Do you have to be a good servant to be saved?

[Daniel C]

So if we resist grace, if we refuse to the "good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do" (Eph 2:10) then we're still in good stead? Heck, in Matt 25 there were those who didn't even know they acted had acted according to God's will but were judged to be sheep based on what they had done- for "the least of these".

Well I need to clarify your question:

1)What exactly are the good works he wants us to do?

2)Why are the works being done,what purpose?

 

[Daniel C]

Whatever God asks, with the grace He gives to accomplish it. Then He decides how well we've done-with what we've been given.

In your posts you keep talking about Gods Grace but this is the primary reason the Reformers rallied against the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not believe the Grace of God is sufficient by itself to save,hence the ''cooperation with Gods will'', the Catholic Church teaches man is needed to save himself through self-righteousness or works:

 

[renniks]

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Nothing you have posted disproves that believers can become unbelievers. In fact, it confirms faith is a necessity for continued salvation. I'm puzzled. Do you think faith is a work?

 

[Daniel C]

Nothing you have posted disproves that believers can become unbelievers. In fact, it confirms faith is a necessity for continued salvation. I'm puzzled. Do you think faith is a work?

What that shows is we are saved by Grace justified by faith alone and Christ is the propitiation. If we are saved by faith why would we be sustained by works?

Boasting is excluded, and that is what you try to do when you claim your work or effort saves you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think I have addressed the same parables from multiply members,so i will not be covering the same ground,again. And yes I refuse to believe in works salvation because that's not what Jesus taught.

I think the Catholic Church dominated Christendom and forced Christians to believe in the churches interpretation during the time they had power. If a person disagreed with the churches interpretation of scripture they were killed or tortured,so the churches method of dealing with dissents was not to lead like Jesus but to use violence and intimidation,as they had the authority to carry out these actions they went unchallenged for centuries. That is why the works salvation prevailed for so long,the church teached sacraments,so everyone was forced to believe in sacraments or they're in trouble. The church is wrong on many of its doctrines including salvation.

Can you deal with this new point,directly?
(Romans)
''24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.''

As I suspected you refute these teachings based on the actions of the Roman Catholic Church and rightly so I might add. I did the very same thing. I agree that a Church of God CANNOT force Christianity on anyone especially arresting, imprisoning, torturing, and executing nonbelievers. That is absolutely against what Jesus and the apostles taught!! Amen to that I completely agree. The inquisitions were the actions of the Roman Catholic Church not the Catholic Church itself and certainly not the Orthodox Church. There’s a difference between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was a member of the Catholic Church but was kicked out in 1054AD for their claim of papal supremacy. They claimed that the bishop of Rome was the supreme authority over all of the churches even over the authority of the ecumenical council. You see the Church was governed by the ecumenical council which consisted of head bishops of the churches that met together to make decisions about church matters. This actually began with the apostles themselves in Acts 15 which was the first ecumenical council to decide the necessity of circumcision. So the church kept that tradition of holding council meetings to decide doctrines of the church. Within the ecumenical council there were 5 head bishops who held a higher place of honor among the council known as the pentarchy. They were the bishop of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome, and Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome began to claim that he was the highest authority over all the council members. The others disagreed. See there was no pope at this time. The Roman church claims there was but it is not supported by the scriptures or any of the early church writings. They claim the bishops of Rome were the popes. That is false otherwise there wouldn’t have been a dispute over their claim if it had always been that way. The eastern churches were constantly arguing with the church in Rome since the 8th century. Rome edited the Nicene Creed without the council’s approval, Rome was using unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the eastern churches urged Rome to remove their artwork from the church because they viewed them as idols, and Rome began to insist that all bishops and priests remain unmarried and celibate which the eastern churches refused. Celibacy was never enforced within the church. Peter was married and so was Barnabas. The straw that broke the camel’s back is when the bishop of Rome demanded that the church acknowledge his supreme authority over the church and the result was that all of the other bishops of the pentarchy refused to accept his authority. So Rome was then excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1054AD and all of the bishops of the pentarchy sided against Rome and adopted the name Orthodox meaning Traditional. So in the end we have a council where one person, the bishop of Rome, claims he excommunicated all the others, and all the other bishops claim they excommunicated Rome. The way a council works is the majority rules, otherwise it’s not a council at all. So one member cannot excommunicate all the other members from the council, but all members can excommunicate one member. You can read the entire story at these links at Britanica.com. I chose britanica because they are a secular organization with an impeccable reputation for only presenting the facts. Since they are a secular organization they are not biased either towards or against either side of the argument.

https://www.britannica.com/eventSchism-of-1054


Pentarchy | Christianity

Now the inquisitions began in 1184AD and were instituted by the Roman bishop. The Orthodox churches took no part in any of the inquisitions. So you see this began after Rome was excommunicated from the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Here’s another link explaining the details of the inquisitions from Britanica.

