Podcast: Tiptoe Through the TULIP Limited Atonement

Here's the latest podcast, where we continue to examine the five points of Calvinism (aka TULIP), this time dealing with Limited Atonement.

Papal Fallibility

I recently became aware of an article quoting the recently appointed Pope Francis and his comments on our ability to do good, as well as our atonement, which were made last Wednesday. I felt compelled to offer a brief response to it. Here's the opening section from the article:

Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”

The reference here (the daily reading) is to Mark 9:38-40. Here are the words of the verses:

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us."

Note something the pope left out, in both instances: these things were done in the name of Christ. The man who was "doing good" (actually, casting out demons) was doing so in the name of Christ. Christ speaks of those who work in his name, and who will not speak evil of him. Pope Francis is making it sound as if the disciples came across a random guy on the street giving money to a homeless man, and got upset because he wasn't a Christian. On the contrary, they found a man who was casting out things in Christ's name, and were curious if they should stop him because he wasn't one of Christ's direct disciples. That is, he was a follower of Christ but hadn't received direct orders from Christ to do those things, and the disciples were worried about what appeared to be unorthodox way of continuing the message of Christ.

Pope Francis, however, takes this erroneous interpretation of Mark 9:38-40 and broadens out the capability of individuals to do good:

"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him. Instead, this ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. That we can kill in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy."

We've already established that Mark 9:38-40 is not about doing general "good things," but be that as it may, let's first define our terms at this point: when we speak of "good," do we mean simply "nice" things? If, that is, we are saying even the most passionate atheist can open up a door for an old woman, then I think no one will contest that. Of course everyone is capable of being "nice" or acting like a "good guy."

If, however, by "good" we mean doing that which is pleasing to God, then we run into a serious problem - and serious because it is contradictory to what scripture teaches about human nature. The apostle Paul told us that "none is righteous, no, not one" (Rom 3:10), and that men are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3). Christ himself told the rich young ruler, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18). The prophet Isaiah wrote that "all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment" (Isa 64:6). The testimony of scripture is that none are considered "good" before God outside of Christ - neither in person or in deed.

Yet Pope Francis contests that a non-Catholic (or a non-Christian for that matter) "must" do good, because he "has this commandment within him." In some regards, this is true, as the apostle Paul wrote:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. [Romans 2:14-16]

Men have the Law written on their hearts, so that even an atheist, deep down inside, feels some inkling that it's wrong to murder. This is why virtually every culture in the world has laws concerning murder, adultery, rape, etc. The issue, however, is if merely doing works of the Law makes one justified before God. As we've seen before, this isn't possible. As the apostle Paul writes later on in the same epistle: "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Rom 3:20).

The next section is even more astounding:

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there."

The Lord has redeemed us all? Everyone? All men have been absolved of their sins? Here we run into two problems:

Firstly, this isn't consistent with the teaching of scripture. If Christ redeemed us all, why then does Christ say "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John 10:11), and that these sheep are those whom the Father have given to them (John 10:29)? (I talk more of the sheep in John 10 in this post.) Why is it said Christ came to save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21)? Why does the apostle Paul state it was the church which Christ "obtained with his own blood" (Acts 20:28)? Why is it said Christ died for the church (Eph 5:25) and for the elect (Rom 8:32-33)? It is clear from this that there is, in fact, a particular redemption, over and against a general redemption. Christ did not redeem everyone who ever lived. Even Christ himself did not say that he came as a "ransom for all", but as a "ransom for many" (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45), and the author of Hebrews says that Christ has been offered once "to bear the sins of many" (Heb 9:28).

Secondly, this runs into problems with the idea of atonement versus judgment, for if all men are redeemed, then why are any in hell? Why would any men be in hell? Some here will say, "It is because they have rejected Christ and do not have faith." Unbelief, however, is listed as an equal sin with other acts against the Law of God (1 Co 6:8-10; Rev 21:8; 22:15) - let us not forget also that one of the Ten Commandments was the command to worship the true God (Ex 20:3). Are we to say that those who come to faith in Christ out of the mire of atheism or false religions are not forgiven for violating the very first commandment? If, indeed, they are forgiven by the blood of Christ, why then are not other unbelievers forgiven and redeemed by the blood of Christ? If it possible for men to go into hell, then they are not truly redeemed.

