Featured The True Gospel of Christ's Saving Death

This is a perfect example of what I mean. That's a true statement on it's face. God's purpose to save all of His elect will be realized. But we have to make sure we don't "mess up" by emphasizing a theology that is looking at things from God's point of view and possibly hinder people by making them worry that they may not be elect or that Christ's atonement did not cover them. If we do that, I believe God has foreseen that and His will shall still be accomplished, but we are still guilty of mishandling His word and hindering the spread of the gospel. People who reject Christ and refuse to believe will be lost because of that. They need to know that. The fact (and I believe it's true) of God's sovereignty and elective grace and even a limited atonement, is not the gospel, and it is not what a sinner needs to be told about.

 

So why are some statement made to the contrary?

 

"We should first send men to the school of faith before we send them to the University of election,"
John Rogers, early English Reformer.

 

What I mean is that you can have a belief in all the doctrines of grace and yet not take them to an unscriptural extreme.
"I confess, boldly, that I hold the doctrine of particular redemption, in a certain sense, as strongly as anyone. I believe that none are effectually redeemed but God's elect. They and they only, are set free from the guilt, and power and consequences of sin. But I hold no less strongly, that Christ's work of atonement is sufficient for all mankind. There is a sense in which he has tasted death for every man, and has taken upon Him the sin of the whole world. I dare not pare down, and fine away, what appear to me the plain statements of Scripture. I dare not shut a door which God seems, to my eyes, to have left open. I dare not tell any man on earth that Christ has done nothing for him, and that he has no warrant to apply boldly to Christ for salvation. I must abide by the statements of the Bible. Christ is God's gift to the whole world." This is J.C. Ryle

Ken, I'm not saying you do this but I am saying that we need to be careful that we don't do what Ryle is warning about above. The Gospel message is that anyone who comes to Christ can rely on the fact that he did die for them and will forgive them. The theology of God's sovereignty in this is not the point at this time. In fact, it's most assuredly NOT the point because if we don't come with a child like faith we can have no part in this. If, as a strict Calvinist you want to be precise and say "Christ has died, and you can repent and believe" instead of saying "Christ has died for your sins and you can repent and believe" then I see no problem with that. I wouldn't go any further putting up barriers.

 

The danger here is subtle but the above gives me the creeps. I think this kind of messaging is so strongly emphasizing election that it gives the impressing you are trying to assist God in being the gatekeeper. I think Ryle was worried about this, as have others before and after him. You are right above where you said no one knows who is elect except by the results of being born again. But it works both ways. I don't know why any theological road blocks need to be thrown in front of people who hear the Gospel.

 

If one is aware of do such, one would not.
A case in point. I presonally believe in both the general redenption and that Christ died to explicitly to redeem His own. I do not believe in universalism.
Jesus' quote as given in Luke, His redemption includes lost Judas, Luke 22:20-21, ". . . Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. . . ."

 

There is. And that is a good reason to have a basic Calvinistic theology. It sets up guidelines to keep us from using techniques and promising things that are not part of the gospel either. Whether it be a better, more happy life of peace and prosperity, or whether it be the result of just a winsome and persuasive worker a good dose of Calvinism puts the brakes on that stuff. I'm with you there but I don't think that works as a valid point against J.C. Ryle. He just didn't do that.

 

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

 

Actually it is just you against the bible and your loosing.