Don’t think About Election Now, He Died for Sinners Like You

To tell the whole truth, and to not mislead, you need to say that Jesus died for some ungodly sinners like us, and not for all of us.

1. This already happened, and your decision will not change what happened, will not make what happened work.

2. Just because you are just as guilty of sin as those for whom Christ died, don’t assume that you are one of those for whom Christ died.

3. The only way you will know if you are elect, and if God loves you in Christ, is when you believe the true Christ revealed in the true gospel. Most people who believe in “Jesus” are not trusting the same Jesus revealed in the Bible.

4. The only way for you to know that you are now believing in the true Jesus who died only for the elect sinners, is to repent of the false gospel which claims that Jesus died for all sinners. You need to confess that you were lost when you believed this false gospel.

Most preachers like to say things that are true, but then leave out other stuff which is also true, because they don’t want antithesis. Some of these preachers really don’t want sinners to even think about election when they are “getting saved”.

I wonder if these preachers worry that some of God’s elect might not believe the gospel if they were to hear about election. I also wonder if these preachers themselves believe that what the Bible says about election is good news.

Explore posts in the same categories: atonement, election

Tags: , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

One Comment on “Don’t think About Election Now, He Died for Sinners Like You”

  1. markmcculley Says:

    Nettles–While in unbelief, no sinner can have assurance that Christ has died for him. When Fuller argued, “It appears equally evident, that there is no necessity, in the nature of the thing, for the party to have any interest in Christ’s death, in order to make trusting in him his duty,”iii he emphasized that a sinner’s duty to believe the gospel does not depend on an actual provision having been made for him. The argument hypothesizes that for the non-elect the death of Christ includes nothing from which they could find forgiveness should they came to him for such; for them he was neither substitute, sacrifice, nor propitiation. Given such a case, even if a supplicating sinner could view the content of forgiveness procured by the death of Christ and upon such a view found that no investment for the forgiveness of his sins was made, still the only proper and dutiful posture for him is the supplication of mercy, for receiving mercy is the only path to a restoration of dutiful submission to the governing prerogative of God.

    This particular part of his argument he abandoned upon being challenged by Dan Taylor. The supposition of no-interest, deemed in later writings as the “commercial” view, behind this argument was hypothetical for Fuller. His main contention was thatknowledge of peculiar inclusion in the saving intent of God did not logically precede one’s duty to believe the gospel and approach God as a suppliant for mercy. Without defending the view, for the sake of argument, Fuller assumed a quid pro quo pattern while still asserting the sinner’s duty to believe. His defense of duty allowed for this way of envisioning the particularity of Christ’s redemptive work. It is not at all certain that Fuller actually believed, at the time of the publication of the Gospel Worthy, what he later called the “commercial” view of the atonement

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: