Is Calvinism a False Doctrine? (Part2)

HP: Joh 3:19” And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”

The question is, what is the darkness they love, and what have they rejected? You beg the question when you assume without proof that they have rejected Christ and for that they will be held accountable.


No doubt men love darkness. Scripture tells us why as well, and it is NOT because of the rejection of Christ, it is because “their deeds were evil.” Just as Adam rejected the light he was given and selfishly ate of the fruit, he still in no wise rejected Christ. When Cain killed his brother Able, was he condemned for his sin or for the rejection of Christ? On and on we can go throughout the history of man. Scripture is replete with God condemning man, NOT for the rejection of a Savior, but for their sins, for the violation of their God-instilled conscience via selfishness as opposed to benevolence. Certainly IF one hears the gospel and refuses it’s invitation, such a one sins by rejecting it, yet just the same, only those that first hear the gospel can reject it.

To reject light is not synonymous with the rejection of the gospel message. Certainly the heathen will stand accountable to God for the rejection of the intuitive truth and revealed truth in nature, yet there is not the slightest indication that they have rejected Christ, for many no doubt have not even heard of the name Jesus.

 

There seems to be silence coming from the board on this important issue. How about it Webdog, DHK, and others? What is your favorite proof text showing that all have received the gospel message?

 

HP: The notion that the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ is indeed a Calvinistic notion without question. I am right on target. If DHK and or Webdog do not wish to looked upon as Calvinists, I would suggest they distance themselves from purely Calvinistic notions such as this.

They need to answer from the Word of God the question that I have asked of them if they desire to distance themselves from Calvinistic thought. Even as John Wesley clearly admitted in more than one place that he was indeed ‘far to close to Calvinism,’ some on this list need to admit the same. Some are miles closer than Wesley ever thought of being to Calvinism and still deny any affinity towards the Calvinsitic system. Possibly an objective ousider might help them see their standing better than their own subjective viewing affords them.