Cut off from the vine......but at what point?

[AaronBDisney]

I've been teaching true security in my Wednesday night class for the past few weeks. I've started out the first few weeks establishing the fact that salvation can be forfeited. Using mainly Steve's info from his "eternal security" teaching (thanks, Steve!)

When speaking on John 15 of the branches that were cut off, a man asked me at what point are we cut off. This is certainly a question that can bring about many different answers but I'm not certain that the Bible makes that crystal clear.
I want to have a balanced approach to answering his question. I don't believe that we're off the list at every sin and back on the list at every confession and particular repentance.

I understand that remaining in Christ is the key to acceptance by the Father, but I was hoping to get some good opinions from Biblical passages that could help me out in answering his question. I understand that the condition of salvation is always being in a state of belief, but I also know that there is more than recognition of the gospel as the truth.

Any input would be very appreciated

[steve]

Paul's illustration of the olive tree and its branches (Rom.11:16-24) is similar to that of the Vine and branches used by Jesus (John 15:1-6). When Jesus says "abide in Me" (John 15:4) and Paul says "continue in His goodness" (Rom.11:22) the words "abide" and "continue" come from the same root word.

The closest verbal parallels to the expression "abide in me," in John's Gospel, are found in 8:31—"If you continue in my word..." (same verb in Greek), and in 15:10— "abide in my love," (similar to Jude 21's "keep yourselves in the love of God"), which Jesus equates with keeping His commandments. When Paul talks about branches staying attached, he puts it this way: "You stand [that is, in relation to the olive tree] by faith" (Rom.11:20).

What does all this boil down to? Apparently, remaining attached to the life-giving Vine and the olive tree is simply the same thing as continuing to be a disciple—one who believes and continues in His words (i.e., in obedience to His words). This refers, I believe to one's defined course in life, though it may be interrupted by imperfections, due to weakness (James 3:2).

The moment you have a doubt, you have not necessarily become an unbeliever; and the moment you sin, you have not ceased to be a follower. Being an obedient believer speaks of the determination of your will. If you are still determined and desiring to be obedient to Christ and to trust in Him, then you are still a disciple. There is no limit to the number of failures that God can forgive to one whose heart is committed to Him.

To NOT abide means to depart from the faith. This can be a sudden decision to apostasize, because one does not wish to be associated with Christ any longer (Heb.3:12), or it can be the result of a gradual drifting away due to apathetic neglect (Heb.2:1). I think that one can usually determine pretty accurately his or her own condition, in this respect, by asking oneself, "Am I still determined to follow and trust Jesus Christ as my Lord and King, even if it costs me my life?" A stumbler, who is still clinging desperately to Christ, can still answer this question affirmatively. An apostate cannot.

[AaronBDisney]

Thank you, Steve. That is actually very helpful. That had always been my way of understanding this as well.

The answer that I gave him (as best as I could at the moment) was that one of the clearest ways to affirming salvation is from some of the passages in 1 John that state "if we say we know him...........". While it's true that we are not going to be perfect and if we think we are we are deceiving ourselves (1 John 1:8) but if we expose ourselves to the light for cleansing, we can know that we are saved.

Thanks again Steve. By the way, that was an excellent teaching on the subject. I supplemented it with a couple other things (just because I had time to do so during three weeks of Wednesdays) but that was as clear and substantial teaching as I've ever heard on the subject.

[mikew]

My perception of the idea of bearing fruit is that more of a prophetic image for the first century rather than a general concept to apply to Christians. Though of course there are logical applications to believers today.

The scribes and chief priests, as a point of key focus, then had failed to produce fruit. This also applied to the Jerusalem in general. The parable of the vineyard owner shows how the Pharisees were against giving fruit of the vine to the owner in Luke 20:9-16. In verse 19, Luke showed that the scribes and chief priests perceived the parable to be against them.
(The Sower parable explanation, Mark 4:14-20, was a pre-resurrection scenario. Verse 20 gave emphasis on these people bearing fruit.)

John the Baptist also saw the judgment upon that generation for not bearing fruit.
Luk 3:9 And even now the axe also lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire

Then the quote from John 15 reflected words spoken to the disciples of that time. The persecution and tribulation was going to cause the non-believers to become apparent by being overcome by the pressures and not bearing fruit. Those who were believers of that time were found to be worthy and were to be rewarded. And these believers did bear proper fruit.

The great distinction (between bearers of fruit,and those not bearing) was an important aspect to show how just God is. That there was no gray area in His judgment on that generation.

Now if this concept is mixed up with general Christian doctrine for today's faith, we end up with a likely distortion of the true nature of faith.

[AaronBDisney]

Interesting take on it, MikeW.
Still seems to me that this can be generally applied to any branch that does not bear fruit. The cutting off, withering and burning indicates to me the Spiritual condition from God's assessment (cutting off), the apparent inevitable manifestation of that branch's inability to be useful in the Kingdom (withering) and the eventual judgment (burning).

This seems to be equally applicable to anyone today as it was to the Jews of that time that refused to believe. Maybe the mutual rejection of Christ by the Jews and Jews by God was more visible, but the general truth, seems to me, could be applied to all.

[mikew]

Interesting take on it, MikeW.
Still seems to me that this can be generally applied to any branch that does not bear fruit. The cutting off, withering and burning indicates to me the Spiritual condition from God's assessment (cutting off), the apparent inevitable manifestation of that branch's inability to be useful in the Kingdom (withering) and the eventual judgment (burning).

This seems to be equally applicable to anyone today as it was to the Jews of that time that refused to believe. Maybe the mutual rejection of Christ by the Jews and Jews by God was more visible, but the general truth, seems to me, could be applied to all.

Do you see my point that it may apply today but not equally so? The main application of Jesus' words was to the distress the disciples of that time would have to endure. This was a prophetic fulfillment. Such prophetic fulfillment would then show an emphasis on that generation and hence not be "equally applicable to anyone today."

And you may have shifted in your topic somewhere since you mentioned the idea of people "that refused to believe." Since your original post was about applying the passage to believers, how then can a believer refuse to believe? Or does a non-believer actually intentionally refuse to believe?

To keep us on the original topic, the question is whether a believer can become fruitless to the point of being cast away. It doesn't seem that Jesus was telling his disciples that any of them would become fruitless. Instead it seems that Jesus just described those people that would not bear fruit -- this purpose probably was for contrast to the main point where Jesus said that their fruit would come from abiding in Christ (John 15:4). (Note that this really is an odd concept to the disciples at that time -- the concept of "abiding in Christ" It is probably a little easier for us today cause we only know Christ through faith, not through seeing His physical body.)

Now John 15:6 really addresses a limited group of people in saying that "he that does not abide in Me will be collected and burned" (paraphrase). This concept of being burned in fire appears to be one of prophetic warning of physical burning that would happen upon Jerusalem at that time. I know though that our minds today often associate this with a concept of an eternal burning hell fire -- but this isn't how Jesus described anything here.

Even in John 15:19, Jesus spoke to His disciples (and always spoke to His disciples) in terms that assured them by telling them "I have chosen you" So these disciples, as a specific group, shouldn't even have a chance to become a broken branch.

= = = =
I tend to see the salvation passages used improperly by Armenians and Calvinists by not first seeing that the passages were prophetic fulfillments. (I speak as an amateur about the positions of these groups -- I'm making assumptions here in order to try to present my thought.)

The Calvinists have the idea of "perseverance of the saints" made into a general doctrine. But scripture only addressed such perseverance in connection with the persecution and tribulation that the initial saints had to endure.

The Armenians have the idea of "having to bear fruit" made into a general doctrine. But scripture only addressed such perseverance in connection with the persecution and tribulation that the initial saints had to endure.

The study of the gospels and OT prophecies needs to determine:
1) who the audience is
2) Is the passage directed to the audience and the situations they will encounter?
3) What then applies as a general doctrine?

In the case of John 15, the audience was the tight group of disciples around Jesus. He was giving them last minute instructions and encouragements to help them endure. It was not a time to just share general doctrines. It was a time of assurance to the disciples but also explaining why some people would fall away.

= = =
I think my main point of concern about salvation of people is about how they came to become believers. So the question is "Did they really come to have faith?" and "Were their conversions true and honest?" I just don't sense a way of losing faith.

The big reason against the idea of losing faith would have to do with the problems we encounter during persecution, tribulation, stress and sickness. Should we expect that someone who speaks doubts in these moments ( I include sickness since drugs or brain tumors can influence what we say) then has lost his salvation? It doesn't seem healthy for us then to even appear to speak judgementally of people who seem to get weak in those moments.

Though I do think that a true believer will tend to (or always will) confess Jesus as Lord, even if threatened or tortured.

[AaronBDisney]

Do you see my point that it may apply today but not equally so? The main application of Jesus' words was to the distress the disciples of that time would have to endure. This was a prophetic fulfillment. Such prophetic fulfillment would then show an emphasis on that generation and hence not be "equally applicable to anyone today."

I'm not sure I do see your point, not that it's not a good one, I just can't see it that clearly. I understand he's speaking directly to his disciples, but the teaching seems pretty general "if a man abide not in me......" I can't see that he's narrowing this down to one particular event. Seems that "a man" would be better said "any of you" if he was only referring to them. If he was only referring to believers that lived in that generation, I don't see anywhere that he makes that clear.

And you may have shifted in your topic somewhere since you mentioned the idea of people "that refused to believe." Since your original post was about applying the passage to believers, how then can a believer refuse to believe? Or does a non-believer actually intentionally refuse to believe?

I was only trying to follow your point, unless I've misunderstood it. If you think that the Jews that refused to believe along with those that apostasized were the ones being judged and that the casting out and burning was the soon coming judgment of 70 A.D. To be honest I guess I did get a little off target dragging the ones that refused to believe into it. Sorry.

