We
sometimes get a response to our various articles, especially on
Calvinism. I intend to reproduce some of the emails below, essentially
as received but usually with the sender's name replaced with their
initials (purely to protect their anonymity) See below for important
information about many previous emails. The sender's email appears in black. My response, as ever, in red:
*******************************************************
Answered 06-02-10 Bro. Maxwell, My point in my study of
Ephesians is that Calvin's view of God is that He forceably takes a rebellious
heart and makes it soft towards WITHOUT the volition of the sinner. THAT is so
basic to your doctrine, how can you claim it is not so? The example almost
always given is Acts 16:14. The problem with that portion is that her heart
already was soft TOWARDS GOD!!! She was not regenerated yet, but spiritually
hungry. She is a poor example for irresistible grace. Calvin himself
admitted, writing in his Institutes, “Nothing is more absurd than to think
anything at all is done but by the ordination of God….Every action and motion of
every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing can
come to pass, but what was ordained by Him….***The wills of men*** are so
governed by the will of God, that they are carried on straight to the mark which
He has fore-ordained” (Cal. Inst., book 1, chapter 16, sect.
3).
I have plenty of documentation, just not much time. I hope that you
break free one day from the blindness of TULIP, and just stay Biblical.
They may have similarities, but they are not the same! God bless your
labours for souls. They are worth all our efforts! CL (ROI)
Hi, Thanks for writing.
Did Calvin ever use the phrase "force" in his expositions of the grace of God? Or did he deny that force is being used, when (as quoted before) he wrote: "True,
indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel
men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy
Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and
reluctant." (Calvin's Comments on John 6:44)
Here, Calvin distinctly teaches:
1) No violence or compulsion by external force is used in the drawing to salvation.
(This alone makes your charge totally unwarranted.)
2) It is a powerful impulse by the Holy Spirit that enables them to
come when, before hand, they had been unwilling and reluctant.
3) Those who come do so willingly.
When man is willing to be saved, it is because the grace of God has
lifted away the chains and blindness that had bound his will because of
its own sin and enables it to believe.
I would be interested to see if he (or any other prominent Calvinist) ever used the word "force"
without any qualification in regards to the sinner coming to Christ.
There is a hymn (I assume) that talks about the sinner being "sweetly forced"
to come, but the use of the adverb so qualifies the verb as to take
away anything sinister from it. Spurgeon used it in his great sermon on
John 6:37 and said that there was "no other word that can so accurately describe my case." In the same sermon, he explained what he meant: "They
shall be made willing in the day of God's power. God knows how to make
a passage through the heart of man; and though man is a free agent, yet
God can incline him, willingly, to come to Jesus. There are many
sentences even in Wesley's hymn-book which contain this truth. If God
took away freedom from man, and then saved him, it would be but a small
miracle. For God to leave man free to come to Jesus, and yet to so move
him as to make him come, is a divinely-wrought miracle indeed."
If you want to see what the Arminian Wesley wrote on the matter, then see the hymn which Spurgeon once referred to, esp. the last two lines of the last verse.
This would indicate to me that the term "forced" was
often used by Christians of all schools, but without any nasty
connotations. (Spurgeon, however, did not include this hymn, which he
described as "remarkably strong" in "Our Own Hymnbook" )
However, I repeat, I doubt if you can find me where Calvin used the word "forced" in regards to salvation. Colin.
P/s I remember once debating someone who took to me to task over the
Lord "forcing people to be saved." (As they put it) I went down the
road we have covered above. I then asked him whether the "Once saved,
always saved" doctrine (which I obviously hold to) could not be open to
the same charge. Can a Christian ever walk away from the faith and wish
himself to be detached from all the benefits of salvation, including
his eternity security? If the answer is "No" then the logic is that he
is being forced into something which he no longer desires.
*******************************************************
Answered 24-12-09 Hi, I noticed your article on Calvin and the Free
Offer on the Monergism website. Have you read David Engelsma's book Hypercalvinism and the Call of the Gospel? I believe it to be much better than Murray's Spurgeon V. Hypercalvinism.
