Non-Election is Not Conditioned on the Sinner

Ephesians 3:9-11. “To make all (even gentiles) see what is the fellowship/union of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places would be known by the called out elect the manifold wisdom of God according to the permanent purpose which He decreed in Christ Jesus our Lord”

Ephesians 2:4-5 “But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ…”

It is wrong to say that non-election is conditioned on sin: both the elect and the non-elect are sinners–if sin were the cause/condition of non-elect, then all sinners would be non-elect. The reason for non-election is like the reason for election. God’s justice is no less sovereign than God’s grace.

The texts in Ephesians remind us that there is more to know about God than His sovereign justice: His glory is also revealed in His sovereign love and in His sovereign wrath. To know His name is to know Him as the one who has mercy on some and who hardens others.

I deny that non-election is conditioned on sin. God’s very first concern is to manifest His glory in discriminating between sinner and sinner, so that election in Christ from the beginning is an election of sinners. To be outside Christ from the beginning is to be non-elect sinner.

God does not wait for sinners to sin, and then decide to pass some of them by. In the very purpose to elect and to not elect for His glory, God is the Subject and sinners are His objects. God’s choice is the first thing.

Sin is not the first thing, and then God reacts. Neither is creation the first thing, and then God reacts. Sin is necessary if God is to choose between sinners. Only because of God’s choice to choose between sinners, does God ordain sin.

We often hear the phrase “election is not salvation” so that “election is UNTO salvation”. Or that “election is not the gospel” but that election is what causes people to believe the gospel. I want to criticize these often-stated contrasts.

Of course the word “salvation” can be used in different senses. But if the righteousness Christ earned is not for the elect until the elect believe, it makes no difference if you say that the righteousness was earned only for the elect or also for others besides the elect. In any case, it is not the righteousness which is the cause of believing.

The effect of denying election in the gospel is to make Christ’s work of obedience not be the ONLY cause of salvation. It makes the work of the Spirit in the sinner causing the sinner to believe becomes not a result but a condition of Christ’s work.

This false gospel will end up not glorying in the cross but putting the Spirit’s work in the sinner in the determinative place. This false gospel, in which Christ‘s work is not the cause, will also say that “election is not the gospel” but only that which makes sinners believe the gospel.

II Cor 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, in order that those who live will no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Jonathan Gibson, “The Glorious, Indivisible, Trinitarian Work of Christ”, From Heaven He Came, p 35

p 352—”Some conclude that the efficacy of Christ’s work occurs only at the point of faith, and not before. This ignores the fact that union with Christ precedes any reception of Christ’s work by faith. It is union with Christ that leads to the efficacy of Christ’s work to those who belong to Him.”

ps: One common dodge of election is to deny that God knows about or cares about time. Instead of saying that God is both outside time and inside time, the typical procedure is to deny that God is concerned with order and sequence and time.

Explore posts in the same categories: election


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

26 Comments on “Non-Election is Not Conditioned on the Sinner”

  1. David Bishop Says:

    I like your essay, especially your PS. It seems to me that those who want to restrict God to an either/or when it comes to outside and inside time, never want to address the question of how God knew, knows and is also always knowing.

  2. markmcculley Says:

    everybody created with a chance, and then God passed by some? no

    nfralapsarians tend to say that the gospel becomes the law. To say–you had your chance. They don’t think God would be fair to judge (law) unless there was first gospel (a chance) for everybody.


    question for Barth—if election is universal, then why isn’t salvation universal ? Or is Barth back to the old idea that God is inscrutable, “God’s good pleasure”? Or does a human still have the choice to exclude self? does a human still have the will to bring into effect the wrath of God?

  4. markmcculley Says:

    Matthew 11: 25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.[g] 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

    Luke 4: 5 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers[a] in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.

  5. markmcculley Says:

    Mark 4: 11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, 12 so that

    “they may indeed see but not perceive,
    and may indeed hear but not understand,
    lest they should turn and be forgiven.” Isaiah 6:9

  6. markmcculley Says:

    Leithart—In some Reformed theologians, such as Edwards, there’s an implicit teleological anthropology; human beings are what they are by virtue of their ends. Double predestination says that human beings are predestined by God’s decree to either salvation or reprobation, but if human beings are what they are at the end, then it seems God created two different sorts of human beings.

    One sector of the human race is eternally considered in Christ, the other is by decretal definition Christless and Spiritless. Reprobation describes an act and decision of God but excludes talk of the Son and Spirit.

