God's Foreknowledge

I knew Leatherneck would agree. You are both arguing against the doctrine of Limited Atonement but not saying that everyone is saved. Correct?
Correct and John 10:15 perfectly aligns with Christ's Unlimited Atonement. That's because the phrase "the sheep" is a combination of "My sheep", "lost sheep", and "other sheep" (Gentiles). There is nothing else mentioned such as goats in John 10 nor in the entire book of John. All I see mentioned are "My" sheep, "lost" sheep, "other" sheep (Gentiles). Is there anyone else besides Jews and Gentiles? Therefore, the phrase "the sheep" encompasses the whole world (Jews and Gentiles). That's why there's no need to refer to anything else in John, such as goats. The whole world (Jews and Gentiles) is covered in John 10:15 which makes Christ's Atonement unlimited.

Even as the Father knows Me, I also know the Father. And I lay down My life for the sheep. (John 10:15)
 
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 And please do not quote mine me again.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.
God told Abram to separate himself from his country and his family, which when Abram brought Lot along if you actually read the events is why the covenant wasn’t confirmed by God until after Abram separated from Lot which was given in Genesis 12. Lot separates from Abram in chapter 13. In 14 Abram recovers Lot .In chapter 15 you have God honoring the covenant He made with Abram in chapter 12.
Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:1 - Now the LORDhad said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:2 - And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:3 - And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Lot separates from Abram: Gen 13:11 - Then Lot-chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other. Chapter 14 Abram recovers Lot and is blessed by Melchizedek:
Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 14:18 - And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:and he was the priest of the most high God.

Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 14:19 - And he blessed him, and said,Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 14:20 - And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
In Chapter 15 God confirmed the covenant with Abram He had made in chapter 12:1-3 which was after Abram and Lot separated —>
Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 15:7 - And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 15:8 - And he said,Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

God confirmed the covenant of 12:1-3
 
God told Abram to separate himself from his country and his family, which when Abram brought Lot along if you actually read the events is why the covenant wasn’t confirmed by God until after Abram separated from Lot which was given in Genesis 12. Lot separates from Abram in chapter 13. In 14 Abram recovers Lot .In chapter 15 you have God honoring the covenant He made with Abram in chapter 12.
Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:1 - Now the LORDhad said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:2 - And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:3 - And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Lot separates from Abram: Gen 13:11 - Then Lot-chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other. Chapter 14 Abram recovers Lot and is blessed by Melchizedek:
Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 14:18 - And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:and he was the priest of the most high God.

Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 14:19 - And he blessed him, and said,Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 14:20 - And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
In Chapter 15 God confirmed the covenant with Abram He had made in chapter 12:1-3 which was after Abram and Lot separated —>
Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 15:7 - And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 15:8 - And he said,Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

God confirmed the covenant of 12:1-3
I've already covered every bit of that post. Why are you still arguing? Why is what was posted being ignored? Why are you inserting the word "confirmed" in opposition to the facts of scripture when the scripture plainly states the covenant was made in Genesis 15? Why are you trying to find a way out of the truth of scripture with appeals to what happened before the covenant was made, and appeals to events that occurred decades after the covenant was made? Why are you trying to conflate "confirm" with "made"? There's no mention of "covenant" in Genesis 12 or 14. Why are you injecting the word into scripture where scripture does not mention the word? Why are you adding to scripture?

The covenant was MADE in Genesis 15.

Yes, Abram had to leave Ur, but there was no covenant in place at that time. He was merely obeying God. A famine, a huge war, and many years passed before God made the covenant with Abram. All the commands of God Abram followed were not covenant obligations because there was no covenant until Genesis 15 and on that day there were no obligations placed on Abram. God chose Abram monergistically. God called Abram monergistically. God commanded Abram to leave without any debate or in any way entertaining any discussion (unlike Moses centuries later). God monergistically made promises to Abram, and those promises were based solely on God's will and purpose - a purpose that far transcended Abram's life. God monergistically initiated the covenant. God monergistically stood in the place of the vassal AND the suzerain.

And on the day that covenant was made there were no obligations for Abram stated.

