Do you read this verse the same way I do?

We don't know. We only know what this verse actually says and in this verse, Christ says their lack of belief was a result of their not being sheep.

But that doesn't contradict this. We can well surmise that perhaps the people Jesus was speaking to here were not the ones he was speaking to in John 10. That would make the most sense. In John 10, they are not identified except to say that they are not sheep. It is clearly not every single Jew that he had in mind but only certian Jews. You have taken a colossal and unjustified leap here.

As do I. But that is not the issue here. I think you hvae taken some colossal leaps in your understanding here that really do not do justice to teh text, both here and other places.

 

It has been done. Swaimj did a great job of that. I've addressed it a couple of months ago. The arguments were answered convincingly. Perhaps the arguments did not meet what you expected, but that is okay - there have been plenty of times that the Calvinists have done the same, saying "I answered your question," yet the ARminians insisted that they hadn't. Everything that the Calvinist complains about works both ways.

To repeat:

So then, remind Ken that he's misrepresenting a particular position. Let's be fair about this, right?

Convince us what what is not true? Oh, you mean the same way that Calvinists try to convince Arminians that their characterizations are not true?

 

But that doesn't contradict this. We can well surmise that perhaps the people Jesus was speaking to here were not the ones he was speaking to in John 10. That would make the most sense. In John 10, they are not identified except to say that they are not sheep. It is clearly not every single Jew that he had in mind but only certian Jews. You have taken a colossal and unjustified leap here.</font>[/QUOTE]What a thoroughly unconvinving argument. Swaimj brought in other psasages that work in conjuntion with John 10, and you ignored them. Would you like to try again, or will you admit that you cannot answer this interpretation of the passage?

So you say. But you have not argued any point, other than saying, "Nuh uh."

 

YES! See guys I'm not the only one on this board who knows his Bible!

John 12:37-41 tells us exactly why those Pharisees didn't believe. Also if you read Romans 10 and 11 you will see that Israel is temporarily blinded or hardened for a purpose. What purpose you ask?

1. Judas betrayed him
2. The Jews had him killed on a cross
3. It allowed for the ingrafting of the Gentiles

Calvinist ignore this historical context using passages that speak of Israel's temporary inability as proof texts to support an unfounded doctrine of "Total Inability" for all mankind universally. This is the worse case of bad hermeneutics leading to poor theology known to mankind!

 

It makes the most sense based upon what? That is an assertion on your part with no proof. As to which Jews it was, it was the Jews, leaders and common people alike, who were conspiring to kill Jesus. The Jews who were conspiring to do this were not a part of his sheep. After the gospel is completed and preached, many of them believed. That is not a leap in logic, Pastor Larry, that is a fact!

BTW, I am shocked that you take a passage which is pre-cross, in which Jesus is speaking exclusively to unbelieving Jews and then apply it directly and without distinction to post-cross gentiles. Where is your dispensationalism?

 

Stretch? Not hardly. It is exactly what Christ says. Read John 10:26. </font>[/QUOTE]I was joking, PTW.

 

Preach the Word, here is your original question from your first post of this thread:

I have addressed this question directly. Let me repeat my answer for you as you apparently missed it.
1. You are reading too much into the passage. You are taking the statement of Jesus: "you do not believe because you are not part of my flock" and you are misapplying it. That statement was made to Jews prior to the cross who had been providentially blinded by God for the express purpose of bringing about Jesus' death. Later, after Jesus' resurrection and after Pentecost, the gospel was preached by Peter, in the same location, for the purpose that "every one of them might believe." And many of them did believe. To apply that passage today to people who live "post-cross" in a one-to-one correspondence as you are doing is incorrect.

2. The other issue you raise is: "Do people believe because they are part of Jesus' flock or do they become a part of his flock because they believe?" If I agree with your conclusion that being a part of the flock (and I presume this means one is elect in your point of view) precedes believing, then what do I do with this verse--John 3:18: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." You see, it says the opposite. It says that believing is the grounds for salvation. This leaves me with several options

1. Throw the Bible out because there is a contradiction in it.

2. Pick the verse that agrees with what I think and speak as though the other does not exist.

3. Show that the two mean the exact same thing.

4. Demonstrate that both are true, but either one or both is not always normative.

I am seeking to demonstrate that number 4 is true. Which one are you doing Preach the Word?

 

Good post, Harald.

 

Since this was unconvincing, why don't you list the names of hte people that Jesus was talking to in John 10 and then list the ones saved in Acts. Then you can prove you are right; until then, you are making a conjecture with absolutely no biblical proof.

Here's the point:
1. We know that people in John 10 did not believe because they were not of the sheep. So at least in the passage, we see an undeniable (for most) connection between sheep and belief. In this case, the explicit statement is that belief is becuase one is a sheep, not what one does to become a sheep.
2. To suggest that these people were later saved in Acts is pure unadulterated conjecture, based on teh necessity to prove your point. I reject that kind of argumentation as worthless.
3. This text says nothing with regard to the book of Acts and what may have happened.
4. We must stick to the text. The text says "You do not believe because you are not a sheep." Swaimj's explanation requires a denial fo the word "because."

So the reality is not that my explanation is unconvincing. It is rather that you have not really thought through what the text says apart from your preconceptions. The word "because" is a big word, no matter how much you would like to blow over it.

Actually, I did. Read again.

 

You offered no proof that the people in Acts that were saved were the same people that Christ talked to in John 10. Until you do, you are simply asserting something with no proof.

The only way to prove this is by showing names of people who were saved. However, I do not deny what you said. I have no idea at what point someone becomes a sheep. All I know is that the Bible says that people did not believe because they were not a sheep. How much more simple does it get?

I find this argument unconvincing since I see no dispensational principle at work here.

 

See swaimj's post.

And who was the specific audience? How does one become a sheep? Interestingly enough, you assume what it takes to become a sheep, even when the text does not say so.

I don't think anyone is saying that the exact people that Jesus is speakign to here are the exact ones who were saved after the cross at all. You are misrepresenting the argument.

And why would it? John is a separate text covering separate issues than the book of Acts. What a silly thing to say.

There is no denial. Read what he says again. He says specifically, "I agree, they could not believe." Within the context, they most certainly could not believe because they were not sheep. Again, the challenge is that you are applying this statement to a time when it wasn't exactly meant.

Still unconvincing - you're not even getting people's arguments correct.

And I could as easily say the same for you. Actually, I will. Your failure to understand this point just shows that you are relying only upon your preconceptions rather than what the text says in the context of the whole salvation message.

And I'm not debating that. This shows me that you are not reading what people are writing. It is not a matter of the verse - it is a matter of understanding the setting of the verse. This is what you so glaringly miss.

Funny how you ask others to read again when you yourself fail to read carefully for the first time.

 

Scott,

You are failing to understand this verse because you are relying upon your preconceptions rather than what the text says in the context of the whole Bible.

 

Pastor Larry, if I said to you, "The only way you can prove to me that you have the true Word of God is if you can show me the original autographs.", what would you say? You would argue with me that the originals are not necessary for proof. You would say that you can take the evidence you have for the originals and come to a reasonable conclusion with reasonable assurance that you have the originals. And I would agree with you. Yet when I show you the evidence for my argument and the reasonable conclusion that I draw, you reject it saying that you require absolute proof. Your a hard man to convince Pastor Larry!

Let me go over the evidence again. In John 10, Jesus speaks to unbelieving Jews from the "collonade of Solomon" (vs 23). Less than 60 days later, Peter heals a man from lameness at that same location and speaks to the Jews. He puts the blame for Jesus' crucifixion on them, not in a general way, but says specificlly that they were "in the presence of Pilate". In Acts 3:17, he speaks of them and their rulers. Then in verse 26 he tells them that the purpose of these events (their activity in killing Jesus and his death) was "to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness".

Are the people in John 10 and Acts 3 the same people? Here are three options:
1. Yes, it was the exact same people; person to person.
2. Some of the people involved in John 10 were present in Acts 3, but not necessarily all.
3. No. God's intention for "every one of them to turn from their wickedness" included everyone in Jerusalem except the people to whom Jesus spoke in John 10. They were excluded.

I doubt I convince you on this Pastor Larry. You seem pretty set in your ways. However, I suspect that most people reading this thread will say that 1 or 2 are reasonable conclusions and will agree with me.

Now why am I not surprised that you find my dispensational argument unconvincing as well? Let me just ask three questions so that I can make sure I understand what you are saying.
There is no distinction in the scope of who received the gospel prior to the cross and afterwards?
There is no distinction in the work of the Holy Spirit in men's hearts prior to the cross and afterward?
There is no distinction between the ability of Jews to receive the gospel prior to the cross and afterward?

 

First, let me say great posts Swaimj, I know these guys don't see me as being an unbias observor but who cares, your arguments have gone unrefuted because no one has dealt with the issue of Israel's temporary hardening in regard to John 10 in light of John 12:37-41 or Romans 10 and 11. It's been my experience that they won't ever really deal with that issue.

No one can list names for certain, that is true. But look at the message that Swaimj refered to by Peter in Acts 2:36-37:

So let it be clearly known by everyone in Israel that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified to be both Lord and Messiah!"37Peter's words convicted them deeply, and they said to him and to the other apostles, "Brothers, what should we do?"38Peter replied, "Each of you must turn from your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It doesn't name names but this is fairly strong proof that many of the same people Jesus was speaking to in John 10 were many of the same people being addressed here. He does say "everyone in Israel" and he even points them out as being the ones who crucified him, who else could he be talking too? Again, I'm not claiming this is an airtight case, just that it does seem to support what Swaimj has presented. What do you think?

I think your right about this text needing to be dealt with by Arminians, it is a very convincing passage for Calvinism.

UNLESS, you consider the historical context of that day.

If I was a ticket taker at a Cowboy's football game and I said to you, "You are not getting in because you don't have a ticket." It would be very reasonable to believe that having a ticket is necessary to getting in. So too, if you take the phrase "you don't believe because you are not my sheep." It is very reasonable to believe that being a sheep is necessary to belief.

But let's say that there was a situation at the football game in which Calvinists were not being allowed to come in until after the kickoff therefore they weren't being allowed to even buy a ticket until that time. You walk up as a Calvinist before the kickoff without a ticket and I say to you, "You are not getting in because you don't have a ticket." This is true, you don't have a ticket, but that's not the only reason your not being let in. The other reason your not being let in is because Calvinists are not being allowed in yet, but because Calvinists wouldn't understand or even accept this truth I didn't bother to explain it to you.

Same thing with John 10. Jesus knows that these Pharisees were not being allowed in the gate thus they were not being allowed to become sheep. They could not become sheep because they could not hear, see, or understand the shepherd due to their hardening.

Sheep in this analogy are people who can hear and follow the voice of the shepherd something that a hardened group of people could not do until their hardening ended. With this in mind look at this passage again:

But you [the hardened ones of Israel] don't believe me because you are not my sheep [ones who can and will hear and follow me, the remnant]. My sheep [the remnant of Israel] hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

So, sheep are those who hear, believe and follow. Hardened Israel could not hear thus they could not believe and follow, therefore they were not sheep yet. But that doesn't mean that when they can hear (Acts 2) they won't ever become his sheep by believing and following.

Therefore in this context the phrase, "you do not believe because you are not my sheep," could simply mean, "you do not believe because you are not one who has been chosen to hear, understand and follow me YET." Instead, you have been hardened for a divine purpose of bringing redemption to the world.

 

Stretch? Not hardly. It is exactly what Christ says. Read John 10:26. </font>[/QUOTE]I was joking, PTW. </font>[/QUOTE]I read this post this morning and then spent the morning driving to Eastern KY. About Stanford, your meaning struck me from out of the Blue.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

The statement is plain and simple, regardless of the audience. "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you."

Earlier (just a few verses earlier), Jesus said...

In other words, Jesus talks about His sheep among all nations, not just Israel, in the same way "as I said to you." He says His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. So if it comes down to who His sheep are, and who aren't, and the principle applies to "other sheep not of this fold," that puts your hypothesis in a real pickle.

It says what it says - that whoever believes is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already.

It doesn't say anything about why a person believes, which is the question at hand (whether it is by free will, or by election and regeneration because the believer is of His sheep). So this verse leaves the question of why open.

But the former passage does not leave the question open. It specifically says that His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. It also says they do not believe because they are not His sheep. And in the full context, His usage transcends the immediate audience.

 

Excellent point! A knockout blow! DING, DING, DING! We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen!