Eternal Security the Acid test

[The Biblicist]

Nonsense is what you speak.

I have already shown you that you do not understand John 6:39. When Jesus was on earth, HE WAS GIVEN THOSE WHO WENT TO GOD FIRST, BUT NOW, EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO GO TO GOD, THEY MUST GO THROUGH JESUS FIRST.

You have NEVER demonstrated that the IMMEDIATE context supports that interpretation.

Instead you have JUMPED outside John 6:36-65 to proof texts and then READ THEM BACK INTO this text.

Even the PROOF TEXTS you have used were JERKED OUT of their own context and then FORCED back into the context of John 6:39.

So, bottom line is YOU HAVE SHOWED NOTHING but an ability to pervert the scriptures.

 

[savedbymercy]

And Jesus ain't no liar....good post...:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Nope He's not ! He said that they had passed from death to Life Jn 5:24



24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

That word passed is the greek word metabainō and means:


to pass over from one place to another, to remove, depart

It denotes change, to pass from one place to another 1 Jn 3:14

14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

In both places John uses the perfect Tense, in other words, it was an action of God's completed in the past once and for all and will not be repeated, its results affects the present.

Add to that, Jesus said they shall not come into condemnation which is indicative, meaning Jesus is making a simple statement of fact of something that will not occur ! That which Jesus is saying that will not occur is that not of any of those who are past from death to life shall come into condemnation, not ever. Thats Eternal Security..

 

[The Biblicist]

Nope He's not ! He said that they had passed from death to Life Jn 5:24



24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

That word passed is the greek word metabainō and means:


to pass over from one place to another, to remove, depart

It denotes change, to pass from one place to another 1 Jn 3:14

14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

In both places John uses the perfect Tense, in other words, it was an action of God's completed in the past once and for all and will not be repeated, its results affects the present.

Add to that, Jesus said they shall not come into condemnation which is indicative, meaning Jesus is making a simple statement of fact of something that will not occur ! That which Jesus is saying that will not occur is that not of any of those who are past from death to life shall come into condemnation, not ever. Thats Eternal Security..

I certainly agree with your interpretation of John 5:24 but John 5:24 is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is John 6:39 and its CONTEXTUAL meaning!

Not one person on this thread has yet to even attempt to prove the face value meaning of John 6:39 is not its contextual meaning. Instead, every single person who has opposed my interpretation has done it on the basis of PROOF TEXTING outside this context.

Come on, someone take up the challenge, if you are going to condemn my interpretation of John 6:29, do so on the basis of its own immediate context, grammar, terms.

 

[savedbymercy]

I certainly agree with your interpretation of John 5:24 but John 5:24 is not the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is John 6:39 and its CONTEXTUAL meaning!

Not one person on this thread has yet to even attempt to prove the face value meaning of John 6:39 is not its contextual meaning. Instead, every single person who has opposed my interpretation has done it on the basis of PROOF TEXTING outside this context.

Come on, someone take up the challenge, if you are going to condemn my interpretation of John 6:29, do so on the basis of its own immediate context, grammar, terms.

I agree with the points A B C, of the OP as far as Jn 6:29 is concerned, refresh my memory about it. What did you state for me to condemn it ?

In the mean time, my comments will be in regards to the Truth of Eternal Security !

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with the points A B C, of the OP as far as Jn 6:29 is concerned, refresh my memory about it. What did you state for me to condemn it ?

In the mean time, my comments will be in regards to the Truth of Eternal Security !

Just go back to the OP and read it. I am trying to keep our posters to the OP and that means proving or disproving the face value reading of John 6:39 by its immediate context (Jn. 6:36-65).

However, even those who agree with me are not helping the case by inserting other texts from other contexts thereby leading everyone away from the intent of this OP.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: A. "The Father's will" in context does not refer to the REVEALED WILL of God but as verse 37 demonstrates it refers to the DETERMINATE WILL of God because every single one the Father gives does in fact come to Christ, whereas, the REVEALED WILL of God brings no one to Christ.

HP: Simply an unproven presupposition to ASSUME WITHOUT PROOF that the reason why all do something is that God 'determines' it to be so. You make up distinctions of His will that have absolutely no foundation from the text itself. Where is your proof, FROM YOUR TEXT ALONE, that God must be the cause or 'determines' by His decree the salvation of anyone? Where is your proof, FROM THE TEXT itself how God determines, or the manner by which God determines, the salvation of anyone? Where is the proof, FROM THE TEXT ALONE, that one coming to the light of salvation could not in fact fall away from ones first love? The plain truth is that you have to approach this text from presuppositions of what the will of God entails and how such a will works, to establish any such notion such as OSAS from this text. What you call 'immediate context' is nothing more or less than an 'immediate presuppositions' not stated or implied by the text itself.

 

[The Biblicist]

[/SIZE]

HP: Simply an unproven presupposition to ASSUME WITHOUT PROOF that the reason why all do something is that God 'determines' it to be so.

You can't be serious???????? There is nothing to "ASSUME"!

The efficient cause is stated - "The Father gives"
The efficient immediate objective is stated "cometh to me"
The efficient ultimate consequence is stated "shall lose nothing BUT raise it up at the last day"

There is not a single solitary loss of "of all" the father gives that does not come to Christ and you think all this is accidental???

It MIGHT be accidental if no efficient cause were stated, no efficient objective stated and no certain final efficient consequence stated.

The very words "and I shall lose nothing" denies it is accidental.

There is no rational way to conceive the "Father's will" in verses 38-39 to be the REVEALED will of God simply because the revealed will of God cannot accomplish any of these things as it has no power to give anything to anyone and then efficiently preserve it from being lost!!!!!!!

Your response is an absolute irrational joke!

You make up distinctions of His will that have absolutely no foundation from the text itself. Where is your proof, FROM YOUR TEXT ALONE, that God must be the cause or 'determines' by His decree the salvation of anyone? Where is your proof, FROM THE TEXT itself how God determines, or the manner by which God determines, the salvation of anyone?

Who is it that the text states which is the One giving to the Son?

Answer "the Father gives"

How can the Revealed will of God absolutely guarantee that "ALL" which are given to the Son will come to the Son???????

Answer: Can't - impossible - as the revealed will of God simply reveals what God wants someone to do but cannot guarantee they will do it. If it could there would be no sin and no sinners as it is the revealed will of God that we do not sin.

How can the Revealed will of God absolutely guarantee that "OF ALL" the Father gives will not be lost????

Answer: Can't - impossible - as the reveal will of God has no power to do anything, to keep anything!


The Revealed will of God is simply that - What God reveals for us to do or not do. The Bible is the Revealed will of God!

However, the determinate will of God is the will brings all prophecies to pass!

The Determinate will of God is the will that cannot be overturned by creatures but accomplishes exactly what God purposes:

Isa. 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

The Determinate will of God is the will that set up Nechadnezzar as king and then humbled him so that he admitted to the Determinate will of God by saying:

Dan. 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Simply put, the Determinate will of God is whatever God uses His power to overcome all obstacles to perform His good pleasure concerning anything He chooses and everything He purposed.

"And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
"

The revealed will of God cannot accomplish this promise or any prophecy! Only the determined will of God accompanied by His POWER can fulfil prophecies and keep promises.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: You can't be serious???????? There is nothing to "ASSUME"!

The efficient cause is stated - "The Father gives"

HP: What you assume without proof is the manner and means by which He gives.

Biblicist: The efficient immediate objective is stated "cometh to me"

HP: What you assume without proof is the means by which God has chosen for them to come to Him.

Biblicist: The efficient ultimate consequence is stated "shall lose nothing BUT raise it up at the last day"

HP: What you assume without proof is that the word 'will' of God as used in the text 'determines' the outcome. Nothing in the text itself indicates that which is willed will happen without exception. Again, you have to read into the verse, by way of presupposition, OSAS, to deduce OSAS from the text itself.

