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.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: atonement, election

Tags: , ,

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

2 Comments 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 https://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/a-commercial-view-of-the-atonement/

  2. markmcculley Says:

    Surely the primary issue with which penal substitution is concerned is neither the morality nor the rationality of God’s ways, but the remission of my sins; and the primary function of the concept is to CORRELATE my knowledge of being guilty before God with my knowledge that, on the one hand, no question of MY ever being judged for my sins can now arise, and, on the other hand, that the risen Christ whom I am CALLED TO ACCEPT AS LORD is none other than Jesus, who secured MY immunity from judgment by bearing on the cross the penalty which was MY due. The effect of this CORRELATION is not in any sense to “solve” or dissipate the mystery of the work of God (it is not that sort of mystery!); the effect is simply to define that work with precision.

    mark asks–So part of being called ‘to accept Jesus as Lord” is knowing already that Jesus took MY penalty?

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/january-web-only/penal-substitutionary-atonement-it-doesnt-get-more-personal.html

    http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1974_25_01_Pakcer_CrossAchieve.pdf

    Packer :

    Thus, we appeal to men as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time; we speak of his redeeming work as if he had done no more by dying than make it possible for to save ourselves by believing; we speak of God’s love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust; and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly active in drawing sinner to themselves, but as waiting in quiet impotence ‘at the door of our hearts’ for us to let them in…The Bible is against us when we preach in this way; and the fact that such preaching has become almost standard practice among us only shows how urgent it is that we review this matter.

    What we say comes to this – that Christ saves us with our help; and what that means, when one thinks it out, is this – that we save ourselves with Christ’s help. This is a hollow anticlimax. But if we start by affirming that God has a saving love for all, and Christ died a saving death for all, and yet balk at becoming universalists, there is nothing else that we can say. And let us be clear on what we have done when we have put the matter in this fashion. We have not exalted grace and the cross; we have limited the atonement . Instead of asserting that Christ’s death, as such, saves all whom it was meant to save, we have denied that Christ’s death, as such, is sufficient to save any of them. We have flattered impenitent sinners by assuring them that it is in their power to repent and believe, though God cannot make them do it. We have also trivialized faith to make this assurance plausible (‘it’s very simple – just open your heart to the Lord . . ) Certainly, we have effectively denied God’s sovereignty, and undermined the basic conviction of true religion – that man is always in God’s hands. In truth, we have lost a great deal. And it is, perhaps, no wonder that our preaching begets so little reverence and humility, and our professed converts are so self-confident and so deficient in self-knowledge and in the good works which Scripture regards as the fruit of true repentance.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: