The Elect?

[Stranger]

It does not say they paid tithes in Abraham. It said Levi paid tithes, not one mentioning of Isaac, Ishmael, Judah, Reuben, Gad, et al.

They were not the subject. Levi was. The point is, Levi paid tithes in Abraham. (Heb. 7:9)

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

The reason why Levi is mentioned is because the theme is about the two priesthoods. One far exceeds the other. The Christ could not come through the Levitical priesthood(I know you know this, just adding it to the convo), because His lineage is through Judah(again, I know you know this, just adding it to the convo).

There is no mentioning of the other 11 as the focal point is on Levi through the lineage of Abraham.

You're not adding anything though.

The focal point is that Levi was in the loins of Abraham and so paid tithes to Melchisedec, proving the superiority of the priesthood of Melchisedec over that of Aaron.

Stranger

 

[SovereignGrace]

You're not being honest in what I have said.

I said, being in Adam is not a sin. Due to Adams sin, we are all sinners. Thus that is not illogical at all. What is illogical is your denial of what I am saying. Because what I am saying is against what you are saying. You completely ignore that God has placed us in Adam. And that is not a sin.

Stranger

That's like saying being in water is not wet, but we are wet in water. :

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Then go swim in the shallow pool.

Stranger

You're what, 7 Quantrill?

 

[Preacher4Truth]

That's like saying being in water is not wet, but we are wet in water. :

Not sure what his point is as he's not clear:

"I said, being in Adam is not a sin. Due to Adams sin, we are all sinners...And that is not a sin."

Took out the portion where he was only arguing, and that God put us there, to leave the conclusive statements above.

Doesn't make sense. Basically being in Adam, whatever he means by that, is to him not a sin. But again, he is not clear.

 

[Stranger]

That's like saying being in water is not wet, but we are wet in water. :

No. It's like saying God has placed us in Adam. That is not a sin. When Adam sinned we sinned because we were/are in Adam.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Not sure what his point is as he's not clear:

"I said, being in Adam is not a sin. Due to Adams sin, we are all sinners...And that is not a sin."

Took out the portion where he was only arguing, and that God put us there, to leave the conclusive statements above.

Doesn't make sense. Basically being in Adam, whatever he means by that, is to him not a sin. But again, he is not clear.

See #(346)

Stranger

 

[SovereignGrace]

Not sure what his point is as he's not clear:

"I said, being in Adam is not a sin. Due to Adams sin, we are all sinners...And that is not a sin."

Took out the portion where he was only arguing, and that God put us there, to leave the conclusive statements above.

Doesn't make sense. Basically being in Adam, whatever he means by that, is to him not a sin. But again, he is not clear.

He’s saying that, in and of itself, being in Adam is not sin. Now, to be found in Adam is to be declared a sinner before God. So yes, being in Adam is sin.

By using his (il)logic, being in Christ is not righteous, but we are righteous in Christ. Either statement is unbiblical.

 

[bbyrd009]

Is the High Priest a type or real? Is the Someone a type or real?

Stranger

yes? I mean the q is really not relevant, Stranger. Is Spirit real, is the wind real, etc. If you want that kind of "real" as in something you can touch you get Nehushtan I think bro. And I know how hard it can be to leave the camp and let go of that ok, I don't fault you

 

[bbyrd009]

Again, as to why you and I are elect, God just doesn't say

Um, where does God say that you are elect, Stranger?

 

[Enoch111]

Um, where does God say that you are elect, Stranger?

If Stranger ( or anyone) has received Christ as Lord and Savior, he or she is automatically elect. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God. And elected or predestined for perfection (physically, morally, spiritually).

 

[bbyrd009]

If Stranger ( or anyone) has received Christ as Lord and Savior, he or she is automatically elect. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God. And elected or predestined for perfection (physically, morally, spiritually).

according to whose formula for "has received Christ" tho, noting that replying "Scripture's" is an evasion

bc I know we are taught that and teach that, but wadr Scripture even suggests tests, professing themselves to be wise, commending themselves to each other, if I testify of myself..., etc

 

[Helen]

They were not the subject. Levi was. The point is, Levi paid tithes in Abraham. (Heb. 7:9)

Stranger

Agree. The reason being...the priesthood did not pay tithes , they were sanctified for their ministry...priests..set apart.

All the other tribes were well able to pay tithes...but in Abraham, Levi's tithes were " all paid up" , as it were...

My two cents.... H

 

[Stranger]

He’s saying that, in and of itself, being in Adam is not sin. Now, to be found in Adam is to be declared a sinner before God. So yes, being in Adam is sin.

By using his (il)logic, being in Christ is not righteous, but we are righteous in Christ. Either statement is unbiblical.

We were in Adam before the fall. Was God guilty of sin for putting you in Adam? No. You became guilty of sin due to Adams sin, so that now all in Adam are sinners.

Being in Christ is somewhat different. You cannot get into Christ until you exercise faith and have been born-again. Thus you are immediately 'in Christ' and righteous as Christ.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Um, where does God say that you are elect, Stranger?

(Eph. 1:1-23) Ummmm?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

yes? I mean the q is really not relevant, Stranger. Is Spirit real, is the wind real, etc. If you want that kind of "real" as in something you can touch you get Nehushtan I think bro. And I know how hard it can be to leave the camp and let go of that ok, I don't fault you

A type is not a type unless it is a type of a reality. So, who is the type and the anti-type?

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

A type is not a type unless it is a type of a reality. So, who is the type and the anti-type?

Stranger

Ah well you already know them I guess, they just cannot be seen with two eyes

 

[Stranger]

Ah well you already know them I guess, they just cannot be seen with two eyes

You brought it up in post #(320). So, who is the type and the anti-type if you want to consider them types?

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

You brought it up in post #(320). So, who is the type and the anti-type if you want to consider them types?

Stranger

Ah, I would say that we are

 

[bbyrd009]

consider these Patriarchs more as like "types" than actual ppl

or I mean they are, types for us