WBC

[DannyM]

Hi Rick,

Danny, this is getting redundant. Calvinism says this:

Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

This says, that Calvinism's interpretation of what the bible calls election, states that" God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation".

That means man's choice plays no part, in election, according to Calvinism. Hence, man has no choice, then, according to Calvinism, those whom God chooses, MUST love Him. That's forced love.

Rick, this is a caricature of Calvinism. You’re not showing, beyond mere assertion, that man’s choice is not his real choice. I know you keep repeating it, brother, but that’s not equivalent to showing it. Until you show it, your claim is just hollow.

Danny, what I'm saying, is that Calvinism's view of the nature of God, is where my disagreement lies. Calvinism stresses God's sovereignty. As Bart said earlier, how each of us views God's nature, shows our disagreement, and your agreement, with Calvinism.

Calvinism stresses God’s sovereignty? As opposed to stressing His non-sovereignty? Or merely remaining neutral on God’s sovereignty or otherwise? What’s your point here, bro?

And again, Rick, how do I view God’s nature? Forget what Bart said and tell me what my view of God’s nature is, please.

If God has foreknowledge of who will be saved, and if He knows this via a foreseen choice, then who could claim God is attempting to save more than He knows is possible? Is God engaging in futile attempts to change the unchangeable?

Sorry, Danny. You lost me on this. I don't understand what you're saying here.

Basically, Rick, if God knows who will and will not be saved via a foreseen choice, how can you claim that God is trying to save everyone? Is God engaging in logical absurdities?

For Total Depravity simply read Total Inability to come to Christ of our own volition without a prior quickening from God.

And, this gets back to the heart of why I disagree with Calvinism. The sentence:” For Total Depravity simply read Total Inability to come to Christ of our own volition without a prior quickening from God." Will get no disagreement from me. But, when we get into what Calvinism really means by "total depravity", and "prior Quickening", then I disagree with Calvinism.

Rick, I thought you agreed with the necessity of God’s prior quickening? You’ve said before that man does not have the ability to come to faith without God working in him first. Have you changed your view?

It means, that if you can show me Calvinism's view, the one you hold to, about total depravity, AND specifically how God quickens man, so he can believe, I think that will be a key to where the disagreement comes. I think Calvinism's views, are, in some cases, very subtle differences, to what I believe. That's why it took me a few times reading the site that August linked, for me to see that I actually disagree, with Calvinism as a whole system. While I can agree with parts of Calvinism, if not taken as part of the whole.

So let me get this straight. You want me to give you the mechanism used by the Spirit in quickening us? Are you familiar with meaning apart from mechanism, Rick? I’m reminded of a response by Greg Bahnsen to an unbeliever. He is answering something else, but the point aptly applies here:

If you want to know the *mechanism* then that would be like asking, "How did God make a cow?", The statement that God made the cow has meaning apart from my being able to explain the mechanics of God making a cow.

Here’s a short synopsis of Total Depravity:

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not--indeed he cannot--choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ--it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation--it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.

Now, this is half of what I need from you or August, so I can show you where I disagree. All I need now, is how Calvinism believes God quickens someone, so he can believe.

You talk about what you “need” from August and myself, Rick, and yet you have singularly failed to answer anything put your way. If that’s not a complete brass neck then I don’t know what is.

The gospel is the means by which God calls His elect to faith. But if you’re looking for the mechanism used by the Holy Spirit then you’re out of luck, since it would take a braver man than me to attempt such an answer.

Danny, you've said what you believe, according to your Calvinistic view, as your interpretation of the verses you use. So, as I said before, I don't disagree with the bible verses you quote. I just disagree sometimes , with the way the verses are interpreted, under Calvinism.

Rick, I was interpreting these verses thus before I came to Calvinism. Funny, isn’t it? It was my interpreting of these passages in this way which actually led me to Calvinism. This sort of blows your point out of the water, doesn’t it?

Calvin didn’t invent John 6:37-39, John 6:44, John 6:64-65, John 8:47, John 10:15, John 10:26 and so on.

Exactly, but Calvinism interprets those verses, to fit into Calvinism, as a whole system.

No, Rick. To me it is quite obvious that Calvinism interprets these passages consistently and correctly. You are yet to show otherwise, Rick. Christianity isn’t some pluralistic system where everybody’s right and nobody is wrong. Christianity makes exclusive truth claims, Rick. If you want to say that Calvinism is wrong in its interpretation of these and other verses, then you could start by actually showing this. I mean, I’m all for live and let live, and you can go your way and I’ll go mine, but if you want to bring a system into dispute, it seems to me that it would be rewarding if you could actually show the faults in the system.