    Behind this, Holmes sees a more general problem in Reformed theology: “It was not just a removal of Christ from the being of the reprobate, but a prior removal of Christ from the being of the created world that was the problem.

    Holmes knows that Barth brushes close to universalism, but says that this is a point in Barth’s favor: “the question for Christian theology in the light of what God has done in Christ must surely be how this can fail to affect any given human being, how anyone can fail to be saved” (268).

    Leithart– Holmes makes some powerful compelling points: He seems on solid ground in saying that the problem underlying the problem of reprobation is a failure to understand creation Trinitarianly, and this, I would add, reflects persistent nature/grace dualism in Reformed theology. If creation exists only by the continuous work of the Father’s Word and Spirit, then there is no one anywhere, reprobate or elect, who is not the recipient of God’s gift and the object of His care.

  7. markmcculley Says:

    the non-elect will be destroyed because Christ never died for them

    Christ’s death is inadequate for the non-elect, not enough for them

    and the non-elect will be destroyed for this reason

    i know the infras insist no, the non-elect die only for their own, not fault of Christ’s death

    but since the elect do not die for their sin, the sin of the non-elect is not the only factor

    the non-election of the sinner is not conditioned on the sinner

    no sin will count against as many as believe the gospel

    each and every sin will count for as many as don’t believe the gospel (not only the sin of unbelief of the gospel but all sins)

    but yes, it’s a sin not to believe the gospel

    and all those for whom Christ died will believe the gospel, Christ having died to obtain this gift for them

    so Christ’s death is not adequate to give the non-elect faith, because Christ never died for the non-elect

  8. markmcculley Says:

    elect IN CHRIST

    Christ’s propitiation is not the cause of election

    sinners are elected
    what these sinners will do is not the cause of election

    Christ is elected
    what Christ will do is not the cause of election

    on the other hand,
    Christ is God, the one who elected, the cause and decider

    Christ is both the subject and object of election

    Christ is both the subject and object of propitiation (and reconciliation)

    the mystery is revealed and then there’s all that is not revealed

    faith is not the cause of election
    election is the cause of faith

    Christ’s death is not the cause of election
    election is the cause of Christ’s death

  9. markmcculley Says:

    God (the Trinity) elected God the Son to become the Christ. the anointed and appointed

    Psalm 2: 7 I will declare the Lord’s decree:
    He said to Me, “You are My Son;
    TODAY I have BECOME Your[g] Father.

    Luke 4: 16 He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. As usual, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read. 17 The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to Him, and unrolling the scroll, He found the place where it was written:

    18 The Spirit of the Lord is on Me,
    because He has ANOINTED ME

    I Peter 1:20 Christ was chosen before the ages but was revealed at the end of the ages for you 21 who THROUGH HIM ARE BELIEVERS in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory

    john Murray—Jesus was not appointed Son of God; as we found, he is conceived to be the eternal Son, and this sonship had no historical beginning. But this objection has validity only as we overlook the force of the expression “with power”. The apostle does not say that Jesus was appointed “Son of God” but “Son of God in power”.

    Romans 1–“Who was declared to be the Son of God with power.” The word rendered “declared” is the word which elsewhere in the New Testament means to ” “appoint,” “ordain” (Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:42; 11:29; 17:26, 31; Heb. 4:7)



    Hebrews 4:7 God HAS APPOINTED a certain day—today—speaking through David after such a long time, as previously stated:

    Today, if you hear His voice,
    do not harden your hearts.
    8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day

    Luke 22: 2 22 For the Son of Man will go away as it has been appointed , but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!

  10. markmcculley Says:

    Capon—Jesus did not locate Gehenna outside the realm of grace.

  11. markmcculley Says:

    God decreed the non-election of the non-elect before the ages, and so God excluded certain humans from salvation, even while ordaining these humans to be sinners.
    It is not necessary to preach law until despair and then gospel as hope. This can be a way of assuming that sinners can actually take sides against themselves without any hope of forgiveness, simply by announcing the just judgment of God.
    True repentance is not produced by the law only, however, but by the revelation of the gospel. Since the justice of God is a part of the gospel, there is no need to preach law separately before gospel.
    There is only one person who took sides against himself and submitted to the righteousness of God without the hope of forgiveness, and Jesus had to bear the whole weight of sin by himself with no substitute, so that his elect would one day be free from that guilt.

    . Even the non-elect are commanded to believe the gospel
    2. Believing the gospel is NOT believing that “God has grace for me” or that “God has grace for everybody”
    3. The promise of the gospel is that as many as believe the gospel will be justified, so that anybody who says I believe the promise but I don’t believe that there is grace for me….is not yet believing the promise
    The logic of “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin” is not that Christ died for every sinner, and that every sinner had a “chance” or an “opportunity” to be saved, if they accepted “the offer”. No. The logic rather is that now and always there has been only sacrifice that really takes away sin, and that’s the sacrifice of Christ. The old economies had their place because their ceremonies pointed to this one sacrifice of Christ. Now that Christ has come, now that the new covenant has arrived, not only in promise, but in fulfillment, still there remains one (and only one) sacrifice for sins.
    Put it this way— for every sinner, for any sinner, there is only one sacrifice that can take away sins, and it’s Christ’s propitiatory death. This does not at all mean that Christ has died for every sinner. It means every sinner needs Christ’s death. But only the sins of the elect the Father has given the Son were imputed to the Son, and the Son has only made a propitiation for those sins. Christ’s death is not enough for every sinner, because it was never intended for every sinner. But the point is—Christ is the only propitiation there is, and if you don’t trust Christ, then there can be no propitiation for you

    1. The non-elect do NOT “exclude themselves”
    2. The gospel is not the law, and we are born condemned, so that those who never hear the gospel are still condemned.
    3. Rejection of the gospel is not the basis of condemnation, and John 3 is not saying that it is, because John 3:18-20 is saying that there is no escape from condemnation except by the gospel.
    John 3: 18 Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God. 19 “This, then, is the judgment: The light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who practices wicked things hates the light and avoids it, so that his deeds may not be exposed.

  12. markmcculley Says:

    God’s justice in Christ is NOT the cause of God’s love, but it is the necessary means of God’s love. justification is not election, but trying to teach imputation without election is failing to teach imputation and the justice of Christ’s death for imputed sins. God’s non-election and God’s condemnation of the non-elect are two different things.

    does God “owe justice” to Himself or does God have an “indifferent freewill” and no character or nature?

    Job 41: 11 Who confronted Me, that I should repay him?
    Everything under heaven belongs to Me.

    Psalm 11: 7 For the Lord is just. The Lord loves justice

    God owes justice even to us because God owes justice to Himself

  13. markmcculley Says:

    Giovanni Camacho I wonder what the aversion is to saying that it is by God’s will that the non-elect are condemned. It seems to be logically inconsistent to say that election is unto salvation, but that non-election is not unto damnation. It’s a semantic slight of hand that introduces some concept of responsibility for one’s own condemnation, rather than the sovereign will of God.
    I’m guessing the reason is because of the way they think it might make God, or themselves look if they say that, but frankly, it is dishonest to say anything less.
    It is true that men are sinners, and the grounds for legal punishment arise out of that sin. However, it is not true to say that men condemn themselves, that the non-elect choose hell, or that their failure to repent is what caused them to go to hell. Rather, Romans 9 is clear in its instruction concerning predestination of the elect and non-elect.
    God is sovereign over the final destination of every human created.. God before the ages made the decisions both of who to redeem and who to condemn. The non-elect were not born with a chance to avoid the second death. Saying that condemnation is merely about justice and not sovereignty creates a situation where it sounds like the non-elect sinner is the primary cause of his condemnation. This leads to a sense of conditionalism.
    My issue is, why would one have a problem with election unto condemnation, and yet be completely behind the idea of election unto salvation? It’s inconsistent.

  14. markmcculley Says:

    when infras tell us why it’s fair
    they say “that’s not the question”
    but I tell them
    what’s wrong with their question
    for starters, they need a different question
    instead of assuming they are already Christians
    and then pretending to humbly asking why
    they could start with asking themselves
    if they are even born again yet and justified before God
    if they continue to assume they can explain what’s fair
    and if they keep on saying that
    God has not told us how it’s fair
    but then themselves tell us how it’s fair
    as in, the question is not why God does not save some
    because they say, the question is why God saves anybody
    i only ask
    is it not for God’s glory that God does not save some?

  15. markmcculley Says:

    God’s condemnation is not merely a response to what sinners do


    2. God will in time actively regenerate each elect sinner in order to give them faith in Christ’s death as that which saves all the elect and none of the non-elect

    3. the finished work of Christ has purchased for the elect the still unfinished work of Christ in His intercession and second coiming

  16. markmcculley Says:

  17. markmcculley Says:

    the rich man could not give up his sales talk
    his attempts at persuasion
    even after he was dead

    Lazarus had nothing

    some people think their nothing is what God needs

    they think they are saved BECAUSE they had nothing

    they think the rich man was lost because he had something

    we qualify because
    at least we know we are sinners

    and at least I know I am poor and undereducated
    and that is why my church loves me
    because my church appeals to the class of poor country people
    who don’t have pretensions
    and this is why we are elect

    the rich man did not repent, Lazarus the poor man did not repent either
    Lazarus did nothing, Lazarus said nothing
    Lazarus did no more repenting than the 99 sheep did
    Lazarus did no more repenting than the one sheep did
    Lazarus did not repent
    Lazarus was not saved because he was poor or because he was a sinner

    God does not save all sinners

    hear this preacher soundbite—“it’s a precious and rare thing to find a sinner”

    It’s like preachers are saying that’s the end of the story, and thee is no more need to know about election or the atonement of justification

    though only ungodly sinners are justified
    or need to be justified
    this does not mean that God justifies all ungodly sinners

    you can be a sinner without being justified
    you can know you are a sinner without being justified
    God never will justify all sinners

    Jesus rejects many sinners as His guilty clients, because Jesus was never the mediator for many guilty sinners

    God’s election comes first before Christ’s atonement
    Atonement to satisfy justice is a result of God’s love for the elect
    God’s love for the elect is not a result of Atonement for the elect

    This means that election is not the same thing as the atonement

  18. markmcculley Says:

    Romans 9: 11 For though her sons had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to election would stand—

    Romans 9: 22 And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction?

    Isaiah to God—here am I, send me

    God to Isaiah–I will send you, but they won’t hear you, because it’s not their hearing which causes the calling to work, but the calling which causes the hearing.

    Isaiah 6: 8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying:
    Who should I send?
    Who will go for Us?
    I said:
    Here I am. Send me.
    9 And He replied:
    Go! Say to these people:
    Keep listening, but do not understand;
    keep looking, but do not perceive.
    10 Dull the minds of these people;
    deafen their ears and blind their eyes;
    otherwise they would see with their eyes
    and hear with their ears,
    understand with their minds,
    turn back, and be healed.

    Mark 4: 11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, 12 so that “they indeed see but not perceive,
    and hear but not understand,
    lest they should turn and be forgiven.” Isaiah 6:9

    Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption

    Psalm 78: 40 How often they rebelled against him in the wilderness
    and grieved him in the desert!
    41 They tested God again and again
    and provoked the Holy One of Israel.

    Genesis 6: 5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

    Isaiah 63:10 But they rebelled
    and grieved his Holy Spirit;
    therefore he turned to be their enemy,
    and himself fought against them.

    Hebrews 8: 9 not like the covenant
    that I made with their ancestors
    on the day I took them by their hands
    to lead them out of the land of Egypt.
    I disregarded them, says the Lord,
    BECAUSE they did not continue in My covenant.

    Acts 2: 23 Though Jesus was HANDED OVER according to God’s determined plan and foreknowledge, with lawless people used to nail Jesus to a cross and kill Jesus.

    Romans 1: 18 For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, 19 since what can be known about God is evident among them,because God has shown it to them. 20 For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. 21 For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools 23 and HANDED OVER the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.

    24 Therefore God HANDED THEM OVER in the cravings of their hearts to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves.25 They HANDED OVER the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served something created instead of the Creator….26 This is why God HANDED THEM OVER to degrading passions. For even their females HANDED OVER natural sexual relations[p for unnatural ones…

    28 And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God HANDED THEM OVER to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong.

    2 Corinthians 2:14 But thanks be to God, who always puts US on display in Christ and through US spreads the aroma of the knowledge of Him in every PLACE.15 For to God WE are the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. 16 To some WE are an aroma of death leading to death, but to others, an aroma of life leading to life

    God does not need to harden any sinner to condemn that sinner.

    It is idolatry to only know a God who is sovereign. The true God is also just and righteous. It is unbelief and rebellion to deny that God is just and righteous. Psalm 51:4-6—“Against you have I sinned and done what is evil, so that you are justified in your words and blameless in your judgment..Behold you delight in truth…”

    God is just and true. We sinners are false. Both are true. We take sides not only for God but against ourselves

    We cannot repent first and then believe the gospel. It is our duty to both believe the gospel and to repent of our sin in disobeying the gospel.

    If you are not elect, then you can’t elect yourself. if Christ did not die for you, then no amount of asking or jumping up or down will cause Christ to die for you. But election is not justification, and if do not yet believe the gospel, you may be elect but you for sure are not yet justified.


