God's Foreknowledge

Sheep are sheep from the foundation of the world.
Absolutely.
Some here assume that all people are born as goats. Every person in the whole world is born as a goat, and through the will of the flesh and the will of man they choose to become a sheep.

Jesus contradicts them:
"Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

yet they continue their sinful ways, claiming a spin or a misrepresentation of the scripture.
 
You have nailed it 100%
This poster despises the role the Holy Spirit plays in opening the minds of unbelievers to understanding spiritual truths. He chooses to believe all minds have already been opened, all understand perfectly but all choose to believe differently. There is no unity in this guys belief system.

His argument therefore has been all that even though all can understand spiritual truths, some will choose Mormonism and some will choose to be JW' and then there are some like him who have an even better understanding and he chooses to believe his own version of Christianity.

He proves himself to be indwelt by only self and what he chooses to believe. It is the very definition of a cultist, being lead by their own choices and deceptions and not by the Spirit of God.
Thank you for your posts! There are several of you who are helping me and I LOVE exploring the internet when anti-Calvinists attack.
 
You have nailed it 100%
This poster despises the role the Holy Spirit plays in opening the minds of unbelievers to understanding spiritual truths. He chooses to believe all minds have already been opened, all understand perfectly but all choose to believe differently. There is no unity in this guys belief system.

His argument therefore has been all that even though all can understand spiritual truths, some will choose Mormonism and some will choose to be JW' and then there are some like him who have an even better understanding and he chooses to believe his own version of Christianity.

He proves himself to be indwelt by only self and what he chooses to believe. It is the very definition of a cultist, being lead by their own choices and deceptions and not by the Spirit of God.
Thanks, and you're exactly correct. It is humanism, not Christianity.
 
Maybe he believes that goats become sheep!
Yep, that's exactly what he believes, and they become sheep because they tried harder to understand than did others. That's a works gospel, merit, achievement &c. It is anti-thetical to biblical grace, and this is the method of how to get into heaven that he preaches.
 
Yes, brother.
The command is for all of us who are in covenant with Him. Those who are in Christ. Obedience to the leading of the Spirit and not obedience to the leading of our flesh (free will)

So clearly the exhortation to choose today who you will follow is not aimed at those who are not in covenant with God, but rather an exhortation to those in covenant with Christ to be obedient in serving God.

Unfortunately the depth of discernment in some who post here is just to superficial, as it is their self will that leads them and they cannot give themselves (will included) over to the Lordship of Christ.
Pick up this book, Sacred Bond by Michael Brown & Zach Keele, then pick up Kingdom Prologue, download the tale of the Two Adams, Biblical Theology by Geerhardus Vos. See how it all connects and unfolds from Genesis to Revelation.

God deals in Covenants with his Creation and he is faithful in keeping his Promises/Covenants, which no one can break.

Jeremiah 33:20 “Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, 21 then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.”​
 
Yes, I understand this, I was trying to drive a point home, due to the fact, that Arminian and Synergistic theologies say they are Elected based upon God foreseeing who would believe or not. To which the term Conditional Election. Divine Election is not based on such a posit, but rather based according to God's purpose and will. Which is termed Unconditional Election.
Yep. However, Not all synergists hold that particular view of foreknowledge, so I was glad you set that definition.
Divine Election is not based on such a posit, but rather based according to God's purpose and will. Which is termed Unconditional Election.

If you want to share it, by all means. But the term Conditional or Unconditional defines each position, correct?

Here let's look at Conditional Election:

God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the Foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing who would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free-will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

Do you agree or disagree with this summary?​
Disagree.

NOTHING an unregenerate sinner thinks, feels, chooses, or does has any salvific merit and God has no interest in such things when He decides who He saves.
Now Unconditional Election:

God's choice of individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rests solely in His sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God's choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Holy Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God's choice of the sinner, not the sinner's choice Christ, is the ultimate cause of Salvation.

Did I miss anything in this summary? Do you agree or disagree? Do you hold to a conditional or unconditional view?​
I agree.

