Monday, November 12, 2007

Response To Manuel Culwell - Sheep were Goats?

Manuel Culwell wrote:
the sheep were first Goats

I answer:

That's as ridiculous as it sounds. Goats becoming sheep? Ha.

Of course, God could miraculously transform goats into sheep, but that's not quite what MC has in mind.



Turretinfan said...

Manuel Culwell commented:

"They are not real sheep and goats in the first place you said so yourself but rather refers to wether or not they accept or reject the gospel preached"

I answer:
That's certainly your position. The metaphor of sheep and goats doesn't lend itself to inter-species transition, without divine intervention though, which is why your claim is so absurd. In other words, your claims regarding the analogy don't fit the analogy.

MC also wrote: "Jesus has been shown to be both a lion and a lamb is he? or was it a metaphor for his humanity and divinty?"

I answer: Those issues are plainlyl not germane to this issue, and consequently I'm not going to get sidetracked on them here. There are many, often inconsistent with one another, metaphors in Scripture. Mixing metaphors is bad form in writing, but can result in horrible theology if done as a way of studying Scripture.


Turretinfan said...

Manuel Culwell also wrote:
"yes it is what I meant! Salvation is a miracle, and goats become sheep. goats reject the gospel(A metaphor) But in the judgement they remain so! While here on earth God transforms when they accept."

I answer:
MC's comment has been reproduced with the spelling and grammatical mistakes that were in the original comment.
Surely MC does not mean that God himself transforms, but that God transforms the goats into sheep when the goats accept Christ.
The problem, of course, is that "accepting Christ" is the sort of thing that sheep, not goats, do.
There is no warrant in any of the metaphors in Scripture, though, for the idea that goats become sheep, which undermines the entire argument from MC's side.


Anonymous said...


aloof a bit here, I have this question:


Has not the great Apostle dealt with this issue already?

Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Eph 1:14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Having been to the "holy land" and other places, lamb and goat meat tastes good when cooked with the right amount of seasonings!

Ok, ok, I digress!

However, this is a fascinating debate nevertheless!

However, being a California Indian, I rather take shelter under the pinion of His Wings!!

I do love my fresh caught FISH!

Saint and Sinner said...

Manuel's argument clearly fails when one looks at Christ's Parable of the Lost Sheep.

Unbelievers who were transformed into believers were *lost* sheep, not goats, before their Shepherd found them.

The Shepherd was NEVER searching for the goats.

mlculwell said...

The Lost sheep were not "unbelievers" and you are contradicting yourself.Nothing is said of them being transformed! please prove they were unbelievers?I want the passage!The Lost sheep were of the house of Isreal(Jews) who believed and then who willingly walked away and became unbelievers by default God was still giving them a chance even before the New testement in his blood.You Calvinists even bypass the blood .

Turretinfan said...

MC: The Lost sheep were not "unbelievers" and you are contradicting yourself.

I answer: That's just bizarre.

MC: Nothing is said of them being transformed!

I answer: They go from lost to found. That's a transformation - not quite a goat/sheep transformation, but hey, it's a transformation.

MC: please prove they were unbelievers?

I answer: Matthew 18:11-14, in view of the fact that those who believe are not (any longer) the lost.

MC: I want the passage!

I answer: Your demand is met above.

MC: The Lost sheep were of the house of Isreal(Jews) who believed and then who willingly walked away and became unbelievers by default God was still giving them a chance even before the New testement in his blood.

I answer: You're mixing metaphors.

MC: You Calvinists even bypass the blood .

I answer: On the contrary, we Calvinists make the blood effective for its intended purpose, to save the lost sheep. See Matthew 18:11-14.


Turretinfan said...


I got your latest comment, which essentially repeated your previous comment more loudly.

I suggest you re-read my response, and try to figure out why you are objecting and to what you are objecting.

Then, if you have a reasoned (preferably Scripturally supported) argument to present, by all means do so, in a respectful manner.

It can be a short argument, but "They were not unbelievers! they were believing Jews! You can think it bizare all you like but disprove it?" is not an argument, it's just an assertion.

I've given a rebuttal of that assertion already.


mlculwell said...

I respectifully ask you submit my last response and then I will deal with what you feel I have failed to answer . If not, then we are done.

Turretinfan said...

I respectfully decline. I assume we are done.

Do you need further explanation as to why?