Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaGratia St. Paul calls them all sanctified (set apart) and elect because they were all either set apart and elect to glory or to destruction, is this correct? | to which the apostle wrote his epistles were addressed as sanctified and elect "in Christ." This is a judgement of charity based on their external privileges; but then within the course of the epistles we find instruction, promise, and warning, which effectively point out what are the internal marks whereby the sanctified and elect are positively known. |
Matthew,
I am taking note of this delicately worded response. If I wanted to press you a bit on the first part of the statement, I would seek to comb through the epistles for some of the phrases that Paul used in describing His interaction with those whom he addresses, as for example here in 1 Thess 2
Quote:
12That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
|
If I were looking closely I would wonder how someone who only had what you refer to as external privileges could in any way be described by how Paul describes this group in Thessalonica. It does not seem that they would be able to begin to do what saints do. ie, How would the word of God "effectually" work in them? How could they work worthy? The non-elect natural man cannot be said to receive the word.
Now I clearly see in the second part of your response-
;
Quote:
|
but then within the course of the epistles we find instruction, promise, and warning, which effectively point out what are the internal marks whereby the sanctified and elect are positively known
|
that you are careful to address those who for a time stir up their flesh to an outward form of religion that will not stand. So I think I understand how you are framing this response, and seeking to be consistent with the Visible/invisible teaching that is frequently, and historically been used.
My question to you would be ....would it alter things if Paul were not addressing
by that I mean to say, not every physical body that comes into the assembly.[what most refer to as the visible church] What if the intention is to address only those who are the actual elect and called out ones [ what is called the invisible church].?
This would do away with
Quote:
|
This is a judgement of charity based on their external privileges;
|
Which seems to be subjective. It would then have Paul addressing
actual saints, in actual union with Christ, who could then be spoken of in such terms without qualifiers.
In this way Paul would clearly be speaking to those born of the Spirit,when he speaks of saints. When he warns or instructs those to whom he writes to examine themselves/ saints would understand he was warning those who only had an external facade who lack any vital relationship to The Lord Jesus Christ.
I ask because I am trying to work through Richard Baxter's Christian Directory, which speaks very intensely to the Christian ethic. The intense and detailed thought's he lays out seem as if they would not enter into the thoughts of those only externally coming among the people of God. The table of contents alone is instructive as well as convicting
As I have posted before I have a hard time with the whole visible/invisible concept of ecclesiology as it is put forth in some of the theological works.
I believe that I just see a clear view of the objective truth of the church as only the blood bought body of Christ, that I cannot shake it. The idea of anyone who is unsaved being said to be
In union with Christ I cannot really take that in, without it suggesting to me someone having then losing salvation.
