If we then go back and examine the rest of Scripture to see if support for this exists, we should not be surprised by what we find. After all, a brief examination of the structure and grammar does show that the predestination spoken of here is predestination to certain changes in us at salvation, and to promises made to us in eternity past.
I have to wonder what kind of mind would even consider such questions. After all, as a child of God through the shed blood of my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, I cannot even conceive that another child of God could even think of such a statement to make in answer to any question concerning the LORD God. Knowing all that has been presented, how can there be any issue of “happy” or “unhappy” with the LORD? The LORD God is not driven by such transient things, but is driven by His inherent righteousness, holiness, love, mercy and judgement.
Which would be more accurate, but still badly worded, as it contains a presumptive, that God could will Himself to be controlled by something external to Himself. This would indicate a reactive nature in the LORD, which does not exist. And, worse, creates the logical impossibility of an infinite, holy, and righteous LORD subjecting Himself to a part or portion of his own finite creation which is presently unholy and unrighteous.
Here we see plainly in both the original and the quote that Abraham was counted righteous after he believed. He was not made righteous so he could believe. We find additional Scriptures that specifically support this in numerous places. In the following two passages we see that repentance precedes belief:
The presumption here is that “unconditional sovereign election” is a valid, proper, Scriptural doctrine, and silence concerning how one is elected in any passage where election, or salvation is spoken of, is automatically interpreted as supporting “unconditional sovereign election.” This is called the “argument from silence” and it also is a logical fallacy.
Hence, the PENALTY for any sin is not different than the penalty for any other sin, but the EFFECT of any particular sin may be greater or lesser than the effect of any other sin, due to the scope of influence of that sin. It is plain that all sin springs from the sin of unbelief, hence the sin of unbelief has a much greater effect upon the individual than all other sins springing from it.
The problem with the logic is that it is assumed that men have no choice in whether they are saved or not. The Universalist claims that men will be saved regardless of whether they want to have anything to do with God or not. The Calvinist claims that only the elect will be saved because God particularly chooses to “regenerate” some and pass others by without criteria, rhyme, or reason.
I get challenged from time to time about where I stand on the Scripture, as I am King James Version only. Specifically, I use the 1769 Edition of the KJV, which is the last edition and incorporates standardized modern punctuation and spelling. I hold to the King James Version for several reasons that are well-grounded Scripturally, of which I will address a couple. Unfortunately, it means that I am going to get hammered as being “backward” and a “stick in the mud” as I steadfastly refuse to use any modern version, except to show the corruptness of those versions. Worse yet, I am even more uneducated and unlearned as I also refuse to use interlinear bibles, commentaries and such like, choosing to remain with the Bible and a couple of authoritative unabridged English dictionaries and a thesaurus.
I do not expect anyone to believe what I say simply because I say it or write it. Rather, I expect it to be tested and rigorously examined by the standard of Scripture. I firmly believe that, if I am correct, the LORD will confirm it without question in His word. In this sense, I expect everyone else to be “unteachable” as well.