All you have done is list a bunch of stuf Abram/Abraham did before and after the covenant was made, and list the promises God made. You have not provided a single bit of evidence of a single covenant obligation the day the covenant was made. How many more posts will it take for you to provide proof of an obligation occurring when the covenant was made? Not before it. Not long after it.





As I said before, not only is this extra-biblical, secular idea all covenants are two-way obligation not true in scripture; it is a definition that does a lot of harm in God's children. You're not arguing against me; you're arguing against the plain word of God read exactly is it was written.
...if you actually read the events...
I have read the events. It is because I have read the events I posted what I posted. Even if salvation is not monergistic, the covenant with Abraham was. You're the one not reading the text as written. You're the one going back and for with the text before and after the covenant was made but never addressing what the text states the day the covenant was made.

It looks like your allegiance to your soteriological doctrine causes this persistence, and not anything the scriptures actually state. It looks like your allegiance to Arminianism is stronger than your allegiance to the word of God.

Genesis 15:18 NAS
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

KJV
In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

ESV
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

NIV
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates...

BSB
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land—from the river of Egypt to the great River Euphrates

LSV
In that day has YHWH made with Abram a covenant, saying, “To your seed I have given this land, from the River of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River,

YLT
In that day hath Jehovah made with Abram a covenant, saying, 'To thy seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Phrat...

They ALL say the exact same thing: It was on that day in Genesis 15 that the covenant was made. Not in chapter 12. Not in chapter 13. Not in chapter 14. It was made in chapter 15 and there is not a single obligation on Abram's part mentioned anywhere in the chapter. It is God who takes on both roles in that covenant. The covenant was made in Genesis 15. Not Genesis 16. Not in Genesis 17. Not in Genesis 22. Not in Genesis 26. The covenant may have been confirmed many times after it was made but it was made in chapter 15. Do a search for the word "covenant" in your Bible software and see what scripture plainly states = no mention of the covenant with Abram until chapter 15! There was no covenant before then. All those posts you typed about the preceding chapters were a waste of time and effort because the covenant had not yet been established and you are supposed to be proving the mistaken statement covenants are two-way obligations between God and man.





So last chance. Go to Genesis 15 where the covenant is first made and provide some evidence there was a two-way obligation between God and Abram the day the covenant was made.

When you do not find any such obligations, please be forthcoming and honest and say it. Then we can discuss the meaning of that covenant relevant to this op.
 
I've already covered every bit of that post. Why are you still arguing? Why is what was posted being ignored? Why are you inserting the word "confirmed" in opposition to the facts of scripture when the scripture plainly states the covenant was made in Genesis 15? Why are you trying to find a way out of the truth of scripture with appeals to what happened before the covenant was made, and appeals to events that occurred decades after the covenant was made? Why are you trying to conflate "confirm" with "made"? There's no mention of "covenant" in Genesis 12 or 14. Why are you injecting the word into scripture where scripture does not mention the word? Why are you adding to scripture?

The covenant was MADE in Genesis 15.

Yes, Abram had to leave Ur, but there was no covenant in place at that time. He was merely obeying God. A famine, a huge war, and many years passed before God made the covenant with Abram. All the commands of God Abram followed were not covenant obligations because there was no covenant until Genesis 15 and on that day there were no obligations placed on Abram. God chose Abram monergistically. God called Abram monergistically. God commanded Abram to leave without any debate or in any way entertaining any discussion (unlike Moses centuries later). God monergistically made promises to Abram, and those promises were based solely on God's will and purpose - a purpose that far transcended Abram's life. God monergistically initiated the covenant. God monergistically stood in the place of the vassal AND the suzerain.

And on the day that covenant was made there were no obligations for Abram stated.

All you have done is list a bunch of stuf Abram/Abraham did before and after the covenant was made, and list the promises God made. You have not provided a single bit of evidence of a single covenant obligation the day the covenant was made. How many more posts will it take for you to provide proof of an obligation occurring when the covenant was made? Not before it. Not long after it.