Also, did you know that the "Free Offer" is for the most part
today equated with what is known as the "Well-Meant Offer"? The
Well-meant offer is the idea that though God has determined from
eternity only to save some, whenever the gospel is preached God desires
the salvation of all to whom it comes. This John Calvin most definitely
did not believe. Calvin taught that God designs the gospel to work out
the salvation of the Elect and to bring the reprobate to their final
destruction. Regards, W___ .
Hi W___. Thank you for your email
and responding to my article. I have in my library and read both the
books that you mention. I am aware of the bigger picture behind the
doctrine of the “Well meant”
offer. I think it a bit strange that any could challenge the sincerity
of God in making the offer. Can we charge the Holy God who loves truth
with insincerity? While it is true that He did not follow through all
His desires with the force of a decree, yet this does not cast any
aspersions upon the distance that He does go. As for Calvin, his comments on 2 Peter 3:9 must put it beyond all doubt that he held to the sincere offer:
"Not willing
that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that
he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to
bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God
is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in
these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every
one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter
in by this way. But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why
is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is
here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the
reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made
known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand
without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them
to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world."
(Commentary)
What is Calvin saying here?
1) God has a wonderful love towards all mankind including some who will be eventually lost i.e. the reprobate.
2) God’s wonderful love
toward the reprobate includes a will that they would be saved so He
shows a preparedness to bestow salvation on the lost.
3) God is ready to receive all to repentance – not merely “all who repent” but “all to repentance.”
4) All who desire to be saved must learn to repent.
5) So many whom God does not wish to perish will eventually perish.
6) 2 Peter 3:9 does not give the full story i.e. what is the hidden purpose of God.
7) In God’s hidden purpose (i.e. election or reprobation) the reprobate are doomed
8) The cause of the reprobate’s doom is their own ruin. *
9) 2 Peter 3:9 only reveals the will of God in the gospel.
10) In God’s will, as revealed in the gospel, God indiscriminately stretches forth His hand to reprobate and elect alike.
11) Although God indiscriminately reaches forth His hand, it only lays hold savingly upon the elect to lead them to Himself.
* Calvin wisely tells us elsewhere on this matter: "Accordingly,
we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt
nature of humanity—which is closer to us — rather than seek
a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s
predestination." (Institutes 3:23:8) Thanks again for writing, Colin
*******************************************************
Answered 12-12-09 Dear Colin, I
have been mulling over your site for the last few hours after trying to
look up some stuff on David Cloud. I will try to make a long story
short. I am born again, and just the last year or so have been studying
the scriptures on 'election, predestination' listening to
preachers such as John MacArthur, Ray Comfort, Wretched Radio, etc. The
book All of Grace by Spurgeon is
my favourite! I brought this to my pastor's attention (Baptist Independent
Fundamental) and he rejected it all and said, "It doesn't make sense". He then
pointed me to David Cloud's site and I went ahead and got a subscription to his
O Timothy monthly news magazine....(some good stuff in there, but a lot
not so good!)
I asked the Pastor to preach Wednesday nights on the book of Romans.... and
he, as expected, stumbled over or completely dismissed Romans 9: 10-13, saying God
was talking about Israel not an individual., In v14-18, he completely skipped over,
and would then talk about Calvinism at this point if it was heretical... no,
wait he said it was....He would say that Calvinism teaching 'just didn't make
sense'. I had been shunned from the pastor ever since and most people that I called
friends from this church have stopped talking to me....
So... I thank God for people like yourself that have stood up to people
like David Cloud who has said:
"They hold to a heretical
replacement position which sees the church as the fulfillment of God's promises
to Israel, they reject the literal interpretation of prophecy and the
pretribulational return of Jesus Christ." I never knew anything about Calvinism and believed that it was a 'dirty'
word... this former church of mine speaks of Calvinism in the same as Mormonism,
etc. Also they say Calvinism is just a branch of Catholicism (I was Catholic when
I was saved) and it should be avoided at all cost. I do believe in the Doctrine of Grace... and I am richer for doing
so....I have favorited your site and plan to go there to do more study...the one
thing I am concerned about it infant baptism...is it really baptism or is it at
form of dedication? I don't believe that one should be baptized until they are
believers... I would like to know what you think or do you have something about
this on your site? God Bless you Colin .... JM
Hi J_____. Thank you for your email. I am so glad that you found the articles on Calvinism
in general and on David Cloud in particular to be so helpful to you.
I think Cloud's greatest problem is that he believes his own
propaganda. I have politely emailed him on a few occasions, but you can
never get far with him. I suppose it would be too big a climb down for
him to admit that he has spent countless man hours writing what is
basically untrue rubbish about Calvinism. Or (to be more precise) what
he thinks is Calvinism. It is
true that there is some good stuff on his site, but when he attacks and
quotes others, you can't help but wonder if he is doing a crude hatchet
job on them as well. Which is probably why the Bible insists on two or
three honest witnesses.
The issue of infant baptism is a big subject. The Free Presbyterian
Church gives liberty to all its members to adopt either infant baptism
or believer's baptism as their conscience allows, but rules out
baptismal regeneration. In my own case, I am somewhat reluctant
to rule out infant baptism as understood by Presbyterians, although I
have two children of my own and neither of them were baptised. So if
actions speak louder than words, then you can see where I stand.
Or where I think I stand. Thanks again for writing. Your email has really encouraged us. Colin.
Answered 8-12-09 [Part of an ongoing email exchange] My
understanding of this has been that Christ DID pay the debt of sin for
every last sinner, but those sinners in hell are there because they
refused to believe. The offer of atonement is open to all, but
most never come to accept that sacrifice, most never believe (Matthew
7:13, 14). But there had to be a sacrifice for EVERYONE, so that
ANYONE can come to Christ. Everyone must have the chance to
repent, because Jesus came to seek and save what was lost (Luke
19:10). Those who died in sin BEFORE the death of Jesus on the
Cross are condemned because they did not live by faith in God
(Galatians 3). The sins of those who DID live by faith are atoned
for at the Cross (Hebrews 10). [I understand that there is a hell
for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:31 - 46), and it is the
ultimate destination for those who reject the Lord.] Thanks! DM (USA)
Hi. Thanks again for your email. We know that sinners go to hell because of the guilt of their sins. It is a judicial sentence, ministered by a lawful Judge i.e. the Lord Jesus. Yet, according to your theory, the guilt
that sends them to hell has already been paid for in full. I agree that
men are in hell because of unbelief also (John 3:18) but this unbelief
is a sin, is it not? "Of sin because they believe not on me." (John 16:9) yet
howcan they suffer for that sin which (according to you) has already
been paid for in full? Justice has been satisfied but not satisfied
because the one whose sins have been removed etc., is still left to pay
for them. It just doesn't add up.
I am more than happy to run with the thought that the intrinsic worth
of Christ's atonement is sufficient to save a thousand worlds forgiven if God so desired.
It is this that enables us to preach the gospel to every last creature
as commanded. However, that is a different matter from saying that the
Lord laid the sins of the reprobates who are now in hell upon His Son
and that He actually made atonement for them.
If you wish to follow through some of the problems of Unlimited
Atonement, then I suggest that you see some of the obvious objections here and also read Spurgeon's comments on the subject here. Thanks again for writing. I trust that you find these comments helpful. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-11-09 Hi, I have just read your article here: "http://www.corkfpc.com/criticisingcalvinism.html" and I have
to say I have the very same experience. I sometimes find on google "against
calvinism" and so on and I had to laugh when reading your article, how precisely
you are describing what it is about. So thanks for that.
Greetings from the Czech Republic. Martin
Hi Martin, Nice to know that our
site is helping and encouraging folk as far away as the Czech Republic.
I think tremendous good can be done just by dispossessing people
of their unwarranted prejudices against Calvinism. It is one thing for
them to reject it as it truly is, but to reject it on the basis of what
they wrongfully think it is is another matter. Thanks again for your email. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 5-11-09 Hi Brother, I came across your site whilst researching
some info on Calvinism - with the aim to warn a member of our church of
the evils thereof. He is dabbling around with something he does not
fully understand enough. I found your site very informative and your
answers and manner very good indeed, not the usual tirades of invective
and evasive argumentation (that you correctly point out in your reviews
of "anti-calvin/ist" site/articles). I have "favoritised' your page for
further reading and will recommend it to the above mentioned brother
when I have prepared some material in response to go along with it. If
the said brother understands properly what he thinks he likes the sound
thereof and can justify it in conscience and (more importantly)
Scripture, then that is his choice/persuasion. As yet I have not been
able to swallow the TULIP and have not yet read anything sufficient to
persuade me otherwise.
