Ephesians 5:25-27: "Sons" or "Disciples"?

In my last posting I argued that sanctification via the gospel was an end which Christ had in view in his redeeming work at the cross, according to Eph. 5:25-27. Since the whole of the church is what “Christ loved” and “gave himself” for, it is this same group which He intended to "sanctify and cleanse". This is so obvious to the average Bible reader that it seems silly to me that I must even defend the point. The text, taken solely as it is written, makes a strong argument in favor of those (myself included) that God in His sovereignty will ensure that the gospel reaches His people. Unless one resorts to unwarranted philosophizing (what about this, and what about that?) this is what the text seems to suggest.

Since the grid of conditional time salvation separates, instead of uniting, discipleship and sonship, the argument may be raised that the audience of the intended sanctification in this passage are not the whole of the elect, but that “remnant within the remnant” who become “disciples”. In other words, those who get a time salvation.

This position is absurd, and I now demonstrate such, making use of a simple lesson from grammar: the connection between pronouns and antecedents.

The reading of the text is:

Christ loved…THE CHURCH.

And gave himself for…IT.

That he might sanctify and cleanse…IT.

The pronoun “IT” refers to the antecedent “CHURCH”. What Christ loved and died for is also that which shall be sanctified by the Word. The recipients of sanctification are the same as that of redemption. There is nothing in the text whatsoever which hints at an audience reduction as it proceeds from redemption ("Christ gave himself") to sanctification ("that he might sanctify"). It is not "Christ loved and died for THE CHURCH so that he might sanctify by the Word SOME OF THE CHURCH". One is at great pains to claim this is so, and is not being honest with the passage.

If the body, “IT”, which is sanctified by the Word are only those “disciples” who are fortunate enough to attain to the higher life of conditional time salvation, then this is also the CHURCH which Christ loved and died for, based on the inseparable union of the pronoun “IT” to its antecedent “CHURCH”. And all of a sudden we find ourselves subscribing to the ridiculous notion that Christ loved and died only for a portion of the elect.

So let us render the text according to the notion that discipleship and not sonship is under consideration.

“…Christ also loved the regenerate disciples, and gave himself for the regenerate disciples; That he might sanctify and cleanse the regenerate disciples with the washing of water by the word, That he might present the regenerate disciples to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that the regenerate disciples should be holy and without blemish.”

That is, Christ died for those regenerate "sons" who turn out to be "disciples", but not for the rest.

Really?

Christ died only for those who get a time salvation in this life?

What now? To go along with two kinds of salvation, two kinds of faith, two kinds of knowing God, two kinds of sanctification, two kinds of coming to Christ, are there now two kinds of redemption?

This is utter and complete foolishness. I’m quite sure that on any general occasion it would be readily admitted that the entire family of God is under consideration, and not just that "obedient minority" of the elect, seeing that the topic of the text is redemption, a doctrine revolving around ETERNAL SALVATION. Feeling the pressures of a strict exegesis of the text, however, certain ones are forced to place a time salvation twist on it in order to get an escape from the gospel means pattern for salvation of which the text speaks. However, if the proposed sanctification was set forth as something accomplished apart from the gospel, there would be no objections raised as to whether or not it was the WHOLE of the church under consideration.

That I can guarantee.