I had the same response to some Calvinists recently.
Upon reflection, prayer, insuring I was in fellowship with God, and then studying Scripture I was led to consider the issue in a different light.
Too many people, including Christians, are basing their behavior upon their conscience, rather than upon Bible doctrine. The doctrines associated with Paul's soulish man apply here, even when dicussing Christians who fall away, but continue to study doctrine and the Bible, but never fully repent their sins.
The soulish man is a natural consequence for this type of behavior and it manifests itself in these types of situations.
This is how I see this happening. A man is communicated the Gospel by common grace, inhales, accepts the message and believes in Christ in exhale and receives efficacious grace for salvation by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit, then indwells the believer. The believer is bestowed his gifts from the Spirit and begins to work on the believer over time. The believer is indwelt, but only filled with the Spirit when the believer has confessed and repented of his sins, thereby in faith of Christ has his sins forgiven and reenters into a relationship with God, (action from God for the relationship, but not possible if the believer is rebellious.)
In the case of the religious sinner, he may in fact be saved, been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but by his subsequent sin by man's own volition, has now made a situation where he Holy Spirit is quenched.
The believer, now separated from God and the filling of the Spirit, is still indwelt by the Spirit, but senses the evil in his life via the soul,..his conscience.
If he repents the sin, then God is faithful to return to him, but if he doesn't repent his sin, he remains backslidden or carnal in nature or a soulish person.
There are many soulish persons who have established a good habit of going to church, studying the Bible and doctrine, but unless that study is preceded by true repentence, it still amounts to a human good, rather than Divine good. A negative righteousness rather than a positive righteousness, if you will.
Such a soulish believer will still have times where he is grieved because he has grieved the Spirit. His soul is in pain and the believer responds. Some respond by repentence. Those who don't fall victim to a myriad of degenerate complexes.
One such complex I've observed in religious systems are believers who refuse to repent, then study doctrine, even to the point of knowing the logical and doctrinal positions eloquantly. But their faith is evidenced in their works. Those who are not repentant, reflect that soulishness in their behavior.
This seems to be where religion is better associated with a backslidden state, rather than a relationship with God or being in fellowship with Him.
While remaining unrepentant, the fallen believer continues to scar his soul.
For example, there may be those who are very orthodox, read orthodox doctrines, even recite the Creeds, take part in sacraments, even return to a cacophonous emotional elation asserting praise for God, yet while they are rebellious and haven't repented and confessed their sins to God,...(not man, but through Christ) then they still haven't returned into fellowship with God.
Their reactions to doctrine and Scripture is then characterized by soulish behavior. They've numbed themselves in the spirit, and now only act as though a soulish man.
Frequently, as the soulish man, the only way they can reason is to follow the doctrine they have studied and mechanically return to God. But unless they repent and confess, even if they perform mechanistic attempts, they remain unrepentant and scar their soul. In this condition, they may then fall back and claim that whatever belief they have is 'scriptural' because they have studied the logic, language, and doctrine, but have failed to apply it and remain in fellowship.
Worse, as the study in a fallen state, they then become succeptible to errors in doctrine, but in order to numb their soulish pangs, will even clamorously priase God, rather than repenting from the earlier sins. This repetitve scarring of the soul, even of the believer, then is an evil which IS NOT solved quickly by repentance.
Instead, evil is solved in time. The believer might indeed repent, but since he has scarred his soul, he isn't as quick to avoid the same sin, the next time the temptation arises. The consequence of evil is that scarring of the soul. This is one mechanism by which the cults or even mainline orthodox churches fall away from His Will.
All sin was paid for on the Cross by an impersonal love for man by God. Now, it is possible to return to fellowship immediately by confessing those sins to God through faith in Christ. Sin had already been judged. Evil has not been so judged. Evil will still have effects on the soul and must be dealt with in time.
The unrepentant believer, when studying doctrine and Scripture, fails to bring that Word of God into His soul and spirit, but instead is performing a human good, out of fellowship with God, consequently scarring his soul so that when he returns to God, he is less likely to obey a holy conscience, but instead might asscoiate by thinking, that the same response he had while a soulsh man, is indeed the path of God because of that scarred soul. A major reason why religiousity is so tragic to the believer's walk if he falls away. Even more tragic, misery loves company, so the soulish unrepentent believer is very likely to associate with other fallen believers, even form religious groups with one another and then begin to reinforce one another in their vice, rather than in common worship and fellowship with God. Funny thing, is that the institution of the Church can never solve this. It ultimately depends upon the individual believer and the groups of believers to reinforce eith other, while in fellowship with God.
Or perhaps, "all sorts."
I'm a Calminian. My response to this issue is "both-and." How's that for muddying the waters.
In the previous chapter we looked at over 300 verses that say salvation is open to everyone. These verses use words like all, everyone, whoever, world, etc.
The same old tired misrepresentations of definite atonement. Exegesis has been provided for each of these. Does the author reference and refute these? No. This is either intellectually dishonest or the author is ignorant of the arguments. Either way, that renders the piece useless. Come on ftD, I know that you know the arguments much better than this. Please find pieces that provide honest, informed arguments. Here's a challenge: either provide yourself or find someone who handles John 6:35-65 in context. Now that would be interesting!