What does it mean for the Jews to be God's chosen people? How does this affect them in terms of their salvation and their ultimate fate as a cohesive group?

The Jews were selected by God for His own reasons, but He picked them and made a covenant with Abraham stipulating that because of His selection of them they would receive direct blessings from God, and that nations would be blessed or cursed based upon their treatment of the Jews. For contemporary times I believe that this Promise is still in effect, however, with regards to salvation, there is only one way to salvation and that is through Christ. And if the only way to God is through Christ, and the Jews reject Christ as the Messiah, well...you do the math.

As to their ultimate fate I think it's clear that the dispersal of the Jewish people is over and they have set up shop in their old stomping grounds. I firmly believe that God will never abandon the Jews but He will use them to glorify Christ. Romans 11 is pretty clear that the Jewish people's large rejection of Christ is brought about by their hearts being hardened by God, and when the Gentiles embraced Christ the Jewish people became by default one of their most ardent opponents. This continues to this day (and as I've said earlier, there are many reasons I cannot blame them for it) and will continue until God opens their eyes to the Truth. This is promised at some time for the future (presumably near the End) but for the time being it's important to realize that that covenant with Abraham was never rescinded and is still quite in place.

God's plan can not fail. But we can fail to implement God's plan. If someone called to fulfill God's plan fails to live up to their responsibilities, God will find someone else to fulfill that responsibility.

Good point. And it reminds me of God replacing Moses with Joshua, Elijah with Elisha, etc. If someone drops the baton in the Great Race, God will find someone else to pick it up.

Sty: okay. And you're not a sty in this thread, at least not in my eyes.

I rather think that the biblical illustration supports the “designed to involve an audience” concept. We are all watching each other, while at the same time participating, right? And God, while I agree that He is worshipping Himself, is also the Audience, receiving the worship. So there IS an Audience made up of God and each other.

Good point. Thanks.

Sorry for dropping out so much, guys. I'm just getting over a bout of the flu.

Glad you're recovering.

In case anyone's interested, I've decided to join the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. Hope it works out.

I don't know much about this denomination. Maybe you can educate me. I hope it works out, too. The most important thing about whatever denomination and local church you join is that they preach, teach, and live the Word.

Two questions, sparked by a topic I saw zooming by....

LOL! Sorry I can't answer your questions right now. Too late at night for my brain to function.

More information can be found here. But I'm sure quite a bit of it will come up in the course of this thread.

Dr. R, you might recall that I posted a link in my post on the previous page which I feel explains God’s secret and revealed wills...which link might be useful to those considering your post...

Did anyone else read that? Just for reference, here is the link again (fixed just a little):

God's Secret and Revealed Will

Read it. Read it. Please read it! Unless someone has read that and can provide a convincing rebuttal, no “yes but”-ting of the Gospel or questions — even sincere pleading ones — of “if you believe God is sovereign in salvation, then you won’t be motivated to witness to people!” will be effective on informed Reformed folks.

Meanwhile, perspicacity, it’s great to see you back again! I hope you didn’t have the “swine flu,” or H1N1, but I suppose if you’re getting over it now, the exact type doesn’t matter much. Apparently because this is not normally the season for “regular” flu, there’s a 99 percent chance that if you have the flu now, it’s H1N1. Fun and games.

Wowwww. I just re-read your material about the madness man-centered evangelism can bring. So true, regrettably so. This is a mindset I was glad to escape. Although I didn’t consciously subscribe to this way of thinking, in the past it has always been there, nagging. If you don’t say just the right thing, this person won’t get saved and it could be All Your Fault.

Since gaining confidence in God to save, not myself to provide persuasive rebuttals, apologetics evidence, a perfectly holy example, offers of 24/7 hospitality, cash donations, colorful illustrated tracts, an M.Div in Old Testament, or whiz-bang church programs, I am more apt to witness!

The only thing I would add is that the imbalanced, man-centered view of evangelism not only leads to compromise and silent manipulation in relationships with people and perhaps desperation to make them Make a Decision, it also leads to a lot of lame evangelical church programs, “art” and fiction attempts. I’m talking here about youth group leaders who do gross stunts to try to Reach the Youth, or Christian speakers of songwriters who want to pull on heartstrings using any emotionally manipulative tricks they can, or novelists who write yet another story meant to be more of yet another Salvation Allegory (to make someone Get It at Last) than an original, God-glorifying story.

