Do you read this verse the same way I do?

Maybe... sorta... like that.

Could a horse survive on steak properly prepared- probably. But it is against that horses nature to choose steak over alfalfa. In fact, a horse would probably starve to death surrounded by hamburger that had been specially prepared to prevent bad side effects. Just like those who are non-elect.

They do have a very real choice to make but it is always against their nature until they are spriritually quickened to make the right choice.

 

What does it mean in its immediate context?

They asked Christ something He had already answered before. (In fact, the Pharisees here sound alot like the CCM group in the Music Forum. "Tell us." I already did. "No you didn't.") Why didn't they listen? They weren't His sheep. Why did the others listen? They were His sheep.

Verse 26 can only mean one thing seen in its true context. I can create a whole new context for anything if I'm free to snag a bunch of unrelated passages, tack them together and call them the context of this verse.

 

Helen, none of the scripture you posted contradicts Calvinism.

We do not deny that faith and belief are the means by which God accomplishes His will.

I find it interesting here that as you are 'putting things back in context' you don't continue to quote John 1:13: "who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

This verse completes the context and totally invalidates the way you have used the previous 3 verses. You have accepted 75% of this text. We accept 100%.

Who are you debating this with? This isn't even germane. The question is why will one accept a gift while another rejects it.

Again, many believed and apparently many did not. The question is not "what, when, where, or even how" but why?

Interesting that you should bring this up. What analogy sets the context for John 3? Spiritual rebirth as a direct analogy to physical birth. Question: Who alive has chosen to be born?

You are simply and consistently confusing the "how" with the "why".

An auto mechanic focuses on "how" to change brake pads. The "why" and the "how" were dictated to him by someone else. The mechanic really has nothing at all to do with the "why". That is a design engineer's function. We as humans are in the "how" business. The "why" is completely God's.

My HS Physics teacher was a godly man who happened to graduate from UNC-Chapel Hill... not exactly a godly school. When he was asked about what problem he had with evolution, he said that it didn't answer any of the "why" questions. Only God can answer those.

Not in the quote you give. However, if you continue in the context of the scripture vss. 37, 39, 40, 44, and 45 say exactly that. Believers are given to Christ by God.

No argument... but they will only do so when they are spiritually reborn by the will of God the Father so that they might be given to the Son who will keep them.

You have claimed to put this in context but you have done so by pulling other texts out of their context to fill your need.

People do have a choice. It is a real choice. All people will make that choice according to their sin nature unless God supernaturally intervenes by the new birth giving them the ability to believe.

[ March 13, 2003, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

I am not playing with words. The choice is a viable choice. At anytime he so desires, he can make whatever choice he wants. The inability si a moral inability. He does not desire anything different. You construct your view on a faulty view of man.

You gave a very cursory interpretation of the text, just repeating the verses. You didn't tell us why they support your view. In fact, I don't really disagree with what you said. But I do disagree with what you meant by it becuase you didn't really deal with the issue.

It doesn't negate it at all. Why do you think John would contradict himself? I don't; I believe it all. I do not have to pick and choose.

That's convenient for you. To answer this question is not a sidetracking at all. Your answer, based on what you have professed to believe both here and other places, is that one is a sheep because they believe. Do you disagree with this? If you do, then what makes them a sheep? This is fundamental to the whole issue and will very quickly point out the fallacy in yoru understanding

 

Sorry brethren I got lost and have never been to this forum before... But tell me PTW and all you other brethren... Keeping in mind all that Jesus said to the Pharisees about belief what are you going to do with Romans 11... Where both Jews and Gentile are included in unbelief

Romans 11:[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

[26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

[27] For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

[28] As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

[29] For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

[30] For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

[31] Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

[32] For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Brother Glen The Primitive Baptist

 

(Joh 10:26) But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

PTW, I think you are reading too much into what is said in this verse. Jesus is telling these listeners that they do not believe because they are not one of His sheep. Jesus did not say that they could not become one of His sheep, by believing the gospel.

After all, in most of the conversations between Jesus and the Pharisees, Jesus is telling them about the "Kingdom of God" and they are rejecting Him. Why would Jesus offer the "Kingdom" to these people if they could not believe?

 

Amen brother!!!!

Murph

 

Yeah,
Sorry Preach, I see what you are trying to get at here.
Sneaky, but I think you are way out in left field on this one, maybe the whole ball park.
At first you had me confused until some other posts cleared that up. I was thinking to myself, "Why is this guy just using one verse? Who is he trying to beguile?”
Heck, I could justify every sin that anyone has ever committed if I did that (to continue in sin).
A sheep is a believer and a non-believer is a non-sheep.
Helen posted on what makes you a sheep and what doesn't, I believe.
Oh, to answer your real question, everyone has a choice to be a sheep.

 

I don't believe Helen posted on it. She rejected it as irrelevant. But thanks for answering. Let's explore this in light of what Jesus said.

Jesus said "You do not believe because you are not a part of my sheep." So clear, for him, believing is the result of being sheep. It is not a cause of being sheep. I think this is the fact that you are overlooking. Christ is drawing a connection between belief and sheephood (to coin a word). Those who are sheep believe; those who are not sheep, do not believe.

The context of belief is whether or not Jesus is the Christ. So it is a matter of salvation. They want to know why Christ doesn't tell them whether or not he is the Christ. So Christ says, "I have told you but you don't believe. I told you through the works that I have done." He is claiming that he has given adequate proof that he is indeed the Christ. Any neutral person would have seen it and been clear on it. But Christ says "you do not believe (in me as the Christ) because you are not of my sheep."

You have turned this text around to say "You are not of my sheep because you do not believe." But that is not what Christ said.

The question remains, Why did they not believe? What prevented them from believing?

 

I disagree completely. This is a discussion relative to fundamental Baptists. All of the topics here belong in another forum to one extent or another. This is supposed to be a place where we can discuss things without having to argue foundational issues of doctrine.

Even a cursory look at the Calvinism/Arminianism forum reveals that many deviant views often confuse the discussion.

 

The salvation analogies used in the Bible are telling.

*What sheep ever chose its shepherd?
*What dead person was ever resurrected by their own power of will or choice?
*What branch ever grafted itself into a choice tree?
*What child ever chose to be born?
*What body part ever chose its place or the person it would belong to?
*Do children choose to be adopted and select the parents they want? Or does the prospective parents choice come first?

These things do not deny man's responsibility or even that he makes choices. It simply demonstrates why someone is saved. Because God chose it to be so.

To respond to the first question, sheep do not choose their shepherd. The shepherd chooses the sheep and the sheep follow him.

 

The question is NOT irrelevant, Larry. It is answered in the Bible. I quoted a number of passages that answer it: believing makes you a sheep.

Analogies can just be carried so far, Scott. The Word of God is not oats, or wheat, or rye, but I undersand the analogy of it being seed. I do not sprout leaves or grapes, but I understand the analogy of being grafted onto the vine.

We are made in the image of God. That means we are spirit. It also means we have the freedom to choose. That doesn't mean the freedom or ability to do anything about it, but we do have the freedom to want something.

Spiritually dead does not mean spiritually unconscious, which is how a lot of people seem to define the term. If that were true, then it would be impossible for God to say, in Isaiah 1:18, "Come now, let us reason together" -- for he is talking to the unsaved.

Spiritually dead, in line with how Jesus defined being alive in John 17:3, means being apart from God, not being unconscious. If it meant being spiritually unconscious, hell would have no meaning.

And, if you read "A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23" then you will know, actually, that sheep indeed can have wants and desires. The sheep belonging to an uncaring shepherd will crowd the fence and stare at the pasturage of the land owned by the shepherd who cares and makes sure the sheep are not overcrowded and do not overgraze. The sheep who are in such poor condition due to a bad shepherd will fence-crawl, looking for a way in through a hole or something.

The Hebrews knew this. Most of us don't, and so we form faulty images of this analogy. The promise of Jesus is that anyone who wants to change sides will be brought over BY Him and THROUGH Him if they agree to that way of going. He knows the wants of the heart and that is what He responds to.

We are not programmed robots. If we were as Calvinism suggests, then EVERY person in hell would have a perfectly good excuse -- they never even had the chance to want anything differently at all. And in not being given that real choice -- where they were already equipped to be able to make either choice -- they had always been predestined for hell, and that flies in the face of the entire message of the Bible.

Most people may very well end up in hell, but it will have been because they refused the salvation of God through Jesus Christ, not because they never had a real choice about it.

 

Then why did you say: "Nor am I going to argue with you about what makes one a sheep and sidetrack the issue at hand."

Where are these verses that say believing makes us a sheep?? The only verse that connects the two according to the concordance is John 10:26 and that specifically says that believing is the result of being a sheep. What verses support you that believing makes one a sheep??

Helen, I am not trying to upset you or embarrass you in any way. I am trying to get us talking about Scripture. I am trying to get you to think about what Scripture says in respect to this. So please offer these verses that tell us that believing makes us a sheep. And explain to us what John 10;26 really means since you don't believe it means that believing is the result of being a sheep.

Actually Calvinism agrees that we are not programmed robots. No one in hell has an excuse according to Romans 1 that tells us that they are all without excuse.

it is a real choice and they can choose to follow God at anytime their heart desires.

On this, we calvinists agree.

However, all of this talk is off the point of John 10:26. Why don't we talk about that verse and what it means ...

 

True. However, the consistency of these analogies in using terms in which the choice ultimately belongs to someone else should not be ignored.

Helen, with all due respect, I have seen you employ this line of argument several times. You have been told numerous times that Calvinists do believe that we have freedom to choose but within our nature. We cannot choose to fly. We cannot choose to breath water. We cannot many things. One of those things is righteousness. Many people who see the benefits of true Christianity do not genuinely accept it. It isn't in their nature.

No, it directly conveys the truth that we are unable to spiritual resurrect ourselves.

Are you being intentionally obtuse now? Man is a spiritual being. Dead (separate) or alive (reconciled) to God. The idea of being spiritually dead deals with separation and an inability to bridge the gap, not a lack of intelligence or reason.

I agree but that doesn't address the argument. Can a dead person 'choose' to be resurrected?

Why do you persist in arguing against what was not asserted? I didn't say that sheep didn't have desires. I said that sheep are chosen by their shepherd rather than the choosers of their shepherd.

The world is full of people who want the peace, security, joy, patience, etc. of Christians but remain unable to put themselves aside and choose the Way. They want the good things but without submitting to God. They want the green pastures on their own terms because they remain blind, spiritually dead, and devoted to their own self-centered will. They are not the Shepherd's so they will not respond to His voice no matter how attractive the material things are.

Interesting that you would point out that they will look for a way in. You are correct. Many people want to design their own way to heaven. All of those ways are rejected. There is only one Way and John 10:26 defines that way.

Helen, this is simply dishonest on your part. You know that this is not what calvinism teaches yet you persistently make these false accusations.

Unless you have embraced open theism which clearly contradicts scripture then you have not escaped this accusation yourself. If God is omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and omnipotent then even under your system of belief God allows people to be born knowing they will go to hell. Add to this the fact that in His omnipotence, He could change this outcome if it were according to His divine will and nature.

BTW, if you are tempted to latch on to "God's nature" here then remember you will be implying that God is governed by His nature while man is free from his own.

What really flies in the face of scripture is your insenuation that some people are good enough to independently choose well while others are not- thus making human goodness rather than the finished work of Christ the determining factor in salvation.

Helen, this has been answered for you many, many times yet you continue the mantra.

Everyone does have a real choice. That is not a point of disagreement. Anyone who is willing to choose Christ as Savious can. But the reality is that choices are governed by nature. None are righteous. In truth, all people would in complete freedom exercise their free will and secure for themselves eternal damnation absent God's grace and mercy.

 

Then why did you say: "Nor am I going to argue with you about what makes one a sheep and sidetrack the issue at hand."</font>[/QUOTE]Because it was already answered in the quote I gave from John 1:10-12 in my post on the first page. There was no reason to repeat it. The only think I can think of here, though, is that maybe you think becoming a child of God is not the same as the allegorical sheep of His pasture? If you think these are different, then we have a whole 'nother problem on our hands!

I spent quite a bit of time on my first post here doing exactly that. Please note what Jesus says in John 10:34-38, which is the conclusion of His discussion with these questioners. I also mentioned that as part of the context of the quote and put down what I thought it led to. Didn't you read that, too? I was discussing John 10.

Actually Calvinism agrees that we are not programmed robots. No one in hell has an excuse according to Romans 1 that tells us that they are all without excuse...
it is a real choice and they can choose to follow God at anytime their heart desires. </font>[/QUOTE]That is where you are playing with words. "Anytime their heart desires" -- it sounds so good, except in Calvinism the claim is made that their hearts CANNOT desire anything else! Therefore there is no choice for them. Someone can give me a choice of flapping my arms and flying or moving my legs and walking and tell me it is a real choice. After all, I have arms, don't I? But there is no real choice, despite the words, is there? I cannot fly by flapping my arms.

That is the sort of choice you are saying those not predestined to be saved have -- a 'choice' which is no choice at all, for Calvinists claim the choice is predetermined for them due to the condition of their hearts. I do not read that ANYWHERE in the Bible. Yet that is what taking John 10:26 OUT of context seems to indicate, and that is why is was taken out of context for the purposes of this thread.

And that is why I spent the time in my first post pointing out that that interpretation of that verse, out of context, was badly mistaken unless so many other verses in John were wrong.

That was the entire point of my first post: that yes, Preach's interpretation, and yours, were very wrong and based entirely on taking that one sentence out of context. That is also why I brought up the idiocy of using "God is love" as an excuse for adultery, as one woman I know did. Calvinists are doing the exact same thing when they take John 10:26 apart from not only so much else in the book of John, but so much else in the entire Bible!

 

What does John 1:13 say? Why did you chop vss. 10-12 out of context?