A Few Comments on the Revolution, then a Response to Robert Gagnon on John 10

Well, greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. It is an unusual time, 1 .30 in the afternoon here in Phoenix, but I'm doing the Bible Dingers webcast. I'm going to be joined by Michael Brown. We're going to be talking about stuff, unity in the church, stuff like that.

So we're going to be doing that at three. Now, I don't know if that's live or not. I assume it is, but I assumed that the debate with Jared Longshore was going to be live, too. And actually, it was only going to be recorded.

And poor Joshua Hames, once I asked, well, isn't this going to be live? Then he starts trying to do all this stuff to make it live. And it worked, but it was a lot of pressure on him. And we had technical issues and stuff like that.

So don't know. It may just be being recorded and we played at a particular time later on. We'll see. I don't know. For those of you seeing this program at a later time, this is the week of the Democratic National Convention, which this year, very clearly and very plainly has become the Marxist National Convention.

And.

I ran into an older fellow. Yes, sir. I just need to correct you on one thing. It's the Democrat National Convention because they are not democratic. Just saying.

Yeah, well, they definitely, pulling off a coup and putting somebody forward as a candidate who has not received a single vote ever in a primary, ever, didn't even make it to the first primary in 2020, is pretty non-democratic.

I would definitely say that's the case. But I ran into an older fellow this weekend. He works working security. And we just started chatting and we both were saying the exact same thing. We're like, can you believe what's going on in the world?

And everybody I've talked to, everybody that I've talked to, and I'm not talking about a church. I'm just talking about running new people to hospital, at Arby's, wherever it might be, everybody's all saying the same thing.

And he's the same age as me pretty much within a year or two. And we're both like, I just didn't think it'd happen this fast. And I'm like, yeah, that's what's left me just going. The speed with which this is taking place, the Marxist revolution right in front of our eyes.

My old friend Michael Fallon just posted something on Twitter right before the, I mean, six minutes ago. So that's pretty much right before the program. And it's got a picture. I was walking through Rich's office and Fox News was on and some reporter had just walked up to Trump and was talking to him because Trump does that.

He actually answers questions and doesn't have everybody vetted and there's no teleprompters around and stuff like that. You haven't seen any of that with Harris or Waltz and you won't. Here in state of Arizona, our pseudo governor managed to oversee her own election and refused to debate because she can't, she knows it.

And these people can't, they know it. It's just astonishing what's happening. 30 years ago, this would have been a landslide victory. And I don't think these idiots would have won a single state, but not now.

Anyways, there's a picture of Harris and Waltz and there are all these signs behind them that say freedom. And Mike didn't say this, but I couldn't help but remember, what's it called? It's not called them.

Was it called them? No, they see, what was that movie where you put the sunglasses on and all the signs that we see, you see what they're actually saying. Because there's aliens that have, oh yeah, it's a sort of a cult classic.

And these sunglasses, they'd allow you to see the aliens and it translates all the stuff to obey and all the rest of this stuff. And it just reminded me of that kind of stuff. Yes, sir.

Not quite ready for this, but so the, what was the name of the movie? Oh gosh, now suddenly I've drawn a blank. You caught me off guard. I wasn't quite ready to do this. You seem to have much to say today.

So, I'm thinking of a particular movie, Red Dawn. Red Dawn. Remember Red Dawn? And when mom and dad are in the concentration camp. I never saw it. I just know the movie. So they have, they've converted the drive-in theater to the concentration camp for the undesirables in town.

And up on the drive-in theater screen, it has one word. Friend. Friend. Yeah. And then they're just blasting propaganda at the, at these people over and over again. At the undesirables. Same thing.

Here. Freedom. Yeah. Yeah. So Mike said that whenever you see the sign freedom behind Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, please realize they're not referring to freedom from collectivist tyranny. The freedom they're proclaiming is freedom from free market capitalism and our constitutional republic.

The freedom that they promise is a world free from being forced to earn a living, think and plan your life well, and a life free of bad decisions as every decision will be made for you. Free from a world of oil and gas, from individual ownership of everything, from the need to prosper and succeed.

Free from a world where your thoughts are your own thoughts. Free from a world of meritocracy. Free from a world of autonomy. Free from a world of spontaneous travel. That's for sure. Under the Harris and Biden administration, you will be liberated from the cruel world of the American project and the freedom to pursue happiness that has brought wealth and prosperity to nearly every non-corrupt nation in the world.

You will be liberated from the chains of liberty of personal sovereignty. This is the freedom Harris and Walz are referring to. Again, back in the day when education meant actually learning things, it would have been commonplace for American citizens to know how things had worked under the Soviet Union.

What had happened with Stalin and Lenin and Mao. 120 million people killed in one century by the most evil political religious worldview system ever devised, which could never ever have come into existence if it were not for Darwin.

Darwin was central to the Marxist worldview. But anyway, people would know about these people and how they used food as a weapon. How they starved the Holodomor in Ukraine. They starved seven to nine million people to death in a land of plenty with their collectivist controls.

And so we'd see this. We'd see these people. We'd go, wait a minute. Kamala Harris is a Marxist. What they're talking about is Marxism. This nation fought Marxism. One of the reasons that I think we offed George S. Patton Jr. and did not allow him to come back to the United States after his being central in our victory in Europe.

He almost single-handedly turned the Battle of the Bulge around and rescued the invasion of Europe. It's very well known that after the Americans and the Russians met in central Germany and having defeated the Russians.

Remember, there was still another battlefront. We were still fighting Japan in the Pacific. He told his superiors, we need to keep going. We've got the armies here. We've got all the stuff here. The new enemy is right in front of us.

It's going to be Russia. It's going to be the Soviet Union. And we need to defeat that enemy now while we can. They're weak. And we're here. And of course, it could not have happened. It's impossible.

But that's why they got rid of him because he saw it was coming. Now, when the wall fell in Berlin, I've stood there. I've stood where the wall used to be. There was a period of time there where it's like, it's done.

Democracy has won peace for as long as we can imagine. Now, I'll be honest with you. I think one of the primary, sadly, one of the primary forces that has kept peace from breaking out in that way is the United States of America.

This nation is warmongers. We've been warmongering for a long time. It's sad, but it's true. What's going on in Ukraine? I am convinced 100%, us, all the way. Where do you think all that money's going?

Why do you think both the Democrats and the Republicans just keep throwing billions of dollars out the window that we don't have without even thinking about an audit or responsibility or something like that?

Anyway, so we saw the end of communism and we just didn't realize, some people did. Some people did. Some people warned us. The communists just simply used up Russia and Eastern Europe and moved on to greener fields.

They invaded the United States, not with armies, but with intellectuals. Well, they weren't really very intellectual, but they invaded the university. And that's why with each passing election, the DNC can become more and more bold, more and more open.

They don't have to put on the airs that they used to have to put on. They have a Planned Parenthood bus sitting outside the DNC giving vasectomies and abortions. They don't have to worry about it. Yes, we worship death.

We love death. Death is wonderful. We are all about death. Elect us and you will see death like you've never seen before. They don't have to worry about it anymore. They have the media. The media is not going to report on them.

The media is not going to research anything. They're not going to research into Harris's past or Waltz's past or anything like that. They're not going to touch it with a 10 foot pole. And so yeah, freedom, freedom, freedom from what?

Freedom is an issue of worldview. And they, it is absolutely amazing. I did see that Trump has said today, and I was watching a video, someone, a lady passed out in the audience in his rally today. So he stopped everything and walked over with the secret service to make sure she was okay and gave her a hug.

And like I said, afterwards, you know, he's talking to press and doing stuff that politicians used to do, things like that. But where'd it go? That's the thing about Twitter. You see something and anyways, evidently he said at this, yeah, there we go.

President Trump has announced that all military members who are discharged for refusing to COVID mandate will be reinstated and receive full back pay along with a formal apology from United States government.

Well, I'll tell you what, I'll be honest with you. I'm just, I'm just, I'm not a politician. I'm not a prophet. I'm not sitting here doing the wacky, weird Trump stuff that certain people are doing. I, I, I would love to have another four years of at least gridlock before the Marxists take over.

I really would, but I just don't think it's possible. I don't think it's possible. I don't believe living in Maricopa County that my vote counts for anything. I don't believe it will even be counted. Or if it is, it's going to be washed away by 40 illegal aliens voting the other direction.

So I, I, that, that's honestly how I feel. I hope I'm wrong. I want to be proven wrong. I want to be completely wrong. What is it? November 5th, November 6th, something like that. You know, on the 7th or 8th or whenever I would love to fry up some crow and eat it for being wrong.

Yes, sir.

You, you, you, you talk about the illegal aliens. See, I, I'm more pessimistic. I think it's the, the suitcase ballots. They don't belong to anybody. Remember in Atlanta?

Oh, I know.

Everybody left and they pulled out the suitcases. I think we're going to get flooded with suitcase ballots.