Biblicist: There is not a single solitary loss of "of all" the father gives that does not come to Christ and you think all this is accidental???

HP: You have to prove from the text itself that His will 'determines' the outcome, which you simply cannot. You ASSUME that it is a 'determinative' will, but the text does NOT state or imply any such thing. I have as much right, FROM THE TEXT ITSELF, to assume that it is NOT a determinative will as you do to say it is. The text proves neither point. Texts that prove either prove neither.

Who said anything about 'accidental'?? So here we see your tactic in debate. If you cannot prove your point, you simply insert an "accidental" (or not so accidental in this case) strawman.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

As soon as you meet my challenge I would more than love to take up your challenge with Hebrews 6.


However, you or no one else on this forum has even attempted to take my challenge. You don't even rightly understand the challenge I made so let me spell it it out to you once more again.

I refuse to play the PROOF TEXT musical chair game with you. I am not playing any PROOF TEXT game. My challenge is prove by the immediate context (John 6:36-54) that my use of John 6:39 is wrong!

I am not jerking John 6:39 OUT OF ITS CONTEXT but demonstrating by ITS CONTEXT that I am correctly interpreting it. Your challenge is to prove BY ITS IMMEDIATE CONTEXT that I am not correctly interpreting it.

Do you understand my challenge???

I AM NOT PROOF TEXTING John 6:39 but I AM DEMONSTRATING BY ITS IMMEDIATE CONTEXT that what it says BY FACE VALUE is exactly what it means according to its context.

No one has yet taken this challenge (I really don't think you or anyone else will because it will be quite embarassing for you if you did).

What should be quite embarassing for you is that you falsely deny that you are proof texting when everyone else here can see that you clearly are.

However, your proof text is easy to interpret. The ones God gives to the Son are those who freely accept Him and freely choose to remain true to Him till the end. The end or destiny of those who receive Him and then later turn away from and reject Him, is dealt with in such scriptures as Hebrews 6. John 6:40 further clarifies the proof text which you have so arrogantly used to beat us over the head with (v.39). So, of course Jesus will lose none of those He has been given -- and these consist of the ones who do not fall away.

Simple, isn't it? And so easy to have knocked down your entire false, exclusivist, fatalist, determinist, Calvinistic system which has done so much harm to the freedom-loving character of God.

I thank Him every day for endowing His sentient creation with freedom, a freedom which drives away the black cloud of Calvinism!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Michael, succinctly and truthfully stated. :thumbsup:

Have you ever played pin the tail on the donkey? Well. Biblicist shows us how to play pin four legs on a verse. It is one thing to have a text that proves ones point, and entirely another to read into it a Calvinistic presupposition. He demonstrates how one can blindly pin onto that verse four legs to somehow, (in his own mind anyway), grant support to that verse to miraculously help it walk on all four legs in support of ones presupposition of OSAS.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: What you assume without proof is the manner and means by which He gives.

The means is stated "giveth to me" - GIVING by the Father to the Son is the stated means how they are aquired by the Son. Furthermore it is an EFFECTUAL MEANS because all that are given do come and none are lost.

So you are wrong! I have not assumed without proof the means.

The manner is also clearly stated "cometh to me"! In context the manner is defined as "believing" in Christ as "cometh" and "believing are synonmous.

So you are wrong! I have not assumed without proof the means.

The means of believing is also stated in the context "No man can come EXCEPT THE FATHER DRAW HIM...except it were given unto him of the Father" (Jn. 6:44,65).

Furthermore, the means for believing/coming is EFFECTUAL as all who are given come and none are lost that come (v. 39) BUT each one is raised up to the resurrection of life (vv. 39,40,44).

HP: What you assume without proof is that the word 'will' of God as used in the text 'determines' the outcome. Nothing in the text itself indicates that which is willed will happen without exception. Again, you have to read into the verse, by way of presupposition, OSAS, to deduce OSAS from the text itself.

False again! Determination cannot be more forcefully stated than it is in verses 37-39.


Both the Father and Son have stated their determined will in verse 37. All given EQUALS All that come EQUALS none cast out - that is effectual determination stated clearly and explicity by both the Father and the Son in regard to their own commited actions. They come because they are given - (determinate cause - the Father - determinate means "giveth" determinate manner "cometh" and determinate consequence "I will not cast out").

Verse 38 expresses the determinate will of the Son. The Son NEVER FAILED to do the will of the Father - therefore verse 38 expresses the determinate will of the Son which is always effectual - "I always do that which pleases the Father" and he NEVER ONCE failed to carry out the will of the Father.

Verse 39 expresses the determinate will of the Father as stated in verse 37. In verse 37 the Father's determinate will has been stated as it is not stated with any conditions whatsoever, but unconditionally stated and effectual as all given do in fact come. Nothing can express the UNCONDITIONAL will of the Father more than the language in verse 37.

Thus verse 39 simply summarizes verse 37 which is the determinate will of the Son in verse 38 thus making verse 39 the determinate will of the Father joined with the determinate will of the Son "And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, BUT should raise it up again at the last day."


However, your position necessarly rejects verse 37 by reversing the Biblical cause [giveth] and effect [cometh] relationship stated by Christ by making "cometh" the logical cause for being given, even though verses 44 and 65 confirms that no man can come to Christ except it is "given unto him of the Father" and thus drawn by the Father. So the immediate context repudiates your reversal of the stated cause and effect. Your position takes the UNCONDITIONAL STATED acts of God in verse 37 and forces it to be a CONDITIONAL act of God.


CONCLUSION:

So I have not assumed the means but it is clearly stated to be the Father GIVING.

I have not assumed the manner but it is clearly stated "cometh" AS CONSEQUENTIAL to being given.

I have not assumed the Will of the Father is determinate but that is explicitly stated in verse 37 in unconditional determinate effectual langauge. There is no language of condition as "All the Father gives me IF..." It is restated in verse 38 as the Son NEVER FAILS to carry out His Father's will and then it is restated including both the determinate will of the Father and Son in verse 39 guaranteeing the effectual outcome in the resurrection. Hence, the context demands it is the determinate will of God.

However, your position not only reverses the stated cause and effects in verse 37 but reverses verse 37 from an UNCONDITIONED statement to a CONDITIONAL statement.

 

[DaChaser1]

Just go back to the OP and read it. I am trying to keep our posters to the OP and that means proving or disproving the face value reading of John 6:39 by its immediate context (Jn. 6:36-65).

However, even those who agree with me are not helping the case by inserting other texts from other contexts thereby leading everyone away from the intent of this OP.

Good, lets stay upon the original OP!

It because its the work of God to keep us as He seals us with the HS, adoption as a son, and per Roman custom was a formal permanent deal...

Also, we have been translated out of Kingdom of satan unto that of Christ, and God saves us By HIS grace and HIS Will, so the keeping power rests in the power of the Cross tosave sinners such as I, NOT upon my efforts and works to "stay saved!"

 

[The Biblicist]

What should be quite embarassing for you is that you falsely deny that you are proof texting when everyone else here can see that you clearly are.

You clearly are unable to read English or simply making up things as you go. I am interpreting John 6:39 by its immediate context (vv. 36-65) and challenging you to prove that I am not. Thus far you have not attempted to point out any IMMEDIATE contextual proof, grammar, words, that I am not. Why not try, rather than spout hot empty air???

However, your proof text is easy to interpret.

If I handled this text the way you do than I could prove anything because all you do is simply make an unsupported statement and expect everyone to simply open their mouth and swallow what you say. You do not support your interpretation with anything other than "Thus saith Michael Wrenn"!!! Find you some worshippers and you will be in business!

The ones God gives to the Son are those who freely accept Him and freely choose to remain true to Him till the end.

"Thus saith Michael Wrenn"!!! However, Jesus gives as the effectual cause for those coming to him in faith to be "giveth" in verse 37. There are no CONDITIONS set forth in verse 37. They come because they are given and all who given come without exceptions. You reverse this order and make "coming" the condition of being given! Who should we believe? "Thus saith Michael Wrenn" or thus saith Jesus Christ????

You claim that all men are able to come to Christ of their own free will - "Thus saith Michael Wrenn"!!! But Jesus says "NO MAN CAN come to me EXCEPT...it were given to him of the Father..." (Jn. 6:44,65) and Jesus says "OF ALL" that are given do come and that He shall lose NOTHING of those given (Jn. 6:37,39). Who should we believe? "Thus saith Michael Wrenn" or thus saith Jesus Christ?????

 

[DaChaser1]

You clearly are unable to read English or simply making up things as you go. I am interpreting John 6:39 by its immediate context (vv. 36-65) and challenging you to prove that I am not. Thus far you have not attempted to point out any IMMEDIATE contextual proof, grammar, words, that I am not. Why not try, rather than spout hot empty air???



If I handled this text the way you do than I could prove anything because all you do is simply make an unsupported statement and expect everyone to simply open their mouth and swallow what you say. You do not support your interpretation with anything other than "Thus saith Michael Wrenn"!!! Find you some worshippers and you will be in business!





"Thus saith Michael Wrenn"!!! However, Jesus gives as the effectual cause for those coming to him in faith to be "giveth" in verse 37. There are no CONDITIONS set forth in verse 37. They come because they are given and all who given come without exceptions. You reverse this order and make "coming" the condition of being given! Who should we believe? "Thus saith Michael Wrenn" or thus saith Jesus Christ????

You claim that all men are able to come to Christ of their own free will - "Thus saith Michael Wrenn"!!! But Jesus says "NO MAN CAN come to me EXCEPT...it were given to him of the Father..." (Jn. 6:44,65) and Jesus says "OF ALL" that are given do come and that He shall lose NOTHING of those given (Jn. 6:37,39). Who should we believe? "Thus saith Michael Wrenn" or thus saith Jesus Christ?????

man though has NO FREE WILL, at least in the sense that some here ascribe here to that term!

since the fall of Adam, all of us were born in a state of sin/seperation from God, and that part of us that once was able to have fellowship with God, our 'spiritually side", was killed off in the fall, and we cannot decide to accept jesus and get saved, as our very natures are at war with god, prefer darkness to light!

 

[The Biblicist]

man though has NO FREE WILL, at least in the sense that some here ascribe here to that term!

since the fall of Adam, all of us were born in a state of sin/seperation from God, and that part of us that once was able to have fellowship with God, our 'spiritually side", was killed off in the fall, and we cannot decide to accept jesus and get saved, as our very natures are at war with god, prefer darkness to light!

I don't want to side track this OP by discussing the will of man. Let me just say this, man is entirely free to choose whatever he wants to choose. The problem is not the will but the heart from whence all motives and desires arise. The will simply expresses the motives and desires of the heart. The lost man's heart LOVES darkness and HATES light and NEITHER COMETH TO THE LIGHT because his deeds are evil. That is why Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born again (Jn. 3:1-13) BEFORE he shared the gospel (Jn. 3:14-16) because he has a spiritual problem that has condemned him before coming into the world (Jn 3:17-18) that is manifest by his LOVE life (Jn. 3:19-20) only that God can change by new birth (Jn. 3:20).

 

[DaChaser1]

I don't want to side track this OP by discussing the will of man. Let me just say this, man is entirely free to choose whatever he wants to choose. The problem is not the will but the heart from whence all motives and desires arise. The will simply expresses the motives and desires of the heart. The lost man's heart LOVES darkness and HATES light and NEITHER COMETH TO THE LIGHT because his deeds are evil. That is why Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born again (Jn. 3:1-13) BEFORE he shared the gospel (Jn. 3:14-16) because he has a spiritual problem that has condemned him before coming into the world (Jn 3:17-18) that is manifest by his LOVE life (Jn. 3:19-20) only that God can change by new birth (Jn. 3:20).

that is what we call Depravity from the cal sense of the term!

man indeed fee to chose to do as they will, its just that their will is to always be rejecting Christ, at least untilGod grants unto them new hearts and minds in order to receive Christ!