  19. markmcculley Says:

    big laugh, David told Bathsheba that he David also was going to die . Would that comfort Bathsheba,? That can’t be true

    Dordt FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 17. Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 7:14).

    I Cor 7:14 is obvious in teaching that even though the covenant is not governed by election, any kind of holiness including covenantal holiness, will save children who have been baptised and who were born to godly believing parents—How godly are the parents now, and how certain is it that these parents will continue to have true faith and be godly, or does it matter?

    We would never say that the infants who died were elect but then they didn’t die, that they they rejected the covenant and became non-elect. Because the covenant is not governed by election. The covenantal status comforts us with certainty that if our children die, their death will be evidence not only of the covenantal status of the dead infant but also of their election. .

    Even though no depraved sinner is better than another, not all things re equal. God promises the gift of faith to the children God has given faith. Water baptism is God’s effectual gift.

    Was Judas was in the new covenant? If “covenant grace” did not keep Judas in the covenant, what did “common grace” do for Judas ? (sarcasm alert)

  20. markmcculley Says:

    Jack Kilcrease—The Lutheran Paulson’s position is that God created the world through the brutality of biological evolution. And so death, violence, and strife are not the result of the Fall, but are built into creation. The hidden God then builds sin and death into creation, and then punishes us for sin. The revealed God in Christ then redeems us from sin and death.

    Paulson is unwilling to naturalize death and take away the connection with sin. Nevertheless, rejecting the Biblical and Creedal concept of creation, Paulson has to suggest that God is in some sense the author of evil. This comes very close to the Gnostic notion of the conflation of creation with the Fall. Forde calls the traditional understanding of the Fall “a theology of glory.”

  21. markmcculley Says:

    born already condemned but also
    God uses means in condemnation

    II Thessalonians 2: 8 The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of His mouth and will bring him to nothing with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is based on Satan’s working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders,10 and with every unrighteous deception among those who are perishing. They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth in order to be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a strong delusion in order that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they will be condemned—those who did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness.

  22. markmcculley Says:

    Tianqi Wu–God had already imputed the sins of some sinners to Christ before Christ went to the cross, and this decision to impute sins DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT any sinner’s response to the gospel (whether enabled or not), nor does the effect of this death DEPENDS ON any sinner’s response to the gospel (whether enabled or not), because one reson the non-elect perish is BECAUSE there was never no atonement (or any offer of atonement) for them.

    There is no real distinction between abandoning men to a certain state, of which punishment will be the consequence, and ordaining them to that punishment.”

    If God doesn’t choose someone, he has decided not to choose them. It’s not an accident. Yes, their sin has something to do with it. But so does God’s will, in some way, because God is sovereign and doesn’t just let things slip.

    John Wesley writing of someone who said they only believed in a one-sided predestination (to life) and that others were merely left in their own sin—
    “You believe he hath absolutely decreed not to save them; and what is this but decreeing to damn them? It is, in effect, neither more not less; it comes to the same thing; for if you are dead, and altogether unable to make yourself alive, then, if God has absolutely decreed he will make only others alive, and not you, he hath absolutely decreed your everlasting death; you are absolutely consigned to damnation. So then, though you use softer words than some, you mean the self-same thing; and God’s decree concerning the election of grace, according to your account of it, amounts to neither more nor less than what others call God’s decree of reprobation. Call it therefore by whatever name you please, election, preterition, predestination, or reprobation, it comes in the end to the same thing. ( sermon on “Free Grace” by John Wesley)

  23. markmcculley Says:

    2 Corinthians 2: 14 But thanks be to God, who always puts us on display in Christ and through us spreads the aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place.15 For to God we are the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. 16 To some we are an aroma of death leading to death, but to others, an aroma of life leading to life. And who is competent for this ?

    2 Corinthians 4: 3 Our gospel is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case, the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God

    I find it interesting that many of the same preachers who are teaching “eternal election is eternal justification” so that “election is salvation” are the very same people who also like to say that “non-election is not condemnation”. But when they say this, they have to change their soundbites so that “election is not salvation but only unto salvation”. They they quote CD Cole—“Election is not the cause of anybody going to hell, for election is unto salvation (2 Thessalonians 2: 13). Neither is non-election responsible for the damnation of sinners. Sin is the thing that sends men to hell, and all men are sinners by nature and practice. Sinners are sinners altogether apart from election or non-election. It does not follow that because election is unto salvation that non-election is unto damnation. Sin is the damning element in human life. Election harms nobody.”