Hi!
Thanks for your email. I appreciate the tone of your words, especially
seeing that you take an opposite view to mie on the Doctrines of Grace.
I made a conscious decision to refrain from invective etc., when
dealing with these matters. The fleshly part of me would return to such
things at the drop of a hat, but if we have not love, then we are
nothing even if we understood all mysteries. All I can say about
the Doctrines of Grace is that it took me a while to come to appreciate
them. I opposed them when I first heard them taught (to be fair, the
man propounding them did them no favours) but a balanced look
eventually brought me to appreciate them more and more. I have seen
them misrepresented so many times that I am convinced that many people
spend their time opposing the straw men which others have erected.
However, I would encourage you to keep reading - not the likes of Cloud or Hunt
etc., - but men like Spurgeon etc., Above all else, when you read in
the Bible and esp. the NT, see how salvation is set forth as something
definite as opposed to merely being offered. Christ did not come to
make salvation possible but to actually save His people from their sins
(Matthew 1:21)
Anyway I do like your site. Just one
almost related question if I may - Do you regard John piper as a hyper?
And (Now there is more than one question!!!) what do you think (a
recommended web page on?) of his "future grace" ? Thanks. (This request
is for the mentioned brother who is listening to Piper)
An honest answer re: John Piper is
that he is not a man of whom I know a lot. Certainly not enough to pass
any judgment upon him.
Your AV only, dispensationalist, non Calvinist and non Arminian either,
fundamentalist, independant, pre trib, pre mil, eternally secure,
double separationist, missionary emphasist, saved by grace, SINNER
(Phil 3:13) friend. Have a great week. Roly
:o) Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 21-5-09 Hello Pastor, I came across your website today while looking through some Arminianism
websites. I'm venturing down the road to discover for myself what is biblical
on this topic. I must admit I do lean more on the side against Calvinism than
towards it. However I wanted to give you credit for the issues that your site
addresses with the critics of Calvinism. I have been reading through sites and
find the most disturbing picture being painted of someone who believes this
doctrine. I do find this on both sides of the fence, but the pictures is
painted very harshly for an Calvinist. It's refreshing to read your comments on
the matter and feel in my heart that they are not being blown out of proportion
for show. I look forward to taking what I discover on both sides of the
argument back to the bible. Thank
You. M
Hi. I'm glad that you found our
website to be helpful. I see little point in lampooning those who take
the opposite view to me and I am usually more content on this matter to
defend than attack. Arminianism is right when it puts all the
responsibility on to man (which, BTW, Calvinism does too) but (in
my opinion) goes somewhat soft or fuzzy when it comes to the
Sovereignty of God. Calvinism strikes a good balance, avoiding
Hyper Calvinism or one side and Arminianism on the other. But you can
pick up on these thoughts in our Calvinism section link above. Thanks
for writing. Keep in touch. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 5-5-09 Thank you for your clear and simply stated summary of many Calvinistic points.
Nice to hear from you and to know that you have found some of the content of our website of help and encouragement to you.
