Regeneration follows faith, it does not precede faith.

Irrelevant. 

My post was not about those "not ever given the blessings of the covenant." My post was specifically about those who did receive the OT benefits of the OT covenants. Furthermore, your statement is factually incorrect. Everyone in Israel benefitted from the covenant, even the disobedient, even the Israel that was not Israel. Furthermore, the Joshua 24 text that was used to support this op occurred long after they'd left the wilderness and entered the promised land. The people of God repented (changed direction) in Joshua 1. Twenty-four chapters later..... they were asked to choose. This wasn't the first occasion, but this is the one used to support this op. This should be obvious to you, Doug, because I specified Joshua 24, AND the text of Joshua 24 is clearly made to a multitude of people, not just Joshua and Caleb. 

So.... not only is the post wrong, it is also irrelevant to the earlier points (plural) being made. 

But, since the matter was broached, the fact of scripture is Joshua and Caleb were also members of a covenant relationship that was initiated by God before either of them were born and neither of them were asked about it. The only reason any of the Hebrews were brought out of Egypt was causally due to a prophecy spoken to Abraham when he was a covenant member. The only reason the prophecy was told to Abraham was because the enslavement of the Hebrews and their liberation and their entrance into the land promised the one man Abraham is because all if it was part of a plan and purpose that God had decided upon before He created a single atom of creation. He did not ask anyone when He formed His purpose for creation. From creation through Adam, then Noah, then Abraham - and even Moses - because Moses was commanded by God to be His agent long before Joshua or Caleb knew they were going to be liberated - there is a series of divine decisions and actions God made for the purpose of salvation that He makes without asking the creatures involved. Joshua and Caleb were obedient and faithful because of their faith in an already-existing covenant. And that covenant relationship was one they'd been brought into long before the entered the promised land. 

Hebrews 11 tells us all this episodes were directly related to Christological salvation and God's purpose. 


Hebrews 11
All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them. 


Speaking of Moses - and by extension Joshua and Caleb - the author wrote, 


Hebrews 11:29-30
By faith they passed through the Red Sea as though they were passing through dry land; and the Egyptians, when they attempted it, were drowned. 30By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days.


No person not already in the previously established covenant experienced any of the above. Especially not a single atheist. God did not choose atheists to be enslaved. God did not choose atheists to be liberated. God did not choose atheists to enter the promised land. God didn't give atheists a choice once they had already entered to covenant promised land. He chose people who already believed in God, a redeemer, and sin. He chose those people without asking them and He brought them into the covenant also without asking them. He did not ask any of them to do anything until after He had acted sovereignly based on His will and His purpose. 


Every Christian should acknowledge these facts. Half of Christendom may not because their taught synergism, not because scripture is silent on the matter or says something different. 


There's one more relevant aspect. Doug has noted only those who believed entered the promised land. Doug is correct but Doug has neglected to also include the fact their faith existed in an an already-established God-initiated covenant. The author of Hebrews (as well as Paul and Peter in their respective letters) tells us these men and women of faith were looking for a country that was heavenly, not earthly. They were looking for a city God prepared for them. Clearly not all Hebrews or Jews understood this. We see this clearly demonstrated in the gospels on almost every occasion where there is a confrontation between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. Sometimes with the common Jew. They clearly did not all understand what it was they hoped for, or what it was God had promised. Paul later tells us, "not all Israel are Israel," and not all the descendants of Abraham are his descendants. It is only those of the promise, not the flesh or works of the flesh that are the descendants of Abraham. The promise came first. Then faith followed. The promise that came first necessarily and inextricably came with a set of predetermined events that existed prior to and in conjunction with the individual's faith and faithfulness, not the other way around. Monergists and synergists can agree: God reveals Himself first, but that's a very small part of the equation. Salvifically speaking, God's revealing Himself always comes in the context of an already-existing covenant that He initiated and established prior to revealing Himself and prior to asking the creature anything. 

That goes for Joshua and Caleb just as much as it goes for everyone else in scripture, and it is no different with us. Christ is not the exception to the rule; he is the rule. 

If You Were the Only One

I think that message is to show people in doubt how much God loves them. It's clearly not what the Bible teaches and it's a definite strawman. If there was only one person left on the planet who would crucify Jesus?

John 12:32  And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.


Mark 15:39 “And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, ‘Surely this man was the Son of God!’

And the woman at the well.

John 4:28-30 Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, 29 “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?” 30 They came out of the town and made their way toward him.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life.

Matthew 20:28 "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

And Jesus the Lord of the harvest said:

Matthew 9:37-38 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; 38 therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”

Jesus has a huge harvest, think grains of sand at the seashore

Not all unbelief is identical. It's not okay to treat all categories identical. It's not scriptural and it's not logical.

Is there an unbelief category in which the unbelief has belief in what it doesn't believe? All unbelief is identically void of belief; the object of belief may vary, but unbelief is unbelief. 



The Bible says very little about the person who lacks all belief and when it does speak about them it does so in decidedly deterministic ways. They are fools whose destiny is decided.

Romans 1
....just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


Why did act toward them in this way? It was because man willfully "did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer", because, "1:21...although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him",  and they, "1:23...exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles." 

And how does Paul describe the response of God? By using phrases like, "1:24Therefore God gave them over" and, "1:26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts."

The point is, according to the text, that God hadn't predetermined this, but responded to the self-determined choices of mankind to disregard the truths that they knew to be true! Peter says the same thing when he said, "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water." (2 Peter 3:5)

God, like when dealing with Cain in Genesis 4:6-7, works with man to overcome his sinfulness, but when we, like Cain, choose to disregard his gracious intervention, we are left to our own devices. He gives us over to the control of our own desires. As I think C.S. Lewis put it, in the end, it is either us saying thy will be done to God, or God say thy will be done to us. Man refuses to keep God's counsel, and God says, 'okay, if that's what you want, you got it!' This is what Paul depicts in Rom 1:21-ff! "Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him...therefore, God gave them over to their sinful lusts"!



Doug





 

All of it. Just because a sentence is quoted and placed in bold face does not mean the point of the quote was addressed. I not only stated the points weren't addressed; I also reiterated the point, further elaborating for the sake of additional clarity. I did so in a good-faith effort to aid cogent discourse and prevent further irrelevancy. The response is now I'm being asked questions as if that didn't happen. I'm not collaborating with that nonsense. All anyone has to do who doesn't understand is to re-read what was posted. 

In other words, the rhetorical inquiries, "Were the bolded quotes not your words, thoughts, and assertions? Were these not part of "the actual content of your posts"?" are self-betraying. You've made it about my posts and not your own. At no time did I dispute my own words or that the quote mined sentence weren't my words. Another (gaslighitng) straw man was posted!. It's not about whether I was quoted or quoted accurately. It's about the response being germane. The previous posts quoted a (quote mined) line from a post and then added commentary irrelevant to the posted that was quote mined.


You've just done it again!!! 

LOOK at this post. I asked a very specific question. It was not answered and the response was rhetorical and defensive. 


Go back and re-read my posts because they were either not correctly understood (explaining the irrelevant responses), or the non sequiturs and straw men are deliberate. I'm not collaborating with either.