The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Hatred of Calvinism and Calvinists

I have never understood the utter intensity of hatred wrought up in some non-Calvinist Christians against Calvinists and the Reformers in general. With statements like "How can you as a Calvinist tell anyone with a straight face that God loves them?" Where does this come from?

Methinks I might need more coffee?

I'm having a difficult time, it seems, comprehending questions/statements here this morning. So, I am going to have to ask for clarification once again. I am privy to the type of angst that some non-Calvinists express toward Calvinists. But what I'm not able to grasp is your question; rhetorical perhaps? Are you wanting to know how a non-Calvinist isn't able to understand why a Calvinist can't tell people indiscriminately, "God loves you!"? OR, are you perplexed because that question isn't valid because you believe that a Calvinist can tell everyone indiscriminately, "God loves you!"?

Greetings.

Calvinism was a part of my spiritual journey that found its destination in the holy Catholic Church. I don't regret any part of this journey, even my Calvinist days, though I thoroughly reject Calvinism today. My understanding of 5 point Calvinism was profound and I could explain to any skeptic exactly why God loves EVERYONE and how this does not conflict in the least with TULIP or the golden chain.

I have a friend who has recently become Calvinist and we've had some serious debates on the merits of this teaching, but none of it I have argued out of ignorance of what Calvinists really believe. The answer to your question is, they've never been Calvinist, so they speak from ignorance. They have never felt the exhilaration of understanding God's sovereignty; that God chooses, based on nothing we deserve or offer, redeems those He's chosen, and brings them infallibly to eternal life without violating the freewill of man. Apart from this understanding, Christians will assail and pillory what they don't know. How do I debate Calvinists? With understanding and all the love in my heart.

And why am I even on this discussion board? Because Pilgrim is a very tolerant individual and I keep my presence respectful of the Highway's theological platform and rules.

In Christ's most Sacred Heart.

Quite simply, I am wondering where the hatred comes from, i.e., what the basis of it is One who is on the receiving end of it might understand my question perhaps better than you seem to. I do not personally understand some of the vociferous hatred I have seen and experienced of Calvinists by non-Calvinists. That's all.

Very interesting post....thank you.

Having been on the receiving end of some of this Calvinism hatred; at least in my particular case, it basically had to do with the other person's concept of God.
He sees the Calvinist understanding of "Limited Atonement" to be a very cruel and mean and vindictive God, who picks and chooses who goes to hell and who doesn't.
It really doesn't matter if a Calvinist tries to correct this misinformation, because their mind is already made up.
I got the idea that if they found out Calvinists were correct concerning "Limited Atonement"; they would no longer want to serve a God like this.

I can sort of understand this line of thinking, mainly because although I was never closed to "Limited Atonement", never the less I lost a lot of sleep over trying to understand what I was seeing Scripture teach concerning this matter.
After a while, I embraced this doctrine, but didn't understand it. It was about 2 years as a Calvinist that I realized I had been thinking this issue through the lens of my own eyes, rather than through the lens of my sovereign God.
I can honestly say that this new way of thinking was very freeing and it brought new prospective in such areas as evangelism and every day life.
God is sovereign in every area of life.
This isn’t to say that “Limited Atonement” is the only area that causes “Calvinist hatred”, but I have found that it probably causes the most hatred.

Tom

So, you are perplexed over the hatred expressed by non-Calvinists toward Calvinists; if I have understood you right this time.

Personally, I think this hatred, to which I have been the recipient on more than one occasion ... comes from unregenerate hearts for the most part. For the minority that are regenerate the basis for their hatred is the same as the unregenerate due to the fact that one isn't instantly made perfect when the new nature is created by the Holy Spirit. There is that "old man", remaining sin with which one must war against while living on this present earth.

Specifically, although "Limited Atonement" is one doctrine that many rail against, the hatred is initially stirred up due to the Calvinist's doctrine of God. We believe that God is absolutely sovereign in BOTH power AND authority. It is the authority part which really raises the angst. Non-calvinists have little objection to a God who can be said to be "all-powerful". But when it comes to this all powerful God using that power according to His own will, then the rage appears. Now, I did say "initially" this doctrine of God brings out the hatred. But I do believe that the actual source of the hatred people have for Calvinism/Calvinists is over the doctrine of "Total Depravity". This doctrine removes any and all ideas concerning man's autonomy; aka: 'free-will'. It also disallows any idea(s) that would have man possess some kind of innate moral goodness, be it ever so small. So, the hatred flows most vehemently when you speak of man being totally destitute of anything good, that man is filled with nothing but evil and hatred for God and all that is good. And, when you speak of man as having no moral ability to do anything good; even to seek after that which is good, including God, this fans the flames. Finally, additional fuel is thrown on the fire when you insist that despite the fact that the fallen, natural man is born with a sin nature, he is not only wholly culpable for every sinful thought, word and deed, he stands guilty before God who is wroth with him, and that he is under God's judgment and destined to eternal hell unless God has mercy upon him.

Non-Calvinists have an insatiable desire to hold fast to their fallacy, "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul". They desire to have a "god" that is under their power, although they usually don't come right out and state it that way. But at the end of the day, their "god" does cater to man's will. As I've stated here so many times, there is an old adage which describes this all too well:

Great points to ponder...thanks....

It's really too bad that such hatred exists amongst those who read the same scriptures...

Pilgrim

You are so right that when one comes right down to the crux of the matter, "Total Depravity" is the main reason for Calvinism/ist hatred. Although I believe "Limited Atonement" is probably the most attacked doctrine in TULIP, it basically stems from "Total Depravity".
You did an excellent job of showing this truth.

Tom

Not profound enough if you became a papist. Instead I have a feeling that it was merely surface level and you could parrot the responses that other who indeed knew Calvinism's teachings in response to heresy. Such as your papist beliefs. I'm sure that you merely operated a paddle boat in the Tiber.

dear Pilgrim, I've just read a few of these letters on Calvinism, and your response here is so right, in a nutshell! My husband and I have experienced much against "Calvinism" and one does not get the opportunity even to explain that it is not necessarily "Calvinism" but exactly what the scriptures teach! They just do not see it, because they want a god of their own making! We are blessed indeed to see these precious truths. One Elder, when I tried to explain what we believed, said "Oh thats far too complicated!" and walked away. Another said, "Your God is not MY God!"
My own (American) sister-in-law said many years ago, that she would not want to worship a God like ours!" So the separation exists, even within our own family.

Yours, in Christ, by His grace and mercy, English Rose

I guess I've led a sheltered life, I'm 68, because I have debated/discussed this subject many times and have never encountered hatred on either side. Frustration? Yes! But, not hatred. I think it is good for both sides to realize that this debate has been going on for centuries and none of us are going to solve it now. I have never seen anyone on either side switch to the other side from a discussion on this either! Both sides have their favorite verses and both sides, more or less, refuse to consider the verses presented by the other side as being germane to the subject, other than to say they are misinterpreting them.:)

First of all, welcome to the Highway

Thank you for sharing your perspective on the issue. But I am interested in what you think of the experience that English Rose had.
I.E.
Tom

1. You are fortunate in your experience that you haven't encountered hatred. Of course, your experience is limited and thus it is not only possible but a reality that hatred does exists and is expressed sometimes even to the point of violence.

2. Again, in your experience you have never seen anyone "switch sides", but in fact there have been many who have "gone over" on both sides. Here, on this board, there are several individuals who have come to embrace and love the Doctrines of Grace which they beforehand rejected.

3. Yes, this debate has been going on since the time of the Apostles. Even a cursory reading of the epistles of Romans and Galatians will reveal that there were those who wanted to add something to grace in order to be saved. Aside from Rome's adherence to semi-Pelagianism this matter came to a head in 1618 at the great Synod of Dordt. There the Arminians submitted a Remonstrance (grievance) consisting of five points of doctrine which were objections to the doctrines found in the Belgic Confession, which was the official statement of faith of the Dutch Reformed Churches written in 1561. As you can see, the Belgic Confession was prepared not long after the Protestant Reformation. But there were those who wanted to return to some of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, particularly those that had to do with salvation. The short of all this was that after many months of searching the Scriptures and in-depth consultation among representatives from across the globe, the conclusion was that Arminianism was damnable heresy and unanimously rejected. And so, until recently all the major denominations embraced these doctrines of free sovereign grace in salvation and even included them in their official statements of faith, aka: confessions. For example, the Presbyterians have the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The Dutch have the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dordt. The Baptists have the London Baptist Confession of 1689. The Congregationalists have the Savoy Declaration. The Swiss have the Helvetic Confession. The Anglicans have the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. ALL are in full agreement in regard to the doctrines of salvation and ALL without exception reject any form of "synergism" which Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism espouse.

So, I guess to me it doesn't matter whether anyone accepts these incorruptible fundamental biblical truths and embraces Arminianism/semi-Pelagianism, other than if they REALLY and TRULY believe those doctrines that they are destined to eternal damnation, for of a truth, they then believe in another gospel, another Jesus, another Spirit and another God. And for the masses that have embraced the lie, I mourn and pray for their souls and that God would have mercy upon them and open their eyes to see the truth and that they would be saved. Of course, there are those who call themselves Arminian but really don't understand and/or don't really believe what it teaches. Sin has a way of corrupting our minds and hearts. There can be no meeting of the two sides since they are diametrically opposed. One is right and embraces biblical truth and the other is wrong and embraces serious error.

That's why I have labored for over 14 years to keep The Highway online... to make available good solid biblical literature from authors who have held firm to the truth once delivered unto the saints. They were and are true Protestants vs. all other religions including most of the modern church which has chosen to not enter through the strait gate nor walk on the narrow path. And, of course, we have this discussion board where everyone is free to discuss, debate, ask questions, etc., about doctrine, its application to life and just about anything else.

Glad you chose to join here for whatever reason you did.

Ah, I see now the reason some have gotten angry. I have never been accused of being unsaved for holding an opposite view on this subject. But, I'm still not mad at you.

I'm sure I will get ripped to shreds for expressing my opinion on this....you sound like you are way more intelligent than I. By the way, I totally reject Arminianism. I have no idea what semi-Pelagianism is. I don't recall ever hearing about the sovereignty of God, until getting into a discussion on the subject of Election for the first time! I think most use it as a crutch. I have found it interesting that when men describe the sovereignty of God, most times it is on "their" terms of thinking. Sovereignty means that God is in control, not limited to the thoughts and ideas of man! God sovereignly allowed 2 Cor 4:4 to happen as well as sovereignly allowing man to use his free will to believe. The thought struck me recently; why must we understand everything regarding the workings of God? I think theologians get a bit carried away with all their reasonings and think they can somehow discover everything about how God thinks on everything! But, does it "really" have to be plausible to our minds before it can be true?
Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD."
Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
1 Cor 13:12 "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

This verse is plain and simple and I acted on it: Acts 16:31 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." At the age of 6, I accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my own personal Savior.
I know God was involved, perhaps I don't fully understand exactly how, but why do I need to? 2 Timothy 1:12 "for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."

And you won't be accused of being unsaved for not holding to Calvinism. We know there are those who espouse Calvinism who aren't saved either. What is sometimes true is that someone will hold something to be true in their head but their heart says something else totally opposite.

Not likely, hehe.

Semi-Pelagianism is what most evangelical churches are teaching and what most professing Christians are embracing today. The difference, to make it very simple, between Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism is that the latter holds that man is capable to desiring after God naturally, i.e., in and of himself. There is a natural ability for man to 'choose' (believe) without any intervention from God. Put another way, semi-Pelagianism holds that man is endowed with a free-will which has not been affected by sin so that choosing either good or evil are equally possible. Real Arminianism holds that man due to the fall is incapable of desiring or choosing God unless God gives what they call "prevenient grace"; the ability to overcome man's natural depravity but without removing that depravity, i.e., regeneration. This was what the Remonstrants in 1610 brought forth against the Reformed Churches and which precipitated the great Synod of Dordt in 1618 out of which came the now infamous "Five Points" of Calvinism, which were rebuttals to the five points of the Arminians.

For a succinct description and evaluation of semi-Pelagianism, R.C. Sproul wrote this: The Pelagian Captivity of the Church.

1. Biblically, if God isn't 100% sovereign in both power and authority, i.e., if God doesn't have the ability/power AND the right to determine all things, then what one is left with is basically Atheism, for something other than God does the determining of which God simply agrees to. For example, using your mention of election, either God elects who WILL believe (PRE-destination) or God elects who He 'sees' as having believed (POST-destination). And the latter opens a gigantic can of worms.

2. What is often misunderstood by non-Calvinists is that even though God has foreordained/decreed ALL THINGS, man is still responsible and remains a 'free-agent', i.e., he has the ability to choose that which is in accord with his nature. Thus an unregenerate man, a natural man, a sinner is totally free to choose everything and anything which is most desirous to his sinful nature... sin. The natural man hates God and all that is good and thus he will never choose either since he hates God by nature. (Gen 6:5; 8:21; Jer 17:9; Rom 3:10-18; Eph 2:1-5; 4:17-19; etc.) See, for example, HERE and HERE and HERE.

I would certainly agree that there are some theologians who delve into matters which are deliberately hidden but which they think they can discover. However, there is a great text which I think sheds some light on this matter: Deuteronomy 29:29 (ASV) "The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."

God has condescended to REVEAL to us much about Himself, ourselves and what is required of us. Those things are written in Scripture. But, there are things which are not revealed in Scripture and those are the things which we cannot know and to spend time trying to speculate on them is both an exercise in futility but an affront to God for it implies that either God has tried to keep things from us that we need to know or that we can know things by sheer reason without divine revelation. Of course, this shouldn't be too surprising, should it? Wasn't this exactly what the serpent promised Eve in the Garden?... Genesis 3:4-5 (ASV) "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil."

FYI, just in case you didn't know, this discussion board is just a part of the larger The Highway website, where you can find over 1600 books, articles and sermons. There is a search feature located in a couple of places also which you can use to find whatever you are looking for. And if you can't find what you are looking for, there is most likely someone here on the board who can direct you.

Oh, and don't be intimidated... we are all just mortals like you and learn from each other.

I was warned very early on after my conversion to stay far away from "those cold-hearted, head-knowledge-only Calvinists" even though I had never met one as far as I knew, and I had no idea what they believe.

Confronted with scriptures like Ephesians 2 and Romans 8 and 9 (and a host of others that kept popping up until it seemed like I was seeing these truths on every single page of Scripture), I had no choice but to acknowledge God as completely sovereign in absolutely all things - governing not only all His creatures, but all their actions as well (Acts 2:23 is an amazing example of this - murder is against God's moral Law, and yet He planned the murder of His own Son, using evil men to carry it out, before the worlds were even created!). I found the idea quite comforting, for my life seemed so out of control at that time, it was good to know that I was not simply at the mercy of circumstances.

But when I shared what I was learning with others, I was stunned by their reaction. Several reacted with horror and extreme offense. "That's Calvinism!" they shouted, recoiling as if threatened by a hissing snake. I was as surprised to find that these truths had a name as my friends were to find a (unknowing) Calvinist among them! I didn't know what Calvinism was - only that it was "some anti-evangelical heresy that turns people cold inside." I wasn't turning cold, though. I found the fact of God's sovereignty and grace to be very liberating and joyful. It completely changed my attitude to one of restful trust in Christ rather than fearful, uncertain hope in my own ability to "attain" God's approval.

Why are these ideas so horrifying and offensive to people? Because if God is sovereign, then it necessarily follows that Man is not. The very idea of Man's depravity and slavery to sin and death is offensive to people who imagine that they "choose" Christ out of some snippet of their own righteousness which was unaffected by the Fall, by the world, by the flesh, by the devil. Complete dependence only on Christ alone requires true humility. Prideful people - even those who claim to be "Spirit-filled, Spirit-led and specially Spirit-gifted" - would rather believe that salvation is some sort of "equal partnership" between themselves and God, rather than admit that without Him they are dead even while they breathe.

It was shocking to be asked to leave the church if I would not repent of my "heresy."

And frankly, I find my former church's semi-Pelagian offensive! Because it exalts Man and reduces God! It treats God and sinners as equals! It paints a picture of God as a frustrated deity who paces heaven's floors, wringing his hands and hoping someone on Earth will let him have his way. It twists the offer of salvation into some bargain which suggests that the sinner is doing God a favor by accepting Christ. Now that should be offensive to anyone who believes in the God of the Bible!

Predestined to be an Arminian, but chose to become a Calvinist,

Robin

I know Israel was elected as is The Church, Christ's body. Most references to this in the N.T. are, to my mind, referring to a group being elected. For example, all the references in Eph. 1 are plural. At this present time, I don't believe in individual election. I will acknowledge that I may be wrong though. Since this is getting off the original topic, perhaps I will post verses that convince me of my present position in a separate topic. If you have recently discussed this subject here, I will defer to do this though, because I know how upsetting it can be for some. On another forum I've been on for over 15 years, we try to avoid this subject as much as possible.

By the way, Pilgrim, I want to compliment you on your graciousness!

Don,

1. Yes, it would be best to begin a new topic on the subject of election.

2. This topic is often discussed but a new topic is just fine too.

3. Admittedly, there have been a few people who have caused some to be upset due to their obnoxious behavior or refusal to answer direct questions in order to clarify things, etc. But there hasn't been any topics which I can recall that caused anyone to get upset. The vast majority of members here are extremely patient, if I may say so. Perhaps that is due, at least in part, to the fact that many have come out of evangelicalism or paganism, or in my own case, out of Atheism. We remember all too well our own ignorance and/or obstinence against the doctrines of grace.

4. You might find some relevant articles on the subject of "Election" HERE.

Profound........

Not so profound to me... I simply tend to reject any doctrine which does not honor God as God, which reduces any of His attributes, or assigns His non-communicable attributes to sinners!

For His glory,
Robin

Robin

You previously said:
Although this is ultimately true, most Arminians claim that they don't believe in an equal partnership at all. They claim that salvation is all of God.
If you press them on this; their answer proves that they do indeed believe in an "equal partnership between themselves and God. However, they seem to believe that what they believe is in no way an equal partnership.
I have never been accused of being the sharpest pencil in the box; however their argument/s doesn’t make sense to me.

Tom

For anyone who might be interested in posting at another site, here is a thread on anti-Calvinism over on a Restoration Movement(Alexander Campbell) website.....the majority of people there believe that a water baptism is salvific, so the poor Calvinists who try to post over there to defend themselves get bashed....Anyway, here it is:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/calvinism/did-jesus-teach-the-tulip/

AllToHim

Thanks for the invite, but I think I will pass.
It is not necessarily that I don't think I know my stuff. It has more to do with, not wanting to jump into a hornets nest not adequately prepared.

Experience tells me that although I believe I know this subject fairly well. Fairly well is not good enough in this particular case. In this particular case, one should be equipped in the art of debate and not have the tendency to let straw men and other deceptive arguments distract from the truth.
This is one of the reasons why I appreciate such men like James White, who have proven themselves to be gifted defenders of the Gospel.
If you feel lead to debate these people, I would suggest that you make sure you are adequately prepared to do so.
One can't kill a nest of hornets with a pop gun.
This is something that is a hard lesson for me.

Tom

Hi Don,

I must admit, I spent almost an hour carefully preparing an answer for you on your other post in another thread, then ended up deleting it for the very reason you mention here: "I have never seen anyone on either side switch to the other side from a discussion on this either!" I just couldn't bring myself to start throwing Scriptures at you that you already knew.

Not all discussions are unfruitful, however. I "converted" from Arminianism to Calvinism many years ago when listening to one of my now favorite teachers, John H. Gerstner. He was lecturing one night in Dothan, Al, and hit me square between the eyes with the truth. I was offended at first; the carnal man fought hard, but in time the Spirit softened my attitude, and made me see how wonderful His Grace in Election is. Knowing that ALL men are spiritually dead and incapable of "choosing" Him, at first made it all seem hopeless to me. But, now I saw the truth and had new-found hope that He in His sovereignty and tender mercies would eventually bring to faith (life) loved (dead) ones amongst my (spiritually dead) family and friends, and in some cases He already has. After all, He brought a lowly creature like me to faith! Praise be to God.

Robin,

Powerful testimony- thank you for sharing! I have been lectured, shunned, laughed at, sternly warned, and pitied for my Calvinistic views. Never really had anyone get downright nasty, though. But derision comes with the territory. I remember being the same way towards Calvinists when I was still an Arminian, many moons ago.

To the Sovereign God be all power, glory and honor- amen!

I sometimes go on Paltalk ( chat rooms ) and at times people will ask me how can I ( being reformed ) tell them ( non-believers ) that God loves them? I look who ever right in the face and say, " God saves sinners like You and Me".


SDG,
Dan

God in Christ does save sinners, but not the self-righteous, whom Christ came not to call, but only self-sinners to repentance: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). But whether anyone be a self-sinner, that is a sick soul who needs a Physician, or a a self-righteous one, who feels himself quite "whole" and thus has no need of the Physician (Luke 5:31) only God knows - we can only declare that God indeed saves sinners, that Christ came to save sinners and that He indeed does save [self]sinners, for He came to seek and to save that which was lost. But remember, only the sheep are lost for a season. The [spiritual]goats, wolves, dogs and swine are never "lost" and the Shepherd is not seeking nor calling them. He is calling only His sheep through the preaching of His gospel, because it is for them only that He laid down His life and them only has He redeemed.

I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.
(Isaiah 44:22)

Yes, only God knows because He has so ordained which sinners will be given to know of their guilt and sin. One does not 'decide to become' a "self-sinner" as you have phrased it, but rather it is a natural realization of one having been born anew (regeneration) by the secret, silent and sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. It is all of sovereign free grace.

Absolutely correct, of course. My point was that, "sinners" is a Gospel term. In one sense, absolutely everyone is a sinner, a transgressor of God's law, for there is not a man who sinneth not, yet there are also "sinners" who are made aware of their woeful condition by the Spirit of God. Am referring of course to the regenerate elect, who are denoted in Scripture by various definitives, such as "poor [in spirit]", "hungering and thirsting for [Christ's] righteousness", those that mourn over their sin, those that "labor" under the weight of their guilt and are "heavy laden" with the sense of their sins, etc. The Gospel, the Good News is for such - it is for self-sinners. But there is no gospel of peace for the self-righteous, self-conceited reprobate, for there is no peace for the wicked.
So the sense is that one cannot say to everyone that 'God saves sinners such you an me', for one cannot know whether his or her interlocutor is such, for they may well be a self-righteous "whole" who have no need of the Physician (that is Christ) and whom Christ is not calling for He calls His sheep ONLY, since He calls them BY NAME, that is by their spiritual designation, i.e., the "poor in spirit", "hungering and thirsting after righteousness", "mourners in Zion", etc, etc, for Christ was anointed to preach the gospel to such: The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised(Luke 4:18). There is NO gospel for the [spiritually] 'rich', but only woes: "But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep"(Luke 6:24,25).

The main point being, the Gospel is for certain folks, scripturally defined, just as its foundation (Christ's reconciliation) is for a definite group of people. It is not for all indiscriminately. It is for the poor [in spirit]: "Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them".
(Matthew 11:4,5) And though the message of the Gospel is to be declared and published to all persons promiscuously, yet it's calling and the promise are to be scripturally and spiritually addressed ONLY to those for whom it is intended, i.e., to Christ's [as yet lost] sheep, who must hear in the gospel summons the voice of the Shepherd calling them BY NAME: "To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out" (John 10:3)