Calvinists: Going to Hell and Proud of It
I hear it often, but I think this is the first time I have really parked on it and pondered; this whole thing with Calvinists being proud of the fact that they will “stand in the final judgment with no righteousness of their own.”
PPT logged a comment yesterday from “Frank” that once again proffers this idea with all of the delight of a newborn’s arrival into the world. This is why we should in no wise be surprised that an Adventist theologian rediscovered the real Protestant gospel in 1970 which is predicated on this idea.
The SDA gospel focuses on being able to “stand in the final judgment.” So, the “Christian” life focuses on that; the endeavor of sanctification is to prepare for this one final judgment. For years, the mainline SDA take followed: beginning salvation takes care of past sin, and then the new “believer” labors with the Holy Spirit to become good enough to stand in the final judgment. Some substitution by Christ to achieve perfectionism was involved, but it required the best efforts possible by “believers” in order to warrant Christ topping off the difference with His own righteousness. The doctrine, known as the “investigative judgment” is extremely complex and downright confusing, but what I have stated here is the gist:
While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon earth.
Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil.
Ellen White ~ The Great Controversy, chapter 24.
The understandable angst among the SDA faithful peaked in the 1950’s which spawned the Progressive Adventist movement. One of the major players in that movement was an Adventist theologian named Robert Brinsmead. Due to his intellectual prowess, he was able to plow through the writings of the Reformers and understand what their take was on the final judgment. Not only that, Brinsmead was, and I assume still is, a master communicator of ideas.
The message he brought to the SDA faithful follows: one is able to stand in the final judgment if they live their Christian life by the same gospel that saved them; i.e., by faith alone. If you do that, Christ will continue to cover you with His righteousness. If you disavow any righteousness of your own, and believe in being covered by the alien righteousness of Christ as depicted in the wearing of a white robe, you will be able to stand in the judgment.
So, let’s be clear: formally, the SDA as a whole advocated a do your best to keep the law and if you do that well enough Christ will completely cleanse you and declare you righteous. Then you will be able to stand in the judgment. What is the problem with that other than its fundamental falsehood? The SDA faithful had no way of knowing until the final judgment whether or not they did that well enough to warrant Christ’s complete cleansing.
Brinsmead traded that for what the Reformers advocated: rather than partaking in the heavy burden of law keeping, if one only lives by faith alone apart from the law, Christ will stand in the judgment for us. The one who lives their Christian life by faith alone will stand in the judgment covered by the righteousness of Christ apart from any righteousness of their own.
This spawned the Awakening movement which turned the SDA completely on its head. But not only that, it also spawned a return to the authentic Reformation gospel by evangelicals worldwide who had drifted away from it through a more literal interpretation of the Bible because literal interpretation is intuitive. In other words, that’s our natural bent.
The Reformers saw the Bible as a tool for continually returning to the same gospel that saved us by faith alone in order to keep oneself covered by the righteousness of Christ, and therefore making one able to stand in the final judgment.
A literal interpretation of the Bible suggests that God’s people are to work in sanctification, or the Christian life. That’s a problem because the Reformers saw the Christian life as the progression of salvation to a final salvation determined at a one, final judgment. Therefore, biblical imperatives must be interpreted in their “gospel context,” viz, God commands us to do things in order to show us we are not able to obey perfectly. Hence, many of the Reformed in our day suggest that a literal interpretation of the Bible is tantamount to works righteousness.
Again, let’s pause for some clarification: The SDA and the Reformers BOTH saw the Christian life as part of salvation culminating in a final determinative judgment. Both define justification, the state required to be saved, as an ability to keep the law perfectly. Both believe that a means of obtaining a perfect law-keeping as something accredited to our account for standing in the final judgment is paramount. The SDA believed that best effort law-keeping resulted in Christ topping off our account at the judgment. The Reformers believed that effortless living by faith alone resulted in being covered by the righteousness of Christ alone at the judgment. For example, John Calvin believed that the Christian life is the Old Testament Sabbath rest.
Luther described the believer’s “triumphant” declaration to God at the final judgment as, we have NO righteousness but Christ’s. This motif was once again echoed by Frank on PPT.
But there is only one problem; the Bible is absolutely clear that ALL of those who will supposedly bark triumphantly at that judgment are already damned by virtue of the fact that they are standing at that judgment. That judgment is called the “second death” in Scripture; all who stand there are already damned. Yet, Calvinists constantly boast that they will stand in that judgment.
