The Creation is for the Purpose of the Redemption of the Elect

Ephesians 1:9-11–” making known to us the mystery of his will,
according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for
the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In Christ we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…”

The “common grace” theory supposes that God has a second purpose for
history, an intermediate cultural purpose. But “all things were created for Christ”. (Colossians 1:16) Jesus Christ “is before all things” (Colossians 1:17).

Jesus Christ is first in the counsel of God, logically before the
decree of election (and non-election). The elect are chosen in Christ
before the foundation of the world, and this means that logically
Christ was before the elect in the counsel of God.

Those who say that Christ died for every sinner think that they honor
Christ by saying that the decree for Christ to die is before the
decree to elect some sinners. They claim in this way to put Christ
before election.

Not only Arminians but many who call themselves Calvinists want to
place election after the decree to make atonement, so that the
atonement will not be restricted to the elect. They think of election
as something that causes the elect to believe, but they will not teach an atonement only for the elect.

But election in Christ is first! The death of Christ is not the cause
of God’s election in love. God’s election in love is the cause of the
death of Christ. Jesus Christ is first. Jesus, the incarnate, the
eternal Son of God in the flesh, is the foundation of election by
being Himself the object of election. “All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things.”

This means that the creation is for the purpose of the redemption of
the elect. This also means that God does not have a second “cultural
only” purpose for the creation.

God’s purpose in history is to bring glory to Jesus Christ. He is not simply the one who makes election work. Jesus Christ Himself is first. Jesus Christ Himself is chosen first, before all the others. All the other elect were chosen in Jesus Christ, and not apart from Jesus Christ. Those God loves are “chosen in Him”. Ephesians 1:4

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: atonement

Tags: ,

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

17 Comments on “The Creation is for the Purpose of the Redemption of the Elect”

  1. markmcculley Says:

    Matthew 5:44-48

    Murray himself admits that “This passage does not indeed deal with the overtures of grace in the gospel…. What bearing this [passage] may have upon the grace of God manifested in the free offer of the gospel to all without distinction remains to be seen.” 13

    Unfortunately the bearing of this passage upon the free offer of the Gospel is not made clear in FOG. At the end of their essay, Murray and Stonehouse do conclude, however, that “our provisional inference on the basis of Matthew 5:44-48 is borne out by the other passages. The full and free offer of the gospel is a grace bestowed upon all…. The grace offered is nothing less than salvation in its richness and fullness. The love or lovingkindness that lies back of that offer is not anything less; it is the will to that salvation.” 14

    This sort of exegesis, as we shall see shortly, rests upon a most peculiar hermeneutical principle: Passages of Scripture which do not support common saving grace demonstrate common saving grace in a passage that, by the exegete’s own admission, does not deal with saving grace. Perhaps this is an example of the sort of non-deducible “analogical truth” that Van Til has praised and recommended. But let us proceed to those other passages on which Murray and Stone house rest their case.

    2 Peter 3:9

    The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

    Let us compare Murray’s exegesis of this verse with Francis Turretin’s, John Owen’s, John Gill’s, and Gordon Clark’s:

    Murray:

    ”God does not wish that any men should perish. His wish is rather that all should enter upon life eternal by coming to repentance. The language in this part of the verse is so absolute that it is highly unnatural to envisage Peter as meaning merely that God does not wish that any believers should perish…. The language of the clauses, then, most naturally refers to mankind as a whole…. It does not view men either as elect or as reprobate.” 15

    Turretin:

    ”The will of God here spoken of ‘should not be extended further than to the elect and believers, for whose sake God puts off the consummation of ages, until their number shall be completed.’ This is evident from ‘the pronoun us which precedes, with sufficient clearness designating the elect and believers, as elsewhere more than once, and to explain which he adds, not willing that any, that is, of us, should perish.’”16

    Owen:

    ”’The will of God,’ say some, ‘for the salvation of all, is here set down both negatively, that he would not have any perish, and positively, that he would have all come to repentance….’ Many words need not be spent in answer to this objection, wrested from the misunderstanding and palpable corrupting of the sense of the words of the apostle. That indefinite and general expressions are to be interpreted in an answerable proportion to the things whereof they are affirmed, is a rule in the opening of the Scripture…. Will not common sense teach us that us is to be repeated in both the following clauses, to make them up complete and full,-namely, ‘Not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance’? … Now, truly, to argue that because God would have none of those to perish, but all of them to come to repentance, therefore he hath the same will and mind towards all and every one in the world (even those to whom he never makes known his will, nor ever calls to repentance, if they never once hear of his way of salvation), comes not much short of extreme madness and folly … I shall not need add any thing concerning the contradictions and inextricable difficulties wherewith the opposite interpretation is accompanied…. The text is clear, that it is all and only the elect whom he would not have to perish.” 17

    Gill:

    ”It is not true that God is not willing any one individual of the human race should perish, since he has made and appointed the wicked for the day of evil, even ungodly men, who are fore-ordained to this condemnation, such as are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; yea, there are some to whom God sends strong delusions, that they may believe a lie, that they all might be damned…. Nor is it his will that all men, in this large sense, should come to repentance, since he withholds from many both the means and grace of repentance….” 18

    Clark:

    ”Arminians have used the verse in defense of their theory of universal atonement. They believe that God willed to save every human being without exception and that something beyond his control happened so as to defeat his eternal purpose. The doctrine of universal redemption is not only refuted by Scripture generally, but the passage in question makes nonsense on such a view…. Peter is telling us that Christ’s return awaits the repentance of certain people. Now, if Christ’s return awaited the repentance of every individual without exception, Christ would never return. This is no new interpretation. The Similitudes viii, xi,1, in the Shepherd of Hermas (c. A.D. 130-150), … says, ‘But the Lord, being long-suffering, wishes [thelei] those who were called [ten klesin ten genomenen] through his Son to be saved.’ … It is the called or elect whom God wills to save.” 19

    Murray’s interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 conflicts with the rest of Scripture. He arrogantly refuses to let his understanding of the passage be governed by the principle that all the parts of Scripture agree with one another. He implicitly denies, as the Confession that he professed to believe asserts, that one of the marks of Scripture is the “consent of all the parts.”

    Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11

    ”Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die,” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? … For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live! … I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from this way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?”

    Murray:

    ”It does not appear to us in the least justifiable to limit the reference of these passages to any one class of wicked persons…. It is absolutely and universally true that God does not delight in or desire the death of a wicked person … This [‘turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways’] is a command that applies to all men without any discrimination or exception. It expresses therefore the will of God to repentance…. God does not will that any should die….There is the delight or pleasure or desire that it should come to be, even if the actual occurrence should never take place…. In terms of his decretive will it must be said that God absolutely decrees the eternal death of some wicked and, in that sense, is absolutely pleased so to decree. But in the text it is the will of God’s benevolence … that is stated, not the will of God’s decree….” 20

    Calvin:

    ”If it is equally in God’s power to convert men as well as to create them, it follows that the reprobate are not converted, because God does not wish their conversion; for if he wished it he could do it: and hence it appears that he does not wish it.” 21

    Turretin:

    ”Although God declares that he ‘does not will the death of the wicked, but that he turn from his way and live,’ it does not follow that he has willed and planned from eternity the conversion and life of everyone, [even] subject to any condition, for … it is certain that this refers to God’s will as commanding, not to the will of his good pleasure….” 22

    Gill:

    ”The expostulation, Why will ye die? is not made with all men; nor can it be proved that it was made with an who were not eventually saved, but with the house of Israel, who were called the children and people of God; and therefore cannot disprove any act of preterition passing on others, nor be an impeachment of the truth and sincerity of God. Besides, the death expostulated about is not an eternal, but a temporal one, or what concerned their temporal affairs, and civil condition, and circumstances of life….” 23

    Clark:

    ”Ezekiel 18 presents several difficulties. Verses2, 4, and 20 could in isolation be taken as contradictory of Romans 5:12-21…. Another difficulty, one that occurs in several books of the Bible, including Romans 2:10, 14, 25, occurs in Ezekiel 18:19, 21, 22, 27, 28, 31. These verses, in both books, sound as if some men could merit God’s justification on the basis of their own works of righteousness. But the context in Romans and Galatians and elsewhere teaches justification by faith alone. Now, if these contexts so completely alter the superficial meaning of the verses in question, one must be prepared to alter the Arminian interpretation of verses 23 and 32…. Therefore the contiguous verses in Ezekiel, the context of the book as a whole, and the references in the New Testament indicate that God has no pleasure in the death of Israel….Ezekiel 33 contains similar statements, which must be given the same interpretation.” 24

    If the Complainants were correct in thinking that Clark was heretical for attempting to apply logic to Scripture, Calvin and Turretin must be heretics as well. Calvin’s argument makes a very neat syllogism: All that God wishes he does; God does not convert the reprobate; therefore, God wishes not to convert the reprobate.

    A further comment needs to be made. In their exegesis of this passage and several others, Murray and Stonehouse violate one of the laws of logic repeatedly by making inferences from imperative sentences. Luther condemned such elementary blunders with these words: “By the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning… ?” 25

  2. markmcculley Says:

    David Engelsma: First, in his monumental work on commongrace–three volumes, titled De Gemeene Gratie (Common Grace)–Kuyper explicitly and strongly warned against confusing his common grace (on behalf of culture) with a common savinggrace of God. It is this error that invariably attends contemporary confessions of common grace, notably in the decisions of the Christian Reformed Church affirming common grace, resulting in the formation of the Protestant Reformed Churches, to which the Protestant Reformed Churches mainly object. Churches affirming common grace usually include in the doctrine of common grace a sincere desire of God to save all humans, including the reprobate and make the preaching of the gospel a well-meant offer of salvation to all humans. This is the doctrine of common grace of the CRC, as it is also of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. This, I condemn as Arminianism, contending that it is the error exposed by the Canons of Dordt. Kuyper’s common grace was purely cultural. Kuyper expressly denied that his common grace consisted of a saving grace or love of God toward all humans. Whether any doctrine ofcommon grace can withstand the pressure to universalize God’s saving grace remains a serious question. Kuyper’s doctrine became the origin of the extension of common grace to a gracesaving in nature for all humans in the decisions adopting common grace on the part of the CRC.
    Second, in the author’s quotation of Calvin apparently in favor of cultural common grace Calvin himself makes plain that by a grace common to all that produces worthwhile culture he has in mind, in reality, God’s providence. Divine providence is radically different from divine grace. Providence gives Beethoven astounding musical abilities, which believers may enjoy. But this is not grace working in that modern pagan, who on his part devoted his musical abilities to his own glory and to the promotion of human life apart from God.
    Third, raising suspicion concerning Kuyper’s theory of common grace is Kuyper’s own acknowledgment that the project of common grace will produce Antichrist. “Satan could not put [Antichrist] on the stage of history apart from its full development under common grace” (Abraham Kuyper: a Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, 179, 180). Kuyperian common grace will produce the Antichrist. Some grace! Some worthy cause for Reformed Christians to promote!
    Thinkers who appeal to Kuyper’s cultural program of a common grace ought to consider what has happened to the churches and schools that have adopted and practiced Kuyper’s theory of common grace, involving fellowship of the church and the world, Christian and unbeliever. Where today are Kuyper’s churches? What is the spiritual condition of the Free University of Amsterdam? What is the condition of the CRC, which adopted Kuyper’s theory and added to it the notion of a universal saving grace of God (the “well-meant offer”)? How Reformed, indeed how Christian, is Calvin College, which is presently enthusiastically promoting sodomy and lesbianism or tolerating this promotion on the part of its faculty?
    What is the history of the theory of common grace in the churches and schools that embraced and practiced it? Secular thinkers judge about Marxist communism that “it doesn’t work.” Do religious thinkers pay any attention to the disastrous failure of the theory of common grace in the history of the church

  3. markmcculley Says:

    Reymond, p 185 Perspectives on Election

    Traditional supralapsarians have unwittingly have failed to work out the order of the decrees in a manner consistent with their own perception of things. By placing the discriminating decree first and then simply arranging the remaining decrees in the historical order, they represent God as discriminating among men as men–since they may be regarded as sinners only after the decree concerning the fall….

    The more consistent supralapsarian however submits the following teleological order within the divine plan. First, for the praise of the glory of his grace God elected some sinful men.How it is that they may be viewed as sinners is determined by the fourth decree. that men would fall in Adam, their federal head….

    p 178. As opposed to the more common (though inconsistent) supralapsarainism, other supralapsarians such as Johannes Piscator, Herman Hoeksema, and Gordon H Clark, have suggested that the decrees should be arranged in an order that more consistently reflects the rational principle in planning
    a few seconds ago · Like


  4. The arguments above are so well-founded in Scripture, that they serve as a basis for anyone who believes in the electional purpose of the Sovereign God Almighty in Christ Jesus before time…
    A god who leaves man to decide for himself when man cannot do so as he is dead in his sins, is not the God of redemption of the elect only, Who is the God of the Bible who was revealed to us as Christ Jesus, our Lord.
    Such a wagering god is a lotto-god, a god of chance, wagering on man to decide his own redemption.

  5. markmcculley Says:

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2015/01/predestination-and-the-presence-of-god

    Matthew Levering’s Predestination is, like everything he writes, clear, thorough, judicious, rich, biblically and historically informed. He starts with the church fathers and takes the story to the present worries (from David Hart among others) that predestination endangers the innocence of God.

    Levering recognizes the limits of patristic treatments of the topic: “the Church Fathers develop insightful but almost inevitably one-sided approaches to the New Testament’s teachings on predestination. . . . Origen emphasizes the Creator’s unlimited love for each and every rational creature, and he assumes the predestination of all to salvation. Augustine insists that the New Testament teaches God’s utterly gratuitous predestination from eternity of only some rational creatures. John of Damascus highlights the power of created free will to rebel against God’s love, with corresponding limitations as regards God’s eternal providence in bringing about the salvation of rational creatures.” According to Levering, “each of these perspectives responds to certain aspects of the biblical witness while neglecting other important aspects” (8).

    Levering gives a careful, dispassionate treatment of Calvin. He highlights Calvin’s rejection of scholastic notions of “permission,” and traces Calvin’s opposition to a concern about distancing God from creation and about raising questions about the goodness of God.

    On the first point, Levering writes, “After giving a variety of biblical examples of God willing evil deeds so as to punish the wicked and bring about salvation, Calvin notes that by contrast the doctrine of permission makes God aloof from salvation history. The God construed by the doctrine of permission cannot truly be the active Lord of history. For Calvin, those who rely upon the doctrine of permission depict God ‘as if he sat in a watch-tower waiting for fortuitous events, his judgments meanwhile depending on the will of man.’ This aloof, detached, passive God is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible, Calvin observes, acts within the minds of human beings not only to enlighten them, but also to blind them and to intoxicate them. God thereby compels the wicked to serve him” (103).

    The second point is counterintuitive, given the widespread impression that Calvin’s doctrine of predestination implies that God is an oppressive ogre. Levering writes, “The danger with the doctrine of permission is that it seems to question the goodness of the omnipotent God’s eternal decree. In observing that predestination means ‘the eternal decree of God, by which he determined within himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man,’ Calvin puts his finger on the difficulty: God’s permission of everlasting rebellion cannot be disjoined from God’s eternal will. God fully knows and freely wills this order, which includes everlasting rebellion. Since God is free and all-powerful, he is not constrained to create this kind of order. God wills an order in which some are left out from union with God, and so this must be a good order, one that does not need the covering of the doctrine of permission. Calvin senses that the doctrine of permission originates in doubts about the justice of reprobation ‘by the just but inscrutable judgment of God, to show forth his glory by their condemnation.’ Discussing Paul’s interpretation of Malachi 1:2–3 (see Rom. 9:13), Calvin urges that the doctrine of double predestination in fact elucidates the scriptural doctrine of undeserved grace, God’s bounty rather than harshness” (106).

    The notion of permission is a way of opening a gap between the ultimate outcome of history and God Himself, the Lord of history. Calvin on the contrary insists on the goodness of God’s plan,which is a plan that includes hell.

  6. markmcculley Says:

    Engelsma–Highlighting the difference between Hoeksema and the men of the Federal Vision is the fact that, although they deny that Adam could have merited higher, eternal life, the advocates of the Federal Vision allow that Adam might, nevertheless, have obtained the higher life for himself and the race by “maturing” into that life through his obedience. Hoeksema would have condemned this notion as heartily as he did the notion of earning. He would have charged that there is no difference between a mere man’s meriting the higher, eternal life by his work and a mere man’s obtaining the higher, eternal life by his work.

    The appeal to Hoeksema’s rejection of the covenant of works by the men of the Federal Vision is mistaken because Hoeksema’s fundamental objection against the covenant of works was different from that of the proponents of the Federal Vision. Hoeksema objected to the notion that Adam by his obedience could have
    earned a higher, heavenly, eternal life. Although Hoeksema couched his objection in terms of Adam’s being incapable of meriting higher life, his objection held against Adam’s obtaining higher life for himself and the human race in any manner whatever. Viewing the covenant with Adam in light of God’s eternal decree to glorify Himself by realizing His covenant in Jesus Christ, Hoeksema insisted that only the Son of God in human flesh could obtain the higher and better heavenly and eternal life for Himself and elect humanity, in the way of His cross and resurrection.

    http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov2006.pdf

  7. markmcculley Says:

    Scott F. Sanborn teaches that Christ’s death is not His righteousness, and that only Christ’s life of vicarious law-keeping life is His righteousness. In this thinking, the death of Christ is not imputed to us, but only the life of Christ is imputed to us. According to this “active/passive”distinction, we don’t receive His death by imputation, and His death is not part of His righteousness. “It is not death that is the ground of life in Christ. Rather, it is the righteous life of Christ that is the ground of our life.
    Sanborn — “God had an end for creating the world apart from the fall and redemption.Jonathan Edwards had this in mind when he wrote his work The End for Which God Created the World…… only the end of creation was revealed in creation, not the end of the fall and redemption. The end of redemption was not revealed in the person of Adam at that time .Adam was not a type of Christ at that time….The infralapsarian position suggests that we cannot assert that God intended to create Adam in such a way as to be a type of Christ later. ”
    http://www.kerux.com/doc/2703A1.asp

  8. markmcculley Says:

    God does not love us because we are justified

    this means not only that there is no eternal justification

    but that eternal election is before justification

    which means that justification cannot be eternal

    there is an eternal purpose for the glorification and exaltation of the elect in Christ

    there is an eternal purpose for the justification of the eternally elect in Christ

    I John 4: 9 God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent His One and Only Son into the world in order that we would live through Him. 10 Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins

    Romans 5: 8 But God proves His own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us! 9 Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath. 10 For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by His resurrection.


  9. Norman Shepherd defends Turretin against Daane.

    http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/ns19-1974NSElectionAsGospel.pdf

    Turretin Locus 4, Question 10, AIthough we are not elected on account of Christ, yet we are not elected without and out of him; because by the very decree which destined salvation to us, Christ also was destined to acquire it for us, nor was it otherwise destined, than as to he acquired by Christ. Election, therefore, does not exclude but includes Christ, not as already given, but as to be given” (Paragraph 14);

    Turretin—“The Election of Christ as Mediator should not be extended more widely than the Election of men who are to be saved, so that he was not destined and sent for more than the elect” (Paragraph 19).

  10. markmcculley Says:

    election precedes God’s justice in the giving of the Son for propitiation

    Ephesians 1: 3 Praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing IN THE HEAVENS. 4 For He chose us IN HIM, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love[ 5 He predestined us TO BE ADOPTED through Jesus Christ FOR HIMSELF, according to His favor and will, 6 to the praise of His glorious grace that He favored us with IN THE BELOVED.

    7 We have redemption IN HIM through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 that He lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure that He planned IN HIM 10 for the administration of the ends of the ages—to bring everything together in the Messiah, both things in heaven and things on earth IN HIM.

    Bavinck—“Christ is a gift of love from the Father and that love precedes the sending of the Son. The Son did not move the Father to forgiveness, because electing love originated with the Father Himself.” 2:365

  11. markmcculley Says:

    Donald Macleod—It was no part of the work of Christ to make God love us, The very fact of his being on earth at all was proof of the divine love. The business of the atonement, therefore, was to propitiate the God who already loves us: to lay the foundation for an advocacy directed towards him specifically as Father
    (1 John 2: 1). God unequivocally requires such propitiation,
    but in the last analysis God also provides the propitiation and God even becomes the propitiation. The whole cost of our redemption is borne by the triune God. In that sense, the atonement is a transaction entirely internal to the trinity. But by virtue of the incarnation, it is also external. It takes place not in heaven, but on Calvary; not in eternity, but on Good Friday, p 71

    Torrance is surprised (p. 96) that Rutherford did not regard
    the death of Christ as the cause of the love of God, but as its
    consequence. He should not have been surprised. Rutherford’s view was universal among Scottish divines, if only because all felt the force of John 3:16, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son’. The love came first and the sacrifice followed

    I 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 Christ and how Christ atoned or how Christ justifies

    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
    This means that election is not the same thing as justification.

  12. markmcculley Says:

    Does the Father love the Son because the Son obeys?

    or is it only the other way?

    that the Son obeys because the Father loves the Son?

    John 15:10 if you keep my commandments, you will abide also in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in His love

    God promised David that God would punish David’s son when he committed iniquity
    II Sam 7:14

    quoted in Hebrews 1: 9 is Psalm 45: 7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
    THEREFORE God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy more than your companions.

    There is a reason for the Father’s love for the Son

    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.

  13. markmcculley Says:

    http://www.christwardcollective.com/christward/does-god-the-father-love-you-because-of-jesus#.V4eDQrgrKM9

    Sometimes rather loosely, Evangelical people especially are tempted (and it is the peculiar temptation of those of us who are Evangelical)–we are tempted to put this whole question of the atonement and of salvation in this way: that it is something the Son of God has done to effect the Father; and that the Son, having done the work, stands before the Father and pleads with Him and has to persuade Him to forgive us because of what He has done for us. Now that is a very terrible way of putting it, but it has often been put like that. There are some hymns that put it like that. I remember being brought up, in a sense, on a hymn in another language which very specifically and explicitely put it like that–that the Son was there pleading with the Father and saying, ‘I have died for them; let them live.’ Now that’s a terrible travesty of the Scripture. Though we realize that the work was done by the Son what we must never forget is this–that it was the Father who sent the Son to do it. “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son;” “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself;” God is the actor. God is the prime mover. Salvation is of God the Father; and, therefore, I say it is very wrong to represent God the Father as being passive and being pleaded with and appealed to and persuaded by the Son and His work to grant us salvation and to grant us forgiveness

  14. markmcculley Says:

    en 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
    This means that election is not the same thing as justification.

    God loved the elect before God made justice for the elect.
    God has already made justice for the elect
    God has already not made justice for the non-elect
    God has already not loved the non-elect

    God loved the elect in Christ before Christ made atonement for the elect alone
    but God does not justify God’s elect apart from the Atonement

    I find it interesting that these very same preachers who are teaching “eternal election is eternal justification” are the very same people who also like to say that “non-election is not condemnation”.

    When they say this, logically they should change their soundbites so that “election is not salvation but only unto salvation”. 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.”

    Those who refuse to give explanations like to have their cake and also eat it. On the hand, they like to reduce salvation to God’s sovereignty and equate election with justification ( and don’t talk about justification or Christ obtaining righteousness by being imputed with guilt). But on the other hand, when it comes to explaining the non-salvation of the non-elect, these same preachers don’t want to talk about God’s sovereignty but only about God’s justice.

    But guilt is not enough for destruction, because you also have to be non-elect. The elect are also born guilty in sin, under the wrath of God, but all the elect will pass from guilt to justification. But these preachers deny that the elect are ever guilty, and they minimize any idea that Christ was imputed with the guilt of the elect, and in that way obtained justification for the elect. And these same preachers deny that non-election is any factor in some sinners not being saved.

    Romans 9: 11 For though her sons had not been born yet or done anything good OR BAD, so that God’s purpose according to election would stand— 12 not from works but from the One who calls

    Romans 1: 16 does NOT read—For I am not ashamed of the gospel, For in the gospel God’s free and sovereign grace is revealed

    Romans 1: 16 does NOT READ For I am not ashamed of the gospel, For in the gospel God’s love is revealed

    Romans 1: 16 reads For I am not ashamed of the gospel,because it is God’s power for salvation to as many as who believe, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek. 17 For in the gospel God’s RIGHTEOUSNESS is revealed

    Romans 1 :17 it is written: The righteous will live by faith

    Romans 1:17 does NOT teach that the elect are already justified apart from faith in God’s revealed righteousness

    Romans 1:17 does NOT teach that election is God’s righteousness

    Romans 1:17 does NOT teach that Christ already obtained justice for the elect before the ages

    Romans 1;17 does NOT teach that God’s purpose in Christ to obtain justice for the elect is the very same as Christ having already obtained justice for the elect

    God loved the elect before God made justice for the elect.
    God has already made justice for the elect

    God does demand justice
    But the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is not God’s demand for justice
    The Righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is Christ’s death for the Elect to Bring in Justice for the Elect
    God has not placed all the elect into Christ’s death
    God has not yet imputed this justice accomplished and obtained to all the Elect.

  15. markmcculley Says:

    Christ’s death for some sinners is the fruit of God’s election of these same sinners in Christ, and what happens to cause these same sinners to believe the gospel is part of the good news, because even though this believing is not the cause of Christ’s death, this believing the gospel is the fruit of Christ’s death.

  16. 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?

  17. markmcculley Says:

    God’s wrath is not conditioned on the sinner

    the sinner is a result of God’s wrath

    sinners are handed over by God to sin

    sinners are handed over to sinning

    sinners are handed over to other sinners

    God causes every human to be born in Satan’s kingdom

    God keeps every non-elect human in Satan’s kingdom

    Romans 10: 11 Now the Scripture says, Everyone who believes on Him will not be put to shame, 12 for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, since the same LORD OF ALL IS RICH TO ALL WHO CALL ON HIM 13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.


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: