Only The Elect Are Saved and Will Be

[sandusky]

Sean Boyle:

To be cut off the branch must be part of the vine, first. The branch is also cut off for not bearing fruit, not for no longer claiming be part of the vine.

It’s a parable, Sean; please show me where the branch makes any claim at all, let alone where it claims “I’m no longer to be part of the vine."

That said, I do agree with you that this story is teaching a lesson about bearing fruit, and it is not teaching a lesson about salvation.
Sean Boyle:

Don’t forget a vine can be regrafted to root stock, a common practice in the vineyard.

But the insistence of every Catholic I’ve encountered, including some on this very thread, is that the casting of the branch into the fire is the fire of hell; are you saying that those who don’t bear fruit not only lose their salvation, regain it, may lost it again, and regain it, but also, are cast into hell, brought back out of hell, cast back into hell again, and brought back out; that doesn’t make much sense to me.

According to the Catholic understanding of Jn 15, and all of the Catholics on this thread with the exception of one, so far, when Peter denied Christ, he lost his salvation, and was cast into hell.

 

[sandusky]

NotWorthy:

Ah, Sandusky, you seem to forget.

The Prodigal was a child of the inheritance. Is that right?
The Prodigal son squandered his inheritance. Is that right?

What would have happened to the Son had he physically died while he was tending to the pigs in the Gentile regions? According to Catholic theology, he would have roasted in the fires of Gehenna. What do you say? Is he still heaven bound because he is elect? That’s a really beautiful parable if so.

I haven’t forgotten it at all; however, I don’t agree with your interpretation, and, more than that, I don’t build a theology/soteriology around parables.

With respect to your interpretation, the prodigal is the last of three parables in that section of scripture, and they are connected to one another; you must begin with the first parable, and work through all of them; what is seen is the working first of the Son, then of the Spirit, and then of the Father; it is a story of salvation, not of salvation lost and regained, and Luke identifies the characters in v 1 and 2.

NotWorthy:

In regards to those that are cut off. They are thrown into the fires of hell. But can’t we be grafted back on? What of the power of the Church to forgive sins? Doesn’t this indicate that after our sins are forgiven in Baptism, they can still be forgiven after that?

I see; so Peter not only lost his salvation, he was cast into the fires of hell as well? Scripture doesn’t teach that being cast into the fires of hell is temporary; it’s permanent. As I’ve said before, I find the Catholic understanding of Jn 15 to be misunderstanding; IMO.

 

[sandusky]

Odell:

Prove that if in fear you can deny Jesus

The proof is that Peter did it.

 

[Odell]

I’ll say it again, the Greek word translated denial in Mt 10:32 is different from the Greek word for denial used to describe Peter’s action.

Obviously Peter neither lost his salvation, nor was he cast into hell as Catholics claim Jn 15:1ff teaches.

However, it does show that Peter, in fear, did that; do you believe that Peter is cut off, and cast away in the fires of hell as Catholics state Jn 15:1ff teaches?

Never said Peter was cast into hell

C’mon, Odell; I’ve given an explanation; you can reject what I’ve said, and claim that it proves nothing, that’s fine with me, but I’ve given an explanation.

Im still waiting on a biblical explanation on if you deny Jesus because of fear your still saved?

I am also waiting on an explanation on **IN HIM **isnt IN HIM

I dont know if the font can get much bigger did you read it this time?

I know you wouldnt deleberatly skip a question because you have no answer would you?

You tell us the reason for Peter’s denial of Jesus, was it from unbelief, or was it from fear?

fear again is there scripture that says you can deny God out of fear?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

It’s a parable, Sean; please show me where the branch makes any claim at all, let alone where it claims “I’m no longer to be part of the vine." It never does. Neither does the branch claiming that it is part of the vine and expect that claim"alone" will save itself. It still must bear fruit or it will be cut off. That is the essentence of the discussion here

That said, I do agree with you that this story is teaching a lesson about bearing fruit, and it is not teaching a lesson about salvation. But it is about salvation. Bearing fruit in faith is required for salvation. So something else beside faith alone is required, we all see that. Did Christ teach to hear himself talk? NO! He was always teaching us how to live in obedience to God in an effort to be given eternal life. The parables do mean something, Christ is always teaching us about salvation.

But the insistence of every Catholic I’ve encountered, including some on this very thread, is that the casting of the branch into the fire is the fire of hell; are you saying that those who don’t bear fruit not only lose their salvation, regain it, may lost it again, and regain it, but also, are cast into hell, brought back out of hell, cast back into hell again, and brought back out; that doesn’t make much sense to me. Salvation can only be determined for any human at the end of their human life. During our lives, we can be on the road to salvation, but we can’t be guarenteed salvation until this life is behind us. That is were you misunderstand what is being explained to you.

According to the Catholic understanding of Jn 15, and all of the Catholics on this thread with the exception of one, so far, when Peter denied Christ, he lost his salvation, and was cast into hell. Funny I haven’t seen anyone say that.

The issues seems to be you saying that a person can’t be in Christ and loose his salvation and regain it, ever. As we have seen this position is not defensible from a christian point of view.

 

[fbl9]

when one sins then mercy is shown unto them what do they do?if St Peter did nothing wrong in denying he even knew Jesus why did he go away and WEPT BITTERLY. the sheep know His voice,one has listen to hear it though.one can lose thier salvation but if one listens they will here the Master’s voice calling them back to repentence.

 

[sandusky]

Odell:

Never said Peter was cast into hell

You also said this:

Odell:

I dont know Him and only Christ knows the Heart. I cant say for sure that he was saved than lost it just as you cant say that he was never saved to begin with our that he was saved in the end.

I’m really trying to understand what you’re saying Odell; NotWorthy, ISTM, is insisting that Peter was saved, and, that when he denied Christ he lost his salvation, and, he regained his salvation later on.

A continuity of doctrine, differences in opinions and understanding of that doctrine.

Further, you say that you don’t know whether or not Peter “was saved in the end.”

But you do know that he’s the first pope; correct?

Odell:

I am also waiting on an explanation on IN HIM isnt IN HIM

I dont know if the font can get much bigger did you read it this time?

I know you wouldnt deleberatly skip a question because you have no answer would you?

Of course not; it’s just that, right now, I’m trying to wade through what I see as your confusion with respect to one being saved, losing salvation, regaining it, and so on; I’m asking you to explain, with support from scripture, why you believe that.

Odell:

fear again is there scripture that says you can deny God out of fear?

Once again, Odell, Peter’s “denial” of Jesus demonstrates that someone can “deny” Jesus, and not lose his salvation, but be restored, and allegedly, go on to become the first pope of the church.

 

[sandusky]

Sean Boyle:

It never does. Neither does the branch claiming that it is part of the vine and expect that claim"alone" will save itself. It still must bear fruit or it will be cut off. That is the essentence of the discussion here

You seem to be changing your tune; initially, you said that Jn 15 was about “bearing fruit;” now it seems that you’re trying to bring salvation into the parable; which is it, Sean, fruit, or salvation that’s being spoken of in the parable?
Sean Boyle:

But it is about salvation. Bearing fruit in faith is required for salvation.

So it’s about salvation. Then you believe as NotWorthy believes that Peter lost his salvation in his “denial” of Jesus?
Sean Boyle:

So something else beside faith alone is required, we all see that. Did Christ teach to hear himself talk? NO! He was always teaching us how to live in obedience to God in an effort to be given eternal life. The parables do mean something, Christ is always teaching us about salvation.

Sean Boyle:

Salvation can only be determined for any human at the end of their human life. During our lives, we can be on the road to salvation, but we can’t be guarenteed salvation until this life is behind us. That is were you misunderstand what is being explained to you.

I don’t misunderstand; I understand: that’s the Catholic position, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m not Catholic.
Sean Boyle:

The issues seems to be you saying that a person can’t be in Christ and loose his salvation and regain it, ever. As we have seen this position is not defensible from a christian point of view.

Correct, once in Christ, always in Christ, because it is by God’s doing alone that one is in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:1-2:10; Col 1:13; 2:13; 1 Pet 1:3 and more).

No one that I’ve seen has made much attempt to deal with the OP, and the passages cited.

 

[fbl9]

go back two posts sandusky.

 

[NotWorthy]

Obviously Peter neither lost his salvation, nor was he cast into hell as Catholics claim Jn 15:1ff teaches.

Catholics don’t claim that you are thrown into hell immediately when you reject Christ. You’ve done enough twisting of Scripture, please don’t add Catholic Teaching to your mental gymnastics. You’ll pull a muscle or something.

The parable of the wheat and the tares shows that those who lose their salvation are harvested upon their judgment. Peter’s repentence prevented this from happening, Sandusky.

