Help with Romans 11:20-21

I know what you see...and I know what you cannot, at this time, see.

 

1. "set apart" means more than simply "not a bastard".
2. I never said that any child was saved because of who their parent was. If you will reread all of my few posts in this thread, you will see that is exactly the opposite of what I have been stating (which makes this discussion unprofitable for both of us).
3. I was careful NOT to say they were saved (since they were not). What I said was:

Do you deny that unbelievers can find fellowship within the community of believers? That the church has been known to help strangers, so how much more would it come to the aid of the children of its members? How can God bless a God-fearing husband and wife, and that blessing not at least partially benefit the children living in their home? Can God shelter the parents and leave the young children homeless on the street? Can God feed the parents and leave their young children to starve in the same house? Has the child of Godly parents at least HEARD the Gospel where the child of Atheists has only heard God mocked?

I stand by my final conclusion that you should ...

You are acting as if it was no advantage at all that Timothy was raised to fear God by his mother and grandmother. That he might as well have been raised worshiping Molech and it would have made no difference at all.

 

First of all, congratulations on your honesty! There are precious few, on any discussion forum, who will admit to any degree of uncertainty about anything.
Presbyterian Covenant Theology declares the New Covenant to include the unsaved. This is to justify infant baptism. Baptist C.T., which goes right back to John Spilsbury in the 1640s, declares the New Covenant to be with the redeemed, and this is surely right because Jeremiah 31:33 indicates that everyone in the N.C. knows the Lord. If you are interested in this, there is an excellent work on this subject called The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault and published by Solid Ground Christian Books.

Now some Dispensationals believe that the N.C. is not yet in force and is yet to be made with 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah' (Jer. 31:31). But that horse doesn't run. When Jeremiah gave his prophecy, all these things lay in the future, but they are repeated by the writer to the Hebrews as an accomplished fact. In Hebrews 8:6, he tells us that the new covenant has already been established, and in 10:18, we learn that there is already remission of sins for those in the N.C. which is why offerings are no longer required. Those who believe are the sons of Abraham (Galatians 3:7), and believers, both Jew and Gentile are the true circumcision (Philippians 3:3).

I will write something on the O.P. presently.

 

I think you need to change 'eternal security' to 'the perseverance of the saints' (Matthew 24:13).
All God's elect will be saved, but they will not be saved without persevering in the faith. There is a whole raft of texts declaring that not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord!" Will enter the kingdom of heaven.
'Fear' of God is always regarded positively in the Bible, including the N.T. 'Then all the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were edified' (Acts 9:31).

 

Yyyyaaaaawwwwnnnn.

It must have been your EVIL TWIN.

 

One of us (or both of us) need our eyes and ears opened. We are wasting electrons talking past one another.
Good luck finding whatever answer you think you are looking for.

 

Dispensations solve nothing; they only muddy the waters. Otherwise you wouldn't be all at sea with Romans 11. Salami-slicing the word of God always darkens understanding.
Matthew 24:13 is right in line with Colossians 1:23.

 

I believe the scripture shows Saul/Paul was an unbeliever going down the road in unbelief when Jesus called him.

 

Yes he was. Was he under covenant with YHWH while an unbeliever?
Was King Ahab under covenant with YHWH though he never had faith?

 

The emphasis in 2 Timothy 2:15 is on rightly dividing the word of God, which you do not do by salami-slicing it into artificial dispensations. And orthotomeo has the meaning of 'cutting a straight path' as in Proverbs 11:5, LXX.

This is just awful, potentially sending your congregation to hell with a pocket-full of false promises in their hands.
'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.'
Yes, but I made a profession of faith back in 1989!
'Do not be deceived.'
Yes, but I was baptized by immersion and the pastor laid hands on me.
'Do not be deceived.'
Yes, but George Antonios says.......'
'Do not be deceived.' 'I tell you beforehand, just as I told you in time past, that those who practise such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.'
Yes, but that only applies to people in such-and-such a dispensation.'
'Those who practise such things will not enter the kingdom of God.' 'Do not be deceived!'

'In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: whoever does not practise righteousness is not of God, nor is he that does not love his brother' (1 John 3:10). 1 Cor. 3:10-15 is about theology. People are not saved by having all their theological ducks in a row; so long as their foundation is in Christ (v.11). They are saved by repenting of their sins (eg. Mark 1:15) and trusting in Christ who, in His life and on the cross, has done everything necessary to save them from their sins. But the proof of this will be that in the power of the Holy Spirit they seek to keep Christ's righteous commandments (John 14:15; Romans 6:1-2;1 Corinthians 7:19; Ephesians 2:10 etc.).

The end is the return of Christ at the end of the age. Our Lord was answering the questions of the disciples (Matthew 24:3).

 

Maybe, but he was not a sheep had did not hear his voice.

 

This is an area where have had serious discussions regarding if people are under the NC even while both saved and lost in the Church!

 

They would be lost, and outside of the new one!

 

reformed baptist would see the new Covenant being established just between God and the redeemed, so only saved are to be seen included among it, so big reason why no infant Baptism, as they cannot be in the NC as a believer!

 

I just listened to Ligonier Ministries debate on Credo v Paedo baptism. MacArthur argues for credo and Sproul argues for paedo.
The verse upon which Abrahamic Covenant and New Covenant hinge is found in 1 Corinthians 7:13-14.

If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

The argument is that a sign of the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision. The sign of the New covenant is baptism. Children, not yet believing, were circumcized into the Abrahamic covenant so that they might be set aside to know God. Thus children who are baptized into the New covenant so that they might be set aside to God. In neither situation did it mean the children were saved. In both covenants salvation is by grace through faith alone. One was never saved by circumcision nor is one ever saved by baptism.


"A Paedobaptist Position on Baptism" from Ligonier Ministries A Paedobaptist Position on Baptism by R.C. Sproul

MacArthur has a different take on the passage in 1 Corinthians 7.

"A Credobaptist Position on Baptism" from Ligonier Ministries A Credobaptist Position on Baptism by John MacArthur