To keep us on the original topic, the question is whether a believer can become fruitless to the point of being cast away. It doesn't seem that Jesus was telling his disciples that any of them would become fruitless. Instead it seems that Jesus just described those people that would not bear fruit -- this purpose probably was for contrast to the main point where Jesus said that their fruit would come from abiding in Christ (John 15:4).

I don't think he was predicting anything one way or another about the fruitfulness. I think he was giving them and us a legitimate warning against failing to remain in Him. If you do not abide in him, you have no hope of bearing fruit or of eternal life. That life is found in him.

Now John 15:6 really addresses a limited group of people in saying that "he that does not abide in Me will be collected and burned" (paraphrase). This concept of being burned in fire appears to be one of prophetic warning of physical burning that would happen upon Jerusalem at that time. I know though that our minds today often associate this with a concept of an eternal burning hell fire -- but this isn't how Jesus described anything here.

I don't necessarily look at this as literal burning in the temporal world or future burning in the afterlife. I just see it as judgment, which will ultimately (unless rectified) result in judgment in hell.

Even in John 15:19, Jesus spoke to His disciples (and always spoke to His disciples) in terms that assured them by telling them "I have chosen you" So these disciples, as a specific group, shouldn't even have a chance to become a broken branch.

Of course he 'chose' his disciples. They were his inner group. He said in one place he chose all of them and one of them was a devil (Judas). His choosing of them doesn't guarantee them anything. Remaining in Christ by faith is the only guarantee of ultimate salvation. I guess it depends on what you associate the being chosen with. If you understand it to mean they are chosen to eternal life, regardless of anything they can say or do, I guess you'd have a point.

I see it differently though.

I don't have a whole lot of time to respond to everything here but -

Though I do think that a true believer will tend to (or always will) confess Jesus as Lord, even if threatened or tortured

Was Peter a true believer? He refused to confess him. In 2 Tim 2:13 Paul implies the possibility of denying Christ (though, of course he did not intend to I'm sure). I just don't agree with your statement on that.

[mikew]

Do you see my point that it may apply today but not equally so? The main application of Jesus' words was to the distress the disciples of that time would have to endure. This was a prophetic fulfillment. Such prophetic fulfillment would then show an emphasis on that generation and hence not be "equally applicable to anyone today."

I'm not sure I do see your point, not that it's not a good one, I just can't see it that clearly. I understand he's speaking directly to his disciples, but the teaching seems pretty general "if a man abide not in me......" I can't see that he's narrowing this down to one particular event. Seems that "a man" would be better said "any of you" if he was only referring to them. If he was only referring to believers that lived in that generation, I don't see anywhere that he makes that clear.

Nah. Certainly I didn't think Jesus was implying the words "any of you." I figured that those who did not abide in Jesus were among the disciples.
Alas, I think that it will be difficult to convey my ideas in a text forum.

And you may have shifted in your topic somewhere since you mentioned the idea of people "that refused to believe." Since your original post was about applying the passage to believers, how then can a believer refuse to believe? Or does a non-believer actually intentionally refuse to believe?

I was only trying to follow your point, unless I've misunderstood it. If you think that the Jews that refused to believe along with those that apostasized were the ones being judged and that the casting out and burning was the soon coming judgment of 70 A.D. To be honest I guess I did get a little off target dragging the ones that refused to believe into it. Sorry.

No problem. Right now I had to re-read the discussion to figure out what the topic was.

To keep us on the original topic, the question is whether a believer can become fruitless to the point of being cast away. It doesn't seem that Jesus was telling his disciples that any of them would become fruitless. Instead it seems that Jesus just described those people that would not bear fruit -- this purpose probably was for contrast to the main point where Jesus said that their fruit would come from abiding in Christ (John 15:4).

I don't think he was predicting anything one way or another about the fruitfulness. I think he was giving them and us a legitimate warning against failing to remain in Him. If you do not abide in him, you have no hope of bearing fruit or of eternal life. That life is found in him.

My idea, namely that the branches that got burned were never believers, is one interpretation. The other interpretation is that the believers could stop abiding in Him. But I figured that verse 19, about His choosing them, then promoted the first interpretation. But I am influenced also by conclusions before coming to John 15.
The decision of options here really is the issue of the question asked in your class though.

...snip...

Of course he 'chose' his disciples. They were his inner group. He said in one place he chose all of them and one of them was a devil (Judas). His choosing of them doesn't guarantee them anything. Remaining in Christ by faith is the only guarantee of ultimate salvation. I guess it depends on what you associate the being chosen with. If you understand it to mean they are chosen to eternal life, regardless of anything they can say or do, I guess you'd have a point.

I see it differently though.

I don't have a whole lot of time to respond to everything here but -

I would have to say from verse 19 that they were chosen to eternal life. But now we are getting into another shift of topic, namely into the nature of the change one has in becoming a Christian. Is someone born again in this lifetime? Is that born again event come in connection with receiving eternal life? Does free will change someone's nature?
Alas, these are better left for another discussion.
But I would also, in passing, like to protest the interpretation of the Olive tree in Roman 11 as being a model of being in faith or falling out of faith. Paul's topic wasn't about faith in that passage.

Sorry to make my responses so long.