All the ELECT please stand up

[Mjh29]

So basically then, God elects and loves the wicked, so that they will become the righteous? Do I understand you correctly?

God loves the elect. He chooses certain sinners to bestow His love upon, and chose them from the foundation of the world. By Chris't sacrificial atonement on their behalf, they are given Christ's righteousness as their own.

But what of the righteous who does wickedness, who's righteousness is not remembered.

The wicked cannot do righteousness, and the elect have only Christ's righteousness to cling to, not their own. Any righteousness that comes from them is

1.) Only "righteous" because it is presented with the blood of Christ
2.) It is a fruit of the spirit, not of themselves.

 

[SovereignGrace]

So basically then, God elects and loves the wicked, so that they will become the righteous? Do I understand you correctly?

Yes. They are imputed the Christ’s righteousness and stand before the Father clothed in this righteousness, and He sees them as if they had never sinned the first sin.

But what of the righteous who does wickedness, who's righteousness is not remembered.

I still say there was something different happening at that time.

Much love!

What verses do you have in mind that the righteous who do wicked acts and their righteousness is not remembered any more?

 

[Mjh29]

What verses do you have in mind that the righteous who do wicked acts and their righteousness is not remembered any more?

When we stand before the throne of God, I would much rather cling to the righteousness of Christ than any of my own righteousness I may have 'lost'

 

[marks]

God loves the elect. He chooses certain sinners to bestow His love upon, and chose them from the foundation of the world. By Chris't sacrificial atonement on their behalf, they are given Christ's righteousness as their own.

The wicked cannot do righteousness, and the elect have only Christ's righteousness to cling to, not their own. Any righteousness that comes from them is

1.) Only "righteous" because it is presented with the blood of Christ
2.) It is a fruit of the spirit, not of themselves.

Then this puts you out of step with Ezekiel, but this is a result of not seeing the distinction between OT and NT, it seems to me.

You look at the OT passages of God's love to define the New Testament application of that Love.

God's election of the Isrealites did not save them. God's love for the Isrealites, the reason for their election, did not save them.

God loved the Isrealites, and from His love for the Isrealites, elected the Isrealites, correct? Yet they died in the wilderness for the most part, worshipping idols.

But Ezekiel is clear in what it says, and we have to be able to account for it in our views.

Much love!

 

[Mjh29]

Then this puts you out of step with Ezekiel, but this is a result of not seeing the distinction between OT and NT, it seems to me.

You look at the OT passages of God's love to define the New Testament application of that Love.

God's election of Isreal did not save them. God's love for Israel, the reason for their election, did not save them.

God loved Israel, and from His love for Israel, elected Israel, correct? Yet they died in the wilderness for the most part, worshipping idols.

But Ezekiel is clear in what it says, and we have to be able to account for it in our views.

Much love!

You see a distinction in the way God loved in the OT and the way He loves in the NT? God never changes, so this cannot be the case. His love endures forever.

God's election of Israel is the general election of a people. His election of individuals is completely different. Individual election is the efficacious, irresistable call of God and His bestowal of love upon elect sinner.

God's election of Israel is called corporate election. We see this distinction is made when the NT says that "not all that are of Israel are Israel"

You confuse corporate and individual election.

 

[CNKW3]

I didn't say no one said that, I was giving the proof (post #261) in an indirect way that was asked for in the OP.

I don’t get it. You said..
“OK, so no one is elect?” Why did you start out with that question if nobody said “no one is elect”? Are you building a straw man?

 

[CNKW3]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,
And dung calling itself a rose, would squish between your feet.

That adds a lot to the discussion. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[marks]

You see a distinction in the way God loved in the OT and the way He loves in the NT? God never changes, so this cannot be the case. His love endures forever.

God's election of Israel is the general election of a people. His election of individuals is completely different. Individual election is the efficacious, irresistable call of God and His bestowal of love upon elect sinner.