Peter had to turn away from Christ, when you consider Jesus’ words in Luke. "Peter, Satan is trying to sift you like wheat… But when you turn back, you must strengthen your brothers. (paraphrasing)

Why should Peter “turn back” to Jesus if he never rejected Him in the first place?

 

[NotWorthy]

It’s a parable, Sean; please show me where the branch makes any claim at all, let alone where it claims “I’m no longer to be part of the vine."

That said, I do agree with you that this story is teaching a lesson about bearing fruit, and it is not teaching a lesson about salvation.

That is incredible.

The parable is talking about bearing fruit in order to retain your Salvation that was gifted to you in Baptism.

 

[sandusky]

You also said this:I’m really trying to understand what you’re saying Odell; NotWorthy, ISTM, is insisting that Peter was saved, and, that when he denied Christ he lost his salvation, and, he regained his salvation later on.

A continuity of doctrine, differences in opinions and understanding of that doctrine.

Further, you say that you don’t know whether or not Peter “was saved in the end.”

But you do know that he’s the first pope; correct?

I did not read your post correctly, Odell; forgive me; I attributed to you something that you didn’t say, and am wrong for doing so.

 

[NotWorthy]

I haven’t forgotten it at all; however, I don’t agree with your interpretation, and, more than that, I don’t build a theology/soteriology around parables.

This is obvious. Jesus TAUGHT in parables, and as far as I can tell, you ignore them. interesting.

With respect to your interpretation, the prodigal is the last of three parables in that section of scripture, and they are connected to one another; you must begin with the first parable, and work through all of them; what is seen is the working first of the Son, then of the Spirit, and then of the Father; it is a story of salvation, not of salvation lost and regained, and Luke identifies the characters in v 1 and 2.

No. The parables are connected - in that you are right. The connection is the celebration that goes in when one reaches Salvation.

But no, the parable of the Prodigal Son is all about Repentence even after one has lost their inheritance. It’s also all about the forgiveness given once that repentance has occurred. Notice the celebration only occurred after the Son “rising from the dead”.

I see; so Peter not only lost his salvation, he was cast into the fires of hell as well? Scripture doesn’t teach that being cast into the fires of hell is temporary; it’s permanent. As I’ve said before, I find the Catholic understanding of Jn 15 to be misunderstanding; IMO.

I addressed this in my last post. Those are not cast into hell until their judgments. it’s not a yo-yo effect (Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13). The looming destination can yo-yo, but once in hell, there is no “get out of jail free” card.

 

[Odell]

Of course not; it’s just that, right now, I’m trying to wade through what I see as your confusion with respect to one being saved, losing salvation, regaining it, and so on; I’m asking you to explain, with support from scripture, why you believe that.

You right I am REALLY REALLY CONFUSED Im confused with regards to two scripture passages

So according to you your going to help WADE me threw my confusion. Im going to explain it again and then you can help me because Im realy realy tired of being confused

This passage has been used on this thred

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1 KJV)

You would agree I hope that there is no condemnation to those who are** IN CHRIST **Jesus.

Now lets read what I have been asking over and over and over

In Jn 15:6 Jesus tells us that “Anyone who does not remain in ME will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will burn.”

here is the big question

Why is **IN CHRIST **in (Rom 8:1) considered **“SAVED” When IN ME **when Jesus is the ONE saying **IM ME **IN (Jn 15:6) those people are not considered saved.

I would have to conclude that When Jesus HIMSELF says that someone who is IN HIM is **IN CHRIST **and therefore someone who is IN HIM “SAVED” can lose there salvation “thrown our like a branch…thrown into the fire”

Hope this is clear you are having a real difficulty with this

If you need it re-worded, bigger font, exedra Whatever you need I will be more than glad to help so I can get a response

Whatever it takes Ill work with you sandusky

Mybe this will help

Prove that IN ME is not the same as IN Christ

Once again, Odell, Peter’s “denial” of Jesus demonstrates that someone can “deny” Jesus, and not lose his salvation, but be restored, and allegedly, go on to become the first pope of the church.

Says you

 

[Odell]

I did not read your post correctly, Odell; forgive me; I attributed to you something that you didn’t say, and am wrong for doing so.

its ok but I have already responded

 

[sandusky]

NotWorthy:

Catholics don’t claim that you are thrown into hell immediately when you reject Christ. You’ve done enough twisting of Scripture, please don’t add Catholic Teaching to your mental gymnastics. You’ll pull a muscle or something.

OK; you don’t believe that the branches in Jn 15 are thrown into hell immediately; however, you do believe that the fire they are thrown into is hell; is that correct?

NotWorthy:

The parable of the wheat and the tares shows that those who lose their salvation are harvested upon their judgment. Peter’s repentence prevented this from happening, Sandusky.

The parable of the wheat and tares shows that the wheat and tares are not the same, and never were: the tares were sown among the wheat by an enemy—they are not the same, and again, they never were.

Peter had to turn away from Christ, when you consider Jesus’ words in Luke. "Peter, Satan is trying to sift you like wheat… But when you turn back, you must strengthen your brothers. (paraphrasing)

As I said in an earlier post: the greater reason for any of what Judas and Peter did is found in the predetermined counsel of God.

NotWorthy:

Why should Peter “turn back” to Jesus if he never rejected Him in the first place?

Peter said he wasn’t acquainted with Jesus, he never rejected Jesus, or who he confessed Jesus to be; the question posed to Peter was NOT ”you believe that man to be the Christ, the Son of the living of the God, don’t you?”

NotWorthy:

That is incredible.

The parable is talking about bearing fruit in order to retain your Salvation that was gifted to you in Baptism.

Of course it’s incredible to you; as Sean Boyle said, “[Christ] was always teaching us how to live in obedience to God in an effort to be given eternal life.”

You see eternal life as something that is given based upon your effort.

In 1 Cor 3, it is stated that a man’s work will be test by fire; the fire will reveal whether or not what’s left is gold and silver and precious stones, or, whether it was wood, hay and straw.

A man may have nothing but wood, hay and straw—worthless works—nevertheless, he will be saved. But you’ll reject that because to you, that passage teaches purgatory; correct?

Show me in the Jn 15 where salvation is discussed.

 

[NotWorthy]

OK; you don’t believe that the branches in Jn 15 are thrown into hell immediately; however, you do believe that the fire they are thrown into is hell; is that correct?

absolutely.

The parable of the wheat and tares shows that the wheat and tares are not the same, and never were: the tares were sown among the wheat by an enemy—they are not the same, and again, they never were.

Ok, this goes back to the pre-destination (actually Double-P-D) that you believe in, right? God is the grand puppet master and we go to heaven simply because He loves some of us and not others? If you take out my sarcasm, am I close to what this means?

In the parable, the Israelites understand that you can’t tell the cockle from the wheat until the ear appears (the fruit of the plant). Does this make sense. It’s the fruits that help one to tell one against the other.

I guess you feel the sheep went to heaven because they were sheep and the goats went to hell because they are goats?

As I said in an earlier post: the greater reason for any of what Judas and Peter did is found in the predetermined counsel of God.

Peter said he wasn’t acquainted with Jesus, he never rejected Jesus, or who he confessed Jesus to be; the question posed to Peter was NOT ”you believe that man to be the Christ, the Son of the living of the God, don’t you?”

Of course it’s incredible to you; as Sean Boyle said, “[Christ] was always teaching us how to live in obedience to God in an effort to be given eternal life.”

You see eternal life as something that is given based upon your effort.

In 1 Cor 3, it is stated that a man’s work will be test by fire; the fire will reveal whether or not what’s left is gold and silver and precious stones, or, whether it was wood, hay and straw.

A man may have nothing but wood, hay and straw—worthless works—nevertheless, he will be saved. But you’ll reject that because to you, that passage teaches purgatory; correct?

Eternal life is Salvation. While you have it, you have Salvation. When you sin and give it up, you lose that Salvation. Luckily Jesus built a Church to help us regain that Eternal Life. Penance, Communion, etc. etc.,

 

[Sean_Boyle]

You seem to be changing your tune; initially, you said that Jn 15 was about “bearing fruit;” now it seems that you’re trying to bring salvation into the parable; which is it, Sean, fruit, or salvation that’s being spoken of in the parable? Nope, not at all. your understanding is a little off.

So it’s about salvation. Then you believe as NotWorthy believes that Peter lost his salvation in his “denial” of Jesus? Again salvation is something you can’t claim until you life is complete, Like it or not.



I don’t misunderstand; I understand: that’s the Catholic position, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m not Catholic. Honestly your not Catholic because your unable to understand.

Correct, once in Christ, always in Christ, because it is by God’s doing alone that one is in Christ (1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:1-2:10; Col 1:13; 2:13; 1 Pet 1:3 and more).Nope not scriptural, The scriptures you sight are good ones, they all are, none of them mean what “you” want them to.

