Those who say emotions should be added give emotions the controlling position

"The quotations the complainants offer in their protest to prove their contention are very unconvincing. In fact, they frankly admit

From the viewpoint of abstract psychology, it is perfectly true that Reformed theologians have not been in complete agreement as to the number and names of the faculties of the human soul. In speaking specifically of the faculties of the human soul, Calvin mentions by name only the intellect and will (Institutes, Bk. I, Chap. XV, Sect. 6). Augustine refers to the perception, understanding, and will [The Text of a Complaint, 8].

And again, they admit: 'Calvin, who so clearly gives intellect a control over will, though not by virtue of that a primacy over will,' etc. (9). But they insist that 'the more recent theologians, however, seem to agree in large measure on the threefold distinction of intellect, emotions, and will' (8).
We may note here that the complainants express themselves very carefully: 'the more recent theologians seem to agree in large measure.' But even so the complainants are in error. It is far nearer to the truth to state that Reformed theologians have, generally speaking, been strongly opposed to the threefold distinction of intellect, will, and emotions, and have often expressed their fear of the danger of this distinction. The danger of this distinction, to which they usually pointed, is that the emotions in that case gradually assume a dominating and controlling position in the soul of man, and that, according to this trichotomous psychology, such experiences as love and hatred, sorrow and joy, repentance and remorse, in fact, all religion and morality are relegated to the emotions or feeling. And that would exactly be the deathblow to all true religion. Reformed theologians were, therefore, usually in favor of the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, and ascribed the emotions partly to the intellect, and partly to the will. And again, it may be stated without fear of possible contradiction that Reformed theology usually favored the 'primacy of the intellect.'
I thought, and still think, that this was so well known that I could only be amazed when I discovered that some theologians of Philadelphia took the opposite stand." -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy, Pg. 30 - 31

There are two faculties in the soul according to Calvin and Clark

"The second main point of the Complaint against Dr. Clark concerns, in the words of the complainants, 'his view of the relation of the faculty of knowledge, the intellectual faculty, to other faculties of the soul.' I have re-read the material the complainants offer on this point, and also its refutation in The Answer. I think that the points of difference between Dr. Clark and his accusers may, in the main, be summarized as follows:

1. The complainants hold to the trichotomous diviation or distinction of the human soul into its faculties, and apply this also to God. In the human soul they distinguish between intellect, emotion, and will. Dr. Clark prefers the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, refuses to speak of emotion as a separate faculty, and considers the emotions as aspects of the intellect and will. And he, too, applies this distinction to God. . . .

The Answer makes plain that Dr. Clark does not dney the reality of emotions in God, but gives them a different connotation from that of the complainants, and assigns to them a position different from that which the latter assign to them, in relation to God's intellect and will. The complainants make of the emotions in God a separate faculty, next to, and on a level with intellect and will. Dr. Clark gives them a subordinate position, and explains them as aspects or functions of God's intellect and will. From The Answer we quote:

Dr. Clark never made any 'forthright denial of anything that might be called emotion in God.' Love or wrath 'might be called an emotion.' Dr. Clark did not deny love and wrath to God. He holds that while some people might call God's love and wrath emotions, it is better to classify them as volitions. In this Dr. Clark is in accord with a large section of theology and of literary usage [27].

It would seem, then, that the chief point of difference between the complainants and Dr. Clark may be stated thus, that the former hold to the trichotomous, the latter to the dichotomous, distinction as applied to human and 'divine psychology.' (I must not be held responsible for the latter term.)" -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controvery, Pg. 24 - 26

John Calvin in his Institutes also says that man has two faculties consisting of intellect and will. There might be some out there who may want to discredit what I teach and say along with what Dr. Clark also taught and said in his writings. So I will quote Calvin himself.

"We are constrained to depart a little from the mode of instruction, because the philosophers, being ignorant of the corruption of nature proceeding from the punishment of the fall, improperly confound two very different states of mankind. Let us, therefore, submit the following division - that the human soul has two faculties which relate to our present design, the understanding and the will. Now, let it be the office of the understanding to discriminate between objects, as they shall respectively appear deserving of approbation or disapprobation; but of the will, to choose and follow what the understanding shall have pronounced to be good; to abhor and avoid what it shall have condemned. Here let us not stay to discuss those subtleties of Aristotle, that the mind has no motion of itself, but that it is moved by the choice, which he also calls the appetitive intellect." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I. XV. VII.

The issue between those who hold to the sincere offer and those who do not

The complainants put it this way:

In the course of Dr. Clark's examination by presbytery it became abundantly clear that his rationalism keeps him from doing justice to the precious teaching of Scripture that in the gospel God sincerely offers salvation in Christ to all who hear, reprobate as well as elect, and that he has no pleasure in any one's rejecting this offer but, contrariwise, would have all who hear accept it and be saved.

Let us try to define the difference between the complainants and Dr. Clark as sharply as we can.
The difference is not that the complainants insist that the Gospel must be preached to all men promiscuously, while Dr. Clark claims that it must be preached only to the elect. This would be quite impossible, seeing that no preacher is able to single out the elect and separate them from the reprobate in this world. They are agreed that the Gospel must be preached to all men.
Nor is the difference that the complainants openly deny the doctrine of reprobation, while Dr. Clark professes to believe this truth. We read in the Complaint: 'He believes - as do we all - the doctrine of reprobation'.
Again, the difference does not consist in that the complainants characterize the Gospel as an 'offer' of Christ or as salvation, while Dr. Clark objects to that term. If the term 'offer' is understood in the sense in which it occurs in the confessions, and in which also Calvin uses it (offere, from obfero, meaning to present), there can be no objection to that term, though, to prevent misunderstanding, it would be better to employ the words to present, and presentation.
Again, even though Dr. Clark objects to the word 'sincere' in the sense in which the complainants use that term, afraid to leave the impression that he preaches Arminianism, even this does not touch the real point of difference between them. That God is sincere in the preaching of the Gospel no one would dare to deny. As the complainants rightly ask: 'Would it not be blasphemy to deny this?'
 But the difference between them does concern the contents of the Gospel that must be preached promiscuously to all men.
It is really not a question to whom one must preach, or how he must preach, but what he must preach.
According to the complainants, the preacher is called to proclaim to all his hearers that God sincerely seeks the salvation of them all. If this is not their meaning when they write: 'in the gospel God sincerely offers salvation in Christ to all who hear, reprobate as well as elect,' their words have no meaning at all.
According to Dr. Clark, however, the preacher proclaims to all his hearers promiscuously that God sincerely seeks the salvation of all the elect. The elect may be variously named in the preaching: those who repent, they that believe in Christ, that hunger for the bread of life, that thirst for the water of life, that seek, knock, ask, that come to Christ, etc. etc. But they are always the elect.
We may define the issue still more sharply, and limit it to God's intention and attitude in the preaching of the Gospel with regard to the reprobate. - Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy

Herman Hoeksema on the covenant of works

If eternal life and glory could have been attained in the first man Adam, would God have chosen the long and deep way through the death of his Son? He would not. The fact is that it was quite impossible for Adam to attain to the heavenly level of immortal life. Immortality and heavenly glory are in Christ Jesus alone. Outside of the Son of God come in the flesh, they were never attainable. We cannot accept the theory of the covenant of works, but must condemn it as unscriptural." - Herman Hoeksema in Reformed Dogmatics


Hopefully Hoeksema did not really deny the covenant of works for if he had then that would confuse law and gospel.

God is sufficient in and of Himself

"God is a knowing God. He is not a cold, abstract power, but he is the absolute, perfectly self conscious, infinite being, who is in himself the implication of all perfections. When we say that he is a knowing God, we mean that he is the self-sufficient one even in his knowledge. He has no need of anyone, of any being outside of himself, to be a knowing God. He is not in need of an object of knowledge outside of his own infinite fullness. In himself he is subject and object of all knowledge. he is the perfect subject as well as the infinitely perfect object of his own knowledge. When we say that God is the principle of all knowledge of God, we mean thereby that in the deepest sense he is also the principle of all knowledge of him that is found in the creature." - Herman Hoeksema in Reformed Dogmatics

Salvation is by grace alone

"Our subject is, of course, rich in meaning and presents several aspects. To say that we are saved by e expresses the truth that salvation is of the Lord. This should be emphasized from the outset. For gace is of God, and God is free and sovereign. To be saved by grace, then, means that grace is the only source, the sole explanation, the ultimate reason and ground of our salvation, the efficient cause of all that is implied in the work of our redemption and deliverance from sin and death. We are saved by grace only, without the work or cooperation of man, or we are not saved by grace at all. hence, one who would speak of salvation by grace, must understand that he is speaking of a divine work throughout." Herman Hoeksema in Wonder of Grace

Though Hoeksema is great on some things, I do not necessarily think he is the clearest theologian. Yes I do like some of the things I have read from him. He is not necessarily clear or concise. One might read Gordon H. Clark.

Herman Hoeksema on salvation by works?

"salvation is much more than the mere escape from punishment and hell and a check on the bank of heaven that is to be cashed after death. It is a wonderwork of the Almighty, Who quickeneth the dead and calleth the things that are not as if they were. (Romans 4:17) It is a work in which God becomes revealed unto us in "the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from th...e dead, and set him at his own right hand in heavenly places." (Ephesians 1:19, 20) It is a work no less divine, and even more glorious, than the work of creation. All that is required to make of the sinner, dead in sin, filled with enmity against God, cursing the Almighty and raising his rebellious fist in the face of the Lord of heaven and earth, walking in darkness and hating the light - to make of such a sinner a righteous and holy child of GOd, humbly asking what God wills that he shall do, filled with the love of God, and for ever singing His praises, and to place that sinner, thus redeemed and delivered, in living fellowship with the glorious company of all the redeemed and glorified sinners, so that they together constitute a church, a beautiful house of God, a holy temple in the Lord, to the praise of the glory of His grace in the beloved - all this belongs to the work, the mighty work of God that is called salvation!" - Herman Hoeksema in The Wonder of Grace

God speaks only truth

"From eternity to eternity, God expresses the entire fullness of his infinite mind and hears his own word. It is undoubtedly this truth that underlies the conception of the divine Wisdom in the Old Testament and the divine Word (Logos) in the New Testament. The Word which God addresses to himself from eternity to eternity is the Son, who is always 'with God' and essentially is God (John 1:1). Now it pleased God according to his eternal good pleasure to speak concerning himself outside of himself, to let his word proceed outside of himself (ad extra). It should be emphasized that this is not an act of necessity, but of sovereignty, of sovereign freedom, determined by his sovereign eternal counsel." - Herman Hoeksema in Reformed Dogmatics

Herman Hoeksema on Salvation and Faith

"The impression is often left by preachers who present the matter of faith as something that depends on the sinner's own will and choice, as if faith were a CONDITION unto salvation. God is willing to save us ON CONDITION that we believe. But there are no conditions to salvation. We are not saved through faith because faith is regarded as a good work, or because through faith we are able to do good works and obtain righteousness before God. For we are saved by grace; and if it is of works, it is no more of grace. It cannot even be said that faith is the hand whereby we take hold of salvation that is offered us. Salvation is not an offer, but a wonder work of God; and the sinner has no hand to accept it. But faith is the means, and that, too, God's means whereby we are implanted into Christ. It is the spiritual power whereby we cling to the God of our salvation in Jesus Christ our Lord, our righteousness and perfect redemption forever! By grace are ye save, not on condition of, nor because of, but THROUGH faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." - Herman Hoeksema, The Wonder of Grace

Herman Hoeksema on Sovereignty and Responsibility

"Let us put both truths in propositional form:
1. God is absolutely sovereign, even so that he determines the moral acts of man, both good and evil.
2. Man is responsible before God for all his moral acts.
It may well be that we cannot answer the question how God is able to determine man's deeds without destroying man's responsibility. That he is able to do so is asserted plainly by the two propositions stated above. But whether or not we can understand this operation of the... sovereign God upon man is not the question. The sole question is whether the two propositions concerning God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are contradictory. This we deny. In fact, they cannot possibly be, for the simple reason that they assert something about two wholly different subjects.
They would be contradictory if the first proposition denied what is affirmed in the second. But this is not true. The first proposition asserts something about God: He is absolutely sovereign and determines the acts of man. The second proposition predicates something about man: He is responsible for his moral acts. Does the first proposition deny that man is responsible? If it does you have here a contradiction. But it does not. Those who like to discover a contradiction here, usually the enemies of the truth of God's sovereignty, simply take for granted that to assert that God is sovereign even over man's acts is to say the same as that man is not responsible. It must be pointed out, however, that this is neither expressed nor implied in the first proposition. In the two propositions responsibility is not both affirmed and denied at the same time to man.
The two propositions would, of course, also be contradictory if the second proposition denied what is affirmed in the first. In that case, sovereignty even over the acts of man would be both affirmed and denied to God. But also this is neither expressed nor implied in the two propositions, unless it can first be shown conclusively that to say that man is responsible is the same as declaring that God is not sovereign over his moral acts. And this has never been demonstrated, nor is it self-evident.
If they were really contradictory they could not both be the object of the Christian's faith. We could only conclude that either the one or the other were not true." - Herman Hoeksema, The Clark Van Til Controversy

Christian Rap

Without Holy Scripture we cannot discern rightly General Revelation. Apart from Special Revelation no one can discern rightly what is being spoken of in General Revelation (in fact some even have taken liberty to say this does not really exist). God exist and has shown Himself and continues to speak of Himself in nature, but unless God turns man and gives him light to see he will not turn to God and God’s wrath abides.
Scripture alone does not speak on every topic. It does not speak on the topic of arithmetic. If it did then I suppose anyone who failed the class would be all sinners in sin. Fortunately Scripture does not tell us how to sing or what musical instrument should be used. The argument could be stated another way. They did not have Drums (which many of our modern day worship services have), I am pretty sure they did not have a Piano or a Organ (I could be wrong here).
Every time a little child plays an instrument learning how to play the notes yet fails to hit the right notes are in Sin because of the fact that what they are playing is ugly.
I think the real issue here is that Scott just does not like Rap.

Two wills of God discussion.

Josh said: God is more complex than for us to limit Him to only one emotional disposition towards individuals. He can desire every human to be saved and at the same only desire to unconditionally save the elect.


Me (Kirk said): if you say God is complex then we in fact cannot know Him. Scripture does not say that God is complex but that God is one. Scripture does not say that God is unknowable, but that He is inexhaustible. This is why Scripture says that what has been revealed is for the purpose that you should follow. God has not revealed to us everything about Himself, but only that which we should know. What God knows as Creatures we to can know. The difference in our knowledge is quantitative and not qualitative. Jesus says that we worship what we know. What we know that is what we speak.


Josh: Well, the idea is not that there are two wills, but two things that He wills. One more than the other. Massive difference. One is confusing and nonsensical, the other is very relatable and understandable.



Me: God wills two things? No one disagrees with that statement. Obviously the command is based upon God's will. You have not clarified the issue. The issue is not whether or not God wills two things. The issue is whether or not God desires in the same sense the salvation of the reprobate that He does the salvation of the elect. Does he at the same time desire to save all when in fact he does not save all? I'd say you should read the Van Til/Clark Controversy which speaks on this issue. 



I (Kirk) asked him: would it not be better to say that God COMMANDS that all would repent and believe the gospel, but only WILLS that the elect should repent and believe the gospel?


Josh: My response is that the idea of a command, if it has any real significance, is that it accords with God’s desires at some level.



Me: I'd disagree. Command does not mean that God actually longs for someone to do something or not. By this you are arguing the same line of the Arminian. God is the legislator.  God as the creator of the universe is the governor of His creation. Apart from salvation-history, Adam (Creature of God) does not have the right to salvation because salvation is a prerogative right that God freely does. As a Creature of God however Adam should obey God. This does not mean however that Adam by obeying God should merit eternal life (this is only grounded in Christ alone - which is covenant language).