Inquisition | Roman Catholicism

Now the teachings of conditional salvation began from the very beginning of Christianity long before Rome was excommunicated. The Church of God adopted the name Catholic some time between 107AD and 170AD. We know this because in St Ignatius’ epistle to the Smyrnaeans he refers to the church by name as the Church of God but later in his epistle describes the church as being “Catholic” (universal) in nature. Then in 170AD we see in St Iranaeus’ writing Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) he mentions the church by name as the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church is the apostolic Church of God, they merely adopted the name Catholic meaning it is universal (for everyone).

I used to believe in reformed theology and defended it passionately as you do now. Until I was presented with John 15. Originally I set out to prove that John 15 did not contradict eternal security. I studied the Greek texts and word definitions looking for any possible way to refute the notion that it supported conditional security and the more I studied the more I found that it cannot be interpreted correctly to support eternal security. Then I began studying the early church writings and began to notice that they also refuted eternal security. Then I began to study the history of the Catholic Church because just like you I believed that the Catholic Church could not be the Church of God because of its actions during the inquisitions. That’s when I discovered the true history of the Catholic Church which became known as the Orthodox Church. So I began learning their teachings and saw that they were in line with the early church writings. Now I had to undergo the task of going back and re-examining the passages of scripture that I believed supported eternal security and I was extremely shocked to find that they can in fact be interpreted to support conditional security without any contradiction. I prayed and prayed on this. The whole process took over a month to come to the conclusion that reformed theology cannot be correct and the Catholic Church had been right the whole time. So I try to help others find the information that I found in hopes of helping them better understand the history of the Catholic Church and the teachings of God’s word.

 

[fhansen]

Well I need to clarify your question:

1)What exactly are the good works he wants us to do?

Well, there are many, according to the need and God's will for us. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, counseling the grieving or despairing, teaching the faith, healing, etc.

Well I need to clarify your question:2)Why are the works being done,what purpose?

They're done due to the demands of love-to bring light and faith and hope and love into a dark and hopeless world.

 

[fhansen]

In your posts you keep talking about Gods Grace but this is the primary reason the Reformers rallied against the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not believe the Grace of God is sufficient by itself to save,hence the ''cooperation with Gods will'', the Catholic Church teaches man is needed to save himself through self-righteousness or works:

I think many misunderstand the RCC position. Everything is grace in Catholicism. The grace to believe, the grace to do His works, the grace to hope and to love, the grace of repentance, etc. Grace is not only unmerited favor, but also the power to enable us to do God's will. But, as with any gift, grace can be resisted and refused-or thrown back way after received.

 

[Daniel C]

Well you fell on a pretty obvious stumbling block. Jesus is not a vine.

And my point about the Catholic church forcing people to accept their way isn't a moral one, it's an authoritative one. They forced people to believe, so Christians had no choice other than follow the teachings of the Catholic church, that's why there was no opposing views, not allowed.

The Catholic Church is in error on many things but the unforgivable mistake is their faulty salvation belief.

As I suspected you refute these teachings based on the actions of the Roman Catholic Church and rightly so I might add. I did the very same thing. I agree that a Church of God CANNOT force Christianity on anyone especially arresting, imprisoning, torturing, and executing nonbelievers. That is absolutely against what Jesus and the apostles taught!! Amen to that I completely agree. The inquisitions were the actions of the Roman Catholic Church not the Catholic Church itself and certainly not the Orthodox Church. There’s a difference between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church was a member of the Catholic Church but was kicked out in 1054AD for their claim of papal supremacy. They claimed that the bishop of Rome was the supreme authority over all of the churches even over the authority of the ecumenical council. You see the Church was governed by the ecumenical council which consisted of head bishops of the churches that met together to make decisions about church matters. This actually began with the apostles themselves in Acts 15 which was the first ecumenical council to decide the necessity of circumcision. So the church kept that tradition of holding council meetings to decide doctrines of the church. Within the ecumenical council there were 5 head bishops who held a higher place of honor among the council known as the pentarchy. They were the bishop of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome, and Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome began to claim that he was the highest authority over all the council members. The others disagreed. See there was no pope at this time. The Roman church claims there was but it is not supported by the scriptures or any of the early church writings. They claim the bishops of Rome were the popes. That is false otherwise there wouldn’t have been a dispute over their claim if it had always been that way. The eastern churches were constantly arguing with the church in Rome since the 8th century. Rome edited the Nicene Creed without the council’s approval, Rome was using unleavened bread in the Eucharist, the eastern churches urged Rome to remove their artwork from the church because they viewed them as idols, and Rome began to insist that all bishops and priests remain unmarried and celibate which the eastern churches refused. Celibacy was never enforced within the church. Peter was married and so was Barnabas. The straw that broke the camel’s back is when the bishop of Rome demanded that the church acknowledge his supreme authority over the church and the result was that all of the other bishops of the pentarchy refused to accept his authority. So Rome was then excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1054AD and all of the bishops of the pentarchy sided against Rome and adopted the name Orthodox meaning Traditional. So in the end we have a council where one person, the bishop of Rome, claims he excommunicated all the others, and all the other bishops claim they excommunicated Rome. The way a council works is the majority rules, otherwise it’s not a council at all. So one member cannot excommunicate all the other members from the council, but all members can excommunicate one member. You can read the entire story at these links at Britanica.com. I chose britanica because they are a secular organization with an impeccable reputation for only presenting the facts. Since they are a secular organization they are not biased either towards or against either side of the argument.

https://www.britannica.com/eventSchism-of-1054


Pentarchy | Christianity

Now the inquisitions began in 1184AD and were instituted by the Roman bishop. The Orthodox churches took no part in any of the inquisitions. So you see this began after Rome was excommunicated from the Catholic/Orthodox Church. Here’s another link explaining the details of the inquisitions from Britanica.

Inquisition | Roman Catholicism

Now the teachings of conditional salvation began from the very beginning of Christianity long before Rome was excommunicated. The Church of God adopted the name Catholic some time between 107AD and 170AD. We know this because in St Ignatius’ epistle to the Smyrnaeans he refers to the church by name as the Church of God but later in his epistle describes the church as being “Catholic” (universal) in nature. Then in 170AD we see in St Iranaeus’ writing Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) he mentions the church by name as the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church is the apostolic Church of God, they merely adopted the name Catholic meaning it is universal (for everyone).

I used to believe in reformed theology and defended it passionately as you do now. Until I was presented with John 15. Originally I set out to prove that John 15 did not contradict eternal security. I studied the Greek texts and word definitions looking for any possible way to refute the notion that it supported conditional security and the more I studied the more I found that it cannot be interpreted correctly to support eternal security. Then I began studying the early church writings and began to notice that they also refuted eternal security. Then I began to study the history of the Catholic Church because just like you I believed that the Catholic Church could not be the Church of God because of its actions during the inquisitions. That’s when I discovered the true history of the Catholic Church which became known as the Orthodox Church. So I began learning their teachings and saw that they were in line with the early church writings. Now I had to undergo the task of going back and re-examining the passages of scripture that I believed supported eternal security and I was extremely shocked to find that they can in fact be interpreted to support conditional security without any contradiction. I prayed and prayed on this. The whole process took over a month to come to the conclusion that reformed theology cannot be correct and the Catholic Church had been right the whole time. So I try to help others find the information that I found in hopes of helping them better understand the history of the Catholic Church and the teachings of God’s word.

 

[Daniel C]

Well, there are many, according to the need and God's will for us. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, counseling the grieving or despairing, teaching the faith, healing, etc.

They're done due to the demands of love-to bring light and faith and hope and love into a dark and hopeless world.

Is this Scripture or Catechism ?

I only recognize the first as authority.

 

[fhansen]

Is this Scripture or Catechism ?

I only recognize the first as authority.

It's both. With Scripture varying beliefs/interpretations often arise due to ignoring the church's historical understanding.

 

[Daniel C]

It's both. With Scripture varying beliefs often arise due to ignoring the church's historical understanding.

Oh come on now. I asked a simple question and get a flippant answer.

I'm not even sure why the Catholic church has taken centre spot of the discussion, the thread is about salvation not Babylon.

Salvation........

 

[fhansen]

Oh come on now. I asked a simple question and get a flippant answer.

I'm not even sure why the Catholic church has taken centre spot of the discussion, the thread is about salvation not Babylon.

Salvation........

Flippant? I think clear and direct would be more appropriate. But either way, Scripture agrees with my statements, which also have nothing to do with Babylon.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Good day, BRN32Fan

Oh yes his retractions been awhile but I do not think he retracted his exegetical work on Romans in that text. If you have a instance that covers Romans I will be more than happy to review.

In Him,.

Bill

It’s hard to say my friend. I’ve seen Augustine’s work support Calvinism and even Universalism which were also refuted by the church both before and during the time he wrote them. Personally I see Augustine’s work as being inconclusive since he doesn’t specify which errors he was referring to. So I find it hard to present his works as being evidence of the early church teachings especially when earlier writings by others such as Iranaeus, Ignatius, and others refute those teachings of Augustine.

 

[BobRyan]

Luke 12
And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 44 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

"will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. " is not the "heaven" that you read about in the Bible.

We probably all knew that

 

[BobRyan]

I will ask you the same question I did to Maria B: What do you do if you are a believer and notice you are a bad servant?

Repent and accept the Gospel

 

[BNR32FAN]

Actually the people who ''never knew'' are the ones who chose works salvation,which is not what Jesus asked for:

(Matthew)

''Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.''


''Wonderful works'' in their own eyes,iniquity in Gods eyes,hence they were rejected.

Salvation is by faith,a free eternal gift of God that we receive when we are born again.

They were called to do good works and Jesus specifically says why He condemned them.

“"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:21-23‬ ‭NASB

These believers practiced sin and that is why they were condemned. So you believe in faith alone. Ok, suppose I believe that Jesus paid for all my sins and I trust in Him that I am completely forgiven so I go out to churches who teach different doctrines that I believe and begin shooting everyone in those churches. Then when the police arrive I begin shooting them to and in the crossfire I get shot and killed. Am I saved? If not why?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well you fell on a pretty obvious stumbling block. Jesus is not a vine.

And my point about the Catholic church forcing people to accept their way isn't a moral one, it's an authoritative one. They forced people to believe, so Christians had no choice other than follow the teachings of the Catholic church, that's why there was no opposing views, not allowed.

The Catholic Church is in error on many things but the unforgivable mistake is their faulty salvation belief.

You obviously didn’t read my post did you? If you did you would know that the Catholic Church had absolutely nothing to do with the inquisitions and never forced anybody to believe anything. Do you believe that evil prevailed over Jesus’ church for the first 1600 years of Christianity?

“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16:18‬ ‭NASB‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well you fell on a pretty obvious stumbling block. Jesus is not a vine.

And my point about the Catholic church forcing people to accept their way isn't a moral one, it's an authoritative one. They forced people to believe, so Christians had no choice other than follow the teachings of the Catholic church, that's why there was no opposing views, not allowed.

The Catholic Church is in error on many things but the unforgivable mistake is their faulty salvation belief.

John 15 explained in the proper context with the proper translations. So many people who believe in eternal security get way off course when they hit this stumbling block. This is because John 15:1-6 refutes the doctrine of eternal security. In order to understand this passage of scripture you have to really look at the context as well as the Greek definitions of the keys words used here. First I’ll start with the context. Who is Jesus speaking to? This message takes place right after the Last Supper. Judas has already left the upper room to go and betray Jesus and Jesus and His faithful 11 apostles are walking to Gethsemane late at night. So according to the scriptures only Jesus and His faithful 11 apostles are present during this message. So let’s examine Jesus’ message. I’m going to use the NLT version which I know many people will say is inaccurate but I will show you by the definition of the Greek words used that in this particular case the NLT is actually more accurate than the KJV,ASV,and ESV with one exception. In verse 9 the NLT adds the word “true” in front of the word “disciples”. I have removed the word “true” because it is not in the original Greek text and it is not my intention to add anything to the original text in order to support my position in this discussion. So let’s continue.


““I am the true grapevine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch of mine that doesn’t produce fruit, and he prunes the branches that do bear fruit so they will produce even more. You have already been pruned and purified by the message I have given you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. For a branch cannot produce fruit if it is severed from the vine, and you cannot be fruitful unless you remain in me. “Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a useless branch and withers. Such branches are gathered into a pile to be burned. But if you remain in me and my words remain in you, you may ask for anything you want, and it will be granted! When you produce much fruit, you are my disciples. This brings great glory to my Father. “I have loved you even as the Father has loved me. Remain in my love. When you obey my commandments, you remain in my love, just as I obey my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.”

John 15:1-10 NLT


First let’s examine verses 1 & 2.


““I am the true grapevine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch of mine that doesn’t produce fruit, and he prunes the branches that do bear fruit so they will produce even more.”

John 15:1-2 NLT


The Father “cuts off” every branch “of mine” that doesn’t produce fruit. Before we look at cuts off notice Jesus says “of mine”. These branches are believers. They are already grafted into the vine. We will see more evidence of this later in my explanation. So let’s look at the full definition of the Greek word used for the term “cuts off” which is aírō (G142).


Definition

1) to raise up, elevate, lift up a) to raise from the ground, take up: stones b) to raise upwards, elevate, lift up: the hand c) to draw up: a fish

2) to take upon one's self and carry what has been raised up, to bear

3) to bear away what has been raised, carry off a) to move from its place b) to take off or away what is attached to anything c) to remove d) to carry off, carry away with one e) to appropriate what is taken f) to take away from another what is his or what is committed to him, to take by force g) to take and apply to any use h) to take from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence i) cause to cease


Notice the bold letters in the definition. To take off or away what is attached to anything. The branch is attached to the vine. When the Greek word aírō is used in reference to something that is attached to something the correct definition is removed or detached. The term taken away is also used which still implies the same thing. If someone is taken away from the vine (Jesus) they become detached or removed from Him which cannot result in salvation. Let’s continue there’s plenty more evidence to confirm this

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well you fell on a pretty obvious stumbling block. Jesus is not a vine.

And my point about the Catholic church forcing people to accept their way isn't a moral one, it's an authoritative one. They forced people to believe, so Christians had no choice other than follow the teachings of the Catholic church, that's why there was no opposing views, not allowed.

The Catholic Church is in error on many things but the unforgivable mistake is their faulty salvation belief.

Continued

“You have already been pruned and purified by the message I have given you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. For a branch cannot produce fruit if it is severed from the vine, and you cannot be fruitful unless you remain in me.”

John 15:3-4 NLT


Here Jesus is saying to His 11 faithful apostles “remain in Me” “YOU cannot be fruitful UNLESS YOU remain in Me”. Now look at the implications here. These are very powerful words. Jesus is directing this message to His 11 faithful apostles whom we know without a doubt that Jesus knew they believed according to John 6:64. Jesus is implying that there is a possibility that they can fail to abide or remain in Him. According to the doctrine of eternal security this means Jesus is warning His apostles of doing something that is impossible for them to do. Why would Jesus warn them to abide in Him if they are incapable of falling away? Jesus knew they still have free will and they needed this message to stay the course. Notice in the first verse of the very next chapter while they are still walking to Gethsemane Jesus says to them ““These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be caused to stumble.”

John 16:1”. Let’s continue.


““Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing.”

John 15:5 NLT


Two key things to focus on here. Those who remain in Jesus WILL PRODUCE MUCH FRUIT. Not might produce or may or can produce some fruit. Will produce much fruit. It is inevitable absolutely will happen of course if given the opportunity. The thief on the cross is an example of someone who didn’t have much of an opportunity to produce fruit or do good works. He did defend Jesus against the other criminals who were mocking Jesus. So he did produce some fruit but he was pretty limited considering he was nailed to a cross. But for those who have the capability to produce fruit and do not they will face the consequences of verses 2 and 6. Now the second point of focus is “apart from Me YOU can do nothing”. According to eternal security the apostles can’t be apart from Him because of 1 John 2:19.


“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”

1 John 2:19 KJV


So how does this make sense? Very easy 1 John 2:19 is speaking of antichrists as we can see in verse 18.


“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”

1 John 2:18 KJV


So what’s the difference between those who don’t abide and antichrists? Well antichrists lie and deny that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and God Himself. Antichrists try to deceive people about Jesus and The Father. That’s very different from what we’re seeing here in a John 15. John 15 is about becoming lukewarm. Only believers can become lukewarm because nonbelievers were never hot with passion for Christ to begin with. 1 John 2:19 only tells us that true believers will never be antichrists. It doesn’t say that true believers cannot fail to abide in Christ. Ok let’s proceed to verse 6 in John 15.


“Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a useless branch and withers. Such branches are gathered into a pile to be burned.”

John 15:6 NLT


Now many who teach the doctrine of eternal security will say this is a parallel verse to 1 Corinthians 3:15. That is not correct. In 1 Cor 3:15 Paul is taking about believers who are “building” on the foundation of Christ. They are doing works. 1 Cor 3:15 is not about believers who are not doing works. John 15:1-10 is about believers who are not doing works. Maybe they were then stopped or maybe they’re new to their faith and haven’t started. I don’t know. I don’t see any indication in the scriptures. The bottom line is they’re not doing works. In 1 Cor 3 Paul is explaining how both he and Apollos did the work God assigned them and both will be rewarded according to their deeds. Their works will be tested by fire to see if it has any value. Whether their works have any value or not the builder will still be saved either way. By having value means did it bring glory to God. I don’t want to get too far into discussing 1 Cor 3 because this is getting long and a bit off track. Anyone can clearly see it is only referring to believers who have done works. So let’s look at the Greek definition of the word bállō (G906) which is translated to cast or throw which means


1) to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls a) to scatter, to throw, cast into b) to give over to one's care uncertain about the result c) of fluids

1) to pour, pour into of rivers

2) to pour out

2) to put into, insert


Grammar:

a primary verb; to throw (in various applications, more or less violent or intense):--arise, cast (out), X dung, lay, lie, pour, put (up), send, strike, throw (down), thrust. Compare ῥίπτω.


Basically it means to carelessly throw down or thrust in a violent or intense manner without regard.


Next let’s look at the word wither which is translated from the Greek word xēraínō (G3583)


1) to make dry, dry up, wither

2) to become dry, to be dry, be withered a) of plants b) of the ripening of crops c) of fluids d) of the members of the body

3) to waste away, pine away, i.e. a withered hand


To dry up or waste away.


Lastly let’s look at the definition of the word burned translated from the Greek word kaíō (G2545) which means


1) to set on fire, light, burning

2) to burn, consume with fire


Pretty basic definition as you would expect.


So let’s review and put it all into perspective. So we have Jesus warning His 11 faithful apostles to abide in Him even explaining the consequences of failing to abide while the doctrine of eternal security suggests it is impossible for the faithful 11 not to abide, at least not unto the point of loss of salvation. But look at the consequences Jesus described in the proper translation. They are cut off or removed from the vine (Jesus). That in itself cannot result in salvation without repentance. They are cast or thrown away (carelessly violently intensely without regard) to wither (dry up and waste away) then thrown (again carelessly violently intensely without regard) into the fire to be burned (set on fire or consumed by fire). For anyone who questions the definitions I’ve provided for these words you can search it for yourself using the Strong’s concordance reference numbers I provided. Just google Strong’s concordance then type in the letter and number and you can see the definitions for yourself. I provided the number right after the Greek transliteration. For example search “Strong’s Concordance G142 and you’ll get the information for the Greek word aírō which means to take away, lift up, etc. If you question whether or not these are the correct Greek words in the scriptures just google John 15 Greek Interlinear and you can see the original Greek texts with translations and the Strong’s Concordance reference numbers. Here’s a link to make it easier. KJV w/ Strong's Concordance - John 15

 

[BBAS 64]

They were called to do good works and Jesus specifically says why He condemned them.

“"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:21-23‬ ‭NASB

These believers practiced sin and that is why they were condemned. So you believe in faith alone. Ok, suppose I believe that Jesus paid for all my sins and I trust in Him that I am completely forgiven so I go out to churches who teach different doctrines that I believe and begin shooting everyone in those churches. Then when the police arrive I begin shooting them to and in the crossfire I get shot and killed. Am I saved? If not why?

Good Day, BNR32FAN

They were not believers... notice Jesus word "I never knew you" they were not his sheep, he never chose to enter into a relationship with them. They can say, and do all they want it is the actions or inaction of Jesus to know or not to know that it the main verb clause and sets the frame work of this passage.

In Him,

Bill