Meanwhile, The Black Glove and someone else aren’t around yet, so let me try to answer this ...

Dr Elwin Ransom or the Black Glove or Anyone Else, I Suppose: what is the connection, if any, between entry into the New Covenant and salvation? If there is a correlation, what are the implications for (e.g.) baptism? If there is not a correlation, does the phrase ‘entry into the New Covenant’ have any meaning.

First I’ll try to answer it in a sense we could all agree on, because TBG, as a Presbyterian (they baptize babies), would likely have a slightly different view than me (a believers’-baptism guy).

A person’s “entry” into the New Covenant, in one sense, was always predestined (Romans 8) by God. But the person doesn’t technically become “saved” until he/she has a clear understanding of his own sin, sincere repentance and faith in Christ as the only One Who can save and sanctify.

Some theologians (whether Reformed or more likely free-willie) try to break down the process into a chronological line, but I would suggest repentance, faith and entry into the New Covenant are truly simultaneous with the God-enabled human response to His saving call (not the general call to repent, which may or may not “work”; I mean the deeper Effectual Call that works every time).

Now for the part that TBG and I might disagree about:

Does the New Covenant just mean, “Well, golly, we think they’re elect...”

I think for Presbyterians (Lutherans too?), that is pretty much the mindset. The children of Christian parents are thus baptized in Presbyterian churches to signify their being a part of the Covenant. However, good Presbyterians — I am quite sure — do not believe this baptism will save the child, if he grows older and consciously reject the Gospel. If the person does believe the Gospel, then that baptism counts; they don’t baptize again as an adult believer. (Do you Presbyterians believe a baptized infant almost inevitably will become a respondent to the Gospel, TBG?)

Complicating things is some idea called The Federal Vision. According to Doug Wilson (according to James White, a Reformed Baptist who debated him) does have a person who was baptized as an infant be part of the New Covenant, yet if he is not professing faith, he is living outside the New Covenant. ...

Yeah. I don’t get it all either, myself; that’s why I’m still checking into it. At first I thought it was only about fathers serving unhealthily almost like “priests” in their families; maybe that’s a related notion.

What paedo-baptizers (baby baptisms — Presbyterians and the like) and credo-baptizers (believers’ baptisms — Baptists, Reformed Baptists and such) can agree is that baptism itself does not save. “Baptismal regeneration” is a false teaching. It is a symbol of salvation, not salvation itself. While God is sovereign, He does require a human response: repentance, confession and faith in Him to save. But it is still He Who gets sole credit for the very faith a rebel sinner exercises to turn to Him (Ephesians 2: 8-9).

EDIT: Based on what I have read, it seems the Lutherans agree (I will insert some paragraph breaks only for clarity and to make reading easier):

36. Accordingly we reject as an anti-Scriptural error the doctrine that not alone the grace of God and the merit of Christ are the cause of the election of grace, but that God has, in addition, found or regarded something good in us which prompted or caused Him to elect us, this being variously designated as "good works," "right conduct," "proper self-determination," "refraining from willful resistance," etc.

Nor does Holy Scripture know of an election "by foreseen faith," "in view of faith," as though the faith of the elect were to be placed before their election; but according to Scripture the faith which the elect have in time belongs to the spiritual blessings with which God has endowed them by His eternal election. For Scripture teaches Acts 13 "And as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed."

Our Lutheran Confession also testifies (Triglot, p. 1065, Paragraph 8; M. p. 705): "The eternal election of God however, not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what pertains thereto; and upon this our salvation is so founded that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, Matt. 16:18, as is written John 10 `Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand'; and again, Acts 13 `And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.."'

Well, no, they don't agree. Not really. Their view is a little nuanced:

Although God is present and operates everywhere throughout all creation and the whole earth is therefore full of the temporal bounties and blessings of God, Col. 1:17; Acts 17:28; 14:17, still we hold with Scripture that God offers and communicates to men the spiritual blessings purchased by Christ, namely, the forgiveness of sins and the treasures and gifts connected therewith, only through the external means of grace ordained by Him.

These means of grace are the Word of the Gospel, in every form in which it is brought to man, and the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and of the Lord's Supper. The Word of the gospel promises and applies the grace of God, works faith and thus regenerates man, and gives the Holy Ghost, Acts 20:24; Rom. 10:17; 1 Pet. 1:23; Gal. 3:2. Baptism, too, is applied for the remission of sins and is therefore a washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Acts 2:38; 22:16; Titus 3:5. Likewise the object of the Lord's Supper, that is, of the ministration of the body and blood of Christ, is none other than the communication and sealing of the forgiveness of sins, as the words declare: "Given for you," and: "Shed for you for the remission of sins," Luke 22:19, 20; Matt. 26:28, and "This cup is the New Testament in My blood," 1 Cor. 11:23; Jer. 31:31-34 ("New Covenant").

In other words, Lutherans view the Words and the Sacraments as both means of grace, things through which the Holy Spirit acts to change the sinner and grant them the gift of faith. But just as nobody is automatically saved just by hearing the Gospel (though that'd be nice), nobody is guaranteed salvation by virtue of their baptism. Faith must be present or it's all for naught.

14. As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man's non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost. Hos. 13:9.

Brings up some interesting questions, for sure...

Shadowlander and Gandalf: I have to make a huge apology! While reading Revelation for references to time [see my "time travel" thread ] I discovered the following verse:

Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him and they also which pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Cross-reference = Zechariah 12:10-14. So you two were right all along.

Remember our idols / Romans 14 discussion? I also came across this verse:
"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols" [Rev 2]. Context: church in Thyatira.

And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

So, your thoughts?

(In the voice of Dr. Archibald Asparagus) "I'm confused!"

220, the "spirit of Jezebel" was tempting the church's members to indulge in actual idol-worship and immorality. How does that Revelation 2 text relate to the Romans 14 discussion? I'm sincerely wondering, and I only say this next because I'm guessing the reason you brought it up ...

Again, that discussion wasn't about whether believers should tolerate actual idol worship or taking part in actual sin. It was about whether believers are free to eat meat that was sacrificed to idols -- in other words, a disputable matter that was not an intrinsically sinful action. A similar thing today would be whether to celebrate a holiday, dye one's hair, go to a movie, or enjoy a certain musical style (even in church). On such things believers are free to disagree, so long as God is being glorified and true unity being preserved.

Recently a similar topic came up in a certain chat room in which I participated: a certain fantasy book series that some Christians shun and some Christians like a lot ('cause they claim it's full of Allegories, so that makes them okay!).

Other Christians, such as myself, enjoy those books for entertainment and because they are very well-done, but don't want to abuse that freedom to yell or snark at the people who genuinely have spiritual issues with books like this or would be tempted to compromise. However, I would want to remind the people who don't have legitimate issues, but are instead ill-informed, of the truths in Romans 14. That's the sort of thing we were talking about before: again, not actual sin issues, but disputable matters.

I know I'm not TBG, but I'm going to try to quickly explain Presbyterian beliefs about infant baptism. I'm going to be answering more on a 'personal' basis than on a 'general' basis, if that makes sense. And I'm rather rustier on theology than I should be, I'm rather afraid.

The children of Christian parents are thus baptized in Presbyterian churches to signify their being a part of the Covenant. However, good Presbyterians — I am quite sure — do not believe this baptism will save the child, if he grows older and consciously reject the Gospel. If the person does believe the Gospel, then that baptism counts; they don’t baptize again as an adult believer. (Do you Presbyterians believe a baptized infant almost inevitably will become a respondent to the Gospel, TBG?)

No, we do not believe that baptism saves. We believe that baptism is a sign of the Covenant, and that believing parents, by baptizing their children, are showing their faith and trust in God that He will work in their children and bring them to saving faith. I can see how it would be tempting to say, "Oh, I baptized my kid and they'll be okay. I don't need to teach them about God or pray for them or anything" and I'm sure there are people who do that. But it's not a light thing to baptize a child (or even an adult, I'm sure). In my church, when the parents have their child baptize, they take vows (or make a covenant...depends on what you call it) that they will raise the child up in the fear and the admonition of the Lord. That they will pray for the child and teach them the Lord's ways and that they need saving faith in Christ. We don't believe that just because children are baptized they will always come to Christ. But we don't treat them as unsaved until they have some time when they know themselves saved (some day when they know they asked Jesus into their hearts or such). I honestly can't remember a time when I didn't know who Christ was or what He did. But, as I've grown, I've learned so much. I've come to long for Heaven, not just want to go there because I didn't want to go to Hell. I've come to more fully realize what Christ did and what it means to be a Christan and how gracious God is! But I don't know when I was 'saved'. And I don't know how exactly that ties in...
*hopefully veers herself back on track* Just another quick note---it is so...I don't know...wonderful? to see a child who has been baptized as an infant become a communicant member of the church and give their testimony of what God has done. ...Umm, I should probably say that there are two types of membership in my denomination (I'm sure it's this way in other churches, too)---Baptized and Communicant. Baptized is what it sounds like---the children and infants would fit into that category, as well as all the communicant members. Communicant members are those who have personally professed faith in Christ and are then able to come and partake in the Lord's Supper. (And if I explain more, I'm going to keep going off-track) At any rate, it is always joyous to see what God has done and to see the 'fulfillment' of what the parents had professed their hope for in baptizing their children when the children join as communicant members.

Also, please do note that the Federal Vision movement and beliefs are NOT held by Reformed Presbyterians.

Sorry, this is my first post here in and I'm afraid it's rather rambling and not the most easily followed (and schoolwork is calling and I'm rather tired). I hope it answered the Doctor's question though, and was not too hard to understand. If not, I can try to make it back in here later this week and clarify any mess I made and/or someone else can take a shot at it (like TBG) and I'll just post again if I have something else to say/clarify.

Wow! Thanks a lot for finding that quote 220CT. It does seem to suggest that Jews will finally recognize Jesus as their prophesied Messiah, and hence the Covenant would be restored.

GB

My own view on the sacraments may not be the mainstream reformed view, actually. In fact, I lean more toward a Lutheran view.

All that said, no Baptism does not save. What it does do is to bring that person into the covenant of the visible church, just as circumcision did in the Old Testament. Eventually, the child may reject that and it's not the parents' fault (some in reformed circles, espousing a patriarchal view of family and calling themselves "truly reformed" dispute this). Baptism does not save, but it brings the person into the visible church and, in infant Baptism, it declares this person's godly heritage. It is truly a wonder to see faithful parents and grandparents present at a Baptism and witness firsthand how God works through generations.

As for your original question, persp, entry into the New Covenant is bound up with salvation. If you are saved, you are an heir of the Covenant--which is the same Covenant that God made with Abraham.

On FV:

I have been watching these guys for a while now. They are going down a path from presuppositionalism to patriarchalism, theonomy, and all that. The Federal Vision has been advocated before--though not under that name. Those who have advocated such doctrines have ended up in Rome (Scott Hahn is the poster boy for this--possibly persp and Sty have heard of him).

TBG

Does the New Covenant just mean, "Well, golly, we think they're elect..."

I don't understand what this question is asking.

Here’s an example closer to the real-life song we’re talking about. Let’s say there’s a hymn out there about how Christians ought to be kind and Christlike to each other, forgiving each other just as Christ forgave us, because we belong to Christ (a very Biblical truth; Ephesians 4:32).

Now let’s say the motive for this should be because if we don’t forgive someone before we die, we’ll go to Purgatory and maybe spend a few months or years getting that unconfessed sin cleaned out of us before we’re allowed into Heaven. (To my Catholic friends: we can talk about Purgatory later if you like; this example is strictly for 220 and my other Protestant friends.) The motivation, then, is not out of love for Christ or because we’re His people, but because we’re afraid of punishment. Not cool, not loving, and worse than both of these, not Biblical.

Yet someone could say Well, that’s better than having a Christian refusing to forgive a brother or sister even while he’s on his deathbed! Perhaps so, but does that mean I’ll give the song my full support and not care who it ends up deceiving down the way? or the fact that it cheats God of His glory? or the fact that it denies the clear truths of His Word about the sufficiency of Christ’s death?

Yes, I would try to get such a song taken out of a hymnbook, or a worship service if I had that power — because it’s not Biblical. It doesn’t even prevent one side of God’s nature, or the Gospel, without balance, as some songs do (loving vs. holy, etc.) It presents an entirely anti-Biblical view. Though perhaps we might recognize that the writer’s intentions were good, true Scriptural, spiritual discernment would reject it firmly.

I have a few questions about this description / scenario. First, when you are talking about the Hymn you would want banned are you talking about one based on Ephesians or one that says you will suffer if you do not forgive other’s sins? Next, I thought Protestants didn’t believe in Purgatory or were just using that as a hypothetical example? Finally, isn’t their more to forgiving sins of others than just what is in that verse from Ephesians? I’m sure I’ve heard that we are required to forgive the sins of others in order for our sins to be forgiven. (This is based on the Lord’s prayer

Speaking of questions, Dr Elwin Ransom, I had some at the top of this post that I think got missed for being answered. (not the ones about free will vs. Calvinist) If you did answer them, please point me to the spot.

As for the baptism topic, here is a link for what is written in Luther’s Small Catechism. From the ELCA’s hymnal: “Instruction in the faith for a life of discipline is part of the preparation of those who are to be baptized or their parents and sponsors.” In the Lutheran church (at least in the ELCA), when babies or children are baptized, their parents are given the responsibility of raising their children as Christian and teaching the about the beliefs and helping them to become Christians. When the children reach about 7 grade, they start the confirmation program which leads to them accepting what their parents did for them in baptism. After confirmation, they are considered full members in the church. Between baptism and confirmation there is first communion which usually follows some kind of instruction / class. When I was in confirmation, it was explained to us as follows (The explanation is based on my memory so it is not word for word but I think I got the gist right). Baptism is a gift. If you were given a pen, you could use it or not but a pen is meant to be used. You can also choose to “use” or not to “use” your baptism. (I hope that makes sense if it doesn’t just let me know and I’ll try to make it clearer.) To summarize, faith must go along with baptism.

(A note about Lutheran churches: Don’t assume that all Lutheran Churches / synods have the same beliefs. There are differences. From what I understand the Missouri Synod is stricter than the ELCA, and the two don’t always get along. I’m pretty sure ELCA Lutherans are not allowed to have communion at Missouri Synod Churches. I think the two synods started to collaborate / use the same hymnal but the Missouri Synod pulled out at the last minute. Also do not assume that all members of a church that belongs to a particular synod hold all of the formal beliefs of the synod. I don’t see eye to eye with everything the ELCA has stated / done.)

Speaking of baptism, I came across the following verses and I’m not sure what they mean. Any ideas?
1 Corinthians 15:29
29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? Here is the link for the whole chapter.

Hello my dear friends of this forum topic. I would be very interested what the opinions of my fellow NarniaWebbers are regarding the recent development described in the following link. Thank you all kindly (those of Catholic, Protestant, non-denominational, non-Christian, etc. etc. encouraged to reply):

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulle ... 13&lang=ge

Personally, I think that the Archbishop of Canterbury ought to have seen this coming. What with the various disputes within Anglicanism (women's ordination, etc.) and the Pope's subtle moves toward this, it was nearly inevitable.

However, with the formation of the ACNA, the force of this document here in the states has been undercut somewhat. The only American churches likely to take this up are in the Traditional Anglican Communion--which was already actively seeking union of this nature. Anglo-Catholic Episcopal Churches are unlikely to join Rome because the ACNA is a viable alternative that would require fewer compromises.

The place where this will have the greatest effect is Britain, where many traditional Anglo-Catholic churches are dissatisfied with the leadership (particularly Archbishop Williams) and uncomfortable with the prospect of female bishops (and rightfully so).

TBG

Hi TBG and Styl,

I was very pleased when I heard news of this. I think it provides a concrete way for the Anglican's to maintain their traditions and still be in union with the Holy See. I also think it provides a great model for the future should other groups wish to come into union with Rome while still maintaining their identity.

I thought is was very generous gesture on the part of the Pope. Like TBG said it remains to be seen how many folks will take up the offer, but I'm optimistic. I can't wait for the day when I can go to Mass in an Anglican Use parish. I would love that.

JBC