- 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
@1689Dave
Their argument for limited atonement works like this in a syllogism:
Major premise:
Christ lays down his life for the Sheep (John 10:15)
Minor premise:
The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep (John 10:26)
Conclusion:
Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees.
Stated without the prefix comments:
Christ lays down his life for the Sheep
The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep
Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees
The problem is that its formally invalid.
Let's use an analogy which follows the same form and logical construct, but clearly demonstrates the invalidity of the form of the argument.
John loves his children.
Sally is not a child of John.
Therefore, John does not love Sally.
This is an invalid argument. It is a logical fallacy.
You can swap out any terms, and the result will be same.
What’s happened, is that the negative inference has been smuggled in, something like this.
The simple positive:
John loves his children
is converted into a simple negative via pure eisegesis:
John only loves his children.
Then the syllogism is followed out:
John only loves his children.
Sally is not a child of John
Therefore, John does not love Sally.
That is now is a valid form of an argument.
And if we bring this back to John 10:15, the syllogism now looks like this with the smuggled in negation:
Christ lays down his life only for the Sheep
The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep
Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees
These radical Calvinists start with Jesus did not die for all but only for some, and so read “Christ lays down his life for the Sheep” as being identical or as entailing, “Christ lays down his life only for the Sheep.” However, this is is an invalid negative inference. It's just a circular argument.
Whats actually going on in John 10 is more like this:
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
John 10:12 “He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
John 10:13 “He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep.
John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,
John 10:15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
John 10:16: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
The point is not about the death of Jesus but rather the loyalty of Christ to the sheep. These Calivinists have ripped it from context. The pharisees are the hirelings who abandon the sheep. Jesus is saying to them something like this, “I am not like you, who run away, rather I will lay my life down for the sheep, defending them to the end….”
Thus, the real emphasis and attention should be on this verse:
John 10:16 “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
When we put together v15 and v16, we see in the mind of Christ a special intention to gather and faithfully lay his life down for his sheep so that they may be saved to the uttermost. He came to earth, not as a hireling coming to a field, but to gather those given to him. This is the direction we should move in, not in pressing the limited extent of the expiation.
Yes, I realize I wasted all my time posting this to you... just as I did post 58 and every other post I and all others have written for you.
.
This attempt on the part of a few radical Calvinists (more to pin up double predestination than Limited Atonement) simply ignores all the MANY clear, obvious, undeniable, VERBATIM Scriptures that specifically state that Jesus died for all people. All just deleted. Swept aside. And the submission of one verse which of course does not say "Jesus did not die for all but rather only for some unknown few." But they use logical fallacies to TRY to get it to justify the sweeping aside of all the many verses that do state Universal Atonement.Their argument for limited atonement works like this in a syllogism:
Major premise:
Christ lays down his life for the Sheep (John 10:15)
Minor premise:
The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep (John 10:26)
Conclusion:
Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees.
Stated without the prefix comments:
Christ lays down his life for the Sheep
The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep
Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees
The problem is that its formally invalid.
Let's use an analogy which follows the same form and logical construct, but clearly demonstrates the invalidity of the form of the argument.
John loves his children.
Sally is not a child of John.
Therefore, John does not love Sally.
This is an invalid argument. It is a logical fallacy.
You can swap out any terms, and the result will be same.
What’s happened, is that the negative inference has been smuggled in, something like this.
The simple positive:
John loves his children
is converted into a simple negative via pure eisegesis:
John only loves his children.
Then the syllogism is followed out:
John only loves his children.
Sally is not a child of John
Therefore, John does not love Sally.
That is now is a valid form of an argument.
And if we bring this back to John 10:15, the syllogism now looks like this with the smuggled in negation:
Christ lays down his life only for the Sheep
The pharisees are not Christ’s sheep
Therefore, Christ did not lay his life down for the Pharisees
These radical Calvinists start with Jesus did not die for all but only for some, and so read “Christ lays down his life for the Sheep” as being identical or as entailing, “Christ lays down his life only for the Sheep.” However, this is is an invalid negative inference. It's just a circular argument.
Whats actually going on in John 10 is more like this:
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.
John 10:12 “He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
John 10:13 “He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep.
John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,
John 10:15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
John 10:16: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
The point is not about the death of Jesus but rather the loyalty of Christ to the sheep. These Calivinists have ripped it from context. The pharisees are the hirelings who abandon the sheep. Jesus is saying to them something like this, “I am not like you, who run away, rather I will lay my life down for the sheep, defending them to the end….”
Thus, the real emphasis and attention should be on this verse:
John 10:16 “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
When we put together v15 and v16, we see in the mind of Christ a special intention to gather and faithfully lay his life down for his sheep so that they may be saved to the uttermost. He came to earth, not as a hireling coming to a field, but to gather those given to him. This is the direction we should move in, not in pressing the limited extent of the expiation.
Yes, I realize I wasted all my time posting this to you... just as I did post 58 and every other post I and all others have written for you.
.
Last edited: