Q&A 18: What about passages used to support loss of salvation? - Part I

This is QA 18, and this is part one today. We'll be looking at part two next week. And in QA 18, the question we have is, what about the passages that are used in support of loss of salvation? We've been covering for three weeks kind of a summary of the evidence for security of salvation, that believers, once they believe, cannot lose their salvation.

We have touched on several different evidences of that, one of those being a very explicit statement by Christ Himself in John 10.28. There is not the slightest chance that my sheep will perish of their own doing, and no one will take them out of my hand, and no one will take them out of the Father's hand either, and He's the one who gave them to me. So that's John 10, 28, and 29. We looked at other evidences, for example, that the perfect tense implies permanence. We looked at the word pair u-me, looks like au-me, okay?

U-me, and now this time we're turning this week and next week, this Sunday and next Sunday, addressing the question, what about the passages that are used to support loss of salvation? the idea that people point to these passages and say, see, you can lose your salvation, right?

I want to address one other thing before we step into the handout, and that is, which groups are out there that particularly as a group tend to claim that a believer can lose his or her salvation? Can you think of some of the particular groups you've run across or heard of where they teach loss of salvation? Do the Seventh-day Adventists believe that? Yes, Seventh-day Adventists, if you look at, and I would classify them as a cult group, but Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons, the ones that come door to door, believe in loss of salvation.

There is also a tendency among those same groups to teach annihilation of the soul rather than hell, so that if you lose your salvation, that you simply become annihilated. God erases you from existence. And so it's interesting, while on the one hand they teach loss of salvation, on the other hand, they will often, in many of these cult groups, teach annihilation. That is, it's kind of like the Pharisees. There's life after death. if you're saved, but if you happen to never be saved or to have lost your salvation, then you just get erased. God hits the delete button and you're through, right? So it's sort of a mixed teaching. It's almost like a mixture of what the Sadducees had, where this life is it, and what the Pharisees had, where they believed in the resurrection.

What are some other groups that you can think of? Yes? procedure for me with everything else. And so I was listening to the Lutheran Hour and I got the impression that it was a mixture of words and faith. God's here in heaven. Yeah, unfortunately with some of the mainline groups and some of the Lutherans and ones like that, it can be confused. Another one is some out of the Reform background will give a mixture of works and faith, and the reason that they do is that faith is what saves you and not your works. But if you don't show the works, then it means you're not saved. It means you never were saved. So it's a little confusing.

Well, okay, and with the Methodist Church, they're teaching as a generalization and they are, for Protestant groups, the primary root of loss of salvation. And so among Methodists, that's where it got started. Jonathan and Charles Wesley were the founders of the Methodist movement in great part. They broke off as often happens from the core group which was the Anglican Church.

It happened several times and I'll say numerous times in church history that whoever tried to reform an existing denomination ended up starting a new one. Because the Reformation almost always seemed to be rejected and then they ended up starting something new. And that just seems like a pattern over time. Trying to fix and reform an existing denomination most often gets rejected and then you end up starting something new.

The Westleys were one of those groups and they taught loss of salvation From that, the Nazarenes, the Church of the Nazarene, it's a break off. Another is Salvation Army. Booth was the starting head of that, and that's another Methodist group. A break off from that is the Pentecostal groups, the old line Pentecostal groups, Four Square, Assembly of God, And it doesn't mean that every single person that you run into in those groups is going to believe in loss of salvation. But the core of those groups do teach loss of salvation. And so at least old line Pentecostal groups and the Methodist groups will be some of the primary ones in mainline denominations. Yes? Hold on a second. This is another group. Yes.

Well, if you look at the Catholic Church, while it has its roots earlier, and they claim to go back to Peter, that's nonsense. But anyway, the Catholic Church actually, while it has its roots earlier, did not really act in that capacity until about the 6th century. And it was based on taking over the failing Roman Empire.

The Catholic Church continued that and does so now that someone can lose their salvation. Remember, you probably heard these terms, the Catholic Church teaches venial sins. Venial sins don't make you lose your salvation. Venial sins, according to the Catholic Church teaching, makes you have to spend longer in purgatory. and they diminish the merit that you build up. Mortal sins, according to Catholic Church teaching, are the sins by which you can lose your salvation. And according to arrangements made during the time of the Reformation and before, if you paid enough money you could even overcome mortal sins. That was the indulgences, right? I hope you're impressed. Just hold your thought because Art had something to say and I don't want to miss it.

It seems that if a believer can lose his salvation, salvation wasn't very good in the beginning. Yeah, it does lead to the question about the character of God, especially here's Paul writing to the church in Corinth The first few verses, like 8 and 9, he says, God is faithful. He will do it. He's the one that it depends upon to take you all the way through heaven's gates. But, yeah, that does call into question God's character. If God is faithful and it says He will do it, how come He didn't do it, right?

Marilyn, your thoughts or questions. And I had some background as well. A number of the folks in the Methodist Church, and there's kind of a spectrum, I'd say in the deep south it has a different character to it, but a number of the folks in the Methodist Church are very liberal to the point where it's practically humanistic. It's just sort of, yeah, it's not addressing sin and it's in some sense not even addressing salvation. It's more like kind of good works and positivism and things of that sort. Yeah, you're right. Yeah, Jack? Yeah, some of the mainline denominations are putting people in pastorates. It is a real head-scratcher as to how they can justify it. In some cases, they don't even bother. Yes? Yes. Some of the seminaries that a generation ago I would have said, no problem, just full of crazy teaching. I'm talking about like Dallas. I'm talking about like Moody. You know, places like that. Oh, nuts.

Let's go on to our handout here. This is Q&A Team Part 1, and we have some general observations. We've spent a few Sundays presenting these passages and biblical principles that support the eternal security of the believer. It says here, we now will address those passages that are often pointed to as evidence that a believer's salvation can be lost, or that a person can, by deliberate unbelief, spiritual negligence, or moral error, whether by negligence or choice, come to a place of no longer being saved, though they once were. Now I have in bold here a key point.

It is claimed that Christians need the threat of loss of salvation in order to be kept on the path of right belief and righteous works. Is this true? What is the misunderstanding behind what's bolded there, that Christians need to have the threat of loss of salvation in order to keep motivated? What's wrong with that? Yeah, it is a lack of recognition of the Savior we have, that's true, and what else? It's a misdirection of your focus, right.

And by the way, what is to be our motivation as believers? What motivates us to do and not do the things that Scripture calls for? What is our motive? Certainly a work of the Holy Spirit, but what's our motive for doing and not doing things. Christ-likeness, but that's actually a process that's going on. What's our motive?

It's who you are in Christ, and certainly to glorify the Lord. What I'm looking for, I won't keep fishing, looking for is mercy and grace. Mercy and grace. One of the passages that really makes the difference in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus is talking to the Jews who are under the law, right after he gives what's classically called the Lord's Prayer, he says, you must forgive, otherwise your Father in heaven will not forgive you. That's law.

Grace, Ephesians 4.32, forgive one another as God in Christ has already forgiven you. See the difference? One says you better forgive or you won't be forgiven. It's a threat. That's law. Under grace, it's forgive. Why? What's the motivation? Because you've already been forgiven. Mercy and grace.

Paul appeals to the church at Rome, Romans 12. He says, I urge you by what? The mercies of God. He doesn't say, I urge you or else you're going to get it. He says, I urge you by the mercies of God. It is mercy, it is grace, it is thankfulness that motivates us, not threat of law, not threat of condemnation. If you're in Christ Jesus, there is therefore now no what? No condemnation. You're not under law, you're under grace. Mercy and grace. Thankfulness for mercy and grace are to be our motivation.

Radically different. So to say, as is bolded here, it's claimed that Christians need the threat of loss of salvation is a lack of understanding of mercy and grace. It would also point to works. You've got to threaten it because you've got to do stuff. No, it has to do with our response to the grace and mercy He's already shown us.

As a general observation, those who hold that the passage that we will shortly address are evidence of loss of salvation set aside, disregard, and are sometimes unaware of the points that we presented over the last few Sundays. Additionally, as we have noted before, there are some generalities that we can make about the approach to scripture used by those who claim that a passage stands as evidence that a person may be saved and thereafter come to a place of not being saved.

I'm going to go through these bullets here. It looks like there's about eight of them in the middle of the first page. The first one, passages regarding eternal reward or punishment which are judged based on works. and law-based judgment of blessings and curses, which are often misunderstood as applying to salvation. There are about 50 passages in scripture that say that believers and or unbelievers will be judged according to their works for rewards or punishment. That's true of rewards and punishment.

It is not true of salvation. See the difference? The example that we gave last week was 1 Corinthians chapter 3 verses 10-15 where it said that there was wood, hay and stubble, gold and silver and precious stones. Our works will be tested by fire and the wood, hay and stubble will be burned away.

And it even says at the very end of that passage, 1 Corinthians 3.15, Some will be saved, even as yet by fire, even though they have no rewards to speak of.

But guess what? They're still saved, right? So it is possible for a person to have nothing in the way of rewards and still be saved. Loss of reward is not the same at all as loss of salvation. somewhat joking way that we put it is this way, some are going to enter heaven naked and smoking. And it's because of this testing by fire, they may not have any rewards to speak of, but they are saved by faith, period, exclamation point.

Next bullet here. Passages are interpreted without regard for an understanding of eternal position and daily or temporal condition. Some have called that standing and state. Such is the difference between eternal relationship and fellowship which may vary in time. If a believer is in sin, they have a condition of broken fellowship. Their relationship to God doesn't change. Their relationship doesn't change. The fellowship can be broken.

I, as a believer, it is hypothetically possible I could get up here and teach you the lesson in the flesh. Hypothetically that's possible. Woe to me if I do so, but nonetheless I theoretically could. My relationship with the Lord has not changed, but at that moment my fellowship with the Lord is not there.

I gave the example last week. Randy is my son. If I did something that offended him greatly and he just said, Dad, that was horrible, I'll call you when I can get myself back to the place of talking with you. Our relationship, father and son, has not changed. The fellowship that we have has changed and that's been broken if I did something that was that radically offensive.

So a lot of times people who say we lose our salvation don't understand the difference between relationship, which cannot and does not change, Randy will always be my son, I'll always be his dad, and fellowship, which can change. Let's look at the third bullet.

Passages are interpreted by setting aside other passages that teach eternal security as an absolute truth, thereby by setting aside the principle of consistent interpretation. In other words, if I look at a passage and say, see, this says that you can lose your salvation, I have to say that I am interpreting that contrary to all the evidence that we can't. Here Jesus says you cannot lose your salvation of your own doing and nobody can pluck you out of my hand, and nobody can pluck you out of the Father's hand, if you see a passage and say, see it says loss of salvation, you're not interpreting Scripture consistently. Because you've got a multitude of other evidences and passages that say you can't lose your salvation. All right, and then the fourth bullet.

Passages that are in parable form are extended in meaning and application beyond what the parable was intended to convey. We'll address a parable shortly here. But parables are intended to illustrate a certain thing, right? And all the parables have some kind of an illustration that has an intended message to illustrate. you can take any parable, any one or any analogy, and take it to the point of application beyond which it was intended. All right, the fifth bullet.

Passages are interpreted without regard to the characteristics of the stewardship for which the revelation is written. What do I mean by that? If I have a passage that is in a time frame that is based upon law, I can't take that same stewardship principle and carry it over into the time of grace. If something sounds like loss of salvation under law, I can't take us, who are under grace, and apply that same thing directly.

Let me give you a for instance. Deuteronomy 28 is the passage I'll point you to. That's where Moses is spelling out, if you obey the law, you will be blessed. First, about 14-15 verses there. And then, from there on to the end of the chapter, there's over 60 verses in the chapter, It spells out again and again and again how you'll be cursed if you don't obey the law.

Are we blessed based upon law here in the church? No. How are we blessed in the church? First of all, the law spells out earthly blessings and curses. It's all about how your crops are going to do and you won't get diseases or you will. It's all about earthly blessings. Under grace, first, excuse me, Ephesians chapter 1 verse 3, you're blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. They're spiritual blessings, not earthly. They're in heaven, not on earth, and you are already blessed.

Later on in the book, he says, okay, now let's talk about your stealing and lying problem. Under the law, stealing and lying, well, that's going to get you in deep trouble, maybe dead, okay? Under grace, Under grace, you're already blessed. Already. Now, then let's talk about your issue, whatever it is. Next one here.

Passages are interpreted outside of the context of language, history, and culture in which they were originally written. Sometimes that just shortens up to, you take it out of context. You grab a verse, you yank it out, and suddenly say, see, this means loss of salvation. Wait a minute here. Context, context, context.

The seventh bullet, passages are interpreted allegorically, which is by nature applied without objective control as to the scope and meaning of allegorical interpretation. What do I mean by allegorical interpretation? Anybody tell us? Pardon? Okay. Allegorical interpretation was once considered absolutely necessary to arrive at a spiritual understanding of the passage.

And allegorical interpretation assumes that I can take any passage that I want to, and of course then how do you decide where? But I can take any passage I want to and not interpret it directly, but interpret it with my own understanding of the allegory. Let me give you a couple of for instances.

In Revelation chapter 7, it says that the 144,000, which will be 12,000 from each of the tribes of Israel, will be a group of single men who will essentially be responsible for evangelizing and testifying to the Lord during the tribulation period. There's 144,000, 12,000 from each tribe. It says at the top the 144,000 is of Israel. It names the tribe in each case. Each of the 12,000 of 12 tribes that names the Jewish tribe by name. Allegorical interpretation, which is used by a great many Christian groups, says that 144,000 of Israel, 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes, with the 12 tribes, each one named, stands for the Christian denominations.

Hello? What? That is an example of allegorical interpretation. I don't take what it very clearly says directly. As a matter of fact, all those numbers of, you know, like 12 tribes and 12,000 from each tribe, all those numbers, they just get erased. And the fact that it specifically, in summary, says tribes of Israel and gives the name of each tribe is completely set aside in order to say it represents the Christian denominations. That's allegorical interpretation.

During the coming millennial kingdom, the book of Isaiah says that the wolf will lie down with the lamb. You probably heard lion and lamb. That's just because they both start with L. It says the wolf will lie down with the lamb. The baby, the infant, will play next to the hole of the poisonous snake, the asp.

Now, literally, that would say that there is a cooperation and reconciliation within nature during the coming Millennial Kingdom. The allegorical interpretation, again used by a great many Christian churches, is that that does not take place during a coming Millennial Kingdom, it takes place now, and what it means is that groups that used to be at odds with each other are now friendly to one another. That's how it's allegorized. and it has to do with the church and not the coming Millennial Kingdom. Are you happy with that? Not so much. OK. Number 8.

Passages are interpreted as applicable that are in fact presented as a hypothetical possibility in the context. We'll see that when we get to Hebrews chapter 6 next week, verses 4 through 6. Alright, now let's go to Page 2, Matthew 25, 32-46. This is the separating of the sheep and the goats. I won't read the text, but I'll summarize it for you. Jesus will be separating, and this says it's the King, will be separating the sheep from the goats. Verses 34-39, excuse me, verse 40, describe separating out the Jews, okay, excuse me, separating out those who will go into the kingdom, and then verses 41 through 46 separate out as goats those who will not go into the kingdom.

Alright, so let's ask this question. Does this apply to the church? This passage takes place at the end of the tribulation period. Will we be there? No. The judgment of who is in the church and who is not will already be past tense. So this is determining who of the Gentiles will go into the kingdom and who will not. Let me give a larger context here.

In Matthew 24, which describes the Tribulation Period, we have Jesus describing the Tribulation Period and it's focused upon the Jews. The language is all about the Jews. In Matthew 25 is at the end of the Tribulation Period and at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom and Christ is sorting out who's going into the Millennial Kingdom and who isn't.

And one of the things that becomes clear is that only believers will enter the Millennial Kingdom. Only believers will enter the Millennial Kingdom. The first part of the chapter talks about the Jews, of Matthew 25, talks about the Jews going into the Millennial Kingdom and the basis on which the Jews will be allowed into the Millennial Kingdom. This part right here is talking about which Gentiles will get to go into the Millennial Kingdom. So first of all, this isn't about people in the church at all. Not even close. Secondly, it's only about the Gentiles. And what we find is this. Let's turn to page three.

What you will find on the top of page 3 is I have a quote there from Genesis 12, 1-3. We studied through this passage some months back when we're going through the book of Genesis. And this is the very first quotation of the promises to Abraham when Abraham was still in the city of Ur, the pagan city. So Genesis 12, 1 through 3, it says, Now the Lord said to Abram, who at that time had not had his name changed to Abraham, Go forth from your country, that is, from Ur of the Chaldees, where he was located, and from your relatives, and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you.

Which land is that? This is the promised land, and this is the promise. That's the first promise right here, right? into the land that is from the land of Israel, the land which I will show you. He would not end up showing him this land until many years later.

And verse 2, and I will make you a great nation, one great nation, right? I will make you a great nation and I will bless you and make your name great and so you shall be a blessing And then verse 3, and I will bless those who bless you and I will curse and the one who curses you I will curse. The sheep in Matthew 25, 34 through 40 are the ones who are blessed. The goats are the ones in Matthew 25, 41 through 46 are the ones who are cursed.

What is amazing is the Lord is going to use what he promised to Abraham to decide who gets into the Millennial Kingdom. And that's where it says, and this is often misunderstood, I was thirsty and he gave me drink, you were in prison, that sort of thing. And people often look at that, see I'm supposed to be really good to people and it's kind of a justification for a lot of social action in the church. This is not just a justification for social action. What it is, is it says Gentiles are going to be judged based on God's promise to Abraham.

At least about 4,000 years ago. God promised to Abraham, I will bless those who bless you, I will curse those who curse you. During the tribulation period, it will be asked of the Gentiles, how did you treat the Jews during that time? I will bless those who blessed you, Jews, and I will curse those who curse you. All he's going to do is he's going to apply the covenant with Abraham, just like he promised. It does not have to do, this whole passage doesn't have to do with you and I losing our salvation. It doesn't even apply. We won't be there. We won't be present. We won't be there.

Jesus will be the King of Israel. He will be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords over the Gentiles, over the Gentile nations. as to whether people get into the Millennial Kingdom, it will be determined based upon how you treat the Jews. We've had seven years of very difficult times.

How do you treat the Jews? Only those who dealt kindly with the Jews. I was thirsty and you gave me a drink. Unto the least of these, my brethren, My brethren, how are they brethren? They're Jews. That was the classical Jewish way of referring to other Jews, brethren.

Mark 4, 1-20. This is the parable of the four soils, and remember we talked about addressing parables. This is the parable in which Jesus describes, and I'll begin by reading the first nine verses here. in Mark 4, starting with verse 1. He began to teach again by the sea, and here's Jesus, and by the sea means the Sea of Galilee. And such a very large crowd gathered to him that he got into a boat in the sea and sat down. And the whole crowd was by the sea on the land. And he was teaching them many things and parables, and he was saying to them in his teaching, listen to this, behold the sower went out to sow.

As he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road and the birds came and ate it up. Other seed fell on rocky ground where it did not have much soil and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. And after the sun had risen, it was scorched, and because it had no root, it withered away. Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.

And he was saying, He who has ears, let him hear. So there's four kinds of soils in this parable, right? One of the principles in a parable that is very important is to look at what is intentionally being illustrated and not to try to over-apply. A sower went out to sow, right? Does he intend for us to reach all kinds of conclusions about the one sower going out to sow?

You could actually get into trouble with that. This is responsiveness to the gospel, is what this is talking about. It is particularly in the context of being given to the Jews, right? Since this was early in Jesus' ministry, and he said in Matthew chapter 10, when he sent the disciples out two by two, as he sent them out, what did he say? Go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In verse, excuse me, in chapter 15, Jesus went and a Gentile woman was appealing to him, a Canaanite woman was appealing to him and he said, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, right? So this parable was given in that context. It's particularly looking at the Jews.

Was only one person supposed to give the gospel? No. So his use of a-sower went out to sow, you could over-apply that a-sower, right? And further, this is an illustration, when we give the gospel, we don't do it with seeds. We don't throw seeds at people. So it is to illustrate a point, it should not be over-applied into areas illustrating things that was not intended to illustrate.

The key point in this passage is to talk about the responsiveness and the character of responsiveness of the soil. I'm on page four now and I'm At the end of the passage, I won't read all of it, but there is a second paragraph which starts, A critical principle in interpreting parables is to understand what is the point of a parable and what is not the point of the parable. Parables are meant to illustrate what is true, but it should not be extended to establish truth outside of the intended point of the parable, when the intent of a parable is the illustration of truth rather than establishing a truth. based on every point of detail in the parable. The primary focus of this parable is to illustrate the responsiveness of people to the gospel by the character of the soil and the surrounding conditions. Further, a parable should be interpreted with a distinction between position and condition.

This is where I gave the example of the difference between relationship and fellowship when addressing those issues as clearly intended. Consider the questions and answers below. And so I'm going to add a paragraph here, just beginning the bottom half of page four. It starts like this.

In each of the first three kinds of soils that Jesus uses for illustration, it is Jesus' intent to say that believers can and do, or is it Jesus' intent to say that believers can and do lose their salvation, or is it that there are varying kinds of soil and circumstances?

You see the difference there? Is Jesus intending to make the statement in this parable, oh, people can lose their salvation? Or is he trying to get across that there are various kinds of responsiveness to the gospel? That's the real point, isn't it? It's the responsiveness to the gospel. Can believers fall away from the life God intended and still be saved? The answer is yes. Whereas the parable talks about these seeds resulting in plants that start initially. The point is not to talk about loss of salvation. The point is to talk about the soil conditions and circumstances that impact people's response to the gospel.

In each of the first three kinds of soils and circumstances, is there any instance of any of the plants being restored after crop failure? When you read the parable, are any of the plants, once there's a failure, because the first three have failures, right? Once there's some kind of a crop failure, is there any restoration of any of them? No, there isn't. Does that mean, and I'm being hypothetical, if a person could lose their salvation, does that mean that once you lose your salvation, you can never be restored again? You've lost it for good?

Is that what Jesus intended to tell us? Three of the four kinds of soils have crop failure. If this parable is intended to mean you've lost your salvation, three of the four kinds of soils would indicate that once you lose your salvation, you're toast! See the difference there?

If I take this as evidence of loss of salvation, if someone does lose their salvation, boy, they ought to be scared, really scared, because there's no way of getting it back, if that's what this is saying. Jesus doesn't even go there. Does that mean that once a person falls away as a believer, that they can never be restored to fellowship again?

Which would of course be contrary to Galatians 6.1. which says that there's a ministry of restoring people to fellowship. Or that a person loses salvation and they can never be saved again.

And we'll look at Hebrews 6, 4-6. Which, if that means you can lose your salvation, you can never get it back again. This parable and Hebrews 6, 4-6, which we'll look at next time, would both say, if it means loss of salvation, both say you get one chance and then you're done. You're scorched, you're burned up, you're toast. Consideration of these questions shows the parable in Mark 4, 1-20 is not intended to address doctrine about restoration to fellowship at all, nor supposed loss of salvation, nor restoration of salvation once that salvation is lost. It's just not even intended to address the question.

All these questions are addressed with certainty and obvious intent elsewhere in Scripture. You've got a whole paragraph full of questions, right? Any thoughts, comments, questions so far? Yes? No? Okay, alright. Alright, let's look at Page 5. This is John chapter 15, 1 through 6, and it starts off, and I will read the entire passage there.

I am the true vine and my father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that bears fruit he prunes so that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you, 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. 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. 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 burnt."

Anybody read anything scary in there? Okay, let's take a look at it. Verse 2, you see a couple of words or word pairs in there, takes away, prunes, And verse 6 are sometimes taken as evidence that salvation can be lost. Let's take a look first at verse 2. The Greek word airo, okay, is translated, takes away in the New American Standard, and the same Greek word is also used in these verses in John. Here's John 5, 8, and 9, and you can look at the subsequent verses as well.

Jesus said to them, get up, pick up your pallet and walk. Immediately the man became well and picked up his pallet and began to walk. And later on in John 20 verse 1, now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb while it was still dark and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.

The key point is this, that when it says he takes away the branch that does not bear fruit. If that means loss of salvation, what would that communicate to the believer? If it means if you can lose your salvation, a branch that isn't bearing fruit gets taken away. What would that mean? Boy, you better keep bearing fruit, or boy, the Lord's going to take you and just scorch you and burn you up. That's what it would mean.

And frankly, there are churches that teach that. And those churches, boy, they keep threatening you. And boy, you better get moving. And boy, you better not miss coming to church. And you better get doing stuff. We've got all sorts of things for you to sign up for. And boy, you better do it.

As a guy having some experience in the vineyards, I used to work in the vineyards some years back, this is what it means and they did it in biblical times as well. Out on the vines that are out there in the vineyard, these days for the branches that are towards the bottom, they'll have a wire and they'll string up the the branch on the vine up on a wire to get it up off the ground. Why to get it up off the ground? It avoids rotting leaves and even worse yet, rotting fruit. It avoids sitting in the dirt and it avoids getting wet and therefore having rot. It avoids insects coming up and eating it, etc. In biblical times, what they would do is this. They didn't have wires and trellises, right? So what did they do?

If a vine was leaning over, more inclined to have branches that fall on the ground, right? They would put a rock or even a stick up underneath the vine to keep it vertical. Then, since they didn't have a trellis, the bottom branches, and in fact many of the branches, often went to the ground. So did they cut them all off? No. They wanted fruit bearing branches, so guess what? They would take those branches that would start growing along the ground and they would lift them up either with a rock or more commonly a stick with a Y in it.

So they'd put like a little yoke underneath it and have the stick and then might put several of those underneath the branch to keep the branch up off the ground so that it bears more fruit. So that's what this word here, the translators not knowing how a vineyard works, would often translate it here, takes away. But it really is just like those passages that we quote there in John chapter 5.

Pick up your pallet and walk. Did he take up his pallet and throw it away? Did he burn it? No. He lifted it up. For the believer who is having a tough time, guess what he does? He lifts them up so that they'll bear more fruit. That's what he does. He lifts them up so that they'll bear more fruit. That's what this word is talking about. Lifting up the believer. Supporting so that the believer will be fruitful.

Now, there's also something else to look at and that is there's two kinds of pruning. At times, there needs to be some minor pruning. Minor pruning, not cutting the whole thing off. Minor pruning in order that that particular branch might be more fruitful. If it gets really long and you have a hard time supporting it, they'll trim off the end. But they won't cut off the whole branch and throw it away.

So what does that mean? It means these are two areas of ministry that the Lord is going to carry on in your life. One is that there is a ministry of lifting up. How does the Lord lift us up as believers? How do we get lifted up to be bearing more fruit? How does that happen? We have a ministry of the Holy Spirit, something that we're going to make available. As a matter of fact, we made it available last week. It's here. Almost two dozen ministries of the Holy Spirit, you're exactly correct, that support the believer in the life that the Lord has called him. So that's part one. What else happens? Ever have encouragement through other believers? Other believers come alongside you in the midst of a tough time and encourage and support in the situation that you're in. So that's part one.

The other thing is, has the Lord done any pruning in your life? Yeah. Sometimes the Lord has to put us through some difficult circumstances in order to teach us. Does that mean we're going to lose our salvation? No. It means that the Lord is doing some minor pruning for the sake that the branch that is there might even bear more fruit. The Lord lifts up and prunes you in order that you bear more fruit. That's why He does this. He lifts up and prunes us in order that we bear more fruit. Not because He said, you blew it. I'm going to make you into ashes. No! The Lord wants you as a believer to be more fruitful. Now, we've run out of time. Let me make a quick summary. Verse 6, I believe, is about unbelievers. But there's something else in this passage that is important for us not to lose sight of. He gave an imperative that is a do this to the disciples.

Abide in Me. Abide in Me. That He is talking about our condition, our daily condition, what can be or not be, but we've got a choice, right? What does Christ mean when He tells the disciples, Abide in Me? What does that translate into in terms of our lives? Pardon? To depend upon.

Yeah. You ever see any branches that are completely separated from the main plant and are out there just doing their best to try to be healthy? Doesn't work, does it? You should stay connected, close. Have a dependence upon me. How does the vine support the branches and what do the branches need from the vine?

Nourishment. So there's the nourishment side of it. That's part one. What else? Support. At least at that area there's a lifting up. What else? Nourishment, which goes along with food. There's also water supply. And it's the basic way that the water, nourishment in terms of the food and nutrients, but also right along with that, the water supply comes from the ground through the vine. There is a dependence and an intimacy. And that's what this whole thing is intended to illustrate.

It's not there to scare the daylights out of you. It's not there to say, oh man, I better crank out some fruit. How am I doing? It is not intended to do that. It's not intended to sit there and scare the daylights out of you so you'll be fruitful and keep working so you don't lose your salvation. That's not what this is for.

Jesus didn't come to the disciples and tell them this so they'd run around scared. Because he told them in the prior chapter, don't let your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. He's not intended to give them fear and have that motivate. Exactly the opposite.

He says, I'll lift you up. He says, and yes, I'll prune you, but it's only so that you'll be more fruitful. Let's pray. Lord, as we look at this passage here, we thank you that we are called to depend upon you. We are called to rely upon you and to have a closeness and continuous connection and intimacy. We thank you that you provide what we need, that nourishment, that the water supply, you are indeed at the living water. We thank you that you do lift us up by the multiple ministries of the Holy Spirit, including the work of the body, as we support and encourage one another. And we thank you also that the things that happen in our lives that challenge us and at times even puzzle us are things that are intended to cause us to be more fruitful. We thank you that in all these things You're not threatening us in the least, but you want us to abide in you, to trust you, to walk in close relationship and fellowship with you. Thank you for that, Lord. Thank you for the assurance that we have from these passages. We pray in Jesus name. Amen.