Who are God's 'chosen'?

Who are God's 'chosen', who is the judge, man or God?


I was reading my lesson a few weeks back and looking up some verses in the scriptures, when something struck me in my study and left me thinking.

Everyone always tries to argue who are God's people, the 'chosen', the 'remnant', 'spiritual Israel' and declare that they are 'Gods chosen', or by following the 'letter of of the law' or by strictly restricting their behaviour they achieve the status of 'Gods chosen' and thus are 'saved', but what does God say.

Philippians 3:9
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:


No one can declare themselves saved, we cannot save ourselves, salvation by faith is not salvation by works or by presumptous declaration or anyone could just 'say it' or give lip service of their piety, but God will be the final judge. Christ will be our advocate but God will still judge each and everyone, God will look at our case and if it says 'covered by the Christ's righteousness' we are guaranteed eternal life.

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.


Christ came not to judge the world but to save it, but it is still God who judges at the end.

John 12:44-48
44Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. 46I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
47"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.


It is God who decides who are His people and who will be saved, those who say "I have accepted Christ" but dont really mean it or follow as He asks will be set aside, those who say I follow all the laws but do not love God or fail to see the true meaning of the law will be set aside, those who have false piety or use "cheap grace" to cover their contiuning sin will be set aside, and those who did all the 'works' of helping the poor and needy not from love but to gain favour of man, God will be set aside.....

Man cannot declare 'I am saved' or take eternal life as a prize from their own works or labors, it is a gift through Jesus Christ and it is God not man who decides whether you accepted it and are His people when He judges:

God's Sovereign Choice
1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.
6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[b] 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "[j]

27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality."[k]

29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
"Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah."[l]

Israel's Unbelief
30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[m]

Romans 9:1-33


Many who 'say' they are saved and declare that they are 'righteous' but dont believe that God has the final say, will stumbled over the "stumbling stone" as they depend not on God but on themselves or on man's desire or effort to gain eternal life and have no faith........

Richard to Maritime SDA OnLine!

You have begun an interesting topic, therefore, it will be interesting to see how this topic develops.

Chosen for what purpose? I hope you are not presuming that after God created the human race he lost his paternity rights. This type of nonsense Christianity can do without.

Yes, Richard, the "remnant" is defined by God and God chooses his people: yet, all are predestined to be called (Rom 8) but few agree with being chosen.

Also, while Jesus came the first time not to judge but to save from sin and death, the second time he comes to judge those who don't want saving (not forgetting the judgement day isn't the second coming, but the unbelievers are dealt with at the second coming!).

Why do we insist that there can be a remnant in the presence of the rest? That is a logical impossibility. The remnant is not a part of the whole. The remnant is the part of the whole that remains at the end. As long as the rest of the whole is present and active it is ludicrous to speak of the remnant -- unless we acknowledge that all that remains is the remnant. We should try to construct a logical teaching.

We do not insist, the scriptures make it clear.....

Revelation 12:17
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The Bible speaks of a remnant. Our doctrine does not present a remnant but a segment. Those are two different ideas.

I would say the SDA church is Christ's church which follows His testimony, and since there is no other church with a more fullness of truth that it has, it is the 'Remnant Church'

Those that keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ are the remnant...

I would wonder, who is the woman spoken of? The woman who was persecuted through the times and also had given birth to the child whom we identify as Jesus? Maybe John is talking about the Jewish people and their long history of pogroms? But maybe John had in mind Pauls words that the Church is grafted in to the Jewish religion in which case both groups persecution would be included? In all cases, the woman who is the mother of her seed is at all times described as in the care of God. And because of the commandment to honour our parents, would this then not suggest that we who claim to be the remnant of her seed ought to honor the church in whos lineage we came? Collectively as a group, I do not think we have done that very well.

Here is a sermon that shows that there are some baptist preachers who take the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ very seriously.
http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/component/option,com_weblinks/task,view/catid,38/id,21/

I love the sound of silence.

H'mm ... and your documentation for that personal assessment is ...?

The link didn't work as given, but I went to the site to see what's there & assume you linked to a podcast -- and that's out of my reach due to a slow dial-up connection.

There are also those who preach fervently on Sabbath-keeping while transferring the Sabbath sacredness to Sunday.

Is it the words we speak or the actions we do that determine how seriously we take the "commandments of God" and the testimony of Jesus?

Sounds like spin to me. Who was writing about "paternity rights"?

Yes, it is supposed to link to a sound file. I also could not find the file but I found that the sermon is also aviable as a streamed video. This of course doesnt help your dial-up any.
I do not know neither you nor the man who preached the sermon on the link, all I have in both cases is the words that have been spoken. In neither case do I have reason to think that the words spoken are not reflected in actions done.

Perhaps Dietrich Bonhoeffers "Dicipleship" contains some of the same ideas.

Here is a good explanation by Walter Veith...

"When the Jewish nation rejected the Messiah, the gospel was to go to the Gentiles and all who would believe in the name of Jesus would become the spiritual descendants of Abraham. (Galatians 3:16; Romans 4:16; Romans 9:3,8)
And if ye be Christ’s, then ye are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:29
The apostle Paul speaks of Christians as the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16) and the “circumcision” (Phil. 3:3) The kingdom of God and the covenant promises associated with it were to be taken from the Jews and passed on to spiritual Israel - those who would permit Christ to transform them, to change their character as was the case with Jacob of old.
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bearing forth the fruits of it. And whoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. Matthew 21:43,44

Jesus did not choose 12 disciples coincidentally. Just as the twelve patriarchs were the founders of ancient Israel, so these twelve men are the foundation stones of new Israel to which the Lord promised the kingdom (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30). The subsequent choice of seventy others is modeled after the choice of seventy elders by Moses in ancient Israel (Num 11:16). The real Israel of God is a remnant chosen by grace (Rom 11:5). There is a marvelous continuity between the old and the new Israel of God. In Romans 11:17-24, Paul speaks of the olive tree which represents Israel. The branches (Jews) were broken off because of unbelief and the wild olive shoots (Gentiles) were grafted in to share in the nourishment of the tree. The natural branches could be grafted back into the tree if they accepted the conditions. God is no respecter of nations or individuals. All who turn to Him will be accepted (Acts 10:34,35).
For there is no difference between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all that call upon Him. Romans 10:12 NIV.
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:26

The new Israel is the inheritor of God’s covenant promises. Those who have accepted Christ have become the chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God. (Compare 1 Peter 2:9,10 with Exodus 19:5,6) They were chosen to reveal God’s marvelous light to the world, (1 Peter 2:9; Matthew 28:19,20; Ephesians 3:10) a remnant, called out to shine the light of truth and prophecy of the end times, and are those that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

The human race is in desperate need of redemption, yet many reject his commandments and the faith of Jesus. God yearns to forgive and cleanse and never gives up trying. (John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4) Henceforth it is the role of the remnant or Spiritual Israel to carry Gods truth to the world..."

Inga, you should know the difference between the remnant and a segment. When you get to the remnant nothing else is left. The remnant is that which remains. As long as there are other groups around that belong to the same category no group can call itself the remnant.

Is it the words we speak or the actions we do that determine how seriously we take the "commandments of God" and the testimony of Jesus? [/quote]

Cool, thankfully Inga, you are telling me it's one or the other. And that works great for me, since now I only have to either speak correctly or act correctly, not both. Thanks for clearing that one up.

I can either say all the hyped-up-whatever in God's name, or I can do all kinds of "church" type religous things, and still be viewed by you as being serious about the testimony of Jesus. I'm glad that's all cleared up now, we'll move on.

I believe I do.
But who determines "the same category"?

I usually think of "remnant" in terms of a remnant of fabric. (Hey, I sew ... or used to. ) So the remnant is what is left of the original fabric -- no matter how many other pieces of fabric are lying around.

That's why the usual Adventist explanation has always made perfect sense to me.

Otoh, I think I understand what you're driving at -- that the "remnant" is not yet made up. And, believe it or not, I agree with you.

So, it is ludicrous and presumptuos for any group to call itself the remnant.

Sounds about right to me.

And I think it's fairly clear the "same catagory" would mean other christians. I could be way off on this one (please don't hesitate to point it out when I am), but that's what I think. I don't think muslims would be part of the same cagagory, or the hindu's for that matter. It seems clear that the christians are the remnant, and the rest will suffer His wrath! Could be wrong on that one, but my church taught me the only "right" way is the christian way, SDA in particular. And thankfully I'm a part of that, so I'm saved for sure. Plus I've been baptized, and pray, and ask for forgiveness, and Jesus is my personal saviour. I know I'll be looking for all you good people in the new world, can't wait to get there.

You're being a bith harsh, I fear.

That said, Adventist church teaching is of a remnant church that teaches keeping the commandments of God and having the faith of Jesus. So we would look for a church that still teaches the same truth as that taught at the beginning of the Christian era to find a "remnant" church. And I think that's fair enough.

Otoh, the Adventist church (certainly the conservative portion) has developed a lot of traditions that some seem to hold in reverence as though handed down directly from Sinai. (e.g. order of service, singing only from the hymnal, certain ways of keeping Sabbath, etc. etc.

We need to appreciate the difference between what is actual biblical teaching and what is tradition. (I've faced Adventists who staunchly defend traditions that are not supported in the Bible even when confronted with biblical evidence to the contrary.)

We each need to come to the place where we truly keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus so we may be a part of the remnant people of God.

Will you join me in that goal, Darius?

You've been duped.

Whether one is a part of the remnant depends on when one dies. We are all part of the family of God.

Asaygo,

I have, really? I've been duped? How can you know for sure? Are you able to tell me that is not what God wants, for me? Did YOU ask God about that, in regards to my life, and the plan He has for ME? Because if you did, that's cool, and I'd like to know the response He gave you. And if not, then how about you not say things you don't know.

You see, I keep going back to the same point (as I'm sure you've noticed). YOU nor anybody else on this planet, can tell me if I'm wrong or right, in the eyes of GOD. Only He can judge me, know if things are right or wrong. He has not given YOU(nor any chruch nor any person) the right to judge what's right or wrong, with anything having to do with me.

How about we get together and ask God Himself, we could do it together, so we would know that we got the same answer. Oh, that doesn't really work now does it. So, while you apparently feel that OUR chruch lied to me, you say I was duped. And I say, only God can be the judge of weather or not I was "duped".

I think you've been duped, but then what does that count for, either in the eyes of God, or you, NOTHING! Yes, that's right, it means nothing, coming from me. Nor from the cop down the street, nor a federal judge, nor my pastor, nor your church, not even Satan. Judgement ONLY counts when the Lord does it, so let's be careful making judgements about other people's lives. And since you can't PROVE that I was duped, it can only be a judgement that you've made.

As Darius might say, since I can't reason with you, this conversation is over. But I'll go a step further, and work hard, the way God wants me to, to help you see the light He has shown ME. Since I talk with Him, and we are close, I'm certain that is what He wants me to do. He has asked me to show you the light, through me. So start looking, and let's get a step closer to heaven, shall we?

Well done, fun2believe. It was fun reading this.

Yes, you have been duped.

You said:
That statement contradicts the Bible. (Check Romans if you're not sure.)

Which leads to a contradiction with one of your other statements:
Your statements are self-contradictory. Hence, you are duped, one way or the other.

Personally, I think you are correct that the Bible is authoritative and definitive. In that case, you have either been duped into thinking that the Bible supports your contention that "I'm a part of that, so I'm saved for sure," or you have been duped into thinking that "the only 'right' way is the christian way, SDA in particular."

So I cannot take any credit for this. I'm just bringing it all to your attention. What you do with that light is up to you.

I'm still waiting for your response to the first time I pointed out your inconsistency. In case you lost it, you can find it in the Comparing Christ's Character to Our Character thread (click here ).

Or you can deny that there is any inconsistency, and console yourself with the thought that I'm just in the mood to judge you. But as you point out, what we think of each other really has no bearing on the Judgment.


Yes, many of Darius' conversations seem to end that way. But then, they can't really be called conversations since they are mostly him accusing everyone he disagrees with of being wrong/biased/duped, despite a noticeable lack of references and citations. At least when I contend that you are duped, I show you documentation.

I hope you're not following in his footsteps. One way to avoid that fate is to at least make an attempt to explain yourself with commonly accepted sources of truth, rather than simply bolstering your assertions with more vehement assertions. A good way to start is by quoting the Bible, which we both agree is an authoritative source of God's light. God may have shown you light apart from that, but your words won't help me because they are not authoritative to me. If you want to help me by showing me light that I will accept, show me a verse.

Or you could assume that fun2 was ironic or sarcastic in the first quote. That is even more likely considering the difference between that paragraph and others he/she has made, such as the second one you quoted.

No, you're talking past each other, Asygo and fun2believe, and you're barely half right, fun2believe, with your response.

Asygo, (leaving your latest post to be dealt with by fun2believe; I agree with you re Darius!) it is with assurance of eternal life we can claim Jesus as our personal Saviour: assurance of salvation now and in the judgement, so long as we daily commit ourselves personally to Jesus as Lord of our lives. The CHURCH cannot save (infamous RC heresy...to the contrary), especially the SDA church, which fun2believe isn't asserting in the first place.

Fun2believe, giving the appearance of believing one is once saved, only saved, especially when that notion is farthest from one's mind, produces your reaction to Asygo when he appears to accuse you of not relying on your daily commitment to Jesus, due to what I perceive is his misperception of your statement. Your right to hold your individual understanding of God, as fleshed out by study and sharing with others of like faith, is indeed inalienable, but I take it you do not exclude the duty and role of (y)our brethern and sisters to correct us on sins in our lives when done in Christian love for us?

Darius, shame on you for delighting in two fellow Adventists mistakenly upsetting each other, or did you think their exchange was based on correctly understanding each other??!...That you delight in the freedom of your own point of view against everyone else here is beside the point.

As for Christiandom consisting of Christians of differing viewpoints: of course. How they relate to the everlasting gospel mentioned in Rev 14, and how "remnant" status relates to the living and not the dead, is where today's multitude of Christian churches sort out their priorities with God in these end times: they virtually all agree these are the end times in one way or another.

Remnant people/remnant church? One and the same, unless one doesn't view various churches as holding "another gospel" to the everlasting gospel - including possibly one's own church: how many are united in their gospel message? As a quite side note: Yes, the mark of the beast must be manifest in the end by a religious power usurping God's power on earth, more than mere unfaithfulness! The critical mass from which a remnant remains isn't the grouping of Christians per se: that way, according to prophecy, there'll never be a remnant of Christians in a pagan world in our future, since the enemies of God and his people shall be professing Christians!...The item from which a remnant remains in the last days is the gospel message itself: buildings never were the heart of the institution, but the message is, of course.

Remnant truths are the present truth to be dug from the Bible and Christian writings if it be found in the latter, and Sister White lauded the 1888 messengers as men sent by God to deliver the "third angels' message in verity". It isn't set in stone in those recent books, either, for we are to thrash it out and lift it up for the world, after & beyond Christiandom, to see. The 1888 message was called "the beginning of the loud cry": we still have to find the rest of it once we've retrieved that "beginning" (it is "lost" today because it's disputed, and the formal message today is the same as other churches' message which would be the case after only we had the 1888 message). It is all only about Jesus, actually, after all, so plenty of joyful study and prayer and discussion can be had about our Saviour.

Justification by faith IS assurance of salvation, but daily commitment follows simply because that commitment is the exercise of the mind of Christ which that justification recreates in us for doing righteousness like he did - we with him, now. I'll stop there, for sure.

Quite. Possibly.

Why daily? Why not more or less frequently? If our assurance of salvation is dependent upon our committing ourselves personally to Jesus as Lord, how do we know when we've done this? How well do have to commit ourselves? How do we know we've done it wrong enough?

It seems to me this is getting away from the idea that we have a legal justification which is effective for the whole world, and we are individually justified by faith as we believe that truth. In this idea, the assurance of salvation would come with the justification by faith. Thus we are justified by faith, and reserve assurance of salvation by faith.

Do you see what I'm getting at Colin? Do you think I'm asking a valid question here, or am I off base?

(Hope you don't mind my asking you about this; I was interested in your comments regarding this point).

Of course Jesus is the legal basis of salvation, by grace, but we only harness that surety by holding to him. "Daily" means regularly and consistently...

Yes, Jesus is the assurance, not our faith - don't worry: that wasn't my point, anyway. It appears Asygo was on a different point after all which I'm waiting for him to clarify with fun2believe...

Does "holding to him" mean something different than having faith in Him?

No: just how specific do you want the wording to be; do you only go be set phrases?

Meaning is good. "Holding to him" is rather vague, which is why I asked for clarification.

One of the great things about the 1888 message is that it's based on Good News (rather than good advice; I think you were the one pointing this out, if I recall correctly). Given this is the case, being clear with the phrases or words we use is a good goal, wouldn't you agree?

I don't mean to be picking on you. Thank you for your responses.

It's a challenging task for any of us to communicate on these subjects in such a way that our intent is understood, and sometimes we ourselves are not sure what we mean.

At any rate, I'm glad to hear that "holding to Him" simply means having faith in Him.

That's possible. She can clarify that if she wishes. But that would just mean that she was duped in a different way. But I won't take the time to explain that now.

Look at the links I provided to other threads. You will find that differences in her sentiments can happen even within the same thread, so it's getting harder to assume what she means. For example, she will question a belief because the Bible does not explicitly state it, then turn around and say that the Bible doesn't contain all the truth there is.

As for what fun2 really wants to assert, I'll wait to see if she explains herself, or if she just resorts to ad-hominem. It's one thing to say, "You're wrong because that is not what I really meant." It's quite another to say, "You're wrong because you're a bad boy."

As for assurance of eternal life, I agree with you, despite the fact that the church is God's appointed agency for the salvation of men. The hymn is correct: Jesus saves.

However, we do find churches and people who have lost sight of that fact. This includes those who claim to trust Jesus, but are really trusting their own human reasoning and judgment. They need to be shown the light of God's truth. Hopefully, some will choose to rely on God instead of the arm of flesh.

I think you're wrong because you're a bad boy.     );

I am convinced we can know right now, moment by moment, that we are saved, that we are heaven-bound. Not knowing would be a major distraction. The blessed assurance is now. Sabbath-keeping is, in a special sense, a sign that we are saved.

1 John
5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Exodus
31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it [is] a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that [ye] may know that I [am] the LORD that doth sanctify you.

Ezekiel
20:20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I [am] the LORD your God.

Dear Pot,

You are exactly right.

Sincerely,
Kettle

It took me awhile to get this. I was thinking "Kettle" was your wife, but I couldn't make out who "Pot" was!