In this same vein, we run into a problem with Pope Francis' statement "and this Blood makes us children of God of the first class!" The scriptural definition of being a "child of God," however, belongs to those who are in the faith, regenerated internally by God, just as the apostle John wrote:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. [John 1:12-13]

Our becoming children of God is not reliant upon merely being born into lineage ("not of blood"), nor by anything we intentionally do by our own power ('nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man"), but rather through the regeneration wrought by God ("born...of God"). When this occurs, we become children of God through adoption.

The apostle Paul likewise spoke, regarding our status as children of God:

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. [Romans 8:16-17]

The pope asks atheists to "do good: we will meet one another there," for the sake of peace. Again, if he's just talking about "being nice," I would be all for that, and we should all get along. The pope, however, goes on to state that "doing good" is not a matter of faith, but "it is a duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because He has made us in His image and likeness. And He does good, always." While it is true that we are made in the likeness of God, let us not forget that this image is fallen. The inclination of man is not to do that is pleasing to God, let alone honor the true God. It is impossible for the pope to meet an atheist halfway because the atheist is repulsed by the God which the pope claims to worship. Any "meeting halfway" will be superficial peace, not sincere peace, for a hatred still exists, in whatever form, between the non-Christian and the Christian's Master. It is like those who say "Peace, peace," when there is no peace (cf. Jer 8:11).

As I've said before, no Christian denies that a non-Christian can do "nice" things, or be a "nice" guy, but in regards to our status before God, all men are guilty and their "good" means nothing, unless it is done, as the evangelist Mark said, in Christ. John Climacus, an ancient desert ascetic and author of the famous Ladder of Divine Ascent, said that doing good works without Christ was like pouring water into a bucket with a hole at the bottom. The "nicest" person in the world, if they do not have Christ, is still an object to be fed into hell, for they are still guilty of their sins. The righteousness of God is not in doing works of the Law, for the "righteousness of God" is found "faith in Jesus Christ," and can only be found there, for "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:22-23). As I said, it would be impossible for a Christian and an atheist to meet halfway in the "doing of good," because there is a difference on what is motivating either case. It is also problematic because the very standard of what is "good" is being denied by one of the parties.

Let me end here by saying that if you are outside of Christ, then you must realize that all the "good" you do will not atone for your sins, and that you will be guilty before God for all you have done. This is a serious matter to consider, because we are speaking of eternity - and eternity is a long, long time. Scripture tells us that "without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Heb 9:22). Thankfully, God himself took on the role of ultimate sacrifice, when God the Son gave his life to offer "one sacrifice for sins for all time" (Heb 10:12), so that those who repent of their sins and confess faith in him may be saved. God is granting you time to do this, even now, as you're reading this blog post. If not, at least ponder these things seriously, and know that Christ is a perfect Savior from whom you shall never be snatched, for he promises regarding his sheep that "no one will snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:28), and it is said that he is one who is "able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him" (Heb 7:25). Ponder these things carefully. God bless.

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Limited Atonement

Here we go continuing with our little TULIP exposition. As I said in the last post, if you're new to this little miniseries of mine, I'd suggest you start from the very beginning (a very good place to start!).

We've now approached the dreaded "L", which stands for Limited Atonement. Next to Unconditional Election, this is perhaps one of the most controversial of the Five Points of Calvinism. So much so, in fact, that there exist out there people known as "Four Point Calvinists" (their historical name being Amyraldians) who deny this doctrine.

The nitty gritty of Limited Atonement is that when Christ died on the cross, he did not die for the sins of the entire world - rather, he died to atone for the sins of those whom God would elect and hence redeem. Limited Atonement is also known as Particular Redemption, since it teaches that Christ died to redeem a particular group of individuals. The opposite of this would be General Redemption, which believes that Christ died to redeem all mankind. In fact, historically speaking, Baptists in America were often identified as either Particular Baptists (Calvinistic) and General Baptists (non-Calvinistic).

As we're going through TULIP bit by bit, and we showed the tie between Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, it might be worthy to note here the tie between Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement:

It will be seen at once that this doctrine necessarily follows from the doctrine of election. If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that His work has equal reference to both portions, or that He sent His Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He was sent to die for those whom He had chosen for salvation. These two doctrines must stand or fall together. We cannot logically accept one and reject the other. If God has elected some and not others to eternal life, then plainly the primary purpose of Christ's work was to redeem the elect. [Loraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination; source]

In other words, if we establish that mankind is under a total depravity, and therefore God's election must logically be unconditional, then it likewise stands to reason that Christ would not die for the justification of those whom God knew ahead of time would perish in their sins. Therefore, we can conclude that Christ would die and atone for those predestined to be elected under the saving grace of God.

Now let's move on to the part where I shut up and I start letting scripture speak. Those who are familiar with this blog will know that I've already touched on this section of scripture before, and in greater detail, but for this part I'm going to be quickly reviewing the tenth chapter of John's gospel.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice." [John 10:1-4]

This is the beginning of one of the seven big sermons made by Christ in John's gospel, and is addressed to the Jews, including the Sanhedrin, who had gathered after the meeting between Jesus and the man born blind in chapter nine. It is the famous "Good Shepherd" sermon, and the Good Shepherd is, of course, Christ Himself.  It is the initial, summarized version of the much larger version which Christ will elaborate on for most of the chapter.

Christ starts out by identifying that those who enter the sheepfold by the door or climb in another way (in other words, false prophets and teachers) are thieves and robbers, but they who go through the door are the shepherd. He then describes this scene: the shepherd enters, he calls the sheep by name, and leads them out. Once they are all out, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him "for they know his voice." Note that the shepherd enters and makes the first move by calling the sheep. Note likewise that he calls the sheep by name - this is a personal calling, not a general one. The sheep respond, and follow him, for they "know his voice" as their shepherd, which further identifies them as his specific sheep. Just this little section alone, therefore, gives as good enough evidence for Irresistible Grace as it will eventually for Limited Atonement, but that's for another post. For now, keep in mind that the sheep are called by name and that they know the voice of their shepherd.

Because the people do not understand Christ's figure of speech (v. 6), he begins to elaborate on the previous parable:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." [John 10:7-11]

Christ identifies himself with two motifs from the aforementioned parable: he is both the door and the shepherd. In this sense, he is not only our mode of salvation, he is likewise the author of it. He is the only "door" to salvation, for anyone who enters by him "will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture" (v. 9). Thieves (again, false prophets and teachers) only come "to steal and kill and destroy," but Christ came so that his sheep "may have life and have it abundantly" (v. 10). Our Lord then says the famous: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (v. 11).

Note quickly - what did Christ just say? For whom does he lay down his life? He lays down his life for the sheep. Who are the sheep? Obviously within the context of everything we've discussed so far, it's the people of God. Christ died for those who belong to his flock. Shepherds are not willing to die for sheep of other flocks, but rather for sheep of their own flock.

To elaborate further on this, let's look at the next few verses:

"He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep." [John 10:12-15]

Again Christ elaborates on the special care and love that the shepherd has for the sheep. He then states: "I am the Good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me" (v. 14). Not only does Christ know those who are his sheep, but his sheep know him. Again, this is referring to an effectual kind of knowing, for the shepherd knows the sheep by name (v. 4), and the sheep, upon being called by name, follow (v. 5). Christ takes this even further when he states that he knows the sheep and the sheep know him "just as the Father knows me and I know the Father" (v. 15a). In other words, just as the Father and Son are in perfect knowledge of one another, so too is the Son in perfect knowledge of those who are his, and those who are his own know him. Christ then says again: "I lay down my life for the sheep" (v. 15b). Again, for whom does Christ die? The sheep. Who are the sheep? The elect of God. Those whom he knows by name and calls by name to go out to pasture.

As one will see in the my previous post about John 10, which I linked to above, I'm well aware of some synergist responses to this. To respond to them briefly:

1) Christ doesn't say he died for just the sheep and no one else. Aside from this being the "prove a negative" fallacy, the individual making it is forgetting the overall point: Christ doesn't say that because he doesn't have to do so. When Christ says he died for the sheep, and demonstrates the deep relationship between the Good Shepherd and his sheep, he doesn't have to specify any further. If an officer said, "I am a general, I lead my soldiers," it would be completely fallacious to suppose that we can interpret that to mean the officer commands even people outside his unit - maybe even non-soldiers - simply because he doesn't specify as much.