Revelation 20:4 – Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, 10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
In the Bible, there are multiple resurrections and judgments. Believers, who are already deemed righteous because they are in fact righteous, will be judged for rewards, not righteousness, because they are already righteous. They are resurrected to determine rewards, not righteousness. In the passage cited here, it is obvious that these are two different resurrections and two different judgments. One judgment has multiple thrones, while the other only has one throne and one judge. The latter judgment is the second death, and those who partake in the first resurrection are blessed. And, the latter judgment is identified as the one Calvinists say they will attend because it judges righteousness, and Calvinists, generally speaking, advocate a one judgment only position. Said another way, this is the only judgment they could possibly be talking about because there is only one according to them.
Why do they advocate a one judgment only when there is obviously more than one? Well, because that matches their gospel of beginning salvation, progressive salvation, and final salvation. It also matches the idea that perfect law-keeping is the required standard for being saved. If salvation is a settled issue that takes place for each individual in a moment of time, why would there be a need to finalize salvation at any other time? Also, there is only a future need to judge righteousness if perfect law-keeping remains the standard for Christians. If perfect law-keeping is not a determinative standard for Christians, the judge at the final judgment is without a law in which to judge righteousness. The judgment is without any law to judge.
In contrast, this is the case with the true gospel: the believer is made righteous through the new birth, and the law is ended for righteousness. The new birth is a gift, but like any gift, once you receive it, it belongs to you. This whole “righteousness of our own” business is a red herring. It’s like looking at someone living and besmirching them for believing they have a life of their own because they were born. We are righteous because we have the seed of God within our very being because of the new birth (1Jn 3:9). We still sin because the flesh is weak while our righteous soul is willing. It is sin against our Father, not our righteousness because Christ ended the law for that purpose.
This happened through the new birth. We were once under the law and its power to condemn us. Because we were unregenerate, sin within us used the law to provoke us to sin. When we died with Christ, it was like the death of a spouse—we are no longer obligated to that marriage covenant (law).
Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (Romans 7).
So, we now “serve” in the “new way of the Spirit.” What’s that? That’s sanctification which is the use of Scripture to love God and others (Jn 17:17, Rom 8:4, Rom 8:7, Matt 4:4, Ps 1:1-6, Ps 119). Perfect law-keeping is not the standard for being justified—there is no law in justification, we are justified apart from the law (Rom 3:21). It would be futile for real Christians to stand in a judgment where Calvinists are present, the law they will be judged by doesn’t pertain to us:
Romans 3:19 – Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 4:15 – For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Calvinists say it’s alright to still be under the law because Jesus keeps the law for us if we live by faith alone, and that is the definition of being under grace: we are under grace if we live by faith alone and the perfect obedience of Christ is imputed to our account. But that’s being under law and under grace at the same time; the Bible is clear that we are either under one or the other (Rom 6:14). Calvinism advocates the idea that the unregenerate are only under law, but are under both law and grace if they are saved. Hence, this is why they cannot advocate separate judgments, but only one. If under law and under grace are separate, any judgment regarding law for the believer is an anomaly regardless of who keeps it—the question of perfect law-keeping is the reason for the judgment in the first place.
This is why in fact there is a separate resurrection for the saved: because their judgment concerns rewards, not a just standing that has already been determined. This is why Jesus called it the “resurrection of the just” because they are already just, only their rewards need to be determined:
Luke 14:12 – He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers[b] or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”
Salvation is earned by no one—it is a gift, but rewards are earned by those who are born again. In fact, God would be unjust not to reward them for what they have earned:
Hebrews 6:10 – For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do.
If Calvinists are under grace and not under law, why do they need Jesus to keep the law for them? The only possible reason that they could need Jesus to keep the law for them is if they are still under law. This is why they find themselves at a one final judgment that is the “second death.” That is where they will be judged by a law that has “nothing to say” to the born again.
One can only surmise that when they triumphantly claim that they have no righteousness of their own, God will respond with something like…
“You were never born of me, and those born of me are righteous even as I am righteous. My Son died to end the law for condemnation so that you could obey the law in order to love me and your neighbors. You see me as a hard god that reaps where I have not sown, and now present to me the same gospel that I originally gave. You are a lazy wicked servant and confess that you have no love towards me or others. Now your fear of being righteous is your condemnation.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
It is obvious that you have a very myopic understanding of Calvinism – whether 4 point, 5 point, or 10 point. I have no desire to be called a Calvinist because I am not. Because you seem intent on labeling everyone then I prefer the label of orthodox Christian. I presented a short reply to you and you come back with a thesis. I’ll answer with a thesis.
Firstly, all orthodox Christians believe in a limited atonement. Every Christian who believes that there is an eternal Hell, in fact, limits the atonement. One group limits its power or effectiveness, and the other limits its extent. But both limit the atonement.
Scripture is clear: God so loved the world; Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world; One died for all.
Are you following?
Now suppose we change the language. Do you believe in a definite atonement, or perhaps an indefinite atonement? Who sounds more biblical?
The first sounds more biblical to most.
Christ laid down His life for the sheep; Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it; and He gave Himself up, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed. When He went to the cross, Christ had a definite end in view for a definite group of people.
Then it seems to me that when it is put the first way it shows that one group does justice to the universality of the redemption, and when it is put the second way, it shows that their theological opponents do justice to the efficient purpose of the redemption. And both sides have their verses.
But both sides, if they believe that the whole Bible is from God, must affirm both types of verses.
How can you do that? If you believe in a definite atonement, how can you square that with some of the universal passages referenced above?
One of the reasons I object so strongly to terms like limited atonement is that it does nothing but reinforce a theological caricature that too many like you have in their minds. I believe that Jesus purchased a definite number of people when He died. But there is no reason we must believe that the number was a small one. He came into the world to save the world, and He will be content with nothing less than a saved world.
Do you believe that there will be more people saved than lost?
I certainly do. It says in 1 John 2:2 that He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
Does that trouble you that maybe every person can be forgiven for their sins if they come to Christ?
But look at 1 John 2:2 again, What it says it that Christ is the propitiation for the whole world. Propitiation means that God’s wrath is turned aside. If Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then God’s wrath is turned away from the whole world – right?
Notice how the verse does not read. It doesn’t say that He is the propitiation for our sins, because we believed, and not only for ours, but He is a potential propitiation for the whole world, if only they believe, but of course we know they won’t.
The difficulty with verses like this, from the universalist standpoint, is that they prove too much.
The orthodox Christian believes the Bible teaches that Christ’s death is powerful to save. This power comes through in many of the universal passages. So I reject the position that wants the universality of the passage, but not the efficacy of it. In other words, there is no potential propitiation in I John 2:2. It is actual. Real. In the cross of Christ, the wrath of God has been turned aside from the world.
What does this say to the Calvinists, – whether 4 point, 5 point, or 10 point?
When the Bible speaks of all men, or the world, there is no grammatical reason in Greek to refer it to each and every man. But at the same time, I believe it is impossible to refer such wonderful universal statements to a tiny snippet of humanity.
Consider if you went to a football game at your high school and it was well attended. Would you be lying if you said that the whole student body was there, when in fact one player was home sick?
No one would have difficulty with this.
But suppose you said the whole student body was there when it was just you and one other person. Then, we can agree, there is a problem.
Because in the first instance my language would not be at all misleading, while in the second instance it certainly would be.
Those who believe what the Bible says about election, but who believe the elect to be few in number, have the same problem. They are confronted with glorious texts about a saved world, and they turn them into texts about a saved church, comprised of the few that will be saved. Of course, their theological opponents are not much better. They turn glorious texts about a saved world into texts about a world which could be saved, but probably won’t be.
So if we continue in this vein, we will no longer be talking about the atonement, but rather eschatology, right?
I’ll begin to wind it up stating that although my eschatology is based on this understanding of the atonement, it would take us off track to continue. It should suffice to say that the Bible teaches us about an atonement that is efficacious and definite on the one hand, and universal on the other. All those for whom Christ died will be saved, and Christ died for the world.
I’m also stating this is different than saying Christ died for each and every person. The problem people have with this comes from assuming that both sides of this dispute mean the same thing in using the word ‘for’.
Given that not all men are saved, contrast these two statements: First, Christ died for each and every man. Second, Christ died for His people.
The word ‘for’ has a completely different meaning in each of these sentences. In the first, it means that Christ died in order to provide an opportunity of salvation to each and every man. In the second, it means He died to secure the salvation of His people. So the debate is not about the extent of the atonement so much as it is about the nature of the atonement.
To illustrate consider you have a philanthropist giving away money. He walks down the street handing out $100 bills. It is easy to assume (falsely) that the one position says he gives $100 to everybody, while the other side maintains he will give money to only some of the people. In this scenario, the debate is about the extent of generosity, and whether or not the philanthropist is being stingy. But on this understanding, both sides agree that the gift is the same (money), while the generosity varies.
Son in one view, the philanthropist is not giving out $100 bills. He is giving out tickets to an awards ceremony, where every person attending will be given $100, if they decide to show up. He is giving away an opportunity to get $100. This contrasts with the other view which has the philanthropist out in the street, stuffing the money into pockets. He is not giving away opportunity; he is giving away money. So now the debate is over the nature of the gift. Is the gift money, or an opportunity to receive money?
To extrapolate, in the area of salvation I’m saying that Christ did not die to give men the opportunity of redemption, if they believe, but that He died to redeem men.
So which does the Bible teach? Redemption, or an opportunity to be redeemed?”
Texts on the Atonement
2 Corinthians 5:21
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Galatians 1:3,5
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
Titus 2:14
Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.
Ephesians 5:25,27
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Hebrews 13:12
Therefore, Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.
Matthew 20:28
Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
John 10:10
The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
John 10: 14,18
I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.
John 10:25-30
Jesus answered them, ‘I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.’
John 17:1.11
Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: ‘Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.
And now, 0 Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.
I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.
And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.
Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.’
John 17:20
I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word….
John 17:24-26
Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
0 righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.
Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned….
Romans 5:1749
(For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
John 11:49,52
And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.’
Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
Romans 8:32-33
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
Hebrews 9:15
And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 9:27-28
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying:
‘You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals; For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.’
LikeLike
Frank,
Um, you claim that you are not a Calvinist, but the gospel you stated is Calvinism to a T. And…”Firstly, all orthodox Christians believe…” Orthodoxy is the problem. Here at PPT, our authority is the Bible, not the “Westminster Divines” et al. LOL! They actually have the audacity to call them “Divines.”
Frank, may I be frank? Like the whole lot of the Reformed, name any of them, Surgeon or whoever, I don’t take any of you seriously. Finding blatant illogical contradictions from Reformed writings on every level is now like falling off a log. My focus is those in the institutional church who are honestly seeking alternatives according to the truth. I write and research for them, not you.
You are arrogant and pathetic.
LikeLike
It is clear from Frank’s thesis that given his understanding of the “atonement” (which by the way is conspicuously missing from the NT) and his emphasis on it, he has conceded that believers are still under the law, thus making the need for an “atonement” necessary. Also conspicuously missing from his treatise is any mention of the individual making a conscious decision to believe (ie. “free will”, making a choice) Clearly he also lacks a sufficient understanding of the law and an individual’s relationship to it and Christ’s shed blood not being an “atonement” but rather the ending of one covenant (signifying the death of the testator, and thus an ending of the law) and the ratifying of a new one.
LikeLike
Good points Andy, I would only add that the law is only ENDED for those who believe. The Old Covenant is “passing away and WILL become obsolete” because all sin is against the law and therefore imputed to it. If they do not believe, they will be judged by it, but if they do believe, it, and all of the sin they committed against it is ended. Also, it is the same law, but two different covenants that use the one law for two different purposes: condemnation, or love. The “written code” speaks to a law people are judged by, the “new way of the Spirit” speaks to John 17:17 and Romans 8:1-11. However, no doubt, the distinction you have made is key: covering of sin versus ending of sin. “Atonement” is missing from the NT for that very reason. Nevertheless, if the Old Covenant is ENDED, there will be NO judgment because no law of condemnation remains. Atonement is for unbelievers, the “taking away of sin” is for believers. The OT atonement for Christians was only temporary til Christ came, and they were saved by believing in the promise of Christ coming to end the law. It was written in the will, and by becoming a part of God’s family, they were written into the will. But your point needs to be remembered: with the coming of the inauguration of the New Covenant, “atonement” or a mere covering of sin, is synonymous with being under law and therefore unsaved.
LikeLike
Bottom line: one judgement eschatology denotes covering of sin only, and not an ending. The Christian does NOT appear at any judgement were the written code is present. Look at Mathew 7:21ff. It is immediately evident to those who cry “Lord! Lord! that they are condemned because they are at that judgement. Notice that all of the good works they did were in Jesus’ name. Sadly, this is Frank’s end if he doesn’t repent and any other individual who thinks their sins are only covered and not ended.
LikeLike
Moreover, this speaks to why I had no assurance of salvation all of my Christian life. Whenever I did a good work, I struggled with whether or not it was from a heart of love, or just merely trying to earn justification points with God. Here is what I didn’t understand: law-keeping has NO connection to justification whatsoever. Law-keeping can only be for love. I had a fundamental misunderstanding of law/gospel.
LikeLike