John 15 Losing eternal life

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
Actually, the "natural ground" is a heart of stone.
God has to replace our heart of stone (stone cannot yield crops) with a heart of flesh (which is living tissue). God gives us life, that's regeneration.

And I think it was christ_undivided who had the good point that we are made from the dust of the Earth, and so the soil would not represent only our heart to the exclusion of the rest of our body.

My grandfather was a farmer, and my dad and uncles grew up on that farm. And soil doesn't "till" itself.

Rocky soil doesn't clear its own rocks.
Pathways don't break themselves up.
And every one of Jesus' hearers would have known that.
Yes my argument had nothing at all to do with soil tilling itsself. I said nothing like that, so your response does not seem to relate to what i had said.
What I said: Jesus calls the soil our heart. A heart does not till itsself
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
First of all, what was your arbitrary basis for linking Prov. 4:23 to the parable of the soils? It's like combining, "And Judas went out and hanged himself." "And Jesus said, go and do though likewise."

And there is nothing in the parable about "instructions" that we are to "condition" our hearts.
how funny you are, you closed your mind to any answer in the way you asked your question by calling my use of proverbs "arbitrary"
That does not give the impression you are looking for an actual conversation

Of note your first claim was that I gave no scripture reference for "guard your heart" when realizing you were wrong you changed to a different tactic. Are you arguing just to be contrary?
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
Let's start with an examination of the analogy Jesus is using. Have you ever planted anything that bore fruit (a vine, a tree, a fruit or vegetable seed)? If so, then what happened when that plant grew? Did it produce or not? What Jesus is referencing is a concept, idiom, analogy, or figure that runs from the Bible literally from its beginning to its end. It begins with the report in creation of God planting plants that produced..... according to their kind.

Genesis 1:11-12
Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

Elsewhere in the gospels Jesus speaks about the seed sown in or on various types of soil and the seed sown on good soil produces. It's the seed sown on not-good soil that does produce. The good-soil seed may produce at various rates (30%, 60% or 100%) but the salient point is it produces. That is what it does. Jesus uses a little hyperbole in Luke 6 when he speaks of a good tree never bearing bad fruit, nor a bad tree never bearing good fruit. There are dozens of examples like this throughout the Bible.

Therefore, we ask ourselves, "What kind of vine is Jesus?" NOT "What kind of fruit am I?" A fruit growing on an apple tree is going to be an apple. It's never going to be a peach or a pear. The questions pertaining to the loss of salvation have to do with whether or not the person is, in fact, a fruit of the vine that is Jesus because Jesus does not produce bad fruit. There are a variety of problems arising scripturally, theologically, and logically the moment we even remotely suggest Jesus is an imperfect vine that can and does produce bad fruit....... or no fruit at all.

Calvinists DO NOT subordinate God to the will or the conduct of the creature. EVER. We keep the "horse" at the front of the cart and measure everything God-centrically, not human-centrically.

Keep in mind the John 15 text is an analogy. It is figurative language. It is not literal. Jesus is not literally a vine. Not only is it not literal exposition but neither should it be read apart from the whole of God's word. Some passages seem to conflict with John 15, especially if we make God's salvation (it is God's salvation, not ours) dependent upon the sinful creature. Passages like 1 Cor. 15:9-15 tells us all our works can be burned up as worthless and we'll still be saved if we're building on the foundation of Christ. Not building on Christ? Then don't expect to be saved. If you're growing on the perfect vine that is Jesus then you will be the branch he produces and if you're not the branch he produces then you weren't really on the vine in the first place. As far as the fruit you produce..... if you're growing on the vine that is Jesus, then your branch produces will bear fruit and that fruit may or may not have any salvific merit. Even if it's otherwise "good" fruit it will be discarded any time it is the produce of the flesh. God does not need or want anything from human flesh. All of that will be tossed in the fiery pit but you'll still be the branch of the one true vine if you are, in fact, a branch of that vine.

