The problem I see with this interpretation is the surrounding context and the implications of it. John 15:6 is not the only verse in that message that indicates the possibility of loss of salvation. First you have verse 2. He (The Father) cuts off every branch IN ME that beareth not fruit. Then verse 4 where He tells His 11 faithful apostles to abide in Him. Just Him telling them to abide in Him suggests the possibility of them being capable of not abiding in Him otherwise it would be pointless to say it. Then again in verse 4 He says “unless you abide in Me” reinforcing the idea that they are capable of failing to abide in Him. Then in verse 5 He tells them why they must abide in Him “for apart from Me you can do nothing”. This is another indication that they are capable of failing to abide in Him. Now this whole message has been directed at His apostles and because people hold to eternal security so tightly they refuse to admit that verse 6 is also directed towards them even though all the implications in the surrounding verses indicate that these men are capable of failing to abide in Him. Even verse 7 is a huge indication when He says “IF you abide in Me”. I mean verse after verse it’s one implication after another that these 11 faithful men were capable of failing to abide in Him and people just blind themselves and try so hard to interpret this passage of scripture to coincide with their doctrine of eternal security. This is the primary problem with many reformed Christians is they let their doctrines define the scriptures instead of letting the scriptures define their doctrines. I struggled with it as well when I went thru it. It was this passage of scripture that made me reevaluate my theology. I had originally set out to prove that John 15:1-10 did not contradict eternal security and I couldn’t in good conscience honestly come to the conclusion that it doesn’t refute eternal security without ignoring the evidence and implications in these verses. I prayed, studied the Greek definitions, searched commentaries and nothing changed the message in such a way to coincide with eternal security. In fact the Greek definitions only strengthened the message in opposition to eternal security. I had been arguing and debating against Catholic theology fiercely supporting reformed theology up until this point where I hit a brick wall that simply would not budge. I studied these 10 verses for 3 days and finally came to the conclusion that if I can’t reconcile these verses to coincide with reformed theology then I have to go back and reevaluate every verse in the Bible that I thought supported reformed theology to see if it can be translated to not support reformed theology and much to my surprise they actually can. I found that some verses like John 6:37 for example actually translate against eternal security. I spent 3 weeks reevaluating my theology. I don’t mean 3 weeks in my spare time I mean 3 solid weeks of studying church history, early church writings, Greek definitions, and just trying to put this all together. I had plenty of spare time because I had taken a leave of absence from my work to take care of my father in his last days before he went to be with the Lord. When it was finally completed and I had re-evaluated every verse I could think of that supported reformed theology I finally had to admit it to myself that I was wrong. Then I went to the people I had been debating against and admitted to them that I was wrong and recanted my posts. One thing I had to be sure of was that my pride was not more important than speaking the truth about God’s word. Now I’m not accusing anyone of this I’m just giving my testimony of what happened when I discovered the apostolic teachings. Afterwards I began looking for the apostolic Church of God and from my studies I believe it is the Eastern Orthodox Church. They are the only church I’ve found that hold to the teachings of the scriptures, early church writings, and their actions reflect Christ’s teachings.
I feel like I haven't gotten across this mindset in you and so many others, that colors all your perceptions, and provides false assumptions that bring you logically to false conclusions. You keep saying such things as, "If it were so, there would be no need for...", and nothing I say or others say seem to get through to you.
God being the cause of all things does NOT relinquish us from our responsibility, nor our motivation, for doing the things we must do. We MUST obey, we MUST desire Him, we MUST have faith, we MUST abide in Him. To be able to act in and of myself (apart from Him), is to live as the unsaved. I am NOT able to continue in that, if I am one of the elect, and God willing, I will not do so. OF COURSE, I must choose to do what is right! How can I do otherwise, if I love Him???
But if I pursue obedience as mere acquiescence or compliance, I am doing exactly that, being my own person, trying to be good enough, trying to break even. There is no such thing as being "good enough". The bed is too short, the blanket too narrow with which to cover oneself.
"Apart from me you can do nothing."
Although I don’t actually believe in predestination, there are scriptures suggesting it, so...