As I said before, not only is this extra-biblical, secular idea all covenants are two-way obligation not true in scripture; it is a definition that does a lot of harm in God's children. You're not arguing against me; you're arguing against the plain word of God read exactly is it was written.

I have read the events. It is because I have read the events I posted what I posted. Even if salvation is not monergistic, the covenant with Abraham was. You're the one not reading the text as written. You're the one going back and for with the text before and after the covenant was made but never addressing what the text states the day the covenant was made.

It looks like your allegiance to your soteriological doctrine causes this persistence, and not anything the scriptures actually state. It looks like your allegiance to Arminianism is stronger than your allegiance to the word of God.

Genesis 15:18 NAS
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

KJV
In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

ESV
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,

NIV
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates...

BSB
On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land—from the river of Egypt to the great River Euphrates

LSV
In that day has YHWH made with Abram a covenant, saying, “To your seed I have given this land, from the River of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River,

YLT
In that day hath Jehovah made with Abram a covenant, saying, 'To thy seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Phrat...

They ALL say the exact same thing: It was on that day in Genesis 15 that the covenant was made. Not in chapter 12. Not in chapter 13. Not in chapter 14. It was made in chapter 15 and there is not a single obligation on Abram's part mentioned anywhere in the chapter. It is God who takes on both roles in that covenant. The covenant was made in Genesis 15. Not Genesis 16. Not in Genesis 17. Not in Genesis 22. Not in Genesis 26. The covenant may have been confirmed many times after it was made but it was made in chapter 15. Do a search for the word "covenant" in your Bible software and see what scripture plainly states = no mention of the covenant with Abram until chapter 15! There was no covenant before then. All those posts you typed about the preceding chapters were a waste of time and effort because the covenant had not yet been established and you are supposed to be proving the mistaken statement covenants are two-way obligations between God and man.





So last chance. Go to Genesis 15 where the covenant is first made and provide some evidence there was a two-way obligation between God and Abram the day the covenant was made.

When you do not find any such obligations, please be forthcoming and honest and say it. Then we can discuss the meaning of that covenant relevant to this op.
This is why I refuse labels. Labels create bias and bias creates blindness. We’re done . You covered the post and still remain wrong.
 
You covered the post and still remain wrong.
The evidence of scripture proves otherwise.

Let the record show no proof the covenant was a two-way obligation was provided and in the end the refusal to do so was attributed to...
This is why I refuse labels. Labels create bias and bias creates blindness.
I stuck to scripture. No "labels."

You were the guy appealing to secular definitions of terms, adding and subtracting to God's word, quoting scriptures before and after the covenant was made, refusing to address what was specifically stated the day scripture reports the covenant was made, and refusing to acknowledge what is plainly stated therein. It was a mess.

I never once denied any of the scriptures cited (most of which were proof-texted). I simply took them as written, noting they occurred either long before or long after the covenant was established. Once initiated, the covenant did come with conditions, but they were all articulated by God long after the covenant was first established and none of them were ever said to cause God to renege on His promises. They were NOT part of any two-way obligations agreed upon when the covenant was made, and no proof to the contrary has been provided.
We’re done .
Bye.
 
The evidence of scripture proves otherwise.

Let the record show no proof the covenant was a two-way obligation was provided and in the end the refusal to do so was attributed to...

I stuck to scripture. No "labels."

You were the guy appealing to secular definitions of terms, adding and subtracting to God's word, quoting scriptures before and after the covenant was made, refusing to address what was specifically stated the day scripture reports the covenant was made, and refusing to acknowledge what is plainly stated therein. It was a mess.

I never once denied any of the scriptures cited (most of which were proof-texted). I simply took them as written, noting they occurred either long before or long after the covenant was established. Once initiated, the covenant did come with conditions, but they were all articulated by God long after the covenant was first established and none of them were ever said to cause God to renege on His promises. They were NOT part of any two-way obligations agreed upon when the covenant was made, and no proof to the contrary has been provided.

