner with a sinful nature, and we continue to sin and thought word. Indeed, by what we do and by what we leave undone. That one is simple to explain. Yet Christians will continue to repeat that and confuse people of this just really bad reasoning. When it comes to Mark four, people will come to the at least according to the article and a book by the same author, Hey you got to get your heart right. You got to get

6:12 your heart and Mark four tells us that here's what happened. If your heart is not right, the word of God is just going to lay there and Satan's going to take it away. And if your heart's not right, well something may look like it's happening, but it's not going to last. Nothing is going to last. You have to have the right heart, the right soil for the Word of God to do anything. Without that, the preaching of God's word will not be effectual or effective. The study of God's word will not be effectual, the reading of God's word will not be effective. It's just not going to do anything. Get your heart right, and then the best they could offer is how do I get my heart right? The best we've heard so far, we even review a sermon is well just ask God and then He'll just give you a new heart. Well, then if he just gives me a new heart, and so then it was almost implied that every Christian in Salvation just gets a new heart, and so then the new heart doesn't have to get right because it's always right because it's a new heart. But even in the sermon we reviewed, even though they said that basically we get a new heart in salvation, then at the same time turned around and said, but sometimes the condition of our heart's not very good, so that means we get a new heart.

7:22 But then we ruin the new heart, and it just all this circular stuff. So we have definitely thrown out this idea. I think we've rejected it that Mark four, this parable has nothing to do by telling you who's an effectual Bible student or not an effectual Bible This has nothing to do with that, all right. I think it's a misapplication and misinterpretation of the parable. So we're still working on the parable. Another common way to approach the parable is that Mark four is about who is saved and who isn't saved. They approach it from how much more of a soteriological perspective? We kind of looked at the possibilities of that, but there is some problems in the way that is handled. So here's what I want to do. Here's my challenge for you. Right first, we will get into this at some point because we need to get back to the article. But the article let us here. And when we get led to it, remember I this is a major philosophy I have for this podcast. We review a lot of things. We review sermons, we read articles, and sometimes I offer my criticism. I offer my analysis, but I constantly say that if I find something negative, if I find something I'm being critical of and I don't like it, it's easy to criticize.

8:41 The goal is then to take that criticism and turn it into something positive and then to actually try to produce something of value, and it leads to a very in depth study and not just say WHOA, I disagree, move on, it's no, I disagree. Now let's work, work, work, work, work to try to put a better hypothesis, a better interpretation. Fourth and so that's what we're going to do with Mark chapter four. So here's first the challenge. I want you to read Mark four one through twenty carefully. I want you to read it about five times. I want you to really note that it lays out these different types of soil, right, I want you to lay. I want you to really consider that, and then I want you to consider this possibility. Is the key to understanding Mark four. Mark chapter three is Mark chapter three. The key to understanding Mark chapter four is Jesus and Mark four really creating a word picture of Mark chapter three.

10:00 I'm not saying that's right. I'm not saying that's wrong. That's a working hypothesis that I have right now. Right. I always talk about that, even at church or even here, that we're not a podcast that simply teaches theology. We do theology, and doing theologies, you create hypotheses and you question and you challenge you, and you come up with concepts and ideas. We're not just like, hey, here's what so and so said, and then don't tell you so and so said it and just teach it authoritatively. No, we may say so and so said this, but we're gonna question it and challenge it, not because we think we're smarter or right, but because doing theology. That's what it's all about. So I want you to consider Mark four, and I want you to just ask yourself, is the key to unlock Mark chapter four is the key to understanding it? Mark chapter three, and look understanding Mark chapter four, and the parable in Mark chapter four seems to be of the utmost importance. Why look at Mark chapter four, verse thirteen. This is Jesus, he said, unto them, the people he's he's saying these words to. You can go back and look at exactly who he's referring to here, right, all right, because he's with the twelve and those with him. Right.