No one that I’ve seen has made much attempt to deal with the OP, and the passages cited.

Why are you avoiding the question about being “IN Christ”?

 

[mikeledes]

I would just like to restate the Catholic position regarding election. All those who are genuine members of the Church Militant (i.e. the church on earth) are true members of the elect community. The fact that they have been incorporated into Christ and enjoy its blessings - forgiveness of sins, new spiritual life, and reception of a claim to or share of an eternal inheritance (i.e. the tree of life, the holy city. Etc.) that they will possess in the future (Mark 10:30, Revelation 21:7, 22:19) – automatically makes them members of the chosen race. Moreover, the fact that they are “in Christ” means that God has chosen them. However, besides this broader election, there is a particular election that is not enjoyed by all true members of the Church Militant, and that is election to final salvation. These - and these alone - will receive the unmerited gift of final perseverance (i.e. perseverance to the end). Calvinists will argue, “Where does the Bible make this distinction?” In the same chapter and verse where God clearly and explicitly makes a distinction between an “effectual” call and a “gospel” call. In other words, it is an inference drawn from Scripture. Just as Calvinists recognize that the Bible states that not all who are called are saved and thus infer that there has to be two distinct calls, Catholics believe that the Bible teaches that not all who are genuinely “in Christ” abide in Christ and thus infer that there are two types of election.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Now let’s look at the Biblical evidence. First we have John 15:1-6, which has been cited often:

**1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

Now I have been accused of “parable squeezing.” I argue that Calvinists engage in parable steamrolling. Instead of imposing our own definitions based on our preconceived theological notions, why don’t we allow Christ to define His own terms. First of all, Calvinists want us to believe that when Christ says “every branch in Me”, he means “a person that is a member of My visible body (i.e. the Church) but that has not been spiritually united to Me.” Consequently, they make a distinction between being “in Christ” and being “in His visible body.” There are serious problems with this analysis. First of all, what does Jesus say “the Vine” represents? His visible body? No! He clearly states “I am the Vine.” In other words, the Vine represents the person of Christ. Branches are logically united to the vine and thus this metaphoric branch must be united to the person of Christ. That is the logical conclusion one draws without doing violence to the text. Otherwise, Jesus would not have referred to the person as a “branch,” since a branch – by definition – is an appendage of a plant (vine, tree, etc.).
Second of all, in every instance we find “in me” or a variant (i.e. “in him”, “in the Son”, etc.), it means a spiritual and salvific union with Christ.

1 John 2:24
24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

1 John 2:28
28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

1 John 3:24
24The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

See also John 6:56. Calvinists even admit that all the other uses of “in me” in John 15 (highlighted above in blue) refer to a spiritual and salvific union with Christ. So then why do they suddenly break away from the standard definition and use – by Christ and John - of “in Me” when it comes to John 15:2, making it the only exception of this established rule? Because they realize that it will contradict their theology.
The third problem is that the “false professor” arguments contradicts Jesus’s own words. False professors can fool Christians, but they can never fool Christ. The “branch” in question is not the one identifying himself as being “in Christ” or having spiritual union with Christ. It is Christ Himself who identifies this person as being “in Me.” Christ knows those who are His and I would highly doubt He would identify a false professor as being “in Him,” a phrase that He and the Bible always uses as a reference to those who are genuinely saved.
Fourth of all, lets take another look at John 15:6:

6If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

The word “abide” - in Greek meno – means to remain, to stay, or to continue. bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3306&version=kjv We find a variant of this same Greek word (epimeno) in Romans 11:22-23, which has a similar theme and clearly refers to true Christians:

22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in (epimeno) His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And they also, if they do not continue in (epimeno) their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

So in essence, what John 15:6 is saying is “If a man does not continue in me….” How can you continue in something that you were never a part of in the first place? Moreover, notice the order of events given by Jesus in this verse:
1)cast forth
2)withered
3)burned
The withering is a result of the casting off, not vice versa. This makes sense because once a branch is cut off from a vine, it withers because it no longer partakes of the life giving sap of the vine. Moroever, the fact that this person “withers” after being cut off means that it was once alive. Obviously, the “withering” does not refer to physical death, but spiritual death. The life in question is thus spiritual life and its origin is in the spiritual Vine (i.e. Christ). Therefore, this person once partook of the spiritual life that is found in Christ, but he was cut off and thus no longer partakes of this life and dies.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael