To redeem mankind the Eternal Son did not leave the bosom of the Father; while walking among men He referred to Himself as “the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father,” and spoke of Himself again as “the Son of man which is in heaven.” We grant mystery here, but not confusion. In His incarnation the Son veiled His deity, but He did not void it. The unity of the Godhead made it impossible that He should surrender anything of His deity. When He took upon Him the nature of man, He did not degrade Himself or become even for a time less than he had been before. God can never become less than Himself. For God to become anything that He has not been is unthinkable.
– A.W.Tozer; Knowledge of the Holy; Kindle Version; Page 18-19
Grace sometimes hides its tender favor in order to execute God’s plan of redemption. Not all the warriors are redeemed by God’s grace, yet grace is what empowers them, despite their sin, to carry out God’s will – sometimes unknowingly (Judges 14:4).
– Sprinkle, Preston; Charis: God’s Scandalous Grace for Us; David C. Cook Publishing; Colorado Springs, CO; Kindle version; copyright 2014; page 84
The offspring of Satan are all who oppose God’s plan of redemption – Cain, Ham, the Canaanites, and the pharaoh in Egypt who will end up enslaving God’s people for over four hundred years. God orchestrates a plan to fix creation by working through the womb of women. Ultimately, a descendent of Eve will “bruise” (or “crush”) the head of Satan. That’s the promise of Genesis 3:15. And that’s why this verse is the first of many so-called messianic promises of the Bible.
– Sprinkle, Preston; Charis: God’s Scandalous Grace for Us; David C. Cook Publishing; Colorado Springs, CO; Kindle version; copyright 2014; page 50-51
God did not choose Israel because Israel was already holy. He chose them to make them holy. Israel was called to be holy in two senses of the word. They were called to be different, to be set apart as a vehicle of God’s plan of redemption. They were also called to be holy in the sense of being purified. Pagan practices were absent from Israel’s midst. They were to be sanctified by drawing near to God. Salvation for the nations was to come out of Israel. The Promised Land was to be the breeding ground for the coming Messiah. There was no room for pagan shrines and pagan rites. God ordained a scorched-earth policy to purge the land for future salvation.
– R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Ill., Copyright 1985, Kindle Edition
This distinction between faith and assurance had profound doctrinal and pastoral implications for the Puritans. To make justification dependent upon assurance would compel the believer to rely upon his own subjective condition rather than on the sufficiency of a triune God in the order of redemption. Such reliance is not only unsound doctrine, but also bears adverse pastoral effects. God does not require full and perfect faith, but sincere and “unfeigned” faith. Fulfillment of God’s promises depends on the matter received, Christ’s righteousness, and not upon the degree of assurance exercised in the receiving. If salvation depended on the full assurance of faith, John Downame observes, many would despair for then “the palsied hand of faith should not receive Christ.” Happily, salvation’s sureness does not rest on the believer’s sureness of his salvation, for “believers do not have the same assurance of grace and favor of God, nor do the same ones have it at all times.” Pastorally, it is critical to maintain that justifying faith and the experience of doubt often coexist.
– Joel Beeke
as quoted by Sproul, R.C.; Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology; Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI; copyright 1997; p. 206
The goal of atonement was to save the lost. Christ loved his church and gave himself for it. He died in order to save his sheep. His purpose was to offer reconcilation and redemption for his people.
The Father’s ultimate purpose was to save the elect. he designed the Son’s atonement to accomplish the goal or end of redemption. Every Arminian would agree with that. The issue is this: Was God’s purpose to make salvation for all possible or to make salvation for the elect certain? The ultimate aim of God’s plan of redemption was to redeem his elect. To accomplish this end he ordained the means. One was the atonement made by his Son. Another was the Holy Spirit’s application of this atonement to the elect. God provides for his elect all that is necessary for their salvation, including the gift of faith.
Sproul, R.C.; Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology; Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI; copyright 1997; p. 175
The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind – election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit – as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, whose who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man…
– J.I. Packer
as quoted by Sproul, R.C.; Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology; Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI; copyright 1997; p. 163-164