  24. markmcculley Says:

    C D 1.5 . The cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is nowise in God, but in man himself: whereas faith in Jesus Christ, and salvation through him is the free gift of God,

    Scott Clark–Asymmetry is an important concept in Reformed theology. We do not
    confess that God’s decree of salvation is exactly symmetrical to his
    decree of reprobation. Of course, the eternal divine decree is
    shrouded in mystery. None of us was present in eternity nor does any of us have access to the divine intellect. So it is a mistake simply
    to assume that we should think of the decrees as exactly parallel
    (symmetrical) in every way. When we speak of the decree of
    reprobation, i.e., God’s decree to allow the fallen to remain in their
    sinful state, we think first of the cause of guilt, unbelief, and sin.
    The cause of the fall is not in God. That the churches said this might
    come as a surprise to those who assume what the Reformed must believe. Rather, we are content to leave in mystery the cause of sin, fall where Scripture does: with us. God did not sin. He did not disobey. He did not transgress. We did and we did so freely, i.e., without compulsion. There was nothing in us (e.g., concupiscence) that impelled us to sin nor did any created thing act upon us to cause us to sin. Behind the scenes, as it were, lie the divine decree but
    Scripture (Rom 5:12, 14; 1 Tim 2:13–14) always points to us, to our
    choices. Reprobation is by works. The reprobate are so because of
    their choices, their sin. Reprobation is conditional.

  25. Mark Mcculley Says:

    John Fesko in a footnote:

    “Richard Gaffin tries to argue, on the basis of the grammar involved
    in a similar Pauline statement, that works are not the ground of
    judgment: “It is not for nothing, I take it, and not to be dismissed
    as an overly fine exegesis to observe, that in Romans 2:6 Paul writes, ‘according (kata) to works,’ not ‘on account of (dia),’ expressing the ground, nor ‘by (ek) works,’ expressing the instrument” (By Faith, Not By Sithgt [Carlisle: Paternoster, 2006], 98-99; similarly, Venema, Gospel, 266). Though Gaffin’s comment concerns Paul’s statement in Romans 2:6, at the same time we find the same prepositional combination with the accusative in John’s statement in Revelation 20:12e, the only difference being in the use of the singular and plural pronouns (cf. Rom 2:6). Gaffin argues this point because he wants to preserve sola fide in the judgment of the works of the believer. Relying upon the analysis of Ridderbos and Murray, Gaffin’s finer point is that the judgment kata works is “in accordance with” the works, and such works are synecdochical for faith in Christ (see Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard de Witt [1975; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 178-81; Murray, Romans, 78-79).

    Yet can such a fine distinction be supported by the grammar alone? The use of “dia” with the accusative means “because of, on account of,” and the use of “kata” with the accusative means “in accordance with, corresponding to” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 368-69, 376-77). One must ask, what difference exists between the two? In fact, when we delve more deeply into the significance of “kata” with the accusative, we find that “often the noun that follows kata specifies the criterion, standard, or norm in the light of which a statement is made or is true, an action is performed, or a judgment is passed. The prep. will mean
    ‘according to’, ‘in conformity with’, ‘corresponding to.’ This use is
    common in reference to the precise and impartial standard of judgment that will be applied at the great Assize (Matt. 16:27; Rom 2:6; 1 Cor 3:8; 2 Tim. 4:14; 1 Peter 1:17; Rev 2:23)” (Murray J. Harris, “Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament,” in NIDNTT, 3:1200). Pace Gaffin and Venema, their argument apparently fails to account for judgment kata works for the wicked. This point seems to be borne out by Paul’s own use of kata, as he says, “He will render each one according to [kata] his works” (Rom. 2:6), but this rendering kata works is for both the righteous (v. 7) and the wicked (v. 8).
    According to Gaffin’s interpretation, are the wicked judged according
    to their works, but are they not the ground of their condemnation (see 2 Cor. 11:15)? Again, note how Paul uses kata: “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due [to de ergazomeno ho misthos ou logizetai kata charin alla kata opheilema]” (Rom 4:4; see also Brian Vickers, Jesus Blood and Righteousness
    Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006] 95; Yinger, Paul, 21-26, 89-90, 135-136, 175, 182, 186). Judgment therefore is indeed kata (in accordance with, or on the basis of) works – the evil works of the unbeliever and thegood works, or righteousness, of Christ.

    “Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine” p. 315

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: