Do Lost Sinners Need to Know about Election Up Front?
Is knowing about election like sex after marriage? Is it not supposed to happen until after you are in the family?
In Assured by God (ed Parsons, Presbyterian and Reformed, 2006, p 45), Philip Ryken informs us that “election is a family secret”. Ryken writes: “To ask if you are among the elect is to really ask if you are in Christ. If you want to know whether God has chosen you, all you need to know is it you are in Christ.”
This sounds simple but it’s not. Which Christ? Is the Christ of the people who deny election the same Christ as the Christ of the people who rejoice in the good news of election? And perhaps more to the point, is the Christ of people who “don’t know about election” the same Christ as the Christ of the people who do know about election?
It’s important to make a distinction here between knowing about election and knowing that you are elect. I certainly agree with Ryken
that nobody can know if they are elect before they believe the gospel. But this is NOT the same thing as saying that nobody can know about election before they believe the gospel.Though Ryken teaches that election is a family secret, the Bible teaches election as inherent in the gospel, and as something to be proclaimed to all who read the Bible and who hear the gospel. (Romans 9:11)
The Christ who died only for the elect is not the same Christ as the counterfeit Christ who died for everybody. Those who believe that Christ died for everybody do not believe in what the Bible says about election and therefore do not believe in the gospel.
It does not matter if we say that these people (most evangelicals) don’t know about election or if we say that they know about election
and reject it in favor of their preference for a “Jesus” who died for everybody. There is no “don’t ask don’t tell rule” by which we should not talk about election to professing Christians for fear that they may reject it.
In either case, be it ignorance or rejection. most professing Christians do NOT believe that all for whom Jesus died will be justified. Even most people who do not profess to be Christians are sure that Jesus died for them. In every place in the United States, even most of the non-professing Christians think that Jesus died for more sinners than will be saved. They think they know that God loves everybody, but they also think that some of those people will be lost. As a result, most people do NOT believe in the “finished” work of Christ. They only believe in a “to be determined”
work of Christ.
I agree with Calvin that we shall not find proof of our election in ourselves. But neither can we find proof of our election
in our believing a false gospel which teaches a false Christ who died for those who will perish. Ryken writes: “Since election is in Christ, it is often best understood after one becomes a Christian…While you are outside of God’s family, you may not hear about predestination at all; once you are in the family, however, it makes the most perfect sense in the world.”
The irrational irony of this claim by Ryken is that he knows that most who claim to be now in God’s family STILL do not believe in election. Ryken knows that most of these people have not even heard about election, and all the soundbites about “Calvinists when they pray” do not change this sad reality. Some “evangelical Christians” are open theists who deny that God even knows the future. Others of Ryken’s fellow evangelicals say that God knew ahead of time who to “elect” because God saw ahead of time who would “accept Jesus by faith”. Now it could be said that this shows that they do believe in a kind of election, but becoming elect by accepting Jesus is not what the Bible teaches, and it’s not the “secret” Ryken is talking about in his essay.
Ryken wants to claim that the kind of election about which he’s talking makes good sense to people after they become Christians. How then does he explain that most “Christians” still don’t know the family secret? If there were indeed an election-free gospel which one could accept and thus get oneself united to Christ, why would it be important for these Christians to learn later the “family secret”?
Ryken does not question the salvation of those who don’t learn the “family secret”. Nor does he question the salvation of those who deny the “family secret”. Nor does he pause to doubt the assurance of those who think the “secret” is that God knew ahead of time who would believe. Ryken might in general question the salvation of open theists, or even of those who teach “easy-believism carnal Christianity”, but too many of his constituents are Arminians for him to ever doubt that these folks have believed the gospel. Whatever their “gospel”, Ryken (like Boice before him) agrees with them that their faith in their gospel has effectively united them to Christ so that they are now “in Christ”.
The words of Jesus Christ in John chapter 10 about the sheep hearing the voice of the Shepherd and not hearing the voice of strangers must have something to do with morality and behavior and discipleship, because to Ryken’s mind those words can have nothing to do with election. So what if a lot of Christians continue to believe that they elect themselves to salvation with their faith? Now, they have Ryken and other Reformed booksellers to teach them the “secret”….
Why talk about Romans 8 or John 10 when you can quote Donald GrayBarnhouse? “Imagine a cross like the cross on which Jesus died, only
so large that it has a door in it and a sign over it: whosoever may come….On the other side of the door, a happy surprise waits the one
who enters. From the inside, anyone glancing back can see the words on this side of the door: chosen…”
And perhaps they will find some books written by Boice, Barnhouse and Ryken! But just to deal with the empirical reality of what
evangelicals now believe, how does Ryken explain that so many don’t ever look back and read the word “chosen”? And why do so many still
understand that “chosen” to mean “because you chose first and God saw you would choose”? And why do so many Christians insist that any talk
of election is not “good news” but to be rejected?
If I myself refuse to believe in any God who would elect some to salvation and not others, why would I want others to know the “secret”? If I myself refused to believe that Jesus didn’t love everybody and die for them, why would I think of that truth as a “happy surprise”?
Romans 9:11 “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call.”
When evangelicals like Ryken attempt to leave out the “for the elect alone” and discuss the gospel without talking about election, mostly all they can say is “not because of works but because of faith alone”.
Even if you believe the false gospel that Christ died for every sinner, “Reformed evangelicals” will tell you that God effectually called you to believe that falsehood. Of course in some Sunday School class for smarter people (or in conferences that charge you big dollars) they will explain a more educated and precise view of things which you might want to add on to what you already believe without needing to repent of a false gospel.
To get into the family you believed in a faith alone gospel and that caused you to get into Christ, and now you still believe in a faith alone gospel but now you know that the faith came from God.
Faith is hearing produced by God by means of the gospel. The power is in the true gospel, not a false gospel. I Corinthians 1:18–“for the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, IT is the power of God.”
The true gospel needs to be proclaimed to all sinners. The gospel is only good news for the elect, but we don’t know who the elect are until they have believed the gospel. If the object of the faith alone is a false gospel which says that Christ loves everybody and died also for everybody on the wrong side of the door, then this faith alone is not in the true Christ but is instead in faith alone. But “faith alone” is not the condition of justification, and to see that, we need a message which tells us about God’s election.
Romans 1:16, “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” Evangelicals understand this as teaching that salvation is conditioned on faith alone. Evangelicals don’t understand the gospel.
Election is God’s idea. This idea goes along with the idea of not works. Romans 9:11: “In order that God’s election might continue, not because of works.”
Romans 11: 5, “So too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. But if it by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would be no more grace.”
Doesn’t the apostle Paul understand that you can say “not by works “ without talking about election? Why doesn’t he just say: “by faith and not by works”? Why does he bring in this idea of an elect remnant? Paul writes about election in order to explain what he means by faith. Paul does not regard faith as a substitute for works.
God imputes the righteousness revealed in the gospel to a person justified by the gospel. The “it” which is imputed by God to Abraham is the obedient bloody death of Christ Jesus for the elect alone. The righteousness of God obtained by Christ for the elect alone is imputed unto the elect alone.
We certainly can and should talk about election to all people, because teaching the good news of election does mean that we need to know who is elect. People cannot know that they are elect before they believe the gospel, and all for Christ died will believe the gospel. Teaching election is not going to keep any elect person from believing the gospel. Election is not a secret thing, who is elect (or not elect) is a secret thing. So when we think of election, do we only think of as the application, causing regeneration. Or do we think of election as defining Christ’s death as the effective reconciliation?
Election is not only about having ears to hear and believe the gospel. Before election deals with application (union), election tells us that all for whom Christ died will be saved by that death, and not by some other factor, for example, having ears to hear. This is why lost people need to hear about election, because they need to understand the reason for and the nature of Christ’s death. And this cannot be taught without talking about election. People can say “substitution” but if Christ died for everybody, then it’s not substitution. But if we teach that the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ, then we can teach that the law demanded Christ’s death for those sins and that the law demands that those elect sinners be saved from God’s wrath.
According to Romans 9:11, we cannot say grace alone without saying “for the elect alone”. “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call.”
I want you to see the connection between “not because of works” and election. When evangelicals attempt to leave out the “for the elect alone” and discuss the gospel without talking about election, mostly all they can say is “not because of works but because of faith alone”.
Even if you believe the false gospel that Christ died for every sinner, “Reformed evangelicals” will tell you that God effectually called you to believe that falsehood. Of course they won’t tell you it’s heresy, but in select groups (for examples, conferences that charge you big dollars) they will explain a more precise view of things which you might want to add on to what you already believe without needing to repent of a false gospel.
Before you believed in a faith alone gospel, and now you still believe in a faith alone gospel but now you know that the faith came from God. Election is what caused you to believe. But it is still not taught that Christ only died for the elect, and that all will be saved for whom Christ died. That election is not taught, and neither is God’s past imputation of the sins of the elect to Christ.
Galatians 3: 8, “ And the Scripture, forseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham….
Faith is hearing produced by God by means of the gospel. The power is in the true gospel, not a false gospel. I Corinthians 1:18–“for the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, IT is the power of God.”
The true gospel needs to be proclaimed to all sinners (and not just those who have the time and money to get to Reformed conferences). The gospel is only good news for the elect, but we don’t know who the elect are until they have believed the gospel.
If the object of the faith alone is a false gospel which says that Christ loves everybody and desires to save everybody but that faith is some kind of condition of this salvation, then this faith alone is not in the true Christ but is instead in faith alone as the saving factor. Since Chrsit supposedly died for all sinners, but not all sinners are saved, then “faith alone” becomes what really saves. But “faith alone” is not the condition of justification, and to see that, we need a message which tells us about God’s election.
Romans 1:16, “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” Evangelicals understand this as teaching that salvation is conditioned on faith alone. Evangelicals don’t understand the gospel. Election is God’s idea. This idea goes along with the idea of not works. Romans 9:11: “In order that God’s election might continue, not because of works.”
Romans 11: 5, “So too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. But if it by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would be no more grace.”
But can’t we say “not by works “ without talking about election? Why doesn’t the apostle Paul simply say: “by faith and not by works”? Why does the apostle bring in this idea of a remnant? Paul writes about election in order to explain what he means by faith. Paul does not regard faith as a substitute for works. Christ’s obedience unto death is the substitution. God imputes the righteousness revealed in the gospel to a person justified through faith in the gospel. The “it” which is imputed by God to Abraham is the obedient bloody death of Christ Jesus for the elect alone. According to Romans 4:5, faith alone is “not works”. The point of faith alone is grace alone. “To the one who does NOT work but trusts Him who justifies the ungodly, righteousness is counted.”
Jesus died on the cross. It’s a fact. Is that all people need to know? Fundamentalism attempts to discover the least that can be said. But even if we could discover that “least which can be said” (which Machen says we can’t), why would we then attempt to say the least?
But the problem is not “how much” or “how little” is being taught by Arminians. The problem is that Arminians are teaching the opposite of the truth. Does the holy God of truth save sinners for His glory by using the opposite of the truth? We need antithesis. Which of the five points believed by Arminians is part of the gospel? If none of them is the gospel, why would we think that those who are teaching those five points are teaching the gospel? This leaves me to ask three more questions. 1. What is the gospel? 2. is the fact alone that Christ died the gospel? 3. Does God save some people without any gospel, even with a false gospel?
This entry was posted on July 10, 2014 at 6:26 pm and is filed under election. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
Tags: Barnhouse, Boice, family secret, Ryken
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
For the Elect Alone 
July 10, 2014 at 6:48 pm
the worse the doctrine, the more the grace?
D.M. Lloyd-Jones from “The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors”:
“At this point I would make a comment, and put it in the form of a question. Is there not a real danger of our becoming guilty of a very subtle form of Arminianism if we maintain that correct doctrine and understanding are essential to our being used by the Spirit of God? It is sheer Arminianism to insist upon a true and correct understanding as being essential.
The case of the young Harris disproves this. For eighteen months he was used in this mighty manner while still not merely confused, but actually wrong in his doctrine. The same, of course, is true in the case of John Wesley. I remember speaking once in the Anniversary at the Central Hall, Westminster.
I said that John Wesley was to me the greatest proof of Calvinism. Why? Because in spite of his faulty thinking he was greatly used of God to preach the gospel and to convert souls! That is the ultimate proof of Calvinism – predestination and election. It certainly comes out quite clearly in the case of the young Howell Harris.”
“I would sum up this section like this. One of the greatest proofs of the truth of the doctrines emphasized by Calvin, what is known as ‘Calvinism’ – though I have already said I do not like these terms – is John Wesley. He was a man who was saved in spite of his muddled and erroneous thinking. The grace of God saved him in spite of himself. That is Calvinist! If you say, as a Calvinist, that a man is saved by his understanding of doctrine you are denying Calvinism. He is not. We are all saved in spite of what we are in every respect. Thus it comes to pass that men who can be so muddled, because they bring in their own human reason, as John Wesley and others did, are saved men and Christians, as all of us are, because it is ‘all of the grace of God’ and in spite of us.”
July 11, 2014 at 1:35 am
Which Christ is the sinner coming to? if the sinner is coming to a Christ who died for everybody, then that sinner cannot know he is elect because that sinner is still coming to a counterfeit Christ. People can say that they don’t care if Christ died for other people, whether it’s all people or only some people, because they just know that Christ died for “me”. But if Christ died for everybody, of course, he died for “me” and “you”. Big deal–such a death does not save, because not everybody for whom that Christ died is saved. That means it’s something else that saves… Mormons believe in Christ, and since they believe, now they know they are elect?.
July 11, 2014 at 1:45 am
God’s sovereign love decided which sinners Christ would die for, and that death was justice, and justice demands that all those sinners will be saved. The gospel is not only election, if that means only that God changes our hearts, because the gospel is not only about sovereignty but about justice, so election is about which ones Christ satisfied justice for. Christ already did or did not die for each sinner. Believing does not change that. Sovereignty does not change that. Sovereign love already decided which sinners would be saved, and sovereign loved provided the reconciliation for those elect sinners, and justice demands that this reconciliation shall be imputed to these elect. God is both just and one who justifies the ungodly.. Not only sovereignty but also justice, because the gospel is about satisfaction of the law for the elect.
August 14, 2014 at 5:39 pm
Funny, you mention this topic. Calvinists, my my experience. like to hide their Calvinism, at least when you first contact them. You don’t find out until later what views they actually hold. They seem to know that their viewpoint isn’t in any sense popular. I mean they get around to admitting it at some point; but, it’s never on their sleeve. Now, I can understand this up to a point. They don’t want to cast their “pearls” before swine, etc. You can call it a mild deception or that they are mildly deceptive. But, it’s still a deception.
March 13, 2017 at 1:50 am
come with faith alone in the gospel
Acts 15 Some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom prescribed by Moses, you cannot be saved!” … 9 God made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith….11 we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way they are.”
Romans 5: 2 Through our Lord Jesus Christ we have obtained access by faith into this grace om which we stand
Christ will in the future glorify all those for whom
Christ has done death
Christ in the present intercedes for all those for whom
Christ has done death
IT WILL BE DONE FOR YOU
born to a Canaanite Quaker family
I come alone, without water
alone, without clergy
alone, without Christian parents
alone, without promises to those born in the covenant
access by faith into this grace, not access by clergy
near by faith, not nearer and better by agreeing with the tradition about the real presence
Matthew 15: 22 Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came and kept crying out,“Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is cruelly tormented by a demon.” 23 Yet He did not say a word to her. So His disciples approached Him and urged Him, “Send her away because she cries out after us.” 24 He replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came, knelt before Him, and said, “Lord, help me!” 26 He answered, “It isn’t right to take the children’s bread and throw it to their dogs.” 27 “Yes, Lord,” she said, “yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table!” 28 Then Jesus replied to her, “Woman, your faith is great. IT WILL BE DONE FOR YOU as you want.” And from that moment her daughter was cured.
Matthew 7: 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or your pearls to pigs or they will trample them with their feet, turn, and tear you to pieces.
January 29, 2015 at 4:16 pm
Cair Davis—In God’s big plan, his decision comes at the beginning; but in our lives we’re called to learn about it when we really need it. “Election” isn’t really about evangelism and what we should say then. https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/hyper-inerrancy-and-the-sectarian-impulse/
April 23, 2015 at 11:40 pm
It is not proper, therefore, to set up a dichotomy whereby according to God’s secret will, election or justification cannot be lost, but according to our covenant perspective they may be lost. The statements cited show a tendency to use typically Calvinistic language with respect to the level of God’s secret will, but in the level of “covenant perspective” to use typically Arminian language (Christ died for you; the elect may become reprobate). There is even the notion that Ephesians 1:1–14 does not “function as canon” in relation to God’s unchangeable decree of predestination, but functions as canon only within that “context of the covenant” where “election” maybe lost. This is a misreading of the doctrine of God’s incomprehensibility. That doctrine does not mean that the perspicuously revealed grace of God in election and justification can be regarded as changeable on the covenant level.
—Henry W. Coray, Mario Di Gangi, Clarence W. Duff, David Freeman, Donald C. Graham, Edward L. Kellogg, Meredith G. Kline, Robert D. Knudson, Arthur W. Kuschke, David C. Lachman, George W. Marson, W. Stanford Reid, Paul G. Settle, Lelie W. Sloat, William Young to the Trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary (December 4, 1980), 5.
November 12, 2015 at 8:14 pm
The cause of faith itself, however, they would keep buried all the time out of sight, which is this: that the children of God who are chosen to be sons are afterwards blessed with the spirit of adoption. Now, what kind of gratitude is that in me if, being endowed with so pre-eminent a benefit, I consider myself no greater a debtor than he who hath not received one hundredth part of it? Wherefore, if, to praise the goodness of God worthily, it is necessary to bear in mind how much we are indebted to Him, those are malignant towards Him and rob Him of His glory who reject and will not endure the doctrine of eternal election, which being buried out of sight…
Let those roar at us who will. We will ever brighten forth, with all our power of language, the doctrine which we hold concerning the free election of God, seeing that it is only by it that the faithful can understand how great that goodness of God is which effectually called them to salvation. I merely give the great doctrine of election a slight touch here, lest anyone, by avoiding a subject so necessary for him to know, should afterwards feel what loss his neglect has caused him.
Now, if we are not really ashamed of the Gospel, we must of necessity acknowledge what is therein openly declared: that God by His eternal goodwill (for which there was no other cause than His own purpose), appointed those whom He pleased unto salvation, rejecting all the rest; and that those whom He blessed with this free adoption to be His sons He illumines by His Holy Spirit, in order to receive the life given in Christ; while others, continuing of their own will in unbelief, are left destitute of the light of faith, in total darkness.
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/predestination-election/a-treatise-of-the-eternal-predestination-of-god-by-john-calvin/
But you will say, In a matter so difficult and deep as this, nothing is better than to think moderately. Who denies it? But we must, at the same time, examine what kind and degree of moderation it is, lest we should be drawn into the principle of the Papists, who, to keep their disciples obedient to them, make them like mute and brute beasts. But shall it be called Christian simplicity to consider as hurtful the knowledge of those things which God sets before us? But (say our opponents), this subject is one of which we may remain ignorant without loss or harm.
As if our heavenly Teacher were not the best judge of what it is expedient for us to know, and to what extent we ought to know it! Wherefore, that we may not struggle amid the waves, nor be borne about in the air, unfixed and uncertain, nor, by getting our foot too deep, be drowned in the gulph below; let us so give ourselves to God, to be ruled by Him and taught by Him, that, contented with His Word alone, we may never desire to know more than we find therein. No! not even if the power so to do were given to us! This teachableness, in which every godly man will ever hold all the powers of his mind under the authority of the Word of God, is the true and only rule of wisdom.
January 19, 2016 at 12:09 pm
Fisher’s Catechism on Q.87, q.20 What is the evil in maintaining that none but true penitents have a warrant to embrace Christ by faith? a. It sets sinners upon spinning repentance out of their own bowels, that they may fetch it with them, as a price in their hand to Christ, instead of coming to him by faith, to obtain it from him, as his gift. Mark: I agree with Fisher that we don’t need to know that we are regenerate (or elect) before coming to Christ. We can’t know before coming. But the warrant (the right) for sinners’ coming is not that “Christ is dead for you” or that Christ desires the salvation of the non-elect.
November 19, 2016 at 11:43 pm
election is easy
all you need to do know is that you are a Christian
and then you know you are elect
all you need to know is that God loves you
even if you disagree with God about who God is
in spite of that, because you know you believe in the God
you believe in, you know you are a Christian
if you must think about such things
Some “Calvinists” believe in a “limited atonement” in that they say that “”Jesus only died for those He knew He would enable to ask Him to die for them”
ie, if you ask Jesus to die for you, He will
that is “limited atonement”, but it’s not what the Bible teaches about the nature of propitation for the imputed sins of the elect
May 19, 2018 at 6:50 pm
Mark – We keep getting “unfriended” on Facebook for some reason, but I am thankful that I can access your writings here. I have spent about an hour this morning just on this post alone. You are one of the very few people I come across who has such a clear grasp and explanation of the gospel. Thanks for keeping your writing available outside of Facebook!
– Cindy
May 22, 2018 at 6:22 pm
The eternal justification people confuse the life resulting from regeneration with the life resulting from justification when they say that becoming saved means becoming regenerate
and deny any passing from one legal state to another legal state
“Christians are not totally depraved” but this is NOT the same as our new righteous state (justification) but a result of God having imputed us with Christ’s death so that we become regenerate and believe the gospel
I deny that anybody is justified who does not believe the gospel
I deny that anybody is regenerated who does not yet believe the gospel
No sinner has always been a child of God
Sinners are not justified when they are elected by God.
I Peter 1: According to His great mercy, the Father has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead 4 and into an inheritance that is imperishable, uncorrupted, and unfading, kept in heaven for you. 5 You are being protected by God’s power through faith for a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 You rejoice in this, though now for a short time you have had to struggle in various trials 7 so that the genuineness of your faith—more valuable than gold, which perishes though refined by fire—will result in praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 8 You love Him, though you have not seen Him. And though not seeing Him now, YOU BELIEVE IN HIM and rejoice with inexpressible and glorious joy, 9 because you are receiving salvation, the goal of your faith 10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that would come to you searched
May 22, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Faith in the gospel, being the immediate result of God’s imputation of Christ’s death to the elect, is involved in justification, and this faith is necessary or the person is not yet justified. 2. This leads to a question: faith in what? Is it faith that Christ’s death has always been imputed to me and therefore I was never in Adam or under God’s wrath ? NO. .
3. If you wait to believe the gospel until you know that you have been justified, you will never believe the gospel.
4. Nobody is justified unless they believe the gospel. Knowing and believing the gospel is NOT the cause or condition of justification. If you are not yet believing the gospel , you are still condemned in Adam and under God’s wrath. Remember, there was a time when Christ Himself was under the wrath of God.
I believe in what? Not in my believing. And yet some who teach eternal justification (Gill) say that, as long as I explain it this way, believing cannot help being the condition, so either a. i believe in freewill or b i am stupid or c I disagree with God or d. all three
Assurance involves knowing that you have believed the gospel.
If the object of your faith is “I was always justified”, whatever assurance you have is in a false gospel.
John 3: 36 The one who believes in the Son has lasting life, but the one who does not believe in the Son will not see life. Instead, the wrath of God remains on the one who does not believe in the Son.
February 15, 2020 at 12:13 am
Matthew 16: 15 “But you,” He asked them, “who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are Christ the Son of the living God!” 17 And Jesus responded, “Simon, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven…. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven.”
20 And Jesus gave the disciples orders to tell no one that He was the Christ.
21 From then on Jesus began to point out to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, BE KILLED, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke Him, “Oh no, Lord! This will never happen to You!” 23 But Jesus turned and told Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me
I Peter 1: 11 The prophets inquired into what time or what circumstances the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when the Spirit testified in advance to Christ’s sufferings and the glory that would follow
18 You were redeemed from the empty way of life inherited from the fathers, with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish. 20 Christ was chosen before the creation of the world but was revealed at the end of the ages for YOU WHO THROUGH HIM ARE BELIEVERS
the guy who says we can’t be certain of the gospel is quite certain
that Peter was saved without any gospel—“Your analysis fails to deal
with Peter. We know for a fact that Peter was saved prior to Acts 2.
We know for a fact that twice thereafter, he was rebuked for Judaizing tendencies. He was saved yet still erred on an essential. You need to reckon with the silence of Scripture in regard to anathematizing unlimited atonement. Not only is there no condemnation for that view, but Peter and Paul both use language that is easily misconstrued as hypothetically universalist (at least out of context). And yet again, you need to reckon with the history of the church. Sound doctrine and the understanding of the gospel did not *poof* come into existence… Rather, it took a long time for the Spirit to guide the church into a clear understanding of faith alone or limited atonement.”
1.. which “church” and which covenant? Are there non-elect persons in the new covenant like there were non-elect persons in the Abrahamic covenant?
2. . whose history? the history which says that Anabaptists were
violent seditionists and that Roman Catholicism still has the marks of
“the church”?
Sacramentalists want to hand out grace without judging saved and lost. They want to include you in their “church” and tell you it’s God’s
will and not your decision. Sacramentalists don’t trust anabaptists
because they see that suspicion of the state might also mean suspicion of their big broad “the church”. The majority culture of the state and the powerful (and the would be powerful!) always opposes any attempt for “sects” to judge by the gospel who is justified. This is why the Reformers kept on killing the Anabaptists the Romanists also killed.
the Reformed support Niebuhr against the pacifists and Fosdick against the sectarians.
February 19, 2020 at 2:32 am
Even if our parents are Mormons, the Bible still commands us to
believe the gospel and promises us that those who believe the gospel will be saved. Not all the children of Abraham are children of
Abraham.
But the gospel is NOT—if and when you are ready
The gospel includes God saying: When God is Ready
God already elected you (or not)
Christ already died for you (or not)
The gospel is NOT -well if God has an elect, then It doesn’t matter
what I believe or I don’t even need to believe
The gospel doesn’t tell us that we ourselves are loved and elected. We can’t know that until after we believe the gospel. But our believing the gospel does not cause God’s love to happen. God’s love causes the believing to happen because God’s love caused the death for the loved to happen. And then God’s imputation of the death caused the faith in the gospel to happen.
The good news is the Father giving His Son for all those who will not perish.
I Peter 1: 18 For you know that you were redeemed from your empty way of life inherited from your families, not with perishable things like silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish. 20 Christ was chosen before the ages but was revealed at the end of the ages for YOU WHO THROUGH CHRIST ARE BELIEVERS in God, who RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD and gave Him glory, in order that your
faith and hope are in God.
2 Peter 1:1 To those who have obtained a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
March 21, 2020 at 3:24 am
Tianqi Wu–Whatever mediatorial role I attributed to Christ, I had always reserved some room in which the sinner’s own response to God made the difference between condemnation and justification, between wrath under God and peace with God. I called that “human responsibility” (justification by faith alone) I thought: Christ died for our sins, but we have to personally accept it in order for it to work for us, and nobody else will accept it for us. This is the only thing we have to “do” to be saved – and from Lutherans I learned to see that this “accepting” is not our “doing” but our passively receiving (not resisting) the “sacramental word”…
Then came two questions:
1 is faith the righteousness, or is the death of Christ the righteousness?
2 are we the imputers or is God the imputer?
This dramatically changed what the issue of “Calvinism” is about for
me. Previously, I had thought it was only about God’s sovereignty, but now I saw a new significance to the doctrine of “limited atonement”: it was also to safeguard something central to the gospel, the *substitutionary* atonement of Christ. The emphasis on “Christ died for the elect alone” safeguards “Christ’s death is substitutionary”,
The emphasis on “not justified through works” safeguards “justified through faith”
The idea of the “loving Father” of Lutheranism crumbled like a wooden idol before my eyes, and I knelt down at the idea of the God of double predestination and limited atonement, who creates many people to be damned on account of imputed sin. My initial reaction was dark despair, feeling the pain of a great loss of someone I had loved so dearly, and the terror of this all-decreeing God I had not known and who seemed utterly INHUMAN in his transcendence. Yet, after this wave of emotions subsided, I knew this must be true, because it is the only way that God’s justice is truly satisfied and Christ’s cross-work is truly glorified.
But the most “elementary” thing about the true gospel is something that does not necessarily or initially refer to my salvation – God’s
justice and Christ’s cross-work for God’s elect.
In my conversation with many people, I can see they are operating in
the former paradigm. When I bring up the issue of limited atonement,
some end up saying “I don’t care for whom Christ died, I just know
Christ died FOR ME!” and refuse to answer how they know.
Some Lutherans ask me: “if Christ didn’t die for everyone, then this
raises the problem, how do you know Christ died for you? You say,
because you believe, but how are sure that your faith is genuine,
rather than self-deceived?” The Lutheran boasts that even if he’s not
sure his faith will persevere, even if he falls away, he can always be
assured that Christ died for him.
To these questions, I point out that “faith in X” is “recognize X as true”. The difference between “true/false faith” is exactly the difference between “faith in truth or faith in falsehood”.
The Lutheran complaint is that, if he is non-elect, then there is no gospel for him. But this is simply the reality: there is no grace or “provision of redemption” for the non-elect.
THIS IS SOMETHING EVERY BELIEVER HAS TO RECKON WITH IN THEIR CONVERSION since the gospel published in the Bible does not name anybody as elect directly, but only through the promise of justification through faith, which means nobody can just assume they are elect until after they believed the gospel. “Christ died for me”, “God chose me”, “God loves me” are deductions one makes AFTER one believes the gospel, not something the preacher can tell to the audience.