Oh, I, I, I don't, I don't know how it'll work. You know, it can be the 20 ,000 mules. It can be the suitcase ballots. It can be computer stuff. Um, you know, uh, voting machines, unless it's one ballot with verified citizenship.

In fact, the only way to be honest with you, that this nation could actually be saved in its current state. And this is impossible to is if you have one vote per property owner, that's how we started.

And it was male property, property owner as well. But, um, if it's not one paper ballot per person who has some investment in the future existence of the nation, it's, um, it's over with. I hope I'm wrong.

I want to be wrong. I'm praying to be wrong. Um, I really, really am, but I'm looking at the world. Look, look at the UK, look at the UK. They're putting people in prison for 18 months to two years for protesting all of the immigration, the wave of immigration into the United Kingdom.

And they, they put a guy away for 18 months for using profanity and saying, who is Allah, who the bleep is Allah 18 months in prison. Now I can guarantee you they have not put a single Muslim in prison for saying who the bleep is Yahweh or anything like that.

Wouldn't even think of. I, I honestly, I look back at the debates that I've had in the, I wonder what's going on at Speaker's Corner these days. I really do wonder what's going on at Speaker's Corner these days.

I don't believe that I could have the debates in the United Kingdom that I had only 10 years ago, only six years ago. That's how fast this revolution and the collapse of freedom of speech, the rise of totalitarianism in Western culture is taking place.

It is amazing. I'd love to see the brakes put on for four years. I'd love to think that maybe if, if for four years, something good could happen, positive could happen, that people would see it and go, yeah, you know what?

But you see, they're coming out of the universities and out of the educational system, zombified. They can't see this is related to this, which is related to this, which has something history to it. They can't see it.

I mean, there are, there are Christians. There are people who I know that they go to Christian churches. They're baptized believers. I've known them for decades and they can't see the worldview of Harris and the Marxists.

They just can't see it. It's like, it's like there's a complete disconnect and you're like, how can you not see that what they're doing is derived from their worldview? I, it truly does make you go, oh, wow.

Delusion, judgment, believe a lie. You want to believe a lie? Believe Kamala Harris standing in front of a freedom sign. That is a lie. That is just straight out, a mockery of any intelligent person. And that's where we are.

And, um, I don't know. I, I just, I don't know. Lots of things we could say there, but I said I was going to get something else and we only have, uh, 40 minutes left on the program here. Um, and what I said I was going to get to, uh, is a tweet from Bob Gagnon.

Now a video came out, haven't heard almost anything about, have you been getting lots and lots of emails from people wanting a response to the eternal security video that came out eight months ago or something?

Yeah. I didn't think so. I haven't heard anything from anybody. Um, I, I downloaded it and listened to it. I know I was driving in Louisiana, so I'm not sure which part of the last, whatever the last trips were.

Um, I listened to all of it and I was sitting here going, wow, I'd love to discuss this. I'd love to play that. And I, you know, four surgeries later, what was that video about again? Um, and so I may, since I do have it downloaded someplace, um, it would be worthwhile actually still doing that.

Um, it was bad. It was really, really, really, really bad. And unfortunately, because they had so many different people, they had open theists in it and Pelagians and, you know, people coming from 47 different perspectives.

And, and so it didn't in any way actually address a reformed understanding of the perfection of the work of the father, son, the spirit in saving a particular people in Christ. And that is the only coherent doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, um, of the security of the elect, whatever terminology you want to use, that's the only defensible mechanism.

That's only defensible theological position. What most non-reformed evangelicals call one saved, always saved is laughably silly. It's imbalanced. You know, these people who say, you know, you walk down the aisle and you shake the pastor's hand.

And, you know, so the, the, the free gracers, the easy gracers, the cheap gracers, um, you've got your ticket punched. You can go become a Buddhist, a Muslim, rapist, whatever. Sola Fide! As if, as if any of the reformers would have for a second understood that kind of absurdity, um, as a proper understanding of faith alone.

So I think I did actually play, now think about it, I think I did actually play a couple of sections on that trip, um, on the dividing line. I think I said, you know, we're going to do more on this, but because like I said, it was just, it was extremely disjointed and didn't actually deal with any meaningful doctrine of eternal security, which has to be based upon the sovereignty of God, doctrine of election, predestination, particular redemption, things like that.

So anyway, I don't know how many years ago it was now, minimally three, maybe five. I had some friends start sending me tweets from Bob Gagnon. Now Robert Gagnon is a wonderful fellow. I've had dinner with him a number of times, well at least twice I think.

Um, uh, he initially, when I first, I think first contacted him, he was at Pittsburgh Theological, it was a PCUSA school, which I found odd, because he was obviously taking very conservative positions on the subject of homosexuality, and the PCUSA is not a conservative denomination any longer by any stretch of the imagination.

There was a time where if you were at a PCUSA seminary, you needed to subscribe to Confession of Faith. That time is long past, I'm sure. Um, but Dr. Gagnon went from PCUSA to Houston Baptist, and from Houston Baptist, now I think I'm correct, he's at a Wesleyan school.

Now, those are not schools that have a consistent soteriological commitment, um, at all. So, I've always been confused at that point, that there was something in his past, he was raised Roman Catholic, um, someone sent me some text messages, some tweets he had posted about, you know, he's been posting stuff about the excesses of Roman Catholicism, but there's always this sort of underlying, if Rome would just get rid of these things, all the Marian stuff and all the papacy stuff, which means she ceases being Rome, obviously.

Um, but there's sort of this underlying, then we could all just get along and everything would be okay, as if Rome's gospel is perfectly orthodox, which it isn't. And, so anyways, people were sending me these tweets a number of years ago, where he was going after stuff in the gospel of John, and especially John 6 and John 10 and things like that, and I, I responded, uh, in just as lengthy a form as he was posting on Twitter.

And there was a little bit of back and forth, but then he, he moved on to the subjects and didn't really respond to a lot of the primary criticisms that I had offered of his exegesis. I saw him post something on John 6 recently and I went, I think he wrote that years ago in response to me.

It looks really, really familiar to me. I could be wrong, but that was my feeling. So, um, a couple of days ago, Dr. Gagnon responded to a fellow named Andrew. Now, Andrew had presented a very basic, simplistic, once saved, always saved claim.

And as I mentioned when I responded to the, uh, video, in many situations, I will join in with the criticism of an unfounded, imbalanced, unbiblical, uh, got your ticket punched, on your way to heaven kind of a perspective.

Because it's dangerous. It ignores, um, from a reformed perspective, it ignores the nature of saving faith, the work of, of, uh, conforming the elect to the image of Christ, the work of the spirit in their lives and sanctification.

Um, yeah, it's, it's imbalanced and it's, um, is responsible because, you know, when I was at that big, huge mega church long, long ago, we'd go out on outreach visits, trying to find people who had walked through the door, walked an aisle, got dunked and then disappeared never to be seen again.

And over and over again, you'd run into people that, oh yeah, uh, my, my son, Bobby, you know, he's 32 and he's sleeping around and drunk half the time, but he, I got him to walk the aisle there at the church.

And so I, I know he's saved. And, and I've seen that kind of false assurance destroy many a person. So I'm no friend, any of that kind of stuff. So I'll join in with criticisms, but the problem is the astral people who make those criticisms do not differentiate, um, between a balanced reformed understanding that there is a specific elect people of God that the father has chosen the son.

They have been united to the son. He dies in their place. He enters into the presence of father to intercede in their behalf. And the spirit comes at the ordained time to bring spiritual life and to bring regeneration and then to seal them for the day of redemption because the son will not lose any that are given to him by the father.

So it's Trinitarian harmony, the gospel once again, and that's not a ticket punched going to heaven type of a perspective. So, uh, in responding to this, Andrew, Bob Gagnon said, with all respect, Andrew, please read John 10 and 10 29, which by the way, is my father who has given to me is greater than all.

And no one is able to snatch them out of the father's hand. I, and the father, we over plural verb are one, uh, please read John 10 29 in the light of its literary context, first in John's gospel, and then the whole new Testament GS and every new Testament author warn persons who received the Holy spirit to continue in a transformed life.

Otherwise they will be cut off. This is clearly what they want followers of Christ to think. Otherwise they would not have repeated these warnings over and over again. This does not make us eternally insecure, but it is a warning against complacency.

Well, um, the, the question as to what would make us eternally insecure is a good question because the, the, the issue is every new Testament author warns people who receive the Holy spirit to continue in a transformed life.

Okay. Who will do that? And this goes back to stuff like, you know, you can go back to Augustine and Augustine had this strange idea that, you know, you could, you could be born again by baptism, infant baptism, but only the elect are given the gift of perseverance.

And so you had true believers who were truly born again, but they were not going to persevere. So they were going to fall away because they weren't given the gift of perseverance. So you've got, you've had stuff like that.

