Posted tagged ‘unpardonable sin’

Dying in Arminianism Is Unforgivable Sin

August 28, 2011

Everybody has to believe the gospel before they die, or they will die in their sins. Not believing the gospel before you die is unforgivable sin. Once a person has been justified, that person is no longer capable of committing unforgivable sin.  That means they are not going to die as Arminians. They didn’t start the Christian life as Arminians, and they are not going to become Arminians now.

To say that Jesus Christ died for some who will perish is to impugn the character of God; it’s to call God an unfaithful liar. The Holy Spirit does not tell us lies about Christ and Christ’s character.  Since none for whom Christ died will perish, the Holy Spirit does not lead any justified person into that lie.

Those who conclude that not all for whom Jesus Christ died will be saved are rejecting the Holy Spirit’s testimony about Jesus Christ. Look at Matthew 1:21. Read John chapter ten.  Satan’s messengers teach little children the false gospel that Christ died for those who will perish, but those who God justifies will not die believing that lying false gospel.

A Christian is a person who is concerned with the glory of Jesus Christ. A Christian does not tell lies about Jesus Christ. But most who profess to be Christians have no concern or worry about telling sinners that Jesus died for all of them. Even most of the “Calvinists” are glad to leave sinners with that false impression.

What is the gospel? Can you have a promise of grace, without knowing who Christ is and what Christ did? It’s not a mere matter of the “whole counsel” to talk about the intent and extent of the death of Jesus . To say that the effectiveness of Christ’s death depends on the sinner is nothing but a lie, an untruth, a false gospel.

What is the gospel? So universalism is heresy, but Arminianism is not? Where do you draw the lines? Why do you draw them where you do? Certainly you don’t have to draw lines where John Owen and Toplady drew them, but it seems rational for you to know what your gospel is and your boundaries.

When you say that there is such a thing, after all, as an Arminian coming to realize that the Calvinists are right after all, this simply begs the question,  assuming not only that you are now a Christian but that you were one back when you were an Arminian. It also assumes that you are no longer deny that election is part of the gospel.

How important is it to you for you to know that you were a Christian then? Have you ever repented of conditioning salvation on the sinner then, or do you still excuse not only in yourself then but in others now? Phil 3–a persecutor of the church, as to the law blameless, I was certainly not very well taught, Chafer was my rabbi, and I was inconsistent then (as I am still am). But whatever gain I had then, don’t ask me to deny that I had it then, for certainly I don’t need to lose what I had then to gain being Reformed now.

There’s no need to count everything loss when there’s a crack of inconsistency in everything anyway, a touch of “not yet” gray, so there is no need to suffer the loss of my former profession or to repent of it so that I count my Arminianism as  rubbish….

What is the gospel? You think that the notion that Chafer was not even a
Christian “highly implausible”. So what about Mother Teresa? Billy Graham? Joel Osteen? What makes something plausible to you? Numbers? Does your standard for what’s reasonable have anything to do with the gospel? What is your election-free gospel?

You are not being honest with yourself here: you DO judge saved and lost. You judge some Arminians to be saved. You are not as agnostic as you pose. To be honest and rational with yourself, you need to ask: by what standard do you judge? Inerrancy? The virgin birth? Not being an universalist? What is the gospel?