Jesus died for the sins of the world

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You won't touch Jn 10. Not one chirp.
Well, you didn't touch the question of whether or not you would call Joe Biden a murderer just as you called Martin Luther a murderer.

After all, Biden keeps the border open, defying law, and allowing many illegal immigrants to come in unchecked. A Border Guard was killed by one such. SO....when you call Luther a murderer merely because of a comment from him, but no actual involvement in anyone's death, you must be consistent with your own definition of a "murderer."

To be clear, I do not agree with your claim that Joe Biden is a murderer.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You won't touch Jn 10. Not one chirp.
"Chirp?" That's funny, especially coming from a guy wearing a white hanky on his head.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,194
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You won't touch Jn 10. Not one chirp.
Which parts of John 10 do you have in mind. I am interested. I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I am asking for a shortcut I guess.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Why did Jesus speak in parables?

So now Dave is arguing that all the following Scriptures are a part of one of Jesus' parables? This just gets more and more silly.


1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.


We're still waiting for all the Scriptures that state, "No, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." Don't hold your breathe, Dave hasn't been able to find that, but don't be hard on him, these radical Anti-Calvin folks have been looking for that for nearly 500 years and have come up empty-handed. I think we all know why.



.




 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2022
Messages
1,149
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
tango

It's a hugely inefficient way to do things, sending people into the world to preach to "every creature" when the overwhelming majority of those creatures aren't even capable of responding to the message being preached

So you wiser than God !
 

Doran

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
136
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Very well, but we were told earlier that the many references to "world" were references to trees and dirt (!) and had nothing to do with mankind.

And of course, we were dealing with a person who says whatever he wants, explains nothing about it but just says it, and then repeats it forty or fifty times. That routine may have led us to be too strong with our replies. Apologies.

I assure you that I could not agree with that very limited definition of the term "world". I certainly think Jn 3:16, as one example, is talking about God loving a lot more than trees, sand, dirt, shrubs, etc. I think it's very safe to say that God loves his image bearers, at the very least. Of course, the question remains: All of them or just "many"? :)
I would hope that you would agree that the Bible verses that indicate Unlimited Atonement are pretty strong as well as very numerous.
No, I'm afraid I cannot agree on that. Here's why in a nutshell: Those universal sounding nouns or phrases, e.g. "world", "whole world", "all men", etc. are actually used in a restrictive (limited) sense -- at least in most cases. Of course context is often the determinant. Take John 3:16, again as one example -- but one that is extremely popular with either 4-point Calvinists or Arminians. The question that must be brought to bear upon such text is this: How would the original, largely Jewish audience have understood John's use of the Gr. term kosmos (Strong's 2889)? Even Strong's definition admits to where the term can be used in a wide (universal) or narrow (restricted) sense. Here's the definition:

kosmos
NT:2889 kosmos (kos'-mos); probably from the base of NT:2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]):

KJV - adorning, world.


So, in which sense would the original audience have understood "kosmos": Broad or narrow? But even distilling down the definitions to these two options can be misleading since something can be "broad-brushed" in a "limited" sense. Is the term "world" to be understood in terms of Rev 5:9; 7:9? Doesn't the first text say from "EVERY tribe and language and people and nation"? That's sounds pretty inclusive, right? BUT at the same time, the passage does not say that Christ purchased ALL men for God. Do you see where I'm going here? There is most definitely a SENSE in which Christ died for "all men" or the "world" in the terms laid out by John in this passage. And this sense is most definitely the "without distinction" sense. But at that same time, since the sense isn't "without exception" then we have to say it's also limited. And this understanding does no violence to the Law of Noncontradiction because the senses aren't the same!

And we find the same paradoxical scheme in Revelation 7. And this is whether we think the 144,000 is included in v.9 or whether we don't. Of course, if it is included, then beyond any question this passage is also to be interpreted in the "without distinction" sense, since the numbers themselves would preclude a "without exception" understanding. But the evidence is still quite compelling for a "without distinction" sense even if we exclude the 144,000 Jews, since John again employs in v.9 the same kind of language he used in chapter 5.

The main reason I use these two Johannine passages is because I wanted to get inside John's head -- inside his Jewish mind when I was studyhing these things out many years ago. John very obviously thinks the way a typical first century Jew would have. To his mindset the "world" consisted of only two kinds of people: Jews and Gentiles! The chosen, covenant people of God and the non-chosen, non-covenant people of God! (Does this sound familiar? It should! The apostle Paul, too, thought in these very Jewish terms. And rightfully so, I might add.) Anyone even remotely familiar with the Abrahamic Covenant would be aware of the number of times the term "nations" is used in Genesis 13, 15, 17, 22, etc. "Nations" would have been understood as referring to the non-covenant nations, i.e. Gentiles. Was Abraham ever promised to be made the father of each and every person in the world, or was he promised that he would be made the father of many nations? The world, then should rightfully and biblically be understood as being comprised of those Gentile nations and God's covenant people the Jews. Jn 3:16: For God so loved the Jews and Gentiles (world) that he gave his only begotten son.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
So now Dave is arguing that all the following Scriptures are a part of one of Jesus' parables? This just gets more and more silly.


1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.


We're still waiting for all the Scriptures that state, "No, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few." Don't hold your breathe, Dave hasn't been able to find that, but don't be hard on him, these radical Anti-Calvin folks have been looking for that for nearly 500 years and have come up empty-handed. I think we all know why.



.
Why would he die for any who God will not save? there's lots more on the reprobate.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Which parts of John 10 do you have in mind. I am interested. I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I am asking for a shortcut I guess.
John 10 shows that Jesus did not die for the Pharisees in his audience and that is why they did not believe.

“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” John 10:11 (KJV 1900)

“But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” John 10:26 (KJV 1900)
 

Doran

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
136
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
John 10 shows that Jesus did not die for the Pharisees in his audience and that is why they did not believe.

“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” John 10:11 (KJV 1900)

“But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” John 10:26 (KJV 1900)
Which further implies the Pharisees must have been goats. Jesus did not lay down his life for the goats of the world -- only for the sheep of the world. In fact those Pharisees were also called the children of the devil! Ouch!
 

Doran

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
136
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What's also fascinating about Jn 10:26 is that the Pharisees, in order for them to believe, they first had be Christ's sheep. But how can they be His sheep without faith? Hmm...must have something to do with God's sovereign election? Just a wild and crazy guess.... o_O
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What's also fascinating about Jn 10:26 is that the Pharisees, in order for them to believe, they first had be Christ's sheep. But how can they be His sheep without faith? Hmm...must have something to do with God's sovereign election? Just a wild and crazy guess.... o_O

@Doran


John 10:26 says nothing about dying... of anyone, for anyone, for any reason. To even twist this, one has to take something from FIFTEEN verses away and insert it into 10:26.

Yes, God gives some to Jesus when He gives them faith. It is by faith that we become His own, it is by faith that we become His Body, it is by faith that we become His Church, it is by faith that we become children of God. We are "his own" by faith.

Jesus compares those with faith to sheep, those without to goats.

Yes, God gives faith to some ("sheep") and not others ("goats"). But it does not say that Jesus did not die for the goats, it states that don't believe because they aren't sheep (those with faith). The point is that these particular Pharisees are not believers; you could press this to indicate He is saying these particular Phariees are not among the Elect. But again, it does not say He didn't die for them.

While it does indicate that Jesus died for the sheep, it doesn't say He died ONLY for the sheep - so the entire doctrine of these anti-Calvin folks is missing.

And Friend, no one here is questioning the Doctrine of Election. We are questioning this new invention of some opposed to Calvin, those insisting that the MANY Scriptures that verbatim states Jesus died for all are incorrect, and instead, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few. Doran, many of the Church Fathers, the Catholic Council of Orange all accepted Election but also that Jesus died for all. So did John Calvin. So did Martin Luther. So does the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church and well beyond.

Let's stick to the issue. which is not Election. The issue before us is this: Which is what the Bible states? That Jesus died for all OR that He did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, SOLELY, EXCLUSIVELY for some unknown few? That's the issue. We gave the many verses that flat-out, in black and white, verbatim, repeatedly state that Jesus died for all (in those very words) but so far, no Anti-Calvin person has quoted one that says the opposite.


Blessings on your Advent season...


- Josiah




.




.
 
Last edited:

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,194
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
“But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” John 10:26 (KJV 1900)
John 10:26 implies that it was because of their unbelief that the people included in "ye" are not Christ's sheep, I think. That would not be consistent with Limited Atonement as far as I can tell. Is that not true?
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
tango



So you wiser than God !

Maybe a god that tells us to go into the world and preach a message to people who can't possibly benefit from it just has a sick sense of humor? You know, the whole "so loved the world" that he sent his son to die for, well, just a selected few, and then told the rest to go and spread the word to people who not only wouldn't respond to it but actually couldn't respond to it. Then he threw those people into the eternal fire for not responding to the message he made them incapable of responding to.

I'm not sure how well that fits in with the concept of a loving God.
 

Doran

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2022
Messages
136
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@Doran


John 10:26 says nothing about dying... of anyone, for anyone, for any reason. To even twist this, one has to take something from FIFTEEN verses away and insert it into 10:26.

Yes, God gives some to Jesus when He gives them faith. It is by faith that we become His own, it is by faith that we become His Body, it is by faith that we become His Church, it is by faith that we become children of God. We are "his own" by faith.

Jesus compares those with faith to sheep, those without to goats.

Yes, God gives faith to some ("sheep") and not others ("goats"). But it does not say that Jesus did not die for the goats, it states that don't believe because they aren't sheep (those with faith). The point is that these particular Pharisees are not believers; you could press this to indicate He is saying these particular Phariees are not among the Elect. But again, it does not say He didn't die for them.

While it does indicate that Jesus died for the sheep, it doesn't say He died ONLY for the sheep - so the entire doctrine of these anti-Calvin folks is missing.

And Friend, no one here is questioning the Doctrine of Election. We are questioning this new invention of some opposed to Calvin, those insisting that the MANY Scriptures that verbatim states Jesus died for all are incorrect, and instead, Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for some unknown few. Doran, many of the Church Fathers, the Catholic Council of Orange all accepted Election but also that Jesus died for all. So did John Calvin. So did Martin Luther. So does the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church and well beyond.

Let's stick to the issue. which is not Election. The issue before us is this: Which is what the Bible states? That Jesus died for all OR that He did NOT die for all but rather ONLY, SOLELY, EXCLUSIVELY for some unknown few? That's the issue. We gave the many verses that flat-out, in black and white, verbatim, repeatedly state that Jesus died for all (in those very words) but so far, no Anti-Calvin person has quoted one that says the opposite.


Blessings on your Advent season...


- Josiah




.




.
Josiah, Jn 10:26 doesn't say anything about "dying" but you ignore Jn 10:11. And a verse that is only 15 verses away is still in the immediate context of the chapter! Jesus limited the extent of his death to the sheep in this passage! We know that on judgment day, all the nations will be gathered before him and there will be sheep and goats within those nations and that Jesus will separate the two, and that the sheep FOR WHOM HE DIED will be ushered into his kingdom, while the goats for whom He did not die will be cast into the eternal fire (Mat 25:31-46). Jn 10:11 is just one of several passages that present a thorny problem for universal atonement. There are several other passages that speak of a limited atonement, such as Rev 5:9, and the limited extent to the "many" (Mat 20:28; 26:28; Mk 10:45; 14:24; Rom 5:15, 19; Heb 9:12; Isa 53:4-6, 8, 11-12 ), plus even more passages of a different class. Note very carefully for whom the Messiah died in this last messianic prophecy. Please pay close attention to the personal pronouns, and all the uses of the term "many". These texts in Isaiah make it crystal clear that the Messiah laid down his life only for his covenant people. There's not the slightest hint in Isaiah that Christ died for each and every person in the world. And by the way, with whom did Christ institute the New Covenant with at the Last Supper? Did he institute that covenant with the entire world or with only his covenant people!? This is, yet, another very serious wrinkle to unlimited atonement theology.

So, you folks who hold to unlimited atonement need to explain how "many" = "each and every person" in the world. How does "many" = "all"? I have gone a long way today in explaining how a 5-point Calvinist can reconcile the "many" with the "all". Once we understand that the bible uses universal terms (such as "world", "whole world", "all men") in a way that is both limited and unlimited simultaneously, the problem vanishes! These universal terms (so called) are often used in a limited sense quantitatively speaking, while simultaneously used in an unlimited sense, qualitatively speaking. In other words, in the first instance they're NOT used in the sense of "without exception" (quantitatively), while in the latter instance they ARE used in the sense of "without distinction" (qualitatively).

One more thing before I take my leave for the evening. We have the identical situation in classifying the atonement proper. The atonement can rightfully (and without contradiction) be classified as being both limited and unlimited in scope simultaneously. 5-point Calvinists believe that the atonement was limited quantitatively because it was limited to God's chosen, covenant people; but at the same time the atonement is eternal in scope (unlimited qualitatively) since none of God's elect can ever be lost and they were chosen in eternity to be saved.
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
1. Questions aren't substantiation.
But they linger when left unanswered.
2. The Bible states (repeatedly) that Jesus died for all. It also indicates that not all have faith. The Bible does not state why not all have faith, but that is the case.
Sure it states why all do not have faith...

