The idea that one's household is “sanctified” and not “unclean” is a Jewish one, but it did not make ones sons saved,
Sanctification follows justification (salvation). If the household is "sanctified' then it is "saved" and as such "set aside for God" 9sanctified).
It was normal for families to follow the father's lead in faith, but the requirement for baptism require repentance and whole-hearted faith.
Paul didn't hold much to baptism, or perfor many. His main tenet was that you are saved by faith or by proxy (if you married a believer), not by baptism. The baptism that matter is of the Spirit, so there is no need for water baptism if you think about it in Pauline theology.
does not mean they need not make the response the gospel requires to receive the unearned gift, but that they were chosen to do so
But is their making the response ever in question? Whether God forces their response or just foreknows how they will feel on that they is irrelevant. The dice have been cast; the actual event is only a matter of going through the hoops. The outcome is never in doubt. You are sitting on a train bound for a station; what you do on it is of no consequence.
Even on a theoretical level a perfect being can be utterly unselfish in calling for such, if that is what is best for his subjects
God decides what is best for the subjects. He is not guided by a higher necessity. A God who demands that people adore him and worship him is a narcissistic God. It's not about his subjects but about him. But I will take it back and not even call it narcissistic, because it is beyond narcissistic. It is outright petty. It would certainly seem rather petty if a human were to expect that lowly little ants in his back yard, stop and drop on their little faces on a daily basis, or to expect them to adore him ebcause he doesn't step on them.
It seems to me that the love proclaimed by the Christians have for their God has a lot to do with the prospect of the "everlasting life" and that without it, I have a feeling, very few would be devoted to the Christian God. So, it is not true love, if you think about, but a "love" motivated by fear.
Moreover, what you choose reveals what you really love and esteem
That's not always the case.
Thus God calls men to “choose ye this day whom ye will serve;”
Except the scenario is such that there really is no choice...LOL!
Yet if God forced conversion then men would also object, which would be the case if He made faith in Him so utterly overwhelming that no one could not find anything by which they may rationalize unbelief.
Congratulations! You have just convinced yourself that man saves himself (as Judaism teaches) and what Pelagius allegedly believed.
It is not just the Protestant God who is misconstrued, and in the Bible God is constantly giving, giving man both good things and good laws, which He misuses and breaks...
Yeah, that darn man. Makes you wonder why would God even make him, except apaprently to have someone to look at and see himself (sarcasm), i.e. moody, narcissistic, selfish, petty, inefficient, somoene always capable of being driven to violence, demanidng, and endlessly wheeling and dealing and fixing things without rellay fixing anything.
Well, i myself do like the gospel of Mark, and i do try not to be verbose , but there were a few things to respond to, and rather than a lot of posts of bits and pieces, i tried to present a one time explanation, especially since such a view seemed to be seriously held.
The idea that one's household is “sanctified” and not “unclean” is a Jewish one, but it did not make ones sons saved,
Sanctification follows justification (salvation). If the household is "sanctified' then it is "saved" and as such "set aside for God" 9sanctified).
Actually the two words used 1Cor. 7:14, hagiazō, most often translated as sanctified, denoting to render holy, or clean or to consecrate, and the word from which it comes, hagios, denoting a holy thing, set apart as holy, can refer to both a positional state and a practical state. Aa regards the former, Israel is collectively called “holy” by Paul in Rm. 11:16, and believers are to consecrate their bodies as holy unto God. (Rm. 12:1) Paul addresses the Corinthians, whom he will shortly reprove for their carnality, as ones “sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints,” (1Cor. 1:2) And as relates to children, the O.T. command (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:13) that the first born of every Jewish family was sanctioned in a dedicated sense unto God is reiterated in Lk. 2:23, yet it is abundantly clear that not all that was sanctified or called holy in that sense was necessarily redeemed. But what is also manifest is that God would bless and or protect a household from physical judgment due to the presence of one believer. (Gn. 19; Josh. 6:25)
In addition, while semantics by itself can allow your interpretation, salvation by proxy faith does not conflate with the express commands for salvation, which consistently require a volitional response. In the proxy faith proof case of the palsied man, (Mk. 2:3-11) his infirmity was physical, not cognitive.
It was normal for families to follow the father's lead in faith, but the requirement for baptism require repentance and whole-hearted faith.
Paul didn't hold much to baptism, or perfor many. His main tenet was that you are saved by faith or by proxy (if you married a believer), not by baptism. The baptism that matter is of the Spirit, so there is no need for water baptism if you think about it in Pauline theology.
Jesus did not perform many either, if any, (Jn. 4:2) and likewise Paul's mission was to do the actual preaching, (1Cor. 1:17) but simply because that was the case does not mean either has a low view of it. Jesus commanded baptism, and Paul himself was baptized, (Acts 22:16) and baptism is shown to have accompanied Paul's preaching in personal conversions of Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, disciples of John in Ephesus, and that of Gaius and of Stephanas. ( Acts 16:14,15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 1Cor. 1:14,15) So he did not think there was no need, and as said before, there is no real difference between moving your tongue or exercising your mind in confessing Jesus as your crucified and risen LORD, (Rm. 10:9,10) than there is in doing so by body language, in baptism. But it is Peter's preaching which helps to evidence that souls can be born again before baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
does not mean they need not make the response the gospel requires to receive the unearned gift, but that they were chosen to do so
But is their making the response ever in question? Whether God forces their response or just foreknows how they will feel on that they is irrelevant. The dice have been cast; the actual event is only a matter of going through the hoops. The outcome is never in doubt. You are sitting on a train bound for a station; what you do on it is of no consequence.