2) Christ can call sheep, but they can reject him. This creates the idea of a shepherd who calls out his sheep and leads them, but it is possible for one of those sheep to say "Forget this!" and dart off, with the shepherd able to do little more than wag his hands in anger. Aside from the fact that a real life shepherd would never allow such a thing to occur, this would contradict a continued application of the Good Shepherd sermon found later on in the chapter. While at the Feast of Dedication, some unbelieving Jews approach Jesus and as him to tell them plainly if he is the Christ (v. 22-24). Christ tells them:

"I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." [John 10:25-30]

Christ tells the people bluntly that they do not believe (v. 25). Why do they not believe? Christ says "You are not among my sheep" (v. 26). His sheep hear his voice, and he knows them, and they follow him (v. 27). The Good Shepherd states regarding his sheep: "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand" (v. 28). Christ then turns this into a Trinitarian affair when he says: "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one" (v. 29-30). The phrase "I and the Father are one" refers to their unity in Trinitarian work, and hence the treatment of the sheep is something done both by the Father and the Son (the Holy Spirit will be discussed later on in the gospel). The Father gives the sheep to the Son, and the Son gives the sheep eternal life and keeps them from falling. No one is able to snatch the sheep, for they are in the hands both of the Father (v. 29) and the Son (v. 28). Those who do not believe or have false belief are, as Christ said to the unbelieving Jews, not even God's sheep to begin with (v. 26).

Just as one says "baa" not to become a sheep, but because they are a sheep, so too does a person believe not to become God's sheep, but because they are God's sheep. Christ does not say "You are not my sheep because you do not believe," he clearly states "You do not believe because you are not my sheep." Their identification of sheep was not dependent upon their belief; their belief was dependent upon their identification as sheep. Likewise, those who are Christ's sheep are incapable of being lost, for they are being preserved by both the Father and the Son, who are working together in this act of salvation.

3) When Christ talks about "the sheep," it's different than "my sheep" - "the sheep" is general, but "my sheep" means those sheep who come to believe. This would presuppose that Christ is completely irrational in his train of thought. As we've seen thus far in this exegesis, no where does the context of "my sheep" and "the sheep" stop being synonymous. They both refer to the same group.

To return to the subject of this post, what do we see being discussed here in John 10? Admittedly we see a lot of things (I'd argue all Five Points of Calvinism), but one of those thing is the identity of Christ's sheep and the clarification of for whom the Good Shepherd dies. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for his sheep, whom the Father has given to him, for it is his sheep whom he grants eternal life and preserves in his hand until the day of resurrection, so that they may go out and find pasture.

This makes the atonement, of course, a very personal event. If Christ knows his sheep by name, and it is these sheep for whom he dies (as he clearly did not die for those who are not his sheep, like those in verse 26), then Christ died for a special group of people, and as a substitution not only for a vague or general idea of a people's sins, but a specific group of people's sins - people with names, faces, and personal lives. This means, dear Christian, he died not just for you, but for you. As he hung upon that cross, he had your name on his mind, and his blood atoned for every single one of your sins, however how great or small. He died for your specific sins within your specific life, and he suffered knowing that the day would come when you would be called and justified, and he knows even now a glorious day will come when you will be glorified together with him. You were elected by the Father, the Son atoned for your sins, and you are now being preserved today by the Holy Spirit. Your salvation is a blessing from the Trinity, but most of all your atonement was done personally in your stead by the Son. If you gain anything from that post, ponder on that most of all - that your sin was not atoned for in a vague sense, but that all specific sins you ever committed were atoned for by Christ, and he did this out of love for you.

We have two more petals of the TULIP to go. God willing, those will be going up in the following weeks.

The Sheep of John 10

Perhaps about a month or so ago, I came across this argument against Calvinism and John 10:

Only the elect are in view because Calvinism requires that reading of the text. Thus anyone cannot mean anyone but must be redefined to mean, in this case due to your contextual requirement to conform to Calvinism, something other than anyone, it must mean My sheep. Logically, no one is part of "My Sheep" until they enter the door. [source]

A similar argument:

Folks, lets look at John 10:2 and following to see if "the sheep" equates with "his sheep"

Now of course, "the sheep" which are His sheep are part of "the sheep" but are not all of "the sheep.

First we have the shepherd entering by the door, thus the doorkeeper knows that the shepherd is the shepherd of at least some of "the sheep." Now "the sheep" hear his voice, so this could refer to all of the sheep or just the sheep that are his sheep. But He calls his own sheep by name, so the others of "the sheep" are not called by name. He leads only His sheep out. Thus this first illustration clearly teaches that "the sheep" include His sheep, but in no way suggests other sheep do not exist. [source]

What we are told is:

• No one becomes Christ's sheep until they follow Him through the door (in other words, a synergistic approach to salvation).
• Christ only refers to His sheep when He says "My sheep," and therefore His call to the sheep is a general call to all the sheep in the pen. Again, they only become "My sheep" and receive the salvation thereof by following Christ's voice out the door.

Let's review these two arguments first by looking at the entirety of Christ's sermon regarding His sheep within chapter ten of John's gospel.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."

This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them. So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. 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. He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 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. For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again This commandment I received from My Father." [John 10:1-18; NASB]

The first part of the sermon (10:1-5) is a summary of what Christ will later elucidate in the longer version (10:7-18), having had to explain because no one understood the figure of speech (10:6). Some theologians, such as Adam Clarke, have made the case that 10:1-5 are examples of lesser shepherds (in other words, Christian ministers), however I believe the clarification our Lord makes in the following verses shows this is merely the shortened version of His identification as the Good Shepherd.

Christ begins His sermon, as He often does in the gospels, with a double affirmation ("truly truly" or Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν) of what He is about to say. Our Lord then starts first with the antithesis of the Good Shepherd, saying: "he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber" (10:1). There is only one entrance into the sheep pen: the doorway, through which the Good Shepherd enters. This Christ affirms in the next passage with: "he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep" (10:2). A shepherd enters because his flock inside belongs to him, and he only intends good; any one who tries to sneak in has nothing but ill intent. In that instance, it would be illogical to say that the use of "the sheep" here refers to a large group of sheep that includes more than simply the shepherd's sheep - he is identified as "shepherd of the sheep," not "shepherd of some of the sheep."

Now, in the following verse, Christ illustrates something very important to our topic:

To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. (10:3)

The doorkeeper (θυρωρὸς, coming from the Greek words for "gateway" and "guardian") opens for no one else except the shepherd - that is, the one who owns the sheep inside. The sheep inside hear his voice, and then the shepherd "calls his own sheep by name and leads them out." In other words, before the sheep even move, the shepherd knows which ones are his sheep. To clarify, the sheep are identified as the shepherd's sheep: (1) before they follow him, and (2) before they leave the gate. This is further illustrated in the following verse: "he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice" (10:4). The shepherd puts forth his own, and goes ahead of them. Christ emphasizes the possessive identity of the sheep to the shepherd with: "a stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers" (10:5). They follow only the shepherd (that is, Christ), and anyone else (that is, a false teacher, prophet or messiah) they will seek to avoid.

According to the arguments given at the beginning of this post, we are expected to believe two things: (1) the Good Shepherd essentially walks into the pen, gives a whistle, looks at some sheep coming to him, and concludes, "Ah, those must be my sheep!"; (2) upon walking towards the door, some of the sheep are able to say, "Bugger this!" and run off, with the shepherd unable to do anything. However, the text plainly teaches that we do not become Christ's sheep by following Him out the door - we are already Christ's sheep, for He knows who are His own.

Before we continue, it might be worthy to note how much credit some synergists seem to give sheep. Sheep are not known for being intelligent animals - in fact, out of most barnyard animals, they're considered one of the dumbest. They are not able to reason, let alone resist the shepherd, and will do as the shepherd commands. They know who their shepherd is - that is the only thing good that can be said regarding their intelligence. A shepherd, likewise, knows his flock, and we cannot believe that the Good Shepherd is "sheep-napping" from other flocks. Not only would that contradict the ancient idea behind shepherds and their flocks, but that is not what is told in scripture.

Explaining what He meant more clearly, Christ tells the people:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." (10:7-9)

Our Lord begins His sermon anew (once again starting with His "Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν") and immediately identifies Himself as "the door of the sheep" - in other words, He is the gateway for salvation, and the sole source of salvation (for only one door is mentioned). All who came before Christ (that is, false messiahs, who are spoken of by Gamaliel in Acts 5) were the thieves and robbers spoken of in 10:1, being those who sought to enter another way. "The sheep," however, "did not hear them" - in other words, the sheep of the shepherd did not follow them, for it is clarified that the "my sheep" do not follow the voice of strangers (10:5) - therefore, there is no difference between the "my sheep" and "the sheep" of John 10, for they are identified as being one and the same.

Those who propose the arguments presented at the start of this post have tried leaping to 10:9 and saying, "Christ says 'if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved,' and therefore it is our entering the doorway that saves us." Let's not, however, forget the identification of how one enters through the door: the shepherd calls them and leads them out (10:3). Again, sheep are not known for being clever enough to pick and choose shepherds, and Christ has already identified that these sheep follow no one else but their own shepherd.

