Assurance and Faith belong in Christ alone

We must begin our religion then as we would end it. Our acceptance with God, first and last, must rest entirely on the work finished by Jesus Christ on the cross: or we must betake ourselves to what many call the religion of nature, and what God warrants us to call the religion of pride, as being no less opposite to the law of nature, than to the gospel. - Robert Sandeman

The Supralapsarian position entails Limited atonement

I have been considering and pondering such things and so would like to briefly write up a thought or two before I forget. But the thought is that the Supralpsarian position entails limited atonement. The atonement is limited only for those who were elected in Christ. The scheme that I like to follow is very simple but any scheme of it will work:

God decrees to elect and reprobate individuals from amongst the Jews and Gentiles in Christ, Then He decrees to create said elect people organically, Then He decrees to cause the Fall so that through the sin of Adam - Death, and guilt enter in, He decrees to Christ would atone for the sins of His elect alone, while also decreeing that the reprobate would be hardened and hence would fall into more and more sin to be condemned, and finally that the Spirit would apply the cross saving work to Church of God's elect in time.

But this is only Limited in that everything that pertains to salvation is done in consideration for the Elect alone.

The Spirit who makes doctors of his Word

"But be assured that no man can make a Doctor of Holy Scripture except the Holy Spirit from heaven. As Christ says in John 6:[45], 'They must all be taught by God himself.' Now the Holy Spirit does not ask for red or brown birettas or other decorations. Nor does he ask whether a person is young or old, lay or cleric, monk or secular, unmarried or married. In fact, in ancient times he actually spoke through an ass against the prophet who was riding it [Num. 22:28]. Would to God that we were worthy to have such doctors given to us, regardless of whether they were lay or cleric, married or single! They now try to force the Holy Spirit into pope, bishops, and doctors, although there is not the slightest sign or indication whatever that he is in them." Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility

Our Sensations are not adequate in Knowledge.

"The main and more philosophic reply to Reymond's widely accepted view, that sensations must play a role in the learning process, is directed against two words, sensation and role. Clark's reply to both is the same, viz., they convey no meaning. Like nearly all, one could actually say all, Clark's empirical critics within the evangelical movement, Reymond refuses to define sensation. If it be defined as Aristotle and John Locke defined it (though these two did not completely agree) there is no such thing. Augustine made that quite clear. We never see a poem with our eyes nor do we ever hear a tune with our ears. A single note may be a sensation, but it is not a tune. In ordinary parlance we must hold in mind remember, compare, judge a series of notes in order to 'hear' a tune. Similarly, no one has ever seen a tree. Since Clark was so deeply influenced by Augustine, his critics are remiss in not meeting Augustine's position." - Clark Speaks from the Grave

On the Law and Gospel distinction

"Since true believers are already irrevocably interested in the covenant of grace, in the righteousness of Christ, and in favor of God; and since they have in Christ, and on the ground of His righteousness imputed to them, a complete security against eternal death and a full title to eternal life; the law as the law of Christ has no sanction of judicial rewards or punishments. It has no promise of eternal life or threatening of eternal death annexed to it. The form of the covenant of works, indeed, is eternally binding on all who live and die under that violated covenant, but because Christ, as last Adam, has answered all the demands of it for believers, they are delivered from the law in that form (Romans 7:4-6).
The law which believers are under is the law of Christ, and of God in Christ, which has no promise of eternal life to them for their obedience to it. The promise of eternal life to the saints is the promise of the covenant of grace or the gospel, and not of the law, as a rule of duty. Eternal life is promised to them not in consideration of their sincere obedience to the law as a rule of life, but on account of Christ's perfect obedience to it as a covenant of works received by faith and imputed by God. It is promised to them not as a reward of debt for their sincere obedience, but as 'the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord' (Romans 6:23). The righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to them gives them a perfect title to life; they are already heirs of it, 'and joint heirs with Christ.' They have begun possession of it, and have the gracious promise of the gospel that they shall, in due time, attain thr perfect and everlasting possession." - John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and Gospel.

Why John Macarthur will never be assured

"Perhaps the most obvious reason for lacking assurance is disobedience, because assurance is the reward for obedience. Hebrews 10:22 strongly points that out: "Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." It's been well said that high degrees of assurance cannot be enjoyed by those who persist in low levels of obedience. To live in sin is to live in doubt."
There are eight reasons for why one lacks assurance says Macarthur. All of them deal with man.
My response obviously when you look to yourself you begin to lack assurance. Am i doing enough? Are my works genuine? By these questions perhaps you begin to work harder, do more things, join a monastery. The truth is that your assurance rest on the gospel of Christ alone. 2 Peter 1 says we must have assurance before we can do good work. The lack of assurance brings about sin and self righteous works. How do you gain assurance? By knowing and understanding the gospel.
Many conditionalist have a gospel that depends on the sinner, whether it is what we do or what the Spirit does in us. They universalize the grace of God and say man must do something or respond. The fact is however this is not the gospel. The good news has nothing to do with us. The gospel is about what God has done freely and unconditionally for His people by dying for them and declaring them righteous for the sake of Christ alone so that they will believe in Christ and trust not in their own righteousness but hope in His righteousness alone imputed.

Loraine Boettner on Supralapsarianism

I read something about Supralapsarianism from Loraine Boettner. He says, "One of the leading motives in the supralapsarian scheme is to emphasize the idea of discrimination and to push this idea into the whole of God’s dealings with men. We believe, however, that supralapsarianism over-emphasizes this idea. In the very nature of the case this idea cannot be consistently carried out, e.g., in creation, and especially in the fall. It was not merely some of the members of the human race who were objects of the decree to create, but all mankind, and that with the same nature. And it was not merely some men, but the entire race, which was permitted to fall. Supralapsarianism goes to as great an extreme on the one side as does universalism on the other. Only the infralapsarian scheme is self-consistent or consistent with other facts."
Found Here: http://www.the-highway.com/election4_Boettner.html

He calls discrimination one of the leading motives in Supralapsarianism. I am not sure exactly what he means by this. I would have thought that Infralapsarianism also held to some sort of discrimination. Both do it seems like. However, he says Supralapsarians over-emphasis this idea. My question is how do we overemphasis this idea? He proclaims this idea (of discrimination?) cannot be carried out in creation or the fall... Of course one of the points of Supralapsarian is the fact that God has elected and reprobated apart from man's goodness or badness apart from any works found in the creature. And that then God created both the elect and reprobate together in Adam (the head of the human race) so that by his fall - all in Him fell.

God did not create individual people but rather he created a species of Mankind. The fall of Mankind (In Adam) meant that the whole lump was now deprived.

This statement of Loraine Boettner makes no sense. Hopefully, he will say some sort of substance later in this Article.

Theology is no longer needed by Tim Challies

For my calvinist brothers
"How to destroy a perfectly good theology from the inside:
1. By loving Calvinism as an end in itself.
2. By becoming a theologian instead of a disciple.
3. By loving God's sovereignty more than God himself.
4. By losing an urgency in evangelism.
5. By learning only from other Calvinists.
6. By tidying up the Bibles "loose ends"
7. By being an arrogant know-it-all.
8. By scoffing at the Hang-ups others have with Calvinism." Greg Dutcher, Killing Calvinism
Found this on a Tim Challies blog.
http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/killing-calvinism

Just a few issues atleast - 2. Becoming a theologian instead of a disciple - how can you become a disciple if you do not have the knowledge of God? 3. This one is unintelligible. Do they mean only loving the attribute or are they suggesting that there is a distinction between knowing facts of God and having a relational encounter with God. Just would like to say there are more to God than just his soveriegnty just like Love is not the only divine attribute. 6. What does this one mean? That we should not seek to understand things? This is what makes us apologist. If we never sought to put things together then we would never be able to give a reasonable defense to what we believe.

I like how the Anti-Intellectual side wants to diminish Theology so much that they want to unify around some sort of big blob of mash potatoes. Why call yourself anything if you want to learn from others. I remember various other kinds of philosophers saying basically the same thing. God teaches us in falsehoods as well.

What is the Church?

"Whoever would not go astray should therefore hold fast to this, that the church is a spiritual assembly of souls in one faith and that nobody is reckoned a Christian for his body's sake. Thus one will know that the true, real, right essential church is a spiritual thing and not anything external or outward, by whatever name it may be called. For a non-Christian may have all those other things but they will never make him a Christian without true faith, which alone makes Christians. It is on this account that we are called Christian believers, and on Pentecost we sing:
'Now let us pray to the Holy Ghost For the true faith of all things the most.'
It is in this way, and never in any other, that the Holy Scriptures speak of the holy church and of Christendom . . . . The name 'spiritual estate' is given primarily to the bishops, priests, and monks, not on account of their faith, which they perhaps do not have, but because they have been consecrated with an external anointing, wear crowns, use a distinctive garb, make special prayers and do special works, external matters of worship. But violence is done to the word 'spiritual' or to the word 'church' when it is used for such external affairs. These words are concerned only with the faith which, working in the soul, makes right and true spiritual person and Christians. Yet this manner of using these words has spread everywhere, to the great injury and perversion of many souls who think that such outward show is the spiritual and only true estate in Christendom or the church." - Martin Luther, The Papacy in Rome