Sheep and Goats

[epistemaniac]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by epistemaniac:
as far as the site parsing all the occurrences 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/word study.htm

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]oh.. I wanted to add that Carson gives what I think to be a similar example to your example... it falls under the word study fallacy section (of course) and more specifically, he calls it "semantic anachronism"... let me give you what he says and see if that makes sense to you as being similar...

"This fallacy occurs when a late use of the word is read back into the literature. At the simplist level, it occurs within the same language, as when the Greek early fathers use a word in a manner not demonstrably envisaged by the New Testament writers. It is not obvious, for instance, that their use of .... episkopos, bishop... to designate a church leader who has oversight over several local churches.

But the problem has a second face when we also add a change of language. Our word "dynamite" is etymologically derived from `dynamis, power, or even miracle".... I do not know how many times I have heard preachers offer some such rendering of Romans 1:16 as this: `I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the "dynamite" of God unto salvation for everyone who believes' ---- often with a knowing tilt of the head, as if something profound or even esoteric has been uttered. This is not just the root word fallacy revisited. It is worse: it is an appeal to a kind of reverse etymology, the root fallacy compounded by anachronism. Did Paul think of dynamite when he penned this word?" (pg 33-34)

A further point of HOG's use of "justify" etc... Carson uses just this word under the heading "Unwarranted Neglect of Distinguishing Peculiarities of a corpus"...
he says
"Because Paul uses dikaioo to mean `to justify' and often uses `dikaiosyne' to mean justification, many scholars have applied this meaning to the term when it is used by other writers. Not a few for instance take justification to be the meaning of dikaiosyne in Matt 5:20; but Benno Przybylski has convincingly shown that dikaiosyne in Matt always means an individual's conduct of righteous life, not forensic justification imputed to him. Again, the `call' of God in Paul is effective; if someone is called, he is a believer. By contrast, in the synoptic gospels, the "call" of God means something like God's invitation, for in these writer's usage many more are called but few are chosen (Matt 20:16; 22:14) The fallacy involved in this case is the false assumption that one New Testament writer's predominate usage of any word is roughly that of all other New Testament writers; very often, this is not the case. (p62-63)

blessings,
Ken

 

[epistemaniac]

last point on "justify" etc for HOG, footnotes included as an fyi:

"Verse 24. James now reverts to addressing the readers directly (horate, ‘You see’,
is plural) and summarises his discussion of Abraham (21–23) in the form of a
theological principle—‘a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone’—
that is trans-temporal (note present tense ‘is’) and universal (‘a person’ = anyone).
Verse 24. James now reverts to addressing the readers directly (horate, ‘You see’,
is plural) and summarises his discussion of Abraham (21–23) in the form of a
theological principle—‘a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone’—
that is trans-temporal (note present tense ‘is’) and universal (‘a person’ = anyone).
Precisely because this theological principle is derived from the example of Abraham,
the term ‘justified’ must bear the same meaning here as it does in v. 21: a man is
shown to be just, i.e. shown to be a man of genuine faith, by his works—the last word
being for James a shorthand for ‘deeds demonstrating faith’. 86
D. O. Via asserts that ‘Paul stands behind James’s polemic in 2:24 because the
expression ek pisteōs monon [‘by faith alone’] is nowhere met in the whole literature
of Judaism and earliest Christianity except in Paul.’87 Strictly speaking, however,
those words are not found even in Paul, for the word monon is missing in Rom. 3:28;
9:32; Gal. 2:16, and, indeed, are never added to any statement by Paul about
justification by faith (even though the sense is implied, in contrast to ‘works of the
law’ [RSV]). 88 It seems more likely, therefore, that the phrase ‘by faith alone’ is to be
interpreted not with reference to Paul but by its own context: the term ‘faith’ here is a
concession to James’s opponents’ use of words, being a reference to the merely
verbal, falsely-so-called faith of vv. 14, 17, 19, 20 (cf.26), while the word ‘alone’
means ‘unaccompanied by works’, so that the contrast in this verse, as throughout the
pericope, is not between (genuine) faith (18e, 22) and works but between ‘ “faith”
without works’ and ‘works inseparable from and demonstrating faith’.89 The final

