Propitiation

[bbbbbbb]

You know some frogs can change gender? Are we going to make theology from that? Point being, symbols are symbols, not biology.

Perhaps. However, symbols carry meaning. If one wanted to use sheep as a symbol, one might say that instead of using sheep and goats in Matthew 25, Jesus could have used only sheep such that the sheep were divided between the striped and the spotted sheep, as in the case of Jacob. However, we have a consistent agrarian background in the Old Testament where goats and sheep are clearly distinguished from each other, as well as from other animals. One can make a case that both are "clean" animals which were acceptable both for ritual sacrifices and for dietary consumption and, therefore, in the description of the final judgement neither represent "unclean" (ergo Gentile) individuals. However, that still leaves the niggling problem that they are actually representative of differing species which cannot be transformed either by their own wills or by any other means short of divine intervention.

It is particularly troublesome for me to imagine a goat becoming a sheep and then deciding that being a sheep is not really what it wants to be so it decides to go back to being a goat, but then rethinks the situation and decides that being a sheep is really better, after all, etc., etc. I refer to some Arminians who flip between saved and lost throughout their lives.

 

[zoidar]

Perhaps. However, symbols carry meaning. If one wanted to use sheep as a symbol, one might say that instead of using sheep and goats in Matthew 25, Jesus could have used only sheep such that the sheep were divided between the striped and the spotted sheep, as in the case of Jacob. However, we have a consistent agrarian background in the Old Testament where goats and sheep are clearly distinguished from each other, as well as from other animals. One can make a case that both are "clean" animals which were acceptable both for ritual sacrifices and for dietary consumption and, therefore, in the description of the final judgement neither represent "unclean" (ergo Gentile) individuals. However, that still leaves the niggling problem that they are actually representative of differing species which cannot be transformed either by their own wills or by any other means short of divine intervention.

It is particularly troublesome for me to imagine a goat becoming a sheep and then deciding that being a sheep is not really what it wants to be so it decides to go back to being a goat, but then rethinks the situation and decides that being a sheep is really better, after all, etc., etc. I refer to some Arminians who flip between saved and lost throughout their lives.

I don't think we are goats or sheep. Jesus point is that as followers we are as sheep and as deniers we are stubborn as goats. We are born neither sheep or goats, there is no such description for newborn. However, here Jesus uses the symbol of sheep and goats to show that those who listen and follow him are like sheep, but those that deny him are like goats. I don't read more into it than that. I don't think it's meant to be read like a biological concept.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't think we are goats or sheep. Jesus point is that as followers we are as sheep and as deniers we are stubborn as goats. We are born neither sheep or goats, there is no such description for newborn. However Jesus uses the symbol of sheep and goats to show that those who listen and follow him are like sheep, but those that deny him are like goats. I don't read more into it than that. I don't think it's meant to be read like a biological concept.

How do you understand Psalms 14 and 53 and Romans 3:10-12?

 

[zoidar]

How do you understand Psalms 14 and 53 and Romans 3:10-12?

I have to look at that tomorrow. It's getting really late here (actually early).

 

[bbbbbbb]

I have to look at that tomorrow. It's getting really late here (actually early).

Thanks!

 

[Hammster]

I kind of said goats are synonymous to those who deny Christ and sheep are synonymous to those who accept Christ, not that goats and sheep are the same. Was that unclear? I think the burden of proof is on you to show we are born goats or sheep and that it is an unchangable state. You have no support for that from Scripture. That Christ died for sheep isn't proving one or the other.

In the last discussion we had about the atonement I wasn't promoting the idea of legal and moral guilt, rather that Christ was punished for sin, but our personal sins were not not put on Christ until we repent and believe. You ended that discussion, but I think I had good arguments. You also have no ground in Scripture for saying we are forgiven at the time of the cross. Scripture is, I would say clear, we are forgiven when we come to faith (Ac 10:43).

Btw, God's intention is to save whoever believes (John 3:16). I have said nothing in the line with God trying to save everyone. So that is on you.

I don't know how to get you to see this, but Calvinism is not Biblical. You can probably make it work as a coherent idea, I won't say you can't. It's still not a Biblical idea, but a late theological idea that started with Augustine and was built upon by Calvin and others. And as far as I know Calvin didn't even endorse limited atonement, yet many Calvinists do.

I did misunderstand your comment on being synonymous, and I apologize. I should post when I’m tired.

This is the problem when asking for proof. I could ask you to prove that goats become sheep, and you can’t do it, and so I can say that synergism isn’t biblical. Every argument you make I can just say that it doesn’t specifically say that. I’d have trouble “proving” the Trinity with that sort of discussion.

I can say, however, that Christ said He dies for His sheep, and His sheep are those given to Him by His Father, and those who don’t believe aren’t His sheep. In fact, he gives that as a cause for disbelief. His sheep believe, and it’s because they are His sheep. It’s not that they become His sheep after they believe. I can say that He said He came for the lost sheep of Israel, and He has other sheep outside of Israel. All of this is specific. It’s never implied that He died for some unrealized group of people who will become sheep if they just believe. And He gave a parable about sheep and goats where He explains that you can tell they are sheep and goats by their behavior, not that they became sheep and goats because of their behavior.

I can show from scripture that the heart of stone cannot/will not believe, and doesn’t even want to because the heart of stone hates God. We don’t just decided one day to be good and then God changes our heart. We can do nothing to please God while unregenerate, which includes believing the gospel. We must be born again.

And this is all from scripture, not Augustine. If that’s the argument you want to make, then we really need to throw out the doctrine of the Trinity, since it wasn’t fully realized and understood for hundreds of years after Christ. But I don’t think that’s the way to go.

 

[zoidar]

I did misunderstand your comment on being synonymous, and I apologize. I should post when I’m tired.

Hey, no problem we all do that at times.

This is the problem when asking for proof. I could ask you to prove that goats become sheep, and you can’t do it, and so I can say that synergism isn’t biblical. Every argument you make I can just say that it doesn’t specifically say that. I’d have trouble “proving” the Trinity with that sort of discussion.

I don't feel I need to argue for goats becoming sheep. I think the idea is wrongly put that we change from one to another, just as much as I think it's wrong to say once a sheep always a sheep. I see it as a misuse of symbolic language. Because this is a symbolic language used in a specific moment, to a specific group of people. Another symbolic language might be using other words to describe followers and deniers of Christ, like tares and wheat. I don't see anyone be born a goat or sheep, because I don't believe the language of sheep/goats are meant to be used that way. What I can do is show from Scripture everyone can be a believer, and that should mean everyone can be a sheep, not become a sheep.

Trinity is a tricky matter, because I think there are Biblical arguments for and against. Here I lean to the history of Church and what has been agreed upon by 99% of all churches. If there was a 50-50 split among churches through out history, I'm not sure I would have been a trinitarian.

It's fully valid to use texts speaking about similar things to show what a another passage says (prove is probably a bad word). But we have to be ready to defend the position. There might be other explanations. In the end there are no proofs, only stronger and weaker arguments IMO.

I can say, however, that Christ said He dies for His sheep, and His sheep are those given to Him by His Father, and those who don’t believe aren’t His sheep. In fact, he gives that as a cause for disbelief. His sheep believe, and it’s because they are His sheep. It’s not that they become His sheep after they believe. I can say that He said He came for the lost sheep of Israel, and He has other sheep outside of Israel. All of this is specific. It’s never implied that He died for some unrealized group of people who will become sheep if they just believe. And He gave a parable about sheep and goats where He explains that you can tell they are sheep and goats by their behavior, not that they became sheep and goats because of their behavior.

It's a valid argument.

I can show from scripture that the heart of stone cannot/will not believe, and doesn’t even want to because the heart of stone hates God. We don’t just decided one day to be good and then God changes our heart. We can do nothing to please God while unregenerate, which includes believing the gospel. We must be born again.

I on the other hand can show from Scripture we need to repent for God to change our heart of stone. I can also show from Scripture repentance comes before the new birth. Are the verses in the Bible that can be seen the way you describe it. Sure! I just don't think there is only this one way to understand those verses, and I use other verses to support my position.

And this is all from scripture, not Augustine. If that’s the argument you want to make, then we really need to throw out the doctrine of the Trinity, since it wasn’t fully realized and understood for hundreds of years after Christ. But I don’t think that’s the way to go.

The difference is Calvinism is a minority teaching among Christians, both historically and today. I know the argument of historicity doesn't defeat Calvinism, but I think it's worth to mention in this debate. Anything to show people to the truth. I think you agree.

Thanks for your longer and clarifying post! I appreciate it!

Christ love!

P.s. It would be interesting some day to discuss what we do agree on. I know there are a lot of things. In some questions I don't think we as far appart as it first seem.

 

[Hammster]

Hey, no problem we all do that at times.

I don't feel I need to argue for goats becoming sheep. I think the idea is wrongly put that we change from one to another, just as much as I think it's wrong to say once a sheep always a sheep. I see it as a misuse of symbolic language. Because this is a symbolic language used in a specific moment, to a specific group of people. Another symbolic language might be using other words to describe followers and deniers of Christ, like tares and wheat. I don't see anyone be born a goat or sheep, because I don't believe the language of sheep/goats are meant to be used that way. What I can do is show from Scripture everyone can be a believer, and that should mean everyone can be a sheep, not become a sheep.

Trinity is a tricky matter, because I think there are Biblical arguments for and against. Here I lean to the history of Church and what has been agreed upon by 99% of all churches. If there was a 50-50 split among churches through out history, I'm not sure I would have been a trinitarian.

It's fully valid to use texts speaking about similar things to show what a another passage says (prove is probably a bad word). But we have to be ready to defend the position. There might be other explanations. In the end there are no proofs, only stronger and weaker arguments IMO.

It's a valid argument.

I on the other hand can show from Scripture we need to repent for God to change our heart of stone. I can also show from Scripture repentance comes before the new birth. Are the verses in the Bible that can be seen the way you describe it. Sure! I just don't think there is only this one way to understand those verses, and I use other verses to support my position.

The difference is Calvinism is a minority teaching among Christians, both historically and today. I know the argument of historicity doesn't defeat Calvinism, but I think it's worth to mention in this debate. Anything to show people to the truth. I think you agree.

Thanks for your longer and clarifying post! I appreciate it!

Christ love!

P.s. It would be interesting some day to discuss what we do agree on. I know there are a lot of things. In some questions I don't think we as far appart as it first seem.

My point wasn’t so much to make an argument, but rather to show that Reformed Theology is biblical, and is not dependent upon Augustine or Calvin. Calling it unbiblical is disingenuous.

 

[Hammster]

I on the other hand can show from Scripture we need to repent for God to change our heart of stone. I can also show from Scripture repentance comes before the new birth.

Well here you go.

 

[Samson2021]

Who are His sheep other than the ones whom the Father hath given Him? All were goats to begin with.

As they were dead in sin and trespass how were they sheep at that time?

 

[Hammster]

Who are His sheep other than the ones whom the Father hath given Him? All were goats to begin with.

Where does it say that the Father gave the Son goats?

 

[Samson2021]

Did you misquote me intentionally? I certainly do not appreciate anyone who misquotes anyone else for any reason.

What I actually posted was this -

The alternative, which is born out by scripture, is that God, for reasons entirely known to Him alone, determined to save people. In His justice He has every reason and right to leave people to their destiny in the lake of fire. However, he has predestined a very small minority of humanity for eternal life with Him in heaven.

I did not misquote you. I asked you to reconcile your opinion with scripture. Thats it.

 

[Samson2021]

Where does it say that the Father gave the Son goats?

It doesn't. The fact is that all were unrighteous(goats) then when made righteous(sheep) were given to the Son.
As I stated ALL are goats(unrighteous) to begin with.

 

[Hammster]

It doesn't. The fact is that all were unrighteous(goats) then when made righteous(sheep) were given to the Son.
As I stated ALL are goats(unrighteous) to begin with.

Except it doesn’t say that.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I did not misquote you. I asked you to reconcile your opinion with scripture. Thats it.

You truncated my post to make it read as if I had actually said something that I never believed nor stated as my belief. Thus, I have no reason to defend the strawman you have created.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Except it doesn’t say that.

Nor does it even imply that. One is required to read one's own theology into the passage in order to come to that conclusion.

 

[zoidar]

My point wasn’t so much to make an argument, but rather to show that Reformed Theology is biblical, and is not dependent upon Augustine or Calvin. Calling it unbiblical is disingenuous.

Since 5-point Calvinism is a complete system of theology I think it either is Biblical or not Biblical. I think it's hard to say some parts of 5-point Calvinism are Biblical and some aren't. But I'm willing to say I might be wrong.

You are right I shouldn't have said Calvinism is not Biblical, since it just makes it an opinion on my part and not an argument. I guess I was a bit frustrated from your comments about my views not found in Scripture.

 

[zoidar]

How do you understand Psalms 14 and 53 and Romans 3:10-12?

This thread is about propitiation, so I will make the answer short.

The basic thing said in those passages is man is hopelessly lost without God and Christ. No one does good, no one is righteous, no one calls on the Lord. This is the state of unbelief. As soon you come to faith, you start doing good, you call on the Lord etc..

Sorry for OT!

 

[Hammster]

Since 5-point Calvinism is a complete system of theology I think it either is Biblical or not Biblical. I think it's hard to say some parts of 5-point Calvinism are Biblical and some aren't. But I'm willing to say I might be wrong.

You are right I shouldn't have said Calvinism is not Biblical, since it just makes it an opinion on my part and not an argument. I guess I was a bit frustrated from your comments about my views not found in Scripture.

Your main argument about propitiation was that there’s a legal debt Christ died for, but not a moral debt. I don’t recall you supporting that with scripture.

 

[zoidar]

Your main argument about propitiation was that there’s a legal debt Christ died for, but not a moral debt. I don’t recall you supporting that with scripture.

All verses that say you need to believe to be saved might be used to support moral dept and legal dept. If Christ bore our moral dept then we wouldn't need to believe to be saved. So from that logic Christ can not have borne our moral dept.