1689 London Confession

[atpollard]

10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

I don’t want to argue broad interpretations. The very existence of PARTICULAR and GENERAL Baptists within the same local church body indicates that it is not a hill that we should die on (or even break fellowship over). That said, I am always willing to discuss some scriptural point of minutiae that Brothers can see differently.

This whole issue about “no partiality with God” is one of those areas of minutiae worth discussing exegetically. Given the context of the verse immediately before it, “no partiality” means “Jews” (the Chosen Nation) over “gentiles” the rest of humanity not biologically descended from Jacob.

Outside of that specific context, God has demonstrated in scripture a REMARKABLE CAPACITY for showing partiality.

• Fallen Angels and Fallen Men … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were both treated equally?
• Isaac and Ishmael … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were both treated equally?
• Jacob and Esau … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were both treated equally?
• Pharaoh and Moses … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were both treated equally?
• David and His Brothers … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were both treated equally?
• Peter, John and the other 68 disciples (Jesus sent 70 disciples out in groups of 2) … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were all treated equally?

So when Romans 9 speaks of a Potter, Vessels of Honor and Vessels of Destruction … why would we assume that the POTTER treated all VESSELS with impartiality? I think the context makes this reference to God’s impartiality very specific: “SALVATION, It isn’t just for Jews any more.”

 

[atpollard]

Blotted Out:
"He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. (Rev. 3:5 NKJ)

32 "Yet now, if You will forgive their sin-- but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written."
33 And the LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. (Exod. 32:32-33 NKJ)

Will Jesus have a literal sword sticking out of his mouth?
(most people don’t think so … but are surprisingly quick to insist that something else in the VISION that is Revelation is 100% literal. Any literal interpretation from Revelation just makes me nervous.) [I have little doubt this is a personal flaw, but humor me and don’t try and force me to “eat meat” contrary to my weak conscience.]

The OT has surprisingly little on ”life after death”. Most OT references end with ‘Sheol’ (the grave). Most OT references to blotting out a name are a poetic metaphor for dying and not even being remembered. So it seems less clear to me that:

1. A name can be added/erased from the list of those that will be saved (there are verses that suggest God determined WHO before God created Adam … and God does not change).
2. Those references which state “will not be blotted out” can be reversed to conclude “therefore some other names must be blotted out”. “Will not” means “will not”. Anything more is eisegesis, not exegesis.

[Which is not to say that Reformed Theology does not have some eisegesis of its own when it reads between the lines on certain verses that can be honestly interpreted either way - Limited Atonement is rife with this.]

 

[atpollard]

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Just out of curiosity (as a friendly discussion), Do you have scripture that GOD blinded them?

I was just thinking of these verses:

• “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.” - 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 [NKJV]
• “When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand [it], then the wicked [one] comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside.” - Matthew 13:19 [NKJV]

[This comes back to an ongoing debate between me and Fastfredy0 about FIRST and SECOND causes.]

 

[brightfame52]

You took that out of context, the blindness isn't eternal:

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins."
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience,
31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34 "For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor?"
35 "Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?"
36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. (Rom. 11:26-36 NKJ)

Actually its in context. Those whom are not elected, who are not of the election of grace, are blinded, and its God who blinds them. Rom 11:7

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
The word blinded means :

1. to cover with a thick skin, to harden by covering with a callus
2. metaph.
   1. to make the heart dull
   2. to grow hard, callous, become dull, lose the power of understanding

Also its in the passive voice, meaning the subjects of the non elect were acted upon,
Its Gods Judgment on the non elect, it corresponds to 2 Thess 2:10-11

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

God Justly reprobates the non elect !

 

[brightfame52]

atpollard

Just out of curiosity (as a friendly discussion), Do you have scripture that GOD blinded them?

Rom 11:7

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Jn 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Its obvious, even if you say the devil blinded them, the devil is merely doing Gods will.
God controls and sends demons to deceive people,
1 Kings 22:20ff
20 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.

21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

So God is active in hardening friend, Im surprised you even asked that question, do you believe in the Sovereignty of God over everyone ?

 

[GodsGrace]

Its a reply, just not the one you wanna accept. Your question is similar to the one Paul anticipated from people when he expounded the Sovereignty of God over people, observe Rom 9:17-22

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

So God does as He wills, all you doing is replying against God and asking why ? Because He wants to, if you dont like it tough sledding.

Ps 115:3

3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

A reply is not achieved by changing the subject.
Romans 9 is a different topic.

Changing the subject is not a reply.

Here's the same question put differently:

Noah.
God was sorry He made man and decided to destroy mankind except for Noah because he was right with God.

Let's dig a bit:

1. God gives a reason for the destruction, it is Not arbitrary. This makes the action just since God gave to everyone the same opportunity to be saved.

2. More important still:
In your Theology, God made man and predestinated his every action.

So those in the time of Noah were behaving as God predestined them to.

So why was God sorry they were behaving as HE predestined them to behave?

Again....
Makes no sense.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I don’t want to argue broad interpretations. The very existence of PARTICULAR and GENERAL Baptists within the same local church body indicates that it is not a hill that we should die on (or even break fellowship over). That said, I am always willing to discuss some scriptural point of minutiae that Brothers can see differently.

This whole issue about “no partiality with God” is one of those areas of minutiae worth discussing exegetically. Given the context of the verse immediately before it, “no partiality” means “Jews” (the Chosen Nation) over “gentiles” the rest of humanity not biologically descended from Jacob.

Outside of that specific context, God has demonstrated in scripture a REMARKABLE CAPACITY for showing partiality.

• Fallen Angels and Fallen Men … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were both treated equally?
• Isaac and Ishmael … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were both treated equally?
• Jacob and Esau … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were both treated equally?
• Pharaoh and Moses … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were both treated equally?
• David and His Brothers … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were both treated equally?
• Peter, John and the other 68 disciples (Jesus sent 70 disciples out in groups of 2) … can you honestly say that God showed no partiality, but they were all treated equally?

So when Romans 9 speaks of a Potter, Vessels of Honor and Vessels of Destruction … why would we assume that the POTTER treated all VESSELS with impartiality? I think the context makes this reference to God’s impartiality very specific: “SALVATION, It isn’t just for Jews any more.”

You made a good case, but I think it fails because it lacks a perspective that exists in scripture. Peter said election is conditioned on God's foreknowledge (1 Pet. 1:2). Paul says Election is not conditioned on what we are or do now (Rom. 9:11). The only way to resolve the paradox is to deduce there are two versions of reality, one that exists solely in the mind of God, the other the fallen realm that now exists. In the first God conditioned election on His foreknowledge, but in the second nothing existing now conditioned Election.

God's impartiality was in effect when God chose who would be elect, and who wouldn't be. If both groups are treated the same, then God's is impartial when it comes to salvation and all the examples of partiality come about because of God's plan, everyone must play a different role and it has nothing to do with partiality.

The unfallen version of reality exists only in the Mind of God, it came into existence when God began contemplating creation. All who would come into existence, were known to God, unfallen and completely Free to choose. Those who responded to God's love, with love were Elected. Those whose free will was to reject God's love, were not. Both had equal chance to love God who loved them first.

For more on this:

What if the Bible Teaches Both Predestination and Free Will? | End Time News

What if the Bible Teaches Both Predestination and Free Will? Scripture says divine election is conditioned "according to the foreknowledge of God" (1 Pt. 1:2): Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood...

endtimenews.net

 

[Alfred Persson]

Will Jesus have a literal sword sticking out of his mouth?
(most people don’t think so … but are surprisingly quick to insist that something else in the VISION that is Revelation is 100% literal. Any literal interpretation from Revelation just makes me nervous.) [I have little doubt this is a personal flaw, but humor me and don’t try and force me to “eat meat” contrary to my weak conscience.]

The OT has surprisingly little on ”life after death”. Most OT references end with ‘Sheol’ (the grave). Most OT references to blotting out a name are a poetic metaphor for dying and not even being remembered. So it seems less clear to me that:

1. A name can be added/erased from the list of those that will be saved (there are verses that suggest God determined WHO before God created Adam … and God does not change).
2. Those references which state “will not be blotted out” can be reversed to conclude “therefore some other names must be blotted out”. “Will not” means “will not”. Anything more is eisegesis, not exegesis.

[Which is not to say that Reformed Theology does not have some eisegesis of its own when it reads between the lines on certain verses that can be honestly interpreted either way - Limited Atonement is rife with this.]

Symbolic language is still the Word of God, and beneficial for doctrine. I did cite prose in the OT, that isn't classified as "symbolic" by most.

I can't overlook all the examples of God commanding everyone everywhere to repent. If the opportunity to do that isn't real, that reflects poorly on God.

I dislike anything that brings reproach upon God, causes Him to be hated "without cause."

Its one thing when evil people hate God because He is light, love, truth and Holy. Its quite another when God is hated because of a misunderstanding brought about by theologians who clearly manifest confirmation bias when they deploy eisegesis to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, every verse of scripture that contradicts their thesis.

 

[atpollard]

So God is active in hardening friend, Im surprised you even asked that question, do you believe in the Sovereignty of God over everyone ?

I am a strong proponent of the Sovereignty of God and an even stronger proponent of MONERGISM (preferering to focus more attention on Election than Reprobation since we are in the "Family Business" of spreading a message of "Good News" - HOPE and SALVATION for those living in bondage that God will show mercy on whomsoever He will show mercy ... nobody is beyond God's reach). With that said, I stand with the Baptist Confession in making a distinction between what God actively does as the First Cause and what God Sovereignty permits or restrains through secondary causes. God is God over both, but it is a distinction WITH a difference (imho ... and according to Scripture).

 

[atpollard]

Noah.
God was sorry He made man and decided to destroy mankind except for Noah because he was right with God.

Let's dig a bit:

1. God gives a reason for the destruction, it is Not arbitrary. This makes the action just since God gave to everyone the same opportunity to be saved.

How so?
Where does God give them (the generation of Noah) the same opportunity to be saved?

 

[atpollard]

Its one thing when evil people hate God because He is light, love, truth and Holy. Its quite another when God is hated because of a misunderstanding brought about by theologians who clearly manifest confirmation bias when they deploy eisegesis to suppress the truth in unrighteousness, every verse of scripture that contradicts their thesis.

Some day we will find an "honest theologian" who exegetes scripture with no presuppositions ... and everyone will hate what he has to say. ?
Until then, we are all imperfect people trying our best with unavoidable confirmation biases.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Some day we will find an "honest theologian" who exegetes scripture with no presuppositions

Not possible. To interpret the bible one must presuppose God exists, scripture is infallible, your mind is infallible, the verse you read is not all there is on the subject, yahda, yahda ..

 

[Alfred Persson]

Actually its in context. Those whom are not elected, who are not of the election of grace, are blinded, and its God who blinds them. Rom 11:7

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
The word blinded means :

1. to cover with a thick skin, to harden by covering with a callus
2. metaph.
   1. to make the heart dull
   2. to grow hard, callous, become dull, lose the power of understanding

Also its in the passive voice, meaning the subjects of the non elect were acted upon,
Its Gods Judgment on the non elect, it corresponds to 2 Thess 2:10-11

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

God Justly reprobates the non elect !

Yes, the Elect obtained it, but did the non-elect fall forever?

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (Rom. 11:7-12 KJV)

You see these verses, but can't acknowledge what they say because it contradicts the premise only the Elect can be saved.

Remove that premise, and read it again, and you must conclude the non-Elect stumbled, but did not fall into damnation. In fact, the fulness of them will be saved also.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Some day we will find an "honest theologian" who exegetes scripture with no presuppositions ... and everyone will hate what he has to say. ?
Until then, we are all imperfect people trying our best with unavoidable confirmation biases.

Confirmation bias is avoidable, with discipline. Like a scientist, don't generalize or ignore facts. Like assembling a puzzle, don't force pieces to fit or leave them out, and the correct picture will emerge.

Our reliance on Reformation scholars is odd, today we can search the scriptures in seconds what would have taken them months if not years.

With Logos10 your library will be electronic, everything searchable:

Logos | The Most Complete Bible Study Platform

Jump into Logos and experience the most powerful bible study platform that will equip you to go deeper into scripture so you will know the Word like never before.

www.logos.com

Free Bible software:

e-Sword: Free Bible Study for the PC

e-Sword is a feature rich and user friendly free Windows app with everything needed to study the Bible in an enjoyable and enriching manner!

www.e-sword.net

 

[atpollard]

Confirmation bias is avoidable, with discipline.

Not to be mean, but YOUR confirmation bias is as obvious to those that disagree with you as I am confident my bias is evident to my critics. I do not say this merely because we disagree on some point, but because our disagreement makes it obvious to me where YOU have added words or assumed connotations not explicit in the text.

As I said, I have no delusions that I am free from similar bias (and I am even aware of some of them). So I disagree with the idea that any human being can reach an objective conclusion untainted by personal experiences which form predispositions to certain points of view ... innate bias.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Not to be mean, but YOUR confirmation bias is as obvious to those that disagree with you as I am confident my bias is evident to my critics. I do not say this merely because we disagree on some point, but because our disagreement makes it obvious to me where YOU have added words or assumed connotations not explicit in the text.

As I said, I have no delusions that I am free from similar bias (and I am even aware of some of them). So I disagree with the idea that any human being can reach an objective conclusion untainted by personal experiences which form predispositions to certain points of view ... innate bias.

Christ said the "truth will set you free". Implied is the premise confirmation bias can be overcome, and the truth known.

We all have bias, that is correct. My bias is Scripture is 100% correct, Word of God. That often requires I rethink and correct a position. So if someone points out a verse that in context does contradict a position I hold, I will repent.

That hasn't happened here, yet. It could, but so far, no.

 

[atpollard]

Our reliance on Reformation scholars is odd

Just as a point of information ... it was the other way around for me. I came to Christianity from an atheist upbringing and Nihilist personal philosophy, was chosen by God and studied in a Wesleyan Holiness rooted "Church of God" Adult Sunday School and developed my theology by reading the Bible in an attempt to reconcile the "Prevenenient Grace" and "Free Will" that I was being taught with a radically Monergistic personal salvation experience [like Saul on the road to Damascus class MONERGISM]. I eventually reached 4 conclusions from Scripture that turned out to have counterparts in something called "Calvinism" [I never thought to ask who else Jesus died for ... it always seemed enough that He had died for me.] However, I figured out on my own that the bible and experience both affirm four truths:

1. People are no darn Good. (T of Tulip)
2. God does the saving. (I of TULIP)
3. Only God knows why He chooses who he chooses ... we SURE don't deserve it. (U of TULIP)
4. God finishes what God starts. (P of TULIP)

So I never read Calvin's Institutes and I only care about REFORMED THEOLOGY to see if it passes the SCRIPTURE and EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE test. I have no use for any theology that does not agree with the Jesus that I met or explain empirical REALITY.

 

[atpollard]

Christ said the "truth will set you free". Implied is the premise confirmation bias can be overcome, and the truth known.

We all have bias, that is correct. My bias is Scripture is 100% correct, Word of God. That often requires I rethink and correct a position. So if someone points out a verse that in context does contradict a position I hold, I will repent.

That hasn't happened here, yet. It could, but so far, no.

Try rereading this and see if you can spot your own bias making it say what you WANT it to say ...

12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (Rom. 11:7-12 KJV)

You see these verses, but can't acknowledge what they say because it contradicts the premise only the Elect can be saved.

Remove that premise, and read it again, and you must conclude the non-Elect stumbled, but did not fall into damnation. In fact, the fulness of them will be saved also.

If you need help, does your premise agree or disagree with Jesus teaching on the WIDE and NARROW roads?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Try rereading this and see if you can spot your own bias making it say what you WANT it to say ...



If you need help, does your premise agree or disagree with Jesus teaching on the WIDE and NARROW roads?

Reread the context of "the Narrow Road", few of Jesus' generation who ate and drank in His presence will be saved, but the redeemed will come from all four corners of the earth:

24 "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
25 "When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying,`Lord, Lord, open for us,' and He will answer and say to you,`I do not know you, where you are from,'
26 "then you will begin to say,`We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.'
27 "But He will say,`I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.'
28 "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.
29 "They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God.
(Lk. 13:24-29 NKJ)

Back to Romans, read it for yourself:

7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8 Just as it is written: "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day."
9 And David says: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, and bow down their back always."
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
(Rom. 11:7-12 NKJ)

The Elect obtained it, the rest of ISRAEL was blinded. "Have they stumbled that they should fall?" NO

Their fall made room for Gentiles, therefore ISRAEL'S FULNESS is riches for the world.

Therefore, the non Elect of Israel will be saved, the fulness of them (not all; all who are Israel)

 

[brightfame52]

atpollard

I am a strong proponent of the Sovereignty of God and an even stronger proponent of MONERGISM (preferering to focus more attention on Election than Reprobation since we are in the "Family Business" of spreading a message of "Good News" - HOPE and SALVATION for those living in bondage that God will show mercy on whomsoever He will show mercy ... nobody is beyond God's reach)

I think its an error not to focus on reprobation just as much as election. For Gods Reprobation Illustrates the Great Grace He gives His Elect, seeing that they by nature deserve the same reprobation. In fact thats why Paul mentions them together in Rom 9, the vessels of mercy being the elect, and vessels of wrath being the reprobate, observe:

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
By reprobating the non elect in Justice, God makes Known to who ? Why to the Elect Vessels of Mercy, that they may Glorify God for His Mercy.

Rom 15:9

And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
Again Gods reprobation makes manifest the the grace He gives in election Rom 11:7
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
In manifesting His Love to the Elect in Israel, God said Mal 1:1-3
The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.

2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob,

3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

That principle is articulated in Isaiah 43:3-4

3 For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

4 Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.
You get the point ? So you shouldnt shun the whole counsel of God in the Gospel of Gods Grace Acts 20:14-17
24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.

27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

nobody is beyond God's reach)

The reprobate are, even though we dont know who they are, they still exist in the counsel of God, they are rejected by God, whereas the elect are accepted in the Beloved.