As I previously said, God's decision who He saves is based solely and entirely on His will and His purpose, and not ANYTHING having to do with the unregenerate dead and enslaved flesh. Sin killed everyone. God saves those He chooses to save, and His choices are His own.



I think it worth reiterating this idea of "looking down the corridor of time" to "know" something before it happens is a very messed up Theology that seriously compromises core aspect of the Christian doctrine of God. If God has to first look down the timeline, then He is not omniscient.
 
The sheep believe BECAUSE they are sheep not the other way around! You don't know your Bible. It's not too late to read it.

John 8:47
He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

John 10:26
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Unchecked Copy Box
Jhn 3:3 - Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily,verily, I say unto thee, Excepta man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
 
You
Pick up this book, Sacred Bond by Michael Brown & Zach Keele, then pick up Kingdom Prologue, download the tale of the Two Adams, Biblical Theology by Geerhardus Vos. See how it all connects and unfolds from Genesis to Revelation.

God deals in Covenants with his Creation and he is faithful in keeping his Promises/Covenants, which no one can break.

Jeremiah 33:20 “Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, 21 then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.”​
You do understand a covenant is a two way obligation right ? God promises He will do something if the other party of the covenant does their part to honor the covenant.
 
You

You do understand a covenant is a two way obligation right ? God promises He will do something if the other party of the covenant does their part to honor the covenant.
See folks? He believes the gospel is of effort and works on his part for salvation. I've been saying this all along, and he continues to reinforce what I stated.

And we Calvinists are supposed to be of the devil, pit of hell? LOL!

Nope.

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria!

Salvation is 100% of God.
 
You

You do understand a covenant is a two way obligation right ? God promises He will do something if the other party of the covenant does their part to honor the covenant.
Not true.

That is a very commonly held view of "covenant," but it is not wholly scriptural. In the Bible the covenants with God are always initiated by God and God alone. They are always initiated by God alone without His asking any of the humans involved if they have any interest in being brought into covenant. God chooses the covenant members without their knowing He has done so. God calls them of His own initiative and never once because they first sough Him or asked for Him to covenant with them. God initiates the covenant, chooses the covenant members, calls them and then commands them and in none of those examples of first covenant command does God give them the option to say no. They are always commanded with an expectation of performance and never is the possibility of their not obeying ever broached.

It is only after the covenant is established that God asks. It is only after the covenant is already established that a choice is given. The choice is given. Never given by the creature. Never initiated by the creature.


In the instance of the covenant with Abram, which is the chief Old Testament covenant of Christ we find nothing is asked of Abram AT ALL!!! God commands him to leave Ur. God then commands him to bring God some animals. Abraham cuts them up in preparation for a suzerain covenant ceremony, but he does that without God ever asking him to do so! Abram responds as a pagan. God then gives Abraham a vision in which God Himself walks in fealty to Himself in the suzerain ritual. It was NOT Abram that was the covenant partner in the Abrahamic covenant but God Himself. That was the day the scripture states the covenant was established. That covenant at that point is one-way; it is a covenant solely of promise. It is a covenant solely of promise(s) and not creaturely obligation.

Genesis 15:17-18
Now it came about, when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, a smoking oven and a flaming torch appeared which passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram...

That was the day the covenant was established. It was not until after that Abraham was commanded to circumcise all the males as a sign of the covenant. Two chapters later, almost twenty years later, the promises of God begin to manifest and God then commands a covenant compliance from Abraham.

Genesis 17:9-11
God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your https://biblehub.com/nasb_/genesis/17.htm#fndescendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your [j]descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.

The same exact pattern exists with Noah. The same pattern exists with Isaac and Jacob. The same exact patter exists with the Hebrews who entered the land promised Abram and his descendants.

Deuteronomy 30-15-20
15
“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; 16in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. 17“But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, 18I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. 19“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

It was not until after the covenant was all already established that they were given a choice and asked to choose. On the occasion of Deuteronomy 30 the options were dictated to them: life or death. No option to do things their way. No option to negotiate the terms. The covenant was initiated by God without a choice. They were chosen without a choice. They were called and commanded to obedience without a choice. They were established as covenant members without their views considered and it was only afterwards that they were given any choice and when that opportunity to choose was given the options were dictated to them, not negotiated with them.

And God is NEVER obligated by the creature. Any "obligation" is more correctly understood as His promise. God, Who is ever faithful even to the unfaithful, keeps His promises because of His impeccable character, not because He is "obligated."



Look up all the covenants of God.

Do it now.

Notice when and where God asks. Notice when and where He commands and offers no choices. Notice where He initiates. Notice whether He initiates because of the human, as opposed to some purpose of God's that existed before the person knew anything, maybe even before the human was even born. Notice when God gives them the option of participation. Notice it ALWAYS comes ONLY AFTER the covenant is already established.

And notice they are all aspects of the Christ covenant, not something merely temporal.



This teaching a covenant is a two-way obligation seriously needs to be corrected and subjected to the plain reading of scripture because it is steering many sincere, earnest, well-intentioned Christians astray.
 
Not true.

That is a very commonly held view of "covenant," but it is not wholly scriptural. In the Bible the covenants with God are always initiated by God and God alone. They are always initiated by God alone without His asking any of the humans involved if they have any interest in being brought into covenant. God chooses the covenant members without their knowing He has done so. God calls them of His own initiative and never once because they first sough Him or asked for Him to covenant with them. God initiates the covenant, chooses the covenant members, calls them and then commands them and in none of those examples of first covenant command does God give them the option to say no. They are always commanded with an expectation of performance and never is the possibility of their not obeying ever broached.

It is only after the covenant is established that God asks. It is only after the covenant is already established that a choice is given. The choice is given. Never given by the creature. Never initiated by the creature.


In the instance of the covenant with Abram, which is the chief Old Testament covenant of Christ we find nothing is asked of Abram AT ALL!!! God commands him to leave Ur. God then commands him to bring God some animals. Abraham cuts them up in preparation for a suzerain covenant ceremony, but he does that without God ever asking him to do so! Abram responds as a pagan. God then gives Abraham a vision in which God Himself walks in fealty to Himself in the suzerain ritual. It was NOT Abram that was the covenant partner in the Abrahamic covenant but God Himself. That was the day the scripture states the covenant was established. That covenant at that point is one-way; it is a covenant solely of promise. It is a covenant solely of promise(s) and not creaturely obligation.

Genesis 15:17-18
Now it came about, when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, a smoking oven and a flaming torch appeared which passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram...

That was the day the covenant was established. It was not until after that Abraham was commanded to circumcise all the males as a sign of the covenant. Two chapters later, almost twenty years later, the promises of God begin to manifest and God then commands a covenant compliance from Abraham.

Genesis 17:9-11
God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your https://biblehub.com/nasb_/genesis/17.htm#fndescendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your [j]descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.

The same exact pattern exists with Noah. The same pattern exists with Isaac and Jacob. The same exact patter exists with the Hebrews who entered the land promised Abram and his descendants.

Deuteronomy 30-15-20
15
“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; 16in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. 17“But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, 18I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. 19“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

It was not until after the covenant was all already established that they were given a choice and asked to choose. On the occasion of Deuteronomy 30 the options were dictated to them: life or death. No option to do things their way. No option to negotiate the terms. The covenant was initiated by God without a choice. They were chosen without a choice. They were called and commanded to obedience without a choice. They were established as covenant members without their views considered and it was only afterwards that they were given any choice and when that opportunity to choose was given the options were dictated to them, not negotiated with them.

And God is NEVER obligated by the creature. Any "obligation" is more correctly understood as His promise. God, Who is ever faithful even to the unfaithful, keeps His promises because of His impeccable character, not because He is "obligated."



Look up all the covenants of God.

Do it now.

Notice when and where God asks. Notice when and where He commands and offers no choices. Notice where He initiates. Notice whether He initiates because of the human, as opposed to some purpose of God's that existed before the person knew anything, maybe even before the human was even born. Notice when God gives them the option of participation. Notice it ALWAYS comes ONLY AFTER the covenant is already established.

And notice they are all aspects of the Christ covenant, not something merely temporal.



This teaching a covenant is a two-way obligation seriously needs to be corrected and subjected to the plain reading of scripture because it is steering many sincere, earnest, well-intentioned Christians astray.
Abraham wasn’t asked by God to offer Issac as a sacrifice , which God didn’t let Abraham do when he saw that Abraham was going to obey Him ?
 
Abraham wasn’t asked by God to offer Issac as a sacrifice , which God didn’t let Abraham do when he saw that Abraham was going to obey Him ?
Non sequitur

Can you attend to what I actually posted and do so in an op-relevant manner without changing the subject? If so, then please do so. If not, then just ignore my post.

God initiates His covenants, chooses, calls, commands, and dictates without ever asking anyone's opinion and it is not until after the covenant is established that any opportunity for "choice" is offered. His covenants are always promise-based, and when it comes to the Christ covenant(s) it is God "obligating" Himself to Himself and not a two-way negotiated set of obligations between Creator and creature.

Yes, or no?

The creature's choices are evident and salient only after all of that is first established.

Yes, or no?
 
Non sequitur

Can you attend to what I actually posted and do so in an op-relevant manner without changing the subject? If so, then please do so. If not, then just ignore my post.

God initiates His covenants, chooses, calls, commands, and dictates without ever asking anyone's opinion and it is not until after the covenant is established that any opportunity for "choice" is offered. His covenants are always promise-based, and when it comes to the Christ covenant(s) it is God "obligating" Himself to Himself and not a two-way negotiated set of obligations between Creator and creature.

Yes, or no?

The creature's choices are evident and salient only after all of that is first established.

Yes, or no?
You said nothing was asked of Abram at all and when I give you an example showing you that is not true you say non sequitur. Offering Issac showed God that Abram would do as God asked of Him how is that a non sequitur ?
 
You said nothing was asked of Abram at all and when I give you an example showing you that is not true you say non sequitur. Offering Issac showed God that Abram would do as God asked of Him how is that a non sequitur ?
John 3:16 is God’s covenant with mankind and it has one condition which is believe on the Lord Jesus.—>For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." ~ John 6:29/
Unchecked Copy Box
Jhn 6:29 - Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
 
Last edited:
I may not always understand your reasoning, but when I have questions I look for answers. God doesn't lie and you should know that and not judge Him or us. You obviously hate Calvinism, but your question doesn't refute it.

JOHN: Yeah. The question that Joshua is asking is, “Why did God allow sin?” And the broad answer to that question is, He allowed sin for His glory; that’s the reason He does everything. And God desired to put His full glory on display; and in order for God to put His full glory on display, and to display all of His attributes, He had to then display His compassion, His mercy, His grace, His forgiveness, His kindness. And in order to display all of that panoply of attributes, there had to be sin. With no sin, there’s no mercy. With no sin, there’s no grace. With no sin, there’s no forgiveness. With no sin and its consequences, there’s no compassion, there’s no lovingkindness. So in order for God to display the full range of His eternal attributes God allowed sin, so that He could put His glory on display.
Allowing is not the same as ordaining sin to happen or making sin happen.
 
Yep. However, Not all synergists hold that particular view of foreknowledge, so I was glad you set that definition.

Disagree.

NOTHING an unregenerate sinner thinks, feels, chooses, or does has any salvific merit and God has no interest in such things when He decides who He saves.

I agree.

As I previously said, God's decision who He saves is based solely and entirely on His will and His purpose, and not ANYTHING having to do with the unregenerate dead and enslaved flesh. Sin killed everyone. God saves those He chooses to save, and His choices are His own.



I think it worth reiterating this idea of "looking down the corridor of time" to "know" something before it happens is a very messed up Theology that seriously compromises core aspect of the Christian doctrine of God. If God has to first look down the timeline, then He is not omniscient.
Thanks Josheb, I agree with everything you posted. Sinners need to be rescued from the outside (extra nos):

The pillars of the Reformation are Latin phrases called the solas. These are Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Fide (faith alone), and Solus Christus (Christ alone). Together, these describe the formula of justification usually articulated; the Christian is justified by grace, through faith, on account of Christ alone. Of course, this idea wasn't created in the Reformation but comes out of Scripture. The Reformation formula of justification causes the believer to understand salvation as being extra nos—a Latin phrase meaning outside of ourselves. In Sola Scriptura, we see the reformers tackle the question of formal principle. What is the source of Christian knowledge? Luke 24:27states, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Christ is the center and subject of all God’s revelation. The truth of Christianity is not a product of mere men or their traditions that are the creations of men. Rather, truth is found in Christ, and Christ is found where God breathes and speaks. Sola Scriptura is a confession that knowledge of Christ and His work comes extra nosand is ready to be delivered to the wanting ears of sinners.

Sola Gratia and Sola Fide are the modes of the extra nos confession. If Christ is not accessed by our works, deeds, or actions, then how does the sinner come in contact with His saving work? The apostle Paul answers this question in nearly all his epistles but perhaps most succinctly in Romans 3:22-24, “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”Paul uses the instrumental phrase διὰ πίστεως, which is a prepositional phrase meaning “through faith”, and what is called an instrumental dative τῇ χάριτι which means, “by grace.” These phrases explain the means by which an action is done. In the case of Romans 3 these phrases help explain how a sinner is justified before God. The means are not from within ourselves—rather they belong to God alone, Who out of His great love sent His Son to die for wretches like you and me.

In the verse above, notice the Object upon which the means of our salvation rests. It is Jesus Christ alone Who is named as the Worker of redemption. Christ is the answer to both the Who and the how of our extra nos salvation. A pastor put it so well a couple of weeks ago, “Jesus’ Golgotha work for us, the Lamb crucified for the sin of the world, is the beginning and end, the alpha and omega of the Christian Faith.” The incarnate God comes and does the work that we cannot. He gets His hands bloody and gives up His life that we might gain ours. The Christian life is one gifted extra nos, that out of our hopeless lives of sin we have the sure hope of salvation on account of the blamelessness of Christ. (1517)

Justification (Christ's imputed righteousness) is a one time immediate declaration through Faith Alone; the status or charge of guilty sinner no longer stands, not because of some moral improvement of this sinner, but because of the righteousness of Christ being credited to the sinner's account, which changes the status of guilty to righteous (Justified).

Sanctification of Christ is also credited to this believing sinner, not by any moral improvements or works by Faith in Christ Alone! (1 Cor. 1:30). People are going to say this is not biblical, that this promotes antinomianism. On the contrary fruits of works flow form out Justification in Christ. But even these works of the believers, third use of the Law do not save, but they are the fruits of our Salvation in Christ.


"Holiness is a gift; otherwise we shall never have it. But we receive it now, at once, through justifying faith in Christ.

For this reason, moral virtue (holiness, the image of God) is one seamless garment, which cannot be reached and obtained in piecemeal fashion."

---Bavinck​
 
You said nothing was asked of Abram at all...
No, that is NOT what I said. You've quote mined what I said, separating one part of it from the whole of it. What I said was nothing was asked of Abrahm prior to the covenant being established and only after the covenant was established was anything asked of him AND I said that specifically and explicitly in response to the claim "a covenant is a two way obligation." There is no "two way obligation" between Abram and God in Genesis 15.

NONE

Get out your Bible, read the text, and see for yourself.

THEN amend you thinking on this matter, your doctrine on this matter, AND your practice on this matter to accord with scripture and not some extra-biblical second-hand theological commentary on the nature of a covenant. And please do not quote mine me again.
...and when I give you an example showing you that is not true you say non sequitur.
I did do that because the example you posted is not an example in any way remotely consistent with what I posted. You moved the goal posts. The episode with Isaac happened about a decade after the Genesis 17 requirement and three decades after the covenant was first established thereby proving what I said correct: any two-way obligation came only after the covenant was established and it was not a matter of negotiation.

Your selection of the Isaac episode was in fact non sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with any two-way obligation by which a covenant is established and because it occurred a decade after Gensis 17 and three decades after Genesis 15 and even more decades after Abram was first chosen, called and commanded to leave Ur, it has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of the covenant. The covenant had all already been established by the time the Isaac episode occurred.


Furthermore, the Isaac episode is Christological AND monergistically so. God provided the sacrifice, not Abraham. It goes back to the vision God showed Abram wherein God Himself walked between the sundered carcasses to pledge fealty to Himself as Sovereign.


Are you familiar with the suzerain covenant ritual?
Offering Issac showed God that Abram would do as God asked of Him how is that a non sequitur ?
Yes, that is the report of scripture BUT it occurs decades after the covenant is reported to have first been established. It demonstrates exactly what I said: nothing was asked of Abraham until after the covenant was already established. Your example, the example you chose, proves what I posted correct.

The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. Yes? The account opens with the statement, "It came to pass after these things..." Yes? What "things"? Many things, one of which is the promise of a son and the failed and disobedient attempt by Abraham do fulfill God's promises through his own fleshly means. Yes?

The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. This is five chapters after the covenant requirement of circumcision. Yes?

The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. This is seven chapters, at least three decades after the covenant was established in Genesis 15. Yes?

The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. That is seven chapters and three decades after the covenant was established in Genesis 15 and there are NO two-way covenant obligations in that chapter. Yes?

You had to search scripture seven chapters and three decades later to come up with Isaac and doing so proved what I posted correct.

The effort also showed the dangers of accepting the extra-biblical definition of a covenant. It is ironic because that definition is very much like what Abram did in Genesis 15. He thought the animals were for the suzerain ritual covenant. Maybe they were and God would have asked for the suzerain ritual but that is NOT what the text reports. As far as the scripture stipulates, Abram did it on his own, going a step further than God asked, and resorting to a pagan ritual, the suzerain covenant ritual.

If you do not know about the ancient suzerain ritual then I will describe it and explain it, and link you to sources for a better understanding and to show the veracity of my posts. If you already know about the suzerain ritual and the fealty oath then you already know what I've posted is correct.

AND..... if you're familiar with the offerings and sacrifices to God that preceded Genesis 15 (there aren't many of them recorded) then you also know they looked much different than the suzerain covenant.

All of that is digressive. The op-relevant point is this: the Christological covenant with God is NOT a two-way obligation until after the covenant is monergistically established. That is the precedent established in scripture time and time again and again. Understanding any existing "two-way obligation" correctly is paramount, especially if we want our thinking, our doctrine, and our practice to be consistent with the whole of God's word.

  • The covenant is first established.
  • It is established by God's initiation.
  • It is established by God's initiation and God's alone.
  • God chooses a person, and He chooses that person without asking them if they want to be chosen.
  • God calls that person, and He calls that person without ever asking that person if they want to be called.
  • It is only after the covenant is established that anything is asked of the creature.
  • He commands that person and never gives them the option of not obeying.
  • He starts the covenant with an individual, and wherever that covenant later applies to a group it is God alone who decides the members of that group.
  • He starts the covenant with an individual, and wherever that covenant later applies to a group it is only after the covenant is established with that group that any of them are asked anything about their participation.

ALL of that is monergistic. Any and all synergism comes only after the establishment of the covenant. That applies to Genesis 22.
 
Last edited:
No, that is NOT what I said. You've quote mined what I said, separating one part of it from the whole of it. What I said was nothing was asked of Abrahm prior to the covenant being established and only after the covenant was established was anything asked of him AND I said that specifically and explicitly in response to the claim "a covenant is a two way obligation." There is no "two way obligation" between Abram and God in Genesis 15.

NONE

Get out your Bible, read the text, and see for yourself.

THEN amend you thinking on this matter, your doctrine on this matter, AND your practice on this matter to accord with scripture and not some extra-biblical second-hand theological commentary on the nature of a covenant. And please do not quote mine me again.

I did do that because the example you posted is not an example in any way remotely consistent with what I posted. You moved the goal posts. The episode with Isaac happened about a decade after the Genesis 17 requirement and three decades after the covenant was first established thereby proving what I said correct: any two-way obligation came only after the covenant was established and it was not a matter of negotiation.

Your selection of the Isaac episode was in fact non sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with any two-way obligation by which a covenant is established and because it occurred a decade after Gensis 17 and three decades after Genesis 15 and even more decades after Abram was first chosen, called and commanded to leave Ur, it has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of the covenant. The covenant had all already been established by the time the Isaac episode occurred.


Furthermore, the Isaac episode is Christological AND monergistically so. God provided the sacrifice, not Abraham. It goes back to the vision God showed Abram wherein God Himself walked between the sundered carcasses to pledge fealty to Himself as Sovereign.


Are you familiar with the suzerain covenant ritual?

Yes, that is the report of scripture BUT it occurs decades after the covenant is reported to have first been established. It demonstrates exactly what I said: nothing was asked of Abraham until after the covenant was already established. Your example, the example you chose, proves what I posted correct.

The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. Yes? The account opens with the statement, "It came to pass after these things..." Yes? What "things"? Many things, one of which is the promise of a son and the failed and disobedient attempt by Abraham do fulfill God's promises through his own fleshly means. Yes?

The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. This is five chapters after the covenant requirement of circumcision. Yes?

The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. This is seven chapters, at least three decades after the covenant was established in Genesis 15. Yes?

The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. That is seven chapters and three decades after the covenant was established in Genesis 15 and there are NO two-way covenant obligations in that chapter. Yes?

You had to search scripture seven chapters and three decades later to come up with Isaac and doing so proved what I posted correct.

The effort also showed the dangers of accepting the extra-biblical definition of a covenant. It is ironic because that definition is very much like what Abram did in Genesis 15. He thought the animals were for the suzerain ritual covenant. Maybe they were and God would have asked for the suzerain ritual but that is NOT what the text reports. As far as the scripture stipulates, Abram did it on his own, going a step further than God asked, and resorting to a pagan ritual, the suzerain covenant ritual.

If you do not know about the ancient suzerain ritual then I will describe it and explain it, and link you to sources for a better understanding and to show the veracity of my posts. If you already know about the suzerain ritual and the fealty oath then you already know what I've posted is correct.

AND..... if you're familiar with the offerings and sacrifices to God that preceded Genesis 15 (there aren't many of them recorded) then you also know they looked much different than the suzerain covenant.

All of that is digressive. The op-relevant point is this: the Christological covenant with God is NOT a two-way obligation until after the covenant is monergistically established. That is the precedent established in scripture time and time again and again. Understanding any existing "two-way obligation" correctly is paramount, especially if we want our thinking, our doctrine, and our practice to be consistent with the whole of God's word.

  • The covenant is first established.
  • It is established by God's initiation.
  • It is established by God's initiation and God's alone.
  • God chooses a person, and He chooses that person without asking them if they want to be chosen.
  • God calls that person, and He calls that person without ever asking that person if they want to be called.
  • It is only after the covenant is established that anything is asked of the creature.
  • He commands that person and never gives them the option of not obeying.
  • He starts the covenant with an individual, and wherever that covenant later applies to a group it is God alone who decides the members of that group.
  • He starts the covenant with an individual, and wherever that covenant later applies to a group it is only after the covenant is established with that group that any of them are asked anything about their participation.

ALL of that is monergistic. Any and all synergism comes only after the establishment of the covenant. That applies to Genesis 22.
Beautifully written post, full of wisdom and truth.
I trust that it will break through as intended.
 
Back
Top