Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 8

Bercot says the wonder-workers’ problem was not “trusting in their own works” but “practicing lawlessness,” and he adds that a person is either “never…on Jesus’ vine or…lopped off”; how does that logic confront common evangelical ideas about assurance and perseverance, and what fears or resistance does it raise in you personally?

Another way to ask: If the real issue is “lawlessness,” and a person was either never on Jesus’ vine or got cut off, how does that challenge common evangelical ideas about assurance and staying saved? What fears or pushback does that bring up in you?

Direct Answer The transcript’s logic confronts assurance based mainly on profession, experiences, or past spiritual activity by making obedience the dividing line between knowing Christ and being unknown by him. It also implies someone connected to Christ can later be “lopped off,” which challenges simplistic views of perseverance that ignore ongoing obedience.

Support from Transcript:

Jesus says to miracle-workers, “I never knew you,” which Bercot interprets as meaning “they were never even on his vine.”
He adds an alternative possibility for the disobedient: “Either you never were on Jesus’ vine or you’ve been lopped off.”
He insists the problem was not “trusting in their own works,” but that “they practiced lawlessness.”
“His Kingdom has laws,” and failure to obey them defines lawlessness.
“Someone growing on Christ’s vine doesn’t practice lawlessness… doesn’t live in disobedience to Christ’s laws.”

Discussion Follow-ups What do you tend to use for assurance—past decisions, feelings, ministry success? How might ongoing obedience (or disobedience) function as a more serious diagnostic than many of us are comfortable with?

Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 8 of 10