Do you read this verse the same way I do?

No, He is speaking of sheep not of the Jewish flock, and not specific to "sheep in all nations". Since he is not specific, it could also mean that he has sheep that are not of this world, like the "10,000 angels" satan speaks of. Or it could mean those who have died since Adam who are of previous or other flocks. His reference is non-specific...leave it at that!

 

Hi Npetreley;
A quote from you;
-------------------------------------------------
The statement is plain and simple, regardless of the audience. "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you."
--------------------------------------------------
This statement is plain and simple too;
Luk 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

And this one too;

Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Are the elect the only ones lost?

The matter of choice is something else you try to refute but haven't done a very good job of it yet.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Why not open the door Npetreley. This is something you your self claim is the work of God and that you can't do it on your own. If this is true then why would Christ be standing at the door knocking waiting for you to open the door?

Romanbear

 

Absolutely amazing rebuttal. In other words, you don't have a real argument, so we have to rely on this rhetoric.

Thanks.

 

Who are His sheep? You said it yourself: Those who hear his voice and follow Him. That is the point of Jesus' entire analogy. He is pointing to the fact that His sheep can hear him and follow him.

Now here is a question: Who during this time could not hear and follow? Hardened Israel

Who could hear and follow? The Remnant and later when the message was brought to them so could the Gentiles.

He is speaking to a group of Pharisees, these people who want to kill him, these people who would crucify him and many of which later in Acts chapter 2 and 3 believe in Him through Peter's message, therefore, this passage can't be saying you will never be my sheep, but that you are not my sheep now, and because of your hardened hearts you cannot believe (John 12:37-41).

If you read the text objectively you will see the the point of this analogy was to point out the fact that there were some who could hear the shepherd and follow him and others who could not. Therefore, sheep were those who could hear and follow the rest were not sheep because they were apparently hardened as taught just two chapters later. This is not an analogy that is striving to teach the Calvinistic doctrine of "total inability" or "election" as you are attempting to make it.

It's an analogy that is teaching the same thing that the rest of the NT is teaching and that is the mystery of the gospel, which is that God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself. He is no longer dealing with Israel exclusively he is now making the message known to the Gentiles as well, to do this He has sent Christ who had to die for the sins of the world and in order to accomplish that God had to temporarily hardened most of Israel until the Gentiles were grafted in.

In light of that truth, this analogy only makes sense if the sheep being referred to in this passage are those who have not been temporarily hardened.

So this passage is saying, The sheep will hear and believe but you can't believe right now because you are not my sheep. Meaning you are not able to hear, see, understand or believe. You have been deafened, blinded and given a hardened heart to ensure that you won't believe in order that God will fulfill His purpose through your disobedience.

So this passage is simple if you understand this:

Sheep = Those who are not temporarily hardened that have the ability to hear the voice of the shepard and be saved.

NOT Sheep = Those who are temporarily hardened by God (or continually hardened by their own rebellion) who are unable to see, hear, understand and believe.

 

If you notice, Scott, I simply borrowed your own phraseology and turned in on you. You are describing yourself. Got ya.

 

If you notice, Scott, I simply borrowed your own phraseology and turned in on you. You are describing yourself. Got ya. </font>[/QUOTE]In your zeal to be clever, you missed it. Of course, you haven't been carefully reading so far, so that's to be understood. GO back to the post where I said those things. I was copying what Larry said to me. (OF course, elsewhere in the post, I actually provide an actual argument. YOu have failed to do so. You haven't done so in awhile.)

So, the mocking you are seeking goes back to Larry - I was just the "middleman."

Good try, though.

 

I guess this thread has died down.

Thanks for a good discussion. I enjoyed it!

 

Swaimj,

It doesn't surpise me in the least that this post died out. When the arguments are solid from the Arminians the Calvinist either disappear or resort to diversion and degrading. That always seems to happen when we start getting right to the meat of the discussion around here.

When Calvinist's "pat answers" don't work they run away or attack you personally. (there are a few exceptions)

In our generation of theological ignorance modern Calvinists see themselves as the more educated and biblically knowledgable than Arminians. Why? Because for the most part they are. The average Arminian they come in contact with in our modern churches are completely oblivous to these issues, which makes them prime canidates for conversion to Calvinism (that's what happen to me). Most Arminians don't even know why they are Arminians so when cornered by a Calvinist they don't have a snowball's chance.

Funny thing is most Calvinists today don't even know why Arminians are Arminians. When you start arguing historical Armininanism they think its a new doctrine because they are so used to hearing the typical ignorant arguments they always hear. If you throw out an intelligent reasonable argument with scritpural backing it shocks them, because quite frankly their not used to it.

Do you know why most Arminians quote John 3:16 as their defense against Calvinism. I really think it because its one of the very few passages they know by memory. It is no wonder Calvinists often become arrogant in their argumentation of these doctrines, there knowledge of scripture and grasp of these issues is so much greater than most people they come across.

When they are faced with sound biblical arguments like the ones you made on this thread they don't know what to do. If you study history this is exactly the reaction of the Calvinists during the days of Jacobus Arminius. In those days the Arminians were the ones who were seen as having a higher understanding of the text. Why? Because they dealt with the historical context of Israel's hardening and many of the issues that Calvinists gloss over and fail to even examine.

Why do you think the growth of Arminianism was so rapid in those days. It parallels the growth of Calvinism's resurrgance in our day. The problem today is that few are versed enough in Arminianism to fight this resurgance with any type of intelligent understanding. History goes in cycles because we get lazy and often repeat the same mistakes as those who have gone before us. I pray that we don't continue to make the same mistakes once again.

 

Nice try Bill. Very funny ... but very off the mark. Keep at it though ...

 

Larry,

If its so funny why don't you answer Swaimj's arguments instead of just disappearing?

 

Oh, they must be "pat answers" since no thinking person would disagree with your conclusions, huh?

Two notes though. Some people don't have the time to answer as promptly as you might demand.

Also, you seem to be never satisfied with an answer- even to the point of denying one was given- if that answer does not agree with you or allow you to control the debate.

Frankly Bill, your ability to debate is far greater than your exegesis... an very dangerous combination by even your own admission.

Elsewhere you stated that you converted to calvinism taking many with you. You are now arminian and are attempting convert others to that position. But you also said that you might even change back at some point to calvinism. How does your theological instability not make it irresponsible for you to "convert" anyone?

 

Sorry Bill. You responded before I edited. Some of my comments were too direct, personal, and argumentative. I sincerely apologize.

If you would like me to edit, I will. Otherwise, I will leave it so as to not confuse readers.

 

No, reason to edit Scott. I really didn't find your comments that offensive. Most of them were true. I know I come across as arrogant and I continually persist on issues that others would like to drop. But I just want you all to understand the reasons that I do these things. Its not just because I trying to aggrevate Calvinists, though I know I have that effect on some.

But its because I'm trying to get you all to answer questions I couldn't answer as a Calvinist. Just about the time we get to heart of the issues many just bail or attack me personally. Which I remember was a tactic that Arminians often used on me when I was a Calvinists. Yall despise me so much because I continually force you to deal with the hard issues and maybe I undermine your cause because I claim to have been one of you. I don't know for sure.

I think so much of the bitterness comes in the fact that I'm so much like you all. I'm arrogant (I like to say confident), a decent debater, persistant, educated on these issues, and I've got a good knowledge of the bible. I guarentee if I switched to debating Calvinism you guys would love me because I would fit right in.

I remember one of my biggest frustrations as a Calvinists was not being able to find any Arminians who knew enough about the Bible to challenge me in good honest debate. I would think that if I were to come across someone like myself I would have jumped at the opportunity to be challenged in my debate. Or maybe I would have done like most on this board and avoided the arguments while attacking the messenger. I don't know.

Anyway, all is good between us, you can't offend me because Nick has hardened me from being any more offended.

 

Larry, your comments just go to prove my points. Thanks.

If I'm not speaking the truth then, when you get a chance why don't you answer Swaimj's arguments?