Not true and foul! I am not selective in the theological label of a commentator. I know he is a Calvinist. I know Pink is a Calvinist, he writes good stuff and reading his commentary is what started me wondering about this whole thing.<br><br>It just happens, much to your surprise apparently, that the selection I quoted made exactly the point I wanted to convey. Pardon would be available to the Pharisees, if they would but confess their blindness. This answers to Owens’s argument that the first case can not be true. Christ did die for all the sins of all men; else how could the savior say “ye should have no sin”? But their sin remains unpardoned because they say they see.<br><br>The three passages Joe posted do not “indict” my error. He merely fills out the reasons why they would not confess their blindness, but he does not contradict himself or change the final meaning of the passage I quoted. That is, it was within the Savior’s ability to pardon them because he would bear their sins on the cross as well as ours who receive that pardon which they reject. <br>