Who are the false professors?

Jhn 15:4 "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.
Jhn 15:5 "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.

Those who do nothing (bear no fruit) are not abiding in Christ.

Jhn 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and {that} your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

The fruit bearers are those who are in Christ, connected to the vine.

 

Anything but the Luke passage!!!!!! :laugh:

SALVATION is not being talked about but FELLOWSHIP and GROWTH.

Let's look at the most obvious some of the Calvinists are attempting to promote here: this is referring to someone keeping the salvation or whatever idea she is trying to pass off here (frankly I am not sure what she is trying to forward)

The NIV says:

So to whom is Jesus speaking???? Believers because He says emphatically "you are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you".

So it is clear BELIEVERS (that means saved people because NON-BELIEVERS are NOT made clear) are the ones to whom Jesus is speaking

Again what does He say to believers? "Remain in me". And if you remain in Him you will bear fruit and if not, you will not bear fruit and in fact will be like one who is withered and burned up in a fire (meaning useless for the intended purpose).

Does Christ say, "Oh if you don't remain in me you weren't really in me in the first place"? No. is this implied? No.

Clearly Jesus is talking to BELIEVERS (clean because of the Word) and He is telling believers to remain/abide in Him so that they may bear fruit and if they do not abide/remain in Him they won't bear fruit. Jesus doesn't suddenly say, oh those that don't abide weren't really believers. He simply is stating that believers who don't abide won't bear fruit and those that do, will. At NO POINT does the context change to talking to UNBELIEVERS.

Remaining in Christ, abiding in Christ are analogous to staying in fellowship with Christ. If you depart from Christ you obvious no longer remain in Him, that refers to braking fellowship. You are no longer the recipient of His influence but the influence of your flesh, this world and the devil.

To some this means you must never have been saved...BUT here THE PASSAGE CLEARLY shows Jesus is talking to BELIEVERS (cleaned ) and are commanded to remain in Him and if they don't remain in Him, they bear no fruit.

The only alternative here is for a person to believe one can lose salvation because the context clearly is of believers.

Again, this clearly documents contextually there are believers that do NOT bear fruit and believers that do.

 

You're one to talk about interaction. I recall on numerous threads you basically up and walking away from posts. The latest exchange with Allan being the latest.

What are you talking about "bringing confusion to the thread" and "not acknowledging it"? If it was my goof in saying Job when I meant Lot, I already corrected that and acknowleged it. It would help to actually read the threads you are involved in...

I believe Alex hit the nail on the head in his response to true believers living like the unsaved, hence my referral to his answer. I see plenty of people quoting others on here without you saying anything about it (as long as it agrees with you)

 

Quick note about Lot. Yes, he bore fruit. From 2 Peter 2:

Apparently, Lot did not live like those around him and their sinful acts tormented him.

 

That only states his soul was tormented, not that HE was tormented. If he was, he would have left, at any rate he didn't as the flesh won over anyway. I can remember living backslidden where I felt the same thing, but the flesh won out. He was dragged away from there, so even though his soul was tormented by the sin around him, his flesh desired being there amongst it.

I also recall Scripture stating that the man who doesn't provide for his children is worse than in infidel (loosely paraphrased). I wouldn't consider offering up your virgin daughters to be molested as exactly providing for them.

 

The text calls him righteous Lot. Being righteous is a fruit.

The text says he was distressed over the conduct of the wicked. Being distressed over the conduct of the wicked is a fruit.

The text uses God's rescue of Lot as proof that God rescues the godly. According to the text then, Lot was a godly person. Being godly is a fruit.

Offering his daughters to the crowd was foolish, but nevertheless, the text's assessment of Lot is that he was godly. I don't think it's possible to take this text in 2 Peter seriously and still argue that he had no fruit based on some examples of foolish behaviour recorded for us. We have to go with Peter's God inspired assessment. I'm guessing there is a whole lot about Lot we don't have recorded for us.

 

Being righteous is a condition. We pass from death to life, from unrighteousness to righteousness in Christ.

 

In the case of the righteousness in Christ, I'd think the text is talking about the imputed righteousness of Christ.

But in 2 Peter, where the text parallels Lot's righteousness with his godliness, it'd be speaking of righteous behaviour. Or, you might say.....fruit.

I'm not sure why you want to keep on maintaining that Lot had no fruit in light of this passage. If Lot had fruit, it doesn't ruin your basic argument. It just means that Lot isn't one of the examples you can use.

 

I like what Dave Wilkerson says about Lot:
God called Lot righteous. Yet Lot had a deep spiritual problem: He was bound by an unseen cord to Sodom! The vile city had a hold on his heart. And Lot couldn't break loose from it, despite the continual decay of his soul: "For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds" (2 Peter 2:8).

Lot knew better than to remain in Sodom. Scripture says, "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful" (Psalm 1:1). Lot should have decided, "That's it - I've got to get out of here! If I stay any longer, this iniquity will lay hold of me. It will cost me my soul!" But he never had the willpower to go.


God had already given Lot at least one opportunity to leave. In Genesis 14, we read that a confederate army of kings invaded Sodom and Gomorrah, looting the cities and taking the people captive. Lot and his family were among those captured (see Genesis 14:12).
When Abraham heard about the attack, he armed his 318 servants and pursued the invaders. And, through God's miracle-working power, he overcame those enemy kings and recovered everything: "He brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people" (verse 16).
Lot had received supernatural deliverance from Sodom. But instead of leaving the wicked city, he went straight back to it!

My late friend Leonard Ravenhill, the great prophetic man of God, wrote a book called Sodom Had No Bible. Indeed, Sodom had no scriptures - but that city did have one of the most powerful sermons ever preached to humankind. The sermon was Abraham - a godly man who stood for righteousness.

The people of Sodom saw Abraham worship, pay tithes and walk humbly before the Lord. And when he refused to accept a reward for rescuing their city, it was a loving rebuke to their wicked lifestyle. Abraham wouldn't accept even a shoelace from Sodom! (see verse 23). This godly man's example should have sent shudders through Lot - but it didn't. Lot still refused to leave Sodom. I've often wondered, "Why didn't Lot go? The Bible says he loved God. Surely he was concerned for his own soul."

Lot represents a kind of struggling Christian today. This believer has received by faith the imputed righteousness of Christ. Yet his soul is vexed by the sin he sees both in society and in his own heart. He knows he loves God. But something remains in his soul - perhaps a wicked habit or persistent evil thoughts.

 

I agree that Lot sinned. I'm not trying to claim he was perfect, or even close.

But that isn't the question. The question was whether Lot had fruit. If Peter calls him godly, then he had fruit. He was not the same as the people around him. He was in anguish over the debauched lifestyles of the people around him. Those things are fruit. They are not perfect fruit. Perhaps it's not much fruit. But it's fruit.

 

I judge by his testimony. I judge by his theology. 1Cor 2:15 says, "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

Augustine leaned on Plato. Plus, he was of the Eastern persuasion of the church where allegorical interpretation began with Oregin --- and that approach wasn't really challenged until the 1700's (which means that much of Calvinism was so "inspired").

I think so and I hope not. I believe that your failure is in not seeing that the church got a few renovations rather than the reformation she advertised in the 1500's.

skypair

 

What is my presumption? AR said that about my writing once and I never did understand what he meant either. You would do me a great favor to explain this to me. raying:

I know what I know. I don't have any questions about it and how it all fits together as Calvinists (like Sproul) do. If it is arrogant to be secure and to be able to identify, as scriptures would have us discern, false teachers, then I am arrogant as my Lord was before the Pharisees.

The current thread asks about Calvin. I'm not ignorant of the influences of his time, his resources, his schooling, etc.

