That's an outrageous picture. I hope to find the time later to come back and read the text.

 

I just want to let you know I did read every bit of this post...seems valid to me, the larger point is about Jesus claiming His truth versus the distorted doctrine...

 

JD - I am glad someone read it ;-). It is one of those things where it seems obvious to both people involved in the conversation, but they have very different presumptions, so what seems obvious to both is quite different.

My hope is, of course, that the truth comes out.

 

daniel-

In verse 29 Christ again re-emphasizes the fact that the Sheep are Christ's because God gave them to Christ, that is, Christ didn't purchase them, they were God's gift to Him, He came, as I said in a previous comment, to redeem those whom God had already given Him.

This peculiar interpretation demonstrates, as far as I can tell, that UE is your underlying hermeneutic for approaching the scriptures, or at least this passage in particular.

Within the overarching teaching of the scriptures, God's 'gift' of the sheep to Christ is based upon Christ's redemptive work- for instance, in Hebrews, the writer ascribes Jesus' incarnation and suffering and death to bringing sons and daughters to glory, and that the authorship of their salvation was through Christ's suffering, not through God's eternal decree.

Similarly, in the Servant Song in Isaiah, it speaks of how because the servant will suffer, he will see his offspring and justify many.

So, in relation to John, the language Jesus employs seems to be less about some eternal decree of election, and more about the contrast between those who refuse to believe and those who choose to accept Jesus as the Son of God.

He is speaking specifically about whose teaching brings salvation - His or the Pharisees, and explains why it is that the Pharisees get it wrong - because they are not His sheep (v. 26), which is the same as saying because they have not been given to Christ by God (v.29).

Again, you are allowing UE to determine the import of Jesus' words here, by equating these two passages as you do. Actually, Jesus explain why they are not his sheep- he says that those who are the sheep listen to his voice and follow him. Obviously, the Pharisees were not living in such a
posture towards Christ. You are trying to create a causal link between God 'giving' someone to Jesus and them following Jesus; however, Jesus is indicating that belief in Christ is the means by which one is part of the flock, not a unilateral giving in reference to an eternal decree of election.

The whole metaphor of shepherd and sheep argues dramatically against understanding this in the light of UE. In the scriptures, the shepherd is seen as a caretaker- thus the kings of Israel (and other Near Eastern kingdoms) were known as the shepherds of the people. The religious leaders of the day were entrusted by God through their offices to be the shepherds of the people, but had failed in their task; Jesus derides them for this on a number of occasions- his denouncement of them heaping laws upon the people but not helping them comes to mind; also, his calling them blind guides. Thus, he contrasts them with himself as the true Shepherd- as God had given the sheep to the shepherds to care for them, but they had failed, so Christ now as the True Shepherd was entrusted with the sheep- whereas the religious leaders he likens to theives and robbers and hired hands; he is the one who will care for them and protect them and lay his life down for them; it is because of this sacrificial love, as I have already mentioned, that God gives him the sheep. Jesus' own words that follow illustrate this, as he shows that no one can snatch the sheep from his hand, because he is God.

Also in verse 29, and especially in verse 30, Christ identifies Himself as the Son of God, and introduces the theological conundrum that He and God the Father are one - which gives those Jews the excuse they were looking for - but even in this Christ calls their attention to the works He had done - the very things that bear witness to the legitimacy of His claim - really, giving them even in that moment ample opportunity to rethink their theology, repent, and be saved.

Except according to the framework of UE, this 'ample opportunity', since they were not elected by eternal decree to salvation, is essentially meaningless. I agree that he was giving them opportunity to repent; however, such an opportunity, to be genuine, must also be actual. As you have mentioned- they understood what Jesus what trying to say, but they refused to believe- that is why they weren't part of the sheep, not because they weren't given to Christ by the Father.

 

I read your comment here too, Daniel, that you left on my blog. It was so long, though, I had to print it out and look at it while I fed the baby. I think you are famous for long posts and comments now. :~) I haven't had a chance to comment back, but have been reading yours and Dawn's exchanges too.

BTW, I do see that the Pharisees in the two instances weren't the same ones. I was stereotying (this is bad) and just thinking of their ilk. When I said something like, "these are the same poeple..." I just meant it in a broad sense, like, if you, Daniel, were talking to a couple of Catholic Cardinals and these Cardinals said that the Pope was the vicar of Christ ... and then you walked over to another small gathering of Catholic Cardinals and said, "You are the same people who just said that the Pope is the vicar of Christ."

That is how I meant it when I was telling of Christ's description of "these people". I don't know if Jesus would have thought of them in that way, though. Thanks for calling me on it. He knew each individual heart and He had friends among them ... like Nicodemus and Joseph. But - correct me if I am wrong - were not both groups of Pharisees in those two locations you mention ... against Him?

 

I wonder if any of your friends would come on over and read what I said to you in my comment before you replied with this comment that you posted here on your blog. My main jist ==was not== that the call wasn't soteriological.

This was my main problem, my main jist:
Why must this verse be taken to be such a blanket statement ... reaching past it's immediate context and audience in such an all-encompassing way?

This was a particular group - the Pharisees and they were "visited" in a particular way - the very Son of God stood before them.

 

DM - you are correct in saying that I come to this verse with an UE hermeneutic; in that scripture elsewhere teaches me that the election has nothing to do with my effort or persuasion, but that God Himself persuades me out of rebellion and into light - even when I was yet a sinner and rebel - and not because I have taken the initiative. So when I come to see this text it isn't that I am saying the primary teaching is UE, and I think if I have made that suggestion or implied that I stand in error - for this is not the primary teaching, the teaching that is primary in this parable is about Christ being the true Shepherd, and the Pharisees being the false.

I believe however, that since scripture teaches UE elsewhere, that it can be seen here just as plainly, and identifying and discussing that was what drew me into this discussion. I see election here, and I see election everywhere - and I see that man does not force God to elect him by doing the right works that will bring about God having elected him in the past.

Sovereignty is, after all, an all or nothing thing - you are either entirely in control, or you are only partially in control - and God's control is not partial but absolute - declaring the end from the beginning, and it is my prerogative to believe that this includes everything in between.

I appreciate your comments, and not in the standard "I am a good Christian ergo I must act it" kind of way - I mean I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to this. God bless you for that.

 

Rose, I hope people follow your link - what good is one side of a conversation? My great fear in blogging, and it is more accute as time progresses, is the idea of having "fans" who high-five anything and everything I say just because they have grown to like me, or because they have agreed in the past with some of the things I have said, or because we all wear the same brand of shoes.

I don't want fans - I want to point people to the same God who gives me joy daily, who loves me with a real, tangible, incomprehensible love - a love that makes my doing His will a real (i.e. not feigned) joy; a love that is the fountain from which all my service springs.

What good is my Christianity if all it ends up being is an air tight argument to me so that I parade it around for those who admire the beauty of the same argument? The only theological opinion that impresses me is the one that produces a deeper walk with Christ - the one that produces genuine love in me so that my service is not in the flesh, but in love - so that I never have to work at my faith, but it becomes a river of life flowing out of me, and not some trickle that I have to pump like a fiend to produce.

So I really couldn't care less if people read my position and say it is right or say it is wrong, on the last day God isn't going to praise me because of my "good theology" - but if I bring a soul or two to a closer walk with God, then I will have the sort of praise I can relish in. If I had a choice between hearing God say that I was [1] a "theologically accurate blogger", or [2] a "good and faithful servant" - I hope my choice would be obvious.

Which is my characteristically long winded way of saying, I highly esteem your blog and the work you do there, and my encouragement is to read your blog is demonstrated in the fact that I have linked to you consistently in my blogroll for almost as long as you have been blogging there. That is, I value what the Lord is doing in your life, and I point others there to see it too.

So I not only hope others are following the conversation, I hope they look around too. You have a lot to add, and it would be sad for people to miss out on that.

 

Daniel-

I believe however, that since scripture teaches UE elsewhere, that it can be seen here just as plainly, and identifying and discussing that was what drew me into this discussion.

I obviously would disagree with this assessment of what the scriptures teach about election, and I would say that the synergistic nature of salvation is fairly evident here.

I see election here, and I see election everywhere - and I see that man does not force God to elect him by doing the right works that will bring about God having elected him in the past.

I think you are perhaps going a little too far in making election synonymous with an understanding of election predicated upon the philosophical underpinnings of UE. I can't think of any orthodox conception of election that would advocate that God's election is predicated upon right works that are performed; rather, traditional Christian teaching has been that God has initiated the act of salvation, and that humanity must freely respond in faith.

Sovereignty is, after all, an all or nothing thing - you are either entirely in control, or you are only partially in control - and God's control is not partial but absolute - declaring the end from the beginning, and it is my prerogative to believe that this includes everything in between.

Perhaps sovereignty is an all or nothing thing- but only if you approach the concept of God's power from that of materialistic perspective. Meaning, of course, that's God's power is not synonymous with how we materially perceive power; that is, we see it as limited in supply, and to have some power means someone else cannot have access to that power. However, to perceive God's sovereignty in this way merely makes God the superlative of all that exists, and ceases to be able to make a meaningful distinction, at least in this regard, between God and the created order.

If God declares the end from the beginning, and is absolute in control of everything, would you go as far to include sin in that, since at least the phenomenological
manifestations of sin would have to be included?

Thanks for the discussion.

 

DM - I am sure I go too far, and probably more often than I should. And yet, I try to go no further than the light I am given. ;-)

It seems quite impossible for a sovereign God to be surprized by sin - since he ordained that Christ would save me from it before the world was ever made, and before sin ever existed.

 

It seems quite impossible for a sovereign God to be surprized by sin - since he ordained that Christ would save me from it before the world was ever made, and before sin ever existed.

Sin ever existed? Are you applying the category of a substantive existence to sin? If so, you are essentially stating that sin would have to find its derivation from God. That seems a little curious.

 

Are you applying the category of a substantive existence to sin?

No. My honest assumption was that you would understand this without my having to spell it out.

Sin is an absence of obedience, and as an "absence" it is not "part of" God's creation.

However creation -was- created in such a way as to not merely anticipate this absence, but that this absence would be the very root that manifests God's glory.