Sheep or Goat?

[Iconoclast]

The Bible states that all of us were born sinners, in the Kingdom of Satan, so thus goats, correct?

That would make us...lost Sheep who God intended to find.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Van,

My sheep have been chosen, the sheep usually refers to lost mankind,

in ezk 34...not all mankind are in view

and "of My sheep" refers to lost mankind that are open and receptive to God's word.

What verse says they are open and receptive to God's word? never saw that one

Why is this so hard?

It is not hard to us.

Lost sheep that Jesus saves then belong to Jesus.

no.....He seeks and saves His sheep who are already lost before he sought them

Before they are given to Christ, they were "of My sheep."

strange as it may seem, this is another idea not found in scripture

In summary, The sheep = fallen mankind

;
False...they are those God has elected.

of My sheep = those of fallen mankind that are open and receptive to God's word;

a false fantasy idea still not found in scripture

 

[Van]

Icon's doctrine is found no where in scripture.
He misrepresents scripture, and adds or redacts to claim it says something else.
John 10:26 (NASB) “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.

Obviously (except to Icon) those not "of My sheep" are not open or receptive to God's word. Apparently the logical necessity of those "of My sheep" being open and receptive is beyond the grasp probably due to presuppositions of bogus doctrine.

John 8:47 (NASB)
"He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God."

To be "of God" or "of My sheep" is to be open and receptive to God's word. Those that deny this truth, deny the obvious.

 

[Iconoclast]

Goats are not sheep.those not of my sheep will be rejected at the judgment as goats.nothing posted here changes that.

 

[Iconoclast]

Look, everyone knows what you are attempting, to assert scripture says what it does not say.
It does not say the lost are goats.
People who are open and receptive to God can believe.

No one is open and receptive to God.
Romans8:7

 

[Reformed]

No one is open and receptive to God.
Romans8:7

Sadly, this is the reality that Romans 8:7, 1 Corinthians 2:14, and Ephesians 2:1-3 reveals. A proper understanding of the extent of the Fall on human nature provides a clearer picture of God's grace and mercy. There is not one sinner who deserves grace. Sinners do not even possess the faith to believe unless given by God (Ephesians 2:8-9). At every step of the way, God is in control. Paul recognized this in Ephesians 2:4-5 when he wrote, "4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (emphasis mine). ὀ δὲ θεὸς (but God) is a joyous phrase. It comes directly after the stark reality of being spiritually dead and children of wrath, conditions that offer no hope. Then Paul writes "But God". The logical constructive conjunction injects something new into this sad reality. Hope. Because God loves us, even though we were still in our trespasses and sins, He made us alive in Christ! Nowhere in this message do we read anything about our choice or the freedom of our will. We do read about enslaved sinners set free by the mercy and grace of God. In this way, God receives all the glory. Amen and amen!

 

[JonC]

Goats are not sheep.those not of my sheep will be rejected at the judgment as goats.nothing posted here changes that.

I think that perhaps the argument is over viewing the world today as consisting of "goats" and "sheep". Scripture uses the terms (as well as "wheat" and "tares") to speak of those who believe and who do not believe. At the same time, Scripture lumps all of the lost in bucket. Those in that bucket that are given to the Son by the Father are saved.

When we read back into Scripture the idea that the lost are comprised of goats and lost sheep we stretch the metaphoric language a bit far. This is what Daniel Parker did in his two-seed theology. Most evangelicals would agree the theory is a type of heresy. This is also what spurred on the "anti-missions" movement of the mid to late 19th century.

Perhaps it is best to use the language in the context Scripture provides so that these errors can be avoided. I'm not saying that you hold those errors, but by speaking of "goats" and "lost sheep" there is the risk of misunderstanding.

The crux is election and how (or when) it takes place. This is debatable within Calvinism. Some view God as choosing to save (elect) men out of fallen man. Other's view this choice as prior to the Fall. How you consider this will have an influence on whether or not the "sheep" were a part of the lost (one group) or a part of the lost who comprise the "lost elect".

It's an interesting discussion, but I just think it best to stick with the theology/ theories rather than using biblical language/ illustration out of the context Scripture provides.

 

[Van]

No one is open and receptive to God.
Romans8:7

I have rebutted that claim many times, and you either ignored it or deflected. Deal with it.
Not all fallen people set their minds on fleshly things all the time. Matthew 23:13.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have rebutted that claim many times, and you either ignored it or deflected. Deal with it.
Not all fallen people set their minds on fleshly things all the time. Matthew 23:13.

You're mistaken ideas do not over turn Romans 8:7

 

[Van]

You're mistaken ideas do not over turn Romans 8:7

You know what the verse says, and so do I.
Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,

So I am stating the obvious, not all fallen people have their mind set on the flesh all the time as shown by Matthew 23:13.

I am not trying to overturn the truth presented by the verse, I am trying to overturn your bogus mischaracterization of the verse to claim it says what it does not say.

Will Icon explain how men were entering the kingdom, if their mind was set on flesh. Nope,

 

[Van]

Goats are not sheep.those not of my sheep will be rejected at the judgment as goats.nothing posted here changes that.

Here we get a repeat of a claim already demonstrated to be false. No lost person is a goat. The goat and sheep separation was used to illustrate how the good Shepherd separates the lost from the saved.
Verses were cited. Those that do not belong to Christ (His sheep) will be separated from those that are His sheep meaning those who have been saved by the blood of the Lamb.

But the rebuttal is ignored and the false claim repeated. Obfuscation on display.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van,

You know what the verse says, and so do I.

Yes, and I believe it as written,

Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,

This verse says clearly they are not able to do so, some say CANNOT
Somehow you come up with scenerios where the verse does not mean what it says...[for example, you add much to the verses .In times past you say things like...no man seeks God, except on tuesdays]

So I am stating the obvious, not all fallen people have their mind set on the flesh all the time as shown by Matthew 23:13.[/QUOTE]
Whatever story you have to tell about mt23. has nothing to do with this clear verse in Romans 8

I am not trying to overturn the truth presented by the verse, I am trying to overturn your bogus mischaracterization of the verse to claim it says what it does not say.

Of course you try and suggest such an idea as you are trying to resist at all costs

Will Icon explain how men were entering the kingdom, if their mind was set on flesh. Nope,

Of course, I will, why would I not? When God draws His elect sheep he convicts them of sin and unrighteous using His Holy law as a mirror to show them their sin. God has ordained the preaching of the word Romans10 and a godly witness of saved sheep to put the truth before them, both in word or deed. Once the law work is done, the Spirit gives a new heart and overcomes satanic opposition and the flesh, to allow a person to believe savingly, being made willing by God' love and mercy

 

[church mouse guy]

Can a leopard change his spots? What does that question mean?

 

[Van]

More obfuscation and deflection from the defender of mischaracterization.
What we have in mind today or yesterday is not necessarily the same. We set our minds on different things. Some are fleshly, I am cold, hungry, or covetous. Sunday I will focus on our risen Christ. We cannot please God with our mind set on sinful things, nor are we able. But, and this is what Icon claims we cannot do, is at times set our minds on spiritual things, such as entering the kingdom, unless we are enabled by "irresistible grace." This is false as demonstrated by Matthew 23:13 where fallen men are in the process of entering the kingdom, yet were prevented from going in. This proves fallen men can set their minds of spiritual things, but they were prevented from going in, thus whatever grace influenced them was not "irresistible."

I have demonstrated the true meaning of Romans 8:7 many times, yet somehow Icon continues to deflect and ignore, no matter the cost.

Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,

 

[Reformed]

Can a leopard change his spots? What does that question mean?

It is part of Jeremiah 13:23:

“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil."

God was calling Jeremiah to prophesy against Judah. About this passage Matthew Henry writes:

"2. It is for their obstinacy in sin, their being so long accustomed to it that there was little hope left of their being reclaimed from it (v. 23): Can the Ethiopian change his skin, that is by nature black, or the leopard his spots, that are even woven into the skin? Dirt contracted may be washed off, but we cannot alter the natural colour of a hair (Matt. v. 36), much less of the skin; and so impossible is it, morally impossible, to reclaim and reform these people. (1.) They had been long accustomed to do evil. They were taught to do evil; they had been educated and brought up in sin; they had served an apprenticeship to it, and had all their days made a trade of it. It was so much their constant practice that it had become a second nature to them. (2.) Their prophets therefore despaired of ever bring them to do good. This was what they aimed at; they persuaded them to cease to do evil and learn to do well, but could not prevail. They had so long been used to do evil that it was next to impossible for them to repent, and amend, and begin to do good. Note, Custom in sin is a very great hindrance to conversion from sin. The disease that is inveterate is generally thought incurable. Those that have been long accustomed to sin have shaken off the restraint of fear and shame; their consciences are seared; the habits of sin are confirmed; it pleads prescription; and it is just with God to give those up to their own hearts' lusts that have long refused to give themselves up to his grace. Sin is the blackness of the soul, the deformity of it; it is its spot, the discolouring of it; it is natural to us, we were shapen in it, so that we cannot get clear of it by any power of our own. But there is an almighty grace that is able to change the Ethiopian's skin, and that grace shall not be wanting to those who in a sense of their need of it seek it earnestly and improve it faithfully."

The bottom line? A person cannot change their basic nature.

 

[church mouse guy]

It is part of Jeremiah 13:23:

“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil."

God was calling Jeremiah to prophesy against Judah. About this passage Matthew Henry writes:

"2. It is for their obstinacy in sin, their being so long accustomed to it that there was little hope left of their being reclaimed from it (v. 23): Can the Ethiopian change his skin, that is by nature black, or the leopard his spots, that are even woven into the skin? Dirt contracted may be washed off, but we cannot alter the natural colour of a hair (Matt. v. 36), much less of the skin; and so impossible is it, morally impossible, to reclaim and reform these people. (1.) They had been long accustomed to do evil. They were taught to do evil; they had been educated and brought up in sin; they had served an apprenticeship to it, and had all their days made a trade of it. It was so much their constant practice that it had become a second nature to them. (2.) Their prophets therefore despaired of ever bring them to do good. This was what they aimed at; they persuaded them to cease to do evil and learn to do well, but could not prevail. They had so long been used to do evil that it was next to impossible for them to repent, and amend, and begin to do good. Note, Custom in sin is a very great hindrance to conversion from sin. The disease that is inveterate is generally thought incurable. Those that have been long accustomed to sin have shaken off the restraint of fear and shame; their consciences are seared; the habits of sin are confirmed; it pleads prescription; and it is just with God to give those up to their own hearts' lusts that have long refused to give themselves up to his grace. Sin is the blackness of the soul, the deformity of it; it is its spot, the discolouring of it; it is natural to us, we were shapen in it, so that we cannot get clear of it by any power of our own. But there is an almighty grace that is able to change the Ethiopian's skin, and that grace shall not be wanting to those who in a sense of their need of it seek it earnestly and improve it faithfully."

The bottom line? A person cannot change their basic nature.

No, but grace can.

 

[Iconoclast]

Can a leopard change his spots? What does that question mean?

The verse says can an Ethiopian change its skin or a leopard its spots.Can you who are accustomed to do evil, do good.
The answer in all three examples is no.
It is a proof text for total depravity.
Now we know some might suggest skin can be changed...

 

[Van]

Good golly Miss Molly, now they claim the lost denizens of the realm of darkness cannot become the saved denizens of the kingdom of Christ. The precious blood of Jesus can wash away those pesky stains of sin.

The endless parade of non-germane verses claimed to support absurd interpretations, simply deflect from the obvious, no one is a goat, the sheep usually refers to fallen mankind, of My sheep refers to some of fallen mankind that are open and receptive to the word of God, and My sheep refers to those who have been saved, redeemed, born anew, indwelt, made righteous, holy and blameless. God changes our spots, pay no attention to the deniers.

 

[Reformed]

No, but grace can.

Bingo! That is exactly right. Grace is made manifest in the forgiveness of our trespasses and sins through Jesus Christ. That is the only way true spiritual change can occur.

 

[Van]

Note the conflation of being unable to change our condition as a corrupted, depraved sinner, to supposedly being unable to set our minds on some spiritual things. The old prove "A" then claim you have proven "B."