Bye.
As you continue to ignore Genesis 12:1-3 which is the covenant.
Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:1 - Now the LORDhad said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a landthat I will shew thee:
Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:2 - And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:3 - And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Did Abram honor the terms given by God in Genesis 12:1 ? No he brought Lot with him. Genesis 13 Abram and Lot separate .Genesis 14 Abram rescues Lot and is blessed by Melchizedek: which is before chapter 15.
Gen 14:18 - And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:and he was the priest of the most high God.
Gen 14:19 - And he blessed him, and said,Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Gen 14:20 - And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
In Chapter 15 Abram says how shall I know I shall inherit it referring back to God’s promise to Abram in chapter 12:1-3 let the record show you really have no clue !
 
The covenant was MADE in Genesis 15.
BUT...God did not swear an oath to perform it until Genesis 22. A covenant is not the same as an oath.
And on the day that covenant was made there were no obligations for Abram stated.
God can promise things with no conditions listed and yet change His mind, even regarding a covenant. The Mosaic covenant was conditioned on their obedience; they didn't fulfill their responsibilities, so God cast them away. Deuteronomy 28 contains a whole list of curses that the people would incur should they fail to carry out their end of the covenant.
All you have done is list a bunch of stuf Abram/Abraham did before and after the covenant was made, and list the promises God made. You have not provided a single bit of evidence of a single covenant obligation the day the covenant was made. How many more posts will it take for you to provide proof of an obligation occurring when the covenant was made? Not before it. Not long after it.
"Obligation" is a funny word. There is no "obligation" placed on Abraham when the covenant is given. But did Abraham do something to seal or further secure God's promises in the covenant? According to the rest of Scripture, yes he did; it's what transpires in Genesis 22. Again, God changes His mind throughout Scripture even when no conditions are apparent in what He promises; but He won't change His mind after taking an oath.

For example, the Lord said to Eli: "Therefore the Lord God of Israel says: ‘I said indeed that your house and the house of your father would walk before Me forever.’ But now the Lord says: ‘Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed." (1 Sam. 2:30) No conditions were given, yet God didn't follow through.
As I said before, not only is this extra-biblical, secular idea all covenants are two-way obligation not true in scripture; it is a definition that does a lot of harm in God's children. You're not arguing against me; you're arguing against the plain word of God read exactly is it was written.
I would agree that every covenant in Scripture is not two-way except for the Mosaic covenant, which is explicitly two-way. But even the other covenants could have been cancelled up until God takes an oath. That's the significance of oath-taking; you can't change your mind regardless of how things develop if you've taken an oath, whereas before an oath there can be conditions; even if those conditions were unstated.
 
As you continue to ignore Genesis 12:1-3 which is the covenant.
There is no covenant mentioned in Genesis 12. It is a presumption on your part that the covenant existed in Genesis 12. That assumption is added absent any statement in the text supporting that position.
Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:1 - Now the LORDhad said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:2 - And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
Unchecked Copy Box
Gen 12:3 - And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Did Abram honor the terms given by God in Genesis 12:1 ?
There are no "terms" mentioned in Genesis 12. Leave Ur and go to a land I'll show you. That's not "terms." Leave Ur and I'll make you a great nation is not "terms." God had decided to make Abram a great nation before Abram had any idea God had a plan, much less made any promises. You are adding the word "terms" to the text. It has been assumed the covenant existed then so that justifies the use of the word "terms." Because instructions are given and followed it is assumed a covenant exists that justifies the use of the word "terms." It is a circular argument- all of it based on adding words to the text the text itself does not state AND in direct contradiction to the fact scripture explicitly states the covenant was made many years and three chapters later. Scripture is made to say something it does not actually state. Throughout this discussion words like "two-way," and "obligation," and "terms" and "honor" have been added in places where they are absent in scripture. God made promises to Abram, told him to leave Ur, and Abram did as God said. None of those three points is in dispute. What is in dispute is that qualifies as the covenant when the scriptures plainly state the covenant was made years later in Genesis 15. The net result is that the only way the case for the claim a covenant is a two-way obligation can be made is to add a bunch of stuff to scripture, and then when asked to look specifically at what scripture plainly states without adding to it..... I get personally attacked with the ad hominem, "You ignore scripture." when that is demonstrably false. I have repeated looked directly at the text, neither adding nor subtracting from it, treating it in its stated contexts and asked all to do exactly the same.

And even were it true Abram "honored" the terms of Genesis 12 by leaving Ur, it would not change the fact God initiated the covenant without asking Abram if he wanted to participate. He chose Abram without asking if Abram wanted to be chosen. He called Abram without once asking if he wanted to be called. He commanded him without any option to disobey. It has not been proven the covenant is a two-way obligation. It has not been proven a covenant existed in Genesis 12, or that the non-existent covenant was a two-way obligation that established the covenant. The very texts you quote prove actions on Abraham's part occur only after God initiated, chose, called, and commanded.
No he brought Lot with him.
Which is irrelevant, although it might disprove the claim a covenant is a two-way obligation because Lot wasn't part of the covenant and bringing Lot with him might be considered an act of disobedience, of dishonor, of covenant-breaking.
Genesis 13 Abram and Lot separate . Genesis 14 Abram rescues Lot and is blessed by Melchizedek: which is before chapter 15.
Gen 14:18 - And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine:and he was the priest of the most high God.
Gen 14:19 - And he blessed him, and said,Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Gen 14:20 - And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
In Chapter 15 Abram says how shall I know I shall inherit it referring back to God’s promise to Abram in chapter 12:1-3 let the record show you really have no clue !
No mention of any covenant. Only Gid's promises. They are promises, not obligations. The scriptures repeatedly use the word "promises" and never "obligation. The scriptures repeatedly say "promise," and not once are the promises described as an obligation.

And....

...as I have repeatedly pointed out.....

God's vision given to Abram showed symbols for God walking the suzerain ritual; God pledged fealty to God. God played the both roles, the roles of vassal AND the role of conquering sovereign. We see the exact same imagery in Romans 8 where the one who is against us because of sin spared His own Son for us. The one who brings charges against us is the one who justifies us. The one who condemns is the one who died and was resurrected for us.


Obligations come only AFTER the covenant is established and prior to the covenant being established God is the only one initiating the covenant. Not only does He initiate the covenant without ever inquiring of the human(s) involved, but He chose that person without ever asking the person if he wanted to be chose, and He called that person without ever asking if they wanted to be called, and He commanded them without asking for their involvement or giving them any option to disobey.

Search the Bible for the words, "conditions," "obligations, "obliged," and "requirements." It will be discovered that language is not used with Abram.

Trust it.

Accept and trust God's word exactly as written, without adding to or subtracting from it. Be just as skeptic and critical of those who teach differently as you have been with my posts because scripture does not use that language with Abram.
 
BUT...God did not swear an oath to perform it until Genesis 22.
Do you have any clue what is the one single point in dispute?

I ask because it looks like you're making my case and if so then this post should have been directed to Leatherneck.
A covenant is not the same as an oath.
Yep.
God can promise things with no conditions listed...
Yep.
The Mosaic covenant was conditioned on their obedience...
Change of topic. That statement is also incorrect but I'm not going to collaborate with a change of topic away from the Abrahamic covenant and its op-relevance. Let's resolve the covenant made with Abraham before changing topic to any other covenant.
; they didn't fulfill their responsibilities, so God cast them away.
Yep.
Deuteronomy 28 contains a whole list of curses that the people would incur should they fail to carry out their end of the covenant.
Yep.
"Obligation" is a funny word.
Yep
There is no "obligation" placed on Abraham when the covenant is given.
Correct.
But did Abraham do something to seal or further secure God's promises in the covenant? According to the rest of Scripture, yes he did; it's what transpires in Genesis 22.
Which is several chapters and many decades after the covenant was established.
Again, God changes His mind throughout Scripture even when no conditions are apparent in what He promises; but He won't change His mind after taking an oath.
Numbers 23:19
“God is not a man, that He would lie, nor a son of man, that He would change His mind; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

God did not change His mind.
For example....
Digressive.
I would agree that every covenant in Scripture is not two-way except for the Mosaic covenant, which is explicitly two-way. But even the other covenants could have been cancelled up until God takes an oath. That's the significance of oath-taking; you can't change your mind regardless of how things develop if you've taken an oath, whereas before an oath there can be conditions; even if those conditions were unstated.
Tell it to Leatherneck031 because it is he who claims a covenant is a two-way obligation and dissents from everything you've posted.