God's election of Israel is called corporate election. We see this distinction is made when the NT says that "not all that are of Israel are Israel"

You confuse corporate and individual election.

Hi Mjh29,

I'd say we're discussing individual election, correct?

In the list of verses you posted, It seems to me only one of them actually connects God's love to His election, that being this one:

Deuteronomy 10:14-15: Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples as you are this day

Others speak of God's election, and there are a couple of places which tell us that God loves His chosen, but without speaking towards the reason for election in relation to God's love in any causal sense.

But in this verse, above, it says that God loved their fathers, and elected their offspring. Even set His heart in love on them and elected their offspring.

Now, this isn't saying God chose Israel, it's talking about fathers and descendants, so I'm seeing this as the actual children of Jacob. Offspring would be children. Of the fathers, so not Abraham per se, more than one, so we're still talking physical descendancy.

But I don't see any of these verses you've posted supporting your assertion that God loves His elect, doesn't love (loves with a low quality version love) the non-elect, and that He chose the elect because He chose to love them above the others.

Much love!

BTW . . . It occurs to me to ask, being a Christian, does that make you Israel?

 

[CNKW3]

"The Audience of Lord Jesus for John 14:16 and John 15:16 Are All Dicsiples In All Time Post" (in this thread) contains the Truth. CKNW has been confronted with the Word of God, and CKNW denies the Power of God.

The audience for those two verses were the twelve only. It was the last supper and nobody else was there. I don’t know what that thread said. It doesn’t matter because the Bible is clear. Show me where anyone else was at the last supper. You have all the answers so it shouldn’t be hard..

It appears that CKNW, according to CKNW's logic - which is truly illogic, it appears that CKNW claims that CKNW can choose Jesus that which Jesus said the Apostles could not do therefore CKNW considers CKNW more capable than the Apostles - according to CKNW illogic. CKNW's deceit condemns CKNW.

I have no idea what you just said.. must have been brilliant.

The Wonderful Lord Jesus says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16), and Jesus, Who is Lord, says "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever" (John 14:16), and Jesus, my Lord and my God, speaks these things to all His sheep of all time!

So when God told Noah to build an ark, was that for you to?
When God told Abraham to circumcise those of his house, was that you to?
When Jesus sent the twelve out in Mt 10 and said...go only to the lost sheep of Israel, was that for you too.
When Jesus kept telling Peter in Jn 21 to “feed my sheep” , was that for you to?
When Christ told the 11 in Acts 1 to wait in Jerusalem for the power of the spirit, was that for you to?
You can argue all you want but a 3rd grade student has more reading comprehension than you have.
There are basics to all Bible study..
Who is doing the speaking
Who is the audience
What is the context.
That is to be applied in every instance. Maybe you need to go back to seminary.

 

[CNKW3]

You deny the Word of God! It is no surprise that you would fight the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. You do not understand that believers can write of God's salvation, santification, and attributes. You arrogantly pontificate as if you know there were none that believed what is in the 1689 Baptist Confession prior to 1689, as if you are god in your own eyes!

"The Audience of Lord Jesus for John 14:16 and John 15:16 Are All Dicsiples In All Time Post" (in this thread) contains the Truth. CKNW has been confronted with the Word of God, and CKNW denies the Power of God.

Why wont anybody show me which church in the NT was a Baptist church? I don’t ever remember seeing the first baptist of Corinth at the beginning of Paul’s letters. When are you people going to learn? Just because you say I don’t know anything means absolutely NOTHING. You have plenty of opportunity through scripture to prove that I am wrong. There must be a Baptist church somewhere in the Bible. You can call me whatever you want but it doesn’t change the truth. People called Paul crazy and said he was part of a sect. That’s exactly what you people do to me. I consider it a badge of honor..consider it all joy..

 

[CNKW3]

Not one person has even tried to show me the Baptist church in the Bible.
They just like to talk negative about me. Like that changes the message.
That should speak loud and clear. When Christ built his church he did not build a Baptist church.
I can defend the church that Christ built. The church that belongs to him.
The church of Christ..
I can defend its designation
I can defend its organization
I can defend its operation
I can defend its doctrine that is taught.
Ex..The Methodist use women as preachers.. that did not exist in the church of Christ.
Nobody seems to think they can defend the Baptist or even the Methodist church through the use of scripture. That should speak loud and clear to those who have an open and receptive heart.

 

[Nancy]

The audience for those two verses were the twelve only. It was the last supper and nobody else was there. I don’t know what that thread said. It doesn’t matter because the Bible is clear. Show me where anyone else was at the last supper. You have all the answers so it shouldn’t be hard..


I have no idea what you just said.. must have been brilliant.



So when God told Noah to build an ark, was that for you to?
When God told Abraham to circumcise those of his house, was that you to?
When Jesus sent the twelve out in Mt 10 and said...go only to the lost sheep of Israel, was that for you too.
When Jesus kept telling Peter in Jn 21 to “feed my sheep” , was that for you to?
When Christ told the 11 in Acts 1 to wait in Jerusalem for the power of the spirit, was that for you to?
You can argue all you want but a 3rd grade student has more reading comprehension than you have.
There are basics to all Bible study..
Who is doing the speaking
Who is the audience
What is the context.
That is to be applied in every instance. Maybe you need to go back to seminary.

It's all elementary my dear CNKW3, right? lol.
Yep the basics, the milk...who, what, where when, before or after the cross, etc.
I think most on here are at least on the solid food? But, the "meat" is another story. Seems this is where many get caught up into arguments, perhaps...

 

[CNKW3]

It's all elementary my dear CNKW3, right? lol.
Yep the basics, the milk...who, what, where when, before or after the cross, etc.
I think most on here are at least on the solid food? But, the "meat" is another story. Seems this is where many get caught up into arguments, perhaps...

I agree with you. It shouldn’t be that difficult but it is when you care more about your position then what actual truth is. My mother is a Christian, my father is not. I have a sister who has been challenged for years and her response is...I would rather go to hell with my father then heaven with you. That is the feeling of most people in this world. Making a change of this magnitude is almost impossible. That is why the teaching of children is soooo important. Most will never change from what they learned in their youth. It’s just too hard.

 

[Enoch111]

Why wont anybody show me which church in the NT was a Baptist church?

Because the churches in the NT were apostolic churches. The funny thing is that Baptists were NOT originally a part of the Reformed Churches, but were outside those churches, and were even persecuted by the Reformers.

According to the History of the Baptists (Armitage) they tried to follow the pattern of the apostolic churches by insisting on believer's baptism and shunning man-made doctrines, but they did not necessarily call themselves "Baptists".

"It is totally unfair, if not completely dishonest, for modern day historians to reject those so-called “sects” prior to the sixteenth century Reformation as not being Baptists simply because they had no set of teachings upon which they all completely agreed, when Baptists today can certainly do no better. The truth is there is less agreement among so-called Baptists today than there was among these groups. In writing about Christianity and culture in this country in the South, Paul Gillespie edits a book in which he says, “The Baptists were everywhere, in all kinds of churches with diverse doctrines and varying practices...

If modern Baptist historians want to identify themselves as Protestants let them so declare themselves, but don’t corrupt the heritage of Baptists by attempting to make us all wear the denominational title and cut us loose from these real Baptists who died by the millions in defense of our heritage before the Protestant Reformation was ever born..."
Baptists and the Rewriting of History

But then they started adopting the ways of the Reformed Churches, and even adopted Reformed Theology. Hence The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (which is almost identical to the Westminster Confession of Fath) And today far too many Baptist churches have failed to maintain their convictions. To the best of my knowledge the majority of Baptists are NOT Calvinists.

 

[CNKW3]

Because the churches in the NT were apostolic churches. The funny thing is that Baptists were NOT originally a part of the Reformed Churches, but were outside those churches, and were even persecuted by the Reformers.

According to the History of the Baptists (Armitage) they tried to follow the pattern of the apostolic churches by insisting on believer's baptism and shunning man-made doctrines, but they did not necessarily call themselves "Baptists".

"It is totally unfair, if not completely dishonest, for modern day historians to reject those so-called “sects” prior to the sixteenth century Reformation as not being Baptists simply because they had no set of teachings upon which they all completely agreed, when Baptists today can certainly do no better. The truth is there is less agreement among so-called Baptists today than there was among these groups. In writing about Christianity and culture in this country in the South, Paul Gillespie edits a book in which he says, “The Baptists were everywhere, in all kinds of churches with diverse doctrines and varying practices...

If modern Baptist historians want to identify themselves as Protestants let them so declare themselves, but don’t corrupt the heritage of Baptists by attempting to make us all wear the denominational title and cut us loose from these real Baptists who died by the millions in defense of our heritage before the Protestant Reformation was ever born..."
Baptists and the Rewriting of History

But then they started adopting the ways of the Reformed Churches, and even adopted Reformed Theology. Hence The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (which is almost identical to the Westminster Confession of Fath) And today far too many Baptist churches have failed to maintain their convictions. To the best of my knowledge the majority of Baptists are NOT Calvinists.

There is no such thing as a “baptist” before 1600. And this post is void of any scripture. That’s because baptist did not exist in the first century. I will concede that early baptist did not use instruments in their worship service but that has been long corrupted to where now all do it. There were no musical instruments of worship in the first century. That did not come along for at least a couple hundred more years.

 

[CNKW3]

Because the churches in the NT were apostolic churches.

The churches in the NT were called..
Churches of Christ Rom 16:16.
Most early churches were started by Paul and others but they were still churches that belonged to Christ. Read 1 Cor 1. Paul did not want his name any where near it.

 

[farouk]

There is no such thing as a “baptist” before 1600. And this post is void of any scripture. That’s because baptist did not exist in the first century. I will concede that early baptist did not use instruments in their worship service but that has been long corrupted to where now all do it. There were no musical instruments of worship in the first century. That did not come along for at least a couple hundred more years.

The word baptist means dipper. The word in Greek means dip.

 

[CNKW3]

The word baptist means dipper. The word in Greek means dip.

Yes. Why anyone would want to designate themselves after a dipping action is beyond me. The ironic thing about baptist is....they don’t even believe baptism has anything to do with salvation. So let’s be designated after something that doesn’t even matter.

 

[farouk]

Yes. Why anyone would want to designate themselves after a dipping action is beyond me. The ironic thing about baptist is....they don’t even believe baptism has anything to do with salvation. So let’s be designated after something that doesn’t even matter.

Well, I believe it is a symbol. Conversion/the new birth occurs before the symbol of baptism, which is as a confession of one's already existing faith. Acts 2.41-42.

I am now going to post on another thread, probably.

 

[Enoch111]

There is no such thing as a “baptist” before 1600. And this post is void of any scripture.

Well we were discussing church history, not Bible exposition.

1. I already told you that those churches in the NT were "apostolic churches". They are called churches of Christ, churches of God, or simply churches. It makes no difference. They were assemblies of Christians.

2. Before the Reformation, Christians who were following the NT pattern, simply called themselves Christians, not "Baptists" or "Ana-baptists".

3. The Reformers all came out of the Catholic church and practiced infant baptism. Therefore they were persecuting and killing those who opposed infant baptism.

4. Those who rejected infant baptism baptized only adult believers. The Reformers called them "Ana-Baptists" or "Re-baptizers" because they re-baptized those who had been baptized as infants.

5. The Baptists arose at that times because they were like the Ana-Baptists in that they believed strictly in believer's baptism, but had some doctrines which were not identical.