But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2Thess 2:13

Which begs the question, if He died for all, why didn't He choose all for salvation?
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
That's not really the issue with this concept and this discussion. There could be a number of different possible answers to the question that you raised in your post here, but all of them relate to what comes after Jesus gave his life for the sins of mankind.
Perhaps this one relates to what went before Christ died for His sheep…

Romans 11:5,7,25 KJV
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. [7] What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded [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.

Remnant and election speaks of God’s choosing (see chap 9). When viewed as a panoramic whole, certain Jews were chosen/elected, the rest were blinded, chaps 9-11 makes this clear. Did Jesus die for those whom the Father blinded? If so, it makes the concept ‘died for all’ meaningless, if not, then Jesus didn’t die for all.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
John 10:26 implies that it was because of their unbelief that the people included in "ye" are not Christ's sheep, I think. That would not be consistent with Limited Atonement as far as I can tell. Is that not true?
You have it backward. Free Will salvation believers would try to say "they were not his sheep because they did not believe". But Jesus reverses this. He says "they do not believe because they are not his sheep that he died for"

How do I know I'm saved? Because I believe. Had Christ not died for me, I would not believe in any true sense.

Those who choose to believe do not believe or they would not need to force their flesh into a mindset of believing.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,194
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You have it backward. Free Will salvation believers would try to say "they were not his sheep because they did not believe". But Jesus reverses this. He says "they do not believe because they are not his sheep that he died for"

How do I know I'm saved? Because I believe. Had Christ not died for me, I would not believe in any true sense.

Those who choose to believe do not believe or they would not need to force their flesh into a mindset of believing.
I see we have an interpretational difference.
To read the passage the way your stated theology teaches would need it to say,
Ye are not my sheep, that is why ye believe not​
instead it says,
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.​
John 10:26-28
I see why you read it as you do. And I acknowledge that reading it thus is one possible way to understand its meaning. Yet the passage has the wording that it does and that wording implies that lack of belief is the sign of exclusion from the sheepfold. Just as following Christ is the sign of inclusion in the sheepfold. The question that you're seeking to answer is "why would they not believe?" and your answer appears to be "because they were created as non-sheep". But pay close attention to the way the story is told by saint John:
And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true. And many believed on him there.​
John 10:22-42
Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian pastor and a Calvinist, writes:
Into the sheepfold - The sheepfold was an inclosure made in fields where the sheep were collected by night to defend them from robbers, wolves, etc. It was not commonly covered, as the seasons in Judea were mild. By the figure here we are to understand the Jewish people, or the church of God, which is often likened to a flock, Ezek. 34:1-19; Jer_23:1-4; Zec_13:1-9. By the door, here, is meant the Lord Jesus Christ, Joh_10:7, Joh_10:9. He is “the way, the truth, and the life,” Joh_14:6. And, as the only proper way of entering the fold was by the door, so the only way of entering the church of God is by believing on him and obeying his commandments. The particular application of this place, however, is to religious teachers, who cannot enter properly on the duties of teaching and guarding the flock except by the Lord Jesus that is, in the way which he has appointed. The Pharisees claimed to be pastors, but not under his appointment. They entered some other way. The true pastors of the church are those who enter by the influences of the Spirit of Jesus, and in the manner which he has appointed.​
Some other way - Either at a window or over the wall.​
A thief - One who silently and secretly takes away the property of another.​
A robber - One who does it by violence or bloodshed. Jesus here designates those pastors or ministers of religion who are influenced not by love to him, but who seek the office from ambition, or the love of power, or wealth, or ease; who come, not to promote the welfare of the church, but to promote their own interests. Alas! in all churches there have been many - many who for no better ends have sought the pastoral office. To all such Jesus gives the names of thieves and robbers.​
This is much more the intended purpose of the passage, much more what saint Joh intends to teach, than is the idea you've attributed to the words "because ye are not of my sheep".
If you would "rightly divide the word of truth" then pay heed to its intended lessons and resist the desire to prove a doctrine. Many make shipwreck of their faith by proving doctrines.
Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.​
2 Timothy 2:14-18
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2022
Messages
1,149
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Maybe a god that tells us to go into the world and preach a message to people who can't possibly benefit from it just has a sick sense of humor? You know, the whole "so loved the world" that he sent his son to die for, well, just a selected few, and then told the rest to go and spread the word to people who not only wouldn't respond to it but actually couldn't respond to it. Then he threw those people into the eternal fire for not responding to the message he made them incapable of responding to.

I'm not sure how well that fits in with the concept of a loving God.
Like I said, you wiser than God, more Intelligent than He is.
 
Top Bottom