And for your own edification look to see when the Mosaic covenant is first established. Notice how far the stipulations of Deuteronomy 28 and the choice of Deuteronomy 30's "Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses," come after that event. Hint: notice God and His word use the word "covenant" singular, and not in the plural.
 
He chose before our existence in the womb.


Ephesians 1

Is that verse still in your Bible or did you remove it?
Oh It’s still there it just does not say what you imagine

It does not say God unconditionally chose individual people for salvation

Rather it shows before the foundation of the earth chose believers -those in Christ to be holy and blameless before him in love and predestined them to adoption
 
fltom said:

There is no gift of saving faith



Preacher4truth said

There is, but the above poster will not accept Scripture that teaches it. Ephesians 1:19 is one such text.



Lets see

Ephesians 1:19 (KJV 1900) — 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,



It mentions the working of God’s power towards those who believe but it does not say his power was used to make them believe and certainly no mention of a gift of saving faith. You have to read that into the verse




fltom said:

unilaterally


Preacher4truth said
Yes, or Sovereignly. Disdain for this is being witnessed.



Rather distain for your additions to scripture

fltom said:

irresistibly infused in man



Preacher4truth said

The above is an attempt to distort the Biblical truth of the gift of faith, attempt to poison the well, and cast shade on this truth.



The bible never mentions any gift of saving faith. That you just read into the scriptures from your theology




Preacher4truth said


He believes it is unfair of God to grant faith to whomsoever He wills. Too bad, He does; 2 Peter 1:1. He also only reveals Himself to whomsoever He wills, and saves only them; Matthew 11:25-30; Romans 9:11ff; John 6:44ff &c.



Where have I ever mentioned fairness?



Provide the quote if you can



2 Peter 1:1 (KJV 1900) — 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Nothing there about God irresistibly unilaterally infusing faith into anyone



Christ is revealed in the gospel which is to be preached to all



Matthew 28:18–20 (KJV 1900) — 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.





Mark 16:15 (KJV 1900) — 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.












fltom said:

When you were a Mormon did you need a gift of faith to be a mormon?



Preacher4truth said
Apples and oranges and it destroys the posters own argumentation. It is the poster showing that he doesn't believe in supernatural faith, a faith that comes from the word of Christ, or, Christ Himself; Romans 10:17, not innately from within. He believes a person can become a Mormon in the same way they become a Christian.



Let see



John 20:31 (KJV 1900) — 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.



Seems one can read the scripture and believe





John 17:20 (KJV 1900) — 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;



Romans 10:10–17 (KJV 1900) — 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.



Seems one can hear the preaching of the word and believe










Preacher4truth said


Yes folks, you can become whatever you want, just twinkle your nose, and click your heels together. It is easy to see this posters beliefs are what I said all along: HUMANISM. It isn't Christianity, don't be fooled.



This is just silliness. You were given scripture. You term it humanism but I call it the word of God which it is

fltom said:

Muslims need a gift of faith to be a Muslim?

Buddhists a gift of faith to believe in Buddha?

Gnostics to believe in the gnostic Gods





Preacher4truth said
Um, gift of faith from whom?



No one. No such gift is needed.

Men believe many things. Some true some false. No special gift is needed

Other than the content which is to be believed. Scripture is supernatural in its source being revealed by divine inspiration

Why would you imagine God’s inspiration to be powerless?




Preacher4truth said


But this argument of his is foolishness and non sequitur. One is acting as if a person needs God to gift them faith to be any of the above, and bases his argument on that as if it refutes anyone, and refutes the Biblical gift of faith.

Actually it is the reverse they do not need any gift of faith to believe in any of those false religions.


Preacher4truth said


As we can see the poster here is confusing human sinful deception, humanistic will, humanistic decision making with Biblical faith. They aren't the same things.
Can you see the problem folks?



Yeah you do not believe the bible which shows the revelation of the word whether preached or read is sufficient to accomplish its purpose . You just deny it and rob the word of its power.

2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV 1900) — 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 
Sounds like sheep, and not "more than sheep"
Not if you read the verse

John 6:51 (KJV 1900) — 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

world does not mean sheep only

If you take every man to mean every single person who ever lived, then universalism would be true, as this verse would point to universal atonement.
So either all are atoned for by Christ having tasted death, or your interpretation is incorrect thereby alluding to it that Jesus was not being truthful when He said He lays His life down (tastes death) for His sheep.
Nope

you have to assume atonement without faith in it saves

That is a false assumption

It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner: “By faith are you saved” (Eph. 2:8); “he that believes shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it would be useless to sinners. It is as naturally impossible that Christ’s death should save from punishment one who does not confide in it as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a man who does not eat it. The assertion that because the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men therefore no men are lost is as absurd as the assertion that because the grain produced in the year 1880 was sufficient to support the life of all men on the globe therefore no men died of starvation during that year. The mere fact that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul. Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain.[1]



[1] William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 726.


that even some Calvinist theologians reject
 
Rather it shows before the foundation of the earth chose believers -those in Christ to be holy and blameless before him in love and predestined them to adoption

Um.... There WEREN'T any "believers" from before the foundation of the Earth.
Guess again.
 
So the capability for faith resided in you.

Yes.
It was given to us by God (Eph. 2:8, Phil. 1:29, Rom. 12:3, 2 Pet. 1:1, 1 Cor. 4:7, etc.)

It was not a special gift which was required which was unilaterally given to some

Actually, Scripture says it was.
(See above.)

and withheld from others

"Withheld"?
What a stranger wording.
You make it sound as if God was OBLIGATED to give everyone faith.
He isn't.
 
Yes.
It was given to us by God (Eph. 2:8, Phil. 1:29, Rom. 12:3, 2 Pet. 1:1, 1 Cor. 4:7, etc.)

Sorry those verses do not say what you claim

Salvation not faith is the gift

to grant does not mean to unilaterally irresistible infuse.

Neither romans or 1cor speak of saving faith

2pe 1:1 does not say how obtained

these are all thing your theology reads into the verses
Actually, Scripture says it was.
(See above.)


nope your theology says that not scripture
"Withheld"?
What a stranger wording.
You make it sound as if God was OBLIGATED to give everyone faith.
He isn't.
Obligated ?

Faith is not an obligation it is a response

man's response not God's

Acts 16:29–31 (KJV 1900) — 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

not you can do nothing

not what God must do

but what he must do

your theology is contrary to the word of God
 
Eph. 2:8 refutes you.
Phil. 1:29 refutes you.
Rom. 12:3 refutes you.
2 Pet. 1:1 refutes you.
1 Cor. 4:7 refutes you.

Have a nice day!
afraid not

Salvation not faith is the gift - Eph 2;8

grant does not mean to irresistibly unilaterally infuse- Phil 1:29

Rom 12 does not mention saving faith

2Pe 1:1 does not say how obtained

1cor just as Rom 12 does not mention saving faith

that is your eisegesis
 
Sorry those verses do not say what you claim

Bald denial.

Salvation not faith is the gift

Bald denial.

to grant does not mean to unilaterally irresistible infuse.

Bald denial.

Neither romans or 1cor speak of saving faith

Bald denial.

2pe 1:1 does not say how obtained

Irrelevant.

"2 Peter does not say how it was given".
It still says it was given.

these are all thing your theology reads into the verses

Nope.
Words have meaning.

nope your theology says that not scripture

Bald denial.

not you can do nothing

So you reject Rom. 3:10-20, and Isa. 64:6.
Good to know.

your theology is contrary to the word of God

Wrong again.
 
Back
Top