Now comes the most revealing aspect of the sermon:

I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. 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. He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. (10:11-15)

Christ reveals the shepherd as Himself and states, "the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep" (10:11). Those in the opening argument say that this is speaking generally - that Christ says He, as the good shepherd, lays down His life for "the sheep" in a general sense, but only "His sheep" will be saved. However, that would break the train of thought that has been perpetuated for this entire chapter. The shepherd is never identified with any flock other than his own, and it would be nonsensical to suddenly assume that Christ is speaking of a larger flock that does not include the shepherd's own. Shepherds do not die for other flocks, but rather take care of their own and preserve them like children. The sheep in this sermon are those that belong to the shepherd. Our Lord emphasizes this with "I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father," followed by the reiteration, "I lay down My life for the sheep" (10:14-15). "The sheep" are His own who know Him, just as sheep know their shepherd and just as the Father and the Son know one another.

Some now cling to the following verse: "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" (10: 16). It seems to prove that there do exist other sheep besides the one in the pen. This verse, however, speaks of the Gentiles whom God will bring into the fold, so that both Jew and Gentile believer will become "one flock with one shepherd" - the one shepherd being, of course, Christ.

Let's review again what was discussed at the beginning:

• "Logically, no one is part of 'My Sheep' until they enter the door." - On the contrary, it is stated at the very beginning that the shepherd calls his sheep by name and leads them out, emphasized later with "I know My own and My own know Me." Ironically, it was admitted by the opening argument that Christ calls "His sheep" and "by name" from among the general group of sheep, but it would appear that there was some confusion as to how this argumentation would not only contradict the first argument, but still lead one into Calvinism.
• "Thus this first illustration clearly teaches that 'the sheep' include His sheep, but in no way suggests other sheep do not exist." - As we have shown, nowhere does the context of "my sheep" change with "the sheep." We are expected to believe that Christ's train of thought amounted to: "My sheep. My sheep. My sheep. Other sheep! My sheep. My sheep..." No human mind works this way, save in the criminally insane.

The context of John 10 is clear: Christ has His sheep, and they will be called to Him, the Good Shepherd. Furthermore, it is for these sheep that the Good Shepherd dies.

--------

EDIT - JULY 30, 2011: This is a follow up responding to some objections I encountered shortly after the original post was made.

Contention: The sheep in John 10 are merely God-fearing Jews whom the Father has given to Christ because of their loyalty to His word. They are here being handed over to the Son by the Father because they have followed the Father's will. This is shown in verse 29, when Christ says: "My Father, who has given them to Me..." The "them" are the sheep.

Response: The immediate problem is that this argumentation is an example of eisegesis, where an assumption is inserted into a passage of scripture. That the sheep are given to the Son by the Father is, of course, plainly there, and would coincide with the earlier statement by Christ in the gospel: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me..." (John 6:37). However, nowhere in scripture is it demonstrated that the Father essentially "screens" believers to bring them to the Son. This is an assumption that has been read into the text.

One reason we know this is an assumption read into the text is the fact that there is no evidence in scripture that all the disciples were devout Jews before following Christ. One big example is found in Matthew, who was a tax collector when Christ called Him. Was Matthew, at the time of his calling, following the Father's will in a profession known for lying, stealing and cheating fellow Jews? It was in this state he was "handed over" to the Son, when Christ called him from his toll booth. Is the job of a Jewish tax collector under the employment of the Romans an example of being "God-fearing"?

An even bigger example is the apostle Paul, who, when Christ called Him, was a member of the Pharisees, was persecuting the church and seeking to kill every Christian he found. Is this pleasing to the Father? Does it please the Father when a man persecutes His church? When Christ found Paul on the road to Damascus, headed to cut off the growing church, was the future apostle worthy to be handed over to the Son? Did the Father "hand over" Paul to the Son in the midst of Paul being the Reinhard Heydrich of the apostolic Church?

Some bringing this contention forward have cited John 17:6, which reads: "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word." The problem with citing this verse is two-fold:

1) The desired order is wrong. It says the disciples: first) belonged to the Father; second) were given to the Son; and third) kept the Father's word. In order for this citation to fit with the contention, it would have to be: first) they kept the Father's word; second) they thus belonged to the Father; and third) they were given to the Son. As it stands, the obeying of the Father comes after being given to the Son.

2) Some have said that the obeying of the Father's word in John 17:6 is past tense. However, the word translated as "they have kept" is τετήρηκαν, the Perfect Active Indicative form of τηρέω. What this means is that the disciples are not being commended for something they did in the past, but something they have done completely in the present. In other words, during their time with Christ. Again, their obeying the Father's word has happened after being given to the Son. Even ignoring grammatical rules, this is further illustrated in the following verses:

Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. [John 17:7-8]

When Christ says "they have kept Your word," He is referring to that which the Father gave to Him, which He then gave to the disciples. Therefore, Christ's use of "they have kept" is speaking of after they were handed over by the Father, both grammatically and contextually. The Father gave Christ instructions, which He then gave to the disciples, and it is these words, given to them by Christ, which they have kept.

Contention: The Gentiles, mentioned in verse 16, are God-fearing Gentiles, such as Cornelius in Acts 10, or the God-fearing Gentiles of Athens in Acts 17.

Response: Actually, not all the Gentiles who come to believe in Christ are said to be "God-fearing" beforehand. For example, the "prominent Greek women and men" in Berea (Acts 17:12) are not said to be God-fearing, and neither are the Gentiles who converted after Paul's sermon in Athens (Acts 17:34). In fact, none of the Gentiles in Acts 14 are said to be God-fearing. Some are even found polytheists, which is shown by their initially thinking Barnabas and Paul are Zeus and Hermes respectfully (Acts 14:11-12).

We can find a lack of a "God-fearing" state previous to conversion among many of the Gentiles within Paul's epistles. Most prominent among these is Paul's epistle to the Ephesian church, in which he says that they "formerly walked according to the course of this world" (Eph 2:2), and "were by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:3). Does this sound like the state of God-fearing Gentiles? It was while they were in this rebellious state that they were "saved through faith" as a "gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Paul likewise tells the Colossian Christians that God "rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son" (Col 1:13). Again, it does not say that God the Father rescued us while we were God-fearing, but rather that we were rescued from "the domain of darkness," then handed over to the son. 

The problem with this contention lies in linguistic context. The word that many translate as "God-fearing" (as it is in the NASB) is likewise translated as "religious" or "devout" (as it is in the ESV), and stems from the Greek word σέβομαι, which means "to be religious" or "to worship." When it is used in reference to Gentiles in the New Testament, it is referring to those Gentiles who either pander to or are converts to the Jewish faith. They are, to use modern terminology, religious Jews who are still divided from their ethnic Jewish brethren because of their Gentile lineage. At the Temple in Jerusalem, there was even a "Court of the Gentiles" which was so-called because that was as far as Gentile men could go. Cornelius, often cited as an example of a "God-fearing Gentile," was recorded to have given "many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually" (Acts 10:2). In other words, he was almost an "official" Jew. Remember that the New Testament writers were not living in our day and age, where a person could simply convert to a religion and immediately be labeled a member of the faith.

A note from the NET bible on the subject:

The description of Cornelius as a devout, God-fearing man probably means that he belonged to the category called “God-fearers,” Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel and in many cases kept the Mosaic law, but did not take the final step of circumcision necessary to become a proselyte to Judaism. [from the NET notes for Acts 10:2]

An interesting dilemma comes from this contention: anyone who argues this way is actually siding with the Judaizers who opposed Paul. Why do I say this? Because they are (inadvertently) saying that, in order to become one of God's sheep, a Gentile must first become a Jew! Keeping within the context of New Testament terminology, they are saying that only "God-fearing Gentiles" can fit into the sheep spoken of in verse 16, and yet these "God-fearing Gentiles" in the New Testament are nothing more than Gentile members of the Jewish faith. 

Contention: Nowhere does it say in John 10 that Christ died for His sheep and no one else.

Response: Christ does not make the plain statement "I'm dying for the sheep and no one else," but He wouldn't have to given the context and wording. He clearly says "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep" (v. 11), repeated later on with "I lay down My life for the sheep" (v. 15). For whom else does a shepherd lay down his life? A shepherd does not lay down his life for another flock, nor for sheep that are not part of his flock. Rather, he lays down his life for his flock and his flock alone.

This is where the person who argues the previous contentions runs into great trouble: by their own logic, they are still proving Limited Atonement. Their argument is that the Son's flock are made up of faithful believers given to them by the Father...yet Christ plainly states that it is for this flock that He dies. This is why a person has to argue that the context of "the sheep" is different than the context of "My sheep," as was discussed in the original post.