John 10:26

[Confessor01]

The following is a standard Reformed interpretation of John 10:26.

“But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.”

Jesus is telling this to the Pharisees. A little earlier He explains how He is the good shepherd, and that He lays down His life for His sheep (vv. 11, 15); He also explains how this procures eternal life for His sheep (v. 28). Therefore, if the reason the Pharisees do not believe in Him is because they are not His sheep, it follows that Christ did not die for them. It also follows that their position as non-sheep logically preceded their unbelief. Even if one wants to resist the implications of particular atonement (i.e. that Christ died only for the elect) in this passage, one still must understand the logical precedence implied by the verse. If the Pharisees’ unbelief was preceded by their status as non-sheep, then belief (or any type of good work) does not logically precede entering into the kingdom of God. The text teaches not that one becomes a sheep by believing, but that one is first a sheep and consequently believes.

Some might respond that God’s grace precedes everything. But in that case they still must say that the sinner’s cooperation with God’s grace is what allows them to enter the kingdom of God (i.e. to gain the status of “sheep”). This hypothesis would invert John 10:26, for it would posit that one becomes a sheep by some means – rather than that one’s belief is caused by one’s precedent status as sheep or non-sheep.

1. Any Catholic critiques of this exegesis?
2. How do Catholics understand John 10:26?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The following is a standard Reformed interpretation of John 10:26.
“But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.”

Jesus is telling this to the Pharisees. A little earlier He explains how He is the good shepherd, and that He lays down His life for His sheep (vv. 11, 15); He also explains how this procures eternal life for His sheep (v. 28). Therefore, if the reason the Pharisees do not believe in Him is because they are not His sheep, it follows that Christ did not die for them. It also follows that their position as non-sheep logically preceded their unbelief. Even if one wants to resist the implications of particular atonement (i.e. that Christ died only for the elect) in this passage, one still must understand the logical precedence implied by the verse. If the Pharisees’ unbelief was preceded by their status as non-sheep, then belief (or any type of good work) does not logically precede entering into the kingdom of God. The text teaches not that one becomes a sheep by believing, but that one is first a sheep and consequently believes.

Some might respond that God’s grace precedes everything. But in that case they still must say that the sinner’s cooperation with God’s grace is what allows them to enter the kingdom of God (i.e. to gain the status of “sheep”). This hypothesis would invert John 10:26, for it would posit that one becomes a sheep by some means – rather than that one’s belief is caused by one’s precedent status as sheep or non-sheep.

1. Any Catholic critiques of this exegesis?
2. How do Catholics understand John 10:26?

They are unbelievers because they are not His sheep. Their lack of sheeply status is the cause of their not believing. Not: their unbelief de-sheepifies them.​

In mediaeval & Patristic theologies of the Hexaemeron (= work of six days, i.e., of creation) there is a distinction between

• the work of “planning”
• the work of carrying out the plan.

First God plans - then He creates. But, the creation is part of a much vaster purpose, extending from before creation to the consummation of all things. So although the speech of Jesus to the Jews has been planned “before” the creation, it takes place after it in the carrying-out of God’s purpose as a whole. Which suggests that God’s foreknowledge & Providence don’t hinder human action - they are essential conditions for it so much as to be possible in thought. God’s eternal counsel before creation, is what allows creatures to be possible, actualised, and to act in their turn. This is a lot of things, but it is not determinism, fatalism, or necessitarianism. It’s Divine Freedom, sovereignly free from even the least hint of any contraint, making other entities possible & real & free in their created measure. It liberates - it does not enslave.

Just my 2d

 

[Confessor01]

They are unbelievers because they are not His sheep. Their lack of sheeply status is the cause of their not believing. Not: their unbelief de-sheepifies them.​

Are you agreeing with me or just stating my conclusion?

First God plans - then He creates. But, the creation is part of a much vaster purpose, extending from before creation to the consummation of all things. So although the speech of Jesus to the Jews has been planned “before” the creation, it takes place after it in the carrying-out of God’s purpose as a whole. Which suggests that God’s foreknowledge & Providence don’t hinder human action - they are essential conditions for it so much as to be possible in thought. God’s eternal counsel before creation, is what allows creatures to be possible, actualised, and to act in their turn. This is a lot of things, but it is not determinism, fatalism, or necessitarianism. It’s Divine Freedom, sovereignly free from even the least hint of any contraint, making other entities possible & real & free in their created measure. It liberates - it does not enslave.

Are you saying that this is what occurred?
-Before creation, God knew the Pharisees wouldn’t believe.
-Therefore, before creation, He declared them non-sheep.
-Therefore, after creation, it could accurately be said that, “You do not believe because you are not my sheep.”

Is that an accurate representation of what you’re saying?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Are you agreeing with me or just stating my conclusion?

Agreeing​

Are you saying that this is what occurred?
-Before creation, God knew the Pharisees wouldn’t believe.
-Therefore, before creation, He declared them non-sheep.
-Therefore, after creation, it could accurately be said that, “You do not believe because you are not my sheep.”

Is that an accurate representation of what you’re saying?

Clarification:​

• “Before” creation, God predetermined the Pharisees wouldn’t believe - ISTM that your first two steps are not consecutive, even in logic, but are two “faces” of a single action: the declaration & the knowledge are not separable, other than conceptually: they are one, though we see them as two, because of the nature of the human intellect, which has to break ideas down, study them, & then re-assemble them, rather than knowing them by direct intuition without thought.
• This single action of God is supra-temporal. It’s not the beginning of a series, because God’s activity is not - as is ours - within the confines of the created order of which we are part & within which we live. God transcends creation - His “causal” action is not one cause among others. He can come down to us - we can’t climb up to Him: we are limited by the fact of being created, & created as humans, & by the disaster of sin.
• Your step three is this single act, as manifested in space & time. What God knows eternally in the depths of the Divine Counsel is true - considered as a thing in space & time, it was future to men when it had not taken place, & it takes place when men freely make it real within space & time. So it was true “before Abraham”, say - but had not been real-ised as a fact in space & time.

God & men don’t “collide”, because they are not beings of the same order - man is created, God is Creator. A man in a story can’t meet the teller of the story - unless the teller writes himself into his story in some fashion; then encounters and collisions become possible. But God’s Liberty & Will are not man’s - man is made in God’s image & likeness - but God is not a man on a magnified scale. We can act, in freedom, up to a point - that is part of our nature as human beings, and even sin cannot “un-man” us, though it is immensely destructive. And we are still responsible to God. So whatever else we may be, we are not puppets, & our acts are not without significance.

 

[Confessor01]

No, there is certainly a logical order to the first two steps. There has to be – that is what Jesus is establishing in John 10:26! He is establishing the logical priority of non-sheepness to unbelief.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The following is a standard Reformed interpretation of John 10:26.

“But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.”

Jesus is telling this to the Pharisees. A little earlier He explains how He is the good shepherd, and that He lays down His life for His sheep (vv. 11, 15); He also explains how this procures eternal life for His sheep (v. 28). Therefore, if the reason the Pharisees do not believe in Him is because they are not His sheep, it follows that Christ did not die for them. It also follows that their position as non-sheep logically preceded their unbelief. Even if one wants to resist the implications of particular atonement (i.e. that Christ died only for the elect) in this passage, one still must understand the logical precedence implied by the verse. If the Pharisees’ unbelief was preceded by their status as non-sheep, then belief (or any type of good work) does not logically precede entering into the kingdom of God. The text teaches not that one becomes a sheep by believing, but that one is first a sheep and consequently believes.

Some might respond that God’s grace precedes everything. But in that case they still must say that the sinner’s cooperation with God’s grace is what allows them to enter the kingdom of God (i.e. to gain the status of “sheep”). This hypothesis would invert John 10:26, for it would posit that one becomes a sheep by some means – rather than that one’s belief is caused by one’s precedent status as sheep or non-sheep.

1. Any Catholic critiques of this exegesis?
2. How do Catholics understand John 10:26?

From the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 26. Because you are not of my sheep, refusing to believe in me, and to follow my doctrine, by your own wilful blindness. (Witham)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No, there is certainly a logical order to the first two steps.

I didn’t say were there was no logical order.​

There has to be – that is what Jesus is establishing in John 10:26! He is establishing the logical priority of non-sheepness to unbelief.

Agreed ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

From the Haydock Bible Commentary

Ver. 26. Because you are not of my sheep, refusing to believe in me, and to follow my doctrine, by your own wilful blindness. (Witham)

And it was not wilful - it would be unjust to blame them.​

So on this issue, there seems (for a change ?) to be no disagreement

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The following is a standard Reformed interpretation of John 10:26.
“But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.”

Jesus is telling this to the Pharisees. A little earlier He explains how He is the good shepherd, and that He lays down His life for His sheep (vv. 11, 15); He also explains how this procures eternal life for His sheep (v. 28).

yes. so far so good.

Therefore, if the reason the Pharisees do not believe in Him is because they are not His sheep, it follows that Christ did not die for them.

Hmmm…a weaker point first:
The word “for” means a reason – it is a short version of because.
The cause of Jesus’ death was sinners.
So, one can say Jesus died for sinners that ultimately went to hell.
Or do you hold that all sinners involved in the crucifixion were saved?
( Then what of Judas who caused his death? ).

Then a stronger one:
If one does not own a sheep, and it does not follow him – it is still possible that one will be given or buy the sheep at a future time.
A particular problem is that Jesus does NOT say the Pharisees aren’t sheep – just that they aren’t his. It would seem they could simply be sheep owned by the Devil.

On the other hand, Pharisees were the ruling class. They were the the shepherds in their own eyes – and so would have agreed that they were not sheep. What Jesus is doing, however, is insulting them by being the only son of the father – and calling all other shepherds hirelings.

It also follows that their position as non-sheep logically preceded their unbelief.

I don’t quite understand this point. Do you mean temporally? or as in “more important” non-sheep is of higher causality?

Even if one wants to resist the implications of particular atonement (i.e. that Christ died only for the elect) in this passage, one still must understand the logical precedence implied by the verse. If the Pharisees’ unbelief was preceded by their status as non-sheep, then belief (or any type of good work) does not logically precede entering into the kingdom of God. *The text teaches not that one becomes a sheep by believing, but that one is first a sheep and consequently believes.
*

The passage does not rule out that one can become a sheep by believing. Don’t forget, the Pharisees were born into the people of Israel – they had a birthright which they thought to claim by law.
The passage is not addressed to you and I with the same conditions as the Pharisees had – we’re not Pharisees. So, the teaching of this passage is not as strong as you make out.

It IS true that one can become a sheep before belief – that is the baptism of an infant. One is born into a family, one does not earn that birth by a work. But – at the same time, the birth is a gift of the parents who allow the child to come fourth instead of killing it.
In the Catholic church – baptism is spoken of as the sacrament of Faith – for it gives to a child the same that Faith does.

I’ll stop here – for the rest of your argument depends on this piece that I have critiqued. Welcome to the Forums – I’m glad you have the chutzpah to dialogue with us Catholics.

–Peace.

 

[Nita]

Are you saying that this is what occurred?
-Before creation, God knew the Pharisees wouldn’t believe.
-Therefore, before creation, He declared them non-sheep.
-Therefore, after creation, it could accurately be said that, “You do not believe because you are not my sheep.”

I think there is a crucial line missing in this listing. Bolded line should be included.

-Before creation, God knew the Pharisees wouldn’t believe.
-Before creation, God knew WHY the Pharisees wouldn’t believe
-Therefore, before creation, He declared them non-sheep.
-Therefore, after creation, it could accurately be said that, “You do not believe because you are not my sheep.”

 

[Nita]

Are you agreeing with me or just stating my conclusion?

Are you saying that this is what occurred?
-Before creation, God knew the Pharisees wouldn’t believe.
-Therefore, before creation, He declared them non-sheep.
-Therefore, after creation, it could accurately be said that, “You do not believe because you are not my sheep.”

Is that an accurate representation of what you’re saying?

There are serious errors in the above. Only the first statement is accurate.

What you proceed to do from that point is to turn God’s foreknowledge of human free will choices (prior to creation) into God’s causing or determining those actions.
** In your second line, you say “He declared”. For God to “declare” is equivalent to God making/causing/willing it happen. And you state that God does this prior to creation. (To go further on this point, we’d need to go into the difference between God’s ordaining will and God’s permissive will.)

**Your third line - they do not believe because they are not His sheep. But what is it that causes them to be classified as not being one of Jesus’ flock? If I read you correctly, you hold that it is because God declared it to be so - declared them to be non-sheep. Negative predestination. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) I think differently.

The parable seems to imply throughout that their is an interior disposition that is needed before one recognizes the voice of Jesus as the shepherd and then follows Him. I would hold it is a desire to know, love, and serve God; a desire for truth; a desire to follow God’s will; … When one has that, one recognizes the voice of Jesus. With an attitude opposite to this, (self-centered rather than God-centered), one will not choose to belong to Jesus’ sheep and thus will not accept and believe when He speaks.

 

[Confessor01]

tobinatorstark,

First, is the Haydock Bible Commentary considered to be an accurate representative of RC teaching for the most part? That is, if I consult that, will I for the most part find the usual Catholic understanding of specific Bible verses?

Second, the interpretation in the HBC seems to miss the point. The fact that the Pharisees are not sheep certainly does not seem to indicate that they are refusing to believe by their willful blindness. The entire context speaks of Jesus’s singlehandedly leading His sheep, and how He died for them in order to save them. The point of the passage is that the sheep are the people of God, and that there are some people of God who are not yet believers (v. 16). But these people who are not yet believers (not yet in the fold) are still considered sheep. Therefore the fact that the Pharisees are non-sheep shows not that they have decided to become non-sheep, but rather that their non-sheepness is a cause of their non-belief.

In other words, if unbelief were the cause of non-sheepness, then everyone outside of the fold would be non-sheep. But rather, there are sheep outside of the fold; therefore it is not the case that unbelief causes non-sheepness.

---

Gottle of Geer,

You are agreeing with me that non-sheepness causes unbelief? Would you also agree that sheepness and non-sheepness are not chosen. I would say this is evident from the fact that there are sheep who do not yet believe (v. 16).

You said, “And [if] it was not wilful - [then] it would be unjust to blame them.” I’m sorry, but I disagree that such an objection is legitimate against the Calvinist understanding of this verse. It is essentially equivalent to Romans 9:19, an objection wherein Paul anticipates that others will object to God’s sovereignty over salvation: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” How can we be held responsible if we could not have done otherwise?

Ben

 

[Confessor01]

Huiou Theou,

1. The God of Jesus’s death was ultimately God’s decree/foreordination (Acts 4:27, 28), and proximately the hands of sinners and wicked men. More importantly, to say that Jesus died for sinners is certainly not to say that He died at the hands of sinners. It explains a purpose, not a cause. Jesus said that giving eternal life to His sheep was the purpose of His laying down His life.

You asked, “So, one can say Jesus died for sinners that ultimately went to hell.
Or do you hold that all sinners involved in the crucifixion were saved?” No, sir. I am a Calvinist. I believe that Jesus died to atone for the sins of His people and His people only. Jesus’s sacrifice actually effected salvation for people – it was not just a potential salvation for everyone, but an actual salvation for His elect. (It was not applied to His future elect by the Holy Spirit yet, but it was as good as done at that point.) That is part of what I am saying comes from John 10:26. Jesus died for His sheep; the Pharisees are not His sheep; therefore it is not the case that Jesus died for the Pharisees.

1. You make an excellent point regarding ownership of the sheep. Jesus does not necessarily say that they are not sheep, just that they are not His sheep. However, I can say two things about this: (a) Jesus separates the sheep from the goats in Mattthew 25. It would make sense, though it is not necessary, that He is employing a similar analogy here. (b) More significantly, if sheep belong to someone else, then they are not the ones that choose to transfer ownership. If Jesus was implying that they were someone else’s sheep, and that they do not believe as a result (when belief is what makes people His sheep), then He’d be telling the Pharisees a tautology: “but you do not believe because you do not believe.” The whole point is that their belief in Him is under their control, whereas their status as sheepness (or as being His sheep) is not.
2. The point that Jesus is insulting them because “they were the shepherds in their own eyes” has no support at all from the passage. If it is a point, it is at least subsidiary to the main context of the passage.
3. Regarding my point that their non-sheepness logically precedes their unbelief, you said, “I don’t quite understand this point. Do you mean temporally? or as in ‘more important’ non-sheep is of higher causality?” What I mean is that their status as sheep is a cause of their actions of unbelief. They did not choose their status as sheep.
4. The passage does rule out that people become sheep by believing. Jesus mentions that there are other sheep that are His yet are currently outside the fold (v. 14). This description precludes the notion that people become His sheep by believing. They enter the fold by believing; but those who will believe are already His sheep prior to believing.

---

Nita,

In my description, when I used “declare” I did not mean “cause.” I simply meant that God assigned the label. According to that summation, I said that God, as a result of seeing the Pharisees’ unbelief, declared that they were not His sheep. (Keep in mind that I myself don’t believe that summation. I do believe that God foreordains people as elect or reprobate without regard to any works they might do and without “looking down the corridors of time” to see if they are good or not (cf. Rom. 9:11, 21), but I am not expressing my beliefs in this summation.)

You said, “The parable seems to imply throughout that their is an interior disposition that is needed before one recognizes the voice of Jesus as the shepherd and then follows Him.” A statement like this can spark a huge conversation about compatibilism and libertarianism, so I’ll try to make it brief. Suffice it to say that in a Catholic (and therefore libertarian) schema, one would have to be able to choose his disposition in order to be morally accountable for it, and in that case his chosen disposition would be caused by some previous disposition (lest the chosen disposition be chosen arbitrarily), and either an infinite regress will ensue or people will have to admit that their dispositions are not chosen by the acting agents. And if you admit the latter, then you must deny free will.

Ben

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou,

1. The God of Jesus’s death was ultimately God’s decree/foreordination (Acts 4:27, 28), and proximately the hands of sinners and wicked men. More importantly, to say that Jesus died for sinners is certainly not to say that He died at the hands of sinners. It explains a purpose, not a cause. Jesus said that giving eternal life to His sheep was the purpose of His laying down His life.

It is both. He dies at the hands of sinners for the purpose of saving sinners.
As this is the weaker point, I recognized its incompleteness already.
As a critique, I am simply saying you did not fully address the range of meaning.

Again, I will ask you – did Jesus die for Judas? Is Judas a sheep?
For, you are using Sheep as equivalent to saved – yet a sheep may be bought, sold, lost, and found. All these are states which can CHANGE in time.
Judas shows the problem with Calvanistic interpretation of predestination quite clearly – a problem that St. Thomas barely navigates (I am not Thomistic, but his theory is possible – whereas Calvin’s really is not).

If you answer YES – then I have no need to defend the point for you agree on one example. If you answer NO – I will show that Judas’ state of salvation was lost.

You asked, “So, one can say Jesus died for sinners that ultimately went to hell.
Or do you hold that all sinners involved in the crucifixion were saved?” No, sir. I am a Calvinist. I believe that Jesus died to atone for the sins of His people and His people only. Jesus’s sacrifice actually effected salvation for people … therefore it is ]not the case that Jesus died for the Pharisees.

And I am saying that the temporary salvation of a sheep was also bought on the cross. That is, while Judas was saved — it was because of the merits of the crucifixion – but once Judas was lost, no further application of the merits was needed.

I am critiquing the Calvanist position as shallow – incomplete – not as a complete fallacy. The hardest arguments to combat are the Half-Truths.

Very few people would argue that the death of Jesus on the cross was to save someone who wasn’t saved. The difference is you appear to say – saved cannot be lost – and lost cannot be saved.

I will remind you, that if Jesus did not come to save the Pharisees – that St. Paul was not saved, for he is a Pharisee., Would you argue that? or would you argue that Judas was definitely saved?

1. You make an excellent point regarding ownership of the sheep. Jesus does not necessarily say that they are not sheep, just that they are not His sheep. However, I can say two things about this: (a) Jesus separates the sheep from the goats in Mattthew 25. It would make sense, though it is not necessary, that He is employing a similar analogy here. (b) More significantly, if sheep belong to someone else, then they are not the ones that choose to transfer ownership. If Jesus was implying that they were someone else’s sheep, and that they do not believe as a result (when belief is what makes people His sheep), then He’d be telling the Pharisees a tautology: “but you do not believe because you do not believe.”

Jesus does tell tautologies, for he also quotes scripture:
“There are none so blind as those who will not see”
Redundancy is a poetic device often used in Semitic writings – even ones which are not apparently poetic – eg: prophecy.
The subtle point is the will.

The whole point is that their belief in Him is under their control, whereas their status as sheepness (or as being His sheep) is not.

I would agree that one can not earn the status of sheep. If Jesus did not want to accept someone as a sheep – then they would not be able to become a sheep.
It is a gift of his which allows the change – BUT, as St. Paul says – God desires that all should be saved. Not decrees, but desires.

To say that God doesn’t desire some should be saved, as in those outside his flock, is something that leads quickly to double predestination – predestined to hell.
That’s not scriptural. God is Love — and as St. Paul says, he laid down his life for us when we were still enemies.

From this, I conclude that there is NO HUMAN BEING that God would gratuitously with-hold the gift from. Thus, lack of salvation depends on something other than God. eg: it is impossible to save them for some reason – eg: it would violate their free choice not to convert.

Now, don’t just take these two examples – as they are samples I find easy to grasp – but the reality is that one has to exhaust all possibilities before one could dare say that God’s love includes damning to eternal hell those who would have loved him given the gift. And the problem is that God is so far above us logically, that I don’t think it possibly, humanly, to do so. For this reason, I find the Calvanistic position to be too shallow.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

1. The point that Jesus is insulting them because “they were the shepherds in their own eyes” has no support at all from the passage. If it is a point, it is at least subsidiary to the main context of the passage.

It is broadly supported by the rest of scripture and in the context of this passage:
Jesus specifically says that the “hirelings” do not care for the sheep.
Again, in John 10:7 Jesus repeats the parable in a different way: Those others who have found their way in are all thieves and robbers.

He gives no exceptions in the whole of chapter 10. Clearly, he identifies a singular shepherd who is good – the rest being thieves and robbers. At minimum, the passage means: if Christ does not shepherd through his disciple – they shepherd in vain. But even then, the Pharisees are not his disciples at this time.

Are you saying that the Pharisees would not have taken offense at this?
Or are you arguing that the Pharisees did not view themselves as those with sight, with the authority to rule from Moses’ chair – Moses the shepherd – ?

1. Regarding my point that their non-sheepness logically precedes their unbelief, you said, “I don’t quite understand this point. Do you mean temporally? or as in ‘more important’ non-sheep is of higher causality?” What I mean is that their status as sheep is a cause of their actions of unbelief. They did not choose their status as sheep.

The passage does not prove that much. I would argue that no one can choose their status without the ability; and the ability is a gift – BUT that the gift is always offered when possible. I would also argue that one could have chosen to be a sheep in the past – but loose that status at a later point in time.

1. The passage does rule out that people become sheep by believing. Jesus mentions that there are other sheep that are His yet are currently outside the fold (v. 14). This description precludes the notion that people become His sheep by believing. They enter the fold by believing; but those who will believe are already His sheep prior to believing.

The fact that there are other sheep not of this fold does not rule out that he COULD purchase sheep not in either fold. There is nothing which DEFINITELY rules it out.
There is nothing in chapter 10 which equates the flocks he speaks of as being viewed from eternity – he very likely is speaking to the Pharisees about what they know – a flock grows and shrinks in TIME – and there are flocks of different kinds of sheep.

In John 6 – Jesus is talking to a crowd who ask: what must we do to do the work of God. Jesus responds: This is the work of God … believe …

It is the SAME author, John, who writes that passage as well.
There is a presumption that all can do this work – for in those passages to adults, Jesus makes being Godly contingent on a work – and many of them do not believe.
If it was purely a predestination issue – without free will – then Jesus misled the crowd. He ought to have said, those of you who are God’s will do good works – which would support but not prove your point.

There are different kinds of causality – temporal, material, and so forth.
A single kind of cause is not a guarantee the result will happen.
eg: Meeting and “seeing” Jesus is a cause of Faith – but that cause of Faith will not cause everyone to believe.

Just so; Being a sheep at one time or another does not always cause ultimate salvation.
The opposite, then, is also insufficient to prove or disprove salvation – not being a sheep at some time does not always cause ultimate damnation.

There is a way for change to occur.

 

[Nita]

Nita,

In my description, when I used “declare” I did not mean “cause.” I simply meant that God assigned the label. According to that summation, I said that God, as a result of seeing the Pharisees’ unbelief, declared that they were not His sheep.

Thanks for clarifying.
It was God Incarnate, Jesus, who “declared” they were not His sheep (they were sheep, but they were not of His flock).
But when speaking of God in His Divine Nature, it doesn’t seem to me that “declaring” is the right word to use when one doesn’t mean “cause”. “Declaring” is how God - pure Spirit - actively does things. Eg. creation.

(Keep in mind that I myself don’t believe that summation. I do believe that God foreordains people as elect or reprobate without regard to any works they might do and without “looking down the corridors of time” to see if they are good or not (cf. Rom. 9:11, 21), but I am not expressing my beliefs in this summation.)

I don’t want to sidetrack this thread, but I often wonder what the individual strict Predestinarian (such as yourself) sees as the purpose of his existence.

You said, “The parable seems to imply throughout that their is an interior disposition that is needed before one recognizes the voice of Jesus as the shepherd and then follows Him.” A statement like this can spark a huge conversation about compatibilism and libertarianism, so I’ll try to make it brief. Suffice it to say that in a Catholic (and therefore libertarian) schema, one would have to be able to choose his disposition in order to be morally accountable for it, and in that case his chosen disposition would be caused by some previous disposition (lest the chosen disposition be chosen arbitrarily), and either an infinite regress will ensue or people will have to admit that their dispositions are not chosen by the acting agents. And if you admit the latter, then you must deny free will.

Ben

I have not yet looked up the definitions of compatibilism and libertarianism - so, I’ll slip right by those terms for now. And maybe forever!!

It is not an infinite regress at all. Human’s have a beginning/birth in time, after all.
The interior disposition I’m referring to is more a result of actual choices we’ve made; rather than some thought, belief, or emotion we choose to have in an isolated sort of way. Eg. One can verbally say beforehand that he choose’s God and His will – but then when it is necessary for an actual choice to be made, he’ll choose contrary to God’s will. (Our Lord’s parable in Mt. 21:28-32, of the two sons who are asked to go into the field by their father, comes to mind.)

 

[Confessor01]

Huiou Theou,

No, Jesus did not die for Judas. How is this a problem?

Otherwise, strictly speaking, being a sheep does not equate being saved. I believe that the sheep represent the elect, but that the elect are not officially saved until brought to belief (brought into the sheep pen).

Furthermore, yes, sheep can be bought, sold, etc., but this is an action that the sheep do not choose.

“I will remind you, that if Jesus did not come to save the Pharisees – that St. Paul was not saved, for he is a Pharisee., Would you argue that? or would you argue that Judas was definitely saved?”

The Pharisees I’m speaking of are only the Pharisees that Jesus is talking to.

“BUT, as St. Paul says – God desires that all should be saved.”

Actually, I would dispute this (I’m assuming you’re referring to 1 Timothy 2:4), but this is for another thread.

Also, saying that the doctrine of reprobation cannot be true because “God is love” is obviously question-begging. I would go a bit further to ask you to read Romans 9 carefully.

-My point regarding your interpretation that the Pharisees are shepherds is that, if true, it is only subsidiary. Otherwise, I think you are providing decent support for the interpretation. But it doesn’t negate the points I am trying to make.

---

Nita,

Predestination rules. That’s all the purpose I need to talk about.

Honestly, through, I’m pretty sure there might be a significant misunderstanding of predestination that might lead to an abhorrence of it that might not exist otherwise. I’ll make a Q&A thread.

*It is not an infinite regress at all. Human’s have a beginning/birth in time, after all. *

If it is my argument that an infinite regress is conceptually required for free will, and you point out, “Well no, humans have a beginning,” well…that doesn’t exactly solve the problem. What it does show is that free will is impossible (if my point is correct, that is).

Furthermore, I understand that you believe the dispositions to be a result of choices (otherwise you, in your system, would have to deny that humans can be responsible for them), but the problem with that is that it’s impossible to choose a disposition without having a prior disposition “tilting” us that way.

If we chose anything without some motive, intent, disposition, inclination, etc., then the choice would be arbitrary and morality would be destroyed.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou,

No, Jesus did not die for Judas. How is this a problem?

Because Jesus admits to owning him as a sheep at one point – otherwise it is impossible that he would be lost. You can not loose something unless you have it in some way. This is drawn out explicitly in john 17:9 - 12.

RKB paraphrase.

John 17:9 – I am not praying for the world, but for those whom thou hast entrusted me; they belong to you;
John 17:10 – as all I have is yours, and all you have is mine and in them my glory is achieved.

In these first verses, the topic of who the prayer (of salvation/perserverence) is for is explicitly mentioned. Jesus is NOT praying for those of the “world”
So, then, the following statement’s inclusion of the word “lost” must mean a change of status of someone who was not of the world at one point.

John 17:10-12 – I am remaining in the world no longer, but they remain in the world, while I am on my way to you. Holy Father, keep them true to your name, your gift to me; and I have watched over them so that only one has been lost

If it were purely a pre-destination issue, then Judas wouldn’t be lost – he would have been made a throw away from the beginning. I don’t say that I have lost something unless I really wanted it. I would say, it’s no loss otherwise.
I see the same pattern in scripture, where the word appears to mean the same thing consistently. Calvanism would require me to ignore the evidence – I can’t do that.

Otherwise, strictly speaking, being a sheep does not equate being saved. I believe that the sheep represent the elect, but that the elect are not officially saved until brought to belief (brought into the sheep pen).

Now, that is a circular argument. You are defining the meaning of saved by your doctrine, rather than showing from scripture that saved is purely, and only, a permanent thing. Judas was LOST.

Furthermore, yes, sheep can be bought, sold, etc., but this is an action that the sheep do not choose.

The SHEEP DO CHOOSE to follow the good shepherd. In a public sheep pen – the way one gets the sheep out, while preventing theft of other sheep – is by CALLING them out by name. BUT if a sheep does not come – the owners of the pen will not allow the shepherd to go in and get it. The fact that they follow him is proof of their being his – Sheep herd together with those whom they know – they will not follow the voice of a strange shepherd. They will run away.
This is the real habit of sheep – even American ones do it.

“I will remind you, that if Jesus did not come to save the Pharisees – that St. Paul was not saved, for he is a Pharisee., Would you argue that? or would you argue that Judas was definitely saved?”

The Pharisees I’m speaking of are only the Pharisees that Jesus is talking to.

OK – but then, you can’t be certain it is all those Pharisees – because, St. Paul might have been there… And being Pharisee, then, has nothing to do with the non salvation of those Jesus is talking to. Thanks for the clarification.

“BUT, as St. Paul says – God desires that all should be saved.”

Actually, I would dispute this (I’m assuming you’re referring to 1 Timothy 2:4), but this is for another thread.

Also, saying that the doctrine of reprobation cannot be true because “God is love” is obviously question-begging. I would go a bit further to ask you to read Romans 9 carefully.

I think it would be wise to ask you to explain the meaning of the doctrine of reprobation as you understand it. There is a punishment in Catholic teaching; and I am not suggesting that God is Love means that he will not allow punishment for sin. I would further simply comment, in my view, that the sin itself becomes the punishment in eternity.

I have read Romans 9 several times in the past – and I don’t see anything which proves your point there.

-My point regarding your interpretation that the Pharisees are shepherds is that, if true, it is only subsidiary. Otherwise, I think you are providing decent support for the interpretation. But it doesn’t negate the points I am trying to make.

Could you repeat and clarify those points?

For, the problem I am having – is that the Pharisees would not have thought the position of sheep applied to them. I don’t see anywhere in the parable that Jesus says – there are only sheep and shepherds in this world. Perhaps they thought they were Camels…

The thing is, you need to show that Jesus intended the image of sheep to mean everyone that is saved does not choose in any way at all.

 

[Nita]

Nita

It certainly solves the problem as to whether regression backwards in time can be infinite in regards to an individual human making choices!! God is the infinite party, but not the human.
Re your statement above that infinite regress is “conceptually required” for free will. Just because you make the statement, does not make it true. You certainly have not proved it.

.

 

[Nita]

Honestly, through, I’m pretty sure there might be a significant misunderstanding of predestination that might lead to an abhorrence of it that might not exist otherwise. I’ll make a Q&A thread.
.

Hi Ben,
I would really like it if you would open a thread where you are open to questions about predestination. I just have several, but I do not want to sidetrack this thread. I thought of opening a thread, but I did not know if you would happen to tap into it and am not sure if there are any other Predestinarians currently active.