Who are the Elect?

TedT said:

Ahhh, now we know...

Click to expand...

I mean no insult. Nor is it intended as an attack on those who believe such things. But the truth needs to be stated, any doctrine that undermines the love which God has for the world is a doctrine that is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

There is christians who say, you can’t be saved if you haven’t being baptized by water.. well, that is not true.
Jesus is the one who baptizes us...
And we have Holy Spirit and fire.

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”

Matthew 3:11

Praise Jesus.

MMXX said:

Are the elect all those chosen by God to receive salvation?

Or are the elect only those chosen by God to serve a certain purpose, mission, ministry?

Click to expand...

I believe the "elect" are just the Christians left at the end.

Sunshinee777 said:

There is christians who say, you can’t be saved if you haven’t being baptized by water.. well, that is not true.
Jesus is the one who baptizes us...
And we have Holy Spirit and fire.

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:”

Matthew 3:11

Praise Jesus.

Click to expand...

You might be surprised to learn that the overwhelming majority of Christians who accept the historic teaching of baptismal regeneration actually don't believe that a person can't be saved apart from baptism.

Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, etc all believe that Baptism is the ordinary means by which God works to give us faith and bring the saving work of Jesus by His death and resurrection into our lives. To work new birth, grace, and salvation by the work of Christ alone.

None of those aforementioned churches believe that without baptism it is impossible for a person to be saved. Our view of God's grace and the power and work of His salvation is a lot bigger than that.

Before I was a Lutheran I was quite surprised to discover this, as I had been taught that Catholics believed that we are saved by our works, and that those works included things like Baptism. But, of course, that simply isn't what Catholics believe, and it's not what the Orthodox believe, nor is it what Lutherans believe.

Lutherans believe in salvation by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, on Christ's account Alone. Salvation cannot be accomplished by human works and effort--our will, our works, our efforts can't earn us salvation. That's why we believe that salvation is only by God's grace, only through faith, and only on Christ's account.

It's actually because we believe that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, and on Christ's account alone that we say that God works to save us through "Means". In other words, salvation isn't something invisible that just spontaneously happens in some people, God is actually the One who is at work converting people, giving and working faith in them.

Since we aren't saved by our works, then to teach that we must come to God by our own power, act or choice of will, is saying that we are saved by our works. A work, as defined in the Greek of the New Testament, is anything that is done. If you do something, then it is your work; if God does something, it is God's work.

So even if you are making a decision to follow Jesus then that is a work, an act of your will, something you do. Am I saved by my own work of my human will, or am I saved by the work of God--by His grace alone?

Lutherans answer that it is by God's grace alone. I contribute nothing, not even my "yes" to Jesus.

So salvation does not arise from my works, but is entirely the work of God alone. And God works through things. There are "Means"; for example the Scriptures say that God's word is powerful and efficacious. The Prophet Isaiah says in Isaiah 55:11 that God's word never returns to Him void, but rather it accomplishes the thing He sets it out to accomplish. What is the purpose of the preaching of the Gospel? Well, Paul tells us in Romans 1:16 that "it is the power of God to save all who believe". In Romans 10:17 we are told that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ".

The purpose Jesus Christ told His Church to preach the Gospel is because the Gospel is not a dead word, but a living one, as God's word is "living and active, sharper than a two edged sword". So the preaching of the Gospel actually results in people coming to faith, it results in conversion, it results in people being saved. It does this because the Gospel actually accomplishes what it promises. The Gospel declares the forgiveness of sins, and actually renders that forgiveness real, through faith; faith which God Himself gives through the same power of His Gospel, of His word.

But if we read our New Testament seriously, we'll see that Jesus called and commanded His Church not only to preach the Gospel, but also to baptize the nations in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. We see, just like the preaching of the Gospel, that Baptism is one of the Means God has given by which to work grace, to give us faith, to declare us righteous and forgiven of our sins.

How is it possible that getting wet with water could do this? Well, water can't do this, and our Lord Jesus says, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Jesus took mud and spit and made a blind man see. Because it's not about the water, or the mud, or the spit, it's once again about God's word. It is the word that gives faith, the word which declares us righteous and forgives us, appropriating Christ's perfect, finished work upon us by which we are justified and reconciled to God.

It isn't the water, it's the word. The word which God has attached to, and connected to water, in the context of Baptism. Without the word, it's just getting wet.

How can we know that God's word is attached to this water? Because the Scriptures say so quite plainly. In Ephesians 5:26 St. Paul writes that Jesus Christ cleansed His Church "by the washing of water with the word". Also, the Lord Jesus Himself tells us in John 3:5 that we are born anew of God by the new birth of "water and the Spirit". Paul echoes the Lord's words here when writing in Titus 3:5 that "He saved us, not because of works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of new birth and renewal of the Holy Spirit."

So what sorts of promises are attached to Baptism? Well, that's simple as seeing what the Bible says.

In Acts 2:38 we read that Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and the receiving of the Holy Spirit.
In Romans 6:3-4 we read that by Baptism we have died, been buried, and raised up with Christ.
Colossians 2:12-13 says the same.
In Galatians 3:27 we read that we have been clothed with Jesus Himself in Baptism.

Does water do that? No, of course not. But Baptism does, because it's not about the water, but about the word--the word God attaches to the water in Baptism.

And, again, it shouldn't be strange to find that God uses ordinary things like water. Didn't God have Moses strike a rock and cause water to flow? Didn't God have a bronze serpent set up that all who gazed upon it would be healed of snake bite? Didn't God use the waters of the flood as judgment over the world? Didn't God use water to give safe passage to the Israelites to escape the Egyptians? Did not God cause a donkey to speak? Did He not use fire to show forth His power to the three companions of Daniel in the fiery furnace? Was not Naaman healed of his leprosy when he dipped three times in the river? Did not Jesus use mud and spit to heal the blind. Did not the woman who was found with a blood issue find healing when she touched the linen that clothed Jesus' body?

Throughout the Bible, over and over again, we see God doing incredible things through ordinary means. Is it that hard to conceive that God is still the same God. He has not promised us all that we'll have our blind healed by a mixture of mud and spit; but He has promised that all who are baptized belong to Him, by the power of His own grace. Saving us by His means, not our means; His works, not our works.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

So even if you are making a decision to follow Jesus then that is a work, an act of your will, something you do. Am I saved by my own work of my human will, or am I saved by the work of God--by His grace alone?

Click to expand...

This is the only part I disagree with you.
We don’t really choose, not our own will.. we are predestinated to be led by God to accept Jesus as our saviour. God chose these people before the beginning of the world.

What I meant in my post was that it makes me very sad that there is certain christians making people believe they are not saved without waterbaptizm because that is not the truth. They try to diminish the belief in God in those people. (That must be more than abomination to God) They try to make them fall from grace.
When a person is born again in Christ and believes he is saved, nobody has right to come and claim he is not saved. That is absolutely disgraseful. That was the only reason for my post, to encourage those people who know they are saved, without waterbaptizm.
I want to say to those people that don’t believe those discouraging people, you are completely saved.

Sunshinee777 said:

This is the only part I disagree with you.
We don’t really choose, not our own will.. we are predestinated to be led by God to accept Jesus as our saviour. God chose these people before the beginning of the world.

What I meant in my post was that it makes me very sad that there is certain christians making people believe they are not saved without waterbaptizm because that is not the truth. They try to diminish the belief in God in those people. (That must be more than abomination to God) They try to make them fall from grace.
When a person is born again in Christ and believes he is saved, nobody has right to come and claim he is not saved. That is absolutely disgraseful. That was the only reason for my post, to encourage those people who know they are saved, without waterbaptizm.
I want to say to those people that don’t believe those discouraging people, you are completely saved.

Click to expand...

But you won't really be finding those people telling others that they aren't saved if they haven't been baptized; but what you will find is Christians saying that baptism is necessary but not absolutely necessary: There's no good reason for a professing Christian to not have received Baptism outside of literally being unable to be baptized due to extraordinary circumstances, like in certain cases of early Christian martyrs involving catechumens who were imprisoned or killed before they could receive Baptism.

The historic Christian position is that those catechumens who received a martyr's death before receiving Holy Baptism are nevertheless saved. For Lutherans it's the power of the word that works and creates faith, so the Catechumen who dies without Baptism still has faith because of the Gospel they have heard and believed, no less saved than the baptized (because it's the same saving word of God). It's also why Martin Luther argued that it is entirely possible for children who died in miscarriage, childbirth, or before being baptized should not be regarded as having died without faith.

Because we are to trust in the power of the Gospel, the power of God's word to create and work faith, even in our children, even in those who lack healthy reasoning faculties, even in those who suffer from severe learning disabilities, among the very young and the very old.

The ordered Means is Word and Sacrament: We preach the Gospel and we baptize, making disciples of all nations, and God works through this Means to bring faith, to convert unbelieving sinners into forgiven sinners and children of God, heirs of the inheritance of eternal and everlasting life in Christ.

Baptism is the mark and seal of God on a person, God stamps us with His Name, that is why we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit; and it is done in the name and the authority of Jesus Christ. It is the stamp and seal of our salvation. Does that mean we can't be saved apart from Baptism? Of course not; but it does mean that not getting baptized is, at best, highly questionable.

The danger here is not that the person can't be saved unless they have received the Sacrament of Holy Baptism; the danger is in setting aside the gift and works of God as though they aren't what matter, and placing the emphasis on the abilities, feelings, and thoughts of man.

When I look to myself, rather than to God's manifest, visible, and audible word for the assurance and hope of my salvation.

I can say that I belong to Jesus because I've been baptized.
I can say that I have been born again because I've been baptized.

I don't have to look at my own words, my own works, my own thoughts, or my own feelings--which are fickle and full of sin and failure--I can look to God's indelible, perfect, and irrevocable promises which are mine in Christ, by His word.

I was raised in a church tradition that didn't put much emphasis on Baptism, as such, while I've been a Christian my entire life--there's never been a time in my life when I haven't believed in Jesus--I didn't receive Baptism until I was 17 years old.

Do I think I lacked salvation before Baptism? No.
Do I think I became "more saved" when I received Baptism? No.

But I still look to my baptism and see there all of God's word and promises. I can stand boldly before God's throne of grace because I stand as a baptized child of God, in Christ, before the Father.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

The danger here is not that the person can't be saved unless they have received the Sacrament of Holy Baptism; the danger is in setting aside the gift and works of God as though they aren't what matter, and placing the emphasis on the abilities, feelings, and thoughts of man.

Click to expand...

The firebaptism of Jesus (meeting Jesus personally) is not ”placing emphasis on the abilities, feelings or thoughts of a man” it’s actual real encounter with Jesus. Being born again. There is no higher baptism than that. Im not saying waterbaptism is not important though. I personally want to be baptised but never found the right church. And I want real baptism, the immersion in water not just like sprinkling of water. I was baptised in lutheran church when I was baby but I think immersion is the right waterbaptism what bible is teaching.

Sunshinee777 said:

The firebaptism of Jesus (meeting Jesus personally) is not ”placing emphasis on the abilities, feelings or thoughts of a man” it’s actual real encounter with Jesus. Being born again. There is no higher baptism than that. Im not saying waterbaptism is not important though. I personally want to be baptised but never found the right church. And I want real baptism, the immersion in water not just like sprinkling of water. I was baptised in lutheran church when I was baby but I think immersion is the right waterbaptism what bible is teaching.

Click to expand...

We aren't particularly clear about what John meant with "with fire" when he says that Jesus will baptize "with the Holy Spirit and with fire". Given that the baptism with the Holy Spirit mentioned is pretty obviously the pouring out of the Spirit on Pentecost it would make sense then that the fire mentioned aligns with the presence of the "tongues of fire" that accompanied the outpouring of the Spirit. Another possible interpretation is that this speaks here of the fire of persecution or tribulation, a "baptism of fire" in the sufferings of this world.

I am curious: Why do you think God cares about the mode of baptism? Even if full immersion was normative, why would God's promises be nullified simply on the basis of how much of our body was exposed to water?

And that's the historical reality, full immersion (specifically three-fold full immersion) was the normative mode of baptism in the ancient Church, and that's still how the Eastern Churches baptize--including of infants. But the Church has, and this is easily demonstrated historically, always accepted that pouring or another application of water upon the head is no less valid. And this is simply because it was not always possible to baptize using full immersion. If all that is available is a small cup of water, and pouring it over the head, then that is Holy Baptism.

Because it's not the quantity of water, it's not how wet a person gets, it's about God connecting His word with the water and accomplishing His good work, His grace.

Baptism isn't about getting wet. It's about getting Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

We aren't particularly clear about what John meant with "with fire" when he says that Jesus will baptize "with the Holy Spirit and with fire". Given that the baptism with the Holy Spirit mentioned is pretty obviously the pouring out of the Spirit on Pentecost it would make sense then that the fire mentioned aligns with the presence of the "tongues of fire" that accompanied the outpouring of the Spirit. Another possible interpretation is that this speaks here of the fire of persecution or tribulation, a "baptism of fire" in the sufferings of this world.

I am curious: Why do you think God cares about the mode of baptism? Even if full immersion was normative, why would God's promises be nullified simply on the basis of how much of our body was exposed to water?

And that's the historical reality, full immersion (specifically three-fold full immersion) was the normative mode of baptism in the ancient Church, and that's still how the Eastern Churches baptize--including of infants. But the Church has, and this is easily demonstrated historically, always accepted that pouring or another application of water upon the head is no less valid. And this is simply because it was not always possible to baptize using full immersion. If all that is available is a small cup of water, and pouring it over the head, then that is Holy Baptism.

Because it's not the quantity of water, it's not how wet a person gets, it's about God connecting His word with the water and accomplishing His good work, His grace.

Baptism isn't about getting wet. It's about getting Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Baptism is about immersion. Not sprinkling.

If you are baptised by fire, you know what it is. It’s not theology, it’s experiencing your new birth in Jesus. Receiving Holy Spirit. It is powerful experience.

Sunshinee777 said:

Baptism is about immersion. Not sprinkling.

Click to expand...

In Greek the word simply refers to washing. We know that immersion was normative because that's what Christians outside of the New Testament tell us. But the Bible itself never proscribes a mode of Baptism.

If you are baptised by fire, you know what it is. It’s not theology, it’s experiencing your new birth in Jesus. Receiving Holy Spirit. It is powerful experience.

Click to expand...

I would argue quite strongly that tying our new birth to a "powerful experience" is inherently dangerous and bad theology. We don't rely on personal feelings and spiritual experiences, we rely on the truth of God's word, of His promises.

I am born again because I'm a baptized, believing Christian. Because God promises me new birth, regeneration, as His own work of grace.

I have received the Holy Spirit because that's what God's word tells me, not because of an experience I've had. God promises the Holy Spirit to all of the baptized, to all who have faith and believe. It's not a powerful experience, it's the work and gift of God.

Some people do have dramatic conversion experiences, take St. Paul for example. But for the overwhelming majority of Christians that's not the case, nor has it been historically.

The way that a lot of Christians talk about being "born again" would be very foreign to any Christian you spoke to before the 19th or 20th centuries. If you traveled back in time five hundred years and asked someone if they were born again, they'd probably a funny look on their face, and they'd say, "Of course, I'm a baptized Christian". And if you went back 1,000 years, or 1,500 years, or 2,000 years, you'd get the same response.

It's not about having an experience of Jesus. It's about the Gospel and the objective truth of our salvation that's found in Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

MMXX said:

Are the elect all those chosen by God to receive salvation?

Or are the elect only those chosen by God to serve a certain purpose, mission, ministry?

Click to expand...

God's elect is Israel.

Butch5 said:

God's elect is Israel.

Click to expand...

GOD's elect are His sheep, some of whom went astray.
GOD's elect are His good seed, some of whom sinned.

TedT said:

GOD's elect are His sheep, some of whom went astray.
GOD's elect are His good seed, some of whom sinned.

Click to expand...

The Bible says Israel is God's elect.

Butch5 said:

The Bible says Israel is God's elect.

Click to expand...

Is Colossians, for instance, only written to Israel?

Hammster said:

Is Colossians, for instance, only written to Israel?

Click to expand...

No, why do you ask?

.

Butch5 said:

No, why do you ask?

Click to expand...

So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;
— Colossians 3:12

What did Calvin teach about knowing whether one was amongst the Elect?

Butch5 said:

The Bible says Israel is God's elect.

Click to expand...

Romans 9:6 For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

Romans 2:28
A man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical.

Romans 2:28,29
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: …

And those who are of Israel but are not Jews are also the elect of GOD. All sinful elect can be called Israel, Christian, the sheep gone astray, the sinful good seed. These are just worldly names, not definitions and all are within the two great definitions of His sinful people on the earth, the elect and the people, sons, of the kingdom He sows into the world, Matt 13:36-39.

Hammster said:

So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;
— Colossians 3:12

Click to expand...

There are two ways we can go with this. It says, "as those" This indicates a comparison between two things. Here we have the Colossians and those who have been chosen. He could be telling the Colossians to do as the elect have done.

However, if one insists that Paul is calling the Colossians elect, it still fits with what I said. Paul is addressing believers. Believers have been grafted into Israel, so they would be part of the elect, Israel.

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. (Rom. 11:13-21 KJV)