What is Sanctification?

"In the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly the question is asked, "What is sanctification?" To which the following answer is returned: "Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby, they whom God hath before the foundation of the world chosen to be holy, are in time through the powerful operation of His Spirit, applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin and rise unto newness of life."

Now far be it from us to sit in judgment upon such an excellent and helpful production as this Catechism, which God has richly blest to thousands of His people, or that we should make any harsh criticisms against men whose shoes we are certainly not worthy to unloose. Nevertheless, we are assured that were its compilers on earth today, they would be the last of all to lay claim to any infallibility, nor do we believe they would offer any objection against their statements being brought to the bar of Holy Scripture. The best of men are but men at the best, and therefore we must call no man "Father." A deep veneration for servants of God and a high regard for their spiritual learning must not deter us from complying with "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). The Bereans were commended for testing the teachings even of the apostle Paul, "And searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). It is in this spirit that we beg to offer two observations on the above quotation.

First, the definition or description of sanctification of the Westminster divines is altogether inadequate, for it entirely omits the most important aspect and fundamental element in the believer’s sanctification: it says nothing about our sanctification by Christ (Heb. 10:10; 13:12), but confines itself to the work of the Spirit, which is founded upon that of the Son. This is truly a serious loss, and affords another illustration that God has not granted light on all His Word to any one man or body of men. A fuller and better answer to the question of, "What is sanctification?" would be, "Sanctification is, first, that act of God whereby He set the elect apart in Christ before the foundation of the world that they should be holy. Second, it is that perfect holiness which the Church has in Christ and that excellent purity which she has before God by virtue of Christ’s cleansing blood. Third, it is that work of God’s Spirit which, by His quickening operation, sets them apart from those who are dead in sins, conveying to them a holy life or nature, etc."

Thus we cannot but regard this particular definition of the Larger Catechism as being defective, for it commences at the middle, instead of starting at the beginning. Instead of placing before the believer that complete and perfect sanctification which God has made Christ to be unto him, it occupies him with the incomplete and progressive work of the Spirit. Instead of moving the Christian to look away from himself with all his sinful failures, unto Christ in whom he is "complete" (Col. 2:10), it encouraged him to look within, where he will often search in vain for the fine gold of the new creation amid all the dross and mire of the old creation. This is to leave him without the joyous assurance of knowing that he has been "perfected forever" by the one offering of Christ (Heb. 10:14); and if he be destitute of that, then doubts and fears must constantly assail him, and the full assurance of faith elude every striving after it." - A.W. Pink, The Doctrine of Sanctification

False assertions by Stephen M. Reynolds on Assent-Justification by Gordon H. Clark

"Some of the more professorial readers of this book may be disappointed that so little attention is paid to current authors and so much to earlier theologians. There is a simple explanation. The earlier theologians, as the quotations indicate, wrote rather extensively on the subject, whereas during the second and third quarters of this century the material has been shorter in length and poorer in quality. One example illustrates both deficiencies. In the Presbyterian Journal (November 26, 1980) Stephen M. Reynolds had an article titled 'Justification Faith and Works.' Particularly noticeable is his failure to define his terms. To quote:

The message of James becomes especially important when the teaching of bare faith-justification, or even assent-justification, arises to trouble the church, as it evidently was doing in his day, and as it is certainly doing in ours. This is the view that justifying faith does not necessarily include obedience or good works.
The man who relies on assent-justification claims he has justifying faith when what he has is no more than intellectual assent to the Gospel and a desire to escape eternal damnation. The one who relies on assent-justification says, 'I accept Christ as Savior, but not yet as Lord.' He thinks he is assured of salvation because he has faith, but he does not understand what faith truly is.
To understand the words of James, 'a man is justified by works,' to mean no more than that he demonstrates his justification by his works, leaves the one who relies on assent-justification a false way of feeling that all is well with his soul.