 

[The Biblicist]

Michael, succinctly and truthfully stated. :thumbsup:

Have you ever played pin the tail on the donkey? Well. Biblicist shows us how to play pin four legs on a verse. It is one thing to have a text that proves ones point, and entirely another to read into it a Calvinistic presupposition. He demonstrates how one can blindly pin onto that verse four legs to somehow, (in his own mind anyway), grant support to that verse to miraculously help it walk on all four legs in support of ones presupposition of OSAS.

What a joke! I will give cudo's to HP for at least attempting to ask questions relative to the text and context. However, Michael's posts are pure philophizing without a shred of contextual substance offered to back up pure opinion. Just "Thus saith Michael Wrenn" period!

 

[The Biblicist]

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:37-39 is contained between verse 36 and verse 40. Verse 36 provides the negative problem that is explained in verses 37 in keeping with the Will of God in verses 38-39 while verse 40 provides the concluding declaration of God's Will:

Verse 36 - The problem stated - you see me but don't believe in me

Verses 37-39 - Hence, you have not been given to me by the Father because ALL the father gives "cometh" (synonym for "beleiveth in me" - vv. 36,40) unto me. This fact is expressive of God's will which Christ came to ensure it is accomplished (v. 38) and therefore it is the will of God that "OF ALL" He giveth none shall be lost but each shall be raised to eternal life in the last day.

Verse 40 - A Concluding Declaration of God's Will based upon the factual delcaration in verse 37 and the reinforced declaration of His will in verses 38-39. All who see and believe in me (synonymous for "cometh to me" - vv. 37-39) are all whom the Father gave me in verses 37 affirmed by Christ's committment to fulfill the will of the Father in verses 38-39 and therefore may have eternal life and will be raised up at the last day to eternal life.

Therefore, "ye believe not" because you were not given by the Father to me. For all the Father gives to me believe in me and I don't cast any of them out. Indeed, I have come to do this express will of the Father as it is the Father's express will that "OF ALL" those given to me, I will not lose any of them but each will be raised to eternal life at the last day. Thus in summary, you are not of those that see and believe in me as only those may have eternal life and only those will be raised to eternal life at the last day.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DaChaser1: that is what we call Depravity from the cal sense of the term!

HP: Excellent observation! What we are witnessing is pure Calvinism in its purest state of fatalism. Whether Biblicist wants to or not, when he approaches the text in the OP from a purely necessitated Calvinistic manner, he is addressing the issue of the will, like it or not.

Here Biblicist demonstrates to a tee the nonsense of Calvinism and its often touted freedom of the will, that in reality is NO freedom at all. The will, according to Biblicist, can ONLY EXPRESS THE MOTIVES AND DESIRES OF THE HEART. The will is bound by necessity to only one direction of action or intent. Mark it down clear in your mind. There is not the least shred of freedom in such a remark. The will is only free if it an choose something other than what it does under the very same set of circumstances. There is no choice at all if the will has no other possibility other than to act in a singular fashion, in this case sin and that continually. If there is only one possible consequent to a given antecedent, no freedom or choice can in any way be associated with such necessity. Simple common sense tells us that intuitively. To speak of freedom or choice as Biblicist does (and to be fair all Calvinists, and even those leaning hard towards Calvinism do the same thing) is pure unadulterated chicanery, sophistic deception. The freedom and choice they speak of is of the same kind and nature a dead tree branch exhibits when it 'freely chooses' to fall from the tree.

 

[DHK]

The freedom and choice they speak of is of the same kind and nature a dead tree branch exhibits when it 'freely chooses' to fall from the tree.

Do you freely choose to fall from the tree?
As for me, I know that my life is secure in the hand of Jesus, and it is He that will never allow me to fall from the tree.

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.