The Sheep were never goats, but always Sheep !

shnarkle

Well-known member
People today won't recognize God because they suppress the truth by their sinfulness.
I see it more like their sinfulness prevents them from seeing God.
-


Yes, when preaching the Word of God we need to bring up the prophecies from God. It makes the case that the God of the Jewish people is the true God, and then highlights that salvation is from the Jews and not only for the Jewish people but all peoples.

God bless
I was pointing out that they don't believe the truth found in the books themselves. Plenty of Christians believe the prophecies, but ignore the book of Moses completely. Jesus says that if you don't listen to what Moses says, you aren't going to hear anything he says either. In the book of Acts, the gentile converts were going into the synagogues on the Sabbath to hear what the book of Moses has to say. Acts15:21
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
I simply don't see what you're talking about. You're presenting a position as if it is plain as day which is why I asked you if you'd care to elaborate. You spurned that idea. I understand. Evidently, you don't see it as important to begin with. I get it.

There is no point in elaborating because I can't acknowledge what I don't understand. For him to say, "or RATHER we are known of God" doesn't tell me that we know God, but that we are known by God. That's what he actually wrote. If he meant to say that we do know God, then why didn't he just say that? If he meant that we know God and are known, wouldn't he have just said, "We know God AND are known by God"??? What am I missing here?

No. You don't sound like you're interested in elaborating at all. I see the contrast he makes between the gods they used to know which are not gods, and God which they didn't know then either. Then he intentionally points out that they still don't know God, but now are known of God. I responded to your point then and again now.

I guess I don't know what you mean by engage either. There is no point if I don't know what you're talking about. Thanks anyways. I won't waste any more of your time. I'm not here to irritate people. Please don't take it personally.
I am not sure what you are saying on one point. I put forth the idea that if paul had written something that was a mistake, he would not have left it in the letter. I do not understand what is so difficult about that idea and why that would need further explanation. How could i further explain the idea that paul would not have sent an error in his letter?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Lets clear that up before going further
All of that doesn't clear up anything because you're just quote mining. That's why I asked a few very simple questions to see if we can come to an understanding. I was looking to see if there is ANY common ground at all. Evidently, you're not interested in that. Here it is again if you're interested, if not. Go with God.


You're admitting that you couldn't make a free will choice until that option was presented to you, correct?

This isn't a trick question. It's just pointing out a Given.

One cannot make a choice until they have it presented to them.

Jesus says, "Let him who has ears, hear". Those who don't, can't. See the problem yet?

You couldn't have had the ears to hear the gospel until you actually heard it.

If no one proclaims the gospel to you, you're damned, correct?

All wolves are lost, and so are lost sheep, but the good shepherd only seeks out his lost sheep.

Lost sheep can become found sheep, but all wolves are vessels fitted for destruction.

Do you see the difference between a lost sheep, and a wolf?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
All of that doesn't clear up anything because you're just quote mining. That's why I asked a few very simple questions to see if we can come to an understanding. I was looking to see if there is ANY common ground at all. Evidently, you're not interested in that. Here it is again if you're interested, if not. Go with God.


You're admitting that you couldn't make a free will choice until that option was presented to you, correct?

This isn't a trick question. It's just pointing out a Given.

One cannot make a choice until they have it presented to them.

Jesus says, "Let him who has ears, hear". Those who don't, can't. See the problem yet?

You couldn't have had the ears to hear the gospel until you actually heard it.

If no one proclaims the gospel to you, you're damned, correct?

All wolves are lost, and so are lost sheep, but the good shepherd only seeks out his lost sheep.

Lost sheep can become found sheep, but all wolves are vessels fitted for destruction.

Do you see the difference between a lost sheep, and a wolf?


seriously ?

You cannot understand ?

When I show you verses I have been posting and bolding key sentences

I am telling you your idea that somehow I do not think the gospel is to be proclaimed first is simply without merit

Rom. 10:14–17 —KJV
“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

showing faith comes from the gospel - the word of God


even noting man is regenerated through faith in the gospel

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1Pet. 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1Pet. 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pet. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
1Pet. 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
1Pet. 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1Cor. 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

all this is speaking of is hearing the gospel

so why are you speaking of the need to hear the gospel first as though this was somehow denied ?

Lets clear that up before going further

...........................................

How on earth can it be thought i have not been extolling the necessity for the gospels proclamation

i am telling you plainly and I have been telling you plainly since you began on the very strange idea

that somehow I was positing the gospel does not need to be proclaimed first

that is an error pure and simple
https://forums.carm.org/threads/calvinisms-life-and-death-problem.1503/post-100699
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
There is no point in elaborating because I can't acknowledge what I don't understand. For him to say, "or RATHER we are known of God" doesn't tell me that we know God, but that we are known by God. That's what he actually wrote. If he meant to say that we do know God, then why didn't he just say that? If he meant that we know God and are known, wouldn't he have just said, "We know God AND are known by God"??? What am I missing here?

No. You don't sound like you're interested in elaborating at all. I see the contrast he makes between the gods they used to know which are not gods, and God which they didn't know then either. Then he intentionally points out that they still don't know God, but now are known of God. I responded to your point then and again now.

First, I do the best I can here to keep my posts short and to the point and to address as directly as I possibly can what people are saying. I have found sometimes that posters are trying to look beyond what i say and discern some secret meaning in my words. But that is not me.
I just say directly what i mean in as few words as possible.

Paul states in verse 9 "now that you have come to know God" and he means it. the word "rather" in the NASB or whatever word you have in your translation of choice does not mean "instead of." It means "even more so" or it means that Paul prefers to emphasize the second idea. But it does not negate the preceding idea of them having come to know God.
Your post seemed to be saying Paul made a mistake and was correcting himself. That is not true. He simply made an emphasis.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Not anymore.

Hope you didn't go to too much trouble preparing all of that just so you could ignore what I posted.

"Ignored"
What could you not understand

seriously ?

You cannot understand ?

When I show you verses I have been posting and bolding key sentences

I am telling you your idea that somehow I do not think the gospel is to be proclaimed first is simply without merit

Rom. 10:14–17 —KJV
“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

showing faith comes from the gospel - the word of God

even noting man is regenerated through faith in the gospel


James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1Pet. 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1Pet. 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1Pet. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
1Pet. 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
1Pet. 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pet. 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1Cor. 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

all this is speaking of is hearing the gospel

so why are you speaking of the need to hear the gospel first as though this was somehow denied ?


Lets clear that up before going further

...........................................

How on earth can it be thought i have not been extolling the necessity for the gospels proclamation

i am telling you plainly and I have been telling you plainly since you began on the very strange idea

that somehow I was positing the gospel does not need to be proclaimed first

I can only conclude you are not reading what is posted
 

Joe

Active member
I see it more like their sinfulness prevents them from seeing God.

I was pointing out that they don't believe the truth found in the books themselves. Plenty of Christians believe the prophecies, but ignore the book of Moses completely. Jesus says that if you don't listen to what Moses says, you aren't going to hear anything he says either. In the book of Acts, the gentile converts were going into the synagogues on the Sabbath to hear what the book of Moses has to say. Acts15:21
I guess you've lost me. Are you saying people must hear prophecies from Moses to be saved?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I guess you've lost me. Are you saying people must hear prophecies from Moses to be saved?
No. I'm pointing out a fundamental feature of the Old Testament, i.e. that it is instructive. The primary purpose of the prophetic books is for correction, not to find out what's going to happen in the future. If people don't listen to sound doctrine from Moses, they're not going to hear anything Christ has to say either.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
No. I'm pointing out a fundamental feature of the Old Testament, i.e. that it is instructive. The primary purpose of the prophetic books is for correction, not to find out what's going to happen in the future. If people don't listen to sound doctrine from Moses, they're not going to hear anything Christ has to say either.
Jesus said basically the same thing. If the jews would not listen to Moses, they would not listen to Him
 

Iconoclast

Active member
  1. From A.W.Pink;

    When that term is used in connection with God, it often signifies to regard with favor , denoting not mere cognition but an affection for the object in view. “I know thee by name” ( Exo.33:17). “Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you” ( Deut. 9:24). “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” ( Jer. 1:5). “They have made princes and I knew it not ”( Hosea 8:4). “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” ( Amos 3:2).

    In these passages knew signifies either loved or appointed .

    In like manner, the word “know” is frequently used in the New Testament, in the same sense as in the Old Testament. “Then will I profess unto them, I never knew you” ( Matt. 7:23). “I am the good shepherd and know My sheep and am known of Mine” ( John 10:14). “If any man love God, the same is known of Him” ( 1 Cor. 8:3). “The Lord knoweth them that are His” ( 2 Tim. 2:19).

    Now the word “foreknowledge” as it is used in the New Testament is less ambiguous than in its simple form “to know.” If every passage in which it occurs is carefully studied, it will be discovered that it is a moot point whether it ever has reference to the mere perception of events which are yet to take place. The fact is that “foreknowledge” is never used in Scripture in connection with events or actions; instead, it always has reference to persons . It is persons God is said to “foreknow,” not the actions of those persons. In proof of this we shall now quote each passage where this expression is found.

    The first occurrence is in Acts 2:23. There we read, “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” If careful attention is paid to the wording of this verse it will be seen that the apostle was not there speaking of God’s foreknowledge of the act of the crucifixion, but of the Personcrucified: “Him (Christ) being delivered by,” etc.

    The second occurrence is in Romans 8;29,30. “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image, of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called,” etc.

    Weigh well the pronoun that is used here. It is not what He did foreknow, but whom He did. It is not the surrendering of their wills nor the believing of their hearts but the persons themselves, which is here in view. “God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew” ( Rom. 11:2).

    Once more the plain reference is to persons, and to persons only.

    The last mention is in 1 Pet. 1:2: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father? The previous verse tells us: the reference is to the “strangers scattered” i.e. the Diaspora, the Dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, here too the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts.

    see pt2;



 

Iconoclast

Active member
  1. pt2;
    Now in view of these passages (and there are no more) what scriptural ground is there for anyone saying God “foreknew” the acts of certain ones, viz., their “repenting and believing,” and that because of those acts He elected them unto salvation? The answer is, None whatever. Scripture never speaks of repentance and faith as being foreseen or foreknown by God. Truly, He didknow from all eternity that certain ones would repent and believe, yet this is not what Scripture refers to as the object of God’s “foreknowledge.” The word uniformly refers to God’s foreknowing persons ; then let us “hold fast the form of sound words” ( 2 Tim. 1:13).

    Another thing to which we desire to call particular attention is that the first two passages quoted above show plainly and teach implicitly that God’s “foreknowledge” is not causative , that instead, something else lies behind, precedes it, and that something is His own sovereign decree . Christ was “delivered by the (1) determinate counsel and (2) foreknowledge of God.” ( Acts 2:23).

    His “counsel” or decree was the ground of His foreknowledge. So again in Rom.8:29. That verse opens with the word “for,” which tells us to look back to what immediately precedes. What, then, does the previous verse say? This, “all things worktogether for good to them...who are the called according to His purpose.” Thus God’s foreknowledge is based upon His purpose or decree (see Psa.2:7).

    God foreknows what will be because He has decreed what shall be . It is therefore a reversing of the order of Scripture, a putting of the cart before the horse, to affirm that God elects because He foreknows people. The truth is, He “foreknows” because He has elected . This removes the ground or cause of election from outside the creature, and places it in God’s own sovereign will. God purposed in Himself to elect a certain people, not because of anything good in them or from them, either actual or foreseen, but solely out of His own mere pleasure. As to why He chose the ones He did, we do not know, and can only say, “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” The plain truth of Rom. 8:29 is that God, before the foundation of the world, singled out certain sinners and appointed them unto salvation ( 2 Thess. 2:13). This is clear from the concluding words of the verse: “Predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son,” etc. God did not predestinate those whom He foreknew were “conformed,” but, on the contrary, those whom He “foreknew” (i.e., loved and elected) He predestinated to be conformed. Their conformity to Christ is not the cause, but the effect of God’s foreknowledge and predestination.

    God did not elect any sinner because He foresaw that he would believe, for the simple but sufficient reason that no sinner ever does believe until God gives him faith; just as no man sees until God gives him sight. Sight is God’s gift, seeing is the consequence of my using His gift. So faith is God’s gift ( Eph. 1:8,9), believing is the consequence of my using His gift. If it were true that God had elected certain ones to be saved because in due time they would believe, then that would make believing a meritorious act, and in that event the saved sinner would have ground for “boasting,” which Scripture emphatically denies: Eph.2:9.



 

Iconoclast

Active member
pt3;
Once more the plain reference is to persons, and to persons only.

The last mention is in 1 Peter 1:2: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Who are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father? The previous verse tells us: the reference is to the “strangers scattered” i.e. the Diaspora, the Dispersion, the believing Jews. Thus, here too the reference is to persons, and not to their foreseen acts.

Now in view of these passages (and there are no more) what scriptural ground is there for anyone saying God “foreknew” the acts of certain ones, viz., their “repenting and believing,” and that because of those acts He elected them unto salvation? The answer is, None whatever. Scripture never speaks of repentance and faith as being foreseen or foreknown by God. Truly, He didknow from all eternity that certain ones would repent and believe, yet this is not what Scripture refers to as the object of God’s “foreknowledge.” The word uniformly refers to God’s foreknowing persons ; then let us “hold fast the form of sound words” ( 2 Timothy 1:13).

Another thing to which we desire to call particular attention is that the first two passages quoted above show plainly and teach implicitly that God’s “foreknowledge” is not causative , that instead, something else lies behind, precedes it, and that something is His own sovereign decree . Christ was “delivered by the (1) determinate counsel and (2) foreknowledge of God.” ( Acts 2:23).

His “counsel” or decree was the ground of His foreknowledge. So again in Romans 8:29. That verse opens with the word “for,” which tells us to look back to what immediately precedes. What, then, does the previous verse say? This, “all things worktogether for good to them...who are the called according to His purpose.” Thus God’s foreknowledge is based upon His purpose or decree (see Psalm 2:7).

God foreknows what will be because He has decreed what shall be . It is therefore a reversing of the order of Scripture, a putting of the cart before the horse, to affirm that God elects because He foreknows people. The truth is, He “foreknows” because He has elected . This removes the ground or cause of election from outside the creature, and places it in God’s own sovereign will. God purposed in Himself to elect a certain people, not because of anything good in them or from them, either actual or foreseen, but solely out of His own mere pleasure. As to why He chose the ones He did, we do not know, and can only say, “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” The plain truth of Romans 8:29 is that God, before the foundation of the world, singled out certain sinners and appointed them unto salvation ( 2 Thessalonians 2:13). This is clear from the concluding words of the verse: “Predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son,” etc. God did not predestinate those whom He foreknew were “conformed,” but, on the contrary, those whom He “foreknew” (i.e., loved and elected) He predestinated to be conformed. Their conformity to Christ is not the cause, but the effect of God’s foreknowledge and predestination.

God did not elect any sinner because He foresaw that he would believe, for the simple but sufficient reason that no sinner ever does believe until God gives him faith; just as no man sees until God gives him sight. Sight is God’s gift, seeing is the consequence of my using His gift. So faith is God’s gift ( Ephesians 1:8,9), believing is the consequence of my using His gift. If it were true that God had elected certain ones to be saved because in due time they would believe, then that would make believing a meritorious act, and in that event the saved sinner would have ground for “boasting,” which Scripture emphatically denies: Ephesians 2:9.

 

Manfred

Active member
Its not the sovereignty of God that is loathed but your unbiblical doctrine of meticulous determination of all things which was imported into Christianity from gnostic, stoics and Manicheans which Augustine was for 10 years
Is the argument whether God meticulously determined ALL things?
The time and place of Jesus' birth and death for example. Meticulously determined or not?
The tower that fell on the 18 at Siloam, meticulously determined or not?
It is a doctrine which makes God the author of sin the redeemer of his own determinations, more like the priest and the Levite who simply passes man by rather than the good Samaritian
Was the story of the Samaritan meant to point to salvation by works or being a good person, or rather pointing to legalistic religionists ignoring the plight of others.
It is doctrine which injures the holiness of God and calls into question God's love and sincerity
Here your thinking needs to deepen.
Prior to Adam and Eve being created, did God know that they would rebel, or did it catch Him by surprise?

If your answer is. "of course, God is omnipotent" then you have to defend God's holiness, in creating them, knowing the evil that they would introduce into the world, and the evil that would arise, like leaving the Samaritan unattended.
God could have forgiven them, and not cursed them, nor the earth.

Even with free choice, what is ultimately determined?

get it right

Sovereignty does not mean meticulous determination of all things

nor does it necessitate such
What does Sovereignty mean?

Is God sovereign over your will.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Is the argument whether God meticulously determined ALL things?
The time and place of Jesus' birth and death for example. Meticulously determined or not?
The tower that fell on the 18 at Siloam, meticulously determined or not?

Was the story of the Samaritan meant to point to salvation by works or being a good person, or rather pointing to legalistic religionists ignoring the plight of others.

Here your thinking needs to deepen.
Prior to Adam and Eve being created, did God know that they would rebel, or did it catch Him by surprise?

If your answer is. "of course, God is omnipotent" then you have to defend God's holiness, in creating them, knowing the evil that they would introduce into the world, and the evil that would arise, like leaving the Samaritan unattended.
God could have forgiven them, and not cursed them, nor the earth.

Even with free choice, what is ultimately determined?


What does Sovereignty mean?

Is God sovereign over your will.
look up the definition. Sovereignty does not mean "doing everything" or "controlling everything" It means having "authority over."
A sovereign has authority over his kingdom, but he does not physically control everything.
 

Manfred

Active member
Yes, I am one of His sheep, according to how the metaphor is used in some places.
I became a sheep when i received Jesus by faith
By sheep I mean. I am under His care and I belong to Him
What were you before you became a sheep as a metaphor?
Were you a lost sheep or were you a goat?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
TomFL said:
Its not the sovereignty of God that is loathed but your unbiblical doctrine of meticulous determination of all things which was imported into Christianity from gnostic, stoics and Manicheans which Augustine was for 10 years
Is the argument whether God meticulously determined ALL things?
My argument that it is unbiblical to say God determines all things

God does not determine all of man's sin



The time and place of Jesus' birth and death for example. Meticulously determined or not?
The tower that fell on the 18 at Siloam, meticulously determined or not?
Irrelevant to what is stated

God does not determine all of man's sin




TomFL said:
It is a doctrine which makes God the author of sin the redeemer of his own determinations, more like the priest and the Levite who simply passes man by rather than the good Samaritian
Was the story of the Samaritan meant to point to salvation by works or being a good person, or rather pointing to legalistic religionists ignoring the plight of others.
That does not address the issue

Is God like legalistic religionists ignoring the plight of others.while he tells usd not to be


TomFL said:
It is doctrine which injures the holiness of God and calls into question God's love and sincerity
Here your thinking needs to deepen.
Prior to Adam and Eve being created, did God know that they would rebel, or did it catch Him by surprise?
Knowledge is not the same as cause

to equate knowledge and determination is a category error


If your answer is. "of course, God is omnipotent" then you have to defend God's holiness, in creating them, knowing the evil that they would introduce into the world, and the evil that would arise, like leaving the Samaritan unattended.
God could have forgiven them, and not cursed them, nor the earth.

No my answer would be God is omniscient Knows all things

I do not believe creating a world of creatures with a free will impacts God's holiness

Ever read CS Lewis

“God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating.



TomFL said:
get it right

Sovereignty does not mean meticulous determination of all things

nor does it necessitate such

Manfred
What does Sovereignty mean?

Is God sovereign over your will.

38For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Sovereign means to rule as king

It does mean everything must be determined

The idea God determines all the sin he must redeem is both irrational and unbiblical
 

TomFL

Well-known member
What were you before you became a sheep as a metaphor?
Were you a lost sheep or were you a goat?
Question: failing to be saved how are men judged

Sheep or goat Mat 25

Neither ?

Does this sound like a description of a sheep

Eph. 2:3 —ESV
“among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”
 
Last edited:
Top