In my view Arminianism is unbiblical, not merely uncalvinist, Rick. That’s the important thing.

That's fine, Danny. As I said before, I believe there's a lot in Arminianism that's unbiblical too. Perhaps that's for a different thread, if you want to disprove Arminianism.

It’s funny, brother Rick, that this discussion just moves on to one thing after the other. Assertions are made, they go unproven, flying by without demonstration. Then more assertions are made, and the circus moves on. Just a mental recap:

1. Calvinism logically leads to a position much like the WBC.

Unsubstantiated and unproven.

2. Calvinism logically leads to an “us” and “them” attitude.

Unsubstantiated and unproven.

3. Now apparently we need the mechanism by which God intervenes to bring the elect to faith.

Astonishing how the unsubstantiated is left to one side and we’ve now moved on to the plain absurd.

I guess Calvinism can live to fight another day if this is all it’s up against

[RickD]

Danny, It's clear to me from your last post, that I'm having great difficulty, properly conveying my thoughts to you. Most of what you think I'm saying, is not at all what I'm saying. If I can't do a better job of writing, this is just going to be a discussion, where you are disagreeing with something I'm not even meaning to say. I'm going to ask God to help me articulate my thoughts better.

One thing to think about: I believe Calvinists view God's sovereignty, as the highest attribute of His nature.

I believe, God's Love, is the highest attribute of His nature.

I think that was what Bart was trying to make the point about, before. How we view God's nature, leads each individual Christian, to his belief, regarding Calvinism.

Oh, and Danny, my whole point from the beginning, wasn't to prove Calvinism wrong. My point, was to show you why I disagree with Calvinism, as a system. And, as far as that goes, it's obvious that I'm not making my thoughts understandable to you. And for that I'm sorry. Because I see you getting frustrated over things that I'm not even trying to say.

[DannyM]

Rick, I'm certainly having some difficulty understanding your issues, but it's not beyond the pale that it might be down to my own inability to comprehend. Up until very recently I thought you were in agreement with (it appears to me) that which you are now objecting to. But I'm not answering you hastily, and I had read your second-last post several times before making a response. Please bear with me if I am failing to grasp a point.

I believe God is sovereign, just, full of love and graciousness. I could go on with how I view the nature of God, but we can let God Himself give us a wee snippet of His character and nature:

Exodus 34:6-9

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,

7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.

8 Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshipped.

9 O Lord, if I have found favour in your eyes, he said, then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance.

[RickD]

Rick, I thought you agreed with the necessity of God’s prior quickening? You’ve said before that man does not have the ability to come to faith without God working in him first. Have you changed your view?

No, Danny. I absolutely believe man cannot come to God, without God's quickening. What I was trying to say, was that I'm not asking for the "method" of God's quickening. I'm asking when the quickening takes place, according to Calvinism. I honestly don't know when Calvinism believes "quickening" takes place. But, my guess, is that it may be where part of my disagreement lies. That's why I asked for your help, on when Calvinism says the "quickening" takes place.

Basically, Rick, if God knows who will and will not be saved via a foreseen choice, how can you claim that God is trying to save everyone? Is God engaging in logical absurdities?

Danny, I'm trying to say that, by Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, God has enabled man to be able to choose Christ, and eternal life. That means any man who chooses. Not just the "elect", that God has chosen to be able to accept the gospel. God, through Christ's work, has given the ability to anyone who hears the gospel, to choose or reject it.

Calvinism says You, you, and you, I have chosen to accept the gospel. I'm saying that I believe the bible says: Everyone has the ability to choose to accept, or reject Christ, because God made that choice possible, in all men, through Christ's finished work. Do you see the subtle difference?

You talk about what you “need” from August and myself, Rick, and yet you have singularly failed to answer anything put your way. If that’s not a complete brass neck then I don’t know what is.

Danny, I asked you or August to help me understand what Calvinism teaches on this, because, I think that may be where the difference, however subtle, may lie.

[DannyM]

No, Danny. I absolutely believe man cannot come to God, without God's quickening. What I was trying to say, was that I'm not asking for the "method" of God's quickening. I'm asking when the quickening takes place, according to Calvinism. I honestly don't know when Calvinism believes "quickening" takes place. But, my guess, is that it may be where part of my disagreement lies. That's why I asked for your help, on when Calvinism says the "quickening" takes place.

Okay. Well I guess I can give you several instances where I have been pulled up by my bootstraps by the Holy Spirit. I can, if you wish to talk privately, give you the precise moment when I needed God. But we need to establish if the quickening is one specific moment or a gradual quickening or both. I believe it is both. I believe there is an initial regeneration, followed by an ongoing regeneration/sanctification. My own personal experience would testify to this.

Basically, Rick, if God knows who will and will not be saved via a foreseen choice, how can you claim that God is trying to save everyone? Is God engaging in logical absurdities?

Danny, I'm trying to say that, by Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, God has enabled man to be able to choose Christ, and eternal life. That means any man who chooses. Not just the "elect", that God has chosen to be able to accept the gospel. God, through Christ's work, has given the ability to anyone who hears the gospel, to choose or reject it.

This is where I disagree completely. Rick, please read this link - it will hopefully help you see that giving grace to some and passing the rest over to unbelief does no violence whatsoever to God’s justice, does no damage to His character, and in fact, ultimately, no one is on the receiving end of an injustice. It will also help you identify the caricature of Calvinism we have seen presented in this thread:

http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredes ... proul.html

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God's justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others.

No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all — in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9).

The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice.

What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.


Please give this a good read, Rick.

Calvinism says You, you, and you, I have chosen to accept the gospel. I'm saying that I believe the bible says: Everyone has the ability to choose to accept, or reject Christ, because God made that choice possible, in all men, through Christ's finished work. Do you see the subtle difference?

God indeed shows mercy to some and leaves the reprobate in their unbelief. God’s not forcing the unbelief, Rick.

[RickD]

Okay. Well I guess I can give you several instances where I have been pulled up by my bootstraps by the Holy Spirit. I can, if you wish to talk privately, give you the precise moment when I needed God. But we need to establish if the quickening is one specific moment or a gradual quickening or both. I believe it is both. I believe there is an initial regeneration, followed by an ongoing regeneration/sanctification. My own personal experience would testify to this.

I agree with your description, Danny. I'm specifically talking about Gods quickening, that allows man to accept the gospel, in unregenerate man. Not the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit, in a believer.

Danny, the part you posted in blue, shows exactly what I've been trying to say, about how each Christian views God's nature. I guess I'm not trying to say God is unjust, in Calvinism,as much as I'm trying to say that in my view of God's nature, God allows His love for all people, to be shown, as more important to Him, than his sovereignty. I'm not sure if you see what I'm saying.

God indeed shows mercy to some and leaves the reprobate in their unbelief. God’s not forcing the unbelief, Rick.

Danny, that's one difference. I believe God showed his love and unmerited mercy to all, through
Christ. By God electing some to damnation, He leaves some, without any possibility of a choice to accept or reject His provision of love and mercy.

[DannyM]

Danny, I'm not avoiding your response earlier. I don't have time to respond in detail until the weekend so I'll respond later. I will say however, that I'm sorry I recollected our previous thread incorrectly with regard to the book in question. My general opinion as to the substance of that conversation hasn't changed, but I should have rechecked the details before I responded and for that I'm sorry.

Most of the other elements of what I had to say, I stand by, but I'll address your response in more detail when I can get to it, after work and more importantly tonight, after the Hockey Game .... (Washington Capitals and Toronto Maple Leafs!).

No worries, brother. And take your time - I feel like a redcoat at Rorke's Drift!

[DannyM]

Okay. Well I guess I can give you several instances where I have been pulled up by my bootstraps by the Holy Spirit. I can, if you wish to talk privately, give you the precise moment when I needed God. But we need to establish if the quickening is one specific moment or a gradual quickening or both. I believe it is both. I believe there is an initial regeneration, followed by an ongoing regeneration/sanctification. My own personal experience would testify to this.

I agree with your description, Danny. I'm specifically talking about Gods quickening, that allows man to accept the gospel, in unregenerate man. Not the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit, in a believer.

Rick, then where do we differ?

Danny, the part you posted in blue, shows exactly what I've been trying to say, about how each Christian views God's nature. I guess I'm not trying to say God is unjust, in Calvinism, as much as I'm trying to say that in my view of God's nature, God allows His love for all people, to be shown, as more important to Him, than his sovereignty. I'm not sure if you see what I'm saying.

I do see what you’re saying. We can talk about God’s love for mankind generally, but this wouldn’t be on a par with God’s love for His elect.

God indeed shows mercy to some and leaves the reprobate in their unbelief. God’s not forcing the unbelief, Rick.

Danny, that's one difference. I believe God showed his love and unmerited mercy to all, through Christ.

God commands all men to repent. It does not follow that God decrees that all men repent.

By God electing some to damnation, He leaves some, without any possibility of a choice to accept or reject His provision of love and mercy.

Rick, they have a choice. In their reprobate state they choose to mock belief, dismiss belief, remain in autonomous unbelief. Autonomous man is not coerced into anything, brother.

Rick, from the link:

If God, when He is decreeing reprobation, does so in consideration of the reprobate's being already fallen, then He does not coerce him to sin. To be reprobate is to be left in sin, not pushed or forced to sin. If the decree of reprobation were made without a view to the fall, then the objection to double predestination would be valid and God would be properly charged with being the author of sin. But Reformed theologians have been careful to avoid such a blasphemous notion.

[jlay]

Rick, they have a choice. In their reprobate state they choose to mock belief, dismiss belief, remain in autonomous unbelief. Autonomous man is not coerced into anything, brother.

This presumes something on the reprobate the bible doesn't confirm. You say man is not coerced, yet Cal list grace as irresistable. Man is not cooperative, but faith is imparted to man. Not a response by man.

[RickD]

Rick wrote:
Okay. Well I guess I can give you several instances where I have been pulled up by my bootstraps by the Holy Spirit. I can, if you wish to talk privately, give you the precise moment when I needed God. But we need to establish if the quickening is one specific moment or a gradual quickening or both. I believe it is both. I believe there is an initial regeneration, followed by an ongoing regeneration/sanctification. My own personal experience would testify to this.

I agree with your description, Danny. I'm specifically talking about Gods quickening, that allows man to accept the gospel, in unregenerate man. Not the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit, in a believer.


Rick, then where do we differ?

Danny, I believe all people, are born with a spirit, and conscience. Both are from God. Could a
conscience, and spirit, that are from God, be part of God's quickening?

I do see what you’re saying. We can talk about God’s love for mankind generally, but this wouldn’t be on a par with God’s love for His elect.

Danny, God's "general" love for mankind, was so important to God, that He sent His only begotten son, that whosoever believes...Obviously, God's love for those who accept the gospel of Christ, will ultimately be stronger, because we will know God's love forever.

Rick wrote:
Danny, that's one difference. I believe God showed his love and unmerited mercy to all, through Christ.


God commands all men to repent. It does not follow that God decrees that all men repent.

I'm not talking about God's command or decree. I'm saying that God's love, is His greatest attribute. And He makes that known, because He sent Christ to die for all. When God would have been perfectly just, in choosing to send some to their eternal damnation, He, instead, decided that because He loved man so much, that He made an opportunity for whosoever chooses to believe on Christ, to have an unmerited gift of salvation.

Rick, they have a choice. In their reprobate state they choose to mock belief, dismiss belief, remain in autonomous unbelief. Autonomous man is not coerced into anything, brother.

Danny, there's the difference between what I believe is Calvinism's subtle difference in its meaning of reprobate, autonomous, man. Man has a conscience, and spirit. Which are from God, and therefore man is not autonomous to the point that Calvinism makes him. Do you see the subtle difference?

[DannyM]

Rick, they have a choice. In their reprobate state they choose to mock belief, dismiss belief, remain in autonomous unbelief. Autonomous man is not coerced into anything, brother.

This presumes something on the reprobate the bible doesn't confirm. You say man is not coerced, yet Cal list grace as irresistable. Man is not cooperative, but faith is imparted to man. Not a response by man.

Not sure I follow. Of course man responds. And of course man is not coerced into sin.

If you are disputing man being quickened (coerced, if you like) by God prior to belief, then good luck.

[DannyM]

Danny, I believe all people, are born with a spirit, and conscience. Both are from God. Could a conscience, and spirit, that are from God, be part of God's quickening?

In short? No.

Danny, God's "general" love for mankind, was so important to God, that He sent His only begotten son, that whosoever believes...Obviously, God's love for those who accept the gospel of Christ, will ultimately be stronger, because we will know God's love forever.

Danny, that's one difference. I believe God showed his love and unmerited mercy to all, through Christ.

Then why is one unregenerate sinner able to believe the gospel and another not? Is it that one man is able to make use of God’s grace and the other is not? Does that man have the right brain capacity to identify and accept the gospel, and is the other man a bit slow on the uptake? If the ground is neutral, is it by pure chance that one man believes and the other does not?

I'm not talking about God's command or decree. I'm saying that God's love, is His greatest attribute. And He makes that known, because He sent Christ to die for all. When God would have been perfectly just, in choosing to send some to their eternal damnation, He, instead, decided that because He loved man so much, that He made an opportunity for whosoever chooses to believe on Christ, to have an unmerited gift of salvation.

Rick, I believe the above is just fantasy. Christ did not die for all men everywhere. If you want proof of this just look at our Lord’s words:

Jesus gave His life for His sheep:

John 10:15

just as the Father knows me and I know the Father— and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Jesus said there are those who are not His sheep:

John 10:26

but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

We can look at our Lord’s own words like this:

I die for my sheep
You are not of my sheep
Therefore, I am not dying for you

Danny, there's the difference between what I believe is Calvinism's subtle difference in its meaning of reprobate, autonomous, man. Man has a conscience, and spirit. Which are from God, and therefore man is not autonomous to the point that Calvinism makes him. Do you see the subtle difference?

No I don’t, bro. Man certainly thinks and acts autonomous. What you and I know about God and His sovereignty means nothing to autonomous man:

Romans 3:9-18

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.

10 As it is written:
There is no-one righteous, not even one;

11 there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God.

12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no-one who does good, not even one.

13 Their throats are open graves; their tongues practise deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips.

14 Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.

15 Their feet are swift to shed blood;

16 ruin and misery mark their ways,

17 and the way of peace they do not know.

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

[RickD]

Then why is one unregenerate sinner able to believe the gospel and another not? Is it that one man is able to make use of God’s grace and the other is not?

Danny, I never said one is able, while another is not. Calvinism makes that claim, because of Calvinism's "irresistible grace". I believe all men are able to believe the gospel, if they so choose. Some simply choose to believe, others don't.

If the ground is neutral, is it by pure chance that one man believes and the other does not?

No, Danny. It's by pure choice.

Rick, I believe the above is just fantasy. Christ did not die for all men everywhere.

And there's the difference, that when logically taken to it's conclusion, leads to people believing that God hates unbelievers. For, if Calvinism is true, and God only loves those He elected to salvation, then, why should true Christians show any love for unbelievers? Better yet, we should hate unbelievers, if God hates them.

[DannyM]

Then why is one unregenerate sinner able to believe the gospel and another not? Is it that one man is able to make use of God’s grace and the other is not? Does that man have the right brain capacity to identify and accept the gospel, and is the other man a bit slow on the uptake?

Danny, I never said one is able, while another is not. Calvinism makes that claim, because of Calvinism's "irresistible grace". I believe all men are able to believe the gospel, if they so choose. Some simply choose to believe, others don't.

The question stands. Why do some men not believe? Do they identify the grace and just ignore it? If they do not identify the grace then why not if it’s ‘there’?

If the ground is neutral, is it by pure chance that one man believes and the other does not?

No, Danny. It's by pure choice.

So God quickens all and only some choose to respond to the quickening? Or is the quickening only identifiable to some? Either way we surely end up with a pretty inefficient mode of regeneration, don’t we?

Rick, I believe the above is just fantasy. Christ did not die for all men everywhere.

And there's the difference, that when logically taken to it's conclusion, leads to people believing that God hates unbelievers. For, if Calvinism is true, and God only loves those He elected to salvation, then, why should true Christians show any love for unbelievers? Better yet, we should hate unbelievers, if God hates them.

If Calvinism is true? Rick, are Christ’s words true?

You have just reverted back to the same line as before. How many times does it need to be pointed out that we do not know who the elect are? Instead of just repeating this fallacious line, why not address our Lord and Saviour’s own words? Where’s Calvinism in our Lord’s own words above? You have issues with Christ’s words, brother, not John Calvin. You’ve basically inferred the same bogus “logical conclusion” as before, thus bringing us full circle.

[RickD]

The question stands. Why do some men not believe? Do they identify the grace and just ignore it? If they do not identify the grace then why not if it’s ‘there’?

That's a great question, Danny. I really don't know why some men choose not to believe. I certainly could guess, but I just don't know for sure.

So God quickens all and only some choose to respond to the quickening?

I think all who are quickened, respond. They either accept the gospel, or they deny Christ. And by denying the gospel of Christ, they deny the only way they have to gain eternal life.

Either way we surely end up with a pretty inefficient mode of regeneration, don’t we?

I'm not sure I would call the work of Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, inefficient.

If Calvinism is true? Rick, are Christ’s words true?

Danny, if by "Christ's words", you mean he said he only died for the elect, then I certainly don't see what you're seeing.

You have just reverted back to the same line as before. How many times does it need to be pointed out that we do not know who the elect are? Instead of just repeating this fallacious line, why not address our Lord and Saviour’s own words? Where’s Calvinism in our Lord’s own words above? You have issues with Christ’s words, brother, not John Calvin. You’ve basically inferred the same bogus “logical conclusion” as before, thus bringing us full circle.

No, Danny. You are adding to Christ's words. He didn't say he only died for the elect. You inferred that. Danny, for the umpteenth time, I have issues with Calvinism's interpretation of scripture. I certainly don't disagree with Christ's words.