John 15 Losing eternal life

Chalcedon said:
A fallacy is a fallacy . So Calvinism by default is a fallacy since it comes from Calvin as it’s authority on their doctrines

Oops

Yours Truly, Team Truth !

hope this helps !!!
Click to expand...
I would have you reconsider that blanket statement. For instance would you conclude that everything Billy Graham said was false, just because he was giving his understanding of scripture? If people value the insight Calvin gave, but give him the credt for having said it, I think that is apropriate and does not reflect on its truth. What do you think?
 
Alexander the adequate said:
Yes, I love the idea of eternal security. But this passage troubles me with the word "in"
For me to bein Christ means to be indwelt forever,
Can you present a Calvinist view on this part of the passage?

Note: I did not intentionally skip you, just responded to what I saw first
Click to expand...
I have a minute...

One reason I like the Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is because of the word Perseverance; we must Persevere, or else. Calvinism is really the well-rounded view of Theology. It encapsulates both sides of the Argument; you can Fall Away, and you can't Fall Away. We Persevere by the Grace of God; this is our 'Tackling Fuel'...

Give me time; sometimes providing a satisfactory answer takes a while. We are 'In' the Vine by Grace through Faith. Perhaps you have a 'Synergism" objection, because we play a part in Persevering? I find that Monergism mainly is true regarding Irresistible or Prevenient Grace; but that's another topic. Sproul believed Sanctification could be said to be Synergistic; and Perseverance might be the same...
 
Alexander the adequate said:
thanks for that. I am still interested to hear what more indiciuals have concluded about being IN Christ and being cut off.
Click to expand...

But that's the point, and I think this is why Arminians are reluctant to make an argument about this verse. Like I said before, I sincerely believe that if the passage is exegeted and studied in great detail, their position will fall apart. The reason I say this is because unlike Arminians who run away from passages (eg. Rom. 3:10-20), when an Arminian brings a "proof-text", I dive in and study it so that I can most fully. understand the original intent of the author to the best of my ability. And this is some advice I once read presumably by Spurgeon, that if a verse bothers you, you should spend all the more time trying to understand it. Because of this, I've studied in great detail passages such as John 3:16, Matt. 23:37, 2 Pet. 3:9, and I am fully convinced that these passages are IMPOSSIBLE to correctly understand under the Arminian paradigm.

This is why I believe Arminians will NEVER exegete John 15. Their entire argument is based on the reader ASSUMING that the phrase, "in me" in v.2 must have the EXACT same meaning as "in Christ" in other passages. They always want their readers to assume and accept the "shallow" interpretation, without studying it indepth.

In terms of your own studies, I would suggest you get some good Bible software, such as Accordance (which I use), or Logos, or BibleWorks. A couple of free ones are "Olive Tree Bible", and "e-sword", and you can download public domain commentaries and other resources.

You can also make use of online resources such as biblegateway.com, or blueletterbible.org, both which have access to numerous commentaries.
 
Alexander the adequate said:
I would have you reconsider that blanket statement. For instance would you conclude that everything Billy Graham said was false, just because he was giving his understanding of scripture? If people value the insight Calvin gave, but give him the credt for having said it, I think that is apropriate and does not reflect on its truth. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Kudos for your opinion and your manner of expression.
It's a welcome relief in this forum.
 
ReverendRV said:
One reason I like the Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints
Click to expand...

When I first read a comment about "liking" a doctrine, my initial response was that I don't "like" doctrines, I simply believe them to be true. But on further consideration, I do like doctrines, such as PotS, but the reason I believe them is NOT because I "like" them, the reason is because I believe they are Biblically true. Having said that, and being convinced that they're Biblically true, do I "like" this doctrine? Of course! If my salvation were dependent on my own efforts, I would surely fail. But since my salvation is dependent on God, there is no better hands for my fate.

ReverendRV said:
is because of the word Perseverance; we must Persevere, or else.
Click to expand...

One further comment, and this is not a new idea... Some enemies use "perseverance of the saints" as some admissio that salvation is at least due in part to our own efforts to "persevere" to the end. But that is not the case. And that is why many of us prefer the expression, "preservation of the saints", because we remain saved because GOD preserves us.

"Preservation" and "perseverance" are merely two sides of the same coin.
"Preservation" is from God's perspective.
"Perseverance" is from ours.

We persevere to the end BECAUSE God preserves us.
 
Last edited:
ReverendRV said:
I have a minute...

One reason I like the Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is because of the word Perseverance; we must Persevere, or else. Calvinism is really the well-rounded view of Theology. It encapsulates both sides of the Argument; you can Fall Away, and you can't Fall Away. We Persevere by the Grace of God; this is our 'Tackling Fuel'...

Give me time; sometimes providing a satisfactory answer takes a while. We are 'In' the Vine by Grace through Faith. Perhaps you have a 'Synergism" objection, because we play a part in Persevering? I find that Monergism mainly is true regarding Irresistible or Prevenient Grace; but that's another topic. Sproul believed Sanctification could be said to be Synergistic; and Perseverance might be the same...
Click to expand...
thanks for this, but to clarify I was really interested in the word "IN" and what that means in this context
 
Alexander the adequate said:
thanks for that. I am still interested to hear what more indiciuals have concluded about being IN Christ and being cut off.
Click to expand...
It means as Creatures with Agency, we're to Abide in Christ; or else...

Is this what you want to hear? We already know that you believe in Eternal Security. Do you believe in the kind of Eternal Security that thinks we do not have to Persevere to be Saved?
 
ReverendRV said:
It means as Creatures with Agency, we're to Abide in Christ; or else...

Is this what you want to hear? We already know that you believe in Eternal Security. Do you believe in the kind of Eternal Security that thinks we do not have to Persevere to be Saved?
Click to expand...

How long do we Persevere?
 
Theo1689 said:
James White often says "We stand on the shoulders of giants". And he's right. So we have a treasure of 2000 years of theologians, apologists, and commentators at our disposal.
Click to expand...
Calvinists do not have a treasure of 2,000 years of theologians, apologists, and commentators at their disposal. They have only 600 years of theologians, apologists and commentators that contradict themselves.

Chief Calvinist contradictions:
You are blinded by God and you are blinded by satan.
Man lost his free will at the fall though he never had a free will to begin with because God who creates every thought and intent of his soul predetermined he would fall so he could redeem him.
 
Jack Terrence said:
Calvinists do not have a treasure of 2,000 years of theologians, apologists, and commentators at their disposal. They have only 600 years of theologians, apologists and commentators that contradict themselves.
Click to expand...

Nope, we definitely have 2000 years of theologians, apologists, and commentators.
The ECF's taught sola Scriptura.
The ECF's taught sola fide.
The ECF's taught limited atonement.
And I'm pretty sure Augustine didn't live only 600 years ago.

Jack Terrence said:
Chief Calvinist contradictions:
Click to expand...

Well, if these are the "chief" contradictions, then "Calvinism" is in VERY good shape.

Jack Terrence said:
You are blinded by God and you are blinded by satan.
Click to expand...

This is not a "contradiction".
A true contradiction would be:
"You are blinded by God", and
"You are NOT blinded by God",

or

"You are blinded by Satan", and
"You are NOT blinded by Satan".

Your "non-contradiction" is as fallacious as trying to claim the following is a "contradiction:

"You were shot by Doc Holliday",
"You were shot by a gun."

That's NOT a "contradiction".

Jack Terrence said:
Man lost his free will at the fall though he never had a free will to begin with
Click to expand...

Thatt is not a teaching of Calvinism.
It's a straw-man.
 
Alexander the adequate said:
Calvinists help me here. I have never embraced the idea that eternal life could be taken away once we have been indwelt by Christ, but this passage has language that looks like we can be IN Christ and then be thrown away and burned.
What do Calvinists teach here about the dynamic being dicsussed by Jesus in te first few verses of John 15?
Click to expand...
Branches can be "in Christ" in two different ways.

1) By a living attachment, with the sap of the Holy Spirit flowing through the branch. ALIVE - bears fruit - abides in the vine

2) By mere outward profession and attendance in meetings where the body of Christ meets. DEAD - no fruit - cast out and burned
 
Greek NT Freak said:
Because the passages only talk about two states: abiding and non-abiding.
Click to expand...

Okay, so "abiding" would be the saints.
And "non-abiding" would be non-saints.

So once again I ask you, why do you ASSUME that the "withered branch" is a "Saint"?

Greek NT Freak said:
Those who abide keep their salvation.
Click to expand...

Why do you ASSUME salvation can be "lost"?
Why do you ASSUME that salvation is determined by man's efforts?

If the "sheep" keep themselves safe, what is the role of the Shepherd?

Greek NT Freak said:
Those who no longer abide lose their salvation (become withered and eventually they are burnt).
Click to expand...

Why do you ASSUME that allegedly "had" their salvation in the first place?
Every assertion you've made is based on ASSUMPTION.
 
christ_undivided said:
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Notice the use of "IN" Him.
Click to expand...
yes that is a standard verse I would go to to understand "in Christ" But the question is what does "IN" mean in the John passage? Thanks for participating
 
David1701 said:
Branches can be "in Christ" in two different ways.

1) By a living attachment, with the sap of the Holy Spirit flowing through the branch. ALIVE - bears fruit - abides in the vine

2) By mere outward profession and attendance in meetings where the body of Christ meets. DEAD - no fruit - cast out and burned
Click to expand...
to follow up on than, specifically in John 15, it says they are "IN" , described as a branch abiding in the vine. How can that describe a church member who does not know Jesus?
 
Greek NT Freak - you don't sound as if you are a Calvinist, and while I value input from every area, we each know in part, in this thread I want to see how a Calvinist would harmonize this passage with their stance.

And I appreciate your response
 
Alexander the adequate said:
yes that is a standard verse I would go to to understand "in Christ" But the question is what does "IN" mean in the John passage? Thanks for participating
Click to expand...

Acts 17:28 is not a reference to being "IN" Christ. Paul was preaching to a large group of unsaved people. He was referencing the words of a Greek poet in the next verse.

Also, you didn't deal with the fact that fruit is associated with those gifted the Spirit of God. There is no reference to fruit in John 15.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top