One last point. We necessarily understand (or we should necessarily understand) we are not our own. The redeemed have been purchased. The price God paid was the life of His Son. He paid the price, and He paid that price as The Sovereign Almighty Creator God Who Saves, not as a feeble creature whose money can be made worthless, or a fool who can be conned by the item being bought. There is no, "Here, I don't like this item, let me give it back, and give me my money back." The blood was spent. It was not just spent, it was sovereignly spent. The purchase was a sovereign purchase. There's no return policy. That cheapens the life of His Son and makes the cost the Son paid fruitless, worthless. It doesn't matter whether it's God taking back the item or the bought and paid for creature demanding his sinful deadness back. God is a fruit-bearing God Who bears the fruit He intends to bear. We are slaves. There are no autonomous agents anywhere in creation. A person is either a slave of sin of a slave of righteousness. No non-slaves. Blessedly, by grace, by providence, the blood-bought slave of righteousness is also a bondservant of God, but also an adopted son (or daughter).

Apples don't wrest themselves from the vine. Apart from Jesus the branch can do nothing.

There is much, much more that could be said about the John 15 text because he's referencing a pile of Old Testament text and speaking about the intersection of soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. For simplicity's sake it can all be summarized within a single concept:


God is in charge, and we are not.


God has not and does not make Himself not in charge of anything.
some interesting ideas here about what the pssage is not about. But I may have missed it if you focused on that section and said what you thought it meant, I may try to reread. or you can distill your post down to just your comments on that passage, thanks
 
G

guest1

Guest
how funny you are, you closed your mind to any answer in the way you asked your question by calling my use of proverbs "arbitrary"
That does not give the impression you are looking for an actual conversation

Of note your first claim was that I gave no scripture reference for "guard your heart" when realizing you were wrong you changed to a different tactic. Are you arguing just to be contrary?
Very astute
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
how funny you are, you closed your mind to any answer in the way you asked your question by calling my use of proverbs "arbitrary"
That does not give the impression you are looking for an actual conversation

Of note your first claim was that I gave no scripture reference for "guard your heart" when realizing you were wrong you changed to a different tactic. Are you arguing just to be contrary?

Let the readers observe that this poster used ad hominem attack to dodge answering the question of why anyone should believe Prov. 4:23 has any relation to the parable.

"When the name-calling begins, the debate is over."
 
G

guest1

Guest
Your name has come up several times lately in chats here. I heard that you recently made a switch in your doctrinal position. Those kinds of changes are interesting to me. Can you succintly talk about what change you made and why you felt it scripturally necessary?
In a nutshell it all boils down to the innate attributes of Gods nature / character as Father, Son and Holy Spirit . Theology ( the study of God ) must be formed by Who God is at its very core . Once we understand who God is eternally ( prior to creation ) God is immutable and does not change we can learn many things that we have been mislead and misunderstood about God. Gods innate attributes are different from His attributes that are related to His creation .

I will give you one to ponder .

Was God love within His being prior to creation ? Yes

Was God wrath( anger, retribution , vengeance) within the Father , Son and Holy Spirit? That answers is a resounding no

So from there we can see the difference in Gods innate ( primary ) attributes vs His secondary one . This is my premise for the Psalm 22 Jesus being forsaken by God misnomer thread . There is much much more I could talk about for hours on end with this topic . It’s the main reason I reject Calvinism - it’s not who God is . Only an unloving God would predestined most of mankind to hell for eternal punishment while saving a few elect . There is no love, benevolence, kindness in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination and tulip .

Hope this helps !!!
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
In a nutshell it all boils down to the innate attributes of Gods nature / character as Father, Son and Holy Spirit . Theology ( the study of God ) must be formed by Who God is at its very core . Once we understand who God is eternally ( prior to creation ) God is immutable and does not change we can learn many things that we have been mislead and misunderstood about God. Gods innate attributes are different from His attributes that are related to His creation .

I will give you one to ponder .

Was God love within His being prior to creation ? Yes

Was God wrath( anger, retribution , vengeance) within the Father , Son and Holy Spirit? That answers is a resounding no

So from there we can see the difference in Gods innate ( primary ) attributes vs His secondary one . This is my premise for the Psalm 22 Jesus being forsaken by God misnomer thread . There is much much more I could talk about for hours on end with this topic . It’s the main reason I reject Calvinism - it’s not who God is . Only an unloving God would predestined most of mankind to hell for eternal punishment while saving a few elect . There is no love, benevolence, kindness in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination and tulip .

Hope this helps !!!
Ok, sounds like you have a strong sense of that now, what hindered that understanding in the past?
 

Josheb

Well-known member
some interesting ideas here about what the pssage is not about. But I may have missed it if you focused on that section and said what you thought it meant, I may try to reread. or you can distill your post down to just your comments on that passage, thanks
I did state what the passage means. Do please re-read what I posted. The distilled versions is 1) this passage must be read in the context of scripture as a whole to be understood and a tree or vine produces its own kind of produce, especially since the entire teaching is predicated upon an analogy. The passage cannot and should not be read to say Jesus produces bad branches.
 

Josheb

Well-known member
@Alexander the adequate,

My bad. I have poor syntax in post #827. It should read,


I did state what the passage means. Do please re-read what I posted. The distilled version is 1) this passage must be read in the context of scripture as a whole to be understood, especially since the entire teaching is predicated upon an analogy and 2) a tree or vine produces its own kind of produce. The passage cannot and should not be read to say Jesus produces bad branches (or that branches produce themselves).



@4Him, would you please delete post #827? thx
 
Last edited:

christ_undivided

Well-known member
how funny you are, you closed your mind to any answer in the way you asked your question by calling my use of proverbs "arbitrary"
That does not give the impression you are looking for an actual conversation

Of note your first claim was that I gave no scripture reference for "guard your heart" when realizing you were wrong you changed to a different tactic. Are you arguing just to be contrary?

Why the "funny" part?
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
@Alexander the adequate,

My bad. I have poor syntax in post #827. It should read,


I did state what the passage means. Do please re-read what I posted. The distilled version is 1) this passage must be read in the context of scripture as a whole to be understood, especially since the entire teaching is predicated upon an analogy and 2) a tree or vine produces its own kind of produce. The passage cannot and should not be read to say Jesus produces bad branches (or that branches produce themselves).



@4Him, would you please delete post #827? thx
I still don't see where you explained what thrown out and burned would mean to those branches in Christ.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
how funny you are, you closed your mind to any answer

Please stop misrepresenting me.

That does not give the impression you are looking for an actual conversation

If I ask a question, it's because I want to hear the answer.

Of note your first claim was that I gave no scripture reference for "guard your heart"

I never made any such claim.
You made a wrong assumption about what I was asking.
You seem to be LOOKING for reasons not to answer my questions.

when realizing you were wrong you changed to a different tactic.

I wasn't "wrong".

Are you arguing just to be contrary?

No, but you seem to be.
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
In a nutshell it all boils down to the innate attributes of Gods nature / character as Father, Son and Holy Spirit . Theology ( the study of God ) must be formed by Who God is at its very core . Once we understand who God is eternally ( prior to creation ) God is immutable and does not change we can learn many things that we have been mislead and misunderstood about God. Gods innate attributes are different from His attributes that are related to His creation .

I will give you one to ponder .

Was God love within His being prior to creation ? Yes

Was God wrath( anger, retribution , vengeance) within the Father , Son and Holy Spirit? That answers is a resounding no

So from there we can see the difference in Gods innate ( primary ) attributes vs His secondary one . This is my premise for the Psalm 22 Jesus being forsaken by God misnomer thread . There is much much more I could talk about for hours on end with this topic . It’s the main reason I reject Calvinism - it’s not who God is . Only an unloving God would predestined most of mankind to hell for eternal punishment while saving a few elect . There is no love, benevolence, kindness in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination and tulip .

Hope this helps !!!
I think everyone agrees that in eternity God had no wrath, that would be because there was no sin. The trinity is perfect and sinless and there is nothing to cause wrath. But men are sinful, and God hates sin. Consider Exodus 33:3 as God is sending the Israelites out of Egypt and into the promise land, He says, "I will not go up in your midst for you are an obstinant people and I might destroy you." Verse 5 reiterates the idea. "You are an obstinant people, should I go up in your midst for one moment, I would destroy you."
This destruction is not the fruit of love for their sin, but hatred
 
Top