phrase of the verse means, then, that a merely professed faith which is unaccompanied
by works can never show that a man is a real believer; only works can demonstrate
the presence of genuine, and therefore (cf. v. 23) justifying, faith.
Summing up our discussion of vv. 21–24, we may indicate James’s position on
the relationship between faith, works and justification as follows: Righteousness (=
forensic justification) is by faith (23); out of this arise ‘works’ that show (‘justify’ in
the demonstrative sense, 24) that one is a real believer (and hence, by logical
inference, justified in the forensic, declarative sense); or, as Buchanan puts it in his
classic work on justification: good works ‘are the effects of faith, and, as such, the
evidences both of faith, and of justification’.90 (Ralph Martin, Word Commentary Series)

___________________________________
footnotes
83 83. Cf. Laws 136f. (quotation from 137).
84 84. Cf L. C. Allen, ‘The Old Testament in Romans i–viii’, VE (1964) 6–41 (18): ‘
“Righteousness” in Gen. xv.6 is a covenantal concept, implying acceptance by God.
Isaiah xli. 8 sums it up in the word “friend” as James saw when he connected the two
verses’; G. Stählin, TDNT 9.168: ‘Due to the link with Gn. 15:6 the meaning of
philos theou [“friend of God”] is very close to “he who is just through faith” ‘.
85 85. In other words, we take the kai (‘and’) of v. 23c as parallel, not with the kai of
v. 23a (as in Moo 114) but with the kai of v. 23b (as in Dibelius–Greeven 164).
86 86. Hamann, ‘Faith and Works’ (see n. 34 above), 36 (cf Mussner 148). Martin 33
rightly insists that v. 24 must be interpreted in the light of the context.
87 87. Via, ‘Right Strawy Epistle’ (see n. 7 above), 257. cf. Longenecker, ‘The “Faith
of Abraham” Theme’, 206.
88 88. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, in Reumann, ‘Righteousness ’ 221 (§414).
89 89. Cf. Cranfield, ‘Message of James’, 169f. and Laws 137, respectively.
According to Schlatter 204, James said monon (‘only’, adverb), not monēs (adjective,
90 90. Cf Reumann, ‘Righteousness ’ 157 (§278), and Buchanan, Justification 371 (cf.
372), respectively. The words ‘by logical inference’ are intended to indicate that the
thought of forensic justification is not contained in the verb ‘justify’ in vv. 21, 24, 25
(as though it meant ‘show to be justified’), but that a man who is shown to be a
genuine believer is necessarily someone who has, through faith, been justified in the
forensic, declarative sense."

blessings,
Ken

 

[Rex77]

Hope of Glory quote
--------------------------------------------------
Sheep are sheep; goats are goats. If they are sheep, then they are spiritually saved. Period. (Goats are spiritually saved as well.)
--------------------------------------------------???? then why did Jesus send the goats to hell.

Mt 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Mt 25:41 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:

 

[Rex77]

when it all boils down,the lost sheep and goats are just terms used by the Lord in different passeges to describe the lost.
Both are lost souls,who will end up in hell.


With that in mind
How I read the Orig. question ......was a saved person ever lost ? my answer was YES.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Only if you equate "lost" with "unsaved".

Is there any way for a moderator to modify the url so this thread can be read?

 

[whatever]

HoG,

Are there any lost who are saved? I am afraid I do not follow your meaning.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by epistemaniac:
oh.. I wanted to add that Carson gives what I think to be a similar example to your example... it falls under the word study fallacy section (of course) and more specifically, he calls it "semantic anachronism"... let me give you what he says and see if that makes sense to you as being similar...

"This fallacy occurs when a late use of the word is read back into the literature. At the simplist level, it occurs within the same language, as when the Greek early fathers use a word in a manner not demonstrably envisaged by the New Testament writers. It is not obvious, for instance, that their use of .... episkopos, bishop... to designate a church leader who has oversight over several local churches.

But the problem has a second face when we also add a change of language. Our word "dynamite" is etymologically derived from `dynamis, power, or even miracle".... I do not know how many times I have heard preachers offer some such rendering of Romans 1:16 as this: `I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the "dynamite" of God unto salvation for everyone who believes' ---- often with a knowing tilt of the head, as if something profound or even esoteric has been uttered. This is not just the root word fallacy revisited. It is worse: it is an appeal to a kind of reverse etymology, the root fallacy compounded by anachronism. Did Paul think of dynamite when he penned this word?" (pg 33-34)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. In fact, this very example is the first one that came to mind. I went with the Rick Warren example because it was fresher to me - I recently wrote to Rick Warren about this error. He never replied.

People love to buy into that fallacy about dynamite. I hear people repeat it constantly, I'm guessing because it sounds like a dramatic insight. Unfortunately, it's not.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Rex77:
when it all boils down,the lost sheep and goats are just terms used by the Lord in different passeges to describe the lost.
Both are lost souls,who will end up in hell.

Huh? Didn't you ever read the parable about the lost sheep? And how it ends?

And I don't know about you, but I've never read a parable about the lost goat, or for that matter, a found goat.

 

[Rex77]

npetreley quote
------------------------------------------------
And I don't know about you, but I've never read a parable about the lost goat, or for that matter, a found goat.
-------------------------------------------------

The Lord is not talking about a parable here he is
dispatching lost goats to hell.He is not trying to explain the gospel here, just judgement.


Mt 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Mt 25:41 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:

 

[Hope of Glory]

Would you mind pointing me to a judgment in the Bible in which both the saved and the unsaved are present and judged at the same time?

Also, in the OT, we're given the picture or type of sheep as clean animals. So, everyone says, "Sheep are saved!"

However, we're also given the picture or type of goats as clean animals in the OT, why then do so many say, "So, goats are unsaved!"

Can you point me to a type in the OT of a goat being an unclean animal?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
Would you mind pointing me to a judgment in the Bible in which both the saved and the unsaved are present and judged at the same time?

Also, in the OT, we're given the picture or type of sheep as clean animals. So, everyone says, "Sheep are saved!"

However, we're also given the picture or type of goats as clean animals in the OT, why then do so many say, "So, goats are unsaved!"

Can you point me to a type in the OT of a goat being an unclean animal?

What are you babbling on about? What does the OT definition of clean and unclean animals have to do with this particular use of sheep and goats in the NT? Your method of interpretation is flawed, and that is why you're getting bizarre, inexplicable results.

Leaven (yeast) almost always represents evil, yet Jesus likened the kingdom of heaven to yeast which works its way through the batch of dough. According to the way you interpret the Bible, Jesus would have to mean that the kingdom of heaven is like evil that spreads everywhere.

 

[Rex77]

Hope of Glory quote
--------------------------------------------------
Would you mind pointing me to a judgment in the Bible in which both the saved and the unsaved are present and judged at the same time?
------------------------------------------------


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:

Mt 25:32 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:

Please read the rest of the passage and all will be clear.

 

[Mel Miller]

Friends,

I have not read this entire thread, but I think
1000 years will exist bewteen vs. 31 and vs.32
and at the end of the Millennium the sheep will be separated from the goats and the goats cast to Hell based on their treatment of the "least of Jesus' brethren". Matt.25:32-46.
_______________________________________________
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:

Mt 25:32 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.
____________________________________________
I believe, at first, those "kept alive" when
Christ returns will be the ones who start the
"sheep nations" that the KJV says will be
saved and enter the New Jerusalem after the creation of a new heaven and earth. Luke 17:33; Rev.21:24.

The goat nations will gradually develop and,
while they will be "kept alive" as long as
they "are healed by the leaves of the Tree of
Life and keep the commandments" required by
the KJV (Ezek.47:12; Rev.21:14), they will be banished from earth and "cast to Hell".
Matt.25:34-46.

This "blessing" pertains to the Sheep Nations
fulfills the promise to Abraham that "all the
nations will be blessed; even those by his (natural) descendants thru the 12 tribes of
Ishmael! The number will be like that of the
"stars of heaven" just as the goats will be
like the "sand of the sea". Rev.20:8.

Mel Miller www.lastday.net

 

[pituophis]

Sheep nations? Goat nations?

Where do you see exegeted 1000 years between v.31 & 32? Thats almost like reading into the text of Daniel 9 a gap of 2000+ years?

Matt 13:47-50 illustrates the same event. At the end of the age, the good fish (sheep) will be seperated from the bad fish (goats).

2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth will be laid bare." (NIV)
---- notice no 1000 year gap between Christ's coming and the destruction of the old earth...

The point of the OP was that the sheep were the chosen ones of God, the elect (unconditional election), and they hear Christ's voice and follow Him. All of them WILL come to Christ (irresistible grace) and Christ will lose NONE of them (Perserverance of the saints). The goats, however, are the reprobate (non-elect, passed over, etc). Christ came to die for His sheep...not the goats (limited atonement)

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by pituophis:
Christ came to die for His sheep...not the goats (limited atonement)

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the "WHOLE WORLD".

Is your reading comprehension this bad for everything you read, or is it just a "Spiritual blindness"???

Doctrines 180 degrees apart can never be reconciled, you'll have to trashcan either the Bible or Calvin's doctrine, two can't walk together unless they agree.

 

[Mel Miller]

pituophis,

Quote:
_______________________________________________
Where do you see exegeted 1000 years between v.31 & 32? Thats almost like reading into the text of Daniel 9 a gap of 2000+ years?
_______________________________________________

I see no problem with inserting 1000 years
between Matt.25:31 and 32. If only the Beast
and False Prophet occupy Hell during the
Millennium, why would the casting of goats
into Hell need to occur at the start of the
Millennium?

If the separation of the goat nations occurs
at the start of the Millennium, why must the
saved nations wait 1000 years until the
creation of the "new heaven and earth" before they enter the New Jerusalem? Rev.21:24-26.

If you are a Premillennialist, what is the
need to "separate" the sheep and goats 1000
years before "whole nations" reveal whether
they have "treated the least of Jesus'
brothers" as a condition for "inheriting the
eternal kingdom" promised in Matt.25:32-34?

There are nearly 2000 years between Rev.12:5
and Rev.12:6. I see no problem with inserting
1000 years between Matt.25:31 and Matt.25:32.

Mel Miller www.lastday.net

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by pituophis:
Sheep nations? Goat nations?

Will there be beaver nations? I'm kinda partial to beavers, myself. My favorite beaver is named Daggett.

 

[Rex77]

why drag my family into this my name is beaver
LOL

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Debate, debate, debate, debate on Matthew 25:31-46.

Oh boy.

Why cannot you simple accept what Jesus Christ actually saying, he's no professor like other many professors of today's. Today, there are filled of philiosphies, opnions at seminaries, colleges on the doctrine & theology.

Actual, this passage is the clearest and simple. No excuse for anyone of you to read this passage.

Matthew 25:31-46 is the clearest passage to prove of posttribulational & amill coming of Christ at the end of the age.

Because, Jesus Christ doesn't saying that, He will come again twice or two times anywhere in the context of Matthew chapter 24 to 25. Clear, Christ tells us, he shall come again at once at the end of the age.

Matthew 25:31-46 is the clear teaching of the general judgment day. Christ teaches us there is the only one judgement day, not two or three judgment days according dispensationalism teaching.

You have to accept what Christ actual saying.

When Christ shall come again, there shall be final set two classes apart, sheep on right side of Christ, are believers/followers. Goats on left side of Christ, are unbelievers/disobedients. God only have one family either Jew or Gentile, who ARE IN CHRIST.

We can easily see conditional in Matt. 25:33-45. That why, many baptists have hard time deal with Christ's lecture. Because it is much conflict with easy believism, pretrib, and premill too.

I can easy understand what Christ saying of this passage. I have to believe what he saying.

I rather listen to Christ's words, than what men saying according Col. 2:8.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[epistemaniac]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pituophis:
Sheep nations? Goat nations?

Will there be beaver nations? I'm kinda partial to beavers, myself. My favorite beaver is named Daggett. </font>[/QUOTE]lol... the angry beavers was absolutely hilarious....

I wish it was still on here... my fav episode was when they were all super heroes...