Possibility of a Punitive Application of Christ’s Blood

[Stratford]

Disclaimer: These are a very heavy series of questions that are all related to each other, so if you can’t handle heavy spiritual talk at the moment, then please do not read. I’m not trying to sow division, and I’m not trying to sway opinions, but I am looking for sound answers from seasoned believers. As I’m currently experiencing a spiritual downturn, it is much appreciated. I’ll pose the questions now.

Why is it that God will not apply the Son’s saving blood to someone whom He ultimately intends to place in hell, and then rescind that person’s salvation while they’re alive for the purpose of amplifying the sentence they will receive in hell by the greater knowledge resulting from once having been genuinely saved, for His own purposes?
If the Spirit is the earnest of our salvation, and if God removed the Spirit from Saul, and if David, who was saved retroactively by the future sacrifice of Christ, which is equally effective across all of scripture, begged God not to take His Spirit from him as well due to his iniquity, why can God not presently do the same with us?
This is very frightening to me. He is Lord over the salvation He has procured, and what’s stopping Him from using that for His own purposes as well? Calvin talked about “teasing grace” before. Why is it that a person who once truly appeared to be saved, but then fell away, actually wasn’t saved at one point? How could they have borne fruit apart from having been in Christ?
There are many Christians who say that salvation can be applied and then lost, and biblical justification for this, however valid it is, isn’t terribly difficult to find. Certainly being saved means that one’s sins have been removed from east to west, seeing that they are infinitely distanced from each other, but it’s not as if God has truly forgotten those sins in knowledge, nor is God not omnipotent enough to restore their guilt to the person. Why does presently possessing salvation necessarily mean that a person is elect? Could the elect simply be those whom God has decreed will die with the blood of Christ presently applied to their souls, and this is what actually makes them ultimately elect? If we are born genuinely children of the devil, why are we unable to run from an adoption?
Of course, the blood of Christ is of infinite worth and efficacy, but what do we make of warnings like this? (But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die. Ezekiel 18:24) Likely this isn’t talking about salvation per se, but the overtones are unsettling, and this is far from the only example that could be posited.

As I realize these questions are heretical in nature, know that I’m convinced of the Reformed tradition, but I need help in answering these.

 

[Charles Johnson]

It's important to note that the Spirit is responsible for many sorts of works besides the work of salvation. Think of all the people Christ healed and fed, which was a great sign of the power of the Spirit in him. Likewise, the Spirit can and does do certain works in the reprobate, such as Saul, who God made tall, attractive, and strong, and gave power to subdue the enemies of Israel. It is common for God to grant reprobates a carnal knowledge of God and an intellectual assent to the gospel without granting saving faith or justifying them. God is free to withdraw all of these benefits at his pleasure, because he has not promised that they will endure, as he has promised concerning the salvation of believers. The benefits of the Spirit that should be seen as the surety or pledge of salvation are only "fruits in keeping with repentance", not those benefits the Spirit also grants to the reprobate.

 

[Stratford]

It's important to note that the Spirit is responsible for many sorts of works besides the work of salvation. Think of all the people Christ healed and fed, which was a great sign of the power of the Spirit in him. Likewise, the Spirit can and does do certain works in the reprobate, such as Saul, who God made tall, attractive, and strong, and gave power to subdue the enemies of Israel. It is common for God to grant reprobates a carnal knowledge of God and an intellectual assent to the gospel without granting saving faith or justifying them. God is free to withdraw all of these benefits at his pleasure, because he has not promised that they will endure, as he has promised concerning the salvation of believers. The benefits of the Spirit that should be seen as the surety or pledge of salvation are only "fruits in keeping with repentance", not those benefits the Spirit also grants to the reprobate.

Thank you, was a very efficient and insightful answer. I’d like to hear the input of others if possible as well.

 

[py3ak]

Why is it that God will not apply the Son’s saving blood to someone whom He ultimately intends to place in hell, and then rescind that person’s salvation while they’re alive for the purpose of amplifying the sentence they will receive in hell by the greater knowledge resulting from once having been genuinely saved, for His own purposes?

Well, it's a logical contradiction like a married bachelor or a square circle, for one. "Having been genuinely saved" is incompatible with damnation. Notice the opposition in 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10: "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him."

No one appointed to wrath can be spoken of as obtaining salvation. "Genuinely saved" means "finally saved" or it means very little indeed.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Stratford,

To answer your questions: 1) "Why is it that God will not apply the Son’s saving blood to someone whom He ultimately intends to place in hell, and then rescind that person’s salvation while they’re alive for the purpose of amplifying the sentence they will receive in hell by the greater knowledge resulting from once having been genuinely saved, for His own purposes?"

This question contradicts itself: "God will not apply the Son’s saving blood to someone" – "then rescind that person’s salvation while they’re alive". If God has not granted a person faith in the blood of Christ to cleanse him or her from sin they do not have His salvation. This sort of thinking is called an oxymoron. If this is not what you mean, you must state it more clearly.

2) "If the Spirit is the earnest of our salvation, and if God removed the Spirit from Saul, and if David, who was saved retroactively by the future sacrifice of Christ, which is equally effective across all of scripture, begged God not to take His Spirit from him as well due to his iniquity, why can God not presently do the same with us?"

In Saul's case he was anointed to be king, and was given of the Spirit to have a kingly heart and disposition – so as to govern the people, and wage war – but it is evident this gifting was not salvific, for he had no heart for God, did not believe or obey His word, murdered His priests, and out of envy tried to murder the godly king who would replace him.

Regarding Psalm 51:11 and David's cry, "Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me," I understand David to be so stricken by the enormity of his sin, yet given by God's Spirit to trust in His mercy, he wrestled with deserved Justice and undeserved Grace, and, being shown in spirit the Priest after the order of Melchizedek, who is also the Messiah (Psa 110:1, 4) and the Son of Psalm 2:7), was assured that "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise" (Psa 51:17).

3) "Why is it that a person who once truly appeared to be saved, but then fell away, actually wasn’t saved at one point? How could they have borne fruit apart from having been in Christ?" Any "fruit" they may have appeared to bear, was not, like them, genuine.

4). In your quoting of Ezekiel 18:24, you need to look at that in light of other Scripture which clarifies the matter, such as John 10:27, 28, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand", and John 6:37,38,39,40:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.​

Clearly the "righteous" of Ezekiel 18:24 was one who appeared – even reputed as – righteous, but evidently his conduct showed that the root of the matter (Matt 13:20,21,22) was not in him, and his true colors eventually were flown.

Stratford, if you have questions about your own salvation and steadfastness thereunto, this is to be brought to the Saviour Himself, and you should ask Him to assure you that "he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6), and "is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy" (Jude 24).

The elect realize the remaining corruption in them, and the weakness and inability, and often repair to the Giver of grace to sustain us – all our lives on this pilgrimage we depend on Him, including His enabling us to persevere in faith and holiness. Learn to stay near to Him. As did Paul, "And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor 12:9).