I think between Calvin's or my spirituality, you should "judge no thing before its time. We sit near the end of the church era looking at Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Which do you want to be -- "have a name that liveth but art dead" or "because you have kept the word of My patience, I will keep thee from the hour of temptation that shall come upon the WHOLE EARTH to tempt those that dwell therein?" I won't even suggest that Laodicea is your option.

Look who's arrogant. You don't know me. But if you think knowing Hebrew and Greek and philosophy and church history are required to understand the Bible and what God tells us there, you have fallen for Satan's "sophistication"/Nicolaitan argument.

And what I said is that they didn't -- couldn't -- go all the way on that path.

skypair

 

Augustine leaned on Plato. Plus, he was of the Eastern persuasion of the church where allegorical interpretation began with Oregin --- and that approach wasn't really challenged until the 1700's (which means that much of Calvinism was so "inspired").

I think so and I hope not. I believe that your failure is in not seeing that the church got a few renovations rather than the reformation she advertised in the 1500's.

skypair[/quote]

SP , you know better than saying things for which have been corrected time and time again . Origen did indeed spearhead the use of the allegorical method in interpreting the Bible . But Calvin opposed that bad hermeneutical system . Calvin used what we now refer to as the historical/grammatical method . He disparaged other ways of interpreting Scripture . Calvin was the father of the exegetical method . He used and appreciated Augustine very much , but followed the verse-by-verse style pioneered by Chrysostom .

TomVols here on the BB has said that Calvin was "an expository genius" who "was first and foremost an exegete which led to his being a theologian ."

John Calvin ( 1509-1564 ) had a deep knowledge of the Scripture that few today have . That includes you . You say : "You don't know me !" I know you to the extent that I have observed your posts for the past several years . and what I have seen is not pretty . You constantly misrepresent Calvinism . You do not concede when you are clearly wrong . You make factual errors especially with respect to Church history ( as is the case here ) . You have not changed . And I guess you'll call that consistency .:laugh:

So for you to say that Origin's method wasn't really challenged until the 1700's is just a plain falsehood . Can this be the very first time in which you will acknowledge that you were wrong ? Or am I hoping for too much ?

And as far as the Reformation being just a renovation instead of a Reformation is bogus . I belive it was the biggest awakening in history . Of course we should not stop where the Reformers progressed . We have to keep reforming based on a deeper understanding of God's Holy Word .

 

I think you are going to find it hard to convince anyone that Calvin "exegeted" that God was done with the Jews and that the church replaced them forever in God's program. As for what Calvinism looks like today, I would have to say if the theology is "running" in his work there was more isegesis that exegesis going on.

But I don't make myself out to be an historian. If something I have read seems to be borne out in what I see, I go with it. Don't try to make yourself out as inerrant either. Hopefully, you are just going with what the Spirit reveals to you and we can come to some unity in our discussions through Him. Maybe we should start at the issue of Sardis vs Philadelphia -- the state of the church in Calvin's day and the state of the church today.

TomVols here on the BB has said that Calvin was "an expository genius" who "was first and foremost an exegete which led to his being a theologian ."

I say what I see from a faith unfeigned. I've been in the shallow's of Calvinism and in the deep parts. No sir, I don't misrepresent. What I do has, at times, been a "caricature" of Calvinism where its features are exaggerated (as in it resembles the Greek mythological belief in fate). I am convinced that, especially on account of the heresies of their time, early theologians were drawn into caricaturing on specific parts of the Bible -- say God's sovereignty or man's sin nature -- and wound up with a contorted "system" of theology.

I read it somewhere and see that it seems to applies to prophecy and, more obviously, to church-government organization (that is, they assumed that the church would run the state as the "second sword" that Jesus said, "It is enough."). I don't know if you have even considered some of these things so I can understand your complaint, too.

So why have you? Why isn't Calvinism a forgotten stepping stone to what Christianity in "Philadelphia" is like? What would you say that Christ's accusation "Thou hast a name that liveth but art dead" meant?

skypair