Even if all of the wisdom and study of men perished, and all there was left was a believer with a bible, it would be sufficient for that believer to arrive at all of what we know today, and all that we may ever know
Perhaps. But your remarks here don't make any difference to my point that there are complex, subtle and difficult things to understand in Scripture.
I'm not arguing from simplicity, I am arguing from truth. Show me the scripture that tells us we needs the wisdom and learning of men to understand the scripture? I
Well, that depends on what you mean by "wisdom and learning of men." The human capacity to reason, to employ logic, to investigate and hypothesize are all God-given. These capacities may be turned to evil and useless ends but this doesn't make all reason, and logic, and study that is not directly focused on Scripture anti-God or detrimental to understanding the faith. Quite to the contrary, these things may greatly enhance one's investigation of Scripture. And why not? They are given us by God after all.
Brother, you are being pretty vague about it. You haven't provided any particular reasons why that interpretation should be authoratative, you have simply pointed to it and said "I believe this".
I think the article speaks for itself. It is well-reasoned, in-depth, and biblical. This is why I think it succeeds.
Why should your belief in it persuade anyone?
Did I say, "My belief should persuade you"? Where?
There are presumably hundreds of scholarly papers out there which give a different interpretation, I could find the ones that agree with me and point you to them if you wanted. Is that going to change your mind?
Only if they successfully rebut the argument laid out in the article I offered. I have read many counter-arguments in many other articles and papers and have yet to find one that does so.
You can't have it both ways. You admit that
Ezekiel 15 is about judgment but in the first answer you are still saying it isn't.
The judgment of God upon Israel did not ever break His covenant with them nor did it last forever. Ultimately, He was acting remedially through his judgments upon Israel. Thinking, then, that the divine judgment that Ezekiel describes suggests or supports a saved-and-lost doctrine doesn't wash. As a nation, Israel never lost its standing before God as His Chosen People - just like one who is born-again never loses his standing before God, either.
The passage from
Ezekiel 15 that I initially quoted was speaking to the uselessness of the "fruitless vine branch" that was Israel. I cited it precisely because of the analogical parallel to
John 15 and its focus on uselessness. The verses that followed in
Ezekiel 15 which
you emphasized enter into the matter of God's judgment and I addressed why that judgment did not suit a saved-and-lost doctrine. I don't see, then, that I'm trying to have anything both ways in our discussion. All I am doing is looking carefully at what the focus is in the passages we are discussing. They don't share a common focus. The first passage is about uselessness and the second about the divine judgment resulting from that uselessness. I have done nothing more than recognize these things. How is that having it both ways?
The verses you omitted in
Ezekiel 15 inform us what happens to them, they are judged and destroyed. You do admit now that they are judged, but you say that they aren't really cut off because the nation of Israel wasn't ever completely cut off.
The judgment described in the passage from Ezekiel 15 was never something that I denied; so it isn't that I have come to some new admission or point of view on the verses. As I said, the verses earlier in Ezekiel 15 that I quoted were not describing judgment but uselessness - an observation that has not been refuted. As such, they are very apropos to what Jesus taught in John 15 and suggest a different emphasis and aim in Jesus's words than the supposed saved-and-lost doctrine.
Israel was judged - and harshly so - many times. But never was the nation utterly destroyed. And God always eventually retrieved them from the captivity and oppression of the judgments He rendered upon them. Trying, then, to suggest that God's judgment of Israel described in Ezekiel 15 is parallel to, or demonstrates, the saved-and-lost doctrine you are saying Jesus taught in John 15 doesn't fly.
It is definitely true that they aren't cut off forever, but that doesn't prove your point. Not being cut off and not being cut off forever are two different things. If you're not cut off forever, you are still cut off.
Well, now you must establish that the judgment of Israel in Ezekiel 15 is just like the cutting off Jesus describes in John 15. For the reasons I've already given, I don't think it is. What's more, Ezekiel never actually uses the phrase "cut off" in reference to God's judgment upon wicked Israel in chapter 15.
God would certainly restore them as I will show you in a minute. Just because God would restore them does not mean, however, that they weren't really cut off.
They were no more "cut off" than the wayward believer God chastises, and rebukes, and disciplines. (He. 12) As I said, whatever judgments Israel faced, God's covenant relationship to Israel was never broken. And God is just as faithful to the New Covenant relationship He has established with every born-again believer. Like Israel, the believer's waywardness is never sufficient to sever their covenant relationship with their faithful Maker. As Paul wrote,
Romans 5:20
20 ... But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,
To sum this up:
Ezekiel 15 is speaking of Israel, but you brought that up to prove
John 15 wasn't talking about judgment.
No, I brought up the verses early in
Ezekiel 15 for a very different reason. See above.
I brought up the judgment verses to prove that it was, which invalidates your point there.
No, actually, it doesn't. See above.
I have gone a step further and said that the judgment in
Ezekiel 15 was to cut Israel off, like the branches are cut off and burned in
John 15.
For which description there is no textual support in Ezekiel 15. See above.
I believe, like in the parable of the prodigal son, that the errant branches can be restored.
In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the prodigal never ceases to be his father's son. His
fellowship with His father is broken but his familial
relationship to him is never dissolved. There
is a restoration that God accomplishes in His wayward children, but only of their fellowship with Him, not their relationship.
Fruitless branches which have been grafted out can be grafted back in if they return in faith.
Paul is not discussing the relationship of God to
individual believers in chapter 11 of Romans but the relationship of the
nation Israel and that of the
Gentile Church to God. His comments in chapter 11 are a continuation of ideas about national Israel that he began in chapter 10. Paul is not laying out a saved-and-lost doctrine but prophesying the ultimate restoration of Israel to God.
The fruitless branches are genuine Christians who being cut off, and because of that they have the same fate as the tares.
I disagree. Echoing
Ezekiel 15:1-5,
John 15:6 communicates the utter uselessness of fruitless believers to God, but the verse doesn't indicate a loss of salvation. Salvation is a monergistic work of God and as such is both achieved (
Tit. 3:5)
and sustained (
Phil. 1:6; He. 12:2) by God, not us. Consequently, it is impervious to dissolution by anything we might do.
That is the reason for the similarity of the passages. The same thing that happens to the tares will happen to them, by the same means.
This is a classic example of eisegesis. There is no explicit or implicit relationship that Scripture draws between the tares parable in
Matthew 13 and the vine branches in
John 15. You are reading a connection into the passages, not drawing it out of them.
Fruitfulness of genuine believers is in view in
John 15:1-6, not judgment.
Matthew 13:24-30, however, is occupied entirely with the ultimate fate of false believers. Clearly, these parables are not parallel.
The Lords servant, serving in His house mind you, who began to backslide and acted like an unbeliever, will be destroyed and lose his salvation. That is the clear teaching of this scripture.
The parable of the Good and Evil Servant does not indicate that the evil servant was once a good servant turned bad. He is introduced into the parable as the "evil servant" (
Matt. 24:48), as one whose basic character is evil and in direct contrast to the character of the good servant, not as one who was initially good and has merely backslidden into evil. And his actions, which are uniformly wicked, bear this out. There is no hint he was at one point a wise and faithful servant. Thus it is that he is consigned to the awful judgment of hypocrites. While he may have been in the employ of the Master, his actions demonstrate that in his heart he was never a righteous and faithful servant. I can think of a great many Christian leaders like this: Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, T.D. Jakes, Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Hagin, etc. In any case, for these reasons the idea that the evil servant in Christ's parable was a backslidden Christian just doesn't accord with the text. This means, of course, that the idea of the parable teaching a saved-and-lost doctrine doesn't work.
You actually were suggesting that the fig tree represents unbelievers.
No, I wasn't.
No offense intended, but your reasoning here seems pretty fluid.
I think it is your understanding of my arguments that is at fault, not a fluidity of reasoning on my part. So, no offense taken.
Isn't it true that when we are presented with new evidence that invalidates our position, our duty to the truth is to re-evaluate that position, and not just shuffle things around to patch it up?
This doesn't appear to be the tack you are taking...
Selah.
