Definite Atonement

[Reformedguy]

Matt 25:31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

If I am not mistaken, this is the only NT passage of scripture that refers to people as goats, and it is merely as a simile.

Note that this is at the time of the final judgment of all men. (vs 31) This is the point where the destinies of all are fixed beyond remedy.

Second, all the nations are brought before him, (vs 32) and “all the people” are separated in the same way that a shepherd would separate the sheep of his flock from the goats of his flock. The sheep are on the shepherd’s right, and the goats on his left. (vs 33).

The difference between them, according to Matthew, is how they treated Jesus, especially in how they dealt with those in need.

Nobody is termed a goat until the final judgement. People, the race known as Adam, mankind, are all the same, save for their perspective and treatment of Jesus.

We are all people, who like sheep, have gone astray. In this way we are all sheep who are lost, members of our creator-shepherd’s flock. Some will believe and some will not. This is the watershed that divides the whole into two camps. At judgement, only believers can be in his flock, and he divides mankind into believers and unbelievers, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats.

Doug

Notice they are goats at the final judgement. They were not sheep who magically turned into goats no more than tares become wheat.

 

[Reformedguy]

I’m worried about your BP, RG! That pretzel your twisting has got to be cutting off circulation somewhere!

Now say it with me… “All have sinned and fall short… none are righteous, no not one…All we, like sheep, have gone astray.”

Can you name one descendant of Adam that has not sinned and fallen short; that is righteous; that has not gone astray?


Doug

Who has ever said otherwise?

 

[Arial]

I’m worried about your BP, RG! That pretzel your twisting has got to be cutting off circulation somewhere!

Now say it with me… “All have sinned and fall short… none are righteous, no not one…All we, like sheep, have gone astray.”

Can you name one descendant of Adam that has not sinned and fallen short; that is righteous; that has not gone astray?


Doug

But we aren't goats who have gone astray are we? And Jesus has a flock of sheep just as He tells us. Not all the sheep are of His flock. And those who are of His flock He will bring them in. That means that He always knew them for He spoke in those terms. They are lost and He gathers them, His rod and His staff in hand.

In the judgment when the sheep and goats are separated it is not using precisely the same metaphor. It simply means He has no goats in His flock and goats here refers to unbelievers whereas in the metaphor of sheep as all have gone astray it refers to all people. And the same with the flocks. Some are of His flock and some are not.

Just as in the wheat and the tares. The wheat belongs to Him, the tares go into the fire. A tare never becomes wheat, a goat never becomes a sheep, and a sheep that is not of His flock never becomes a sheep of His flock.

 

[Eleanor]

But we aren't goats who have gone astray are we? And Jesus has a flock of sheep just as He tells us. Not all the sheep are of His flock. And those who are of His flock He will bring them in. That means that He always knew them for He spoke in those terms. They are lost and He gathers them, His rod and His staff in hand.

In the judgment when the sheep and goats are separated it is not using precisely the same metaphor. It simply means He has no goats in His flock and goats here refers to unbelievers whereas in the metaphor of sheep as all have gone astray it refers to all people. And the same with the flocks. Some are of His flock and some are not.

Just as in the wheat and the tares. The wheat belongs to Him, the tares go into the fire. A tare never becomes wheat, a goat never becomes a sheep, and a sheep that is not of His flock never becomes a sheep of His flock.

I say the only sheep are of his flock. The rest are goats.

 

[TibiasDad]

No, you have REVERSED what the Bible says! It is not that they don't believe, so they are not his sheep; rather, it is that they are not his sheep, so they don't believe.

In other words, you do not believe because you are not believers. Jesus’s flock are believers because they believe.

Doug

 

[Eleanor]

In other words, you do not believe because you are not believers. Jesus’s flock are believers because they believe.

Doug

You do not believe because you are a sheep that has not yet been born again, or
you do not believe because you are not a sheep and will never believe (Ro 9:18).

 

[TibiasDad]

The difference between His sheep and not His sheep is His sheep will believe and not His sheep won't believe. John 10:14-16 "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. So there will be one flock, and one shepherd.

It is the sheep that Jesus knows and who know Him, in the same way as Jesus and the Father know one another, (present, not future) and these are the very same ones who will listen to His voice when He brings them into the one flock with one shepherd.

The present tense is indicative of that moment; it cannot and does not say anything about the future.

 

[Arial]

The present tense is indicative of that moment; it cannot and does not say anything about the future.

When you can find a way to make your statement more understandable and its relationship to the post, I will address that. As it stands, I have no idea what you are trying to substantiate,

 

[TibiasDad]

Notice they are goats at the final judgement. They were not sheep who magically turned into goats no more than tares become wheat.

And I think you carry your hermeneutic too far. Sheep, goats, tires and wheat are not moral, rational or relational beings. Moral, rational and relational beings can change drastically and do so all the time. We are what we are because of our reactions to the gospel. Belief or unbelief, according to Jesus and Paul, is the watershed of humanity’s future.

Jn 3:17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Rom 9:30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Rom 11:17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Who has ever said otherwise?

Those who say that “all we, like sheep, have gone astray” doesn’t refer to all humanity.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

But we aren't goats who have gone astray are we? And Jesus has a flock of sheep just as He tells us. Not all the sheep are of His flock. And those who are of His flock He will bring them in. That means that He always knew them for He spoke in those terms. They are lost and He gathers them, His rod and His staff in hand.

In the judgment when the sheep and goats are separated it is not using precisely the same metaphor. It simply means He has no goats in His flock and goats here refers to unbelievers whereas in the metaphor of sheep as all have gone astray it refers to all people. And the same with the flocks. Some are of His flock and some are not.

Just as in the wheat and the tares. The wheat belongs to Him, the tares go into the fire. A tare never becomes wheat, a goat never becomes a sheep, and a sheep that is not of His flock never becomes a sheep of His flock.

As I have said before, you carry the metaphor too far. Sheep and goats are not moral, rational and relational beings as a whole. ( They certainly are ‘relational’ in a minimal sense. But not in a personal sense.)

Doug

 

[Arial]

And I think you carry your hermeneutic too far. Sheep, goats, tires and wheat are not moral, rational or relational beings. Moral, rational and relational beings can change drastically and do so all the time. We are what we are because of our reactions to the gospel. Belief or unbelief, according to Jesus and Paul, is the watershed of humanity’s future.

Is there such a thing as carrying a hermeneutic too far? It would no longer be a hermeneutic would it?
hermeneutics

hûr″mə-noo͞′tĭks, -nyoo͞′-

noun​

1. The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text.
2. The art or science of interpretation or exegesis; also, the study of or instruction in the principles of exegesis: as, a professor of hermeneutics.
3. The science of interpretation and explanation; exegesis; esp., that branch of theology which defines the laws whereby the meaning of the Scriptures is to be ascertained.

There is such a thing a not enough hermeneutics, or incorrect hermeneutics. An example of that would be to say that everytime a scripture uses a particular word such as sheep, goats, tires (though it never refers to tires but tares, typos excused) it uses them to represent the exact same thing. Another example would be to not read figurative language, simili, metaphor, symbolic language, for what they represent within the context of the scripture, but always apply it equally to all situations, or to try and apply them symbolic and literally at the same time as you have done above. And then support the conclusion with an statement that applies all the neglected hermeneutics to itself and slips sideways off the issue. I.e. what we have below.

We are what we are because of our reactions to the gospel. Belief or unbelief, according to Jesus and Paul, is the watershed of humanity’s future.

And further enforces the sideways slip of this non apropos of the subject with a series of scripture quotes.

So why does Jesus say in Matt 25:31-33 He will separate the goats from the sheep?

Why does the scripture say that all are sheep who have gone astray using sheep as symbolically representing all people, and say in another place that some sheep are His flock and some are not, and He will gather those who are? (And while we are on the subject and to fall back to the metaphor of sheep and shepherd that Jesus used, and even the slightest knowledge of sheep in the literal, and more importantly, anywhere in those scriptures, do sheep choose the shepherd or does a shepherd choose the sheep?)

And why in yet another place is a literal goat (the scapegoat) have the sins of the people symbolically laid on its head and then is sent outside the camp, a clear foreshadowing of the work of Christ?

 

[Arial]

As I have said before, you carry the metaphor too far. Sheep and goats are not moral, rational and relational beings as a whole. ( They certainly are ‘relational’ in a minimal sense. But not in a personal sense.)

Doug

As I said before, you try to make it a metaphor and literal at the same time in your comeback argument. The metaphor has nothing to do with whether literal sheep and goats are moral relational beings. How has what I have said have anything to do with that or gone anywhere near it? Explain.

 

[David1701]

In other words, you do not believe because you are not believers. Jesus’s flock are believers because they believe.

Doug

Jesus was not in habit of using stupid tautologies.

Good grief man, get a grip! SMH!

Some sheep are not believers yet, but will be. Some sheep are already believers.

Those who are not sheep, do not believe because they are not sheep; in other words, they differ from sheep who do not believe yet.

 

[TibiasDad]

When you can find a way to make your statement more understandable and its relationship to the post, I will address that. As it stands, I have no idea what you are trying to substantiate,

Jesus speaks in the present tense about those in his flock and those who are not. The Greek present tense tells us nothing about anything but that present moment of time. It cannot tell us anything about what may or may not happen!

In other words, that some were not at that present time part of his flock/believers, doesn’t mean that those about whom Jesus spoke could not ever believe and become a part of his sheep.

The present tense can only refer to that exact moment. Whereas the perfect tense speaks of a completed action whose results are, at the point of reference, still in effect, such as “you believed and continue to do so presently”. No Greek tense can, in itself, tell us anything about something beyond the scope of its point of reference.

You are saying that because they are not his sheep that they cannot ever be. The present tense cannot be stretched to imply such a thing. Jesus doesn’t say they can’t ever believe, he says they are not presently part of his sheep.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

As I said before, you try to make it a metaphor and literal at the same time in your comeback argument. The metaphor has nothing to do with whether literal sheep and goats are moral relational beings. How has what I have said have anything to do with that or gone anywhere near it? Explain.

A metaphor is a figurative image used to represent a specific thing or state of reality. Thus, a literal unbelieving person, is a representative of sheep not in Jesus’s flock, and a sheep in his flock represents a person who has believed/does believe.

You are assuming an avalanche of ideas in your interpretation, none of which, in my humble opinion, can be established by the text itself.


Doug

 

[Arial]

Jesus speaks in the present tense about those in his flock and those who are not. The Greek present tense tells us nothing about anything but that present moment of time. It cannot tell us anything about what may or may not happen!

Not all of what He said refers the present moment of time in which He was speaking. In fact it has no time reference at all. Identify what He meant by "not of this flock." Identify what He meant by "other sheep not of that flock." Identify what He meant by "other sheep not of this fold." Identify what He means by "I know my own and my own know me" and then what it means that He equates this "knowing" to the way in which the Father and the Son know one another. By then you should be able to identify what He means by "I must bring them." and by "they will listen to my voice." He tells us what will happen.

In other words, that some were not at that present time part of his flock/believers, doesn’t mean that those about whom Jesus spoke could not ever believe and become a part of his sheep.

It says He already knows His flock, and when they hear His voice, they will know Him. It isn't talking about free will choice at all, period. Jesus is making statements of truth. It says He already has a flock, not that He will have one He has not brought them all in (gathered them) until the last trumpet sounds but He most assuredly will. It is not a wait and see game with God. Instead of making it fit a particular doctrine or arriving at a doctrine solely on the basis of what you think this says, identify the parts, starting with who is He calling "this flock"? Then, who are the other sheep in His flock? And how does He bring them into the fold? Notice in those scriptures, those that came immediately before them and immediately following, there is not the slightest hint of anyone deciding to join His flock. It is in fact, conspicuously absent, so conspicuous it is amazing anyone dares to find it there.

The present tense can only refer to that exact moment. Whereas the perfect tense speaks of a completed action whose results are, at the point of reference, still in effect, such as “you believed and continue to do so presently”. No Greek tense can, in itself, tell us anything about something beyond the scope of its point of reference.

The scriptures say what they say. A person can attempt a weak dance through grammar to make it say other than what it does, but the truth remains strangely unmovable.

You are saying that because they are not his sheep that they cannot ever be. The present tense cannot be stretched to imply such a thing. Jesus doesn’t say they can’t ever believe, he says they are not presently part of his sheep.

I did not say that. Jesus did not say that. It is not what He was talking about. Read the entire chapter then get back to me and tell me what He is talking about and what He meant by what He said in relation to what He said before. Perhaps it is from the viewpoint of the Alpha and Omega, not a human perspective. When Jesus says "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me" He equates that statement with "just as the Father knows me and I know the Father." It is not a perspective of past, present, and future, it is a perspective of eternity.

Jesus is telling the crowds who He is and what He is doing. He is revealing Himself as the Good Shepherd who gathers His flock. The election by God of those who He will give to Jesus is crystal clear, even though it is not the specific subject. It is clear because it is truth. It is so clear in fact that many dispensationalists in defense of a two stage redemption, and those who insist salvation is by man's free will choice, alike, have gone to great lengths of find a way to make it appear to mean something other that what it clearly does.

 

[Arial]

A metaphor is a figurative image used to represent a specific thing or state of reality. Thus, a literal unbelieving person, is a representative of sheep not in Jesus’s flock, and a sheep in his flock represents a person who has believed/does believe.

You are assuming an avalanche of ideas in your interpretation, none of which, in my humble opinion, can be established by the text itself.


Doug

Did I ask you to tell me what a metaphor is? Answer the question I asked.

An avalanche of ideas in my interpretation? None of which you identify or set to rights with the text. So what purpose did it serve to say that?

 

[David1701]

Jesus speaks in the present tense about those in his flock and those who are not. The Greek present tense tells us nothing about anything but that present moment of time. It cannot tell us anything about what may or may not happen!

In other words, that some were not at that present time part of his flock/believers, doesn’t mean that those about whom Jesus spoke could not ever believe and become a part of his sheep.

The present tense can only refer to that exact moment. Whereas the perfect tense speaks of a completed action whose results are, at the point of reference, still in effect, such as “you believed and continue to do so presently”. No Greek tense can, in itself, tell us anything about something beyond the scope of its point of reference.

You are saying that because they are not his sheep that they cannot ever be. The present tense cannot be stretched to imply such a thing. Jesus doesn’t say they can’t ever believe, he says they are not presently part of his sheep.


Doug

You are STILL making no sense whatever!

Jesus said to those Pharisees that they did not believe, because they were not his sheep. The main point here is not the tense, but the cause. The cause of them not believing was that they were not his sheep.

Now, how does one get saved? Jesus said that his sheep hear his voice and follow him (that's how his first disciples were saved, and it's how we are saved); but, he also said that those who are not his sheep do not believe (and that the cause of their unbelief is that they are not his sheep), which means that they will never believe.

You apparently not understanding this can only be because you do not want to understand it. It upends your man-centred false teaching, so you desperately seek any way out, no matter how ludicrous.

 

[David1701]

A metaphor is a figurative image used to represent a specific thing or state of reality. Thus, a literal unbelieving person, is a representative of sheep not in Jesus’s flock, and a sheep in his flock represents a person who has believed/does believe.

You are assuming an avalanche of ideas in your interpretation, none of which, in my humble opinion, can be established by the text itself.


Doug

How could a person who is not one of Jesus' sheep ever become one of his sheep, since not being one of his sheep is the CAUSE of his unbelief?

He would have to change into one of Jesus' sheep BEFORE believing, so that the cause of his unbelief was removed... Where does this leave your supposition?