John 10:26

[Confessor01]

Huiou Theou,

1. John 17:10 (NIV) says of Judas, “None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” I can hardly imagine that this is talking about someone for whose sins Christ died. More importantly, Jesus is not saying that this one is part of the “them” earlier – of whom Jesus says, “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me.” In any case, it is far from obvious that Jesus died for Judas in that passage.

Keep in mind that Jesus does not say that Judas has been “lost” in any sense that would imply a frustrated purpose. In fact, Jesus speaks of Judas as “doomed to destruction.” If anything, it would stress predestination rather than deny it.

Confessor01:

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.

Please understand that I was merely stating my belief at that point, not providing an exhaustive exegesis and proof of my belief. For the record, though, I think it’s rather obvious from the text that people outside the sheep pen are not at the moment saved. Can you agree with me on that?

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.

If you want to say that sheep choose their shepherd – which is dubious, in my opinion, especially given your previous statements of how they’re bought and sold, and for other reasons – you must look again at John 10:26: “But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.” Jesus is not saying that they do not believe (note: do not choose to believe) and therefore are not his sheep. No, Jesus is saying rather that because they are not his sheep, it follows that they do not believe.

In other words, if you want to say that someone becomes one of Jesus’s sheep by believing (which it seems you would have to do), then you would be inverting the order of Jesus’s statement in John 10:26. Simply stating that sheep choose their own shepherds – which is odd to begin with, in my opinion – ends up contradicting the text explicitly.

1. By the “doctrine of reprobation,” I am referring to the doctrine that God predestines people to hell.

Also, don’t worry about Romans 9 for now. That’s an entirely different topic of discussion.

1. Regarding your contention that the Pharisees thought of themselves as shepherds and were therefore insulted when Christ called them sheep, I just have this to say: I do not mind if that idea is true. I have not heard of it before, but it would make sense. However, whether it is true or false, I don’t think it has any bearing on the points I am trying to make about John 10:26.

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.

For what it’s worth, Calvinists still believe that people choose Christ – it’s just that Calvinists believe that one can choose Christ if and only if God first predestines them to. (Just for clarification’s sake.)

Otherwise, I would simply point to John 10:26. Jesus died for His sheep. The Pharisees are not His sheep, and as a consequence of not being His sheep, they do not believe. Also, in believing, people obtain everlasting life. Seeing as placing faith/believing in Christ are choices, it follows that the status as Christ’s sheep or non-Christ’s sheep (whether one is a goat or a sheep of another shepherd…or a camel ), is ultimately not chosen.

---

Nita,

1. You stated that I did not prove that free will required an infinite regress. But, surely, I did argue that it did. If you believe my argument is inadequate, would you please explain why? Here is my argument:

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.

1. Here is the Q&A thread.

Ben

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou,

1. John 17:10 (NIV) says of Judas, “None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.”

None of the Greek copies I looked at appear to have that additional phrase in John 17:10 – its down in John 17:12

I can hardly imagine that this is talking about someone for whose sins Christ died.

Do you know the scriptures that were fulfilled when Jesus spoke those words?

More importantly, Jesus is not saying that this one is part of the “them” earlier – of whom Jesus says, “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me.”
In any case, it is far from obvious that Jesus died for Judas in that passage.

It is far from obvious that Jesus died for any given person – because you have to judge them in order to decide. That puts one in danger of being found unworthy by itself – as does the Pharisee and the Tax collector parable. So, to wantonly judge is to be UN-justified. My position is the logical one.

Also;
Judas was a disciple, and when Judas went out preaching – no harm came to him.
So, clearly the passage DOES include Judas – it must or the scriptures would not have been made fully vindicated.

Keep in mind that Jesus does not say that Judas has been “lost” in any sense that would imply a frustrated purpose. In fact, Jesus speaks of Judas as “doomed to destruction.” If anything, it would stress predestination rather than deny it.

Sorry, the passage will not support your reading:
The word lost is απωλ-ετο. It is a third person, Imperfect, in the middle voice.
The statement is parenthetical by the Gospel writer and it explicitly describing that which is VERY personal to Jesus.

Preserving Greek word order, it reads:
… lost (to himself) if not the son (I mean the son of) Apo-leias so that the scriptures fully-fill.

The word is only used where a catastrophic loss happens to a person. The person it is applied to here – is Jesus.

It is found in Jonas 4:10, Isaiah 57:1, all over lamentations, and in the NT: a particularly clear example is Revelation 18:14. The word speaks LOADS of frustration for our Lord as incarnate. There are tons of examples and no counter examples in the whole of the NT, OT, when that word is used in the middle voice, Imperfect – someone is emotionally miserable.

Also, St John is waxing poetic here – for the word loss and the word for perdition, which is acting as a name here, are spelled very close to the same.
John also states the loss, as : not one he lost if not the son of ‘loss’ …
And that is correct, if Judas is not lost – Jesus lost no one.

Please understand that I was merely stating

** my belief at that point, not providing an exhaustive exegesis and proof of my belief. For the record, though, I think it’s rather obvious from the text that people outside the sheep pen are not at the moment saved. Can you agree with me on that?
Not really – how do you figure? Jesus says he has other sheep not of this flock. Now, I don’t see them acting as sheep – but I do expect Jesus means Melchizadech, and other leaders like him even to the day Jesus spoke. That God had prophets outside of the people of Israel is attested to in scripture; so I see no problem with a few individuals having faith at an earlier date who were not alive at the time Jesus spoke the parable.

If you want to say that sheep choose their shepherd – which is dubious, in my opinion, especially given your previous statements of how they’re bought and sold,

The point of my previous statement is that their status changes in they eyes of God over time. In a predestination biased orientation, the tendency is to deny free will. One chooses because they must – and the outcome is already determined before birth. I find that position a gross confusion of the SOVREIGNITY of God over history – with the TOTALITY of the means of salvation. If you don’t hold what I am saying – perhaps you are more Thomistic than Calvanists I have talked to in the past.

In other words, if you want to say that someone becomes one of Jesus’s sheep by believing (which it seems you would have to do), then you would be inverting the order of Jesus’s statement in John 10:26.

No, I would be saying the conversion of shepherds into sheep is not a normal parable topic – and isn’t covered.

Also – I take his statement as an if and only if, it goes both ways. While they are not his sheep – they do not believe; While they do not believe – they are not his sheep.
But they can change. Jesus nowhere says – You pharisees, the hired shepherds, can’t become sheep in my parable. I think it would be obvious to them that if they became his disciples, they would become his sheep.

And I find it rediculous to take a parable and stretch it to the level you are doing.

Simply stating that sheep choose their own shepherds – which is odd to begin with, in my opinion – ends up contradicting the text explicitly.

I would phrase that “reject” their own shepherd – for I have nowhere said that one can have a shepherd unless there is a shepherd there to have. He first has to offer his call before one can follow him – otherwise the sheep wouldn’t know where he is. But, there is NOTHING strange about a sheep or two running away – eg: the parable of the lost sheep…and lost sheep do not always survive.

I need to take a break, but I’ll come back to point 4 in a short while.**

 

[Huiou_Theou]

1. By the “doctrine of reprobation,” I am referring to the doctrine that God predestines people to hell.

The way you have stated that is heresy, of course. There is not ONE example of predestination to hell. That is what I would call double-predestination – and I see no reason to believe in it whatsoever. I don’t recall St. Thomas saying it was necessary either – athough his predestination theory is still acceptable.

1. Regarding your contention that the Pharisees thought of themselves as shepherds…

But you don’t see that Jesus’s parable is not completely condemnitory?

The hireling is in the third rendition of the Parable – the images change in each version – which shows they are not absolutes. The hireling is not completely evil – he just runs away when the wicked come. But the hireling is not a sheep – and there is nothing to say the hireling isn’t saved.

For what it’s worth, Calvinists still believe that people choose Christ – it’s just that Calvinists believe that one can choose Christ if and only if God first predestines them to. (Just for clarification’s sake.)

OK. I have no problem with that statement. Why then, are you arguing with Nita over free will?

Otherwise, I would simply point to John 10:26. Jesus died for His sheep.

I will point out that nowhere in John 10:26 does Jesus say that he will NOT save the hireling as well as the sheep. You have an argument full of holes.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

One little bonus tidbit for the lurkers: I think that St. John, rather than being a “sloppy” Greek writer as some have told me he was (eg:before I started studying) – I am pretty much convinced that John is a master of double entendre (double meanings). Whenever I find a difficult bit of grammar, I usually find a second meaning which is stunning.

Case in point: In my first grammar book the word ει was shown to mean “if” in one place and “are you” in another. (There were no accents in the Orignal Greek).
Now, 99% of the time “are you” makes no sense – and I have gotten to the point where I rarely (if ever) bother to see if it fits anymore … but it does here in John. Try replacing “if” with “are you” in “not one is-lost-to-him if not the son I-mean-of perdition.”

Wow.

Ps,. Heresy is not the same as Heretic.

God bless.

 

[Confessor01]

Huiou Theou,

None of the Greek copies I looked at appear to have that additional phrase in John 17:10 – its down in John 17:12

Yeah, I meant John 17:12. My mistake.

Do you know the scriptures that were fulfilled when Jesus spoke those words?

No, I do not.

It is far from obvious that Jesus died for any given person – because you have to judge them in order to decide. That puts one in danger of being found unworthy by itself – as does the Pharisee and the Tax collector parable. So, to wantonly judge is to be UN-justified. My position is the logical one.

You are conflating two notions here: (1) that Jesus died for specific people, and (2) that everyone knows who those specific people are. I am claiming (1), not (2).

Sorry, the passage will not support your reading:
The word lost is απωλ-ετο. It is a third person, Imperfect, in the middle voice.
The statement is parenthetical by the Gospel writer and it explicitly describing that which is VERY personal to Jesus.

Preserving Greek word order, it reads:
… lost (to himself) if not the son (I mean the son of) Apo-leias so that the scriptures fully-fill.

The word is only used where a catastrophic loss happens to a person. The person it is applied to here – is Jesus.

It is found in Jonas 4:10, Isaiah 57:1, all over lamentations, and in the NT: a particularly clear example is Revelation 18:14. The word speaks LOADS of frustration for our Lord as incarnate. There are tons of examples and no counter examples in the whole of the NT, OT, when that word is used in the middle voice, Imperfect – someone is emotionally miserable.

It doubtless was very emotional for Jesus to have been betrayed as He did. But it doesn’t follow that He died for Judas.

Not really – how do you figure? Jesus says he has other sheep not of this flock. Now, I don’t see them acting as sheep – but I do expect Jesus means Melchizadech, and other leaders like him even to the day Jesus spoke. That God had prophets outside of the people of Israel is attested to in scripture; so I see no problem with a few individuals having faith at an earlier date who were not alive at the time Jesus spoke the parable.

You think that by, “I have other sheep not of this flock” Jesus is referring to other leaders? I would disagree with this; it certainly seems that He is talking about all believers – all for whom He died (v. 15), and all who obtain everlasting life (v. 28).

Also – I take his statement as an if and only if, it goes both ways. While they are not his sheep – they do not believe; While they do not believe – they are not his sheep.

I don’t believe the statement can be taken as such. “Because” necessitates that non-sheepness is the cause of unbelief, not that they each imply each other. If I were to say, “I got a cheeseburger because pizza was unavailable,” my getting a cheeseburger would not cause the absence of pizzas; likewise, “You do not believe because you are not my sheep” does not somehow say that unbelief causes non-sheepness!

But they can change. Jesus nowhere says – You pharisees, the hired shepherds, can’t become sheep in my parable. I think it would be obvious to them that if they became his disciples, they would become his sheep.

But He did imply (1) that He did not die for them, (2) that they would not receive eternal life, and (3) that unless their status was changed, they could not believe (i.e., if they couldn’t change their status, they couldn’t obtain everlasting life – showing that ultimately it was outside their direct control. Salvation is of the Lord.).

But, there is NOTHING strange about a sheep or two running away – eg: the parable of the lost sheep…and lost sheep do not always survive.

Notice that in the parable of the lost sheep, those sheep remain the shepherd’s sheep even though they are outside the pen and even though those sheep represent God’s people who are not behaving as they should. On the contrary, Jesus tells the Pharisees not only that they are outside the sheep pen, but that they are not His sheep and that as a result of this they do not believe.

The way you have stated that is heresy, of course. There is not ONE example of predestination to hell. That is what I would call double-predestination – and I see no reason to believe in it whatsoever.

I realize that a Calvinist doctrine is rejected by Catholics as heresy.

Why then, are you arguing with Nita over free will?

Free will implies that everyone has an innate capacity to accept or reject Christ. I am saying that God gives His elect that capacity, and that when His elect have that it necessarily results in saving faith.

I will point out that nowhere in John 10:26 does Jesus say that he will NOT save the hireling as well as the sheep. You have an argument full of holes.

Why is the hireling significant at all in this discussion?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You are conflating two notions here: (1) that Jesus died for specific people, and (2) that everyone knows who those specific people are. I am claiming (1), not (2).

How misleading: (1) could mean he died for all people.
If you don’t have evidence of at least one person that Jesus did not die for – then you can’t prove (1).

It doubtless was very emotional for Jesus to have been betrayed as He did. But it doesn’t follow that He died for Judas.

It does follow, however, that if you hold Judas is damned – that Judas was LOST and NOT thrown away. That is the point of the Greek – you can’t have both that Judas was lost – AND – that he was never Jesus’ sheep.

There is NO change of subject in the passages I cited. The 12 are included in the whole of that section – and Judas was one of the 12.

You think that by, “I have other sheep not of this flock” Jesus is referring to other leaders? I would disagree with this; it certainly seems that He is talking about all believers – all for whom He died (v. 15), and all who obtain everlasting life (v. 28).

You’re not making any sense.
Does a leader or prophet who speaks the word of God NOT believe?
Melchizadech is the one who’s priesthood Jesus takes ON.

I can understand claiming that Melchizadech is not a sheep – but not calling him an unbeliever ?!

Judas is provably a sheep at one time – he was LOST – if you deny that he died for Judas, who was clearly included in the statement about “lost”, then there are some SHEEP he did not die for – and you logic is gibberish.

I don’t believe the statement can be taken as such. “Because” necessitates that non-sheepness is the cause of unbelief, not that they each imply each other. If I were to say, “I got a cheeseburger because pizza was unavailable,” my getting a cheeseburger would not cause the absence of pizzas; likewise,

Actually there is not enough information to prove whether or not your getting a cheeseburger is the cause of there being no pizza. Quite simply, it is possible that you did not want a Pizza – and therefore told the pizza vendor not to make it – and then since they did not make it, you went and got a burger.

You would have to add a few statements to make it certain.

The problem is, Jesus doesn’t define why they are not his sheep.
I am saying it is because they freely don’t want to be.

But He did imply (1) that He did not die for them, (2) that they would not receive eternal life, and (3) that unless their status was changed, they could not believe (i.e., if they couldn’t change their status, they couldn’t obtain everlasting life – showing that ultimately it was outside their direct control. Salvation is of the Lord.).

And he implied the Syro Phonecian woman could not be saved, as she was a “dog” and he turned her down the first time she asked – but, then, she was saved. What is your point?

Notice that in the parable of the lost sheep, those sheep remain the shepherd’s sheep even though they are outside the pen and even though those sheep represent God’s people who are not behaving as they should.

That is not clear at all. For God owns the whole world and everything in it – even the damned. BUT – The word LOST means that they aren’t in his possesion.
The word I quoted in Greek is EXPLICIT about that.

On the contrary, Jesus tells the Pharisees not only that they are outside the sheep pen, but that they are not His sheep and that as a result of this they do not believe.

He says nothing of where the Pharisees are – he only says what they are not. – not sheep, and that they do not believe.

Please quote where he says – you are outside the sheep pen as a location.
Quote where he denies them being hirelings, too.

I realize that a Calvinist doctrine is rejected by Catholics as heresy.

so do I.

Free will implies that everyone has an innate capacity to accept or reject Christ. I am saying that God gives His elect that capacity, and that when His elect have that it necessarily results in saving faith.

You’re wrong.
.
Free will does not give anyone an innate ability to accept what is not within reach – nor reject what isn’t there. Nor is Free will omnipotent that it can effectively reject things such as Gravity.

I have already made this clear – if Jesus is not offering a call, one can not reject him. I do not deny that Jesus COULD call someone irresistably; But you are far from proving that he always does so.

Why is the hireling significant at all in this discussion?

Because they are in the parable! They are not damned explicity – and the implication is that if he was willing to hire them, he is not adverse to helping them.
If God guards the sheep pen – then the hireling has no fear of the wolf.

Peter and others are also called “shepherds” not “SHEEP”.

You are putting words of restriction in Jesus’ mouth that aren’t there.
As the syro-phonecian woman is wiser than you, for she said: “even the dogs eat the scraps under the master’s table.”

There is a huge difference between Jesus saying ONLY sheep are saved and saying sheep are saved. He did not say the former.

There is also one other obvious loophole – The Pharisees could have been sheep in the past who are NOW lost, and therefore the only way they could not be sheep is that they have ALREADY rejected him and DIED. . Now, since rejection is a ONE WAY proposition ince someone is dead – they are not sheep, and therefore can’t change themselves into sheep again.

Free will is not able to undo everything it does.

 

[Confessor01]

How misleading: (1) could mean he died for all people.
If you don’t have evidence of at least one person that Jesus did not die for – then you can’t prove (1).

First, by (1) I meant that Jesus died only for specific people. I apologize for making it misleading.

Second, I am not presently proving the doctrine. Please don’t change the subject of the thread. This thread is not a full-fledged exegesis and proof of particular atonement; it is an analysis of John 10:26 and what might be derived therefrom.

It does follow, however, that if you hold Judas is damned – that Judas was LOST and NOT thrown away. That is the point of the Greek – you can’t have both that Judas was lost – AND – that he was never Jesus’ sheep.

Why can’t I say he was never one of Jesus’s sheep?

There is NO change of subject in the passages I cited. The 12 are included in the whole of that section – and Judas was one of the 12.

Can you explain what you mean here? I’m not sure exactly what you’re referencing.

You’re not making any sense.
Does a leader or prophet who speaks the word of God NOT believe?
Melchizadech is the one who’s priesthood Jesus takes ON.

I can understand claiming that Melchizadech is not a sheep – but not calling him an unbeliever ?!

Judas is provably a sheep at one time – he was LOST – if you deny that he died for Judas, who was clearly included in the statement about “lost”, then there are some SHEEP he did not die for – and you logic is gibberish.

Now you accuse me of gibberish and being nonsensical. No offense, but I would really appreciate it if you made your arguments clearer. When we’re talking about John 10:26 and you immediately pull over to John 17 and talk about the connotations of the Greek word for “lost,” the relevance of Melchizedek, and other seemingly tangential issues, and then I, in attempting to understand where you’re going, apparently misunderstand you, I don’t appreciate personal remarks.

Also, I never called Melchizedek an unbeliever. I argued against the interpretation that Jesus’s sheep were only leaders like Melchizedek.

Actually there is not enough information to prove whether or not your getting a cheeseburger is the cause of there being no pizza. Quite simply, it is possible that you did not want a Pizza – and therefore told the pizza vendor not to make it – and then since they did not make it, you went and got a burger.

You would have to add a few statements to make it certain.

The problem is, Jesus doesn’t define why they are not his sheep.
I am saying it is because they freely don’t want to be.

No matter what, “P because Q” always denotes that Q is in some way the cause of P. Whether it be necessary or sufficient, it doesn’t matter, Q is the cause in some way. The Pharisees’ status as not being Christ’s sheep causes their unbelief in some way.

Now, you say that their non-sheepness is the case because they freely don’t want to be His sheep. So, in effect, Christ is telling them, “You don’t choose to believe because you have not chosen to be my sheep.” Do you not see any nonsense to such a statement? If Christ were trying to teach the primacy of their free choice (rather than the primacy of their non-chosen status as sheep or not), wouldn’t that be about the worst way to say it?

And he implied the Syro Phonecian woman could not be saved, as she was a “dog” and he turned her down the first time she asked – but, then, she was saved. What is your point?

Actually “dog,” could easily imply that she’s unregenerate, not reprobate. In any case, you didn’t answer the point I was making.

He says nothing of where the Pharisees are – he only says what they are not. – not sheep, and that they do not believe.

His saying what they are not is quite sufficient for my point to be made here. Moreover, He tells them not only that they do not believe, but that they don’t believe because they are not His sheep.

Please quote where he says – you are outside the sheep pen as a location.

Jesus states that all who enter through Him, the gate, will be saved (v. 9). The Pharisees presently don’t believe and therefore have not entered through the gate.

Quote where he denies them being hirelings, too.

No offense, but why?

Free will does not give anyone an innate ability to accept what is not within reach – nor reject what isn’t there. Nor is Free will omnipotent that it can effectively reject things such as Gravity.

I understand that. I never said that free will implies some omnipotent superpower.

Because they are in the parable! They are not damned explicity – and the implication is that if he was willing to hire them, he is not adverse to helping them.
If God guards the sheep pen – then the hireling has no fear of the wolf.

I understand that the hireling is in the parable; I am asking you how his role specifically contributes to your counterarguments against me. At the moment, I do not see how this reverses the causal order established in John 10:26. In fact, I simply do not understand what you are trying to say.

Please, please, take your time to respond and organize your thoughts. Responding as fast as possible is not necessarily virtuous. Right now I am having a hard following what you’re saying, and I would appreciate it if you clarified and explained yourself, even if it takes more space and time.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

                                            You think that by, "I have other sheep not of this flock" Jesus is referring to other *leaders*? I would disagree with this; it certainly seems that He is talking about *all* believers -- all for whom He died (v. 15), and all who obtain everlasting life (v. 28).

The above is what you said –

With regard to your second reply. I did not say ONLY leaders, I said leaders.
These leaders are not tangents, they are directly referenced by “other sheep”.
The “fold” Jesus is working with in chapter 10 – is the fold of Israel.
Any non-Israelite, then, is of a different fold.

You disagree, saying they are not sheep, and follow it with a statement that he is talking about all believers. Therefore, if sheep refers to all believers, you have just claimed Melchizadek is an unbeliever; logically he is not saved then.
.
Now: I am allowing that shepherds can become sheep and vice versa.
But I understand that this does not need to be so.

Nowhere in the passage does Jesus claim that only sheep are saved – but you do.

Notice:
Hirelings do not “find their way in” – eg: they are not thieves and robbers.
ergo: not being a sheep is insufficient to prove non-salvation.
The state of salvation of shepherds is not considered in the parable – but it is reasonable to expect they are saved; it is your job to prove they are not.

Also, The passage defines sheep as those who listen; Everyone hearing the parables had a choice – listen or ignore – that is how one became a sheep.
So, listening leads to being a sheep and being a sheep leads to belief.
There is no predestination stranglehold on this passage.

Before the cause of being a sheep lies the cause of listening.
You don’t listen – you’re not a sheep.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Please, please, take your time to respond and organize your thoughts. Responding as fast as possible is not necessarily virtuous. Right now I am having a hard following what you’re saying, and I would appreciate it if you clarified and explained yourself, even if it takes more space and time.

I am not able to fully organize my thoughts, I have anxiety based OCD and major depression. Unfortunately I have the state of Oregon driving my anxiety through the roof right now – I mostly am here trying to let go. I apologize that I made the comment about gibberesh – I had that comment made to me the last time I was here, and it is ringing in my head. I am not always able to control my thoughts once adrenaline kicks in.

I haven’t said much except that the parables are open ended. There are three of them; Jesus is not always the door in these parables; nor is there any reason to believe that he is totally against shepherds – hirelings.

The prophecy concerning the betrayer said that it was “My own close friend” who did the act. But one is not a friend, unless one listens. Judas listened and followed for a time, he was counted one of the twelve. The idea of betrayal did not occur until later.

The passage I cited is where Jesus talks about keeping those given to him safe.
There are a handful of verses; and reading through them – they all are on the same subject – those who are Jesus’.

Now, that any one could be lost, and that this loss is frustrating, is sufficient to show that the state of salvation can change. That is incompatible with a pure predestination stance.

I am not a Thomist – and so there are subtleties that I can not explain from his standpoint – those perhaps would be more understandable to you as he has a theory of predestination. If we are lucky, a Thomist may join the thread.

 

[Confessor01]

Huiou Theou,

(1) I did not disagree saying that the specific leaders you mentioned are not sheep; I said that the category of sheep was not limited to only leaders. However, I still do not understand how this is relevant.

(2)

Nowhere in the passage does Jesus claim that only sheep are saved – but you do.

When Jesus talks very specifically about His care for His sheep, how He alone is the shepherd, and how how He dies for His sheep and procures eternal life for them…do you really not see any implications of particular love there? Do you really think Jesus is saying, “I lay down my life for my sheep, and I gain them eternal life. But, you know, I do other stuff for other people too.” On the contrary, that would be a gross example of eisegesis, imposing the meaning on the text.

(3)

Hirelings do not “find their way in” – eg: they are not thieves and robbers.
ergo: not being a sheep is insufficient to prove non-salvation.

Thank you for explaining. However, given that the sheep are the ones who gain eternal life by Christ’s sacrifice, it is fairly obvious, in my estimation, that the hireling is not in the scope of the redeemed. In fact, given the way Jesus speaks of the hireling, He seems to be referring to a false savior, one who cannot save the sheep from the wolves – i.e., an idol.

(4)

Also, The passage defines sheep as those who listen; Everyone hearing the parables had a choice – listen or ignore – that is how one became a sheep.
So, listening leads to being a sheep and being a sheep leads to belief.

It describes sheep as “those who listen” – it does not imply that listening is a sufficient cause of becoming a sheep. And, more importantly, to distinguish “listening,” i.e. following and trusting the Shepherd, from “belief,” i.e. saving faith, is unwarranted.

(5)

Before the cause of being a sheep lies the cause of listening.
You don’t listen – you’re not a sheep.

Please note here what you said: if listening were the cause of being a sheep, then it could properly be said, “You don’t listen because you’re not a sheep.” But you removed “because” from your quote, namely because that would be a complete inversion of what John 10:26 actually says.

(6) I’ll be praying for your anxiety-based OCD and depression. I can only imagine how that would affect my life.

(7)

The prophecy concerning the betrayer said that it was “My own close friend” who did the act. But one is not a friend, unless one listens. Judas listened and followed for a time, he was counted one of the twelve. The idea of betrayal did not occur until later.

I do not doubt that Judas was a friend, and that he even displayed some type of trust in Jesus. But I deny that he had legitimate saving faith, actually trusting in Christ for salvation from his sins. If nothing else, this cannot be established from the text, and I’m fairly certain that Judas’s saving faith is not something that can be assumed until disproved by the text.

(8)

The passage I cited is where Jesus talks about keeping those given to him safe.
There are a handful of verses; and reading through them – they all are on the same subject – those who are Jesus’.

Thanks again for explaining. Regarding these passages, however, I would maintain basically what I said in (7): to say that Jesus will protect all who are “His” does not imply that Judas was truly one of His. He was a disciple, but it is clear that he was “doomed to destruction” and that in some sense he was a wicked intruder and traitor, not someone who had saving faith.

(9)

Now, that any one could be lost, and that this loss is frustrating, is sufficient to show that the state of salvation can change. That is incompatible with a pure predestination stance.

Showing that a loss is frustrating in the sense that it made Jesus sad would not be sufficient to prove that Judas’s state of salvation changed, though. The loss needs to be one that frustrated the desires of God, not that made Jesus sad. If nothing else, I think the meaning of “lost” in John 17:12 is insufficient to prove that Judas was in a state of salvation and lost from there – it just isn’t clear from the text. Moreover, when we see that he was “doomed to destruction,” this gives credibility to the notion that he was eternally destined for it and therefore not in a state of salvation at any point.

For organization’s sake, you can just reply to my (1) with a (1) of your own, etc., if you want. That would save space and the effort of quoting and copying and pasting.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I need to make two corrections and a comment that do not affect the immediate discussion; but would be useful for people in the future trying to understand the line of thought I am pursuing.

When I stated that I took being a sheep as an if and only if statement – it did not occur to me that being a sheep does not logically and instantly identify with believing. I over restricted what the scriptures said myself – my apologies.

Being a sheep is a cause, but not sufficient by itself. That is, being a sheep does not guarantee belief by itself.

Secondly, with regard to the Greek – This is the first time I have personally translated the exception clause applied normally to Judas. Virtually all English translations loose the subtlety of how it is phrased – and I was quite surprised at what it exactly said – that forced me to reconsider how I stated things previously.

Secondly, although this does not affect the meaning:
I stated that the alternate reading of the verb, ει, is “Are you” – that is also unintentionally ambiguous. In Greek – It is not a question – but a statement of fact “You are” would be more appropriate in English.

I realize that these issues complicate the argument, but truth is more important than ease of reading – and there is no “do over” button in the forums.

…

Ben, I will get to what you said in a bit when I am able to think clearly enough.

–Andrew.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou,
(2) … He alone … eisegesis …

If we are to start throwing the eisegesis stone, then start with yourself.
“One” shepherd is not ONLY one. “One” flock is not ONLY one.

I am not reading into scripture restrictions which are not there – that is eisegesis.
I am allowing a plurality of interpretations – it is not for me to take God’s word and shoehorn it.

Think about it:
You are trinitarian, therefore ONE God means three persons.

In Revelation John talks about the 7 “out-callings” – the word for church is actually along the lines of the shepherd’s call. There are 7 out callings in Revelation, so, in Revelation there are logically 7 flocks. They are ONE – not in number but in unity.

That there are more than one shepherd, in number, is obvious – for Peter is told to “feed my sheep” by Jesus himself. Nor is the perfection or imperfection of these shepherds an issue, for God’s purpose included striking the shepherd so that the sheep would scatter.

A hireling is paid – Jesus says to Peter who “has left everything” to follow Jesus – that he will be repaid 100x and receive eternal life besides. So that it is clear that Jesus wanted to make sure that shepherds knew they would receive eternal life as well as the sheep.

Mark 10:29.

Sheep do not need to leave their home in all cases – Shepherds do.

Jesus became very angry with the pharisees who tied up heavy burdens hard to carry, and who prevented people from coming to heaven by those burdens. It was his purpose to open the way to heaven (himself) – so when you say he allows no other way to heaven, you too are tying up a heavy burden. We are bound by Jesus’ rules – he is not. If he does not make it impossible, why do you?

To prove your point from this passage, John 10, you need to show that it is the only interpretation – don’t go asking me “if I think” baiting me into eisegesis !

If you have the evidence from scripture which is irrefutable – bring it fourth.

The parables INCLUDE other characters who could be saved – it is not my burden to show they are saved – it is yours to show they are not.

They are not sheep in the parables, and although I allow that they are convertible, it is not proven. Far from reading my meaning into scripture – I am seeing them explicitly in Scripture; and explicitly NOT sheep.

I therefore point them out as one obstacle to your interpretation.
If you wish to show them non-essential – then remove them by explicit proof.
But their existence, and the existence of “dogs” who have faith, shows that Jesus did not limit himself to saving only sheep.

When he says one, you have to prove “ONLY one” (not imagine it there).
When he says shepherds, you have to show their non-salvation.
If you can not do that – then your doctrine does not come from John 10.
Perhaps it comes from other scriptures, but NOT from this set of parables.

 

[Confessor01]

Huiou Theou,

(1) I agree that being a sheep does not itself mean that someone believes (v. 16). It is not a sufficient cause in that respect. But it is yet a necessary cause of belief.

(2)

If we are to start throwing the eisegesis stone, then start with yourself.
“One” shepherd is not ONLY one. “One” flock is not ONLY one.

On the contrary, when Jesus mentions how He is “the” shepherd, and that He lays down His life for His sheep in order to give them eternal life, it would take quite an irrational twisting of the passage to presume that He is talking of anything other than the totality of the redeemed. It’s fairly obvious from the text, and the text does not need to also say, “There are not other flocks.”

(3)

That there are more than one shepherd, in number, is obvious – for Peter is told to “feed my sheep” by Jesus himself. Nor is the perfection or imperfection of these shepherds an issue, for God’s purpose included striking the shepherd so that the sheep would scatter.

It’s not at all obvious. First, you cannot use another analogy as if it’s the one that Jesus was employing in John 10. Second, Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep,” v. 11. This notably precludes that there other shepherds. Presumably you could argue that He is saying that He’s the only “good” shepherd (and there could still be other shepherds, just that they are not “good”), but you run into manifold problems, especially if you consider Peter to be a shepherd.

(4)

A hireling is paid – Jesus says to Peter who “has left everything” to follow Jesus – that he will be repaid 100x and receive eternal life besides. So that it is clear that Jesus wanted to make sure that shepherds knew they would receive eternal life as well as the sheep.

Are you really trying to connect the hireling in the illustration with people who give up everything for Jesus – simply because the former is paid and the latter receives an eternal reward (eternal “payment”)?

(5)

To prove your point from this passage, John 10, you need to show that it is the only interpretation – don’t go asking me “if I think” baiting me into eisegesis !

If you have the evidence from scripture which is irrefutable – bring it fourth.

No offense, but you can’t just put this forth as if it’s an argument. I have time and again shown how the logical primacy of “sheep” to “belief” in v. 26 stresses God’s sovereignty in salvation (and specifically, reprobation), so you must either engage the specific arguments I have presented or concede. You can’t just talk about how I’ve not done this.

(6)

They are not sheep in the parables, and although I allow that they are convertible, it is not proven. Far from reading my meaning into scripture – I am seeing them explicitly in Scripture; and explicitly NOT sheep.

What do the Pharisees have to do to convert? They have to believe, right? But that is precisely what they cannot do. “But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.” The Pharisees need to change their status in order to believe, but they need to believe in order to change their status. It looks like they are in a position that is ultimately unchosen.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou,
(1) I agree… But it is yet a necessary…

OK; we have one agreement. That’s a start.

BUT: Show that it is necessary for all people to be sheep in order to believe.
That is is necessary for those to whom Jesus speaks, I will concede.
But, that they were sheep by birth – and are disowned by their refusal to listen.
That is what I can and do hold. Once they refuse to listen, they can’t then listen again without Jesus offering them reconciliation – a second chance.

That they were changing is evident from the passages which follow – for it led to a fresh division among the Jews. This isn’t the same division of sheep and non-sheep that went before.

(2) He is “the” shepherd … does not need to also say, “There are not other flocks.”

Irrational has nothing to do with it. Pythagoras proved irrational numbers, and was killed for the proof. Even your insult uses ignorance as its basis. Pythagoras was RIGHT

The passage explicitly says there are other FLOCKS. Not only that, but in Greek – it could be a flock of dogs or cows. There are several places where Greek scripture writers refer to flocks which are not just sheep or not sheep at all – with the exact same word as is used for a flock of sheep.

I will concede ONLY that the people Jesus is speaking to – who are Israelites by birth – need to be his sheep in order to believe. But again, all they had to do was listen and follow him in order to become his sheep. As it is, they are the lost sheep of Israel.

… you cannot use another analogy … “I am the good shepherd.” …

If there were no connection between the analogies, I could not use it – but there is.

Throughout the old testament, God uses the image of sheep to mean his people Israel in an exclusive way. He mentions “other flocks” explicitly to show that he is changing the analogy, and/or including other flocks.

He isn’t inventing a new analogy – but re-using an old one.

Again, I allow that the hirelings could be “sheep” – but there is nothing which requires it.

precludes … other shepherd … the only “good” shepherd

Luke 18:19 Why do you call me good? none is good, save one, that is God.

especially if you consider Peter to be a shepherd.

OK. Name a few. Peter isn’t God – thus the qualifier, Good.

… you really trying to connect the hireling …

Yes, because it fits. Not just on the basis of eternal reward .
Jesus says in that passage of Mark – “in this life” – and several other things.
St. Paul says the worker is worth his pay.

When the Romans came, Peter ran the first time, abandoning Jesus to their clutches rather than going to his death with Jesus. Thus it is that Peter is not a good shepherd at all, just a hireling – in perfect harmony with the parables.
None the less, he IS a shepherd who runs away – and this is why Jesus can say:

John 15:20 – RKB –
They will pay the same attention to your words as to mine.
John 15:22
If I had not come and given them my messagethey would not be at fault … [24] as it is, they have hated, with open eyes, both me and my Father.

Thus it is, before Jesus came they were NOT at fault – they were the sheep of Israel – after he came, though, they ceased being his sheep for they did not listen and did not follow. It was their choice.

Peter’s voice – is the voice of a shepherd, for the sheep will not follow a stranger.
He who hears you, hears me – says the Lord.
In the Acts of the apostles 3000 converted on hearing the words of St. Peter and the other shepherds.

No offense, but you can’t just put this forth as if it’s an argument. I have time and again shown how the logical primacy of “sheep” to “belief” in v. 26

And I am showing the primacy of listening and following to being sheep.
I can, and have just put the argument forward. You MUST show your interpretation is the only possible one.

What do the Pharisees have to do to convert? They have to believe, right?

They have to listen first – then they can be sheep – then it is possible for them to believe. As I said before, these words of Jesus led to a fresh division in the Jews, John 10:19.

But that is precisely what they cannot do.

Some of them listened, as there was a fresh division, therefore some of them became sheep – and sooner or later could believe.

Again, a lost sheep is a catastrophe to Jesus – the words you quote “doomed to destruction” are not in the Greek, rather you are quoting an English interpretation of a poetic statement – and even if it were fully correct and un-nuanced – it doesn’t say when he was finally doomed. Of course he was doomed once he was LOST.
On top of that, the gospel is written in hindsight.

 

[Chiral]

Huiou Theou,

Thank you so much for bringing in the Greek text and its meanings - we lose so much with translations, and it is easy to see how one could fall into misconceptions regarding the text when they try to interpret it for themselves without looking back to 2 millenia and more (if you include Jewish commentators on the OT) of in-depth investigation. Hurray for a Bible in our own language, but alas for those who think they are sufficient to interpret it alone.

Also, I have followed every logical step you have made, despite any OCD. I live in Portland, OR - if you are nearby and seek calm repose, my family welcomes you to a meal, if you like.

To Confessor01, here is an instance in one of your posts where I see the causal connection directly in the text - you love those causal connections! However, I think you should look into Huiou’s suggestion that “sheepness” may be contingent on listening, for immediately after saying “you are not my sheep” Jesus explains, “My sheep listen to my voice…”
Imagine you are in the audience and hear Jesus say, “You do not believe because you are not my sheep.” Then you hear him expound on what he does for his sheep. Now, I am a sinner in the audience, and I want those things Jesus is talking about but I am also pretty dignified, I don’t think of myself as a sheep at all (does anyone?) - what might my reply be? “Jesus, How do I become one of you sheep?”
Now, according to Calvinist predestination, one does not become a sheep, one is already a sheep, one of the elect. Thus, if Christ were Calvinist, his reply might be, “You cannot become one of my sheep.” But what does he actually say? Read on (don’t jump) and reach verse 37: Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Jesus exhorts these non-believers, these non-sheep, to believe!!! But if lack of “sheepness” caused their non-belief in an irreversable way, then Jesus exhorts them to an impossibility! Why?
Your causal connection is incomplete. But keep investigating, you’ll find it!

Secondly, your notion of all choices arising from a previous disposition is only reductio ad absurdum when one uses circular logic, namely that all choices are contingent upon a pre-existing desire more powerful than any other pre-existing desire - that is your premise.
If there are two daisies, identical in all ways other than spacial position, and I pick one, you will claim that my desire to pick that one was stronger than my desire to pick the other, and that that desire came from a previous desire and so forth - “choice” is an illusion. I would immediately counter that your argument applies to God as well, as the identity of the subject of the argument is irrelevant. Is this acceptable? (If so, the discussion becomes even more interesting; if not, you must abandon the argument).
I would also contend that indeed choice came from my will which implies actualization ex nihilo, that if the desire was in me was to pick a daisy, it was non-specific as to which, and you cannot refute this as a fallible observer. You can contend that will is an illusion, that actualization ex nihilo is impossible, but you must demonstrate it, either for every individual being (including non-humans) or logically, for empirical evidence suggests otherwise (do you need me to prove this?).
In general, those who deny such free-will (“I was doomed! I had no choice!”) are usually guilty of something and wish to defend themselves by pushing off responsibility onto fatalism/determinism/predestination or whathaveyou. But even the pagans who believed in fate were not so daft as to deny that their choices had any role in the matter (important note, “fatalism” does not imply an end irrespective of means, only that the means are generally unrevealed, hence the frustration of interpreting oracles).
Catholics maintain (as yet irrefutably) that choice is an act of will apart from material causation, and that freedom of will is a gift from God, and that the law of causality is also sustained by Him. In this sense, “creation” ex nihilo is happening all the time!!! Isn’t that beautiful?
… And I’m way off topic

A topic for a separate thread (or perhaps I should go onto a Calvinist forum) - in what way is man created in the image of God?

 

[Confessor01]

Due to time constraints and my dislike of going around in circles arguing, I’ll reduce the argument to these two:

They have to listen first – then they can be sheep – then it is possible for them to believe. As I said before, these words of Jesus led to a fresh division in the Jews, John 10:19.

No offense, but is this serious? What point is Jesus trying to make by saying, “You do not believe because you are not my sheep” if “sheep” is simply meant to denote their chosen state? “You do not believe because you are not my sheep because you do not listen”? This is a classic example of eisegesis – I don’t have to prove (as you claimed I do) that any contrary interpretation is impossible, but rather that my interpretation is the one that is taken out of the text. It would be foolish to discuss the interpretation of a text if anyone was allowed to carry preconceived notions to the text and merely explain how the text is consistent with these notions – no, rather, we must extract the teaching from the text. Such is the only honest way to read.

Certainly the text speaks of the sheep as listening to Christ the shepherd, but nothing in the text indicates that listening is a cause of becoming a sheep – and if it were, the analogy would be destroyed as either people would be transfiguring all over the place or sheep would be chaotically choosing their own flocks to attend.

And therefore it is not the case that listening is cause of sheepness is unsupported by the text and an example of eisegesis.

Again, a lost sheep is a catastrophe to Jesus – the words you quote “doomed to destruction” are not in the Greek, rather you are quoting an English interpretation of a poetic statement – and even if it were fully correct and un-nuanced – it doesn’t say when he was finally doomed. Of course he was doomed once he was LOST.
On top of that, the gospel is written in hindsight.

It says that Judas was doomed “so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” This is certainly not only a retrospective event.

 

[Confessor01]

Imagine you are in the audience and hear Jesus say, “You do not believe because you are not my sheep.” Then you hear him expound on what he does for his sheep. Now, I am a sinner in the audience, and I want those things Jesus is talking about but I am also pretty dignified, I don’t think of myself as a sheep at all (does anyone?) - what might my reply be? “Jesus, How do I become one of you sheep?”
Now, according to Calvinist predestination, one does not become a sheep, one is already a sheep, one of the elect. Thus, if Christ were Calvinist, his reply might be, “You cannot become one of my sheep.”

This is assuming that all unregenerates are reprobates, which is false. If Christ were a Calvinist and asked that, His response would not necessarily be, “you cannot become one of my sheep.”

On the contrary, some unbelievers are clearly sheep, as evidenced by Jesus’s statement in v. 16: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”

If there are two daisies, identical in all ways other than spacial position, and I pick one, you will claim that my desire to pick that one was stronger than my desire to pick the other, and that that desire came from a previous desire and so forth - “choice” is an illusion.

Quick correction: I would not say “choice is an illusion.” (You are legitimately making a choice when you act in accord with your desires.) Calvinists do not reject the notion of choice, not by a longshot.

I would immediately counter that your argument applies to God as well, as the identity of the subject of the argument is irrelevant. Is this acceptable? (If so, the discussion becomes even more interesting; if not, you must abandon the argument).

I used to very easily say that this also applies to God, and I would probably still say the same now. But regardless, suffice it to say that the Creator-creature gap is quite massive and that it would not be an prima facie contradiction to say that God’s freedom is different from ours.

I would also contend that indeed choice came from my will which implies actualization ex nihilo, that if the desire was in me was to pick a daisy, it was non-specific as to which, and you cannot refute this as a fallible observer. You can contend that will is an illusion, that actualization ex nihilo is impossible, but you must demonstrate it, either for every individual being (including non-humans) or logically, for empirical evidence suggests otherwise (do you need me to prove this?).

First, the fact that there is nothing specific in the daisy to entice you to pick that one does not entail that libertarian free will was exercised. It simply means that the choice was within yourself. Second, I am not concerned with what I can empirically know as a fallible observer regarding others’ decisions, but what actually, truly, ontologically occurs within a choosing agent.

 

[Chiral]

This is assuming that all unregenerates are reprobates, which is false. If Christ were a Calvinist and asked that, His response would not necessarily be, “you cannot become one of my sheep.”
On the contrary, some unbelievers are clearly sheep, as evidenced by Jesus’s statement in v. 16: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”

You…just…repeated yourself without a defense. How would Jesus reply to a person asking “How do I become one of your sheep?” If the person is a sheep, Jesus must reply “You are already one of my sheep”; if not, he will reply, “You cannot become one of my sheep”. That is my objection to your position, along with what Jesus says to these same people later, namely “Believe”, and note that the people still try to kill him. By your interpretation, Jesus just commanded non-sheep to become sheep - don’t you find that odd? Please think about my objections before outright denying them, the weight they carry is compounded by millenia of thought and investigation (i.e. we carry on the tradition of logic from long before the Bible was ever written - Jesus employed it too).

Quick correction: I would not say “choice is an illusion.” (You are legitimately making a choice when you act in accord with your desires.) Calvinists do not reject the notion of choice, not by a longshot.

OKay, how 'bout free choice, defined as follows: the power/ability to make true either A or not-A at a given time T. Any “choice” which does not fall under this logical equation cannot be truly be defined as “free” - i.e. a choice where necessity is not contingent on the actor/“willer” can only analogically be described as “free”, obfuscating the matter.

I used to very easily say that this also applies to God, and I would probably still say the same now. But regardless, suffice it to say that the Creator-creature gap is quite massive and that it would not be an prima facie contradiction to say that God’s freedom is different from ours.

This reply does not answer the objection. Should I consider it a concession?

First, the fact that there is nothing specific in the daisy to entice you to pick that one does not entail that libertarian free will was exercised. It simply means that the choice was within yourself. Second, I am not concerned with what I can empirically know as a fallible observer regarding others’ decisions, but what actually, truly, ontologically occurs within a choosing agent.

Ahem, “choice was within yourself” - I have no problem with this, it is repeats what I said. I accept this too as a concession. As for desiring to know truly apart from empiricism, that is why God (through His Spirit and Holy Mother Church) gave us the Bible, revelation, and faith. I am reminded of the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16…"
27 And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren, 28 That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. 29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them. 30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. 31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.

Please note, IF NOT, Neither - what do I take from this? That “they” are responsible for not believing, not that they were “non-sheep” and so could not believe predeterminedly… but you will not understand it that way, and you will accuse those who read the “sheep” scripture and also James 2:24 of eisegesis. In both cases you pull the scripture out of context - in the former you read it literally without reference to the preceding and succeeding verses; with the other, you decide it cannot possibly be taken as it stands and so re-interpret the english wording to mean something else. So, who is it that is twisting Scripture to his own understanding?

 

[Confessor01]

Chiral,

(1) (a) I did not “repeat myself without a defense.” You were saying that all unregenerates were not sheep; I corrected you in saying that all reprobates are not sheep, and cited the text to explain why.

(b) You seem to have some aversion to Christ’s telling someone, “You are not my sheep,” when He already has said that in v. 26.

(c) It is not odd that Jesus commands non-sheep to repent and believe. They still have a duty to do that, even if they are morally unable to do so. That is why the external call of the Gospel is indiscriminate and resistible whereas the internal call is discriminate and irresistible.

(2) If you want to talk about free will, please respond to my attempted refutation at the top of the page in this thread.

(3) I said that it is not necessarily the case that God has a compatibilist mechanism of freedom because He’s the Creator. How is this a concession to your position?

(4) (a) I meant to say that the reason is within yourself, not the choice (my mistake). The most common instance of this is in deciding something random, perhaps eeny-meeny-miney-moe or flipping a coin or pointing at one daisy spontaneously, etc. You select the daisy based on a reason within yourself rather than within the daisy you pick.

(b) After you confused the ontological issue (what is actually occurring regarding someone’s choices and desires) and the epistemological issue (how one knows what is occurring regarding someone else’s choices and desires), I said that I just wanted the former, in order to clarify your case. And now you are talking about how the Church solves the problems raised by the limited purview of empiricism? Please stay on topic.

(c) In your last paragraph you asserted what you believe regarding the passages and asserted that I am twisting the passages and yanking them out of context. I have nothing to say in response to such assertions, if you will not substantiate yourself and actually respond to what I have to say.

(d) Chill out. It’s an online forum.

 

[Chiral]

(1) (a) I did not “repeat myself without a defense.” You were saying that all unregenerates were not sheep; I corrected you in saying that all reprobates are not sheep, and cited the text to explain why.
(b) You seem to have some aversion to Christ’s telling someone, “You are not my sheep,” when He already has said that in v. 26.
(c) It is not odd that Jesus commands non-sheep to repent and believe. They still have a duty to do that, even if they are morally unable to do so. That is why the external call of the Gospel is indiscriminate and resistible whereas the internal call is discriminate and irresistible.

a) I don’t recall ever using the terms “unregenerate” or “reprobates”. your statement is an admission, not a defense. (b) I have no aversion whatsoever that. And (c) absolute inability negates duty. They have no “duty” whatsoever if following that duty implies a logical contradiction, which it does if they were infallibly preordained not to follow it and are not truly free (I have defined freedom elsewhere). This is part of why the notion of “external” and “internal” calls with regard to the Spirit is nonsense - it implies a logical contradiction.

(2) If you want to talk about free will, please respond to my attempted refutation at the top of the page in this thread.

“Ultimately, the problem with the “free will” position is that it refuses to allow one’s unchosen desires to sway the person’s choice, but in that case the choice must have a pure “liberty of indifference” – in which case all his acts are perforce arbitrary, and morality is destroyed. (This is about as brief an argument against free will as I can state it.)”

Is that what you’re referring to? Let’s begin by defining “arbitrary”: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion. So, how was that an argument against free will? It sounds more like a support of it! “If I have free will then I can choose whatever I want.” Yup, sounds fine to me. The disconnect in your argument is how this relates to morality - there is no logical connection here. I will give you one: “all choices have a moral value in the eyes of God, the source of all morality”. This in no way impedes free will. You have not presented an argument at all, nor even supported it, sorry.

(3) I said that it is not necessarily the case that God has a compatibilist mechanism of freedom because He’s the Creator. How is this a concession to your position?

Not a concession to my position, only to the argument that freedom is an illusion, that even god is not free but is rather the slave of desires separate from his will, which means your god is not ONE - how many places in Scripture can you find where that is refuted! So you see, the argument must be abandoned or deny Scripture.

(4) (a) I meant to say that the reason is within yourself, not the choice (my mistake). The most common instance of this is in deciding something random, perhaps eeny-meeny-miney-moe or flipping a coin or pointing at one daisy spontaneously, etc. You select the daisy based on a reason within yourself rather than within the daisy you pick.

Yup, still in agreement with me. In fact, unless the daisy “compelled” me to pick it by some means (i.e. usurped my will), the reason is always in me, never in the daisy.

(b) After you confused the ontological issue (what is actually occurring regarding someone’s choices and desires) and the epistemological issue (how one knows what is occurring regarding someone else’s choices and desires), I said that I just wanted the former, in order to clarify your case. And now you are talking about how the Church solves the problems raised by the limited purview of empiricism? Please stay on topic.

So you seek to know without a means? I think you just left the topic - I was offering you means by which you can come to know and understand apart from empiricism. Please feel free to offer another suggestion. Are you going to go all Cartesian on me and say “via the divine light within myself I know the truth”?

(c) In your last paragraph you asserted what you believe regarding the passages and asserted that I am twisting the passages and yanking them out of context. I have nothing to say in response to such assertions, if you will not substantiate yourself and actually respond to what I have to say.
(d) Chill out. It’s an online forum.

My apologies, that was in response to what you wrote to Huiou Theou just before I entered. I am asking for consistency and that you refrain from hypocritical accusations (namely of eisegesis). Is that alright?