Gal 2:20

Amen to all that, Pastor Larry.

 

I'm sorry Pastor Larry. I meant to say "amen" to your comment on the so-called "free will" of men, but I really beg to differ on your last point, though I do not seek an argument with you.
God has chosen the means of evangelism to reach those who are His own and tell them of their finished salvation in order for them to gather as
a body of saved souls glorifying God in the midst of the crooked and perverse generation in their time.
Their salvation is a finished fact, whether or not they hear the gospel.

 

Connieman:

You wrote: The Gospel is to be announced to every creature fpr either of two purposes, for the "calling" by God of the elect to salvation, or the confirmation of the damnation of the non-elect. in their natural unbelief. This so that they will continue to be "without excuse."

There are two problems with this statement, at the very least. First, "many are called, but few are chosen." This does NOT mean called by men, but called by God. And if the calling of God to the elect is something that cannot be denied by a man, then that statement makes no sense at all. In addition, if God has decided whom He will save from before their births, then why worry about it?

The second problem is with your view of the damned. You yourself said that they would simply be confirmed in their natural unbelief. If it is natural and if they are simply being confirmed in their own natures, then they indeed have an excuse! They could not have done anything else! That is like condemning a man for breathing. God did not give us all a sense of justice and righteousness in order to thwart it, but in order to give us an idea of HIS character, as Proverbs 1 so clearly states.

You continued: How do you boast? By claiming that you are going to heaven because you have believed the truth, of your own free-will choice. You say that your eternal destiny is determined by your own action, and not by the work of God in Christ.

I am going to heaven because Jesus Christ has given me a new nature and indwelled me with His precious Holy Spirit. I was given the option of accepting or declining that offer. I did not make the offer. I did not save myself. I am not preparing a place for myself in heaven. It is not boasting to say that I said yes to my magnificent and loving Lord. If He had not done what He did, all the yeses in the world on my part wouldn't have done a thing to help me. He has done everything. In humility, repentance, and desperate hope, I said yes to Him. So I will boast in Him. If that is boasting, then that's fine.

And now you accuse me of unbelief and spiritual blindness! So be it. I am glad I belong to God and not to you. I will leave you, as well, to Him, to judge you as you are judging others.

To rsr: You hit the nail on the head. The entire idea of 'choice' in the Calvinistic sense is an oxymoron and means nothing.

The idea of having a 'choice' to do as your nature commands you is no choice at all. And the thing that makes us different from animals is that we DO have a choice regarding our behavior and beliefs! Animals can make physical choices - this path or that, this food or that, this place to sleep or that. Humans, being spiritual beings, can make spiritual choices: this path or that, this spiritual food or that…

Without Christ there would have been no choice. With Him, and because of Him, we have a choice, thank God!

To Ray: thank you for your consistent presentations in this area.

Elsewhere it was said, You Arminians are the ones who put Him in a box, making Him obligated to His attributes and character

First of all, I, for one, am NOT an Arminian. Period.

Secondly, how can God not be 'obligated to His attributes and character'??? Can He go against His own character? Can God sin? Can God be unjust, unmerciful, unloving, or just plain un-wonderful? Of course not! God is GOOD. Intrinsically and totally good. He cannot be otherwise. If someone feels that is an obligation to be good, oh well…

Yes, God COULD have determined by fiat who would be saved and who not. But that would not be in His character. He is just and He is fair. And He gave us a sense of justice and fairness so that we could comprehend this bit of His nature to some small extent. We may not be able to comprehend God, but He is not like a path that doubles back on itself, either, pretending to go one way and then turning and heading in the opposite direction. God has put into each of our hearts enough understanding of the concept of justice to recognize it in Him. And it is through the fear and awe of Him that we become aware not only of the concept of 'justice' in a vague form, which all men have, but of what it means, exactly.

If Calvinists were correct about the nature of man in terms of being unable to believe or to seek at all anything other than evil, then they are going to have a tough time explaining other religions, all of which seek to improve man in some way or another. If there were no concept of something better than what we are, then those multitudes of religions would simply not exist. But man is NOT an animal, operating by blind instinct, evil or otherwise. Man is a thinking, rational, volitional and spiritual being empowered by God Himself (much to the distaste of many here, I think) to be able to make choices.

One does not have to build the path to make a choice about which one to take. Choice is not a work.

Nor does the concept of free will mean there is any way to the Father but through Christ. Christ is the Way. We can choose that way (resulting in spiritual death and rebirth) or refuse it. That does not, in any way, take away from the fact that there is only ONE Way to God - the way of Christ!

To Aki - please understand that it is a Calvinist straw man to say there are only two positions: Reformed and Arminian. That is totally deceptive. There is also Biblical Christianity, which is neither.

To Pastor Larry: yes, I do understand the nature of man, contrary to your assertion. Man in his natural state has a heart that always "INCLINES" toward evil. That is God's pronouncement. However if you look around, you will find that men everywhere fight that inclination, through laws either formal or informal. I have been fascinated watching children, who know nothing of all of this, when they play games. If they see a problem, they make up a new law to counteract the problem. "OK, from now on, you can't do xxxxx."

Laws are precisely man's effort to change or at least control his own nature. They would not come into being if man were not aware that there was something wrong with his nature that needed, at the very least, controlling!

So it is not only the nature of man's heart to tend toward evil, but it is also in man to not want that - at least in others! And if you consider religions like Mormonism, you will see that man wants to exalt himself as well. If man were truly incapable of any thoughts or ideas but evil in his natural condition, then there would be no laws except the law of the jungle: survival of the fittest. I think this is part of the fascination a lot of people have with the Survivor shows, actually - what happens when men and women are on their own and laws removed… It's scary.

But here I sit, according to the Calvinists/Reformed/election folk here: ignorant, spiritually blind, boastful, vain, -- I know I am missing some of the fine attributes ascribed to me, but if I really wanted I could go back and read them. I have begun to put the Calvinists in the same class as evolutionists in a CERTAIN way - their tendency to go for the ad hominem attack when confronted by something they don't like. Interesting…

 

But here again you show your (already confronted) misunderstanding. You tried to float this a while back and it didn't work then either. The question for you is, Why do they form false religions instead of turning to God? The answer is their own depravity. They are seeking for the idea of a god, not for God. This is completely in line with our understanding and totally contrary to yours.

I would differ on why laws are created but that is immaterial. What you have said is again a testimony to depravity. Why do they establish laws? Because they understand sin and will not turn to God because of their depravity.

Another often refuted misunderstanding. No one has said that man is only capable of evil thoughts in contrast to civil good as you would imply. What we have said is what the Bible teaches ... namely that the heart is deceitful, that man is turned against God and out of the way, and that apart from a unilateral, effectual call of God, man will not be saved.

Big difference between us and the Evolutionists. We believe the Bible and can defend our position from the Bible. I have not seen real ad hominem attacks though I have cautioned some to back off the rhetoric. What I have seen is people committed to the truth and willing to confront error when they see it.

 

thank you for your answer, pinoybaptist
but i am already aware of everything you've said. i already know these concepts:

1. God will only accept those that are rigtheous.
2. no man in himself can attain this standard of God.
3. Jesus Christ provided the way for salvation.

but my question for what basis is not what is God's basis in accepting a man. both arminians and calvinists will give the same answer for that!

my concern really is why a person, in accordance to the Calvinist/Electionist doctrine, was chosen for salvation while the other is not. what has been God's reason for electing some and not the others?

in other words, i am not asking what is God's basis to accept a person. it is already clear - perfect righteousness. but rather i am asking what has been God's basis for electing those He elected while others he did not. i am sure it is out of His pleasure, will and sovereignty, but if that is the only answer i'd say it will not satisfy, for it is God's will that all should come to repentance.

or is the bible silent concerning what has been God's reason for choosing those He chose?

 

I don't think we are told exactly how we can make real choices that are nevertheless determined by God. And I will grant you that it is seemingly paradoxical. But I do think that is the picture that scripture paints for us: We make real choices for which we are really responsible, and yet those choices are choices that are governed by God.

For example, look at Isaiah 10. God is going to send Assyria up against Israel in judgment:

"Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hands is My indignation, I will send it against a godless nation, and commission it against the people of My fury...."

The choice of the Assyrian king to go up against Israel is a choice God determined he will make--so much so that it says God is sending him up against Israel, God is commissioning the Assyrians. Assyria is called "the axe" God chops with, "the saw" God wields--they are an instrument in God's hands.

And yet, when the job is done--the job that God commissioned them to do, He will punish them for what they did:

"So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, 'I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the pomp of his haughtiness...' "

Assyria will be punished for going up against Jerusalem, even though it is God who sent them and it is the Lord who is completing His work through them. Why is Assyria punished?

"Yet it does not so intend, nor does it plan so in its heart, but rather it's purpose is to destroy..."

The king of Assyria wasn't trying to do what God wanted; rather, he intended to go up against the God of Israel. He thought he was doing things by his own power and by his own smarts. His motives were his own. He looked at all the options and did what seemed best in his own arrogant heart. In other words, his choice was a real choice for which he was responsible.

At the same time, he was God's instrument doing what God's hand determined he would do. God was sending him; God was completing God's work through him.

I believe the positive choice someone makes to God's offer of salvation is similar. Those who are elected to salvation willingly choose to follow Christ. At the point they make their positive choice, they make the choice that seems absolutely best to them--the choice they want most. They make that choice out of a genuine love for God and a genuine desire for spiritual things. They have no idea what choice God has determined for them, so, from their viewpoint, all options are truly open to them; even though they invariably make the choice that God has determined they will make.

How does this work? I really don't know, and I'm not sure we're supposed to (or capable) of understanding exactly how it works. It does help to remember that every single element that goes into our making choices is within God's control. He can influence our choices through intangible means. He never has to FORCE us to do anything, but can simply arrange things so that we willingly do what he has determined we will do.

But anyway--we don't have to understand it and it doesn't have to seem nonparadoxical to us in order for it to be true. We accept seeming paradoxes in other areas because we see them as scriptural, don't we? For instance, how did did the Spirit work in the inspiration of the scriptures? Certainly the authors wrote in their own writing style, using their own words, writing the things that were on their own hearts to write, making real choices about what words to use and what subjects to write about, choosing sources, editing as seemed best to them. Each choice is influenced by the Spirit, and yet God did not take them over by force, nor did He dictate to them what they were to write. Each one wrote what he wrote willingly and voluntarily, and yet every thing in scripture was exactly as God intended it to be--every word had the Holy Spirit's approval.

If we accept something that is seemingly paradoxical in the inspiration of scriptures , why not accept things that are difficult to understand or that seem counterintuitive or against human logic in this area, if it is what scripture seems to teach? So, the real question is not, "How can that be?", but "Is that what scripture teaches?"

[ May 25, 2002, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

All the Bible tells us is that is it according to His purpose. God has His reasons, His purpose that He is working out through His choices, but what those reasons are, we are not told. We are told a couple of things that are not reasons for God's choice--physical descendency (who your parents are--or what nationality you are), anything good or bad we do, or our will (our choice) .

 

well thanks, russel, for your answer. of course i do not totally agree when you say that our will is not a reason for God's choice because there are times that it is.

anyhow, i do not intend on trying to prove you are wrong, as i have a my own stand which contradicts Calvinism. but i do want to learn more about what you believe. i have a couple of questions:

1. is it your belief that God elected some for salvation while some for condemnation? or, do you believe that God created some men simply to send them to Hell, according to His pleasure?

2. is it stated in the Scriptures why God has chosen to elect only a few, given that it is not His will that any should perish and that all should come to repentance? why not then elect everyone? does Calvinism then have any answer for this with the scriptures? or, once again, is the Bible silent about this question?

 

Aki said:

Therein lies the problem. Man wants to know why.
He would not take God when He says He "..doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, what doest thou ?...".

He must know why. God must satisfy him and not the other way around.

He did not take God seriously in the garden when He was told that "on the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die", so he believed the serpent's lie that "thou shalt not surely die" and that "thou shalt become as gods".
God decides to save certain people from the damnation they brought upon themselves, and man asks, "Why. Why should you save others and pass the rest by. Give me a reason. Satisfy me," instead of falling before God and saying "Lord, count me among your beloved according to the multitudes of your tender mercies, according to thy lovingkindness, for the sake of thy Son, Jesus".
Or, saying,"Lord, I thank thee for thy mercy and righteousness and that thou hast counted thy unworthy sinful servant among thy own. And now, Lord, speak, and open thy servant's ears, and cause thy servant to hear thy words."

No. Man cries out give me a reason.
What is it that you want to hear, my friend ? That God says He knows you are really a good person at heart, and that He knew you would repent at hearing the gospel message, and based on this he rewards your inherent inclination to God, and all the rest do not have the God-inclined heart that you have so they will not repent and so He must punish them ?

Aki also wrote:

The complete text reads:

My advice, Aki, is read the entire book of Peter 1 and 2, and remember to stay within context.

 

Well, I thought we were talking specifically about God's choice in election. I base my statement on Romans 9, where, speaking specifically of election (or God's choice to whom He shows mercy), it says it is not "of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." In other words, election is not based on our positive choice (him that willeth), or on our good effort (him that runneth), but on God's choice to show mercy to whom He will.

I believe that all of us were born condemned. God elects some out of that already condemned group to bring to salvation.

No answer to that question is given.

I agree with the poster above me. That little bit of scripture needs to be put in context.

"This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you....but do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance."

The "any" God doesn't will to perish is not "anybody in the whole wide world', but is "any of you--any of the beloved". Even the elect are "objects of God's wrath" and under His condemnation until he mercifully brings them to repentance. God is waiting for all of those throughout history that he has chosen to be saved to actually come to repentance before He comes in judgment.

At the same time, it is true that God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked. That the wicked perish doesn't make him happy. It is still, however, part of His will that all those who remain in their sins be condemned eternally, even thought he doesn't delight in their fate.

 

Hello again, Aki:
Let me venture an answer to your questions to Russell. I am not the Holy Spirit so I cannot guarantee this bring life and immortality to light for you, but here goes:

You asked:

When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in His image and likeness - holy and sinless.
He gave them charge of His creations on earth, and told them to "replenish the earth, and multiply". Had they remained obedient and ignored the serpent's lie, it seems they would have had children who were also holy, sinless, and uncorrupted. But, because they were of the earth, therefore, earthy, they disobeyed. Unlike the Second Adam, who is not of the earth, therefore, had no interest in sin, and only desired to obey. You know the story.
They were driven out of the garden, and even that was an act of mercy from God. (Genesis 3:22).If He had not driven them out, they would have taken of the tree of life and live forever, growing old and corrupt and knowing pain and decaying which was the consequence of sin on creation.
While continuing to be in the image of God in appearance and makeup (man is a triune being:body, soul, and spirit), every posterity of Adam was born corrupt and under the condemnation of sin, in the likeness of Adam, after his
image (Genesis 5:3).
So, God did not create anyone so He could damn one and redeem the other at His good pleasure. That would make Him nothing more than a despot, sadistic, and cruel, especially given the fact that He will later send His only begotten Son to redeem some of this condemned posterity.
Thru that sin of Adam, as the corporate head of the earthly human race, he brought condemnation on everybody else. All are under the sentence of sin.
However, God, motivated only by mercy, and acting in accordance with His own sovereignty, chose to save many from these condemned creatures and promised to Adam the coming of His promised deliverance in His own time.

Your second question:

And what about Justice ? Adam was given a choice.
Life or Death. He chose death. He had a choice of who to be a slave to, God and Truth, or the Serpent and Lies. He chose the latter.
The warning has been given, it was ignored. Therefore, the sentence has been passed. It must be carried out, or God's word of warning becomes a mockery.
If He chose to spare some and not all, that remains His business. One thing is fairly certain, though, the redemption of those He chose to spare was not easy and painless - for Him and His only begotten Son.

 

Hello again, Aki:
Let me venture an answer to your questions to Russell. I am not the Holy Spirit so I cannot guarantee this bring life and immortality to light for you, but here goes:

You asked:

When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in His image and likeness - holy and sinless.
He gave them charge of His creations on earth, and told them to "replenish the earth, and multiply". Had they remained obedient and ignored the serpent's lie, it seems they would have had children who were also holy, sinless, and uncorrupted. But, because they were of the earth, therefore, earthy, they disobeyed. Unlike the Second Adam, who is not of the earth, therefore, had no interest in sin, and only desired to obey. You know the story.
They were driven out of the garden, and even that was an act of mercy from God. (Genesis 3:22).If He had not driven them out, they would have taken of the tree of life and live forever, growing old and corrupt and knowing pain and decaying which was the consequence of sin on creation.
While continuing to be in the image of God in appearance and makeup (man is a triune being:body, soul, and spirit), every posterity of Adam was born corrupt and under the condemnation of sin, in the likeness of Adam, after his
image (Genesis 5:3).
So, God did not create anyone so He could damn one and redeem the other at His good pleasure. That would make Him nothing more than a despot, sadistic, and cruel, especially given the fact that He will later send His only begotten Son to redeem some of this condemned posterity.
Thru that sin of Adam, as the corporate head of the earthly human race, he brought condemnation on everybody else. All are under the sentence of sin.
However, God, motivated only by mercy, and acting in accordance with His own sovereignty, chose to save many from these condemned creatures and promised to Adam the coming of His promised deliverance in His own time.

Your second question:

And what about Justice ? Adam was given a choice.
Life or Death. He chose death. He had a choice of who to be a slave to, God and Truth, or the Serpent and Lies. He chose the latter.
The warning has been given, it was ignored. Therefore, the sentence has been passed. It must be carried out, or God's word of warning becomes a mockery.
If He chose to spare some and not all, that remains His business. One thing is fairly certain, though, the redemption of those He chose to spare was not easy and painless - for Him and His only begotten Son.

 

The warning has been given, it was ignored. Therefore, the sentence has been passed. It must be carried out, or God's word of warning becomes a mockery.

The belief that our actions, (or works) means absolutely nothing makes other parts of God's word, given by God's Word a mockery.

According to Jesus our fruits do matter, but according to your first post they don't. From what I can see, you are the one making a mockery of the word.

 

connieman wrote:

Where does the Bible teach this? This is once again, just our trying to justify certain interpretations of passages.

pinoybaptist said:

I base this on the way people glibly promote this doctrine of reprobation or preterition, and that how only a few are determined to be saved, like hey, it's no skin off anyone's nose. I'm saved, that's all that matters to me. (Then this is forced into various passages that are not even talking about the reprobation of individuals, as if we want to make the scriptures say that we were saved while others were passed over. Then we wonder why people "ask why God won't save all". So you say "God decides to save certain people from the damnation they brought upon themselves, and man asks, "Why. Why should you save others and pass the rest by. Give me a reason. Satisfy me," instead of falling before God...". But we are not questioning God in this, but rather human interpreters who are telling us this is what the Bible means, including the idea that they
"brought condemnation on themselves" when it was said elsewhere to be God who programmed them to just to condemn them.).
Then you write:

Your side consistently assumes that our opposition is all about our belief in our own goodness in saving ourselves. There may be some like that, but I know that I, and it appears, the other objectors here, are driven by compassion to the lost. So yes, we seem to be "tugging at God's sleeve like a spoiled child, and begging that He also save everybody else." Isn't this the attitude we all should have? (Because sin is against God, and not us, so who are we to delight in the idea of preterition of others because we think it's God's will.) Look at the very Romans 9 passage that is so misused, but the context ignored: Paul said he wished he could be accursed for the sake of those "vessels of wrath" he describes. It is the opposite of "Praise you Lord that He saved me and will roast those non-elect dogs for your glory", and then trying to mash everyone's face in this and expect them to gleefully accept it. If this is not what people may feel in their hearts, it sure is the way it comes across in this repeated failure to understand the motives of the objections.

So it's man's idea that God lives up to His character perfectly. But in His sovereignty, He can contradict Himself sometimes if He so chooses. In that case, He can lie and sin, and send us all to Hell even after promising to save us. Everyone would deny this, but that is where that idea leads to.

I discussed that verse already.

What do you mean by this?

This may have a big point, but the same can be said of eternal decrees of election, which calls into question whether the person was ever really lost to begin with. Especially when you insist (contrary even to other Calvinists here): "Their salvation is a finished fact, whether or not they hear the gospel." This is where I say we cannot explain this. It deals with the timeless realm of God, and is not what we are told top worry about. We people try to postulate either foreknowledge or reproabtion, (which is only for the sake of this debate), they are transcending scriptural boundaries.

 

Tuor said:The belief that our actions, (or works) means absolutely nothing makes other parts of God's word, given by God's Word a mockery.

How many salvations are there as you seem to think there are only one? There is if you are speaking of Eternal Salvation. Works apply to the here and now, not the hereafter. I agree with what has been said if put in its proper perspective. The ONLY work that will get us to Heaven was performed by Jesus Christ... That's the only one that counts... That's scripture... doctrine... bible... and Gospel!... Brother Glen

 

russel said:

Now this seems more like a more intersting way of putting things. Would you have been the one who a few months ago said something about "all the possible realities" and how God chose one of these which was best or something like that. I thought it was maybe posttrib (I remember it was someone who isn't an everyday participant), but couldn't find the message again. That view, though posed by someone posting on the Calvinist side seemed to be the concordence point of the two sides, as is Larry's "primary/secondary causes". God's timelessness and how His decrees (primary causes) play out is above our comprehension. The only thing I fault Calvinism with is it's insistence that people have no possible chance to be saved, and reading this into various scriptures. (It has nothing to do with my taking credit for my own salvation, as my testimony tried to show). The real paradox is not that God delights not in the death of the wicked but does it anyway, but that God is sovereign and omniscient, but people are truly condemned because of their own rejection of a salvation that was open to them, and not simply their inability to repent. I wish we could just leave it at that instead of insisting something else and trying to spell out His primary causes.

[ May 25, 2002, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

EricB...I will not tell you where the Bible teaches anything. You have not believed what I have already told you, therefore I must leave you to your fate in the hands of God.

Have a nice day,

connieman

[ May 25, 2002, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: connieman ]

 

EricB:

First, none of the Calvinists or Electionists here gloat over the damnation of those whom God did not choose unto salvation.
I am sure that everyone of us here could wish ourselves accursed, like Paul said, for the sake of our brethren, and families, and fellow citizens, and countrymen.
But, like Paul, we realize that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel", and leave all to God, just like Paul did, because "he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardeneth". Read the entire Romans 9 before you judge us. You look at one verse and conclude that the entire chapter is in accordance with that one verse.
None of us here called the unelect or the opposers of the Doctrine of Grace "dogs" either, and I'm sure none of those who oppose this doctrine think of themselves as dogs.
But if you think of yourself as such, that is your privilege, just as atheists can choose to think of themselves as former apes or blobs.
In the future, present scripture after scripture to support your view, instead of using words that inflame.
In your website, you had posted the opinions of those who oppose the doctrine of the Trinity and the tri-unity of God. Are they your beliefs as well ?
We Baptists (excluding you, since you are not Baptist) may differ in doctrines of Soteriology, but 98% of us, including those who do not use the word Baptist in their church signs, agree in all the essentials, or what is commonly known as the Baptist Distinctives, as well as the Triunity of God.
If you believe in the Doctrine of the Triunity of God (three pesons in one God) you are welcome to stay, and I take back everything and apologize.
But if you don't, then you have no business posting in the "For Baptists Only" forum, and I do not have to be a moderator to say that.

Having said that, let us now discuss your preposterous question of whether the elect were lost in the first place.
Yes, they were just as lost as the unelect.
Which is why the Scriptures referred to them as the lost sheep of Israel.
But God "inhabits eternity". In His sphere, as far as He is concerned, all He determined to be with Him are already with Him, they are His children and He is their God.
I believe this is why in Ephesians 2:6 Paul says
God hath raised us up together, and made
us sit together in heavenly places
in Christ Jesus.
In our sphere, God effected the elect's salvation thru the cross, the blood of Christ efficaciously covering and washing the sins of
all of God's elect people, past, present, and future.
In His own time, He regenerates them, and where there are those who come to carry the gospel to them, the fact of their redemption is brought to light.
So that is the purpose of the gospel, to bring life and immortality to light, not to save.
In that sense, the elect's salvation does not bring about the salvation of God's people, it proclaims their salvation.

 

(erratum: re my last post)

should read: in that sense, the purpose of the gospel is not to propose salvation to God's people, it is to proclaim their salvation to the glory and honor of God. Sorry.