If you are thinking fatalism, that is understandable, and i think what would be more fitting is that you will get on the train and stay on the train, and do not get thrown off because you are a passenger and thus you act like one, and will get off when it arrives at your detestation, versus the destination of those on the other train. What one believers orders one's life, and salvation “no matter how you live” is neither Biblical or Calvinism or classic Arminianism, though some sadly preach that now. The former type holds that the elect will finally persevere in faith, a faith that progresses in sanctification and will repent if astray, while the other also tends to requiring a practical holiness as an attribute of faith, not the case of salvation but that saving faith must have attesting fruit if one is to considered saved and secure, while many also hold that one can forfeit the salvation which was appropriated by faith. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 10:19-38)
As for the issue of free will, and how free mans will is as it relates to predestination, and on what basis one is elected, and reconciled that with God's declared justice, and what Rm. 9 fully means, that is the principal debate within Protestantism. As FR threads have shown!
God decides what is best for the subjects. He is not guided by a higher necessity. A God who demands that people adore him and worship him is a narcissistic God. It's not about his subjects but about him. But I will take it back and not even call it narcissistic, because it is beyond narcissistic. It is outright petty. It would certainly seem rather petty if a human were to expect that lowly little ants in his back yard, stop and drop on their little faces on a daily basis, or to expect them to adore him ebcause he doesn't step on them.
You are giving an opinion based upon how you perceive an omnipotent, omniscient being requiring worship, and by invalid analogy manifesting a very superficial judgment, while you do not even allow that that requiring worship cannot be unselfish, yet the Biblical evidence is contrary to you. God's manifest ultimate purpose for man is not grovelling in the dust, though it is only right to reverence both superior power and virtue, and to humble yourself when you are contrary to it, but to sit with enthroned with Him by conformity to Jesus, God manifest in the flesh, the opposite for selfishness. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. " (Revelation 3:21) Overall, overcoming the world, flesh and the devil is a characteristic of saving faith, (1Cor. 2:15-17; 5:4) as is having virtues those of their beatitudes.
It was the devil who presumed to “climb up some other way” in self-willed selfish exaltation, and being cast down he breathes out vengeance, from the beginning falsely accusing God of selfish motives, (Gn. 3:1-5) so Dawkins, et all, has nothing on him.
The Biblical examples they invoke can be easily reconciled with an omniscient God having a just as well as benevolent motive, which has somewhat been engaged with here before.
Further on your analogy, but in commanding worship of Him, ants actually do manifest a type of slavish worship for their own well-being. One can object against God “imposing” morality on others, but the worship/obedience people covenant to give to God is also based upon revelation of who and what He is, and what is best for man, with the opposite being making created things your god, and which manifest in a rejection of the morality which love for God requires and fosters. And the world would be an infinitely better place the more people live according to the spirit of Christ. Thus His reason for forbidding idolatry is entirely consistent with what is best for man, and God's long-suffering judgment on idolatry was linked to the immorality which it fostered, which the “people of God” also finally suffered for when they fell into it.
It seems to me that the love proclaimed by the Christians have for their God has a lot to do with the prospect of the "everlasting life" and that without it, I have a feeling, very few would be devoted to the Christian God. So, it is not true love, if you think about, but a "love" motivated by fear.
In this regard your perception has some substance, and while appealing to man's self-preservation can be reasonable and right if it is for their good, the motive goal in the Bible is to be that of selfless love. While such love can work towards one betterment, that does not mean that must be the motive, and as i said, mortal as Moses and Paul were willing to be damned for the sake of others.
Moreover, what you choose reveals what you really love and esteem
That's not always the case.
Perhaps, but even when a cognitive rational man one chooses to do something out of compulsion, the only reason he can can be compelled is because of it is in the interest of what he really the loves.
Thus God calls men to “choose ye this day whom ye will serve;”
Except the scenario is such that there really is no choice...LOL!
Surely there is, which is unbelief such as yours. Again, if the evidence was so utterly compelling, such giving you the all extreme evidence you demand as a reason to believe, a time, then you really could not come up with excuses. Of course, then he would be a genie.
Yet if God forced conversion then men would also object, which would be the case if He made faith in Him so utterly overwhelming that no one could not find anything by which they may rationalize unbelief.
Congratulations! You have just convinced yourself that man saves himself (as Judaism teaches) and what Pelagius allegedly believed.
Not so, as rather than man not being born with a sinful propensity and dead in sins, and while God must draw, enable, and work to persuade, man can resist. (Prov. 1:23-25; Mt. 23:37) And what you reject is still a gift.
It is not just the Protestant God who is misconstrued, and in the Bible God is constantly giving, giving man both good things and good laws, which He misuses and breaks...
Yeah, that darn man. Makes you wonder why would God even make him, except apaprently to have someone to look at and see himself (sarcasm), i.e. moody, narcissistic, selfish, petty, inefficient, somoene always capable of being driven to violence, demanidng, and endlessly wheeling and dealing and fixing things without rellay fixing anything.
Sadly, your “wonder” is not even close to objectivity, but is like that of those wise-in-their-own-eyes souls who despise moral authority and speak evil of them, (Jude. 1:8) outside their own that is, and are committed to making God into an image like unto corruptible man, wresting texts to their own destruction.
In contrast, the God of the Bible manifests the opposite of mood swings, or a victim mentality, and His wrath is consistent with accountability and actions, and characteristically long-suffering, with what He requires of those who entered into covenant with Him, this being love for God and each other, being to their betterment and real fulfilment, while charges such as inefficiency and “wheeling and dealing” presupposes omniscience on your account, over One who is and who does make all things works together for those who love Him, (Rm. 8:28) those who love the light, not darkness of sin. (Jn. 3:19-21) Thanks be to God.