Josh: This is how the whole distinction between wickedness and righteousness has fundamental distinction: it is rooted in God’s very nature (i.e. what pleases Him) expressed in desires, which is the formal cause of His will. For example, God makes real commands against wickedness and evil, and those commands are rooted in His character which manifests in desires.



Me: Well God commands are different from what God wills to do. God makes a command because He is the creator. This is the responsibility of man. No one denies the fact that the commands are grounded in who God is. But, you must be careful. God is not bound to certain commands. He could have justly commanded that murder is just as righteous as not to murder. The distinction between wickedness and righteousness is found in Christ. However,  the distinction between wickedness and goodness is ground in sin. However, the distinction between the elect and reprobate is based upon God's free elective choice.





Josh: However, He may, and very often does, desire other things more than “everything” happening according to that set of desires. In the case of His moral commands, He desires that all men obey them, but more than that, at the same time, He desires His plan to unfold as He has ordained according to the counsel of His will. The chief example of this is seen in the Cross: God opposing sin at all times, but because of His grater plan, He ordained the sufferings of Christ at the hands of wicked men.



Me: God command is rooted in God's will of election and reprobation. You cannot make the two on the same level. Nor should you condition the will of election and reprobation on the command. You are using desires and commands equivocatively. However, as Calvin says the command serves the doctrine of election and reprobation so that although God commands not to murder, He however wills that a person does murder. The command based upon God's righteousness is stated to serve the doctrine of election in that sin is revealed by it and that the reprobate are destroyed because of sin.



Calvin says, "Take the matter more briefly and condensedly thus: God wills that adultery should not be committed, in as far as it is a pollution and violation of the holy bond of matrimony, and a great transgression of His righteous law. But, in as as far as God uses adulteries, as well as other wicked doings of men, to execute His own acts of vengeance on the sins of men, He certianly executes the office and performs the sacred duty of judge, not unwillingly, but willingly!"

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism Part two of the work on Providence



In as far as God wills a thing in His word that which should be done, He also wills in His secret counsel that which should not be done this is far because there are two wills in God.

 But that the first further reveals the latter. That in the latter God has so decreed to damn the Reprobate for sin. He does so in righteousness but in God's rejection of the reprobate he withholds His grace and hardens them making them into vessels of wrath to condemn them. He often times uses their sins to chastise his people to bring them unto glory. The command serves the doctrine of election and reprobation.



Josh: So it is with Salvation: God desires the salvation of all men, but more than that desire, He desires the salvation of the elect, being part of His eternal plan, so that the purpose of election might stand, and so He intentionally ordains their salvation and ensures that it will happen by His Spirit, knowing, and ordaining, that without His Spirit irrevocably changing people, they will never repent and believe and so be saved.



Me: Actually salvation is rooted in the justice of God. God desires solely the salvation of the elect, if he had not then the reprobate would not be reprobate but also the elect. What the two wills fail to explain is the fact that salvation is established with the elect alone who are in Christ alone. It is not true that because God commands Christians to preach the Gospel that this administering of the Gospel is actually itself the desire. Again the reprobate by hearing the Gospel are condemned more harshly for the light which they have. Further, they even suppress the truth of God clearly revealed. If God supremely desired to save the reprobate then he would have them to be saved, but he does not. Unless of course you are wanting say that natural revelation is in fact genuine and is capable of saving without the special work of the Spirit to reveal to Him the truths.



Josh: So, it is a surface level distinction to say that the difference between the reprobate and the elect, as regards God’s disposition, is that God wills one set to repent while commanding both to repent because commands are rooted in desire and will.



Me: No the command is that all should repent and believe. The command is that all men should glorify God. But not all do so. God however, in the administration of the gospel commands all to repent, but the command is also effectual and so calls the elect unto Christ.


Josh: All people have lesser desires they will forgo for the sake of more deep and abiding desires.



Me: God's desire is perfect and not complex. Human beings whose nature is fallen are complex and may desire anything under the sun.

  

On Grace, Love, and God

Gods grace is an act of God giving himself. Whereas His love is the act of giving Himself. In other words to be saved by grace alone means that God himself gave Himself to one and it is in love that He does so. Tantamount anyone who has not the Son has not the Father. I lay down my life for them the sheep as Jesus said.

False accusations of the High and Ultra-High Calvinist who reject Common Grace

"I am not sure that calling persons 'hyper-Calvinists' means much except that you disagree with them. Does it mean that they say 'providence' instead of 'common grace'? Does it mean that they deny that God loves the non-elect? Does it mean that their version of covenant theology is different from yours?"

On Augustine's weak understanding of Evil

Augustine . . .  Under Neoplatonic influence . . . taught that all existing things are good; evil, therefore, does not exist - it is metaphysically unreal. Being non-existent, it can have no cause, and God therefore is not the cause of evil. When a man sins, it is a case of his choosing a lower good instead of a higher good. This choice too has no efficient cause, although Augustine assigns to it a deficient cause. In this way God was supposed to be absolved. Augustine, admittedly, was a great Christian and a great philosopher. Later in the chapter more will be said about him. But here he was at his worst. Deficient causes, if there are such things, do not explain why a good God does not abolish sin and guarantee that men always choose the highest goods.

This is an interesting quote by Gordon H. Clark. The last sentence seems to say that even if God is void of the cause of sin and evil it still does not give us any real reason why sin and evil are not totally destroyed or absolved. Herman Hoeksema in his Reformed Dogmatics says something of this - for God to be able to stop or prevent evil but does not, would make Him just as responsible.

Finer Definitions for Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian

The definitions of Infralapsarian and Supralapsarian must be finely defined and made clear. Some and have even heard of others surprisingly having defined these terms in the general meaning of the term so that one means by Infra a sort of Arminian while the Supra is understood as a Calvinist. In their much finer definitions I think is that by infra one means the eternal purpose of God to save some... men unto glory in election and to damn others unto condemnation in reprobation out of the mass considered within the mind of God created and fallen. The objects here are created and fallen. Supralapsarians however state that the objects of Gods election and reprobation was without consideration of them having been created and fallen. Thus Supralapsarianism is the eternal purpose of God to save some men unto glory in election and to damn the others unto condemnation in reprobation without consideration of status of the mass of clay. Gods free elective choice was not moved by neither mans goodness nor of mans badness but purely based upon Gods own good and perfect pleasure. As Herman Hoeksema makes clear as I will try is that what comes first in the order of the decree comes last within history so that Gods eternal purposes will indelibly be revealed at the last day. Both Infralapsarian and Supralapsarian are within the compounds of Calvinism when defined in their most finer definitions.

The Knowledge of God and His Sovereignty and All-sufficiency

Often the knowledge of God is miscontrued in the form of how a creature thinks. As the creature thinks of something outside of itself onto the action to follow so to God's knowledge is often considered as Him having to rely on something outside of Himself. This is often confused as God's 'foreknowledge' in which the philosopher would say that God looks into the future and therefore knows what will happen and thus decrees the outcome of the event. However with God He simply knows the event, not because He looked into the future and so by that determined the event to occur. This has been coined by James R. White as the passive knowledge of God (or something like that). Reformed Dogmatics however presents the issue the other way around, rather than saying that God is ever contingent upon something outside of Himself - God is in fact all sufficient in His sovereignty, and in His power, and knowledge. He is the eternal active God who is never not active as a dumb idol - this is the related idea of the truth that All of God's works within Himself is the basis for His works outside of Himself. As Herman Hoeksema says, "With man one may distinguish between the part of his knowledge that at a given moment is actually before his consciousness and the other part that remains below the threshold of his conscious mind. But with God there is no such distinction. There is no subconsciousness in him. With respect to his knowledge, he is pure activity. Nor is there nay time element in God's knowledge. Man reasons from premises to a conclusion, but with God all premises and conclusions are eternally before his divine mind in their proper logical relation. Thus the knowledge of God is self-existent and independent. He  does not derive knowledge from the things that are , but instead knows all things in their very essence and all their relations from himself." With this said, His knowledge is has been distinguished between two types one is Natural knowledge which is the knowledge God has with Himself - this is the knowledge that seems to be what Scripture says all of God's works are known to Him, and then there is His free knowledge in which is based on His decree or counsel.

God's uncoerced choice

As God decreed before the foundations of the world in eternity past to glorify Himself - not because there was a need of God but because the glory of God is instrinsic to who He is and His nature so that what He does and how He reveals Himself cannot be seperated from His divine being. That God chose within Himself to Glorify Himself (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and to make known His divine attributes) can only be but apart from any considerations of the creature or any other created thing. What God does is completely free and sovereign and is by His own free uncoercive choice and pleasure. What does this mean other than what happens in this world is already predetermined by the sovereign will of the triune God. That Christ was chosen to be the mediator of a particular persons and that His work was intended to bring about the sole redemption of those persons is based upon the choice of the whole person of who the mediator would be. That the relationship between the Head (Christ) and the Body (the Church was so natural that nothing was added to it or had to be touched upon later. That the Holy Spirit would honor the head by applying the redeming work of Christ to the Body of Christ.
Now If I might further say that God had also reprobated certians ones for the very purpose of bringout His divine pleasure in the making known who are the elect, and who is the Christ and His work.

Read: Abraham Kuyper, Herman Hoeksema, and Geerhardus Vos for more information and clarification

On Salvation, Christian Living, and Holy Spirit

My thought is that we cannot truly understand the Holy Spirit's work in the Christian life without first understanding what is the salvation of the Christian. A.W. Pink talks about the work of the Holy Spirit and that essentially if we could somehow do it all by ourselves as if all we needed to do is to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and have our faith rest in Him in order to escape hell and to go to heaven then there is really no need of the Spirit (Pg. 45 in the baker edition of the Holy Spirit). I would also add that if all we needed is just a little push or prodding then there would still be no need of the Holy Spirit.
Christ did not die to save us from Hell, although that is not void from the gospel. However He died that we by faith may attain to His nature which is wrought in us by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Has Pink says, "If the salvation which He has provided is a deliverance from sin and self-pleasing, from worldliness and indulging the lust of the flesh, and the bestowing of a nature which desires and determines to live for God's glory and please Him in all the details of our present lives - then it is clear beyond dispute that none but the Spirit of God can impart a genuine desire for such a salvation." Again this alludes to the question what is true freedom? Is freedom a thing that says I can choose between two choices without any external pursausions (spelling?) or is freedom that scripture speaks of a freedom from the bondage of sin. Well if we say freedom is that I might choose between two equally uncoerced choices - then the question is is God free? I would argue no. However scripture does not state that is what true free-will (freedom) is. (Romans 5) Because Adam sinned all of his posterity(spelling) have been plunged into death and are now born naturally totally depraved (Psalm 51:5, 58:3). Jesus says that if you sin then you are a slave to sin. Romans 3 says that all men are hate God (paraphrased). Essentially the idea is that there is something wrong with our nature with our total being. In in Romans 5 we see the two covanental ideas that in Adam all die but in Christ recieved by grace through faith all are made righteous and are given life. So my point is that true freedom is not having the ability to choose between two choices but is freedom from the bondage of sin from a life that hates God and wants nothing to do with God to a life that loves God and longs to do His good work (Philippians 2:12-13). And by this we need the Holy Spirit to do. If we did not then it would be useless for us to say that the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer is  necessary.
I think Herman Hoeksema says this very well in his work "The Wonder of Grace." He says, "Saved by grace! Delivered from wrath, guilt, damnation, corruption, and death - all by grace! Clothed with righteousness, holiness, life, and glory - by grace only! Translated into light, from death into life, from shame into glory, from hell into heaven - all by the power of God's wondrous grace! And all because of the eternal, sovereign love of Him Who chose the things that are not to bring to nought the things that are; that no flesh should glory in His presence!" (Pg. 15)