In addition to his loose terminology the writer depends on false assertions. The end of the first quoted paragraph insists that 'assent-justification' 'does not necessarily include obedience or good works.' The word necessarily perhaps saves the paragraph from being outright false, provided the writer can quote an exponent of assent who explicitly says that good works are not included. Or, perhaps the truth of the statement can be defended by insisting that those who defend assent do not include good works in assent - they only say that good works follow. But without even this excuse the next-to-last sentence in paragraph two, namely 'The one who relies on assent-justification says, 'I accept Christ as Savior, but not yet as Lord,' cannot escape the charge of outright falsehood. None of the Calvinistic theologians quoted above ever said any such thing. It is regrettable that a periodical, supposedly Calvinistic, should print such incompetent drivel. The Apostle Paul in his day met the essentially similar objection that justification by faith alone encouraged immorality. He defended his position in Romans 6, 7, and 8." - Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?

A.W. Tozer disparages theology

"Dr. Tozer seems little interested in what a person believes. he is little interested because he has a low opinion of intellectual truth. He wishes to substitute a different kind of 'truth.' Exactly what it is, he does not make clear; but whatever it is, it is incompatible with evangelical theology and contradictory of John's Gospel. Read the quotation carefully:
[']The battle line, the warfare today, is not necessarily between the fundamentalist and the liberal. There is a ...difference between them, of course. The fundamentalist says God made the heaven and the earth. The liberal says, Well, that's a poetic way of stating it; actually it came up by evolution. The fundamentalist says Jesus Christ was the very Son of God. The liberal says, Well, he certainly was a wonderful man and he is the Mater, but I don't quite know about his deity. So there is a division, but I don't think the warfare is over these matters any more. The battle has shifted to another more important field. The warfare and dividing line today is between evangelical rationalists and evangelical mystics.[']

Note how Dr. Tozer disparages the difference between believing that God is creator, that Jesus is the Son of God, and presumably other fundamental doctrines, and believing that God did not create the world, that Jesus is no more than human, and that a good part of the Bible is untrue. He admits that there is a difference between the liberal and the fundamentalist, but he seems little interested in that difference. This warfare is over - says Dr. Tozer. But for a true Christian, if he has average common sense, this warfare is not over. A true Christian cannot treat the deity of Christ so lightly, nor the doctrine of creation, either. There may be a sense in which the battle line of the twenties has shifted in the seventies; but it is not such a new field as that between 'evangelical rationalists and evangelical mystics.' In one sense, a very fundamental sense, the battle line has not shifted at all. The old battle line that centered on Harry Emerson Fosdick's denial of the virgin birth and his warning against worshiping Jesus was itself a question of the truth of the Bible. Some people may have seen only that the deity of Christ and the atonement were involved. But scholars like J. Gresham Machen saw clearly that the whole Bible and all of Christianity were involved. This is still the battlefield. What may be new, since the middle of the nineteenth century, is a view that Truth is not true, and that the Bible instead of being honestly false, as Wllhausen asserted, is dishonestly 'true' like Aesop's fables. For the new 'truth' is simply the old falsehood." - Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith

The Information Jesus gives of God

"The third point was somewhat covered under the first. In showing the illogicality of Bultmann's inference, it was also made clear that John cannot be accused of never having heard of Matthew and Luke. Now, to continue the quotation:
[']Though Jesus says in departing from the earth, 'I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world,' still he has imparted no information about God at all, any more than he has brought instruction about the origin of the world or the fate of the self. He does not communicate anything, but calls men to himself.[']

