Salvation is a work of God alone

"Conversion and salvation must, in the very nature of things, be wrought and effected either by ourselves alone, or by ourselves and God together, or solely by God Himself. The Pelagians were for the first. The Arminians are for the second. True believers are for the last, because the last hypothesis, and that only, is built on the strongest evidence of Scripture, reason and ecperience: it most effectually hides pride from man, and sets the crown of undivided praise upon the head, or rather casts it at the feet, of that glorious Triune God, who worketh all in all." - Jerome Zanchius, Absolute Predestination, pg. 105

Can't preach the gospel without preaching predestination

Jerome Zanchius teaches that predestination ought to be taught as with the gospel. Certainly there is no gospel without predestination.

He says, "The Gospel is to be preached, and that not partially and by piece-meal, but the whole of it. The commission runs, 'Go forth and preach the Gospel'; the Gospel itself, even all the Gospel, without exception or limitation. So far as the Gospel is maimed or any branch of evangelical system is suppressed and passed over in silence, so far the Gospel is not preached. Besides, there is scarce any other distinguishing doctrine of the Gospel can be preached, in its purity and consistency, without this of predestination. Election is the golden thread that runs through the whole Christian system; it is the leaven that pervades the whole lump." - Absolute Predestination, pg. 89

Does your church preach the gospel connected with predestination? If it doesn't then id say you are part of the synagogue of satan. One that is filled with types and shadows that follows the antichrist.

The denial of knowledge today

Christ and Culture. How can the problem be solved? According to Niebhur and a the popular doctrine of today it is relativity. The problem of Richard Niebhur's conclusion of Christ and Culture is a problem that the popular religion folks have today. Niebhur, like today's so-called churches (Reformed or not), are relativist. They in their relativistic viewpoint teaches that no one can know anything, They separate faith from knowledge. This seems to be similar to those of the Catholic church. How can you know is the great question of the times. Towards the end of "Christ and Culture", Niebhur says, "In politics, economics, and every other sphere of culture, no less than in medicine, we do the best we can on the basis of what we know about the nature of things and the processes of nature; but that best is always relative to fragmentary social and more fragmentary personal knowledge. (Pg. 234 - 235)" In other words, man has only a fragmentary knowledge of things, therefore how can man know anything at all? How could Niebhur have known about this fragmentary knowledge of things if even his thoughts are fragmentary? He couldn't. He says, "All our faith is fragmentary, though we do not all have the same fragments of faith. The littleness of second-century faith became apparent in its attitude toward the 'world' . . . . When we reason and act in faith and so give our Christian answer, we act on the ground of partial, piecemeal faith, so that there is perhaps a little Christianity in our answer. (Pg. 236)" Because of this concluding remark, Niebhur summarizes, "But from this particular standpoint in social history we necessarily see Christ against a background and hear his words in a context somewhat different from the background and context of our predecessors' experience. Our historical situation with its views and duties is further complicated by the relativity of our situation in society as men and women, parents and children, governors and governed, teachers and learners, manual intellectual workers, etc. We must make our decisions, carry on our reasoning, and gain our experience as particular men in particular times and with particular duties. (Pg. 237)" Therefore, no one can say that this is the answer on the basis of this relativity. However, this is the problem of this answer from Niebhur and those who are like him, they have not even begun to answer the question from a Biblical standpoint.

What is the result of denying knowledge? The result is futile. Number one it leads to post-modernism, the denial that truth can be found. Number two it leads to legalism. Lordship salvation is the result of such. If knowledge is forsaken, then men will put their eggs in a different basket. The result is legalism.
With this said, Niebhur's response has not touched the surface of Scripture I mean at all. For one thing, the Christian faith is founded not on man's own rationality, but on the sure foundation of Scripture alone which is the word of God. Man knows only that which God reveals to Him in the Scriptures. On this basis is faith built upon. Faith, is intellectual assent. Jesus tells us that the Church of God will be built on the confession that Jesus Christ is the messiah. The two principles that the Scriptures contain are the law and gospel. These two are distinct. The one commands the other declares what is done in Christ on the cross for the elect alone. By this we can judge between the lie and the truth. Of course, no one says that our knowledge is perfect. But, it is based on the old gospel truth revealed in Scripture alone. We do not judge our faith based on our experience but rather based on the Scripture. Which Christ do we believe? Is it the false idol Christ or the Christ of the Bible? Those who are sovereign grace believers already have the tools to reply back to these falsehoods.

Robert Traill the Supralapsarian

As Robert Traill says in Volume 1 of his work, "The first of these privileges is election. And justly it is called the first: for nothing can be before it; for itself is before time; and all that they afterwards receive, flows from it. "

It is interesting to read also John Calvin saying the basic same thing about the gifts and our election.

"Lastly, these phrases denote rather the order of Divine gifts, than the cause of them. In the accumulation of graces upon graces, God derives from the former a reason for adding the next, that he may not omit any thing necessary to the enrichment of his servants. And while he thus pursues his liberality, he would have us always to remember his gratuitous election, which is the source and original of all." -John Calvin, The Institutes, 3. 15. 21. Pg. 21 second volume.

John Brine also says, "Election to salvation is the Ground and Foundation of Regeneration and Sanctification. This gracious Decree is the Fountain of all that Purity and Holiness, which men receive as a Meetness for Heaven: God hath from the Beginning chosen you to Salvation, thro' Sanctification of the Spirit." -The Causes of Salvation And Vocation Considered, pg. 38

Jew and Gentile together in Christ as the eternal plan of God

Ephesians 2:1-22, we often stop at v. 10, but should read to at least the end of the chapter. As it displays the fact that both Jew and Gentile are under sin. Though we were children of wrath - that is children dispose of all maliceness and hatefulness - God by His unmeritted favour so loved His people before the foundations of the world to make one body composed of Jew and Gentile in Christ Jesus. You can also read this throughout the OT as well - Zechariah 6:15; Ezekiel 47:22-23; 37:15-19. He alone not only predestined us but also he alone quickened us together - Psalm 119:25.

Not a result of works in any sense

"Neither salvation, nor calling, is according to our Works: Grace and works are set in opposition, whenever the causality of our salvation is treated of: They cannot be, therefore, Con-causes of it. If it is of Grace, then it is no more of Works, otherwise Grace is no more grace: If it be of Works, then it is no more of Grace, otherwise Work is no more Work. It is not of works, lest any Man should boast." - John Brine, The Causes of Salvation and Vocation Considered, Pg. 13

What is the difference between the elect and the reprobate?

Some of the neo-preachers want to say that the difference between the elect and the reprobate remain to be works done by them. This is not so. The difference between the elect and the reprobate remains to be Christ and his works.

"Whence should it be, in respect of the event, that the elect and reprobate differ one from another? The difference lies in this, the elect shall be saved, and the reprobate shall be damned; the immediate cause is this, the reprobate bears his own sin, by reason of which he bears his ensuing damnation; the elect person bears not his own sin, and so there is nothing found against him, for which he should be damned." - Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted, vol 2, pg. 81