11:10 But Mark, and you can look at that in Mark four ten. But Mark four thirteen, and he said to them, do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? It seems that if we don't understand Mark four one through twenty, if we don't understand the parable of the soils, or the parable of the seed and the sower, however you want to describe it. But everyone kind of get focuses on the different soil and the condition of it. It seems to me that if we cannot understand the parable and Mark four, we literally cannot understand any of the other parables. If anyone starts arguing with you about the parables, what you should do is like wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, explain to me the parable and Mark four. And if they can't explain it accurately or correctly, then there's no point in arguing with him about any of the other parables because they can't understand the other parables unless they get Mark four right. So, for you and I, if we're gonna even think that we can understand the other parables, we've got to get this one right. Mark four seems to be this is the key. We've got to get this one right. So then what do we do. Well, we've thrown out the idea that this is again how to be an effective Bible student. I think that just falls apart. I think it leads to circular reasoning and it just becomes contradictory. Hey, you got to get your heart right before you read the Bible, because if you

12:41 don't get your heart right before you read the Bible, well then it won't it won't have any effect. It won't be it won't it won't be effectual. So you got to get your heart right. However, you need the Bible in order to get your heart right. I know you're telling me, I got to get my heart right apart from the Bible, and then I go to the Bible. And once I go to the Bible, I don't know what I'm gonna do because my heart's already been made right. But I guess the Bible's only for people whose hearts are right. Like that just seems so contradictory, So we've thrown that out. Another common interpretation is that Mark chapter four is about is soteriological that this is the Mark Chapter four is how to prove if someone is saved.

13:23 If you have this soil, if this is if this soil condition represents your heart, you're not saved. If this soil represents your heart, you're not safe. That only one soil condition represents salvation and everyone else is lost. That is a common way of interpreting it. Not everyone agrees in christiendom even with that. So we started working with this concept. So I'm gonna go back and we're gonna look at this possible. So first thing I want you to do is I want you to read Mark four five times, and then I want you I didn't explain it enough detail. I apologize, so let me explain the assignment. Cly all right, read Mark four about five times one through twenty, and then consider Mark four in light of Mark three. Then go to Mark three and just go through Mark three carefully with Mark four in mind, and just see if you all of a sudden. I'm trying not to give too much away, so I'm trying to be somewhat vague in my assignment because I don't want I don't want to just kind of lead you to a conclusion. I want you to just start read and then start reading through Mark three with Mark four in mind, because you've already read it five times, and maybe pieces will come together, maybe it won't come together. I'm not trying to tell you what to look for, so I'm trying to be purposely vague there. I know I kind of interrupted myself, and I apologize, but I want you to do that. So read Mark four five times, then go to Mark three and just start working through Mark three with Mark four in mind, and you just tell me what happens. Right. That's that's as vague as I can make it. All right? Does that work? All right?

14:55 So we're throwing out the whole This is this is this, This text tells you how to be an effectual Bible student. We forget that. We're gonna just forget that. I think we can vary rejected it. We've demonstrated how just it doesn't make any sense, and now we're gonna deal with Well, is mark flour really about the proof of salvation? I don't know if that's the correct, But let's look at it. Are you ready? Are you ready to look at this? All right? The interpretation that the different soils and the parable of the sower represents different kinds of people, with only the good soil being true Christians is a common one.

15:37 So it is. It may be the most common. Hey, let's look at the parable of the soils. Hey, if this is you, this is you, this is you, you aren't saved. These are the only people who are saved. That is a common interpretation, all right. I think I think that's fair to say. I think it's probably the most common. However, there is debate about whether the other soils represent people who were never truly Christians, or whether they represent Christians who, for various reasons, fail to produce fruit. Let's explore the arguments for and against the view that only the good soil represents true Christians sense sense. The majority of view is that this represents that the good soils the only true Christians here. Since that's the dominant view, I think most I think that's fair to say. You can challenge me, but I think that's what I hear everywhere. Ultimately, even if they start their sermon not going that direction, they inevitably go there. The sermon we reviewed yesterday, I mean, throughout all the different soils, he's like, well, I sometimes struggle with this, and you sometimes struggle with this, and you sometimes struggle with this, and we can all relate to this because this has happened to us. And then and then all of a sudden, without any really warning, he's like, but all those three, all those other soils are lost people. And you're like, wait, you just said that.

17:07 That's you. It was really like almost schizophrenic, how quickly it changed. But we're gonna at least consider this view, all right. Arguments for the interpretation that only the good soil represents true Christians. Let's look at the arguments for the interpretation that only the good soil represents true Christians. And the first point, I think you know what the first point is going to be. They argue here that fruit is the evidence of genuine faith. Now, this is common within Christiandom. How do you know you're saved, you will have spiritual fruit. No spiritual fruit, you are not saved. Now, how do you exactly look at spiritual fruit? And we've had this conversation, right, We've had this conversation because we've acknowledged that if you look at what so called spiritual fruit is, in many cases, you can find these things in the lives of all kinds of people. Love, joy, peace, long suffering. I mean, much of that is like I've seen lost people who are very long suffering and patient.

18:25 I've seen lost people who love better than many Christians do. I mean, sometimes I will argue the lack of love I've seen within Christiandom is far worse than the lack of love I ever experienced from non Christians. And many people would say the same thing. And some of the fruit is just pretty general concepts that people may or may not have in their life. And then we talked about and it's also very difficult because we typically view fruit from an external perspective, and we know that that doesn't always meet ring true, right, Because even in the Gospel of Matthew, Hey, Lord Lord, did we not do this, did we not do this? Did we not do this?

19:05 And all of the external depart from me, for I never knew you. So the external is not necessarily a guarantee either. You can have it what it appears to be an external manifestation of fruit, but it's just external and there's no internal reality. Well, then how do you measure that? How do you quantify that? The fruit argument sounds good, but sometimes it's like, how does that actually work? So they're gonna get they're giving this argument that, Hey, the reason we interpret Mark four as being only one soil here represents salvation is because only one really produces fruit, and fruit is the way you prove salvation. Listen to their argument. One of the main arguments for this interpretation is that the good soil is the only one that produces fruit, and fruitfulness is often considered evidence of genuine faith in the New test Right, So the argument is fruit is the is the true evidence of salvation? All right?

20:09 So what verse are they going to quote to prove this? I quote, for example, Jesus says, and Matthew seven sixteen through twenty. By their fruit, you will recognize them. This perspective holds that a true Christian will inevitably produce some degree of spiritual fruit. Therefore, the argument is that the lack of fruit and the other soils indicate that these people were never truly saved or never had genuine saving faith.

20:50 Now that sounds good. I could say that to about You could walk around church on Sunday basically give everyone that very specific argument and reference Matthew said sixteen through twenty. Buy their fruit. You will recognize them, and almost everyone in your church will be like Amen. Even your pastor may say Amen, brother or sister, that is right. That's good. You did a great job. Of course, you can leave it up to the Theology Central podcast for me to say, uh, I'm gonna raise my hand here. And I've got a problem. I've got a problem. I think connecting the fruit and Mark four twenty to the fruit talked about in Matthew seven sixteen through twenty, I think that's a I think it's an incorrect cross I think that's an example of cross referencing going wrong. Because Christians are great, they'll talk a big game about cross referencing, but then they'll just put verses and passages together and you'll look at it like where's the lot? Why why are you putting them together? Well, they have the same word. Having the same word does not mean they necessarily go together. To cross reference, you have to be a little bit more loquit a minute.

22:06 Are we sure these fit together? Why are we fitting this together? Do we have an actual good reason for connecting these verses together? So what I want to do is we've kind of thrown out the idea that Mark four is telling us how to be an effectual Bible student. I want to at least throw out the idea that we should not be connecting the fruit and Mark four twenty to the fruit in Matthew seven sixteen through twenty. What do you think? So I decided I had already come up with kind of my own argument, my own thoughts, but I thought, you know, let me have a discussion with Ai about the subject, all right. So I first asked Ai about this entire situation with about about Mark four twenty. Some people saying that this shows only one group of people are saved, and at first even AI throughout Matthew chapter seven versus sixteen through twenty, that's kind of proof of that perspective. And so I'm like, well, me and Ai, we're going to have an argument today.

23:24 So I challenged AI, and I was like, well, wait a minute, are you sure that it's correct to connect Matthew seven sixteen through twenty with Mark four to twenty. Are you sure that's correct? At first, AI was a little hesitant, but they went on. AI begin to say some things like this, and I'll be quoting a little bit from the text back and forth between me and AI. All Right, so it says, this is what AI says, the passage you mentioned in Matthew seven sixteen through twenty is primarily about identifying false teachers rather than providing proof of salvation for individual Christians. And I was like, that's what I thought. So even Ai, when push comes to shove, even AI had to step back and go, well, okay, you're right. Primarily, primarily Matthew seven sixteen through twenty is about identifying false teachers. It's not about identifying who's saved or not saved. It's about identifying false teachers. You can't then take that, go to Mark four twenty and say, well, this fruit is connected to the fruit mentioned in Matthew's. No, it's not. It's completely different in this context, and the context of Matthew chapter seven sixteen through twenty, Jesus is warning his followers to be discerning about those who claim to be spiritual leaders or prophets. Let's go to it.

24:49 Go to Matthew chapter seven. Since this is the passage everyone quotes. Matthew chapter seven versus sixteenth. I'll start in verse fifteen for context. You ready, Matthew seven fifteen. Beware of Come on, everyone, say it with me. Matthew seven fifteen, beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they're ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Now, the fruit here is about identifying a false teacher. This is not about identifying salvation or non sufficient.

25:32 It's about finding the fruit that will help you determine if someone is a true or false prophet. And then what does he go on to say, speaking of the false prophets, you will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you will know them. He is referring to false teachers, to false teachers. That's what the text is about. So Ai says, to understand this, we need to look at the broader content of the broader passage. So it quotes Matthew seven fifteen through twenty right, and it says key points about this passage warning against false prophets. Jesus begins by specifically warning his followers to beware of false prophets.

26:36 These are individuals who appear outwardly pious or righteous in sheep's clothing, but are actually deceptive and harmful inwardly ravenous wolves. The focus of the passage is on being able to identify these false teachers are prophets by their fruits, which includes their action, teaching, and overall character. So the fruit being spoken of is you look to a false teacher, you look to their action, you look to their actual teaching, and you look to their overall character. That's what you're looking for. This is about how to identify a false teacher. Jesus used the metaphor of tree and fruit to illustrate how one can discern the true nature of these prophets, just as healthy trees produce good fruit and disease trees produce bad fruit. Particularly those claiming to be leaders or teachers reveal their true character in spiritual condition. The fruit here includes their behavior, lifestyle, moral conduct, and especially the content and effect of their teaching. The repetition of you will recognize them by their fruits, and verse sixteen and twenty reinforces that Jesus is giving criteria for identifying false prophets.

27:40 The emphasis is on evaluating leaders and teachers by the result of their ministry and the alignment of their teaching with the truth of God's word. Is this passage about proof of salvation? While this passage is often cited in discussions about fruit as evidence of salvation, its primary context is discerning false teachers. It is not addressing whether an individual Christian is truly saved. Instead is addressing the audience on how to recognize who falsely claims to speak for God. So even Ai, even the way I initially gave me Matthew seven sixteen through twenty to kind of connect it to Mark four, when I pushed back even then it was like, well, okay, primarily that's not what it's about.

28:26 I'm like, I agree. And so then it says, does basically does the distinction matter, I'm making a distinction doesn't matter. Well, it says, focus on leadership, not individual believers. The text is concerned with false leadership and the danger it poses to the community of faith. The imagery of fruit is used to highlight that genuine profits or teachers will align their character and teaching of Christ, while false ones will ultimately reveal their true nature through their actions and teachings. Avoid misapplying the passage. Applying this passage strictly is a test of personal salvation for all believe can miss its primary intent. It's about evaluating the spiritual authenticity of those in teaching or leadership roles, not necessarily a rule for judging the salvation of every Christian based off the so called visible fruit they bear. So AI, then at this point I'm like, okay, you're we're in agreement here, all right.

29:19 So then I was like, okay, so AI, I've got an issue. Why did you initially quote and connect Matthew seven with Mark four? Is that not an incorrect cross reference? So Finally, AI said this, Yes, it would be incorrect to directly connect the fruit and Mark four twenty with the fruit and Matthew seven sixteen through twenty as proof of salvation because the context and purpose of the passages are completely different. Using Matthew u seven sixteen through twenty to argue that the fruit in Mark four to twenty is proof of salvation would indeed be a flawed cross reference.

30:08 And I was like, thank you, I know it would because anyone who can read knows that it's bad cross reference. It's a horrible cross reference, even though everyone makes it. And of course AI, what AI does when you when it's looking for things, it's pulling from you know, basically the majority view, and I disagree with the majority of view. These have nothing to do with each other. So you can't say, hey, so Mark four, these are the only people save because they produce fruit. Go look at Matthew seven. No, no, don't go look at Matthew seven because it has nothing to do with this. So then AI, I said, so basically, now I'm challenging it. So why would this be a cross?

30:54 Flawed cross reference? Number one different context Matthew seven sixteen through twenty is specifically about discerning false teachers and prophets. The fruit in this passage refers to the teaching behavior and outcome of those leaders lives which reveal their true character, and whether they are genuinely speaking on behalf of God or are wolves in sheep's clothing. The focus is on recognizing false leaders and their deceitful influence. Mark four twenty refers to a parable the Soler, where the fruit represents the positive outcome of receiving the word of God with a receptive heart. In this context, the fruit is the result of how one responds to God's words, growth and understanding, obedience, and spiritual maturity. Now I may even disagree a little bit with how Ai is approaching Mark four twenty, but at least they acknowledge completely different context, different everything. They go on to say, the two passages have a different purpose.

31:45 Matthew seven. The purpose of mentioning fruit is to provide a criterion, a criterion for recognizing and avoiding false teachers. It's not primarily about determining whether an individual is saved Mark four twenty. The purpose of mentioning fruit is to illustrate the varied response to God's word the parable shows that different soils. And let's may make it very clear. I don't we don't know for sure if Mark four twenty is really about how you respond to God's word. We think Mark four twenty because the word word and Mark four doesn't always refer to the Bible. It can refer to Jesus. That the idea of the Word that Jesus is referring to is his presenting the kingdom. So the message that the Kingdom is here and repent, or we could say it's the gospel message. So Mark four just may show, hey, there are different ways people are going to respond to the Gospel, to the call to the to the offer of the kingdom, to the gospel.

32:40 They're just gonna all that's trying to demonstrate, is there gonna be different ways that people respond or remember my assignment that the key to Mark four is Mark three. Keep what I just said in mind when you when you read Mark four five times, you're gonna get these different responses. Then consider Mark chapter three. Right. I think that's the case. All right, So they said the reason this cross reference would be bad is it has different contexts, has different purposes, and a misapplication of fruit as a proof of salvation, while fruit is often understood to be a sign of spiritual health or growth. Interpreting it as a proof of salvation and Mark based on Matthew seven misapplies the teaching the two passages. The two passages do not equate fruit in the same way, and Mark four to twenty the fruitfulness of the good soil is more about the effectiveness of the word in someone's life rather than a test of whether they are truly saved. Mark four is not a test on whether someone is saved, and you cannot connect it to Matthew chapter seven because it's different purpose, different contexts, different everything. Yet prosters do it constantly. Therefore, Ai then went on to say, and now Ai becomes very dogmatic. It would be incorrect to directly link the fruit of Mark four with the fruit in Matthew seven as evidence or proof of salvation. Each

34:11 passage uses the metaphor of fruit differently for distinct purposes within very unique context Mark four to twenty emphasizes the productive outcome of a receptive heart, while Matthew seven is about identifying the true nature of spiritual leaders. See just because both mention fruit doesn't mean you're given just a license to connect them and then draw any conclusion you want. That's not how you do hermeneutics. That's not how you do Bible study. That's not how you do Bible interpretation. And the fact that that happens behind pulpits behind microphones, and happens in small groups, and happens in Sunday school is as an indictment against the ability of many Christians to act handle the Word of God. They're different. If you want to understand Mark four, don't go to Matthew seven, go to Mark Chapter three. Mark four is about I think I think we're getting I'm getting closer to becoming a little bit more dogmatic. It's it's Jesus the same when you go, whether it's you're telling them the message that the Kingdom of God is at hand repent, if you're going with the word representing that or the word representing the Gospel message. It's the idea that there are going to be different responses. There's going to be different responses to the Gospel. And then I think Mark three

35:48 may demonstrate that. Now you may want to say, well, this one is saved, this one is not saying you can try to get into that argument. I think it's just the point is there's going to be different responses. We're the ones who loved to come in and go, well, that means you're not saved, you're not safe. Even the sermon that we heard yesterday who threw everyone everyone out, that even he had to admit, well, there's even those of us. He even refers to himself that that's sometimes me. Well, because yeah, so is it that easy to say, well, who's saved and not saved? Can't we say that these are responses that can happen in everyone when we hear the now if we want to apply the word to the entire Bible or to have a specific message. So I want to work on the Mark three thing I do.

36:42 But the goal here was to demonstrate that the fruit and Mark four is not the fruit and Matthew seven. It's not. It's different, different context, different purpose, different everything. Don't connect it. Don't connect it. Now. One of the things I told you to do is start listening to sermons on Mark four, three through twenty. You tell me, you can let me know how many of those sermons say buy buy your fruit, buy their fruit. You will know them. How many state that and refer to it and connect it to Mark Chapter four. I think it's a complete mis application. It's bad cross referencing, bad cross referencing.

37:33 Just because you can cross reference doesn't mean you just can arbitrarily like I'm gonna take that verse and that verse and I'm gonna put it together. And I've seen Christians do that, and sometimes trying to argue with them is like talking to a wall. They're like, well, this verse says this, Well, well what about this first? Well what about this verse? I like, you're just running from verse to verse to verse to verse to verse to verse. You're making no sense. You're just like it's like you're taking a shotgun and just just sending out all that, just just all these cross references and thinking, somehow you makes you smarter or more spiritual because you through fifteen cross references that have no actual connection. So what have we done? We have thrown out that Mark four is somehow Hey, this is how to become an effectual Bible student.

38:23 You got to get your heart right before you can be a good Bible student. But it's God's word that helps you get your heart right. But it won't do any good until you get your heart right. So this seems to indicate I get my heart right first, don't I don't know what that's what it's saying. I guess you could make the argument, well, until God gets your heart right, well then God would have to get your heart right first. Then the Bible would be effectual. But then, I know, don't you know, Christians, is the Bible really being I mean, even the sermon we reviewed yesterday he acknowledged it. Sometimes you know, you read the Bible, you study the Bible, you don't even remember. You don't remember this, you don't remember now. He even challenged of the church members on some of this. He acknowledged some of those problems.

39:05 I mean, the one thing I do know is I've been around Christians forever, since I became saved. I've seen some of the and I'm not calling anyone salvation into question. They may be Christian, but they're handling of the scripture, their understanding of the scripture, their ability to read it is just You're like, what in the world are you? It makes no sense. And obviously if Christians just somehow get some magical ability to study the Bible, then you think, I don't know, we could agree on something Christians don't even agree on Mark chapter four, verses one through twenty. We don't agree on that. We don't agree on anything.

39:48 So the whole the Bible study thing, we've kind of thrown that out. But what I want to throw out today is just it is not correct to connect the fruit and Mark four twenty with the fruit being mentioned in Matthew seven. Different context, different purposes that we can be. So sometimes when you start trying to correct or trying to build a correct understanding, you've got to try to figure out what you can be dogmatic about. We can be dogmatic about the way. Hey, the prerequisite to be a good Bible student is to get your heart right. And I guess you have to get your heart right. But they didn't tell us how to get your heart right. Then I say, just ask God and he'll give you a new heart. Well, then if you have a new heart, then well you should It would seem to be the implication you no longer have a sinful nature. All right.

40:32 We talked about all of those problems. But to connect the fruit here, I believe is a problem. Right now, what's your assignment? Continue to listen to sermons on Mark four I want you to hear all the other perspectives. I want you to hear them. Man, I'm not afraid of you hearing other perspectives. I want you to hear as many perspectives as possible, all right, And then I want you to read Mark four five times. And then I want you to go to Mark three and I want you to just I've tried to be careful. I've tried to be vague. I even did a bad job giving out the assignment the first time because I'm trying to be so careful with what I say. But I want you to I want you to see if all of a sudden, maybe a light will come on. Maybe a light will come on, You'll be like oh oh, oh, oh oh, or maybe you won't see anything. But I'm giving you the opportunity to figure it out. Now. I want you to consider again Mark four twenty Matthew seven.

41:34 Just see that the fruit is different. I want you to see that for yourself. You can go look at it for yourself. The context there is night and day and my estimation. All right, I want to say something else, but I'll stop there. Thanks for listening. We'll continue to work on Mark four well we'll get back to the article, but this is all a part of it. The article let us to Mark four and said, Hey, this is how you start to be a good effectual Bible student is this section. And what we're saying is I don't even know if the author is being a good Bible student, because I think they're misusing Mark chapter four. And the irony of that, you've almost have to laugh laugh. Hey, isn't it ironic that I was looking at an article about how to be an effectual Bible student and in basically the introduction of said article, the author demonstrates there not a good Bible student. Isn't it ironic? Yeah, I'm kind of making a reference to a popular song. Okay, I know, all right, I can't. I can't have a hard time not making musical references. I do very good at trying to control myself, all right, I try. Sometimes I do good, Sometimes I do All right, what are you doing? Go figure it out? I'm waiting for answers.

42:57 All right, everyone, have a great day. God bless