The first chapter of the Gospel contains important information about the creation of the universe, the spiritual plight of man, the nature and mission of Christ, and something of Old Testament prophecy. The occurance of this information does not contradict the quotation made just above because these verses are the words of John and not of Jesus. Bultmann claims that Jesus offered no information. On this two things should be said. First, a Christian cannot permit himself to be restricted to the ipsissima verba of Jesus, as if the author's words were less true, less authoritative, less important. Redletter Bibles, if they do not strain the eyesight, have some small use; but only a small part of Christianity is found in the red sections. In the second place, there can be no objection to asking the question, Did Jesus himself impart any information about God? Did he only call men to himself without instructing them concerning their state and their fate? Did he communicate nothing at all?
Well, obviously he communicated several bits of information; and Bultmann himself quotes a part of it. Jesus, in the verse Bultmann cites, informs his disciples that God has given him a certain group of men chosen from out of the world's population. In fact, chapter 17 contains considerable information about God. It tells us that God gave authority to Jesus to give eternal life to those people God had chosen. Eternal life is defined as knowledge of God. God sent Christ into the world. All that belongs to God belongs to Christ. And a second time God sent Christ into the world. God is in Christ and Christ is in God. Again, God gave Christ a certain people. God loved Christ before creation of the world. These several items of information about God, to which no doubt a few implications could be added, are by themselves enough to contradict Bultmann's rash assertion that 'Jesus . . . has imparted no information about God at all.'" - Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?

No one has gone to be with the Lord.

Whether we live or sleep no man has yet gone to be with the Lord but our hope is nonetheless that we will one day be with the Lord - Our eternal dwelling.
2 Corinthians 5
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

This passage from 2 Corinthians 5 is a passage usually used to say that when we die we immediately go to be with the Lord. However, this view of the passage is not warranted. For one thing this passage is about the believer's hope. We are home in the body - so we are absent from the Lord who is in Heaven. Our confidence and will is to be absent from the body and so be present with the Lord. This verse does not say that once we die we go immediately to the state of eternal bliss.

Please Study 2 Corinthians 3

"Foundational to this intellectualism, this rationalism, or however anyone wishes to name this emphasis on truth, is the doctrine that man is the image of God. One should not try to dilute this doctrine by picturing man as a container somewhere within which the image of God may be found. 1 Corinthians 11:7 does not say that man has the image of God; it says that man is the image of God. This image, which distinguishes man from animals, is rationality. It was not destroyed by the fall, for we are still human beings and not animals. We are till generically rational, though sin has considerably damaged our use of reason. We add up our check stubs incorrectly, and our emotions drive us into foolish conduct (or worse). But we are still human because we are the created image of God. Though we often believe falsehoods, we are still obligated to believe the truth. And if God causes us to believe, since faith is the gift of God, then we are slowly renewed in the knowledge and righteousness of our original creation." - Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?

Believing in the Gospel is the issue not Moral Improvement

"If any reader is disturbed by the present author's insistence on logic, reason, intellect, and knowledge in comparison with his lack of emphasis on righteousness, it should be remembered that (1) there can be no righteousness without knowledge; (2) American evangelicalism puts most of its emphasis on conduct, morality, the fruits of the Spirit, and 'practical' Christianity; (3) there is a woeful lack of emphasis on truth, theology, the teachings of Scripture. Of course these... teachings have moral implications, but the righteousness enjoined in Romans 12-15 plus some in chapter 16 has as its foundation the eleven preceding chapters. Does it not follow, therefore, that a minister should preach eleven sermons on deep doctrine to every six or five-and-a-half on conduct? The latter should by no means be omitted: The crime and depravity of American society is without parallel in history aince the time of the Roman Empire. Nor has the church itself much to be proud of it. But a one-sided preaching of righteousness will have little effect on Las Vegas or New York. Not until this alcoholic, drug-ridden scum hears and believes -- faith comes by hearing, not by mystic encounters -- hears and believes the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the atonement, justification by faith, and the Second Advent, will there be any moral improvement. It is justification alone that produces sanctification, and justification occurs by means of faith alone." - Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?

Either you Believe or you do not

What do you do with a report? You either believe it or you don't, there is no middle ground. Likewise, you hear the good news of Christ; the report of what Christ has done. You either believe the report or do not. Faith comes by hearing. You cannot believe something you have not heard before. Now if your wife is sick and she tells you, you either believe her or you do not. Perhaps if you do believe her then this entails that you go buy medicine. By faith alone do we work. Of course the difference between the species of faith is the object.

To Believe in is to be believe that

"While Professor Berkhof serves as a good example, many other Protestant theologians also, both Lutheran and Reformed, tend to make a sharp distinction between 'a confident resting on a person' and 'the assent given to a testimony.' 'Confident reliance' is supposed to differ from 'intellectual assent.'
The term resting or reliance is seldom if ever explained in theology books. One  is left in the dark as to what it means. An illustration may furnish a clue and make the words intelligible. Suppose a high school student is assigned a problem in geometry. He works out a solution, looks at it from all angles, perhaps he corrects a small detail and then tests each step again to see if he has made a mistake; seeing none, he now puts down his pencil and rests. That is to say, he has assented to his argument. He believes he now has the truth.
But most theologians are not so clear, nor can they, as earlier indicated, bolster up their imagined distinction with references to pisteuein eis, for a few paragraphs back Kittel disposed of such a contention. English also has the same usage.As Modernism developed in the 1920's and suspicion attatched to this or that minister, people would ask, Does he believe in the virgin birth? Does he believe in the atonement? They did not ask, Does he believe the virgin birth? The preposition in was regularly used. But of course the meaning was, Does he believe that the virgin birth is true? Does he believe that Christ's death was a substitutionary sacrifice? Thus, to believe in a person is to be confident, i.e., believe that he will continue to tell the truth." - Gordon H. Clark, Faith and Saving Faith.

The Lordshiper's assurance is in his works not in Christ alone

"Perhaps it will be thought needful, that I should define, with greater precision than I have hitherto done, what I mean by the popular doctrine; especially as I have considered many as preachers thereof who differ remarkably from each other; and particularly as I have ranked amongst them Mr. Wesley, who may justly be reckoned one of the most virulent reproachers of that God, whose character is drawn by the apostles, that this island has produced. To remove all doubt concerning my meaning, I shall thus explain myself.
Throughout these letters, I consider all those as teachers of the popular doctrine, who seek to have credit and influence among the people, by resting our acceptance with God, not simply on what Christ hath done, but more or less on the use we make him, the advance we make toward him, or some secret desire, wish, or sigh to do so; or on something we feel or do concerning him, by the assistance of some kind of grace or spirit; or, lastly, on something we employ him to do, and suppose he is yet to do for us. In sum, all who would have us to be conscious of something else than the bare truth of the gospel; all who would have us to be conscious of some beginning of a change to the better, or some desire, however faint, toward such change, in order to our acceptance with God; these I call the popular preachers, however much they may differ from each other about faith, and grace, special or common, or about anything else. For I am disposed rather to reconcile than widen the various difference among them.
But my resentment is all along chiefly pointed against the capital branch of the popular doctrine, which, while it asserts almost all the articles belonging to the sacred truth, at the same time deceitfully clogs them with the opposite falsehoods. This I would compare to a chain having one link of gold and another of brass alternately: or, I would call it a two-fold cord, wherein one thread of truth and another of falsehood are all along entwisted together. If we think of its practical address to, and influence on the minds of the people, as contrasted with its formally avowed tenets, it resembles a whited sepulcher, inwardly full of rottenness." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

The Difference between the Apostle's Gospel and the Popular Religion

"'Tis agreed, by the great majority in all Christian countries, that there is no salvation but by Jesus Christ. Thus far general consent agrees with the apostolic doctrine. But, then, a capital difference between these two arises in the following manner.
The apostles maintained, that Christ did enough to save sinners in his own person, without their concurrence, and that all who were so persuaded, accordingly found salvation in him. As the natural counterpart of this, they at the same time maintained, that if any man went about to deny or undermine the all-sufficiency of Christ's work to save, by insisting on the necessity of any other concurring requisite whatever, Christ should profit him nothing.
On the other hand, since Christianity began to flourish and prevail in the world, the majority of those wearing the Christian name have been agreed in maintaining the necessity of something beside Christ's work to save them, or procure them acceptance with God. Yea, long before that time, even in the apostolic age, the Judaizing Christians, who were far from being few in number, proceeded upon the same plan. This we are taught by the apostles to call a corrupted or perverted gospel. And here chiefly we may perceive the consent of the Christian world all along opposed to the apostolic doctrine." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Understanding the Ten Commandments Rule 1

"Rule 1. Where a duty is required, the contrary sin is forbidden (Isaiah 58:13); and where a sin is forbidden the contrary duty is required (Ephesians 4:28). Every command forbids the sin which is opposite to, or inconsistent with, the duty which it requires. The duties required in the law cannot be performed without abstaining from the sins forbidden in it; and the sins forbidden cannot be avoided unless the contrary duties are performed. We must not only cease to do what the commands forbid, but do what they require; otherwise we do not obey them sincerely. A negative holiness is far from being acceptable to God. Every affirmative precept includes a negative one, and every negative command contains an affirmative. Every precept, whether affirmative or negative, has two parts: It requires obedience and forbids disobedience." - John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and Gospel


I have been reading the Institutes as well. It is really interesting that Calvin himself also says this very thing in Book 2, Chapter 8, Section 8

"The design of the first commandment is, that God alone may be worshipped. The substance of this precept, then, will be, that true piety, that is, the worship of his majesty, is pleasing to God, and that he abominates impiety. Thus in every commandment we should first examine the subject of it, in the next place we should inquire the end of it, till we discover what the Legislator really declares in it to be either pleasing or displeasing to him. Lastly, we must draw an argument from this commandment to the opposite of it, in this manner: - If this please God, the contrary must displease him, if this displease him, the contrary must please him; if he enjoin this, he forbids the contrary; if he forbid this, he enjoins the contrary."

Believe in Christ.

"63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." - John 6
" 21Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had ...not died. 22But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. 23Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. 25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." -John 11

All men are Enlightened by the Light

"The Identification of the image with reason explains or is supported by a puzzling remark in John 1:9: 'It was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.' How can Christ, in whom is the life that is the light of men, be the light of every man, when Scripture teaches that some are lost in eternal darkness? The puzzle arises from interpreting light in exclusively redemptive terms.
The first chapter of John is not soteriological only. Obviously there are references to salvation in verses 7, 8, 12, and 13. It is not surprising that some Christians understood verse nine also in a soteriological sense. But it is not true that all men are saved; hence if Christ lightens every man, this enlightening cannot be soteriological. This is not the only non-soteriological verse in the chapter. The opening verses treat of creation and the relation of the Logos to God. If the enlightening is not soteriological, it could be epistemological. Then since responsibility depends on knowledge, the responsibility of the unregenerate is adequately founded.
In order to avoid this interpretation and to retain the idea of salvation here, one exegete suggests that the Light shines on all but does not penetrate all. He might even have quoted earlier verses that the light shines in darkness and the darkness did not grasp or understand it. But the later verse does not speak of darkness in the abstract; it speaks of all men. Can it now be said that the light lights all men without enlightening them?
The verb occurs about eleven times in the New Testament. . . . Subjective enlightenment is also found in Hebrews 6:4 and 10:32." - Gordon H. Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man

Assent to the propositions understood.

". . . When he [Thomas Manton] says that 'true believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of all the heart,' he is not accurately confronting 'the former age.' The former age never said that true believing or false believing either, is an act of the understsnding only. The former age and much of the latter ages too specify assent in addition to understanding. They make this specification with the deliberate aim of not restricting belief to understanding alone. One can understand and lecture on the philosophy of Spinoza; but this does not mean that the lecturer assents to it. Belief is an act of assenting to something understood. But understsnding alone is not belief in what is understood." - Gordon H. Clark, What is saving faith?

What is Assurance?

"13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," - Ephesians 1
"24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." - John 5

The Christian life is not a seamless robe of holiness

"In an absolute sense, the question, 'Are we' holy, can be answered only in the negative. One should ask, Am I increasing in holiness? Ryle of course is well aware of all this, but authors, like the present also slip into inexactitudes which can confuse careless readers. Ryle continues, 'A man may go to great lengths and yet never reach true holiness' (34). This form of expression seems to present holiness as a seamless robe, an all or nothing. Of course Ryle adds, 'A holy man will endeavor to shun every known sin.' He 'will strive to be like our Lord. . . . A holy man will follow after meekness. . . temperance . . . purity of heart . . .' (36, 37). Then he says explicitly, 'Sanctification is always a progressive work' (39). Perhaps I am overly critical of his previous inadequate phrases; but if so, it is because I have had contacts with alleged sinless perfectionists and some contemporary Pentecostalists." - Gordon H. Clark, What is the Christian Life?

The issue must be clarified

"By the time that the famous controversy with Arminus arose, it appears, that many were in readiness to take part with that learned oppose of the truth. And it would seem, there were but few who opposed him on the same footing with Gomarus, who was chiefly concerned about the ground of acceptance with God, as he understood it to be affected by that controversy. The greater part of disputants chose to make the controversy turn upon another hinge, contending about grace and fre...ewill, and what influence these had in the conversion of a sinner. It may be maintained by some, that conversion is carried on by grace assisting nature, and by others, that this matter is conducted wholly by irresistible grace; and yet both sides may be equally disaflected to that doctrine, which maintains the work finished by Christ on the cross, to be the only requisite to justification. The controversy about grace and freewill, as managed by many on both sides, has as little to do with the revealed ground of acceptance with God, as the philosophical dispute about liberty and necessity. And I may add, that while many Christian teachers maintain, that no man can be eminently virtuous without Divine energy, they say no more than heathen philosophers have said before them." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Malachi 1:1-3

"Objectors here allege that this covenant and its decree referred to Canaan, on which the Prophet Malachi dwells (Mal. 1.1-3). And, indeed, this objection might be worthy of notice if God had designed merely to fatten the Jews in Canaan as pigs in a sty. But the mind of the prophet is very different from this. God had promised that land to Abraham as an outward symbol or figure of a better inheritance, and had given it to Abraham's posterity for a possession, that He might there collect them together as a peculiar people unto Himself, and might there erect a sanctuary of His presence and grace. These great ends and objects are those which the prophet is revolving in his deep and reflective mind. In a word, the prophet is holding Canaan to be the sacred habitation of God. And as Esau was deprived of this habitation, the prophet sacredly gathers that he was hated of God, because he had been thus rejected from the holy and elect family, on which the love of God perpetually rests. We also, with the prophet, must carefully consider the particular nature of that land, and the peculiar quality which God assigns to it, that it might be a certain earnest or pledge of that spiritual covenant which God entered into with the seed of Abraham. It is in full sacred point, therefore, that the apostle records that the free election of God fell upon Jacob, because, being yet unborn, he was appointed to enjoy the inheritance, while his brother was, at the same time, rejected. But Paul is proceeding much father still in his sacred argument, and maintaining that this inheritance was not obtained by works, nor conferred on Jacob from any respect to works which he should in his after life perform. Nor is even this all. The apostle expressly declares that the brothers were thus separated, and this difference made between them, before either of them had done any one thing good or evil. From these facts the apostle solemnly settles it, that the difference made between the children was not from any works whatever, but from the will of Him that called." John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God

The question is what is the Intentions of God

"Just because the crier - if we may use this figure for comparison - travels up and down the streets and alleys of the village to invite all to the auction sale, does this cancel out the condition that he really is inviting only: (1) those who desire to buy something; (2) those who have money to buy; and (3) those who have opportunity to go t the auction? By this illustration we can clearly see that by sating all these exceptions, one distorts the nature of the dispute, does not at all advance a solution, and unnecessarily prevents a meeting of the minds.
The only way by which you achieve clarity is to inquire about the intention of God and proceed directly to what thoughts filled the heart of Christ when he, the Son of God, died." - Abraham Kuyper, Particular Grace

Either one is a universalist or a particularist

"The two ways of conceiving the issue stand in sharp contrast before us now. On the one hand, there are the universalists, or advocates of general grace, who maintain this position: When Jesus died on the cross, it was God's will and Christ's purpose to bring about the kind of atonement that, if need be, was sufficient for all men. In addition, they contend that this atonement, offered in Jesus' name to all men, would be a blessing to as many as, according to Jesus' intention, desired to accept this salvation, while the atonement would remain unused only by as many as did not believe, even though it was so appointed for them and even though Jesus had intended and expected that they would believe.
On the other hand, there are the particularists, or advocates  of special grace, who teach this: The church must preach to all creatures that there is atonement obtained through Christ's death for everyone who believes, has believed, or will believe; that is, because all believers are elect, atonement is only for the elect, not according to the [foreseen] result, but according to Christ's purpose and God's counsel. Particularists also teach concerning the application of this salvation that it is not concerned with possibly but as yet unconverted persons; on the contrary, it has to do with a persons whom the Lord loves with an eternal love, even before they were born, and whom he calls by name." - Abraham Kuyper, Particular Grace

God's intention is always the question

"In God's holy garden, we must not want to plant trees upside down - with their roots facing the sky and their branches in the soil! To turn things upside down from the very beginning is a perversion of the whole way. Let the cause, the fountainhead, the root, remain in God, and let nothing else ever be seen in us than the resultant effect, the stream that flows from its source, and the branch with its bud and blossom. There is no election, therefore, on the basis of a foreseen faith, but there is faith as the result of an antecedent election.
And if it is now established that Christ was God, and hence as God knew whom he had chosen and who would come to saving faith as a the result of that election, then it is self-evident that our Mediator, who never desired to bring any other atonement than for those who would believe, intended the provision of the atonement solely and exclusively for his own.
That is why, when discussing whether Christ has died for all individuals or for all the elect, we can never employ the distinction between God's will and God's decree, as the Hessian and Bremen delegates advocated it at Dordt, since this distinction exclusively applies when considering our intention, but never may be given validity when there is a discussion of God's intention.
When Joseph was about to be sold by his brothers, it was God's revealed will to Judah and Reuben, 'Do not sell your brother!' Yet it was God's hidden decree that 'Joseph will be sold by his brothers.'
Accordingly, when we are talking about our activity, about what we are doing or what we intend, oh then most definitely, not only may we, but we must continually reckon with this golden maxim of evangelical wisdom: 'Blind as regards the outcome, but fully obedient to the commandment!'
On the contrary, when, as here, we are discussing not what we but what Christ intended, and not what we but what God willed, then everyone senses that it is the height of absurdity to dare to distinguish in God himself between what he wills and, nevertheless, does not will!" - Abraham Kuyper, Particular Grace

The Spirit does not work apart from the truth nor does the truth come apart from the Spirit

There is no seperating the agency of the Holy Spirit from the knowledge of the truth. To know the truth is life eternal; and this life is begun and supported by the Spirit of Christ. On the other hand, all who resist the truth, and do not admit its evidence, are expressly said to resist the Holy Ghost. We ought not, then, to imagine, with the popular preachers that the gospel can in any respect be considered as a dead letter, or destitute of Divine power. For being the voice of God, it is unchangeably powerful to save all who believe it, and to destroy all who oppose it. Believers are said to grieve the Holy Spirit, when they neglect to hearken to the words of the gosoel, and their consciences are answerably grieved, when they are brought to repentance. - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio