JOHN 15:1 THE TRUE VINE

[Doug]

there is no real distinction to be made between the wailing and the weeping of those in outer darkness.

[Mat 13:42, 50 KJV] 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. ... 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Mat 8:12 KJV] 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[Mat 22:13 KJV] 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[Mat 25:30 KJV] 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Even if you say there is no difference between weeping and wailing there is a difference in what happens to believing and unbelieving.......one goes into the furnace and one to outer darkness

 

[Kokyu]

[Jhn 3:18 KJV] 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

If they believed on the name of Jesu they were saved

Well, if you believe this, you'll have to explain how salvation was possible without the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross. If being saved was achievable without his atonement, as you're suggesting, then why did Jesus have to die?

They are not ever new creatures in the body of Christ.....they are saints in the believing remnant of Israel

I'm guessing you're a hyper-dispensationlist... You'll do yourself a big favor, I think, by checking out Steve Gregg's "The Narrow Path" website:

www.thenarrowpath.com

Anyway, you haven't shown this separation of the Church and Israel under the New Covenant, only asserted it. But an assertion, by itself, doesn't establish anything. I could assert that the moon is made of green cheese but this wouldn't make it so, right?

 

[Kokyu]

Even if you say there is no difference between weeping and wailing there is a difference in what happens to believing and unbelieving.......one goes into the furnace and one to outer darkness

It's not just that I say there is no difference; there is no difference in the Greek. As I pointed out, its the same Greek word - klauthmos - that is used both for "wailing" and for "weeping."

In any case, you haven't demonstrated from Scripture that there are two different destinations in view in the verses you offered speaking of "outer darkness." In both cases, there is a person cast into that darkness where they wail or weep and gnash their teeth. The description in both verses is identical, so how are you deriving two different locations from them? The verses themselves give you no ground for doing so...

 

[Doug]

Well, if you believe this, you'll have to explain how salvation was possible without the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross. If being saved was achievable without his atonement, as you're suggesting, then why did Jesus have to die?

I am not suggesting that salvation could be possible without atonement

[Rom 3:25 KJV] 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;

Israel was saved by believing on Christ, by faith in his name that he was their Messiah the Son of God ..........[Jhn 20:31 KJV] 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

God would be just in remitting Israels sins by baptism (Mark 1:4 Acts 2:38) and by faith in His name (Luke 24:47 Acts 10:43) all by the blood of Christ

 

[Doug]

I'm guessing you're a hyper-dispensationalist

No such thing as hyper just a mid acts right division dispensationalist ......people can be in error and divide the word incorrectly and make up dispensations
Wouldnt not being under law be a new dispensation?

 

[Doug]

I think, by checking out Steve Gregg's "The Narrow Path" website:

I checked some out.....why did you recommend this

 

[Doug]

Anyway, you haven't shown this separation of the Church and Israel under the New Covenant, only asserted it. But an assertion, by itself, doesn't establish anything. I could assert that the moon is made of green cheese but this wouldn't make it so, right?

Right we need scriptural support for assertions......not quite sure I know what you mean that I havent shown support for separation of the church and Israel........please expound

 

[Kokyu]

I am not suggesting that salvation could be possible without atonement

[Rom 3:25 KJV] 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;

Israel was saved by believing on Christ, by faith in his name that he was their Messiah the Son of God ..........[Jhn 20:31 KJV] 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

God would be just in remitting Israels sins by baptism (Mark 1:4 Acts 2:38) and by faith in His name (Luke 24:47 Acts 10:43) all by the blood of Christ

Hmmm... I pointed out that in John 15:1-8, Jesus was telling his disciples to be saved, which he described as "abiding in me." He was telling them this because they would, after his atonement on Calvary, have to trust in his sacrifice for their sins, just as anyone after the cross had to do in order to be saved. It seemed to me, though, that you were suggesting that the Twelve (or, rather, the eleven) were saved prior to Christ's atoning sacrifice. Did I mistake what you were saying?

No such thing as hyper just a mid acts right division dispensationalist ......people can be in error and divide the word incorrectly and make up dispensations
Wouldnt not being under law be a new dispensation?

I see the term "covenant" used far more than "dispensation" in Scripture. There's the Abrahamic covenant (Ge. 15:18; 17:9-10), the Noaic covenant (Ge. 6:18; 9:8) , the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 34:10, 27) the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 23:1-5), the new covenant (He. 10:19-22; Mk. 14:24; 2 Co. 3:6, etc.) but I don't see God, in Scripture, defining His dealings with humanity in terms of dispensations. The apostle Paul is the only one in Scripture who uses "dispensation," and that only four times. As far as I'm aware, the term never appears in the OT. And, until Darby, his dispensational interpretive lens through which to understand Scripture didn't exist. So, I don't find myself particularly interested in Dispensationlism.

I checked some out.....why did you recommend this

Not only is Steve an extremely knowledgeable and thoughtful man of God, but he has some really excellent counters to Dispensational Theology. He doesn't foam at the mouth about his problems with Dispensationalism, though, as the dispensationalists do with his non-dispensationalism, but very calmly, reasonably and biblically dismantles Dispensationalism. If you're a seeker of Truth, not just a doctrinal partisan, you'd do well to listen to what Steve has to say concerning Dispensationalism.

Right we need scriptural support for assertions......not quite sure I know what you mean that I havent shown support for separation of the church and Israel........please expound

Often, Christians will simply make an assertion about God's word, about what it says, and assume (I guess) that, simply by making the assertion assertively, they've established the accuracy and veracity of their assertion. But an assertion is just an assertion. You seemed to me to be doing this sort of thing, offering an assertion without justifying argument. Did you think you'd well-anchored your assertion to such an argument?

 

[Doug]

It's not just that I say there is no difference; there is no difference in the Greek. As I pointed out, its the same Greek word - klauthmos - that is used both for "wailing" and for "weeping."

In any case, you haven't demonstrated from Scripture that there are two different destinations in view in the verses you offered speaking of "outer darkness." In both cases, there is a person cast into that darkness where they wail or weep and gnash their teeth. The description in both verses is identical, so how are you deriving two different locations from them? The verses themselves give you no ground for doing so...

I know by you saying that weeping and wailing were the same greek word you are saying there is no difference......the translators translated them differently however

As far as their locations outer darkness to me is different from a furnace of fire........you can decide for yourself

 

[Doug]

Hmmm... I pointed out that in John 15:1-8, Jesus was telling his disciples to be saved, which he described as "abiding in me." He was telling them this because they would, after his atonement on Calvary, have to trust in his sacrifice for their sins, just as anyone after the cross had to do in order to be saved. It seemed to me, though, that you were suggesting that the Twelve (or, rather, the eleven) were saved prior to Christ's atoning sacrifice. Did I mistake what you were saying?

The twelve did not believe on the cross at that time......they believed on his name.......they were saved based on the foreknowledge of God that would be fulfilled by the cross

 

[Doug]

I see the term "covenant" used far more than "dispensation" in Scripture. There's the Abrahamic covenant (Ge. 15:18; 17:9-10), the Noaic covenant (Ge. 6:18; 9:8) , the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 34:10, 27) the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 23:1-5), the new covenant (He. 10:19-22; Mk. 14:24; 2 Co. 3:6, etc.) but I don't see God, in Scripture, defining His dealings with humanity in terms of dispensations. The apostle Paul is the only one in Scripture who uses "dispensation," and that only four times. As far as I'm aware, the term never appears in the OT. And, until Darby, his dispensational interpretive lens through which to understand Scripture didn't exist. So, I don't find myself particularly interested in Dispensationlism.

I see that what you are saying about covenants has merit
But in a way the covenants are dispensational......Genesis 17:9-10 we dont have to be circumcised as an example

 

[Doug]

Hmmm... I pointed out that in John 15:1-8, Jesus was telling his disciples to be saved, which he described as "abiding in me." He was telling them this because they would, after his atonement on Calvary, have to trust in his sacrifice for their sins, just as anyone after the cross had to do in order to be saved. It seemed to me, though, that you were suggesting that the Twelve (or, rather, the eleven) were saved prior to Christ's atoning sacrifice. Did I mistake what you were saying?



I see the term "covenant" used far more than "dispensation" in Scripture. There's the Abrahamic covenant (Ge. 15:18; 17:9-10), the Noaic covenant (Ge. 6:18; 9:8) , the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 34:10, 27) the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 23:1-5), the new covenant (He. 10:19-22; Mk. 14:24; 2 Co. 3:6, etc.) but I don't see God, in Scripture, defining His dealings with humanity in terms of dispensations. The apostle Paul is the only one in Scripture who uses "dispensation," and that only four times. As far as I'm aware, the term never appears in the OT. And, until Darby, his dispensational interpretive lens through which to understand Scripture didn't exist. So, I don't find myself particularly interested in Dispensationlism.



Not only is Steve an extremely knowledgeable and thoughtful man of God, but he has some really excellent counters to Dispensational Theology. He doesn't foam at the mouth about his problems with Dispensationalism, though, as the dispensationalists do with his non-dispensationalism, but very calmly, reasonably and biblically dismantles Dispensationalism. If you're a seeker of Truth, not just a doctrinal partisan, you'd do well to listen to what Steve has to say concerning Dispensationalism.



Often, Christians will simply make an assertion about God's word, about what it says, and assume (I guess) that, simply by making the assertion assertively, they've established the accuracy and veracity of their assertion. But an assertion is just an assertion. You seemed to me to be doing this sort of thing, offering an assertion without justifying argument. Did you think you'd well-anchored your assertion to such an argument?

Just wanted to say thanks for a respectful conversation

 

[Webers_Home]

.
● John 15:6 . . If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is
thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire
and burned.

We used to burn slash and yard debris when I was a kid living in the environs
of San Diego back in the late 1940s and early 1950s but couldn't do it nowadays
because of fire hazards and strict air quality laws.

Anyway: folks unified with Christ need not fear perdition because they've
undergone an irreversible transition.

● John 5:24 . . I assure you; those who listen to my message, and believe in
God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their
sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Needless to say; eternal life is imperishable because it's the life of God
(1John 1:1-2) so then, I think we can safely posit that John 15:6 is talking
about something other than losing one's salvation for failure to produce
acceptable fruit.
_

 

[Doug]

.
● John 15:6 . . If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is
thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire
and burned.

We used to burn slash and yard debris when I was a kid living in the environs
of San Diego back in the late 1940s and early 1950s but couldn't do it nowadays
because of fire hazards and strict air quality laws.

Anyway: folks unified with Christ need not fear perdition because they've
undergone an irreversible transition.

● John 5:24 . . I assure you; those who listen to my message, and believe in
God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their
sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Needless to say; eternal life is imperishable because it's the life of God
(1John 1:1-2) so then, I think we can safely posit that John 15:6 is talking
about something other than losing one's salvation for failure to produce
acceptable fruit.
_

When Christ establishes his earthly kingdom the wicked unbelievers of Israel will be gathered out of the kingdom and cast into the fire.

Those in Christ will bear fruit. If a believer is not fruitful he will not lose salvation but will suffer loss

These verses in John apply to Israel and their prophetic kingdom on earth, not the church the body of Christ