Monday, 9 December 2013



1) The Calvinist teaching actually is that man (because of his sin bound will) will not (if left to himself) open the door. When his will is freed from the dominion of sin by the power of the truth of the gospel (which alone has the capacity to set him free) then he will willingly open the door. 

2) By standing and knocking at the heart's door, the responsibility of the sinner is clearly to be seen. This leads to added guilt if the door remains shut. The sinner will keep the door shut when he loves darkness rather than light. This is the sole cause of his condemnation. (John 3:19)

3) Christ is not only knocking the door, but speaking, for Revelation 3:20 (which, I assume, is in mind here) speaks about hearing His voice. The voice of the Lord carries the needed power to change and thus enable the hitherto wicked and stubborn heart to change. In Acts 16:14 (with a change of emphasis) the Lord Himself is said to open Lydia's heart so that Christ might enter in. 

4) The above comments on Calvinism concentrates on a single  issue within Calvinism where Calvinism itself does not concentrate. The symmetry of Calvinism lies in its Biblical balance between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. It also lies in its balance between God's decree and God's use of means to fulfil that decree. The question above maintains a focus on the sovereignty of God alone. 

Not sure whether the above is meant to be a criticism of Calvinism. Perhaps it is wrong to assume that it is such. 

See also: Revelation 3:20 and Calvinist evangelism





  1. Ummmm... you do realize that Revelation 3:20 is speaking to saved people and not to the lost, right?

  2. I do. If you follow the link at the bottom of the articlem then you will see how Reformed Christiansm including Calvin himself, have always given it an application to the sinner also. Thanks for commenting.

  3. That would be an incorrect application.

  4. You believe that you can take that verse out of context and apply it willy nilly as you please? If an IFB preacher did so you'd have written an entire blog post about it by now.

  5. I don't believe that any one can take any verse 'out of context wiilly nilly as they please'. Nor for that matter, do I believe that I or Reformed commentators like Matthew Henry or William Hendriksen etc., have done so.

    Do you see no application in Revelation 3:20 to the unregenerate in Laodicea or elsewhere?

  6. My apologies for several typos in the above replies. I am currently away from home and using a small tablet device.

  7. You are missing the point completely. Many verses CAN be applied many ways. However to make the application different than the actual interpretation is not right. If Christ wasn't speaking to the lost we shouldn't apply it to the lost either. If you are going to allow that sort of logic, then you can't be frustrated with the IFB out there for using old paths to speak of any time in the past, 1950's or otherwise. It is the same thing.

  8. Is there anywhere in the short epistle to the Laodiceans to say that Christ was not *also* addressing the unregenerate part of the congregation?

  9. Check the first two words of your first response. You already acknowledged that this text was speaking to the saved and not to the lost. Are you now changing that stance?

  10. I take your point. Further reflection, largely due to this coversation, would lead me to retract the earlier view that the unsaved were not addressed at all. Would you be happy at all to use the imagery of Christ standing at the heart's door of sinners and seeking admission? I.e. so long as the text in Rev 3:20 or do you have problems with that? #EnjoyingThisChat...

  11. Considering he says "to the church" and "as many as I love" my position would be that it's written strictly to the saved. As for Salvation, Christ IS the door, so I think applying this in that context is not only incorrect, but confusing. Surely you'd say that just because Henry, Calvin, etc. used it that way does not make it correct.

  12. Obviously, I don't hold Calvin and Henry etc., as the final authority, but I find their comments weighy. Would you affirm the responsibility and activity of the sinner in his conversion to God?

  13. Anonymous: I clicked *both* your comments to be "published" but only the first has come up on my screen. The second (and longer one) has not. Must be a glich in the system somewhere :o(


All are welcome to comment here provided that the usual principles of Christian comment e.g. politeness etc. are observed.