The parable of the lost sheep and the goats.

[Ben1445]

I don't see how this constitutes "new doctrine", as to me, they are making mention of the same group of people...
Christ's "sheep", I.E. all that are saved.

Not new in the sense of recent. New as in not Scriptural. It isn’t that I don’t think you understood me. I just want to be clear. I am aware that this is not a brand new idea. I don’t see where Jesus taught what Calvinism does. It is a conglomeration of several of Jesus’ teachings that are matched up in a way that is not parallel. It is poor topical exegesis.

Please allow me to give my own personal understanding of each passage, and I hope you'll see how they relate to one another.

I don’t doubt that there are relations. Calvinism is just not looking at the picture correctly as it smashes two pieces of the puzzle together that don’t match.

1) In the parable of the lost sheep, the Lord Jesus is likening Himself to the shepherd ( see John 10:1-16 where He declares Himself to be the Good Shepherd ), while the "sheep" are His people.

The lost sheep are not in His possession. They are lost. They are astray. Lost sheep don’t believe in Jesus or they would not be lost. If a lost sheep dies lost, it is lost. This is an idea so simple and yet foreign to Calvinism that it would not ever be considered. It is considered heretical to a Calvinist and the ridicule of other Calvinist teachers keeps you in check. You would never want to be accused of not persevering.

This we can readily know from all the references in which the Lord Jesus describes His disciples, those that have believed on Him and that the Father has given to Him ( John 6:65, John 17:2, etc )... as "His sheep", such as this one:

" Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. " ( John 10:25-28 ).

Don’t add more topical preaching and muddy the water. You can’t even match the unrighteous with the righteous and the righteous with the righteous with only two texts to worry about.
But if that is what you really want to do, you might want to reconsider your approach to study.
Words in different passages when presented as simile or metaphor do not always mean the same thing.
Jesus is described as a lion. The devil is described as a lion. That doesn’t make them the same.

So, in the parable of the lost sheep, He is telling us that God loves His elect so much that He's willing to go out and seek them ( and find them ) wherever they are, and rescue them from all evil, bringing them back into the fold.

It doesn’t say that. You did.
Election is adoption, the redemption of our bodies. (See Romans 8.)

2) In the parable of the sheep and goats, the "sheep" ( those who are on His right hand, a position of honor with God and are declared as "the righteous" ) are those He has saved...they are those for whom the kingdom was prepared from ( at the time of ) the foundation of the world. The "goats" ( those who are on His left hand, and declared to be cursed ), are those who have not believed on Christ, are not His elect, and were never given to Him by His Father to save.

According to you, they were never allowed to believe on Christ. Jesus didn’t die for them. God made them to be sinners so that He could be glorified by destroying the sin that He made.

This is not the reality of the God who gave himself as the sacrifice for mankind. This is not a God, rich in mercy. It’s a god selective in mercy.

They are those who shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is also that same everlasting punishment that is reserved for the devil and his angels.

They might just as well be the devil and his angels if they are not given any opportunity to be forgiven.

God offered salvation to all men in Adam. God came and sought Adam. In the first Adam, all are made sinners. In the Second Adam, all can be made righteous. The majority will not cease from their own works and trust God. This doesn’t limit God’s ability to save all men. He is able to save to the uttermost. It limits who He will save. When any man rejects salvation offered by Jesus, he bears his own responsibility. When any person retains his own responsibility for perseverance to the end, he is not resting from his own works.
True faith, true belief, is to stop trusting any knowledge, work, goodness, or anything other than what Jesus has done. It is to believe that Jesus has paid the debt of sin and that the payment is acceptable in the sight of the Father. It is not what some people think of as some kind of Indiana Jones puzzle that when figured out makes the magic happen. This sort of approach is a Calvinist made up idea to ridicule the free will that God has given man. (I have never actually been told that it is Indiana Jones salvation. It just sounds like what I have been accused of for “figuring out” how to be saved.)

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings Ben. I hope you had a blessed weekend.

That is your training.

Exactly what training of mine is that, specifically?

Righteous and unrighteous is equivalent to saved and lost respectively. The lost are not considered righteous and the saved are not considered unrighteous. Unless you have some other way of differing the categories that would cause them to be combined, I see no reason to decide that the terms are not interchangeable.

So now I'm confused. First you write in post #3, "In which verse are they called lost?" I presumed you objected to the word "lost". But now I'm not sure. So I'll ask you straight up, do you or do you not object to using the word "lost" in the parable?

You then said in post #5

That is because there is no parable of the lost sheep and the goats.

Again, seemingly objecting to the word "lost".

So in my analysis in post #12, I attempted to exclude the very word you were objecting to, i.e., "lost". Or so it seemed you objected to it early in this OP. So do you accept the word for this parable despite the word not bring present in the parable?



Peace to you brother.

 

[Dave G]

Perhaps you are adding your own emotions into my words.

Not at all.
But one thing I've found in these discussions, is the propensity of both sides to let their emotions get the better of them.
If I'm wrong, please forgive me.

 

[Dave G]

New as in not Scriptural.

I believe that it is, and you see it differently.
I'm not surprised, but I felt that giving the Scriptures and how I see them relating may explain why I do.

I can see that it didn't have the effect that I was hoping for.

Calvinism is just not looking at the picture correctly as it smashes two pieces of the puzzle together that don’t match.

Not being a "Calvinist" ( but I get that all the time because I happen to agree, in many ways, with those who are labeled as such ), I'm simply reading the Scriptures and telling you how I personally understand them....nothing more.

The lost sheep are not in His possession. They are lost. They are astray. Lost sheep don’t believe in Jesus or they would not be lost. If a lost sheep dies lost, it is lost.

Sheep can be lost, and still be sheep, my friend. Goats, on the other hand, are not sheep and never were.
That is the point I was trying to make.

You seem to see them as being "lost" in the sense of "unsaved" in the parable in question, while I do not... because I understand His purpose according to election as being the primary driver behind who God saves and who He does not.
I understand that Christ was talking about His sheep as being the ones that His Father gave to Him before the foundation of the world, and that the goats were never His...
...and He will tell some of those same "goats" ( those that are not His "sheep" ), "I never knew you" at the Judgement.

That He goes looking for ( and saves ) His sheep is because it was His mission to do so, and nothing they did caused Him to decide who to save....
Not their belief of His word, nor their belief on Him, but the fact that they were His to save.

 

[Dave G]

This is an idea so simple and yet foreign to Calvinism that it would not ever be considered. It is considered heretical to a Calvinist and the ridicule of other Calvinist teachers keeps you in check. You would never want to be accused of not persevering.

Again, I'm not a "Calvinist", and for the record, I do not take my understanding of the Bible from them or their system.
In fact, I was once a Fundamental Baptist and grew up in those circles since the age of 12, when I first heard ( and believed ) God's word preached in an independent Baptist church in 1978.

I left those same circles in 2007, when I realized that I was growing far different in my understanding of the Bible than what they had taught me for over 25 years.

Don’t add more topical preaching and muddy the water. You can’t even match the unrighteous with the righteous and the righteous with the righteous with only two texts to worry about.
But if that is what you really want to do, you might want to reconsider your approach to study.
Words in different passages when presented as simile or metaphor do not always mean the same thing.
Jesus is described as a lion. The devil is described as a lion. That doesn’t make them the same.

Ben, I have the right to explain how and why I see something in the Bible the way that I do, and you have that same right.

I hope that we both can agree to disagree without either of us dictating rules to each other.
Things like "hermeneutics" are, from my perspective, nothing more than man-made rules of interpretation, and I don't subscribe to them;
I simply read the Scriptures, and believe and understand what's written.

That said, how you see it is how you see it.
How you decide to act on what you see, and how I do, we both will answer to God for.

 

[Dave G]

It doesn’t say that. You did.
Election is adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Apparently to you it doesn't say that, but to me it does.
I disagree that election is solely adoption, and I have that right as a believer in Jesus Christ, to do so.

According to you, they were never allowed to believe on Christ.

According to the Scriptures, the Jews, as a nation, were kept from believing...
Would it shock you to find out, from His word, that God Himself has judiciously blinded the nation of Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come into the body of Christ?

" But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
38 that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." ( John 12:39-40 ) <------HE has blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart...so that they should not see and understand, and be converted...and that God should heal them.

" What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway." ( Romans 11:7-10 ). <--- God has given them the spirit of slumber...eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear.

It says it right on the page.

 

[Dave G]

It’s a god selective in mercy.

Precisely, just as Romans 9 and Exodus 33 tells me...
"I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy", said the Lord.

They might just as well be the devil and his angels if they are not given any opportunity to be forgiven.

God offered salvation to all men in Adam. God came and sought Adam. In the first Adam, all are made sinners. In the Second Adam, all can be made righteous. The majority will not cease from their own works and trust God. This doesn’t limit God’s ability to save all men. He is able to save to the uttermost. It limits who He will save. When any man rejects salvation offered by Jesus, he bears his own responsibility. When any person retains his own responsibility for perseverance to the end, he is not resting from his own works.
True faith, true belief, is to stop trusting any knowledge, work, goodness, or anything other than what Jesus has done. It is to believe that Jesus has paid the debt of sin and that the payment is acceptable in the sight of the Father. It is not what some people think of as some kind of Indiana Jones puzzle that when figured out makes the magic happen. This sort of approach is a Calvinist made up idea to ridicule the free will that God has given man. (I have never actually been told that it is Indiana Jones salvation. It just sounds like what I have been accused of for “figuring out” how to be saved.)

Ben, it seems that we definitely do not understand the Scriptures the same way on any of this.
Because of that, I find that we must part ways ( if we were ever in the same ways to begin with ).

However, I recognize that you have the right to see and express what you believe, and I do as well.
Because of this, I will make every effort to treat you with respect;
But given my years of study in the Scriptures, I find that I cannot extend my hand in fellowship to the kind of message that I do not see Paul, for example, preaching and teaching to the churches in his epistles.

Rather, I see him telling them point blank, that the reason that they were saved is because God chose them "in Christ" before the foundation of the world ( Ephesians 1 ) and sent His Son for them, and that He loves them with an everlasting love.
Sadly, ( and as much as I wish that His purposes were different ) I see Him telling us that He does not love the "goats", He does not love "the lost", and He does not cast people into Hell that He does love.

He loves the sheep, and only the sheep.

To me, that's not "Calvinism", that is the truth of God's word;
A truth that I, as a "Baptist", have the right to express and to believe, whether or not I'm labeled as a heretic for it.
I'm sorry, my friend, but this is the divide between us, and this is where it will stand but for the grace of God.


Good evening to you, and I wish you well.

 

[JonC]

Can somebody give me a reference for this often quoted parable?
My point here is that by mixing two different teachings, we are coming up with new doctrine.

There is not a parable about sheep and goats.

At Judgment God will separate people on his left and right like a shepherd separates sheep and goats. Those who cared for the "least of these" will have life and those who did not will perish.

 

[Ben1445]

Greetings Ben. I hope you had a blessed weekend.


Exactly what training of mine is that, specifically?

Calvinism or reformed theology or whatever you specifically call it. I’ve been scolded for mislabeling and dead naming on the subject. Pick your preference.

So now I'm confused. First you write in post #3, "In which verse are they called lost?" I presumed you objected to the word "lost". But now I'm not sure. So I'll ask you straight up, do you or do you not object to using the word "lost" in the parable?

You then said in post #5

Again, seemingly objecting to the word "lost".

So in my analysis in post #12, I attempted to exclude the very word you were objecting to, i.e., "lost". Or so it seemed you objected to it early in this OP. So do you accept the word for this parable despite the word not bring present in the parable?



Peace to you brother.

You are still combining parables and I object to the lost sheep and goats being used simultaneously as a teaching.
I have heard too often that a lost sheep is not a goat. The two parables are not teaching the same things. It is poor study and misleading when taught.

 

[Ben1445]

Apparently to you it doesn't say that, but to me it does.
I disagree that election is solely adoption, and I have that right as a believer in Jesus Christ, to do so.

According to the Scriptures, the Jews, as a nation, were kept from believing...
Would it shock you to find out, from His word, that God Himself has judiciously blinded the nation of Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come into the body of Christ?

" But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
38 that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." ( John 12:39-40 ) <------HE has blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart...so that they should not see and understand, and be converted...and that God should heal them.

" What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway." ( Romans 11:7-10 ). <--- God has given them the spirit of slumber...eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear.

It says it right on the page.

Amazing that Paul was working against God and praying for Israel to be saved.
Even more amazing that God thought it proper to include it in Scripture.

 

[Ben1445]

Sheep can be lost, and still be sheep, my friend. Goats, on the other hand, are not sheep and never were.
That is the point I was trying to make.

That is what I disagree with you a out. You have inserted goats into the parable of the lost sheep.
A goat can be made into a sheep. We are made new creatures. We are changed. By the way, sheep and goats are metaphors and there is no difficulty in changing metaphorical identity. When Christ makes us new creatures, we would definitely not be described as we used to be.
In the end, when there is no more opportunity, when the day of salvation is past, the lost remain lost and the saved will be saved. Until then there is opportunity to seek the lost. And as the parable teaches lost Israel will continue to be sought after. They are the ones who were called by God’s name and went astray. They have a temporary blindness. In your many years of study, I am sure that you have read that this blindness is in part and there is cause for jealousy to the end that they return to the Lord. The gentile is told not to think more highly of himself than the natural branches because God is able to graft them in again.

You seem to see them as being "lost" in the sense of "unsaved" in the parable in question, while I do not... because I understand His purpose according to election as being the primary driver behind who God saves and who He does not.

you misunderstand election. Look into it more closely and give your present perspective the third degree. It doesn’t hold up to what election is, to wit, the redemption of our bodies.

I understand that Christ was talking about His sheep as being the ones that His Father gave to Him before the foundation of the world, and that the goats were never His...

His sheep as opposed to the sheep that are not his.

...and He will tell some of those same "goats" ( those that are not His "sheep" ), "I never knew you" at the Judgement.

There are no goats till judgement day.

That He goes looking for ( and saves ) His sheep is because it was His mission to do so, and nothing they did caused Him to decide who to save....
Not their belief of His word, nor their belief on Him, but the fact that they were His to save.

He decided to save whosoever will come. He will save anyone who is athirst. He will save anybody who has ears to hear. And the “whosoever will” gives each person’s will the opportunity to will to answer the calling voice of the Saviour. Unless you don’t believe God meant whosoever when He said it. We surely would not understand Scripture the same way if you think God doesn’t mean what He said.

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings to you Ben. Grace and peace to you and yours.

Calvinism or reformed theology or whatever you specifically call it. I’ve been scolded for mislabeling and dead naming on the subject. Pick your preference.

Just for the future, I might call myself more of a Reformed leaning Baptist. I affirm the Sovereignty of God at the same time affirming the responsibility of mankind to believe and have faith. I have been frequently called a Calvinist by Arminians and an Arminian by Calvinists. Therefore, I guess I'm properly called a Baptist.

You are still combining parables

I wonder if you use this standard for all the parables. Or just the ones you disagree with the comparisons.

I have heard too often that a lost sheep is not a goat.

Well, as I wrote previously... they are not the same. But I presented why. Let me know what exactly you disagree with in what I am about to write

Parable of the Lost Sheep are...
(1) Sheep are those that have heard and believe
(2) Lost-sheep are those that have not heard

Parable of the Sheep and Goats are...
(1) Sheep are those that have heard and believe
(2) Goats are those that have heard and do not believe


Peace to you brother.

 

[Dave G]

Amazing that Paul was working against God and praying for Israel to be saved.

Yet I see him clearly preaching those very things to the Romans, Ephesians, Thessalonians, etc.
I don't know why you do not, but all I can do is urge you to keep studying...

As I can say in all truth, that many things in His word didn't even begin to "coalesce" completely until sometime within the past 10-15 years, and I've been a believer for a lot longer than that.

Even more amazing that God thought it proper to include it in Scripture.

That Paul wished that Israel could be saved? He did, and I've echoed his thoughts regarding people that I know, on many occasions.
In fact, I wish everyone I know could be saved.

But I also ( like Paul did ) acknowledge that God's purpose according to election ( Romans 9:11 ) will stand.

 

[Dave G]

I am sure that you have read that this blindness is in part and there is cause for jealousy to the end that they return to the Lord. The gentile is told not to think more highly of himself than the natural branches because God is able to graft them in again.

Agreed.

you misunderstand election.

I disagree.

Look into it more closely and give your present perspective the third degree. It doesn’t hold up to what election is, to wit, the redemption of our bodies.

Let's both look at how you've used "election" in the quote above, and concluded that it means "the redemption of our bodies":

" For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,
21 because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, [then] do we with patience wait for [it]." ( Romans 8:20-25 ).

In the above, I don't know why you're seeing one thing, and I another, but I'll give you my thoughts about it:

I understand that the redemption of our bodies, as believers, is defined by the term, "adoption", not "election";
The passage itself tells me this, without going outside of it and bringing anything else into it.

This is why I'm not sure where you conclude that it's talking about election ( choosing ) there, but I personally don't see God's foreknowledge of His people, election, choosing, or predestinating even mentioned before Paul gets further down beginning in verse 28, where he tells us that all things work together for good to them that love God...

To them who are the called according to His purpose.

 

[Dave G]

His sheep as opposed to the sheep that are not his.

Let's read it again, Ben:

" When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: 33 and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left."

When you read this, who do you see as being defined as "the sheep"?
I see it as describing those on Christ's right hand, while those defined as "the goats" are those on His left.

Let's move on...

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: " <---- Here I plainly see that those on His right hand ( the "sheep" ), are also declared to be "ye blessed of my Father", to which is promised the kingdom that was prepared for them from the foundation of the world.

Now down a little further to where the ones on the left are addressed:

" Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" <--- Here I plainly see, based on what's already been declared in the text, that the ones on the left are already defined as "goats", not "sheep".

 

[Dave G]

Now, taking what the Lord Jesus has revealed to me, in the details, about those on the right hand being not only "sheep", but being "ye blessed of my Father"...
and taking what the Lord has already revealed to me about those on the left hand as not only being "goats", but also "ye cursed", I bring those definitions with me when I read this parable:

" And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found [it], he layeth [it] on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together [his] friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."

When I read this, I then equate "sheep" with those in the "non-parable" that Jesus gave me clear definitions for in Matthew 25.
I also note that those same "sheep" in the parable are also associated with "one sinner that repents"...I.E. those that have repented from the heart, those that are saved.

So, having told you how I see it and why, and having given you the reason that I define "sheep" as "ye blessed of my Father" and who also will inherit the kingdom that was prepared for them from the foundation of the world, do you now understand why I equate "sheep" in the parable of the lost sheep as those that are blessed of the Father and who will inherit the kingdom that was prepared for them from the foundation of the world ( the saved )?

I'm simply reading into the parable ( *parables are Scriptural truths whose meanings are deliberately hidden from the reader and whose details are revealed in other places in God's word, please see Matthew 13 for why the Lord spoke to the Jews in parables* ) what the Lord Jesus clearly told me someplace else ....in another prophecy set for when He comes in His glory.

Again, "sheep" = "Blessed"
"Goats = "cursed".

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it, but then I can only give you my own understanding for it, and compare notes with you in the process.
If we disagree, then we disagree.


That said, I wish you well, and I will make this my final post in this thread...
As it seems that further discussion about this subject is becoming somewhat unprofitable for both of us.


May God bless you sir.

 

[Ben1445]

Greetings to you Ben. Grace and peace to you and yours.


Just for the future, I might call myself more of a Reformed leaning Baptist. I affirm the Sovereignty of God at the same time affirming the responsibility of mankind to believe and have faith. I have been frequently called a Calvinist by Arminians and an Arminian by Calvinists. Therefore, I guess I'm properly called a Baptist.


I wonder if you use this standard for all the parables. Or just the ones you disagree with the comparisons.

There is a difference between parallels and poor exegesis. Parables should be taught separately and the principles compared. It is not accurate to compare the stories themselves. The parables have meanings. The meaning is the teaching, not the example.
Yes, I am consistent about it.

Well, as I wrote previously... they are not the same. But I presented why. Let me know what exactly you disagree with in what I am about to write

Parable of the Lost Sheep are...
(1) Sheep are those that have heard and believe

In this singular passage. There may be others but it doesn’t follow. Jesus is the Lamb but that doesn’t mean he heard and believed.

(2) Lost-sheep are those that have not heard

You left something out. The thing that you left out is what I disagree with.
Also, the sheep are Israel and not all people. Jesus does save gentiles but this parable is about the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Parable of the Sheep and Goats are...
(1) Sheep are those that have heard and believe
(2) Goats are those that have heard and do not believe


Peace to you brother.

According to some, lost sheep must be saved.
Parable of the lost sheep is before judgement.
The sheep and goats are in the judgment.
Show me the goats before judgement. The only thing I have seen is that it is not fit to give the children’s food to the dogs.
But even the dog was fed.

 

[Ben1445]

Yet I see him clearly preaching those very things to the Romans, Ephesians, Thessalonians, etc.
I don't know why you do not, but all I can do is urge you to keep studying...

I see those things. They provoke Israel to believe.
I urge you to keep studying.

As I can say in all truth, that many things in His word didn't even begin to "coalesce" completely until sometime within the past 10-15 years, and I've been a believer for a lot longer than that.

But now you have reached the age of understanding and that should be good enough for me to take your word for it??
Don’t pat yourself on the back.

That Paul wished that Israel could be saved? He did, and I've echoed his thoughts regarding people that I know, on many occasions.
In fact, I wish everyone I know could be saved.

But I also ( like Paul did ) acknowledge that God's purpose according to election ( Romans 9:11 ) will stand.

So all people will come to repentance because Jesus is not willing that any should perish?
Now there are no goats. What was Jesus talking about in Matthew?
You have very confusing theology. I know where you will inevitably change the definitions. That is basically making your own religion. I don’t agree with that.

 

[Ben1445]

Let's read it again, Ben:

Enter the Calvinist indoctrination technique. “I’ll tell you again till you believe me.” “Truth” based upon familiarity instead of fact.

" When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: 33 and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left."

When you read this, who do you see as being defined as "the sheep"?
I see it as describing those on Christ's right hand, while those defined as "the goats" are those on His left.

Let's move on...

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: " <---- Here I plainly see that those on His right hand ( the "sheep" ), are also declared to be "ye blessed of my Father", to which is promised the kingdom that was prepared for them from the foundation of the world.

Now down a little further to where the ones on the left are addressed:

" Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" <--- Here I plainly see, based on what's already been declared in the text, that the ones on the left are already defined as "goats", not "sheep".

You are still teaching two parables at the same time. It doesn’t make sense because they are not about the same thing.
But double down on the same error and expect me to applaud you? Why?
This does not make a lost sheep from a different teaching, an elect to salvation being.

 

[Ben1445]

Now, taking what the Lord Jesus has revealed to me,

God has revealed something different to me. Was that supposed to make me believe you?
I prayed about it. That doesn’t change the conversation. It makes the person who said it look falsely pious. Speak the truth, or what you think the truth is, and let it stand for itself. Stop lauding your spirituality publicly. Tell God how great you are. (This I say to make a point. Not because I think you should.) It makes no difference to me. What can I do about it?

in the details, about those on the right hand being not only "sheep", but being "ye blessed of my Father"...
and taking what the Lord has already revealed to me about those on the left hand as not only being "goats", but also "ye cursed", I bring those definitions with me when I read this parable:

" And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found [it], he layeth [it] on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together [his] friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."

When I read this, I then equate "sheep" with those in the "non-parable" that Jesus gave me clear definitions for in Matthew 25.

Non parable? So there will be four footed sheep and goats with horns. Who will feed them and give them grass to eat?
Tell me more about the literal sheep and goats.

I also note that those same "sheep" in the parable are also associated with "one sinner that repents"...I.E. those that have repented from the heart, those that are saved.

So, having told you how I see it and why, and having given you the reason that I define "sheep" as "ye blessed of my Father" and who also will inherit the kingdom that was prepared for them from the foundation of the world, do you now understand why I equate "sheep" in the parable of the lost sheep as those that are blessed of the Father and who will inherit the kingdom that was prepared for them from the foundation of the world ( the saved )?

This is the result of poor study and merging parables that speak of different things.

I'm simply reading into the parable ( *parables are Scriptural truths whose meanings are deliberately hidden from the reader and whose details are revealed in other places in God's word, please see Matthew 13 for why the Lord spoke to the Jews in parables* ) what the Lord Jesus clearly told me someplace else ....in another prophecy set for when He comes in His glory.

They are hidden from those who do not believe. They are not hidden from believers.
Mark 4:13
And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
According to your logic the best possible answer from the disciples would be, give us the rest of the Bible to work with and we will be fine.
The hearts and minds of the people were blinded because they wouldn’t believe not because they couldn’t.

Again, "sheep" = "Blessed"
"Goats = "cursed".

Jesus was lifted up.
The serpent was lifted up. All serpents must be good then according to your logic.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it, but then I can only give you my own understanding for it, and compare notes with you in the process.
If we disagree, then we disagree.

If you continue mixing parables, we disagree.

That said, I wish you well, and I will make this my final post in this thread...
As it seems that further discussion about this subject is becoming somewhat unprofitable for both of us.

Not unprofitable. It is good to look at how Scripture is interpreted and see if it is being rightly divided.

May God bless you sir.