You certainly can't find any of that in scripture. Um, that kind of stuff, the dividing line between reformed and non-reformed has always been who is actually accomplishing the work of salvation? Is God making it available?

Is he a provisionist or does he actually save? And so if a, so there's no question that there are numerous warnings against apostasy, complacency, examine yourself, see if you're in the faith. Uh, these are all biblical phrases.

The question is, is it our examining of ourselves? Is it our holding on that results in our eventual salvation? Or is that, you know, is this the prescriptive descriptive or is this, is this stuff that God prescribes for us to do?

Or is it descriptive of the people in whom he is at work? And this has been central argument and source of confusion for a very, very, very, very long time. He gives his own translation of John 10, 28 through 30, which pretty much sounds like my own.

And I give my sheep eternal life and they shall certainly never perish and no one will snatch them from my hand. My father who has given them to me is greater than all and no one is able to snatch them out of my father's hand.

I and my father, I would put we only because people don't deal with oneness Pentecostalism enough to realize why you might want to do that. We are one. The passage provides an assurance to Jesus' sheep that no wolves coming from outside are strong enough to get the sheep that remain in his fold.

Contrast 10, 12, which refers to a wolf snatching the sheep from the hired help. Now, this is where I am concerned about the language. It provides an assurance to Jesus' sheep that no wolves coming from outside are strong enough to get at the sheep that remain in his fold.

Notice what the emphasis is there. The emphasis is upon the sheep's remaining, not the shepherd's keeping, not the shepherd's keeping. I would submit to you that John chapter 10 is very, very clear in that the focus is not upon the sheep's remaining.

It's upon the shepherd's capacity, the shepherd's ability. That's what John 10 is about. And so it concerns me when you see that shift to away from what Christ accomplishes to something else. And we'll see that in a couple of ways here.

It also defines the sheep in 1027 as those who are listening to my voice and are following me. So it sounds to me like this is the descriptive prescriptive confusion. Yes, who are the sheep? They hear his voice and they follow Christ.

But that's descriptive of what the elect do when they are changed. It's not prescriptive as to how you keep yourself saved. Now, like I said, he's at a Wesleyan University now, I think. Last I checked anyways.

And that's what you'd get at a Wesleyan University. It's what you do that is so vital here. It's the decision maker. There is no assurance given here that those who stop hearing Jesus's voice and following him will not perish.

Well, okay. So who makes that decision? I would argue that's God. He gives a certain people to Christ Jesus, and Christ will not fail to save them. And so why does any person persevere in the faith? I would argue, again, it's the work of the Spirit of God within them.

It's not their faithfulness. They're holding on. And so someone who does not continue to listen to Jesus's voice and follow him, I'm not saying, and if all he's saying is this surface level, one saved, always saved stuff, gives assurance to people that they can stop listening to Jesus, stop following him, and get saved, and still be saved.

Yeah, I agree that that's a dangerous and a false perspective. But the baby's still in the bathwater. The baby's still in the bathwater. Yeah, okay. So yeah, you know, I don't know if he's teaching someplace specifically as a professor now, because he was at Houston Baptist.

Maybe he's still there. I could be wrong. But he is teaching courses through Wesley Biblical Seminary this fall. So yeah, that's where, that's, I knew I'd seen something about Wesley and stuff. Anyway, so the baby's still in the bathwater.

So it's one thing to say, yeah, that's foolishness that God intends our salvation to be so empty that it does not include being made like Christ. But that's not the same thing as saying that the Spirit-produced and prompted obedience of the believer is what makes the difference and is the deciding factor.

So he goes on to say, this is evident from other texts in John that supply conditions or qualifications. Well, what he doesn't deal with is stuff like John says, where the condition and qualifications drawing the Father, giving the Father to the Son.

And like I said, he did seek to address that at one point. And we ended up having some correspondence that I don't, I don't believe that ever was completed or finished. But he cites John 8, 12, I am the light of the world.

The one who follows me shall certainly not walk in darkness. We'll have the light of life. Well, okay. So walking in darkness. Yeah. Is that something I add to the work of Christ? Or is that something that I want to do because of the work of Christ?

How you answer that is, how you answer that honestly speaks to where you are between Rome and Geneva, Rome and Wittenberg. This was the issue of the Reformation. This was the issue of Erasmus and Luther.

Really was. John 8, 31. So Jesus was saying to the Jews who believe in him, if you remain in my word, you are truly my disciples. So again, prescriptive, descriptive. Is it my remaining in his word that is in view here?

Or is this descriptive what a true disciple is? Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he shall certainly never see death. John 8, 51. Okay. But who does that? Who keeps his word? Well, his sheep.

Who chooses the sheep? The shepherd does. The sheep do not choose their shepherd. The shepherd chooses the sheep. The one who has my commandments and keeps them is one who loves me, and the one who loves me will be loved by my father, and I will love him, and I will manifest myself to him.

This is in reference to the disciples and the coming of the spirit. It is not in reference to, well, commandment keepers, by keeping commandments, will bring about their own sanctification, salvation, whatever terminology you want to use.

Again, is this a description? Those who have been changed in this way, this is a description of what they are like? Or is it a prescription to everybody? This is how you become that. Those are two very, very, very different perspectives.

John 15, keep my commandments, you will remain my love, just as I have kept the commandments of my father and remain in his love, you are my friends if you are doing what I am commanding you. We agree completely, but we would say the true saving faith, the work of regeneration, results in, you know, if we, you know, let's go back to what is the new covenant?

What is the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 according to Hebrews chapter 8? I will write my law upon their hearts. I will write my law upon their hearts. They don't take a heart of stone and write the commandments upon a heart of stone.

Not going to do it. An example of those who did not so remain, this one really is concerning to me. An example of those who did not so remain in Jesus' word and continue to follow him appears in John 6, 66 -71.

The text speaks of many of disciples, of his disciples, who no longer followed Jesus after his eat my flesh and drink my blood speech. Okay, didn't Jesus start off like about verse 34 -35 saying I know those, I know who believes in me and I know who doesn't?

Wasn't the whole point of focusing upon himself, the exposure of the false disciples who had simply seen the miracles and wanted more wonder bread? Um, does any of that result in a diminishment of the centrality of the power of God, the father in giving a people to the son, the son in saving every single one of those that are thus given to him?

And we know that John 14 -16, that's through the spirit, um, these were, these were false disciples. The idea here seems to be that, uh, well, but they were, they were his disciples. Okay. That's what they identified themselves as.

And by the end of John chapter six, there's only 12 left and one of them's a devil. You don't think that was purposeful? You don't think I was meant to communicate something? Certainly was. Most important of all is divine branches analogy in John 15 discussed in the prior post, which makes clear that believers who are in Christ are removed by God if they do not bear fruit.

Those that are removed are thrown into the fire. So again, very, very common to go well because their branches in Christ, that means that they were in union with Christ, which would mean that they're regenerated.

They have Christ's righteousness imputed to them. Their sins have been imputed to Christ, everything. That's the only way to truly be in Christ. And as I pointed out years and years and years ago, and I'm pretty certain I'd be who knows how you'd even go back to find this stuff these days and so long, but because I, now that I'm thinking about it, pretty certain that that conversation took place on Facebook, which I hate, um, rather than on Twitter.

I think so. Anyway. Um, I'm pretty certain that one of the references that I provided at that time was to the article that I wrote many years ago now, uh, John 15, the branches, which is still on at amn .org.

If you just throw the reference in or the name or something like that, it will definitely pop up. And what I argued in my exegesis of John 15 is that you are not a true disciple if you did not bear fruit.

And so just as in the sower and the seeds, the ones who grow up quickly and then fade away, those that have the word stolen from them, um, you know, those are choked out by the thorns and thistles. What is the consistent commonality between them in Jesus's description?

No fruit, no fruit. And so if you don't bear fruit in John 15, why are you assuming this was actually a regenerate person that would go against Jesus's own standard in how he uses this kind of agricultural metaphor?

Those that don't bear fruit will be gathered up and burned. That doesn't mean that they had the righteousness of Christ or anything like that, or they were ever united with Christ. I mean, if you're going to go that far, are you really going to say that the father, knowing that they would fall away, united them to Christ in Christ's death so that he substitutes for their sins, but they're still going to fall away and be lost, even though their sins have been born in his body upon the tree.

This is where things get very, very messy and ugly. Now he says, um, it is important to note here that exclusion from God's kingdom for failure to bear fruit does not imply that those who do bear fruit in some way merit God's kindness.

The branch produces fruit only if it remains divine. Without me, you can do nothing. Only the father and son get credit for our transformed lives. I'm always appreciative when people attempt to protect, in some fashion, the singularity of the glory of God.

The problem is, you know, look at the technical stuff that people have done in Roman Catholicism to find a way in a patently merit-based system to say that only God gets the glory. You know, the entire sacramental system, you can, a Roman Catholic can smuggle that in into faith working by love.