Comments on: Calvinism in the SBC- An Open Letter to Johnny Hunt and Jerry Vines http://toddongod.com/2008/09/27/calvinism-in-the-sbc-an-open-letter-to-johnny-hunt-and-jerry-vines/ Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:24:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Ron Hale http://toddongod.com/2008/09/27/calvinism-in-the-sbc-an-open-letter-to-johnny-hunt-and-jerry-vines/#comment-1380 Ron Hale Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:50:01 +0000 http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/?p=502#comment-1380 I was pulled from the pagan pool at the age of twenty-three by the grace of God as I studied God's Word for several months and finally repented and received Jesus as my new Lord and Savior. It is clear there is a doctine of election in the Bible. It is clear that Christian groups disagree on their understanding of this doctrine. However, it is also clear there is no doctrine of "non-election" in the Bible. The Bible never states that some are elected to be lost. The Bible never says that God wills that they be lost. Men may perish and will perish; but this is not what God wills. Men have the freedom to repent, believe, trust, faith, reject, turn-away ...because God initially gave it to him. I was pulled from the pagan pool at the age of twenty-three by the grace of God as I studied God’s Word for several months and finally repented and received Jesus as my new Lord and Savior.

It is clear there is a doctine of election in the Bible. It is clear that Christian groups disagree on their understanding of this doctrine.

However, it is also clear there is no doctrine of “non-election” in the Bible. The Bible never states that some are elected to be lost. The Bible never says that God wills that they be lost. Men may perish and will perish; but this is not what God wills.

Men have the freedom to repent, believe, trust, faith, reject, turn-away …because God initially gave it to him.

]]> By: Dr. James Willingham http://toddongod.com/2008/09/27/calvinism-in-the-sbc-an-open-letter-to-johnny-hunt-and-jerry-vines/#comment-494 Dr. James Willingham Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:54:01 +0000 http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/?p=502#comment-494 Sir: Right on. Since Sovereign Grace was the basis of Southern Baptists and produced the First and Second Great Awakenings and the Great Century of Missions and our oldest original educationl institutions and the uniting of Separate and Regular Baptists and the employment of educated and uneducated ministers working together to evangelize and the ability of Baptists to work with those with whom they differed and one of the early anti-slavery movements (Friends of Humanity) and I could continue, but it is appropriate to suggest that you are in order and the SBC Today folks were out of order, violating the original liberal spirit of old biblical orthodoxy which infected America with religious liberty. That is the bad part about some conservatives: They just don't know their own doctrine and practice very well. Not knowing one's history, one is doomed to m ake mistakes. Forgive them silly fellers as not knowing their own denomination's original teachings. Wonder how the Landmarkers would handle John Gano having communion with George Whitefield? Ha! The most liberal, the most infectious, winsome, attractive, compelling, so wonderful it is irresistible, position is the original one of the Baptists. And folks who don't adhere to that are out of order. My many years of research in Baptist History tells me that your censors are basically shooting themselves in the foot. Boy, I'll bet that smarts! Lets all have a good laugh about those fellows goof and then love them and go right ahead as if they hadn't done themselves such a disservice. After all, the Third Great Awakening might be just around the corner, the one that comes up silently like a flood at night and takes the whole earth with such a fullness of grace that it makes Noah's flood of judgment look like a mere squirting sprinkler on a hot summer day. Praise God. Sir: Right on. Since Sovereign Grace was the basis of Southern Baptists and produced the First and Second Great Awakenings and the Great Century of Missions and our oldest original educationl institutions and the uniting of Separate and Regular Baptists and the employment of educated and uneducated ministers working together to evangelize and the ability of Baptists to work with those with whom they differed and one of the early anti-slavery movements (Friends of Humanity) and I could continue, but it is appropriate to suggest that you are in order and the SBC Today folks were out of order, violating the original liberal spirit of old biblical orthodoxy which infected America with religious liberty. That is the bad part about some conservatives: They just don’t know their own doctrine and practice very well. Not knowing one’s history, one is doomed to m ake mistakes. Forgive them silly fellers as not knowing their own denomination’s original teachings. Wonder how the Landmarkers would handle John Gano having communion with George Whitefield? Ha! The most liberal, the most infectious, winsome, attractive, compelling, so wonderful it is irresistible, position is the original one of the Baptists. And folks who don’t adhere to that are out of order. My many years of research in Baptist History tells me that your censors are basically shooting themselves in the foot. Boy, I’ll bet that smarts! Lets all have a good laugh about those fellows goof and then love them and go right ahead as if they hadn’t done themselves such a disservice. After all, the Third Great Awakening might be just around the corner, the one that comes up silently like a flood at night and takes the whole earth with such a fullness of grace that it makes Noah’s flood of judgment look like a mere squirting sprinkler on a hot summer day. Praise God.

]]> By: Todd Burus http://toddongod.com/2008/09/27/calvinism-in-the-sbc-an-open-letter-to-johnny-hunt-and-jerry-vines/#comment-406 Todd Burus Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:57:37 +0000 http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/?p=502#comment-406 Thank you for taking the time to read my post and comment on this blog. First off, the statement that Calvinists are trying "to come into the SBC" shows a certain neglect for the historical record. If one looks back into the annals of the SBC they will see that Calvinism and Calvinist beliefs have been a part of the convention as long as there has been a convention to speak of. To think that Calvinism is now only somehow trying to creep into SBC life is more a reflection of the extreme animosity that has been built up against Calvinism over the last 50-100 years in which the decidedly non-Calvinist strain of Charles Finney-type evangelism has carried the day in most of our churches. Second, to compare Calvinism to Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses is like comparing the Democratic party to Nazism. You may not like what they have to say, but there is still a long way to go between being "wrong" and being condemnable. It is sad to me that you feel this way towards Calvinism, a response which I would bet is conditioned off of a pastor's expressed hatred of the system and/or a bad experience with a "Calvinist." What is unfortunate is that most of the cries against Calvinism in the SBC are coming from a position of ignorance to what the person is actually opposing. I would charge you to please seriously evaluate the claims of Calvinism, not to be "converted" to it, but just to understand that the hard-feelings you have towards the system are likely exaggerated out of misunderstanding what Calvinists really believe. Thank you for taking the time to read my post and comment on this blog.

First off, the statement that Calvinists are trying “to come into the SBC” shows a certain neglect for the historical record. If one looks back into the annals of the SBC they will see that Calvinism and Calvinist beliefs have been a part of the convention as long as there has been a convention to speak of. To think that Calvinism is now only somehow trying to creep into SBC life is more a reflection of the extreme animosity that has been built up against Calvinism over the last 50-100 years in which the decidedly non-Calvinist strain of Charles Finney-type evangelism has carried the day in most of our churches.

Second, to compare Calvinism to Mormonism or the Jehovah’s Witnesses is like comparing the Democratic party to Nazism. You may not like what they have to say, but there is still a long way to go between being “wrong” and being condemnable.

It is sad to me that you feel this way towards Calvinism, a response which I would bet is conditioned off of a pastor’s expressed hatred of the system and/or a bad experience with a “Calvinist.” What is unfortunate is that most of the cries against Calvinism in the SBC are coming from a position of ignorance to what the person is actually opposing. I would charge you to please seriously evaluate the claims of Calvinism, not to be “converted” to it, but just to understand that the hard-feelings you have towards the system are likely exaggerated out of misunderstanding what Calvinists really believe.

]]> By: Jeannie http://toddongod.com/2008/09/27/calvinism-in-the-sbc-an-open-letter-to-johnny-hunt-and-jerry-vines/#comment-405 Jeannie Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:20:26 +0000 http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/?p=502#comment-405 Goodness gracious, if some here, including me, believe that the gospel of John Calvin represented by his followers by the TULIP is not the truth, but a lie, then why would you even consider embracing its doctrines....instead of converting its adherents to the truth (Christ)? Who is going to evangelize who here? What a clever thing to do, for Calvinists to come into the SBC as "just like you". Quite the contrary, the gospel of the SBC is just the opposite of the gospel of John Calvin. The first 4 points contradict the Scriptures, and the last point (Perseverence) is irrelevant, it only means that the Calvinist continues to believe the first 4 points, which represent the reformed faith (beliefs) of John Calvin. He reformed it all right! The SBC would NEVER consider letting the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses come into our churches and "reform our faith" (belief system). When doctrines prove to be "opposite", they cannot abide in peace together. I vote for Calvinists building their own churches and to stop invading those churches with opposite doctrines. It is not loving to take one's faith away. Did any of you ever question why those of another faith (belief system) would even 'want' to change the faith of other churches? Answer that question out loud and don't stop thinking about it until you can. Goodness gracious, if some here, including me, believe that the gospel of John Calvin represented by his followers by the TULIP is not the truth, but a lie, then why would you even consider embracing its doctrines….instead of converting its adherents to the truth (Christ)? Who is going to evangelize who here?

What a clever thing to do, for Calvinists to come into the SBC as “just like you”. Quite the contrary, the gospel of the SBC is just the opposite of the gospel of John Calvin. The first 4 points contradict the Scriptures, and the last point (Perseverence) is irrelevant, it only means that the Calvinist continues to believe the first 4 points, which represent the reformed faith (beliefs) of John Calvin. He reformed it all right!

The SBC would NEVER consider letting the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses come into our churches and “reform our faith” (belief system). When doctrines prove to be “opposite”, they cannot abide in peace together. I vote for Calvinists building their own churches and to stop invading those churches with opposite doctrines. It is not loving to take one’s faith away.

Did any of you ever question why those of another faith (belief system) would even ‘want’ to change the faith of other churches? Answer that question out loud and don’t stop thinking about it until you can.

]]> By: Daniel http://toddongod.com/2008/09/27/calvinism-in-the-sbc-an-open-letter-to-johnny-hunt-and-jerry-vines/#comment-380 Daniel Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:29:46 +0000 http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/?p=502#comment-380 I would argue that the guy in the pew thinks more like a Molinist than a 5-point Calvinist. Most affirm some level of libertarian freedom even if it is within a range. They, of course, don't have an entire system worked out but they often reject 5-point Calvinisim on its face b/c it seems to contradict the overall tenor of the Scriptures. I do think there is something to our election being in Christ. There has never been anyone more elect in history than Christ. I also do't see possible world theory as contradicting God's immutability or His sovereignty. Indeed, it seems to heighten, not dampen, his sovereignty and helps us make better sense of passages like King Hezekiah's prayer and God's turning from the calamity he had intended toward Nineveh. To affirm that God made humans with a range of freedom (in that they have the opportunity to do otherwise) is not humanistic in and of itself. I'm sorry that you think Keathley and others like him are "too intelligent to believe God . . . " I find them to be amazing men of God who take the Biblical mandate to worship Him with all their heart, mind, soul, strength seriously. Another example of where your argumentation is mixed with ad hominem. I don't care if you disagree. I do care that you stick only to the argument as best as possible. Throwing in "elite" "too intellectual" and the like does not make me want to listen to you, though I can tell you are a smart dude and have some good things to say. I would argue that the guy in the pew thinks more like a Molinist than a 5-point Calvinist. Most affirm some level of libertarian freedom even if it is within a range. They, of course, don’t have an entire system worked out but they often reject 5-point Calvinisim on its face b/c it seems to contradict the overall tenor of the Scriptures. I do think there is something to our election being in Christ. There has never been anyone more elect in history than Christ. I also do’t see possible world theory as contradicting God’s immutability or His sovereignty. Indeed, it seems to heighten, not dampen, his sovereignty and helps us make better sense of passages like King Hezekiah’s prayer and God’s turning from the calamity he had intended toward Nineveh. To affirm that God made humans with a range of freedom (in that they have the opportunity to do otherwise) is not humanistic in and of itself.

I’m sorry that you think Keathley and others like him are “too intelligent to believe God . . . ” I find them to be amazing men of God who take the Biblical mandate to worship Him with all their heart, mind, soul, strength seriously. Another example of where your argumentation is mixed with ad hominem.

I don’t care if you disagree. I do care that you stick only to the argument as best as possible. Throwing in “elite” “too intellectual” and the like does not make me want to listen to you, though I can tell you are a smart dude and have some good things to say.

]]> By: Todd Burus http://toddongod.com/2008/09/27/calvinism-in-the-sbc-an-open-letter-to-johnny-hunt-and-jerry-vines/#comment-379 Todd Burus Sun, 16 Nov 2008 05:21:56 +0000 http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/?p=502#comment-379 Daniel, Your interpretation of John Piper's phrase is surely interesting. Apparently you feel that if this statement is to be accurate then John Piper must advocate some sort of universalism. That is why this thought is better understood in context, which actually puts it in the pen of Jonathan Edwards, and Edwards fully deals with God's glory in the condemnation of the non-elect alongside his glory in the salvation of the elect. Try reading Piper's reproduction of Edwards in<em>God's Passion for His Glory</em> or Piper's words himself in <em>The Justification of God</em>. As for "leaning Molinist," I would prayerfully ask you to not do so. This is such an awkward, half-bred idea of God's nature that it's not even funny. I recall listening to Dr. Keathley present his views at the Building Bridges conference and being completely amazed that anybody had thought to contrive such a system. Molinism is a system that appeals to intellectuals who are too intelligent to believe God is directed by his foreknowledge of what we will do, and yet too humanistic to believe God is sovereign to foreordain it all to happen. That is why the only people you see adopting it are academics like Keathley or Plantinga or Craig, but not Joe Non-seminary Professor in the pew. Plus, it is totally dependent upon possible world theory, which I'm not so sure doesn't contradict the immutability of God. Daniel,
Your interpretation of John Piper’s phrase is surely interesting. Apparently you feel that if this statement is to be accurate then John Piper must advocate some sort of universalism. That is why this thought is better understood in context, which actually puts it in the pen of Jonathan Edwards, and Edwards fully deals with God’s glory in the condemnation of the non-elect alongside his glory in the salvation of the elect. Try reading Piper’s reproduction of Edwards inGod’s Passion for His Glory or Piper’s words himself in The Justification of God.

As for “leaning Molinist,” I would prayerfully ask you to not do so. This is such an awkward, half-bred idea of God’s nature that it’s not even funny. I recall listening to Dr. Keathley present his views at the Building Bridges conference and being completely amazed that anybody had thought to contrive such a system. Molinism is a system that appeals to intellectuals who are too intelligent to believe God is directed by his foreknowledge of what we will do, and yet too humanistic to believe God is sovereign to foreordain it all to happen. That is why the only people you see adopting it are academics like Keathley or Plantinga or Craig, but not Joe Non-seminary Professor in the pew. Plus, it is totally dependent upon possible world theory, which I’m not so sure doesn’t contradict the immutability of God.

]]> By: Daniel http://toddongod.com/2008/09/27/calvinism-in-the-sbc-an-open-letter-to-johnny-hunt-and-jerry-vines/#comment-377 Daniel Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:00:27 +0000 http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/?p=502#comment-377 I've read the arguments on the verses. I have yet to see one convincing argument from 2 Peter. I've seen some creative ones, but not good ones. I agree the gospel is about God first. It is about a particular God however. It is about a God who sends a Son on a mission of reconcilation. It is about the God of Ex. 34:6 - 7 and Jonah 4:2. He is sovereign, and in His sovereignty, He is biased toward saving. This does not mean, for one moment, that He won't judge. I'm leaning more toward a Molinist system right now in terms of God's knowledge. Of course he knew, but in this system, the ultimate cause of one's unbelief is the person, not God's decree. I do not see how you avoid God being the author of evil in either supra or infra. Further, the locus of God's grace is no longer the cross but His decree. Also, on the issue of God's glory. Even John Piper writes, God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. If this statement is right, God is surely more glorified in salvation than in condemation. There is no satisfaction whatsoever in God for those who spend an eternity in Hell. I’ve read the arguments on the verses. I have yet to see one convincing argument from 2 Peter. I’ve seen some creative ones, but not good ones. I agree the gospel is about God first. It is about a particular God however. It is about a God who sends a Son on a mission of reconcilation. It is about the God of Ex. 34:6 – 7 and Jonah 4:2. He is sovereign, and in His sovereignty, He is biased toward saving. This does not mean, for one moment, that He won’t judge.

I’m leaning more toward a Molinist system right now in terms of God’s knowledge. Of course he knew, but in this system, the ultimate cause of one’s unbelief is the person, not God’s decree. I do not see how you avoid God being the author of evil in either supra or infra. Further, the locus of God’s grace is no longer the cross but His decree.

Also, on the issue of God’s glory. Even John Piper writes, God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. If this statement is right, God is surely more glorified in salvation than in condemation. There is no satisfaction whatsoever in God for those who spend an eternity in Hell.

]]> By: Darrin http://toddongod.com/2008/09/27/calvinism-in-the-sbc-an-open-letter-to-johnny-hunt-and-jerry-vines/#comment-375 Darrin Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:02:28 +0000 http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/?p=502#comment-375 "far too many all texts" - this has been abundantly discussed elsewhere by better minds than ours. Other texts dealing specifically with soteriology in context should make it clear it was for the elect. The shepherd died for His sheep. "This death is not applied, however, unless" - so what's the point of saying it was intended? Did God not know? "not because of what I don't know about God's will to save" - good for you. Calvinists don't evangelize based on ignorance either. You don't know the mind of God any more than they do. "but because of what I do know: Christ died for the sins of the whole world ..." - how about just because you are commanded to do it, no matter whom He died for? Be careful about taking texts in context regarding God's will, especially as in 2 Peter where he is specifically dealing with awaiting His coming such that all the elect would be brought to repentance, as He desires none of them to perish. God is glorified in His grace but will also receive glory for His righteous condemnation - we just don't like that part as much. Let the gospel focus on Him and His glorious attributes and acts rather than on all the people in the world. Neither we nor they deserve the attention that He does. “far too many all texts” – this has been abundantly discussed elsewhere by better minds than ours. Other texts dealing specifically with soteriology in context should make it clear it was for the elect. The shepherd died for His sheep.
“This death is not applied, however, unless” – so what’s the point of saying it was intended? Did God not know?
“not because of what I don’t know about God’s will to save” – good for you. Calvinists don’t evangelize based on ignorance either. You don’t know the mind of God any more than they do.
“but because of what I do know: Christ died for the sins of the whole world …” – how about just because you are commanded to do it, no matter whom He died for?
Be careful about taking texts in context regarding God’s will, especially as in 2 Peter where he is specifically dealing with awaiting His coming such that all the elect would be brought to repentance, as He desires none of them to perish.
God is glorified in His grace but will also receive glory for His righteous condemnation – we just don’t like that part as much. Let the gospel focus on Him and His glorious attributes and acts rather than on all the people in the world. Neither we nor they deserve the attention that He does.

]]> By: Joe V. http://toddongod.com/2008/09/27/calvinism-in-the-sbc-an-open-letter-to-johnny-hunt-and-jerry-vines/#comment-373 Joe V. Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:19:46 +0000 http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/?p=502#comment-373 I see it all this way: Jesus Christ , the Man, sits before the Holy and Righteous Father, representing ALL men as THE Perfect man. HE has removed the former representative, Adam. Therefore, ALL men are "saved" by this one perfect Person. In a personal manner, Jesus has been given, by the Father, a reward of men from all the nations. Men from just the nation of Israel were not sufficient for such a task as Jesus completed. Psalm 2:8 "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Isaiah 49:6 "And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." Romans 5:14-16 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification." 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." But this is all in representation of all men. When it comes to personal salvation, it is God Who chooses from among men. I see it all this way: Jesus Christ , the Man, sits before the Holy and Righteous Father, representing ALL men as THE Perfect man. HE has removed the former representative, Adam. Therefore, ALL men are “saved” by this one perfect Person. In a personal manner, Jesus has been given, by the Father, a reward of men from all the nations. Men from just the nation of Israel were not sufficient for such a task as Jesus completed.

Psalm 2:8 “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.”

Isaiah 49:6 “And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.”

Romans 5:14-16 “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.”

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

1 Corinthians 15:45 “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.”

But this is all in representation of all men. When it comes to personal salvation, it is God Who chooses from among men.

]]> By: Daniel http://toddongod.com/2008/09/27/calvinism-in-the-sbc-an-open-letter-to-johnny-hunt-and-jerry-vines/#comment-372 Daniel Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:17:42 +0000 http://forthetimethatispastsuffices.wordpress.com/?p=502#comment-372 I think there are far too many all texts to suggest that Christ did not in fact die for the sins of the whole world. This death is not applied, however, unless there is faith, repentance, and regeneration. There have been some people who are good at evangelism and poor at it on both sides, that is not how you argue the merits of a theology. You do it biblically and logically. So, while I disagree strongly with limited atonement (it is, yes, limited in application) and less strongly with irresistable grace (depends upon which Calvinist you are reading), I can still join hands with you in sharing the gospel. I prefer to share it not because of what I don't know about God's will to save but because of what I do know: Christ died for the sins of the whole world even those of false prophets. Their lack of salvation is keyed directly and ultimately to unbelief, not to a decree which Scripture does not give us. So, I endeavor, with God's help, to get the gospel to all because He has loved all. His Sovereignty is not callous or neutral - it is biased toward salvation. He desires that none perish. I can say with confidence when preaching before 5 or 500, God does not want any single one of you to spend eternity in Hell . . . and I can do it without being rediculous (17 stanzas of a hymn, etc.) about the call to believe. I think there are far too many all texts to suggest that Christ did not in fact die for the sins of the whole world. This death is not applied, however, unless there is faith, repentance, and regeneration. There have been some people who are good at evangelism and poor at it on both sides, that is not how you argue the merits of a theology. You do it biblically and logically. So, while I disagree strongly with limited atonement (it is, yes, limited in application) and less strongly with irresistable grace (depends upon which Calvinist you are reading), I can still join hands with you in sharing the gospel. I prefer to share it not because of what I don’t know about God’s will to save but because of what I do know: Christ died for the sins of the whole world even those of false prophets. Their lack of salvation is keyed directly and ultimately to unbelief, not to a decree which Scripture does not give us. So, I endeavor, with God’s help, to get the gospel to all because He has loved all. His Sovereignty is not callous or neutral – it is biased toward salvation. He desires that none perish. I can say with confidence when preaching before 5 or 500, God does not want any single one of you to spend eternity in Hell . . . and I can do it without being rediculous (17 stanzas of a hymn, etc.) about the call to believe.

]]>