# Christ died for his sheep. Some sheep don't belong to him, but he died for every single sheep, huh?



## JJF (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm talking with a gentleman who says that limited atonement isn't necessarily biblical. I highlighted that in John 10:15b Jesus says, "and I lay down my life for my sheep." I also underscored what Jesus goes on to say to the Pharisees," But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I said to you (John 10:26)." 

I told him from these verses we can observe that Jesus is clearly saying that he only dies for his sheep and that there are some who aren't his sheep. Therefore, unlimited atonement cannot be true.

This gentleman proceeded to say that my interpretation isn't the only one possible, but he failed to give me an alternative one. I'm truly vexed by his exegesis (if you can call it that). Is there anything else that I can say to force him to question his hermeneutics?


----------



## ReadBavinck (Feb 1, 2006)

Joshua,

Welcome to board!

Christopher


P.S. Y'all are gonna like Joshua a lot!


----------



## Ivan (Feb 1, 2006)

By simple saying that limited atonement is not true doesn't make it so. The gentelman needs to come up with something better. Challenge him to support his position. If your intrepretation isn't the only one, what alternative is there? Ask him.


----------



## Arch2k (Feb 1, 2006)

If all are sheep, where does that leave room for the goats?


----------



## JJF (Feb 1, 2006)

Ivan said (not sure how to quote yet): By simple saying that limited atonement is not true doesn't make it so. The gentelman needs to come up with something better. Challenge him to support his position. If your intrepretation isn't the only one, what alternative is there? Ask him. 

Ivan, I really attempted to say that as patiently as I could. He said that my interpretation is not the only option, and therefore LA [limited atonement] is an undecided or "grey-area" doctrine. He says that it´s a plausible position and a good one, but not the only one. He is thus dubious to assert LA dogmatically. 

I should mention also that he has some anti-reformed-logic -forcing-onto-biblical-passages-polemics (on many touchstone Reformed doctrines) running through his blood. I told him graciously that the clear sense of this passage rents asunder all other meanings. I asked, "what else could the passage mean?" I set this scenario up for him (sort of as a way to get him to ponder the semantics and the force of Jesus´ words): if I'm talking to a group of people (some friends, some not) and I tell all of them that I give money to my friends, what would the ones, who aren't my friends, think? Wouldn't they realize that I won't give them money. He said not necessarily. I queried, "œhuh?" I realized the conversation wasn´t going anywhere, so I said, "œWell, Let´s leave it alone for awhile and pray for understanding."


----------



## JJF (Feb 1, 2006)

Christopher, thank you for noticing my presence, and thank you for your thoughtful words.


----------



## JJF (Feb 1, 2006)

Jeff said: If all are sheep, where does that leave room for the goats? 

Jeff, please forgive my ignorance or denseness, but is your question a serious one or are you just making sport? If it's the latter, then I'm smirking right now. If it's the former, then could you exlain your question. I'm racking my brain in an attempt to think of all the passages where goats are mentioned. Is there something you think I'm overlooking?

[Edited on 1-2-06 by JJF]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 1, 2006)

Jeff's question is rhetorical. You are right to smirk (with him) at his observation.

If everyone is a "sheep", then no-one is a "goat". But the Bible tells us plainly that everyone is either a sheep *or* a goat, and Jesus tells certain folk rather pointedly "You are not my sheep." He didn't mean they were someone else' sheep. To claim that there were would be universalism.


----------



## CDM (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JJF_
> Jeff said: If all are sheep, where does that leave room for the goats?
> 
> Jeff, please forgive my ignorance or denseness, but is your question a serious one or are you just making sport? If it's the latter, then I'm smirking right now. If it's the former, then could you exlain your question. I'm racking my brain in an attempt to think of all the passages where goats are mentioned. Is there something you think I'm overlooking?
> ...



I believe he is referring to the goats as unblievers. If every last person on earth are Christ's sheep, that would mean there are no goats (i.e., unbelievers). In Matthew 25:31-40 _(The Final Judgment)_ 


31 "œWhen the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 *And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.* 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, "˜Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.´ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, "˜Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?´ 40 And the King will answer them, "˜Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [6] you did it to me.´

-Chris


----------



## JJF (Feb 1, 2006)

Oh...I understand now. The title of this thread should read: Christ died for his sheep. The Pharisees are goats, but Christ only dies for sheep. The fog has cleared. I was wrongly assuming that everybody is a sheep. I appreciate the enlightenment. Boy, do I feel sheepish. 

Thanks Jeff, Mr. Buchanan, and Chris.  

[Edited on 1-2-06 by JJF]


----------



## Sara Joy (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JJF_
> I should mention also that he has some anti-reformed-logic -forcing-onto-biblical-passages-polemics (on many touchstone Reformed doctrines) running through his blood. I told him graciously that the clear sense of this passage rents asunder all other meanings. I asked, "what else could the passage mean?" I set this scenario up for him (sort of as a way to get him to ponder the semantics and the force of Jesus´ words): if I'm talking to a group of people (some friends, some not) and I tell all of them that I give money to my friends, what would the ones, who aren't my friends, think? Wouldn't they realize that I won't give them money. He said not necessarily. I queried, "œhuh?" I realized the conversation wasn´t going anywhere, so I said, "œWell, Let´s leave it alone for awhile and pray for understanding."



Joshua,

Your analogy is excellent. If you were to announce at the bar, "I'm buying drinks for all my friends," and pointed to a guy and said, "You're not my friend," he would understand that he wasn't getting a drink.

Brian


----------



## cultureshock (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry, I was the one who wrote that but my wife was still logged in.

Brian


----------



## biblelighthouse (Feb 1, 2006)

Joshua,

I know this quote is not sheepy, but I thought I would share it nonetheless --

Jesus said: "I pray for them. *I do not pray for the world* but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. " (John 17:9)

That is one of my favorite verses which suggest a definite atonement. Jesus refused to even _pray_ for those who weren't His sheep!

Keep up the good work, Joshua!


----------



## JJF (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Sara Joy_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JJF_
> ...



Brian, Thanks so much for the encouragement. Sometimes I wonder if my analogies are counterintuitive to other people.


----------



## JJF (Feb 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Joshua,
> 
> I know this quote is not sheepy, but I thought I would share it nonetheless --
> ...



I appreciate the encouragement. I follow your reasoning and agree with you, but he probably wouldn't concur. He would say that salvation isn't being directly mentioned in the passage you mention. He would say that it doesn't necessarily mean that Christ didn't die for them; He just didn't pray for them. How he maintains such an awkward position is beyond me. Perhaps everyone here can join me in prayer for him;I covet your prayers. I'll probably post my concern in the prayer forum.

[Edited on 1-2-06 by JJF]


----------



## BrianBowman (Feb 2, 2006)

Joshua,



My Advice.

Pray for deep broken Christ-like love for your friend. Meditate in John 1, 3, 6, 10, and 17, Eph 1-2, Romans 9-11. Read _Redemption Accomplished & Applied_ by John Murray as well as J.I. Packer's Introduction to John Owen's classic _The Death of Death in the Death of Christ_. Then pray some more for deep broken Christ-like love for your friend. Explain to him that very power of the Gospel rests on "Particular Atonement" - that Christ's Finished Work being *actual* and not merely hypothetical. Unfortunately, the world is full of half-baked "evangelicals" that go around sugguesting various interpretive "options" because they know not the depth of their own depravity and have not a splendid illumination of Christ's sovereign power and consuming holiness!

[Edited on 2-2-2006 by BrianBowman]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 2, 2006)

I second the recommendation of Packer's intro to _Death of Death in the Death of Christ_...

(And a reminder to myself to realize I can't know who God's sheep are... So I refuse to feel sorry for _anybody_. I may be feeling sorry for people who are going to heaven......while I may be going to hell. Imagine that, I'm saying, "I really feel sorry for you poor souls... Wait a minute-!")

I don't know about other Calvinists, but I handle this difficulty this way: God is in control and God is good and just. And, there's nobody in hell who doesn't want to be there.


----------



## cupotea (Feb 2, 2006)

> Jesus refused to even _pray_ for those who weren't His sheep!



Another good point for LA. If Jesus did so, then His prayers would be as ineffective as His shed blood.

Good one.


----------



## JJF (Feb 2, 2006)

Brian and Michael,

Thanks for the recommendations. I've already read both of those works (including the Death of Death), even though it may not seem like it. I do, however, intend to reread both of them. I've even advanced many of the solid, and, I think, very persuasive arguments that both Owen and Murray make. Yet, he still is not sastified; he keeps saying that they are all inadequate. We are both in a Systematics class at our church. The text is Grudhem's Sysetmatic, and he doesn't like Grudhem's arguments either. That's why I introduced this thread; I thought maybe I could try, and see if there was anything else I could say without capitulating to him or watering down the doctrine. You see, he's a literalist. If the Bible said, "Jesus only dies for his sheep," then he would believe in LA. I think it does say that, but he tells me that he wants to see the word "only."

[Edited on 2-2-06 by JJF]

[Edited on 2-2-06 by JJF]


----------