I'm sure you have heard this before, and I wonder if you have considered changing point # 10 in which you say that "We
are happy enough (as was John Calvin) with the statement that the blood
of Christ is sufficient for the whole world but efficient only for the
elect." The Calvinists I know (of which I am one),
including R.C. Sproul, would say that this statement is at best,
misleading, and at worst, not true, depending on what you mean by
it. I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of point 10, that "Calvinists
do not limit the value or merit or worth of the blood of Christ. They
do limit the intention of the blood to save any other than the
elect." However, to not put a limit on the value of
Christ's blood simply means that His blood was completely, 100% pure
and capable, if He desired, to pay for the entire world's sin, with no
limit. However, as you say, that was not the intent, and
therefore, it does not actually pay the entire world's debt. To
say that it was "sufficient"
seems to imply a form of universalism, that His death made the
potential for all to be saved, but was only effective for the
elect. However, I would say that Christ died for no one
potentially (under which circumstance He would be found to be quite
ineffective in the case of the many condemned), but only for those
whose salvation was sure and determined before the creation of the
world. I hope I have made this point clearly and you can see the
difference. Maybe we agree but just the terminology needs to
change in point 10. Or maybe you really believe in a potentially
sufficient salvation, but I kind of don't think you do. Anyway, I
would love to have your feedback. Thank you, AD (Texas, USA)
I agree with you 100% that
Christ's death had no mere potential element about it and will
ultimately achieve all that it set out to do i.e. redeem the elect from
their sins, enable them to live holy lives and see them arrive safely
into Heaven at last and all to the supreme glory of God. To be
honest, I never worry about what seems to imply when I make such statements as the one in question. If I say that I believe in (say) the Trinity, then must I take a whole paragraph (at least!) to qualify it lest someone swallow the JW lie that we believe in "three gods"? Banner of Truth Trust have published an excellent book: "The Atonement Controversy"
by Owen Thomas which deals with all these things as they affected the
Calvinistic Methodists in Wales in a by gone day. How was the atonement
to be stated? How was the free offer to be stated? It's all here in the
various ways of wording things to reflect truth. It is a deep
enough book, although still remarkably readable. I can remember how one
man pointed out that the Atonement must be infinite in its worth
because Christ Himself (an Infinite Person) is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2)
It seems to me that the statement in hand is coming at the matter from
a human point of view. With words like these, I can encourage every
last sinner to come to the cross and find salvation there for him. The
sinner perhaps has still many doubts and fears about the worth of this
atonement. I tell him that it is a sufficient for a world of sinners
and therefore for him. * OTOH, the objection (which, as you word it, only seems to imply) seems
to be based on a view from the divine end of things. Certainly any
sinner who would bring the objection that is raised here and use it to
stay away from Christ has but found himself a relative smokescreen and
one that will be quickly blown away in the Day of Wrath. If it
wasn't this objection, then it would be another, because (to adapt
Scripture) of the making of excuses, there is no end.
I appreciate you writing. I think I will let the words stand as they
are. I do not believe that they seriously compromise any truth and
indeed are invaluable to the stating of that same truth. Colin.
P/s * The same book brought forth an argument on the free offer of the
gospel. Some of the Calvinistic brethren wanted to state the offer of
the gospel conditionally. They used the illustration of men trapped
down a mine (a very Welsh fear) but who feared to leave their place of
relative safety (since they were not yet dead) to come to the top
again. Some suggested that they be told that there is "fresh air up here for you if you will have it." Which, of course, cannot be gainsaid. However, it can be improved upon. They could just be told "There is fresh air up here" I
know this moves a little from the original object, hence the inclusion
in the postscript, but I include it here to show how Calvinists have
come up with many ways, some better than others, to state their
beliefs. The book is pricey enough, but it is a real doctrinal and
practical gem.
********************************************************
Answered 26-2-09 Hi,
The answer is not given there. [See previous posting] Indeed, the word "value" does not appear at
all. That's the key in my question - how can love be true or valuable
without freedom to reject?
BS
Hi, BS. Two things. One: The word "value" did
not appear in your original posting either, so I must wonder why you
expect it to appear in my answer. Secondly (and more to the point)
there is freedom to reject. Billions
exercise this choice every day in such a negative way. Which is why I
quoted John 5:40 below. Grace enabled me to freely accept the
offered mercy that I had long rejected. However, grace did not believe
for me, hence I believed and did so of my own free(d) will. Hope
this helps. Colin
*******************************************************
Answered 23-2-09 Dear Colin, Thanks for your offer to answer
questions. May the Lord bless you and give you wisdom. Here is my
question: If I were to keep my wife locked up in an upstairs
room, and then boast to others “See how she loves me – she has never left me for another”, the others would say, “That’s not love – she has no choice!”
Exactly. Love is a choice. If I made a robot which could do
only one thing, that is, to love me, what I received from that robot
would not be love. Calvinism says that an unsaved man has no choice in
the matter of submitting to God – he is predestined for heaven or
hell. So, the unsaved man cannot love God. If later he does
submit to God, Calvinism says he still has no choice – he cannot
reject Him. Love is a choice. So, for the Calvinist, man is
unable to love, whether saved or unsaved. He cannot love
God; he cannot love his fellow man. He cannot do what Christ
commanded (Luke 10:27). He cannot do what Paul said is the sum of
the law (Galatians 5:14). Am I missing something here? BS
Hi, Thanks for your email. To answer your last question first, I must say "Yes - you are missing something here!" I agree totally with your illustration. It is its application
to Calvinism that I must disagree with. First of all, man was not
made a robot and, indeed, is not a robot. Man was made upright in the
sight of God, sought out many inventions and fell into the bondage of
sin (Ecclesiastes 7:26/John 8:34) He continues to be totally
responsible for his own actions and when unsaved, he freely loves
darkness rather than light, hence his condemnation (John 3:19) Again,
contrary to what you have written, Calvinism insists that man does
have a choice - that he is both summonsed to submit to God and
sincerely invited to do so. Should the sinner come to Christ,
then it will be seen that He was predestinated to Heaven and that on
the basis of the free grace of God. Should he continue in his chosen
sin, then it will be seen that He was predestinated for hell, and that on the basis of his sin. It
is important that we see that those who are in hell are there purely on
the basis that they are guilty sinners - guilty because totally
responsible for their own sins. Calvinism teaches that grace
liberates the will of sinners from the shackles of sin and thus enables
them to choose Christ. Therefore, I can honestly claim that I
freely chose Christ because I was willing in the day of God's power (Psalm 110:3) - God working in me both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). The "cannot" in relation to sinful man is a self imposed "cannot" - we might just as easily say "will not" and this is indeed the language of Christ in John 5:40 where Christ indicted the folk by saying "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life." Lastly, I think that you are confusing the doctrine of Total Depravity. TD does not teach that man is
outwardly as wicked as he can possibly be. It teaches rather that he
has the inbuilt (because of sin) capacity to be as totally wicked as he
can be. However, there is a common grace that restrains him from being
a Hitler or a Stalin etc., and therefore the Saviour Himself observed
that "Even sinners do good" (Luke 6:33) and that evil fathers can love their children etc., (Luke 11:13)
I am glad that you emailed me. I hope that my answer above clears up
commonly held misconceptions about Calvinism. I have declined the
opportunity to supply suitable quotes from Calvin etc., but our Calvinism Index page gives many references etc., Thanks again, Colin.
*********************************************
Answered 10-2-09 You may not remember me but we have interacted in the past on Rose's blog. I have backed
off of posting comments on any blog but I still lurk around (it has been a year
since I quit). I have recently read an interesting post on a blog named EXTRA NOS (the blogger is Lutheran but
I'll give you more detail in a moment) titled Did
Jesus die for the sin of unbelief? In this article he makes the following
statement: "I notice that those who come from a Calvinistic background, and those
following John Owen's idea of Limited Atonement answers this in the affirmative.
So they say "Yes" Jesus died for the sin of rejecting the Gospel because there
is no sin that Jesus did not die for; because to say "No" (which the way I would
answer the question) means that there is some sin that Jesus left off undone and
that would be blasphemous. Jesus died for the sins of the elect (not the sins of
the whole world, so they say) and all the sins of the elect have been paid for
including - unbelief in the Gospel."
Of course there are comments following the article and I am not sure that
the commentators are fully understanding Calvinism. I may be wrong about
this because, I have to admit, that there is a lot of Calvinist doctrine that I
do not fully understand. However, I do think the comparison of Lutheran and
Calvinist soteriology is an interesting one. When I read this I thought that you may be able to give an interesting
perspective on this question. While we have disagreed on issues in the past I
have to say that you are very knowledgeable and I respect your opinion. As to the
EXTRA NOS blog, it is
ran by a Lutheran who now lives in Australia but was born in the Phillipines
into a Roman Catholic home. It does give him a unique perspective. Thank you. GW.
If we up the ante a little and
ask whether or not Jesus died for the sin of ultimate gospel rejection
i.e. chronic unbelief, then I would have to answer in the negative. In
fact, I would go further that if a thief dies and goes to hell, then
Christ did not even die an atoning death for his acts of theft or
indeed for any of his sins. Those sins were not taken away nor
remembered no more, but they still remain to damn the soul of that
Christ rejector and that is why he is in hell.
Our friend's blog (I ran my eye over the article, but not all of the
comments) suggests that the elect may ultimately abandon faith. That is
not something that I would be happy to write. Thanks again for renewing
contact. Colin.
*******************************************************
These Calvinistic emails, starting at page 1, go back to July 2002