Sheep and Goats

Please show me where I said that. I have said that "many" Baptists held Kingdom truths dear and they are abandoning them, many times. (I know of many formerly Baptist churches that have dropped "Baptist" from their name because so many mainline Baptist denominations are departing from them.)

But, if I ever said "most", it was inadvertent.

Please show me so I can correct it.

Hebrews 1:8: But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [euthutEs; straightness] [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom.

It should be the , and the word "euthutEs" is literally, "straightness". It is applied directly to God. It is never applied to man in the NT.

It is found in 20 places in the LXX. 1 Kings 3:6 is interesting: It contains both "righteousness" and "straightness". I wonder why the Holy Spirit would be duplicitous?

Oh, look! Psalm 9:8 uses both words as well!

(However, I'm not going to do all your homework for you; you'll have to look at the rest.)

Oh, OK, one more that uses both: Psalm 11:7.

(Thayer's and Strong's are based on the KJV, BTW, not on the Greek; so, when you are quoting from them, you are quoting from the KJV.)

I would just like to close by saying one more thing:

James 2:24: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified (present, passive, indicative; "is being justified"), and not by faith only.

It's not an event, according to Scripture, no matter how badly you want it to be. </font>[/QUOTE]Firstly, I do not "badly" want Justification to be one way versus another. I am content to allow the Bible to dictate to me what Justification is.

Secondly, the problem is, if you appeal to James as proof of justification by process, e.g. justification by works, you are going to find yourself in trouble because James clearly says that if you want to be declared just by law keeping, you have to keep all of the law... for if you break it in one place, you have, in effect, broken all of it.... so how can one be just by keeping the law when, if they break it, they are guilty of breaking the whole law?
Jam 2:10 ESV For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it."

Paul is clear that the penalty for law breaking the law is death:
Rom 6:23 esv For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Further, it is clear also that all... all... have fallen.... Rom 3:23 esv for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

I just do not see how you can fail to see the obvious fact that since all have sinned, that anyone who sins is guilty of breaking the law in all points, could ever maintain that people actually become justified by obeying this or that individual law! Paul is so clear on this point: Rom 3:20 esv For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

You say James 2:24: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified (present, passive, indicative; "is being justified"), and not by faith only."

And???? All James is saying is that true faith produces works. That is his ongoing theme throughout the book; faith without works is a dead faith. That this is his intent, that faith without works is not true faith, is shown by Jam 2:22 esv You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;”. True saving faith is completed by works. A true faith is, as Luther described it, a “fides vive”, a living faith, and while it is true that salvation is by faith alone, it is also true that it is never by a faith that is alone. Sanctification will always accompany justification, they must never be confused as you and Rome have done, but they must also never be separated as antinomians have done.

Lastly, if you want to insist that Paul and James contradict one another, I have to ask you, if justification before God is by works, how many works does it take?

Blessings,
Ken

 

The ongoing theme throughout the book of James is the salvation of the soul, which is what justification has to do with. That is why it's relevant to know that faith without works is dead; it has nothing to do with spiritual salvation.

Here is a link to a pdf that contains every occurrence of "justify" (1344) in the NT. Each verse is parsed out: Justify

 

I also wanted to add that the idea that a person is continually justified, that there is a need for continual justification, indicates that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient to atone for all sins, and would make a mockery of Romans 8:1 which clearly says that there is no condemnation for those in Christ, and if there is no condemnation for those in Christ, there is no need to continually be justified.

as far as the site parsing all the occurances of justify, you have to be careful to not commit the lexical fallacy, which is what most of your theology seems to be based on... see http://instructor.pbi.ab.ca/StevenIbbotson/2Peter/wordstudy.htm

blessings,
Ken

 

Wow, that's an excellent resource, thanks. One of my pet peeves is what I think he calls the root fallacy (not quite sure, based on his definition). It's one of the mistakes a LOT of people make. They take a Greek word, tell us which English word is derived from it, and then plug the English word back into the Biblical text as if it makes the verse more clear. What it actually does, at least in most cases, is change the meaning of the text to something other than what the author intended.

Rick Warren does this with "For it is God who works in you..." He points out that the Greek for "works" is based on energeo, which is where we get our word "energy". So he retranslates the text to mean "It is God who energizes you". Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, Rick.

Not sure if that's root fallacy, but it's a big fallacy, whatever it's called.

 

Well, you seem blinded to one very important word in Romans 8:1: Now.

Also, I didn't really expect you to look at the parsed verses. Most people aren't interested in examining Scriptures that challenge their pre-conceived notions. But, perhaps someone reading took a look at them.

 

So Now there is no condemnation. But in five minutes, there will be.

So to you, sola gratia means "Now, here's a free Mercedes Benz. All you have to do to keep it after today is pay me $1,200 per month, because MY payment wasn't sufficient to cover the cost."

 

Orig question
-----------------------------------------------
I saw, in another section, questions about sheep and goats. I wanted to ask a specific question: Is there anywhere in the Bible that indicates that a goat has become a sheep?
----------------------------------------------

First the sheep and goat judgement is at the end of the tribulation,when Christ judges the people left alive after the tribulation.
All were goats to start with but became sheep when they believed the gospel preached by the 144000 jews,and the angels who preached the everlasting gospel and accepted Christ.
As a result of their salvation they helped the 144000 and fed them, thus Jesus said because you did it to these my brethern (Jesus was a jew)
you did it unto me.

All through the bible the saved sinner becomes a sheep when saved, so yes a goat becomes a sheep when saved.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

 

Although I think you're quite mistaken about a goat becoming a sheep (show me one example in Scripture that is not taken from an assumption), you are quite correct that sheep always represent spiritually saved individuals.

 

If the sheep are the saved, they were at one time lost. Who are the lost in the passage about the sheep and goat judgement?

Answer the goats, so unless we are born saved we must have been at one time lost or as Jesus called them in that passage goats.

Mt 25.
31 ¶ 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:

 

The lost are the ones who profess Christ but are so full of hate toward Christians that they are blinded to Him.

About 85% of this board fit that category.

 

You are yet in the gall of bitterness sfic .

 

They are called the lost sheep. They aren't called the goats who haven't yet become sheep.

 

Sheep are sheep; goats are goats. If they are sheep, then they are spiritually saved. Period. (Goats are spiritually saved as well.)

So, what do you think a lost sheep is? It's the Greek word for "destroy". They have lost their lives. In order to lose their lives, they had to have them in the first place.

So, what do you think a lost sheep is? Do you think it's an unsaved sheep?

 

I am not a dispensationalist, which may be why I don't understand how it's connected to sheep and goats. Maybe you can start a thread on that. I'd like to know how a dispensational view could put a different spin on sheep and goats.

 

In retrospect, I think the brevity of my answer sounds like I'm disagreeing with you. I didn't mean it to sound that way. I agree with your post. I'm simply pointing out that sheep who are still lost are simply lost sheep, not goats who have yet to become sheep. Jesus came to seek and save the lost [sheep], not to seek goats and turn them into sheep.

 

Wow, that's an excellent resource, thanks. One of my pet peeves is what I think he calls the root fallacy (not quite sure, based on his definition). It's one of the mistakes a LOT of people make. They take a Greek word, tell us which English word is derived from it, and then plug the English word back into the Biblical text as if it makes the verse more clear. What it actually does, at least in most cases, is change the meaning of the text to something other than what the author intended.

Rick Warren does this with "For it is God who works in you..." He points out that the Greek for "works" is based on energeo, which is where we get our word "energy". So he retranslates the text to mean "It is God who energizes you". Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, Rick.

Not sure if that's root fallacy, but it's a big fallacy, whatever it's called. </font>[/QUOTE]you are most welcome

I would defintely get DA Carson's little paperback called "Exegetical Fallacies" if you can.. it is an absolute goldmine, I don't think you could ever spend a beter 10 bucks (or less if used).... the book deals not only with lexical fallacies, but other logical fallacies as well.... the table of contents lists Word-study fallacies, grammatical fallacies, logical fallacies and also a chapter called presuppositional and historical fallacies.....

another online resource is
EXEGITICAL FALLACIES
wow thats a long url lol... if it doesnt work let me know and I can email you the pdf file...

blessings,
Ken

[ May 26, 2006, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

HOG, here is some further info on the use of justify/justification the diakaiosyne family:

"D. dikaiosýnē in the Non-Pauline writings of the NT.
1. dikaiosýnē as Just Judgment and Rule. The word can sometimes denote God’s just judgment at Christ’s return (Acts 17:31; Rev. 19:11; cf. Mk. 16). In 2 Pet. 1:1 it has the sense of God’s just rule in guiding the community. The justice of rulers is the point in Heb. 11:33. An odd use is in Heb. 5:13, which seems to indicate that a child cannot understand correct speech.
2. dikaiosýnē as Right Conduct before God. Except in Paul’s formula dikaiosýnē theoú, the main use is for right conduct that accords with God’s will and is pleasing to him. The fact that the relation to God is in view brings this into line with OT thinking.
a. Matthew. This is the consistent usage in Matthew. Jesus is baptized so as to do what is right with God (3:15). The hungering and thirsting of 5:6 is for a right state before God. Yet this righteousness is God’s gift (6:33). It is to be sought with his kingdom. It brings persecution (5:10). It includes the practice of piety (6:1). The way in which the Baptist came is that of right conduct (21:32).
b. Luke. The word has the same sense in Luke. Holiness and righteousness are conjoined in the messianic expectation of 1:75. In Acts God seeks and recognizes uprightness, i.e., what is pleasing to him, even among pagans (13:10; 24:25), although this doing of righteousness does not avail to salvation.
c. Peter. The picture is similar here. Forgiveness is the presupposition of a life of uprightness (2:24). Suffering comes for the sake of this (3:14). Noah represents it (2 Pet. 2:5). The libertines leave the way of righteousness (2:21), but the new world will be governed by it (3:13).
d. Hebrews. The same applies here. Christ’s exaltation rewards his righteousness in 1:9. Melchizedek is devoted to righteousness in 7:2 (and thus typifies Christ). Noah inherits righteousness, i.e., an acceptable life as the fruit of faith, in 11:7. Conformity to God’s will results from training, according to 12:11.
e. John. The main difference in John is a more consistent christological understanding; all righteousness is linked to Christ the díkaios (cf. Jn. 16:8, 10). Doing right in 1 Jn. 2:29 demonstrates what Christ embodies as díkaios. Its main content is love for one another (3:10). Thus, as Matthew finds in righteousness a gift of God, and Peter bases it on forgiveness, John finds it to be possible only through commitment to Christ.
3. dikaiosýnē in James. In Jms. 1:20 the righteousness of God is right conduct that is given its distinctive form by God. Life in agreement with God’s will is viewed as a fruit in 3:18. How we can be righteous before God is dealt with in 2:23-24. The concern here is to combat a dead orthodoxy that divides faith and works. The works that justify are not legalistic observances but the works of loving obedience that Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit. Abraham was justified by a faith which found fulfilment in works. If Paul could hardly have stated the matter in this way, we have to remember that this formulation is more popular in character, and that the practical concern, namely, that the only valid faith is one that produces works, is very much in line with the total proclamation of the NT, including that of Paul himself. (Kittel)

blessings,
Ken

 

wow... I didn't get the memo that God had started using you to decide who is a true Christian and who is not.... would somebody mind forwarding that to me...?

blessings,
Ken

 

should have added
(1 Ki 8:39 NNAS) then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men,

blessings,
Ken