We
sometimes get a response to our various articles, especially on
Calvinism. I intend to reproduce some of the emails below, essentially
as received but usually with the sender's name replaced with their
initials (purely to protect their anonymity) See below for important
information about many previous emails. The sender's email appears in black. My response, as ever, in red:
*******************************************************
Answered 21-5-09 Hello Pastor, I came across your website today while looking through some Arminianism
websites. I'm venturing down the road to discover for myself what is biblical
on this topic. I must admit I do lean more on the side against Calvinism then
towards it. However I wanted to give you credit for the issues that your site
addresses with the critics of Calvinism. I have been reading through sites and
find the most disturbing picture being painted of someone who believes this
doctrine. I do find this on both sides of the fence, but the pictures is
painted very harshly for an Calvinist. It's refreshing to read your comments on
the matter and feel in my heart that they are not being blown out of proportion
for show. I look forward to taking what I discover on both sides of the
argument back to the bible. Thank
You. M
Hi. I'm glad that you found our
website to be helpful. I see little point in lampooning those who take
the opposite view to me and I am usually more content on this matter to
defend than attack. Arminianism is right when it puts all the
responsibility on to man (which, BTW, Calvinism does too) but (in
my opinion) goes somewhat soft or fuzzy when it comes to the
Sovereignty of God. Calvinism strikes a good balance, avoiding
Hyper Calvinism or one side and Arminianism on the other. But you can
pick up on these thoughts in our Calvinism section link above. Thanks
for writing. Keep in touch. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 5-5-09 Thank you for your clear and simply stated summary of many Calvinistic points.
Nice to hear from you and to know that you have found some of the content of our website of help and encouragement to you.
I'm sure you have heard this before, and I wonder if you have considered changing point # 10 in which you say that "We
are happy enough (as was John Calvin) with the statement that the blood
of Christ is sufficient for the whole world but efficient only for the
elect." The Calvinists I know (of which I am one),
including R.C. Sproul, would say that this statement is at best,
misleading, and at worst, not true, depending on what you mean by
it. I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of point 10, that "Calvinists
do not limit the value or merit or worth of the blood of Christ. They
do limit the intention of the blood to save any other than the
elect." However, to not put a limit on the value of
Christ's blood simply means that His blood was completely, 100% pure
and capable, if He desired, to pay for the entire world's sin, with no
limit. However, as you say, that was not the intent, and
therefore, it does not actually pay the entire world's debt. To
say that it was "sufficient"
seems to imply a form of universalism, that His death made the
potential for all to be saved, but was only effective for the
elect. However, I would say that Christ died for no one
potentially (under which circumstance He would be found to be quite
ineffective in the case of the many condemned), but only for those
whose salvation was sure and determined before the creation of the
world. I hope I have made this point clearly and you can see the
difference. Maybe we agree but just the terminology needs to
change in point 10. Or maybe you really believe in a potentially
sufficient salvation, but I kind of don't think you do. Anyway, I
would love to have your feedback. Thank you, AD (Texas, USA)
I agree with you 100% that
Christ's death had no mere potential element about it and will
ultimately achieve all that it set out to do i.e. redeem the elect from
their sins, enable them to live holy lives and see them arrive safely
into Heaven at last and all to the supreme glory of God. To be
honest, I never worry about what seems to imply when I make such statements as the one in question. If I say that I believe in (say) the Trinity, then must I take a whole paragraph (at least!) to qualify it lest someone swallow the JW lie that we believe in "three gods"? Banner of Truth Trust have published an excellent book: "The Atonement Controversy"
by Owen Thomas which deals with all these things as they affected the
Calvinistic Methodists in Wales in a by gone day. How was the atonement
to be stated? How was the free offer to be stated? It's all here in the
various ways of wording things to reflect truth. It is a deep
enough book, although still remarkably readable. I can remember how one
man pointed out that the Atonement must be infinite in its worth
because Christ Himself (an Infinite Person) is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2)
It seems to me that the statement in hand is coming at the matter from
a human point of view. With words like these, I can encourage every
last sinner to come to the cross and find salvation there for him. The
sinner perhaps has still many doubts and fears about the worth of this
atonement. I tell him that it is a sufficient for a world of sinners
and therefore for him. * OTOH, the objection (which, as you word it, only seems to imply) seems
to be based on a view from the divine end of things. Certainly any
sinner who would bring the objection that is raised here and use it to
stay away from Christ has but found himself a relative smokescreen and
one that will be quickly blown away in the Day of Wrath. If it
wasn't this objection, then it would be another, because (to adapt
Scripture) of the making of excuses, there is no end.
I appreciate you writing. I think I will let the words stand as they
are. I do not believe that they seriously compromise any truth and
indeed are invaluable to the stating of that same truth. Colin.
P/s * The same book brought forth an argument on the free offer of the
gospel. Some of the Calvinistic brethren wanted to state the offer of
the gospel conditionally. They used the illustration of men trapped
down a mine (a very Welsh fear) but who feared to leave their place of
relative safety (since they were not yet dead) to come to the top
again. Some suggested that they be told that there is "fresh air up here for you if you will have it." Which, of course, cannot be gainsaid. However, it can be improved upon. They could just be told "There is fresh air up here" I
know this moves a little from the original object, hence the inclusion
in the postscript, but I include it here to show how Calvinists have
come up with many ways, some better than others, to state their
beliefs. The book is pricey enough, but it is a real doctrinal and
practical gem.
********************************************************
Answered 26-2-09 Hi,
The answer is not given there. [See previous posting] Indeed, the word "value" does not appear at
all. That's the key in my question - how can love be true or valuable
without freedom to reject?
BS
Hi, BS. Two things. One: The word "value" did
not appear in your original posting either, so I must wonder why you
expect it to appear in my answer. Secondly (and more to the point)
there is freedom to reject. Billions
exercise this choice every day in such a negative way. Which is why I
quoted John 5:40 below. Grace enabled me to freely accept the
offered mercy that I had long rejected. However, grace did not believe
for me, hence I believed and did so of my own free(d) will. Hope
this helps. Colin
*******************************************************
Answered 23-2-09 Dear Colin, Thanks for your offer to answer
questions. May the Lord bless you and give you wisdom. Here is my
question: If I were to keep my wife locked up in an upstairs
room, and then boast to others “See how she loves me – she has never left me for another”, the others would say, “That’s not love – she has no choice!”
Exactly. Love is a choice. If I made a robot which could do
only one thing, that is, to love me, what I received from that robot
would not be love. Calvinism says that an unsaved man has no choice in
the matter of submitting to God – he is predestined for heaven or
hell. So, the unsaved man cannot love God. If later he does
submit to God, Calvinism says he still has no choice – he cannot
reject Him. Love is a choice. So, for the Calvinist, man is
unable to love, whether saved or unsaved. He cannot love
God; he cannot love his fellow man. He cannot do what Christ
commanded (Luke 10:27). He cannot do what Paul said is the sum of
the law (Galatians 5:14). Am I missing something here? BS
Hi, Thanks for your email. To answer your last question first, I must say "Yes - you are missing something here!" I agree totally with your illustration. It is its application
to Calvinism that I must disagree with. First of all, man was not
made a robot and, indeed, is not a robot. Man was made upright in the
sight of God, sought out many inventions and fell into the bondage of
sin (Ecclesiastes 7:26/John 8:34) He continues to be totally
responsible for his own actions and when unsaved, he freely loves
darkness rather than light, hence his condemnation (John 3:19) Again,
contrary to what you have written, Calvinism insists that man does
have a choice - that he is both summonsed to submit to God and
sincerely invited to do so. Should the sinner come to Christ,
then it will be seen that He was predestinated to Heaven and that on
the basis of the free grace of God. Should he continue in his chosen
sin, then it will be seen that He was predestinated for hell, and that on the basis of his sin. It
is important that we see that those who are in hell are there purely on
the basis that they are guilty sinners - guilty because totally
responsible for their own sins. Calvinism teaches that grace
liberates the will of sinners from the shackles of sin and thus enables
them to choose Christ. Therefore, I can honestly claim that I
freely chose Christ because I was willing in the day of God's power (Psalm 110:3) - God working in me both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). The "cannot" in relation to sinful man is a self imposed "cannot" - we might just as easily say "will not" and this is indeed the language of Christ in John 5:40 where Christ indicted the folk by saying "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life." Lastly, I think that you are confusing the doctrine of Total Depravity. TD does not teach that man is
outwardly as wicked as he can possibly be. It teaches rather that he
has the inbuilt (because of sin) capacity to be as totally wicked as he
can be. However, there is a common grace that restrains him from being
a Hitler or a Stalin etc., and therefore the Saviour Himself observed
that "Even sinners do good" (Luke 6:33) and that evil fathers can love their children etc., (Luke 11:13)
I am glad that you emailed me. I hope that my answer above clears up
commonly held misconceptions about Calvinism. I have declined the
opportunity to supply suitable quotes from Calvin etc., but our Calvinism Index page gives many references etc., Thanks again, Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 10-2-09 You may not remember me but we have interacted in the past on Rose's blog. I have backed
off of posting comments on any blog but I still lurk around (it has been a year
since I quit). I have recently read an interesting post on a blog named EXTRA NOS (the blogger is Lutheran but
I'll give you more detail in a moment) titled Did
Jesus die for the sin of unbelief? In this article he makes the following
statement: "I notice that those who come from a Calvinistic background, and those
following John Owen's idea of Limited Atonement answers this in the affirmative.
So they say "Yes" Jesus died for the sin of rejecting the Gospel because there
is no sin that Jesus did not die for; because to say "No" (which the way I would
answer the question) means that there is some sin that Jesus left off undone and
that would be blasphemous. Jesus died for the sins of the elect (not the sins of
the whole world, so they say) and all the sins of the elect have been paid for
including - unbelief in the Gospel."
Of course there are comments following the article and I am not sure that
the commentators are fully understanding Calvinism. I may be wrong about
this because, I have to admit, that there is a lot of Calvinist doctrine that I
do not fully understand. However, I do think the comparison of Lutheran and
Calvinist soteriology is an interesting one. When I read this I thought that you may be able to give an interesting
perspective on this question. While we have disagreed on issues in the past I
have to say that you are very knowledgeable and I respect your opinion. As to the
EXTRA NOS blog, it is
ran by a Lutheran who now lives in Australia but was born in the Phillipines
into a Roman Catholic home. It does give him a unique perspective. Thank you. GW.
If we up the ante a little and
ask whether or not Jesus died for the sin of ultimate gospel rejection
i.e. chronic unbelief, then I would have to answer in the negative. In
fact, I would go further that if a thief dies and goes to hell, then
Christ did not even die an atoning death for his acts of theft or
indeed for any of his sins. Those sins were not taken away nor
remembered no more, but they still remain to damn the soul of that
Christ rejector and that is why he is in hell.
Our friend's blog (I ran my eye over the article, but not all of the
comments) suggests that the elect may ultimately abandon faith. That is
not something that I would be happy to write. Thanks again for renewing
contact. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 29-9-08 Here's a thought: Arminians, those of us in between, and Calvinists, are on
pretty equal ground when it comes to praying for someone's salvation. When a
Calvinist prays for someones salvation, unless they include something along the
lines of "if they are among the elect" they run the risk (according to their
theology) of praying for something that is contrary to Gods will. At least when
a believer in free will prays for someones salvation, they (according to their
theology) know that they are praying for something that God desires (even if the
person being prayed for does not). DS.
Hi. Thanks for your email. I am not sure how careful and precise you are being with your use of theological terms. Calvinists also believe that God also desires the salvation of the human race. Mr Calvin commented on John 3:16 "Both
points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings
life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father
loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." However,
Calvinists further recognise that God has not always followed through
His desires with the force of a decree and thus bring them to pass. He
does so regarding His own elect, but has decreed to justly abandon the
hell deserving reprobate in his chosen sin. Since the book of
God's decrees are not immediately open to the Christian (of whatever
stamp) but the Bible with its assurances of God's love and desire and
commands to pray for sinners etc., is readily available, then we may
(and must) pray for the salvation of all men.
Your last sentence heavily implies that a sinner owes his salvation to
a mere hope so attitude on the part of God which is further
strengthened by the sinner's own free will. Indeed, we are left
wondering whether the Christian should rather pray to the all powerful
sinner on this matter of salvation rather than to God who seems
to spend His days in some kind of anxiety wondering if He will be
accepted or not? Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 2-8-08 Dear Pastor Colin Maxwell, I have thought it over and
questions remains: You interpret the 'world' in John 3:16 to be
everyone in the world, every last man, woman, boy and girl ever born,
otherwise, you cannot consider the free offer of the salvation.
However, in 1 John 2:2, you have chosen to interpret differently as
stated in your reply below. What is the basis of interpreting
differently in these 2 places? While I am sure the word "world' does
not mean the same in all its use in the Bible, (again, as you have
stated with example 1 John 2:2 and John 12:19, below), we must be sure
why they should be interpreted differently and why they should be
interpreted the same in all its use; otherwise, we end up with the
difference such as in this case. As such, I need to know why you have
chosen to interpret the word 'world' differently in John 3:16 and 1
John 2:2, after all it is the same apostle who wrote the gospel of John
and the first epistle of John? In my opinion, the 'world' in 1 John 2:2
and John 12:19 cannot be the same meaning as they comes from different
persons, God (who inspired the Apostle John to write 1 John) and the
Pharisees. However, the word 'world' in John 3:16 and in 1 John 2:2 is
most likely to refer to the same meaning, simply because they both came
from the same person: God, who is telling us through the Apostle John.
I believe your answers to the above questions on the interpretation of
the word 'world', lies the key to my search for the truth! Again, thank
you very much for your time, God bless! Shalom, WL
Hi, Thank you for your continued
correspondence. Sorry for the delay in reply, but I was away from my
computer for a few weeks between holidays and work. Your point is
valid, but only to a point. (if you see what I mean!) Let me take 1
John 2:2 where Christ is said to have made propitiation for the sins of
the whole world which you interpret as every last person ever born. The
text itself does not admit of a possible or a conditional propitiation,
but of an actual one i.e. every last sin ever committed has been fully
paid for by the death of Christ. The guilt has been taken – the
punitive suffering and death due has been rendered and divine justice
is therefore satisfied. The case is closed – the law is silenced
because contented. I ask then: Why are there souls in hell? Why does
the Bible say “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness;” How can this be? If that ungodliness and
unrighteousness is sinful (and it is, since it calls down the wrath of
God against it) then did Christ not pay the price for it? If He did,
then evidently it was not sufficient to ward of the wrath of God for it
is still being revealed and people are still suffering for those same
sins in hell. If Christ’s sufficient was sufficient – then
God is stepping outside His own bounds of justice and reopening cases
that have been closed.
Anticipating in your reply, that
you will introduce the relevant subject of unbelief. The sinner rejects
the remedy for sin and so perishes in his unbelief. Is this unbelief a
sin? Of course it is. Did Christ die it for it or not? If He did, then
(for reasons given above) it cannot be punished, since Another
(according to you) has already borne its punishment. If it is not a
sin, why is it being punished? If Christ did not bear it, then He did
not die for all the sins of all men.
There is another powerful argument
that I could introduce, but I do not want to load this reply too much.
Sufficient to say, that I interpret the extent of the propitiation by
the effect it produces and that is the actual redemption of the church
which is drawn out of every tongue and nation etc., i.e. the world. I
would be interested in seeing what reply you give to these points that
I have raised. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 25-6-08 Dear Pastor Colin
Maxwell, Your answer really set me
thinking! While I think it over, I hope you do not mind telling me what you
interprets the follow verse: 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours
only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Thank you for your time, truly appreciate
it very much! God bless! Shalom, WL
Hi. Glad that you have found these matters challenging. I interpret the "our" here to be the Jews and the "whole world"
to be the Gentiles, thus showing the universal nature of the
propitiation. A similar line of thinking is seen in John 12:19 "The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him." Obviously here, "the whole world" does not mean every last man, woman, boy and girl ever born. This is further reinforced on the very next verse that tells us: "And there were certain Greeks [Gentiles] among them that came up to worship at the feast:" (v20) The word "world" is
put in contradistinction to the Jew. Please remember, that in 1 John
2:2, Christ actually is the propitiation for our sin. Those who hold to
an unlimited propitiation and atonement invariably end up making it
potential in order to avoid the consistent charge of Universalism.
Calvinists have no such need to weaken the force of Christ's
propitiation, which (we believe) accomplished 100% of that which it set
out to do i.e. take away the sin of the world. Thanks for writing
again. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 23-6-08 Dear Pastor Colin
Maxwell, Your answer [Note: See immediately below for context] seems to be
satisfactory at first, however, when I ponder further, your answer would be
satisfactory when you see it in the human side. But when you see it from God's
side of view, God certainly knows who are the non-elect and who are not, yet the
salvation message is offered to the non-elect, does this not make God
insincere? Shalom, WL
Hi.
Thanks for writing again. The sincerity of the offer (from any one's
point of view) does not depend on the response of the one to whom the
offer is made. The offer itself is simple: "Look and live" (to reduce it to its basic substance) and
all who so look i.e. in faith and repentance receive eternal life.
Where the sinner refuses to look (because of his own sinful
stubbornness) then he himself has no one to blame but himself.
The offer would only be insincere if it included a promise to help each and every sinner without exception overcome his sinful inability and embrace it. This is notably missing
from the offer itself. It is true that in election, God undertakes to
help sinners embrace the gospel and does so to those whom He graciously
elects, but (as said) there is no wide, sweeping statement to that end
in the gospel offer itself. Any sinner examining the gospel offer
should content himself with the "whosoever" end
of the package and conclude that he is included. It is not for him to
hold back on the thought of whether or not he is among the elect. Let
him cry unto the Lord in accordance with Romans 10:13 and then he will
be saved. Then he can draw personal comfort from the doctrine of election. I hope this helps. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 17-6-08
Dear Pastor Colin Maxwell,
I read some of your articles and found it to be Biblical and edifying.
There are not many such articles which one can find these days.
On the article "HAS GOD PURPOSED TO SAVE ANY
OTHER THAN HIS OWN ELECT?" While I am
convinced that God did not save all the world but only His elect, I am concerned
with some who said that God only intended to save only His elect. I am still
trying to understand the different between what you say "purposed" and "intend".
You may agree with me that if I say God only intended to save His elect and yet
the message of salvation is preached to elect and non-elect, then to the
non-elect, the message of salvation is not true to him, i.e. God has lied. To me
that is unimaginable! You see that is the reason for hyper-Calvinism? They saw
this inconsistency, that is why they change the "world" to the "world of elect"
and refused to tell any man that God love him so that he does not make
God insincere in offering the salvation to the non-elect?
I believe the God sincerely want to save all but due to some reason he did
not, definitely not due to His inability, but for some reasons only known by
Him. Shalom! WL.
Hi. Nice to hear from you. sorry
for the slight delay in reply to your email. I can see where you are
coming from here, but I can assure you that there is no deceit on God's
part when it comes to the free offer. In the free offer of the gospel,
God makes known His willingness to save not only any but every sinner
who personally applies to him (in repentance and faith) for salvation.
It is for the sinner to take God at His word, apply it to his own heart
(i.e. "I am a sinner and if I so apply, then I will find salvation for me.")
The problem only begins when you have a sinner taking God at His word
and finding that he is turned away. That just doesn't happen. Those who
will be seen at the last to be numbered among the reprobates will be
those who clung to their darling sins and in many cases either
neglected or scorned the gospel and who will deservedly perish in and
for their chosen sins. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 3-5-08 Dear friend and Brother in Christ Jesus, I have an acquaintance who has placed his main protest against the
Doctrines of Grace on John 1:9 (That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.) Does this verse support "free-will" for all men? My friend seems to think
so. What do you say? In Christ, FW
Hi FW. Thanks for your note. First
of all, John 1:9 doesn't even mention "freewill" (by which, I assume,
that your friend means sinful man's innate ability to overthrow the
shackles of sin and decide for Christ). If this verse means what
your friend says it does, then it would appear that no one told Paul
who makes it clear that the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be (Romans 8:7) - that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14) and that the unsaved are still to be identified as being of the night, [and] of darkness. (1 Thessalonians 5:5) No
one denies that the natural man does not have a conscience nor is able
to tell the difference between right and wrong. But this is a long way
from the free will teaching which I assume that your friend is
espousing. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 16-4-08 Good Afternoon Brother, I just started to read
some of your postings last night and today. I thank God for your love
that is shown in your responses. I have been studying the differences
between Calvinism and Arminianism and find many people on both sides
very mean spirited.They are right and everyone else is wrong and get
out of their way or else. What a shame to name the name of Christ and
to act in such a way. It makes me wonder if indeed they are on Christ's
side. As I continue to read your material, I know I will have questions
and look forward to your responses. It is like I found a treasure chest
of information. Once again I want to thank you for your love and
kindness that you show to others even if you do not get the same back. All for Him, WL
Hi, HL. Thanks for your kind words
which are appreciated. I'm glad that you find our resources here on the
Doctrines of Grace to be of help to you. I think the secret in any
doctrinal discussion like those on these pages to hold your views
firmly (assuming they are Biblical, of course) and be prepared to
discuss them amiably. Usually, you have to agree to differ, but that's
alright. There is only so much that can be done. Thanks again.
Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 29-3-08 Hello, Just reading your article on Calvinism - mainly to improve my understanding
of the issues. A couple of points about God's sovereignty (Point 1 under Calvinism Debate Simpified).
Nice
to hear from you. I hope that you were helped by reading the various
articles. Your questions below are good ones and written in a
respectable manner which is appreciated.
1) Everything that happens
is ordained by God - you ask the question as to what would be a viable
alternative? Consider the analogy of someone in charge of a business:
they are in overall control of the direction of the business (which in
my analogy would be a good profitable business) - so overall everything
works well and the business works and goes according the the manager's
plan. There may be issues on a day to day basis that do not work well
for the business or actions of individuals that have small negative
effects. The manager however does not control these actions or even
'ordain' these activities - but nevertheless is in overall control.
This seems to me to be one way in which every little thing that happens
is not necessarily the direct will of God, but His overall plan
will of course be worked out according to His will and sovereignty.
The Scripture itself points us to
the fact that even the little things are ordained of God. The sparrow
flying in the sky (or hopping along the ground) cannot fall outside our
Father's control, or the very hairs of our head being numbered etc.,
(Matthew 10:29-31) Another example is the casting of the lot into the
lap (Proverbs 16:33) I think it interesting that non Calvinist J.
Vernon McGee wrote of this verse: "God
is saying that you cannot even go to Las Vegas and throw the dice but
what He is there seeing how they come up." (Commentary on Esther)
2) How do you square the point that those who are not saved were never in
God's plan to be saved with the fact that it is God's will that none should
perish? From a brother in Christ, TJ
It seems to me that God has made
certain statements in His word but has not seen fit to back them up
with the power and authority of a decree. While He has no pleasure in
the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) - for He is not a cruel,
despotic, tyrant God - yet it is also evident that He has not dealt
with those in hell as He did with those in heaven who are saved purely
by His grace. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered: 13-2-08 Sir, I may have
done this before and if I have, forgive me. I
wanted to thank you for your Calvinisticindex web page. I've benefited so much from that and I thank you for
providing it. God's glory seeps out from every word and
link. God bless, Bob
Nice to hear from you, Bob. Glad that God is getting the glory through your encouragement and edification. Colin
*******************************************************
Answered 22-1-08 DEAR PASTOR COLIN MAXWELL; Greetings in the precious name of the Lord Jesus
Christ. This is just to comment about your comments about David Cloud's
assessment on Calvinism...Are we bound to be Calvinist or Biblicist to be a
born-again Christian? Why is it that there is much debate about these issues of
Calvinism or Armenianism when in fact apostle Paul instructed to follow only the
words of the prophets and the apostles? Is this not a manifestation of exalting
the teachings of men who are not apostles neither prophets of the the Lord of
the Scriptures and upholding the traditions of men? Who is Calvin and Armenius
compared to the men of God mentioned in the Scriptures? Why is John Calvin
teaching the teaching of Origen who is the father or doctor of Roman Catholicism
and believing in infant baptism and the universal church when these issues are
non-Biblical and not New Testament terminology? Why not stick to the Biblicist
position. Why is John Calvin's teaching created a great influence on the
ecumenical movement of the reformed churches and other Protestant churches who
are in the drift of global apostasy? Can you explain to me these
questions? I am writing a paper on Calvinism: its impact on
reformed theology and the Ecumenical movement. I need your comments about this
matter. Thank you very much for your help. In Christ's holy service, Pastor OOC
Hi. Thank you for your note. You
ask a lot of questions here, so you will need to be content with one
line answers, which in many cases will suffice. [i] Your question
regarding being a Biblicist or
a Calvinist is blatantly loaded. I accept that Calvinism is a man made
label, but in its purist form, it is Biblicist (Which, incidentally, is
another man made term.) [ii] The debate between Calvinism and Armininianism (Not Armenianism) is over the interpretation of certain passages and verses of Scripture., not least Romans 9 etc., I don't see what "the traditions of men" have got to do with it. [iii] Unsure as to what you mean by the "men of God mentioned in the Scriptures" in making a comparison with Calvin and Arminius. If you mean the inspired writings of
the Apostles vs the mere thoughts of Calvin/Arminius, then obviously
the inspired writings must and do take precedent. But if Calvin and
Arminius bring forth Biblical
thoughts, then we cannot dismiss what they are saying. [iv] I think you
are mixing up Origen with Augustine whom Calvin frequently quotes,
although not always favourably. To state the obvious, Calvin only
quoted anyone favourably when he judged what they had to say as being
Scriptural. With all his flaws, Augustine often produced good theology
and this was worth quoting. [v] The Evangelical church is divided over
the matter of infant baptism and the universal church idea and it is
debatable among good men as to which constitutes the Biblicist position
as you simplicitly put it. [v] Your charge that Calvin's teaching is
highly influential in global apostasy is a bit wide eyed. You can
certainly see the David Cloud influence there. Those who are ecumenical
would do well to obtain the deep respect which Calvin had for the
Scriptures. Calvin loathed the doctrines of the church of Rome,
especially her so called "free will" teaching (embraced by Cloud and
others) which only serves to elevate the sinner and panders to the
fleshly desires of his wicked heart.
In closing, I respectfully suggest that any paper you are attempting to
write would need to be a little more objective in your research. Loaded
questions are quickly seen for what they are. Regards, Colin
*******************************************************
Answered 31-12-07 Hello, I've been reading with great interest your comparisons of
Calvinism with the opposite teachings. I am still reading and studying, but
one thing I am really struggling with is the Assurance of Salvation. I have
believed myself to be saved for years and years. However, under Calvinism
it's possible that I am not one of the elect. Maybe God didn't elect me to
be saved and I only think I am. This is my biggest hurdle to what Calvinism
teaches. How can anybody have assurance of salvation? How can anybody
KNOW that they have really been called by God? If you have thoughts on
this I would love to hear it. Thank you...JA
Hi. Thank you for your email to
us. You write about a very important matter and yet something that is
reasonably simple to answer. First of all, under Evangelical
Christianity as a whole, it
is possible that someone may not be elect. It is not a peculiar tent of
Calvinism, any more than Evangelical non Calvinism. That said, the
Apostles addressed their letters to the elect - Peter does so in his
first epistle (1:2) while Paul exhorts the Colossians "as the elect of God" (3:12) so
election was something that could be known and enjoyed in their day,
and therefore in ours. The elect are known by something very easy to
distinguish i.e. the fact that they have come in repentance and faith
to Jesus Christ for salvation. This is seen, for example, in John 6:37
where Jesus said: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37) If we have come to Christ for salvation, then we have been given to Christ by the Father - another way
of saying that we have been elect. Again, it says in Romans 8:29-31
that those who are predestinated unto salvation are called and those
who are called are justified. The evidence of justification is
conformity to the likeness of His Son. It does not say that this
likeness is complete and we should not look for sinless perfection (in
this life) but if the evidences of the new birth are there i.e. we can
say that we love God and the brethren etc., (as outlined in 1 John)
then we may conclude, on the basis of Scripture, that we are
indeed elect.
Election concerns the decree of God. This is largely something that is
hidden from us. Our guiding star is not that which is hidden to our
eyes, but that which is revealed i.e. the written word of God. The
Bible is breath takingly simple about this. It simply says: "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13) That word "whosoever" cannot be narrowed or watered down. Therefore my warrant
to call upon the name of the Lord is not based on a decree which I
cannot see, but on a promise written on the pages of Holy Writ for me, - for me, not even as an elect sinner, but just simply as a sinner. Therefore
I call upon His name and I AM saved and since I am saved, I am among
the elect, for they are the ones who actually call. Any man who casts
his soul in faith upon the promises of the gospel will enjoy assurance
of salvation. I hope this helps. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 24-11-07: Dear Brother Maxwell, Is Arminianism a heresy? Would you consider
Arminians among the elect? I am asking this because some consider Arminianism a
heresy and that it leads people away from Christ rather than to Christ. I was
brought to Christ through Arminians. What are your thoughts? Thanks and God Bless! Dave.
Hi Dave, While I consider
Arminianism to be a serious compromise of the gospel - a severe
watering down - I do not consider it to be strictly speaking heretical,
at least in the sense whereby I would feel that I should separate from
those who hold it. Yes, I do consider Arminians to be among the elect.
(I was, broadly speaking, Arminian myself even after my salvation.)
Arminians generally preach more for Christ than against Him. John
Wesley was a noted Arminian evangelist who led thousands to Christ
through his amazing ministry. There are many fine Christians who hold
to broad Arminian views (with the possible exception of the loss of
salvation) and I am (for I have little choice) happy to tolerate their Arminian views if they hold them within their own fellowships. I would not, however, tolerate it within my own church and would seek to keep it at bay as much as I can. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 19-11-07: JOHN CALVIN ON THE CAUSE OF
DAMNATION: "Accordingly, we
should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of
humanity - which is closer to us - than seek a hidden and utterly
incomprehensible cause in God's predestination." (Institutes
3:23:8)
CH SPURGEON ON THE CAUSE OF
DAMNATION: "No man who is lost
will ever be able to blame God’s sovereignty for it. The man that perishes shall
justly perish because of his sins; and in hell, this shall be to him the pang of
pangs, that he cannot reproach God, but that his damnation lieth at his own door
since he incensed the justice of God, which must punish him for his
sin."
These statements are absurd. What difference does it make to a man who is
in hell for eternity whether it was him who is responsible or God who is
responsible? RJ.
Thank you for
your email, although I am unsure where you are coming from on these
matters, since you simply barge in with your judgment, followed
by your question. The question itself is easily answered. It makes a
lot of a difference to a man who is in hell whether he is
responsible for it or not. It adds to his misery that he has subjected
his soul to eternal suffering because he chose to indulge it in sin
while here on earth. The Lord Jesus said that it would be more
tolerable for Sodom and Gormorrah than for those who despised their
great gospel privileges. Another thought as well: If God is responsible
for men being in hell, then He is not the God that He portrays Himself
to be on the pages of the Bible and that has consequences for us all.
Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered:
8-11-07 [See previous entry first] Perhaps you could talk more of why
an elect would have regrets? Also, what you’re your thoughts on
libertarian free will? I had always thought that it did not exist, but
recently someone had made a case for both God’s foreknowledge and
man’s libertarian free will being compatible. The argument goes
something like this “will happen” {certainty} is not the
same as “must happen” {necessity}. The main proponent of
this theory is Dr. Robert E. Picirilli. Your thoughts would be greatly
appreciated. Paul.
The verse that came to my mind
which probably shows the greatest sign of regret in the heart of one of
the elect is where Paul laments that he is a wretched man (Romans 7:23)
and reproaches himself for doing things which he would rather not have
done. Here he acknowledges clearly that he transgressed the written
word of God, which is to be our guiding star in all things, no matter
else what happens. We are all aware that we could love Christ more and
serve Him better and it is a cause of regret that we have allowed a
sluggish and worldly spirit to detract from our efforts to please Him.
(Not to be understood in any legalistic way.) Likewise when Peter
denied Christ etc., It would be improper for Christians not to have
regrets over such incidents. That God ordained them to happen does not
detract from our responsibility in that we act also freely and
therefore feel the guilt more. If you are asking me where God's
sovereignty and man's responsibility meet, the simple answer is "I do not know" and furthermore, I do not need to know. I do know my responsibilities and it is enough for me to try and meet them by the help of the Spirit of God.
Re: the difference between something being certain as opposed to being
necessary, I would need to think on that one! There is a wealth of
loose cords hanging in there. An alcoholic who spends his time at the
bar may conclude that it is certain that he will succumb to the temptation to drink, even if he has signed the pledge. But he has no grounds to say that he must necessarily
do so. To go back to Luke 22:22, was it both certain and necessary for
Christ to go to the Cross? Yes, if we would be saved. Was it both
certain and necessary that Judas be the traitor? Hmmmm! At the risk of
incurring someone's wrath somewhere, I would say that it was certain, but not necessary.
Certainly when the dark deed was done, Judas did not seek to hide in
the decree of God but blamed himself. Certainly Judas could not
read anywhere in the word of God (especially in Psalm 55 and Psalm 69
etc.,) and say; "I must, by necessity, fulfill that role." Something for me to think about.. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered
7-11-07 I was hoping you could answer a question about regrets. If
Calvinism were true why would man have regrets? I mean we are only
doing what God has decreed from the beginning so why should I regret
anything? Why regret something that I could not avoid doing, am I not
just doing what has been eternally decreed by God himself? Any help on
the matter would be appreciated. Thanks, Paul.
Hi Paul. Nice to hear from you. I
appreciate you writing. Your question is a good one and logical, but
only as far as it goes. Men have room to have regrets because running
alongside the doctrine of God's sovereignty is the equally important
and equally forceful doctrine of man's responsibility. Any interpreting
of God's sovereignty must be viewed through the glasses of man's
responsibility. God's sovereignty does not negate my obligations and I
am often left confessing my
sin and therefore my responsibility in the matter. We both know
that the Lord Jesus went to the Cross as it was written of Him (Luke
22:22) yet it would be better for the man that betrayed Him
(Judas) had he never been born. Was Judas right to have regrets? We
would both answer in the affirmative, yet the deed in which he
willingly played his part had been decreed from all eternity. Calvin
rightly observes on this incident: "And
yet Christ does not affirm that Judas was freed from blame, on the
ground that he did nothing but what God had appointed. For though God,
by his righteous judgment, appointed for the price of our redemption
the death of his Son, yet nevertheless, Judas, in betraying Christ,
brought upon himself righteous condemnation, because he was full of
treachery and avarice. In short, God’s determination that the
world should be redeemed, does not at all interfere with Judas being a
wicked traitor. Hence we perceive, that though men can do nothing but
what God has appointed, still this does not free them from
condemnation, when they are led by a wicked desire to sin. For though
God directs them, by an unseen bridle, to an end which is unknown to
them, nothing is farther from their intention than to obey his decrees.
Those two principles, no doubt, appear to human reason to be
inconsistent with each other, that God regulates the affairs of men by
his Providence in such a manner, that nothing is done but by his will
and command, and yet he damns the reprobate, by whom he has carried
into execution what he intended. But we see how Christ, in this
passage, reconciles both, by pronouncing a curse on Judas, though what
he contrived against God had been appointed by God; not that
Judas’s act of betraying ought strictly to be called the work of
God, but because God turned the treachery of Judas so as to accomplish His own purpose." It
is a recognised maxim in Scripture that when good is done, God gets all
the glory. When evil is done, man takes all the blame and surely he
must have regrets for his own evil - and not only regrets, but
repentance for the same. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 31-08-07 Salvation is always by free grace: Not true. IF Salvation was by "free
grace" the whole world IS saved. Salvation is always by "grace through
faith". Ephesians 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through
faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- " Indeed
grace IS a gift of God - but NOT EVERYONE HAS FAITH. Please don't add words
to the Bible.
Hi. Thank you for your email,
although I think it is a bit OTT. However, your charges are easily
refuted and will not delay me long here. I assume that you would
brand Jonah as a deceiver and charge him with adding words to the
Bible when he declared that "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9) I
have never denied that salvation is by grace through faith.
Furthermore, even the faith that saves must be attributed to the grace
of God, for we read of those in Acts 18:27 who "believed through grace." We are not saved by grace plus faith, but (as you say) by grace through faith and therefore the faith is already encompassed in the saving grace of which I speak.
Calvinists should not be so self-centered with love only for
the assurance of everlasting life - but seemingly no love for "lost souls"
which are destined for hell. John Calvin proved this hate by burning
innocent people at the stake - even women and children.
Your allegation about Calvinists is so broad as to be utterly worthless. In fact, it barely rises more
than a rant. I know of no Calvinist today who excuses any of Calvin's
faults. To produce the sins of one man who lived 500 years ago as proof (!) about
the evangelistic desires of millions of Calvinists who have helped
populate the mission fields of the world since, I think, tells us how
low you set the standard of any kind of justice.
As a Christian, I
humble myself before God with the greatest of all - love.
To be perfectly honest about it,
your talk about your humility and love does not measure up to the
contents of this email. You come on without one word of greeting, throw
round you base and untrue allegations, damn the whole school of
Calvinists on the sinful failings of one of their number and leave
quoting us verses about adding or taking away from the Scripture. Is
this humility and love and that before God?
Please end the
deception of quoting scripture out of context and ignoring other verses such
as, "I stand at the door and knock." Are we NOT to answer His
call?
I preached on this text a few
months ago and urged the unsaved gathered to open their heart's door
and admit the Saviour. Calvinistic commentator, Matthew Henry, writes
on this verse: "Behold, I stand at
the door and knock, etc., Rev_3:20. Here observe, [1.] Christ is
graciously pleased by his word and Spirit to come to the door of the
heart of sinners; he draws near to them in a way of mercy, ready to
make them a kind visit. [2.] He finds this door shut against him; the
heart of man is by nature shut up against Christ by ignorance,
unbelief, sinful prejudices. [3.] When he finds the heart shut, he does
not immediately withdraw, but he waits to be gracious, even till his
head be filled with the dew. [4.] He uses all proper means to awaken
sinners, and to cause them to open to him: he calls by his word, he
knocks by the impulses of his Spirit upon their conscience. [5.] Those
who open to him shall enjoy his presence, to their great comfort and
advantage. He will sup with them; he will accept of what is good in
them; he will eat his pleasant fruit; and he will bring the best part
of the entertainment with him. If what he finds would make but a poor
feast, what he brings will make up the deficiency: he will give fresh
supplies of graces and comforts, and thereby stir up fresh actings of
faith, and love, and delight; and in all this Christ and his repenting
people will enjoy pleasant communion with each other. Alas! what do
careless obstinate sinners lose by refusing to open the door of the
heart to Christ!" I do not presently have the time to peruse
what other Calvinist writers have said or written on this verse, but
you really should take your baseless and untrue allegations back. Yes,
we are to ARE to answer the call. No Calvinist says otherwise and you
fail to produce any evidence (or proof) otherwise.
Revelation 22 (NASB) 18 I testify to everyone who hears the
words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to
him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes
away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part
from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Gander.
The Bible gives us many warnings,
which of course, are applicable to every child of God, not least those
who believe themselves to be shining examples of love and humility
before Him. Anyway, thanks for writing. Maybe next time, we can engage
in a more amiable discussion. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 28-08-07 Colin,
I
know that you are solid in your faith and also that you have many
dialogues with people on doctrine, so I have a question for you. I have
a new friend who has been a Christian for a long time, and most of
that time attended a solid church. As I said, though, I’ve
just befriended him in the last year. Every time I get with this
friend, he brings up doctrinal differences that he has with
various people, including former pastors and teachers. He is quite
adamant about the finer points of reformed doctrine and has no
grace toward people who might consider themselves *4-point* Calvinists for instance. Now I
happen to agree that it seems an inconsistency, but I still wouldn’t consider
such a person a false teacher. He is also adamant about how the law is to
function in the life of the Christian, and is very vocal against anyone
who teaches that we are no longer under the law. He acknowledges that we are
not under the law for salvation, but it is still a must in the Christian life.
This issue in particular I am new to, but I just do not have the energy at this
time in my life to research what he is saying to see if it is right or wrong.
At this point, I trust my pastor and teachers at my church on the
issue. I
am at a loss. I do not know how to deal with this friendship. So far, I
have tried to redirect the conversation, I have tried bringing some
balance to the statements which he makes, and I have tried just
ignoring him. It almost seems an obsession. And like I said, it happens
every time we meet, and so it is very discouraging to me right now for
a number of reasons. Overall, I feel a conviction that
Christians ought to encourage one another etc., talk about their
love for the Lord and point one another to Him. We ought not be arguing
and striving about doctrine and such. I also feel that we ought to be
in submission to our leaders (unless they really are in serious error)
and that it is wrong to confront them and/or talk about them in a
questioning way regarding every jot and tittle that we may disagree on.
What would you advise? J.
Hi. I appreciate you writing and I
can understand your problem. I think we have an example here of how we
can have the doctrines of grace, but not the grace of the doctrines!
Christians enjoy differing levels of sanctification (although we all
enjoy 100% perfect and unflucuating justifciation in Christ) and this
shows itself in many various situations. Here the issue seems to be
about how we treat other believers who do not quite see eye to eye with
us on what we might call non fundamental doctrines. Basically, we have
to learn to tolerate in others what we would not tolerate in
ourselves. Why bring up our disagreements when there is so much that we
do agree on and especially concerning the wonderful person of our Lord
Jesus Christ? While I am all for doctrinal purity, I think it is only a means to an end i.e.
devotion to Christ. There might well be an issue here with the fact
that he is an old person and probably set in his ways. As well as
prayer for him, if I were you, I would seek to come across (in a cheery
manner) the fact that Evangelical Christians should enjoy close
fellowship with one another and that more unites Evangelical Christians
than divides them. We cannot go through this short life on this earth
always bemoaning the failures others. Another thought is, of course, is
that he should acknowledge that he himself doesn't know it all
either and that there are probably Christians who could look at him and
"tut tut" at his weaknesses, yet nevertheless treat him with respect. Again, even if he was right in all his doctrine, is it showing through in his life where it matters? Truly, knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth (1 Corinthians 8:1) You are right about obeying our leaders, unless they are seriously leading us astray.
Regarding the Christian and the law, it is true that the law is a rule of life
to the Christian i.e. as seen in the Ten Commandments. This is on
the basis that the Commandments are obligatory upon the whole human
race and Christians do not cease to be human. We seek to keep the law
because we are saved by grace alone in order to serve God. The
indwelling Spirit of God enables us to keep the law - true, not
perfectly, but nevertheless, we seek to obey God in the things that are
written there. It should also be said that the whole Bible is
the rule of life for the Christian and not merely (but certainy
not excluding) the Ten Commandments. I hope this helps. In
Christ, Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 10-08-07 Dear Colin,
I recently received this from an "Arminian" pastor of a Baptist Church. How
would you answer him regarding the scripture references he raises? Paul. Letter as follows in ilatics within boxed italics...my reply in Red.
[Dear Paul, I understand the conflict re the trust deed and accept
that. However I am sad to read the rest of your letter.
God chooses
people - the Bible is clear and that cannot be denied - I believe it with all
my heart! God knows everything - He knows WHO will be in Heaven and who will
not. Some Christians of Calvinistic beliefs (and I guess you are one) believe
being Chosen refers to Salvation. I beg to differ as I see the Word of God
and "being chosen referring to Service NOT Salvation".As I see the Word of
God, there is no mention of salvation when God speaks of Election - but
foreknowledge and being conformed to be like Christ!
If we believe God
chooses some for salvation and not others, there is Great difficulty over
many verses in Scripture - 1.Timothy 2 vs 3 and 4 "God Our Saviour who
desires ALL men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" John 5
vs 40 Jesus says "You are NOT WILLING TO COME TO ME THAT YOU MAY HAVE LIFE" -
No cannot but WILL NOT! 2.Peter 3 vs 9 - John 3 vs 16
etc.
HOWEVER- God has not made us uniform and we all see things
differently re: God's Word but trust we stand together in the Gospel! (and let
the Lord sort the rest out!) Every blessing in all your future labours
for Christ! We may not quite agree but we will meet in Heaven! Keep preaching
Jesus Christ and Him Crucified!"]
Hi Paul. Thanks for writing. Your
pastor friend, whose seems a nice enough person, judging from his
eirenical remarks in closing, is wrong to say that the Bible does not
speak about being chosen to salvation. Two verses which come to mind
are Acts 13:48 where it speaks of those who were ordained (i.e. chosen)
to eternal life believing. Secondly, we are chosen in Christ to be holy
(Ephesians 1:4) Salvation is much more than being saved from the fire
of hell. Salvation is as much about being saved from the power of sin as it is being saved from the penalty
of sin. In 1 Timothy 2:3-4, the "willeth" and the "all men" need to be
discerned. "All men" can refer to "all kinds of men" and still be
grammatically and doctrinally correct. It is actually decided by the
extent that God has willed their salvation. If it is with the force of
a decree, then the "all men" wil be saved, because what God wills (with
the force of a decree) God gets: Psalm 33:9-10. If it is a general
willing (denoting His common grace) then it may be said to apply to all
men without exception. The argument that John 5:40 has "will not" as
opposed to "cannot" is a very weak argument, as the stronger word is
used elsewhere: John 6:44/65 along with 1 Corinthians 2:14 etc., As
your pastor friend points out, it is unlikely that these things wil be
sorted out on earth and we should therefore stand together on the
fundamentals of the gospel, even if we disagree on the outworking of
those same fundamentals. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-08-07 Here is a
suggestion for David Cloud, David Hunt and Colin Maxwell. Get back to
the Bible, the very word of God, and all the confusion on Calvinism
will be solved. The Bible is God's Word; believe it to be saved and
continue in in to be sure. The Corinthians were followers of men, and
God called them "carnal." MH
Hi. Thanks for your comments,
which sound good, but really have very little depth or meaning to them.
Cloud himself in his sermon "Calvinism, who is the enemy?"
(reviewed here) repeatedly stated "I just believe the Bible"
but failed (in my view) to show where Calvinism is wrong. I "just
believe the Bible" too, but I radically disagree with Cloud (and
Hunt's) man centered emphasis on the gospel. Therefore your exhortation
is meaningless. Your comments re: the Corinthians would be most apt, if
we were indeed followers of men, but we are not. As I have often
written, the name Calvinist is only a label, used first (I think) by
our opponents. I personally don't have a hang up about labels and use
it only for convenience sake. Thanks anyway for writing. Colin,
*******************************************************
Answered 7-08-07 I don't disagree with Calvinism at all. I am going through a tough time in
my life and I wonder if I'm really God's elect. Better to beat myself up in
truth than be pleasured in lies. The latter is just a big
disappointment. JB.
Hi. Thanks for writing. I'm sorry
to hear of your present struggles in your life. I suggest to you
that your worries about whether or not you are "really one of God's elect"
is a misplaced worry. Are you a sinner? (Yes) Does the gospel
invite sinners to be saved? (Yes: Whosoever will may come:
Revelation 22:17) Have you or are you prepared to come to Christ
alone for salvation? If the answer is "yes" then you be assured that
you are among the elect, for they alone are those who come. It really
is that simple as that. Colin
*******************************************************
Answered 25-07-07 Dear Brother Maxwell, Could you please help me understand this scripture from a Calvinistic perspective? 1Timothy
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils; If unconditional election is
true, then why does it say that some will fall away from the
faith? Were these people who fell away from the faith ever saved
to begin with? Thanks and God Bless, Dave.
Hi. Thanks for your email and
query. The commentators, including noted Arminians such as John Welsey
and Adam Clarke, agree that "the faith" from which some shall depart is
objective i.e. the body of doctrine to be believed (as in Jude 3) rather than the subjective i.e. the trust that saves. The
elect cannot be fatally deceived, as Mark 13:22 makes clear, along with
all those many verses which teach eternal security e.g. John 10:28
etc., Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 26-06-07 Dear Brother Maxwell, could you help me understand the following
explanation of Romans 8:29-31 made by http://www.afcministry.com/Calvinism_unconditional_election.htm.
Thanks and God Bless!
"29 For those whom He
foreknew, He also
predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that
He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom
He predestined, He also
called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He
justified, He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-31) These
verses clearly state that those who are predestined are those whom God foreknew
and that they were predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.
Calvinists teach that "foreknew" does not mean those whom God knew would choose
Him but rather those God ordained to eternal life by His own decision. It is
clear from the English that "foreknew" indicates a knowledge of something in
advance. What is the Greek word and definition of "foreknew" here? The Greek
word is "Proginosko" which means, "to perceive or recognize beforehand." DS
Hi, thanks for your two emails. If the Greek word "proginosko" is taken to simply mean "know beforehand"
in the sense of prescience, then it carries no evangelical meaning at
all, because God knows everyone and everything beforehand - there is
nothing outside His divine knowledge, past, present and future. Non
Calvinists interject their particular brand of election into the verse and move from God foreknowing individuals (which Paul is getting at) to God foreknowing information about individuals.
The Non Calvinist tenancy is always to water down the gospel and
elevate man's part e.g. they reduce Christ's mission from coming
to save the lost to merely making the lost savable. Here, according to
them, the Lord merely knows what man is going to do and makes man's
contribution the principal grounds of election. I repudiate that
position completely. The Greek word is correctly translated as
"foreordained" in 1 Peter 1:20, signifying the sovereign (and gracious)
choice of God.
*******************************************************
Answered 26-06-07 Dear Colin, may I have your thoughts on this paragraph? Thank
you! Arminianism vs. Calvinism by Mike
Stine
Arminianism was started by Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). He
was born slightly before John Calvin died and was actually taught by Calvin's
son-in-law. He was a Calvinist until one day when forced to defend his beliefs
and found that his opponent could more ably defend his views against Calvinism.
This caused Arminius to reject his Calvinistic background and "sought to modify
Calvinism so that 'God might not be considered the author of sin, nor man an
automation in the hands of God.'" DS
This
presupposes that Calvinism teaches that God is the author of sin and
that man is a robot in the Divine hands. Both of what Calvinism is very
careful to repudiate. Although Calvinists cannot understand every
working of God, we maintain two great Bible truths i.e. that God is
absolutely sovereign and man is absolutely free to follow the dictates
of his own will (which is in bondage to sin) and is totally responsible
for his actions. If Arminius was setting out to refute Hyper Calvinism,
it would be a different story. Hyper Calvinism is fatalistic since it
reduces man's responsibility and practically takes the use of means out
of the equation. Arminius (and his later followers) create their own
problems by the answers they supposedly supplied to answer those of
Calvinists. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 8-06-07 Dear Colin, In 1 John 2:1-2 he states "My
little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if
any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours
only, but also for [the sins of the whole world" It seems to
state that Jesus advocating is not only for those born-again but also
for those who haven't repented. A Calvinist I know claimed the
words ".. and not for our only.." referred to the Jews and the phrase "..but also for [the sins of] the whole world.." referred to Gentiles. This doesn't seem to make sense to me, compare with the following: John 3:16 "For
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" Clearly "world" in John 3:16 means Jew, Gentiles, everyone. With regards, GB
Hi. Thanks for your email. I think we need to agree that the Lord Jesus gets
whatever He asks for in His position as Advocate with the Father.
Otherwise, He is obviously praying outside the will of God and that
would be a sin. Furthermore, failure to
get what He requests would result in a frustrated and
unsuccessful Saviour, instead of the Perfect Saviour which He is set
forth as in the Bible. So if we have the Lord Jesus pleading
(say) for certain individuals to be saved and they live and die in
their sins, then He has signally failed and not only once, but again
and again and again. Depending on your view as to whether there
will be more people in Hell than in Heaven (not a distinctly
Calvinistic issue) then you might be faced with a greater failure than
success rate. But one failure is enough to mar the all glorious Saviour
whom we are faced with each time we lift our Bibles.
It is true to say that the Lord Jesus prays for unregenerate people. He
himself indicated that He would in John 17:20 where He said: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word"
i.e. for those yet unborn in future generations who would be born in
sin, live in sin, hear the gospel, repent and believe the word and be
saved. People who repent do so through the goodness of God (Romans
2:4) and that goodness comes to them through the pleading of the Lord
Jesus in Heaven.
Your Calvinist friend is correct in his interpretation of 1 John 2:1-2,
otherwise you have many problems with an atonement that doesn't
actually atone, or if it did, you have the problem of a God who got the
full price of sin, but is extracting that price again and again. Click here
to see other problems associated with unlimited atonement. The issue in
John 3:16 (in my view) is not if God loves every last sinner ever born
(I maintain that He does) but rather the degree of that love. God loves
His elect with a special love that effectually ensures their
salvation. If the "so loved" of John 3:16 includes a love that effectually ensures salvation, then "the world" will be a world without distinction i.e. "Jew and Gentile" On the other hand, if this love falls short of this, then we may indeed view "the world" here as that wider constituency i.e. without exception.
Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 22-05-07 Dear Brother Maxwell, I have a statement made
by Jeff Paton that I would like your thoughts on. Here it
is: "One thing that I find most amazing is the way that Calvinism
approaches some difficulties. For example: If God limits the atonement to the
elect, and those that are "chosen" are not selected by anything within
themselves, for God is no respecter of persons; then what happens to
babies that die? Well, based upon their theory, they are either elect or they
are not. God cannot base His election on their infancy since that would make Him
a respecter of persons. So, the God of "love" chooses to torment little babies
for eternity in a fiery hell! If God is the "cause" of "everything" then
is He not the "cause" of sin? Doesn't He have to "will' sin for it to
exist? Wouldn't that make God evil?" Thanks for your help, God
Bless! DS
Hi,
thanks for your note. The critic raises a number of points here. The
Bible has very little to say directly about people dying in infancy.
This leaves us trying to apply general principles e.g. that God is rich
in mercy and delights in the same and therefore it is my belief (as
generally shared among Calvinists) that all who die in infancy are
among the elect. It is not a matter of God basing his election on their
infancy. No Calvinist believes that and so the critic is simply
building and demolishing a straw man. The elect will eventually
experience death one way or another and at one time or another. Those
elect infants have simply experienced it before the years of
accountability. We not only refute, but repudiate and abominate, the
claim that "the God of "love" chooses to torment little babies
for eternity in a fiery hell!" The
critic comes from that breed of criticism that obviously does not see
the need to back up his arguments with verifiable quotes, which would
enable us to distinguish whether we are dealing with authentic
Calvinistic claims or the lurid imaginations of a critic's mind. We can
only conclude the latter in this case.
On the matter of God being the cause of everything and therefore sin,
the problem alluded to is one which Christians of all schools must
struggle with. That God created the world knowing that sin would invade
it is beyond doubt. That He had the power (and continues to have the
power) to stop it is also clear. But He didn't and still declines
to do so. Does that make God evil? It is no answer to say that man's
sin, caused by his voluntary decisions, has brought sin into the world.
That is, of course, true but still God knew that this would be the case
and yet still freely chose that this would be the path that was to be
trod. God Himself is absolutely holy and can use sinful deeds in a
sinless way to further His own righteous ends. If the critic here is
trying to splatter mud on Calvinists by his argument, then he only
succeeds in splattering himself, unless he belongs to the atheistic
school. Thanks for writing.
You sent a whole host of other questions in another email which I
cannot afford the time to answer. Suffice to say this: Man has a
responsibility to seek and choose God etc., Although sin has robbed him
of the ability to do so, yet it cannot rob him of the responsibility.
Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 19-05-07 Brother Maxwell, I have a question for you regarding a statement made by
Cooper Abrams in opposing Calvinism. Could you help me understand his
argument? "The Great Commission "to go into all the
world and teach the Gospel" loses its purpose in Calvinistic teaching. Why teach
salvation too all the world if God is going to save the elect anyway? The
Calvinist again counters by saying that God commands us to preach the Gospel and
that is God's method to reach the elect. Again, this is an example of the
failure of human reasoning. If the Bible teaches we are to tell all men
everywhere they can be saved by trusting in Christ Jesus and God in fact has
limited the offer to only a select few, then we become liars and God is sending
us with a tainted message! Please excuse the redundancy in making this statement
again, but it is a lie to stand before an audience and preach that God will save
them if they will believe and put their trust in Jesus Christ, if God has
elected that some of them cannot respond! God is not the author of lies....Satan
is the author of the sin of lying (John 8:44)." DS
Hi. Abrams' reasoning is sound enough, but only if his statement re: Calvinism is true...and it isn't
on two points: [i] The offer of the gospel is not limited to a select
few, but is to be preached to everyman, whether elect or not. As Calvin
himself puts it: "The gospel is preached indiscriminately to the
elect and to the reprobate…" (Commentary on Isaiah) Many are called, but few are chosen. Reprobation is simply God passing some by and leaving them to their chosen sins. The "cannot"
responsibility belongs to the soul destroying sin which the reprobate
has chosen to love and serve, hence his condemnation (John 3:19) It
does not belong to God and therefore He, and those who seek to defend
his ways, cannot be indicted. It is true that God is not the author of
lies, but rather Satan, but it is wrong to imply that Calvinists are
peddling lies when we are doing anything but. No man has ever sought
God in faith and failed to find Him true to His word. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 18-05-07 Hello again, Mr. Maxwell, I'm sure by now that you'll be aware of my
penchant for pedantry... I wouldn't mention it if it didn't seem important, but
in your Calvinistic Emails you said: "Some of those who accuse us of believing
it also believe in eternal security where no man professing faith in Christ can
be lost. (As we do too)" I don't think you believe that a simple profession of
faith makes anyone eternally secure. Also, thank you for taking the time
to debate the Doctrines of Grace with me. You're right that we must accept what
the Word teaches, no matter what problems it may seem to cause to any
system. Blessings, J.
Hi. Nice to hear from you again.
The point that I was asking back there on the 6-5-07 is that some
folk accuse us of teaching holy violence when we preach irresistible
grace, yet themselves believe that God (effectively) keeps people in
the state of salvation. This is what we also believe, but if one is
being attributed to holy violence, then it is but reasonable to
attribute the other also to the same cause. As to a simple profession
of faith, it depends what you mean by this. If you mean a mere mental
acknowledgment, void of a heart faith and repentance, then the answer
must be negative i.e. I do not believe that. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 18-05-07 Hi Colin, Thanks for the reply. One thing people fail to
understand is that people's lives reflect the decree made regarding their
election or reprobation. On the one hand someone is going to hell because he's a
sodomite, on the other hand he's a sodomite because he's going to hell, ie giving
evidence of God's hatred to him/reprobation. That is what Phelps is trying to convey - you are a
homosexual because God reprobated you. Should you listen to that debate you'll find Phelps
explaining that one can't understand God' love unless you understand his hate -
Mal 1 Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith
the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, Mal
1:3 And I hated Esau
Hi.
Thanks for your note. I don't accept that the fact that Sodomites are
sinners because of the decree of God. That makes God the author of
their sin and constitutes blasphemy. The decree of God does not
make men sinners, but deals with them as sinners. Phelps, and by
extension yourself, seem to think that all Sodomites are reprobates.
This is not the case as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and other cases prove. I
accept that the perception of the love of God is heightened
by the fact that others do not share that love.
The Arminian lie that God loves everyone which is sending
billions of souls to hell, can only be exposed by telling people of God's hate.
I never in my life knew about God's hate, because no one ever mentioned it until
I heard it from pastor Phelps. You never "examine yourself" if you think God by
default loves you. Only when you know that He loves only a few, and them He
gives holy lives, do you take a serious look at your life, ie start fighting
your self-righteousness. That was my experience in any case. And that's why no
Arminian could possibly be saved, because he doesn't have this most
humbling truth on the subject that God doesn't necessarily love you. Pastor
Phelps puts the filthy lives of people to Bible examination and reaches one
conclusion - God hates you. Some it will humble, but in most cases that is 100%
true, and only serves to harden them, giving further evidence of their
status. Kind regards, D
The Apostle Paul did not come to the one conclusion that God hates filthy people. He taught that "Christ died for the ungodly" (Romans 5:6)
The Lord Jesus gave sinners every hope that they were loved in that He
emphasised that it was for such that He came to call to repentance
(Luke 5:21-32) To keep pounding a man with the thought that God
automatically hates him because his lifestyle is sinful, only to change
the message and tell him that God loves him because he responds to the
gospel hardly leads to him having confidence in the said God. When I
preach the gospel, I assure people that God loves sinners. He has
no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) - quite unlike
your friend Phelps who publicly wished that 33,000 were slain in Virginia, but said that he was happy enough with the 33.
I preach that whosoever will may come (Revelation 22:17) It may
well be that only the elect will prove to be the "whosoever will" but
nevertheless I must preach the gospel to every creature. Furthermore,
there is more than one way to be humbled in the sight of God, other
than ascribing to the Calvinistic view of Reprobation. Otherwise,
only Calvinistic could be saved. I'm sorry, I can't run with that. It
is the message of Jesus Christ. Perhaps, we should leave this man
(Phelps) in this matter of debate. I have probably given him enough
publicity as it is. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Ps: Judge for yourself if God hates homosexuals. (Reference to debate between Pastor Phelps and John Rankin)
Hi. Thanks again for your note. A
number of things. I have said that I treat everyone as if they were
elect. What I said was, I treat them as if they were potentially elect,
which is a different matter. In other words, I seek to
evangelise every one and do not let the decree of God (the outworking
of which in the future I know little about) hinder my evangelism. I
take the gospel to every creature (as best I can) with the hope that
God will use it to convert them to himself. You are right to say that
the default is hell, but we know that God changes the default for His
own elect and that they eventually will be saved, through the means of
evangelism. I disagree 100% with the thought that all Arminians
are going to hell. That their doctrine is deficient, I agree 100%, but
I see it as a dilution of the gospel, rather than a denial.
Furthermore, Richard Baxter wasn't a Five Point Calvinist but affirmed
the idea that Christ atoned for the sins of the reprobate. I am unsure
as to where that leaves him in your scheme of things. Furthermore, the
words of Gamaliel in Acts 5:38-39 were not meant to be the rule of
judging false doctrine and false practice in the church. Paul did not
let the legalists alone in Acts 15, nor did he give Peter much leeway
in Galatians 2. In this email alone, you have not left the Arminians
alone nor me either, ready to condemn me as a false prophet should I
depart from preaching the righteousness of God alone. As for God hating
homosexuals, I wonder did He hate those homosexuals who were converted
to Christ in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10? Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 14-05-07 Hi Colin, What specifically in their doctrine do you disagree
with; that God hates the reprobate? Sure He has general mercy on them, but the
hate Phelps refers to is the "fixed determination of the Almighty to punish the
reprobate in hell". They are effective in getting Calvinism out through
the satanic web of universal Armininism! That's how it got to me, even if by the
picketing of dead soldiers, and I 'm very grateful for it - like I said, I sat
in a so-called Reformed church here for 30 years not even knowing there is such
a thing as 5 point Calvinism. Pastor Phelps broke that spell in a jiffy. Kind regards, D.
I have no problem with the
teaching that the reprobate will be punished in hell and that this was
decreed (as a punishment for their sins) from a past eternity. However,
when stated, the judicial nature of reprobation needs to be stressed. I
am glad that you believe that God has a general mercy on reprobates. I
think you must agree with me that such is not the general tenor of
Phelp's site which talks more about the hatred of God than His love.
It would be an interesting morning counting the number of times
he mentions the word "hate" over against his mentioning of the word
"love" and then counting in the latter, how times he mentions the word
"love" negatively i.e. denying its application to certain people.
Phelps writes: "We've turned America Over to fags; They're coming home In body bags."
To be honest, I think this is absolutely sick. There seems to be a
gloating over what is perceived to be the wrath of God against America.
It may be that God used Phelp's site to bring you into the knowledge of
the Doctrines of Grace. I would hope that He might use this
website to lead you away from Phelps and his sick actions. As
written below, I suggest that you inform the seminary (or any seminary)
that you hope to study in of your sympathy for Phelps and see how you
get on. I am sorry to have to write in this vein in these responses to
your emails. I try to be as positive as I can with all who write, but
never at the expense of truth. To walk away from Phelps is not the same
of walking away from the Doctrines of Grace or from sharing an
indignation for the sins of the USA. There are thousands of Christians
in the USA itself who can maintain both positions without going to the
horrific extremes of Phelps. He really is out on his own on this one
and that, to me, sounds alarm bells. Anyway, thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 13-05-07 Hi there Colin, Greetings from South-Africa. Do you think there's any sense in still studying
theology in this late hour? It feels like the best thing to do is stay out of
potential risk and just make your own calling and election sure.
Hi! Thanks for your note. To
answer your question, yes, I do think it is sensible to study theology
in what you call this late hour. The study of theology is (by
definition) the study of God and there is no hour too late that makes
such a blessed theme for study insensible. One way to make your calling
and election sure (another worthy venture) is to be well grounded in
doctrine. Hence Paul writing to Timothy could say: Take
heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in
doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. (1
Timothy 4:16)
These are the folks that taught me Calvinism. www.Godhatesfags.com After
30 years in a so-called reformed church in South-Africa, I'd never
heard of the 5 points of Calvinism! It was not until conviction of sin
from verses like Hebrews 6 that lasted for long (sometimes I think I'm
still under conviction, but I've had some sweet communion with God)
that I started feverishly, in a panic to search the Scriptures, and
that inevitably lead me to the Doctrines of Grace. Anyhow, thanks for
the website - it's few and far between these days. Here's a seminary
I'm thinking of studying through. www.reformation.edu All the best. D. RSA
Whilst
it is nice to know that you have embraced the 5 Points of Calvinism,
and even perhaps learned them (doctrine wise) from the Phelps, I don't
think they do a good job in living out those same doctrines! I cannot
run with their idea that God hates everyone, apart from His own elect.
Nor that He wants His people to picket the funerals of dead American
soldiers etc., Of the folks at the seminary named, I know nothing save
what they reveal in their website. If you are happy enough with the
position of the Phelps family, then I suggest that you make this known
to the folk in www.reformation.edu
and inquire as to their position on these things. I would imagine that
such a move could save a whole load of problems later on both parties.
P/s I also wanted to ask you what the correct way is to
deal with unsaved people in your life - who want to become saved, but haven't
been called effectually. Should one separate from them, or stay
friends? Kind regards. D.
I
find it difficult to imagine the idea of anyone wanting to be saved
i.e. seriously wanting in the Biblical sense, as opposed to merely
wanting to hold on to their sins and yet escape hell, and not being
effectually called. Your wording of this matter creates the impression
that there are non elect people who earnestly desire salvation, but
that the decree of God is holding them back. I cannot run with that
idea either. The only thing that keeps a man back from Christ is
effectively his own unbelief. They will not
come to Christ, in order that they might have life. (John 5:40)
As to friendship with the unsaved, I would encourage it. The only
grounds in which it should be broken is if it is having a serious and
obvious detrimental influence on your profession of faith. In
which case, the level of friendship should be reduced down
greatly, if not altogether removed. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-05-07 Colin, I have read this about limited atonement at: http://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html: "I believe that Total Depravity, Unconditional
Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints are Biblical
doctrines. Man is definitely sinful and incapable of believing in God on his
own. God elects people based on His will alone – it is not based on any merit in
the person chosen. All those whom God has chosen will come to faith. All those
who are truly born-again will persevere in their faith. However, I do not
believe that Limited Atonement is correct. Jesus died for the sins of the whole
world, not just for the sins of the elect. “And he is the propitiation for our
sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John
2:2). Other verses in opposition to limited atonement are John 1:29; 3:16; 1
Timothy 2:6; 2 Peter 2:1."Do these scriptures mentioned refute limited atonement
like this article claims? Thanks and God Bless, DS
As indicated before, I take up the issue of the serious problems that attend to the Doctrine of Unlimited Atonement here, while specifically answering the 2 Peter 2:1 objection here.
If Christ died for all the sins of all men, then did He die for the
unpardonable sin? If so, why is it unpardonable? If not, then he did
not die for all the sins of all men. If Christ has taken away all
the sins of the world (as interpreted to mean "every last sinner
ever born") then where did He put them? Do they come back again as far
as the reprobate is concerned? See Spurgeon's comments on this doctrine
here. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-05-07 Dear Brother Maxwell, Thank you for taking the time to reply to the questions I asked you in
my last couple emails. Thank you for the articles you have linked me to also,
as I believe my questions were very well answered. I have also found answers
that I wanted to ask you, but found those questions answered in some of your
other articles. That was very helpful to me. I have a few thoughts and some questions that I want to ask you
about.
Nice to hear from you again.
1. When we preach the Gospel to every creature, God only enables those who
he is drawing, regenerating, elected, to respond to the Gospel, right?
Correct.
2. If I preach the Gospel to someone and he rejects it, that is
because he wasn't one of the elect, right? Meaning that God hasn't elected or
chose him for Salvation from before the foundations. We reject the Gospel
because of our sin, but my question is, If someone rejects the Gospel, does it
mean that this wasn't one of God's chosen persons to have been regenerated so he
can respond to the Gospel?
Although you are correct in what you are saying, yet the emphasis of the Bible in this matter is always
on the refusal of the sinner to repent and believe the gospel. Let no
man claim that he is refusing to believe because he is non elect. None
can blame God on this matter. The cause of condemnation is clearly
given in John 3:19 that those condemned loved darkness rather than
light because their deeds were evil. But you are right to observe, that
those who die in their sin were not of the elect.
3. Doesn't the Bible say that if we preach the Gospel to someone and they
reject it, to dust off our feet and move on? It doesn't say to stay there and
plead with the sinner until you can finally talk him into believing, which many
people do this when they witness and usually makes matters worse.
I
am not of the view that a person should only hear the gospel once and
if he refuses, then the dust of our feet is to be shook off. The Lord
Jesus preached many times in Jerusalem: "How often would I have gathered thee..." (Matthew 23:37) It
is only thing to plead with sinners to be saved in evangelism, yet it
is another to "button hole" them and lead them into some kind of "forced confession" which
is probably only made to get rid of you. It is all a matter of balance.
When I evangelise, I view all men as potentially elect and
therefore I reason with as many as I can to seek to persuade them to
believe. They are rational, accountable beings and (under the Spirit's
help) capable of understanding the matters. Without abandoning my
theology, yet I do not witness to them as a theologian (I use the term theologian
in the sense that every Christian is a theologian to some degree) but
as a witness of what Christ has done. In other words, I am not clinical
about the matter, but a concerned friend.
4. If I preach the Gospel to someone and they reject it, does that mean
that God won't ever draw or regenerate that person so he can respond to the
Gospel? I ask that because I probably have rejected the Gospel a few times when
it was preached to me before I finally responded to it, and I now desire to want
to know God better. So my basic question here is, if the Gospel is preached to someone and they
don't respond, does that mean this is the only chance this person will ever get
to respond to the Gospel?
I
think you have answered your own question here. Very few people
respond positively to the gospel on their first hearing. Yet the sinner
ought to bear in mind that his first time hearing the gospel might well
be his last. No man can presume upon hearing it again.
5. I have heard some people say that if Irresistible grace is true, that
is like someone beating his wife into loving him. Their argument goes something
like this: "God wants us to love him, but it wouldn't be any fun for God if
he had to beat it out of us, just like it wouldn't be any fun if we had to beat
it out of our wives". I don't know as if this is a fair analogy, but it's
often used. Because God is our creator, He has the power to change someone's
heart where we don't, as we are only His creation.
It is a very unfair analogy,
spoken out of ignorance (at best) of what irresistible grace is all
about. I have yet to meet a Calvinist either in person or in
writing etc., who believes that his love for God was beaten out of him.
God works in His elect both to will and do of his good pleasure
(Philippians 2:13) If that constitutes a situation akin to a man
beating his wife, then their problem is with the inspired writings of
the Apostle Paul and not with modern day Calvinists.
There is a verse in the Bible which says "We love Him, because he first
loved us". To me, that actually would refute the argument which I just laid out
above. However, I would like to know your thoughts on this.
I agree with your refutation.
6. I notice that many people who try to refute Calvinism use such verses
as John 12:32, where it says "Jesus will draw all men
unto himself". Thus, they believe Jesus will draw all men ever born. (Side
note: If people take the "men" to be literal and accurate, I sometimes wonder
why they never ask why the Bible nevers say anything about God drawing women
unto himself? Just a thought.) I have read that in the King James Version of the Bible, that the word
"men" was not found in the original Greek text. Do you know anything about
this?
The word "man" is obviously being use din the generic sense. In John 12:32 it all depends on what is meant by the "drawing" and how effectual it is. If it seen to be totally effectual i.e. a saving drawing to Christ, then the "all" must mean "all without distinction" since "all without exception"
are not saved. On the other hand, if it refers to a lesser drawing,
consistent with God's non pleasure in seeing men damned, then it may
carry the force of "all without exception." I tend to vrun with the former idea.
Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions and others, with
Biblically based and well thought out answers. God Bless You! DS
Glad to be of help to you. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 6-05-07 Dear Brother Colin, I have read some of your articles regarding David Cloud's articles and
found them very informative, seeing that I have read his articles on Calvinism
and didn't know quite what to think.
Thanks
for your note and for letting us know that our articles refuting David
Cloud's various attacks on Calvinism (or what he thinks is Calvinism)
has been helpful to you. Cloud seems to be well skilled in the art of
propaganda. Some of his criticisms are fair enough and you arrive at
the place where Christians on both sides of the argument have to agree
to differ, since it falls to how you interpret various verses or, more
particularly, how you interpret phrases within these verses. Other
criticisms are plainly absurd and untrue e.g. that Calvin denied the free offer of the gospel
or that Calvinists believe that faith = good works. It is
noticeable that on many occasions, he fails to supply any references
for his claims and it is not hard to see why. With all his concerns on
other pages about morality, he sees no problems quoting Calvin either
out of context, or ignoring those other quotes from Calvin which
balance up his teaching. It reflects the problem of lifting
quotes from here, there and yonder and all with a view of blackening
someone with whom you disagree. If we were so inclined, we could go
through Cloud's writings and do a crude hatchet job as well.
I have a few questions. I have heard that John Calvin had put to death
those who disagreed with his doctrines, is this true? This article is the
article in which I have heard this from:
http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm (under
the category "
Calvin's Reign of Terror")
Basically,
the charge is true, although we must say this: That many things are
charged upon Calvin of which he was not directly guilty. Calvin did not
run Geneva, the City Council did and Calvin did not always get his own
way. It is interesting that those who seek to blacken Calvin as much as
they can, tell us that one one hand he ruled Geneva with an iron fist,
but also milk the fact that they threw him out. Again, they do not use
the fact to moderate their views about Calvin that they asked him to
come back. Cloud published material, not that long ago, from the pen of
his friend Jack Mooreman in London about a so called Calvinistic
silence re: Servetus. I answer it here.
I repeat my view from that article that we do not condone Calvin's
behaviour if he stepped over the line of what is acceptable in the
sight of God. We condemn it unreservedly.
Those who so claim obviously haven't read Romans 9!
My last question is what do you believe about the rapture, and if the pre
trib rapture is true, will there be any converts during the tribulation? If the
post trib rapture is true, what happens if the elect take the mark of the
beast? Or is that not even possible?
Although
I have still a lot of thinking to do as regarding what prophetic school
I should attend, I reject the idea of a pre tribulation rapture for the
church. If taking the mark of the beast brings damnation upon the head,
then the elect will be graciously preserved from accepting it. Anything
that would prevent the elect from coming savingly to Christ will be
removed from their path, until at last they are safely gathered within
the fold.
If you have a chance, could you check out these articles and get back with
me on your take, and also my rapture questions? That would help me out a lot.
If you have any articles regarding any of these matters that you think would be
helpful, please feel free to give them to me. Thanks and God Bless! EDS
P/s Sorry to write again, but there is another article that I wanted to show
you that I came across in my studies of Calvinism.
http://www.biblelife.org/election.htm After researching many different points of view of this subject, I am
leaning more towards the Calvinistic teaching as opposed to the Arminianism and
Hyper Calvinism teachings. This article that I have here was one of the
articles that I have read before knowing all that much on the subject. If you
have time, could you check it out and offer some refutation on it? I am still
studying this subject and these refutations help out a lot. As did the ones you
did on David Cloud's articles, it helps give me
"the other side of the story".
I like to see both sides to the story in order to arrive at a truth. Thanks again, and God Bless, Dave
1) Words like "world" and "all" or "every man" do not automatically mean "each and every one ever born" i.e. "all without exception." They can carry the meaning of "all without distinction" e.g. "Jew and Greek, rich and poor etc.," See here for the problems which interpreting "all"as "all without exception" regarding the atonement can bring.
2) Calvinists only "limit the atonement"
in regards as its purpose, not in its merit or sufficiency. We deny it
was the purpose of God to make atonement for the sins of any reprobate
who will spend eternity in hell, but had God lessened the number of the
reprobates and increased the number of the elect, then Christ's passion
would not have increased one iota more.
3) Such a belief in the sufficiency of the atonement ("Sufficient for all men, effecient only for the elect") enables us to preach the gospel (as commanded) to all men, elect or otherwise.
4) Commands in the Bible do not imply ability to obey them. Our critics
often accuse Calvinists of not believing in man's responsibility. This
is untrue. We believe that man is totally responsible for his actions and for his obligation to obey the gospel and should do so immediately.
5) God does not prevent sinners from coming to Him. Sin prevents them,
more particuarly their own unbelief. God does not have to impart to any
sinner saving grace, much less to all sinners. No man can sin himself
out of responsibility before God.
6) Irresistible grace does not mean irresistible violence. Some of
those who accuse us of believing it also believe in eternal security
where no man professing faith in Christ can be lost. (As we do too)
However, we are entitled to ask whether God uses irresistible violence
to keep His people safe and prevent them from going to hell?
7) Have a look at our Calvinistic Index page where many hours labour on these themes have been spent. Especially the pages on What Calvinists do and do not believe and The Calvinism Debate Simplified.
Indeed, any of those pages under the Doctrinal Controversy section.
Thanks for writings. I'm glad to read that you are able to see
the difference not only between Calvinism and non Calvinism, but also
between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism. See here on this matter also. There's a fair bit of reading for you! Colin.
.
*******************************************************
Answered 26-04-07 Bro.
Colin,Thank you so much for your WEB site.
I find it to be both educational and inspiring. I have long been an advocate for
the Doctrines of Grace and have spent countless hours reading the works of the
Puritans as well as the great English Baptists. I also find it refreshing that
you have used my WEB site (www.pbministries.org) as reference to
A.W. Pink in some of your responses to David Cloud. I look forward to reading more of
your WEB sits as it is always a blessing. Please do keep up the defense of the
faith as defined in Scripture and best understood from a Doctrines of Grace
perspective. Ron Cook
Hi Ron. Nice to hear from you and
know that our site has been of blessing to you. I appreciate the work
that you have done with your site. What a blessing the Internet can be!
I am a great admirer of RL Dabney, and I notice that you have his
entire Systematic Theology online. What a useful tool it often proves to be. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*************************************************
Answered: 17-04-07 Dear Pastor Colin Maxwell: Greetings in that most blessed of all names,
The Lord Jesus Christ, in whom we are eternally saved and united. Great is
our God and satisfying are His glorious doctrines of His sovereign free
grace. I enjoy your website and the vast amount of pertinent and easily
acceptable information it contains on the blessed doctrines of the
Bible.
I have wrote to you in the past and you had posted one of my
letters about David Cloud and his misconceptions on Calvinism. We had
attended Bethel Baptist church, where David Cloud is officially an member,
supports him and which prints his O Timothy magazine. We had left about
a year or so ago, but stay in touch with some of its members.
I wrote
an, "Open Letter to David Cloud" about his recent O Timothy concerning the
Christianity Today, article on the, March of Calvinism in Evangelical
Churches. I believe it is non-confrontational and seeks to encourage and
guide David Cloud and others of like mind, to see and study these truths we
'nickname' Calvinism in a better light. As George Whitefield said, "We are
all born Arminians" and it is only by the grace of God that we spiritually
embrace the doctrines of sovereign grace.
As I am not well computer
literate to know how to post a blog or article of this nature online, can
you post it on your site, as I believe God may use it to enlighten some
souls, that are now opposed, to these blessed truths. I attach the
letter. Thank you and may God continue to bless you in all your ministry
for Him. By His amazing grace: John Van Eyk vaneyk@execulink.com
Hi. I have provided a page for your open letter here. Thanks for your kind comments about our site. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 17-4-07 Dear sir: My name is Fred and I live in Georgia, USA.
I have a small request. I would like to know how you view 1st John 2:2
in the light of context and language. It seems to be a major focal
point against "Limited Atonement" by a friend of mine. Thank you for a
great website. Fred
Hi Fred, Nice to hear from you.
Glad that you are enjoying our site and that it is proving to be of
some help to you. One key word in 1 John 2:2 as far as the
atonement debate is concerned relates to the word "world" with our
Unlimited Atonement friends insisting that it means each and every
person ever born of a woman. Even a casual study of the word shows that
it is not so, and indeed cannot be so. The word "world" in the
Scripture carries different meanings. Personally, I believe here it
means "Gentiles" as opposed to the Jews., who are the "not ours only"
in the text. Another key word is "propitiation" and this relates to the
nature of the atonement itself. If Christ made propitiation for
the
sins of each and every sinner ever born (which the Unlimited Atonement
folk
allege) then their sins must have been forgiven, since propitiation has
been
made. A good question to ask is: Did Christ die for the unpardonable
sin? Part of the problem is that our friends themselves limit the
atonement to something which is more potential than real. If Christ
really did die for the sins of Judas Iscariot and other reprobates, why
are they in hell suffering for those very same sins? It is true
that there is a sufficiency and merit in the atonement which Christ
made to atone for a million worlds and this is why the free offer of
the gospel can be made and every last sinner assured of its power. But
it detracts from the atonement to say that it is the purpose of God to
have Christ specifically die for the sins of each and man in order to
save them. If this is the case, then God and His Son have signally
failed. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-3-07 Dear Colin Maxwell, Greetings. This is DP from
Los Alamitos, California. I live in the greater Los Angeles area when I
am home but much of the time I drive trucks throughout the USA and
Canada for a living. As a result most every Sunday I am in a different
state or province and I have attended FPC churches in Indianapolis,
Calgary, Greenville, Toronto and Columbia, SC. That to say this. I am
more "Calvinistic" than I used to be. As a result I posted an e-mail to
a number of friends. That e-mail elicited some responses four of which
I forwarded to you. The text of my original e-mail is encased in
at least two of the e-mails I forwarded to you. I came across your site
while surfing the Internet and saw you have quite an extensive section
on Calvinism. If you have time your feedback would be welcome. Am I on
the right track so to speak? And how would you respond to such
responses such as I received. Sincerely, DP
Salvation by Grace alone thru Faith alone in Christ Jesus alone according to the Scriptures alone to the Glory of God alone
On Christ the Solid Rock I stand, all other "rocks" are SHAM-rocks
Hi. Nice to hear from you and to
know that you have been fellowshipping in a few of our FPC in the USA
and Canada. I am delighted that you are coming to a fuller
understanding of the Doctrines of Grace. I thought the langauge
in some of the emails you sent me was a bit strong, particularly from
one of the women. On the Calvinism issue, sometimes there is little you
can do, if you get a long BLAST just after you have put your head over
the parapet. If people do not have a reasonable spirit, then you have
just to wait until and pray that God will give them one. Whatever you
do, dont't respond in kind. Nothing is achieved. Have a look around our
Calvinistic Index Page.
There are a lot of articles there covering the subject from many
different angles. Thanks again for writing. Give my regards to the
folks in the different FPC churches which you visit. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-3-07 Colin, It is good to see that you are continuing to
preach the truth! I corresponded with you some several years back. I
was also corresponding with David Cloud at that time. Are you not quite
weary of doing battle with David Cloud? I see you are awaiting a
response to your February 16, 2007 email to him. His responses to me
were very brief, and indicated that he really did not even read what I
said.
Nice to hear from you again.
Although I usually write, as a matter of courtesy, to David Cloud after
I answer him, I feel that I am writing for a larger audience.
I think it is a sign of weakness on Cloud's part that he refuses
to meaningfully engage. As I wrote in my last article, anyone can do what Cloud does. He
is churning out sheer rubbish in his so called Calvinism articles. He
seldom bothers to give any references and often when he does, they
don't say what he says they say, or they have been yanked out of
context or ignore the overall picture. Sometimes I think that there is
not a trick in the book that he is not prepared to play. I take
some satisfaction that when you Google "David Cloud Calvinism" that
my articles follow immediately after his on the very first page.
Sometimes, they are in front, but I'm happy with immediate following.
I would rather speak of a success - an answer to prayer: Somewhat
depressed because I could not find a fellowship in proximity of my
neighborhood that was fundamental and reformed, I quit searching and
began attending the closest fellowship to me - a conservative
Southern Baptist congregation. The Church just hired a new pastor who
slowly revealed that he is reformed and fundamental (though we still do
not see eye to eye on the KJV - my leaning is with you on this issue).
The Sunday School class has had me teaching (more like reading with
light commentary) scripture. The class decided to use the Bible as our
text. All the members now seem content in the knowledge of the
Doctrines of Grace - the Scriptures bear them out. (Most of the
members were "free-willers.") We have studied the entire books of
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus (minus the last 2 chapters planned for this
upcoming Sunday), and Hebrews. Of course we have also interpreted these
books by referencing many other books of the Bible. My plan was to
search the Scriptures for Jesus, because He said that is what they were
about. Finding was easy, and the Doctrines of Grace are made plain in
all the Scriptures! It has not been necessary to teach on the Doctrines
specifically, though clarifications have been offered from time to time.
My only misgivings about what you
say is that the SBC as a denomination include all sorts of liberals
etc., However, to our own Master we must all stand or fall. If God is
blessing you there, then who I am to complain?
So for David Cloud, I think the response Jesus gave the learned Pharisees (Luke 5:3), "... Have ye not read so much as this ...?"
would be appropriate. His paradigm needs to be shattered because this
is how he is interpreting the Scriptures. I also believe the paradigm
that dispensationalism requires makes it very difficult to comprehend
the Doctrines of Grace. However, from my own personal experience
(having been captive of a dispensational/free will paradigm), he must
either avoid any thought toward "Calvinism" or forever be incomplete in
his reasoning. I am not being critical at this point, I am trying to
describe what I experienced. My outward expression was somewhat hostile
whenever what I was taught was challenged by differing Christians due
to an inward fear based on the knowledge that my understanding always
led to an incomplete logic.
I have noticed how many
Dispensationalists query and even deny if the OT saints were born
again. I find this totally amazing.
Jesus saved me by making me willing by quickening my spirit by granting
me hearing by the preached Word of God thus giving me faith to believe.
Then I gladly accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour. In my heart I knew
this as a Christian - I knew I thought differently than in the past.
But my teachers - television evangelist, popular Christian book
authors, modernistic preachers - made certain that I remained confused
with the popular gospel. David Cloud was one of these because he has a
great website, because he teaches more fundamentally than many, because
he was still standing when the others had been proven wrong by the
Scripture I had read. David Cloud and these other teachers caused me to
exchange the chains of sin for the chains of improper understanding.
But Jesus made me free, and by His Grace He took those new chains off
by causing me to understand His Doctrines of Grace! Seriously, the
Doctrines of Grace, as defined by Augustine and Calvin and Spurgeon and
Whitfield and Luther and Henry, etc. destroyed those chains. Now I
desire to preach the Gospel because I know the Gospel. Jesus Saves! He
really is the author of my salvation - He wrote me into His story - and
I trust because of His promise that He will be the finisher of my
salvation. (You can't have one without the other, can you?) Love In
Christ Jesus, JV.
I think we all need the way
of God expounded unto us more perfectly (Acts 18:26) Glad that the Lord
has led you into the way of these glorious doctrines. I don't think I
could evangelise at all, if I believed (as non Calvinists effectively
do) that they are the master of their fate and captain of your souls.
Thanks for writing, Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 13-2-07 Dear Pastor Maxwell, Thank you for your Calvinism Index web site. I
found your Short Quiz and answer page helpful in understanding what Calvinists
believe. I agree with most of it, but perhaps not all. I was glad to hear that
you believe in doing the work of the evangelist, and that you have several
reasons for spreading the gospel message (on your "Why Bother?" page). I
understand that you believe such evangelism is the means by which God brings
salvation to those He has chosen.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood, but
I gather that you believe that your work in proclaiming the message of
salvation cannot have an impact upon anyone getting saved that would not
otherwise become saved. That is, ultimately, the same people will end
up going to heaven regardless of whether you preach the gospel to them or
not. Is this a Calvinist belief? My point is not to argue. I just want make sure I
am correctly understanding the Calvinist position. Thank you. Grace and Peace be with you, M McG.
Hi.
Nice to hear from you and to know that you have been encouraged and
helped through the pages you mention above. I appreciate your question
and the opportunity to make reply to clarify the matter raised.
While only the elect of God will be saved through the means of our
evangelism, nevertheless it does have a lesser impact and that for some
good even to the non elect. Wherever the gospel is preached and
people are saved, they become the salt of the earth with preserving
qualities and light in their neighbourhood etc., We might think of the
deep immoral state England was found in prior to the revivals of
Whitefield and Wesley and others and how things improved radically
afterwards. A man who sits under a gospel ministry, even if he remains
unconverted, will feel some restraint from running into deeper sins
etc., It is not Calvinistic belief (although sometimes our critics try
to father it on us) that we believe that the elect will be saved anyhow. This
is not so. The elect are saved ordinarily through the evangelistic
means of hard working and praying Christians who are prepared to go the
extra mile, and who are by all means hopeful to save some (1
Corinthians 9:22) If we should back and lapse into some kind of
fatalism i.e. "The elect will be saved, no matter what I do or don't
do" then God will simply pass us by and use some other means to bring
in His elect and hold us fully accountable for our misuse of talents. I
hope this clarifies the matter for you. Thanks again for writing.
Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 4-2-07 I am doing research on the Rev.
Dunbar (1704-1783), Canton, Mass. I am hoping that you might be able to help me. 1. Was he a preacher
of the Calvinistic Faith? 2. What language did he write his sermons in? 3.
Where may I read any of his surviving sermons? Any help with these questions
will be very appreciated. Thank You, Ed Marqueete.
Hi.
Thanks for your email. I'm afraid I've never heard of a Rev. Dunbar,
and beyond our common resources e.g. Google etc., I cannot answer your
question. However, I have put it up here on our oft visited Calvinism
emails page and it may be that some reader can throw light on your
queries. If you wish I can include your email on this page, although
such might lead to an increase in spam. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 30-1-07 Colin, Thanks for your answers. Possibly it is not 99.9999% as I
suggested, but Matthew 7:14 seems to say that it is a very small number. The
wording there does not seem to permit that "the number of the Redeemed will be
greater than the number of those who will be lost" as you suggest. So one has to
assume that the majority of anyone's descendants, including a Calvinist's, will
be going to hell. I can't escape the conclusion that a Christian's true mission
should be urging people not to have children. That will have a far greater
affect than preaching on reducing the number of souls in hell. I know that
sounds crazy, but it seems to be the logical consequence of the positions.
Thanks again. Robert.
Those who hold
that heaven will be peopled with more people than hell point out that
the question is not "Lord, are there few that will be saved?" but
rather "Are there few that [are now in this generation] saved" (I
paraphrase to include then interpretation) and point out that the
common belief that babies dying in infancy before personal sin go
to Heaven etc., Do I detect in your comments the spirit of a deep
unbelief and scepticism of all things Biblical as opposed to things
Calvinistic in particular? The chief end of evangelism is not
merely to keep souls out of hell, but to glorify God by the ingathering
of His elect. The Lord Jesus shall see the travail of His soul and be
satisfied (Isaiah 53:11) and therefore so shall we. The most important
thing for us then is to seek the Lord while He may be found (Isaiah
55:6) being assured that they that so seek Him early shall undoubtedly
find Him (Proverbs 8:17) Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 29-1-07 Thank you for getting back to me. I'll try to be brief. (Your site is great by
the way.) They are pretty hard questions but I am being totally
sincere.
1) If God knew in advance that 99.9999% of humanity will be
spending eternity in hell (even if they deserve it), why didn't God just end
humanity with Adam and Eve, or at least with Noah? Think of the billions of
as-yet-unborn souls He could have saved from hell. Even now, why doesn't God
send a giant comet into the earth saving future untold millions from being born
and going to hell?
2) Believing that 99.9999% of all people will be
tortured for eternity, who in their right mind would ever have children? I would
be too terrified to. It is one thing to believe you yourself are going to hell,
but to bring a child into the world believing they might go to hell is almost
worse. I would have thought the human race would have died out generations ago
out of sheer terror. Why would anyone have children under those circumstances?
Thank you so much for any guidance you can offer. Maybe I am
misunderstanding Calvinism? Robert W. NYC
Hi, Thanks for your email. I
appreciate you taking the time to write and for keeping your questions
relatively short. You are right in that, fundamentally, your questions
are hard to answer. Nearly every question starting with the words "Why didn't God just..."
is beyond our ability to answer. We know that God not only knew what
would happen, but ordained it to be so in that He could have prevented
either the action or the circumstances that led to it. He has done so
on other occasions and why not in this? This is one of the great
mysteries of the Christian faith and is not exclusive to Calvinism by
any means.
Not all your questions however are watertight and the following should be pointed out:
1) Who says that 99.9999% (your figure) of humanity will be in hell?
Where did this figure come from? The Redeemed in heaven will constitute
a great multitude which no man can number (Revelation 7:9) It is the
belief of many Christians, Calvinists included, that the number of the
Redeemed will actually be greater than the number of those who will be
lost.
2) The reason why any one is lost is ultimately because of their own
sins. Sin alone is the cause of spiritual death (Romans 6:23) I see
that you acknowledge above the deserts of men spending eternity on
hell. The damnation of hell is based on the holy and just wrath of God
against sin and no one is in hell who does not deserve to be there. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth shall do right?" (Genesis 18:25) When
you consider how many times some folk hear the gospel and by how many
different means and yet they still resist the Holy Spirit, then the
wonder is that they have been allowed to live for so long in their
rejection. The responsibility for sin always lies on the sinner, not on
any decree of God.
3) Without forgetting the tremendous responsibilities that attend
parenthood, I had no fear at all in bringing two children into this
world. As I read the Bible, I see that God is drawing out a people unto
Himself through the gospel. I hear Jesus Christ say, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)
I read of the gospel going forth in mighty power and men's hearts being
changed by the old, old story of Jesus and His love. Humanly speaking,
why should my children not be among this blessed number? I read of God
being rich in mercy, and possessing great love (Ephesians 2:4) I read
of Him delighting in mercy (Micah 7:18) and offering salvation to the
whosoever will (Revelation 22:17) I have every confidence, fuelled by
prayer, that my efforts (under God) will see them both profess faith in
the Lord Jesus. My daughter has already done so, my son (4 years old)
has yet to do so, but we seek to be able to say of him as Paul
could say of Timothy, "And
that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able
to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ
Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)
I trust these answers help you. Again, I appreciate you writing. Glad you are enjoying the site. Colin.
*****************************************************
Answered 26-1-07 Hi Colin! This time a more serious e-mail! I've started a
discussion with someone on the formidable subject of Calvinism v Arminianism -
sad to say my knowledge on the subject isn't what it should be, but I've come
across the section on your site that deals with this area. I intend to get
reading through the information you've provided to help educate
me! However, in my discussion I was trying to put across the words on
John 6:37 - 'Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out'.
Here is
his response to date: "You used John 6:37 as a proof text, in your 2nd
paragraph, as to say one can never lose their salvation. Let's look at
it. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to
me I will in no wise cast out." All that the Father giveth me shall come
to me. All that are drawn by the Father, v44, i.e., all those who are influenced
by His Spirit, and yield to those influences. "For as many as are led [not
driven or dragged] by the Spirit of God, they are the sons [children] of God."
Romans 8:14 God sent His Prophets to proclaim His salvation to this people and
He accompanied their preaching with the influence of His Spirit. Those who
yielded were saved; those who did not yield to these drawings were lost. I will
in no wise cast out. These words are very emphatic. "I will by no means thrust
out of doors." He never did reject the way of the penitent, however grievous his
sins and crimes might have been. I want you to see that when Jesus said
"and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." is very clearly
understood that those that are coming to Him will not be cast out. The cometh is
a present participle, meaning are coming. It doesn't say and those that came to
Him as in a past tense way. The literal translation from the Greek reads this
way: All that the Father gives to Me shall come to Me, and the (one) coming to
Me I will not cast, never. The condition of 1 John 1:9 is IF we confess.
John lumped himself into the we saying, "on the condition that we confess or
sins He will forgive. Implying that IF we don't confess He won't forgive. And
this is how a saint can become lost again, by failing to confess their sin and
repent of their sin. It takes our confessing and repenting of them to be
forgiven."
I simply can't understand how people can come to the
conclusion that when you are saved you can then somehow lose your salvation!!
Yet, I'm aware that many people hold to that view. Perhaps I am guilty of
taking the Word too literally (if that's possible) but when God says He'll never
cast you out - I simply take Him at His Word!. If I understand this man's
position correctly, He believes that you can be truly saved, but if you sin and
don't ask for forgiveness you will then lose your salvation. Christ died on the
cross to save us from our sin - his view seems to suggest that Christ's death
wasn't all-sufficient, if your salvation can then be lost at some
point? How would you advise replying to this - and do you recommend any
reading material on this
subject? Thanks, JC, Belfast.
Hi, Nice to hear from you again.
Your correspondent seems to have a somewhat skewed view of what it
means to be brought by the Holy Spirit to Christ. If I were debating
him, I would ask him to substantiate
where Calvinists believe that men are driven or dragged to Christ. He
certainly can't prove it from the major Calvinistic Confessions. We
believe that men come willingly to Christ, being willing in the day of
God's power (Psalm 110:3) We do not believe that any one has come to
Christ unwillingly, so I would challenge him first on this. Sometimes
we let non Calvinists away with too much when they misstate our
position.
His comments on John 6:37 is more solid. I notice that Albert Barnes discounts it as an argument for the Final Perseverance: "Cast
out - Reject, or refuse to save. This expression does not refer to the
doctrine of perseverance of the saints, but to the fact that Jesus will
not reject or refuse any sinner who comes to him." whereas
AW Pink does, arguing that it is greater than the mere first coming.
Even if we allow that the saint needs to keep coming in order to be
maintain salvation or that he needs to keep confessing his sins in
order to know forgiveness, then we may be assured that this will be the
case with all of God's elect. I think we need to set down a few basic
Biblical doctrines first:
1) The Lord foreknew who will finally be saved i.e. His elect. Even Arminians do not claim that reprobates will be saved.
2) His foreknowledge (no matter how we view it) must be based on
certainties. You cannot foreknow something will happen if it is still
undecided or unsure. It must be certain and fixed.
3) When an event becomes fixed, then all things needful to bring that
event about also must fall into place. A simple illustration; If the
Lord ordains that I will be on a certain train, leaving a certain
station at a certain time, then I cannot get stuck in traffic and miss
that train. A thousand minute details must be attended to to
ensure that I rise up out of my bed in time to reach that train, right
through to the volume of traffic on the road ensuring a free run to the
station and the train itself knowing no technical faults etc.,
4) Likewise if we grant that the elect soul must do all that is
required of elect souls, then we may be assured that this will be the
case...otherwise he is not elect, because God ordains not only the end,
but the means thereto.
5) None of the elect can be lost, for how can God foresee all His elect
in Heaven, if one (or some or many) of them are not there?
6) John 6 itself teaches that the elect (all who are given to Christ by
the Father) will infallibly come to Christ (John 6:37), solely because
drawn by the Father (John 6:44/65) none being refused (John 6:37) and
none will be lost, but be raised up at the last day (John 6:40) This
agrees with all other scriptures which clearly teach that no true child
of God will be lost, not least: For
the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are
preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. (Psalm
37:28)
As observed before in these pages, the loss of any elect soul would
overthrow the involvement of the Triune God in whom salvation is to be
found:
1) THE DECREE OF GOD THE FATHER who elected that soul to
salvation - A power greater than God the Father has evidently arisen
who can frustrate the divine decree and render it useless
2) THE REDEEMING BLOOD OF GOD THE SON who paid the price of that soul's
salvation - Such supposed apostacy would render the death of Christ in
vain - again frustration and failure would mark the Godhead.
3) THE PRESERVING POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT who abides in believers "for ever" (John 14:16)
Any of the elect in hell must mean victory for the devil over the power
of the Godhead and that must leave us wondering then who is God -
Jehovah or Satan. It is as fundamental as that. Hope this helps. Colin.
********************************************************
Answered 20-1-07 Some Calvinistic correspondence with Jack Moorman at the bottom of article refuting his claim of a Calvinistic silence.
*******************************************************
Answered 16-1-07 Isn't your article on Dave Hunt overly defensive of
Charles Spurgeon? Isn't it just possible that at times, when he was
preaching, he was not clear on his beliefs and gave the impression that
Dave Hunt and others has gotten? Certainly, the quotes you have
selected to represent Spurgeon seem to clearly define his 5 point
Calvinism. But then, there are a whole range of explanations by
people who call themselves Calvinists that sometimes disagree with
others who call themselves Calvinists.
Thanks for your note. I
appreciate you writing. I have three articles dealing with Hunt's book,
so I am not quite sure which one in particular you are writing about.
However, the point you make stands for them all. I felt compelled to
defend Spurgeon because Hunt drew several unwarranted conclusions from
Spurgeon. His comment that Spurgeon rejected the Doctrine of Particular
Redemption and found in repugnant etc., is possibly one of the
stupidest things Hunt ever wrote. He came to a quote (taken from "Spurgeon's Defence of Calvinism",
although Hunt never discloses this) and yanked it completely out of any
context. Even Vance, upon whom Hunt relied heavily for any research he
did do, said that Hunt was wrong to argue that Spurgeon rejected
Particular Redemption. The problem is that Hunt (and he is not
alone in this matter) failed to research where Calvinists "limit the atonement". We don't limit the worth of the atonement (God forbid) but we do limit its purpose
i.e. to make atonement for the sins of the elect alone and not those of
reprobates. Can any one produce clear quotes (in context) to show where
Spurgeon taught anything contrary to the 5 points of Calvinism? We took
the time (a labour of love) to show what Spurgeon wrote and said
on the 5 points of Calvinism, both collectively and individually
and of Calvinism as a whole. You can find the fruit of this labour in
the CH Spurgeon Index page.
There is no doubt that Calvinists disagree among themselves on certain
issues, but this seems to relate more to the application of these
doctrines, rather than the basic five points. Although he very
carefully, (and rightly) refused to make Calvin his master or sat
content to merely glean his doctrines from Geneva, yet Spurgeon said
that none believed these doctrines more than him. A whole wealth of
references may be found here.
I would rather see you try to defend John Calvin's many
disparate ideas and practices than those of Charles Spurgeon.
After all, that was the major thrust of Hunt's book -- to show that
John Calvin was off-base on a number of issues, and that Calvinism
stands on Calvin's teachings despite the numerous errors he espoused
and practices.
First of all, despite the name (which is a matter of convenience, like it or lump it as we must) Calvinism does NOT stand
on Calvin's teachings, but on the word of God. At least, as far
as the 5 points go. It would be strange if many of those
recognised by Christians of both sides of the debates as the greatest
commentators should run to a mere man (when all is said and done) to
seek their teaching on that most important doctrine of all i.e.
salvation. We simply see Calvin, warts and all, as being one who
articulated our Bible based faith in these doctrines. Where Calvin
departs from the word of God, then we part company with him on that
particular point. Certainly, we do not see ourselves having to
slavishly follow his every last thought. This is normal Christian
practice with any man. Paul did not follow Peter in his antics as
described in Galatians 2:11ff. Obviously we do not part the ways
permanently, but we must ever and only follow that which is good. I do
not see the need to go through the life of Calvin and write whole
screeds on where I disagree with him. I don't get the impression that
when I call myself a Calvinist, that people believe that I want to set
up a practical theocratic state, based on the Genevan model, or that I
advocate killing heretics etc., They don't even think that I am
necessarily an advocate of infant baptism, seeing many Baptists are
also identified by the name of Calvinist.
Spurgeon was not completely in line with many who quote him today on
some issues. He was no more infallible than others, and he may
have not always been consistent with himself. It is interesting that
many periodicals that are not Calvinistic carry sermons by Spurgeon
that seem not to emphasize his Calvinistic roots. Yes,
interesting that the same man can be quoted by people from both sides
of the issue.
I basically agree with you here. I
myself quote John Wesley and others with whom I would not be in
agreement on the Calvinistic question. Truth is truth, no matter
through what means it comes to us. Spurgeon was not infallible at all
and, again, our admiration of him is ever bounded by the word of God.
He himself said that he was not always consistent with himself and
would rather be consistent with the word of God, I agree 100% with this
statement. Spurgeon was a most balanced Calvinist and rightly did not
limit his ministry to explicitly preaching on the 5 points of
Calvinism. The Bible is wider than the 5 points and we ought to aim at
the whole counsel of God, rather than just a part. It needs to be said
too that some (one in particular comes to mind) periodicals edited the
Calvinism out of Spurgeon's sermons. Having done this, they then tried
to argue that Spurgeon was not a Calvinist or as Calvinistic as some
made out. I find such a thing utterly detestable. You can see why we
felt the need then to maintain the truth. As written above, I would be
interested in seeing anywhere, where Spurgeon write distinctly, in
context, against the doctrines of grace. In view of all that he
said here about these doctrines, I don't think there will be too much produced.
Rev. James West, neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.
If you are talking about mere
titles, then that is fair enough. When it comes to the 5 points of
Calvinism, the reality is that we cannot be fence sitters. We all must
form definite views as to how depraved the human heart is, the grounds
of our election by God, the extent of the atonement, whether the elect
can ultimately reject the grace of God and whether or not and on what
basis those professing faith will infallibly make it home to Heaven.
Anyway, thanks for writing. I appreciate you sharing your views. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 14-1-07 Over the last few years I have been transcribing old,
out of print puritan and reformed works and posting them on my web
site. Below is a partial inventory currently available for free at my
site. www.reformedlayman.com
If you would like to copy any of these for use on your own site, or
would like to link to them. please feel free to do so. In Christ, Jeff
Rojan.
Hi . Pleased to faciliate you on this site with this link which I have also added to our links page. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 13-1-07 Hello Mr. Maxwell, I hope that you're well, and I know that you
and your church will be enjoying God's continued faithfulness. I'm
writing in regards to Calvinism, specifically the doctrine of Irresistible
Grace. I've been studying Calvinism for a little while now, and have been
convinced to greater and lesser degrees by both Calvinist and Arminian views on
soteriology at different times. Recently I've found what I consider a
complication with Calvinism. I understand that you must be a busy man, but I was
wondering if I could know your views on it? I don't want to assume that there's
no answer to this without first putting it to a convinced Calvinist.
Nice to hear from you again. I
appreciate you taking the time to write and to share your thoughts with
us. In answering these questions, please do not think that we have all
the answers! All we can do is to try and set out Bible teaching and if
it seems to be irreconcilable to our feeble understadning, then we can
but pray for more light. If we abide by the old maxim in these matters,
that salvation is all of grace and that damnation is all of sin, then
we will not go wrong.
In
clarifying "Irresistible Grace", you write: "There is a time when the
Spirit of God stops striving with men (Genesis 6:3) and this is when they resist
His convictions and He "leaves them alone in their darkness to dwell" But we
believe that the elect cannot always resist Him - that there comes a time when
the Spirit prevails and they are born again. We call this irresistible grace."
As the Spirit of God
is striving with the reprobate to repent - Paul writes that "the goodness of God
leadeth thee to repentance" (Rom. 2:4) - this means that He is striving with the
reprobate to be saved. This means that He not only desires the salvation of the
reprobate but is actively involved in leading them to it and striving with them
over it. Therefore God is seeking the salvation of both elect and reprobate: He
is successful with the elect, and unsuccessful with the
reprobate.
Simple question then. If you say (and you do) that "He [God] is unsuccessful with the reprobate"
are you charging God with failure? Is failure one of God's attributes?
Does this failure lead to disappointment and frustration? If so, can we
run to Nebuchadnezzar who asked "Who can stay His hand?" - which we always took to be rhetorical - and answer: "Every Christ rejecting sinner who dies in his sin!" There
are many similar verses to Daniel 4:35 where we might contradict the
inspired writer and thus remind him that God can be frustrated in His
plans and so there is a power greater than His.
Elsewhere you write that"calmly considered, the Bible itself
teaches that God has only purposed to save His elect."
This explains why God has been
unsuccessful with the reprobate: He didn't purpose to save them. This would be
just, as no one deserves to be saved. However, it's here that I see the
complication. This presents God as striving with those whom He has not
purposed to save - striving with them to be saved. This is not only illogical,
but presents God as insincere and hypocritical in attempting to do for them what
He has no intention of doing, and engaging in a vain exercise. (Please
understand that I'm not saying that God would be unfair in this situation - as
I've said, no one deserves to be saved, and so reprobation would be just. What
I'm pointing out is the insincerity and hypocrisy which God would apparently be
involved in, in this situation.) No matter what Biblical support a
position may seem to have, if it presents God as anything less than totally pure
and holy, it can't be true. This is the complication that I see. Thank
you for the time you take in answering your
emails, Yours, Joshua.
You wisely use the word "apparent" and
this is the key. As I read the Scriptures, I see Christ weeping over
whole city of Jerusalem and yet when all is said and done, when He
could have saved each one of them, He didn't do so. We may say that
they were lost through unbelief. This is true, but it is also
true that every last one of us would have been lost through unbelief,
unless God gave us saving faith. He evidently does not give saving
faith to every man and evidently did not give saving faith to those in
Jerusalem...yet He wept indiscriminately over them all, and did so with
real, genuine, holy and true tears. From the information that is given
to us in the Bible, I cannot reconcile
it all but, despite the apparent contradictions, I see both truths in
the Bible and consequently preach them both. I have everything in these
truths with which to encourage [i] myself as a gospel preacher [ii]
those sinners who will give ear to the gospel which I preach. I
can understand your point of view, but I think the secret is to
work with what has been revealed and do all that we can to see sinners brought to the feet of the Saviour. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 13-1-07 Dear Sir: I do so appreciate this article. I have
struggled with watching alleged Christians live like hell, except for
an hour on Sunday morning. I personally believe that the majority
of the church only thinks they are saved because of an emotional appeal
which temporarily moved them. It’s like going to a ball
game—you dress up, paint your self, cheer like a madman—but
then, the ball game is over and you go back home. It’s the
same thing. I probably lean more toward if saved, it’s
conditional—if you are obedient, you are always saved. I
think we are saying the same thing. It’s not that I
don’t still sin (frankly, even if I get it all right—with
God’s help—the body He gave me is deteriorating, at a rapid
pace, because it is a BODY OF FLESH AND SIN. But I cannot, in my
wildest dreams, imagine running off to commit adultery now. My
problems now are much large than adultery. I am down to wondering
about the time I spend watching Law and Order instead of put the time
to use for Bible Study. Oh wretched person that I am. Thank
God for the blood of Jesus that has made me righteous and the Holy
Spirit who continually prods me. Thank you for being willing to
say what I have thought for a long time… LWFP (living white
female Puritan) MC
Hi. Thanks for your email and your appreciation of our article on Once saved - Always saved.
I wrote this article to meet a particular need and to try and
secure a good doctrine and make it clearer and so enable us to
understand it better and consequently live it out better to the glory
of God. I do NOT run
with the idea that salvation is conditional. Salvation is of grace from
the very beginning (predestination and election) to the very end
(glorification). If you make it conditional upon our obedience, then we
effectively become our own saviour, at least in part. That is not the
teaching of the word of God which says simply that "Salvation is of the LORD" (Jonah 2:9) My salvation is dependent upon three things:
[i] The decree of God the Father who elected us
[ii] The suffering of God the Son who redeemed us
[iii] The power of God the Holy Spirit who regenerated us and indwells in us for ever
Salvation always produces
results and if these results are missing, then we may safely conclude
that there is no salvation there. A tree that does not produce fruit is
a dead tree - there is obviously no vitality in the roots. It is
not for us to say, "Well, I better work to show that I am saved" or (even worse) "I better work in order to be saved." The child of God will rather say, "I want to work to bring glory to God my Saviour." What often happens is that the child of God just manifests his good works, as a consequence
of his salvation, without hardly thinking about it at all. It is just
as when we do not formally think about opening our mouth to eat or
formally thinking about using our teeth to chew etc., and then formally
ensuring that the minced food goes down out throat, but we just
eat. I like the following lines as they sum up my position exactly:
I will not work my soul to save,
For that my Lord has done;
But I will work like any slave
For love of God's dear Son!"
Hopefully this email has been of help to you. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 4-1-07 Thank you for your response and site. I deeply appreciate. FW
*******************************************************
Received 3-1-07 Dear Sir and Brother in Christ, Have you run across Dan
Corner in your part of the world? Have you heard about his new book
concerning the loss of salvation? Thank you for your response. In
Christ, FW
Hi.
Thank you for your email. I have looked at Dan Corner's site before. I
have tended to view him as a kind of cultist and I say that
because his position regarding the teaching of "once saved, always saved" is that is (and I quote) "a false gospel as well as a heresy"
That this teaching has been abused is not disputed, but he does not
seem to recognise this and effectively damns the vast majority of the
people of God. (I tackle the abuse of this doctrine here.)
I have never met an Arminian who, although denying the eternal security
of God's people, has effectively damned those of us (5 point or 1 point
Calvinists) who do. I looked at his page on the Authorised Version
and I see that even there, he accuses the AV translators of adding 14
books (Apocrypha) to the word of God. It is true that they translated
these books, but he must know that the Protestant position has always
been to reject their place in the canon of Scripture and the AV men
held to this position. I fail to see any balance in Corner's work, at
least on these two issues, and I lack the desire to search further. I
therefore tend to ignore him. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 30-12-06 Pastor Maxwell, I am a moderator on a forum called Doctrines of
Grace. http://doctrinesofgrace.net/ We had
a recent request from a new member for an article about Man's responsibility
in relation to God's sovereignty and salvation but we had no articles on
the subject of Man's responsibility. I found your article and thought it
was well done and have added it to our articles, but I wanted to check and
make sure it is OK with you. I put a link to your site at the bottom and
also linked to your related article on God's Sovereignty. Feel free to
drop in for a visit. Sincerely, Susan
Wysor.
Hi Susan. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but I just got
back to Cork last night after the Christmas break. Delighted that you
have thought our article on man's responsibility worthy of inclusion in
your site. I'll get a look round in later on when things get less busy
here than they are at the moment. Trust that the Lord has blessed you
over the last year and that even better things lie ahead. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 21-12-06 (I got a reply
back from PN from Los Angeles about a week ago. You can judge from my
reply below what has been said. in reply to the previous email - dated
14-12-06 (Immediately below this email)
Hi, Sorry for the delay in getting
back to you. Things have been very busy here of late. I am just typing
this reply as we try and get a few things finished off before
Christmas.
The first paragraph in the
previous email about how things really are and how they actually appear
to us should be reread. When we ask (in prayer) for God to intervene,
it is as it appears unto us. The people of God in Acts 12 prayed
for Peter when he was cast into prison. They might have prayed that "the Lord's will be done." This
would be surely a reference to the divine decree, for the Lord knows
beforehand what He intends to do in any given situation. Yet their
language may also have been along the lines that "God would intervene and set Peter free."
Who is to say that as far as appearances are concerned, that this
latter request is not what happened? The intention of Herod was clear.
He intended the very next day to slay Peter. He had already slain James
to the approval of the Jews. Peter was well secured in the prison.
Humanly speaking, did not God intervene in a miraculous fashion and
secure Peter's release? Since we are looking at this incident (and
similar) from two different angels - God's and man's - we cannot always
strictly reconcile the language which we use. Both are true when
considered in their own right.
The eternal decree is deduced from
Scripture in that whatever God does, He planned to do and that He
planned to do from all eternity, hence the eternal decree. We may lay
our plans and be forced to change them because unforeseen circumstances
have cropped up and/or we have lacked the resources to see them
through. Thus we talk about a "change in plans"
- God is not afflicted with such things and therefore His plans are not
changed but (like himself) invariable, neither is there shadow of
turning (James 1:17)
You asked whether the principle of Genesis 50:20 "But
as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to
bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" apply
to each and every situation? I believe it does. Does Romans 8:28 where
all things are said to work together for good to the child of God mean "all things without exception" or "all things merely without distinction" i.e.
all kinds of things? What if they don't mean all things without
exception? Where does that leave me when I am facing some
nightmare situation and trying to pray? We could keep on challenging
every single argument and end up with no basis to apply the word of God
to any given situation we might find ourselves in.
You ask:
"And why is it that if something happens that God did not purpose, he
ceases to be God? Isn’t there a text that says the Jews rejected
the purpose of God for them?" First of all, the Jews rejected
the commandments of God, as opposed to His decrees. Every time a man
sins in any shape or form, He rejects the commandment of God,
because sin is the transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4)
It was a sin for Joseph's brethren to do what they did in Genesis 37.
They sought to hide the true nature of their deeds by lying to Jacob.
They confessed to their sinful deeds among themselves and finally to
Joseph when they sought (significantly) his forgiveness. But although
they broke the Commandment, yet (as seen in Genesis 50:20) the decree
of God was not violated, but actually being carried out, although they
are not blameless for their sin. If God decrees something and it does
not come to pass, then it has failed to come to pass and we may say
that failure is one of the attributes of God, along with disappointment
etc., God then must cease to be God because something/some One greater
has arisen, thus forcing Him into second place. If things happen
outside of God's decree, then there are many decrees operating and
ultimately effecting the world - the limited decree of God and those
other decrees which God has refrained from interfering with. Why should
I pray then to God on any given situation without knowing that He will
indeed intervene (that word again!) on my behalf? If something good
happens, how can I give God the glory without knowing that it happened
according to His will? Does the wounded Jew on the road to Jericho
praise God for the kind and caring Samaritan or does he just praise the
Samaritan, since it is possible that this was something which God had
not purposed at all?
I will be away from my computer
for a few days. Maybe a good reason to try and contemplate these things
further. Have a good Christmas. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 14-12-06 Hello Colin, This is PN from Los Angeles. I came across your email on a
paper form the monergism.com website. I had a recent correspondence with a Calvinist that I thought you
might find interesting and possibly beneficial. Best wishes, PN
Hi, Thanks for forwarding me on your comments on the
Calvinist position on God's Eternal Decree as articulated by the
Westminster Confession of Faith.
Obviously I can't reproduce your whole paper here, nor do I have the
time to go through it line by line in another page. However, this is my
general response to your thoughts on whether or not God has decreed
every last event that comes to pass. I think if I can mention some
general Calvinist principles, then many of your queries and thoughts will be effectively answered.
1) The Bible uses two types of language when revealing God to us. At first glance, this may appear
to be contradictory, but we know that this is not the case. We have God
revealed as He truly is and then as He often appears to us to be. This
is seen nowhere better than in 1 Samuel 15:29/35 where in v29 we are
clearly told that God does not repent (As He truly is) and yet but 6
verses later, we are told that it repented the LORD that He had made
Saul to be king over Israel. Here, we are being given the story as it appears
unto us from our limited perspective. It seems that the LORD (who is
not a man that He should repent) did just that and changed His mind and
replaced Saul with David. Ultimately, whatever comes to pass is what
the Lord had always planned to happen, no matter how it may appear
otherwise to us. The Bible uses this teaching device on other
occasions, notably the use of human characteristics to convey truth
e.g. God remembered Noah (Genesis 8:1) or God opening the windows of
Heaven (Malachi 3:8) etc., This is how it appears
unto us, even though not literally correct when all things overall are
considered. This is not being dishonest, for when we compare spiritual
things with spiritual, it is understood to be a teaching device,
being adapted to our somewhat weak capacity to understand the deep
things of God.
Re: Jeremiah 3:6-7/19-20 which you quote about God thinking that Israel
would call Him their Father, although they did not: This translation
seems to be unique to the NIV and is certainly not in the AV or the RV.
But even if it were a true translation, it must prove too much if taken
absolutely literally. Would it not then teach that God at best did not
know (contradicting His omniscience) or even worse, that He thought
wrong (thus contradicting His infallibility)? However, if we read these
and similar verses as God speaking after the manner of men, but all the
while preserving His absolute sovereignty etc., then it all begins to
add up.
2) The Scripture teachs that whatever God actually
does (as opposed to what He warns or promises etc.,) He had always
planned to do. God is eternal and with Him, there is no past, present
or future. God is. He knows the end from the beginning, before things
come to pass, and His counsel (which like Himself can only be eternal)
shall surely stand and he will do all His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:10)
Again, it may be that in communicating these things to us, God may wait
until certain events have come to pass to do so and He may use language
that denotes that He delayed His actions accordingly, but this does not
mean that He had not purposed to do what He eventually did do. With
God, there is no variableness nor shadow of turning (James 1:16) He is
the LORD who changes not (Malachi 3:6)
3) If God is truly Almighty and if (the language of reason, not
of doubt) He knows all things, nothing taking Him by surprise etc.,
then He must have the power and the wisdom etc., to allow or disallow
things to happen according to His overall plan. Allowing sinful things
to happen is not the same as being the author of them. He did not allow
the Jews to take Christ in John 7:30/8:20 because the appointed hour
had not come (cp John 13:1) but He did later on - the Scripture saying
that God Himself delivered up His own Son (Romans 8:32) Unless the
Cross was an after thought with God, this event and all things leading
to it were undoubtedly planned by God. Jesus Christ went as it was not
only written (Matthew 26:24/Mark 14:21) but as it was determined
(Luke 22:22) - i.e. determined by God, because it was to this end that
the Father sent Him into the world (1 John 4:14) Yet, the part in
which men played in these events is truly sinful, as seen in the
punishment of Judas (texts already quoted) and the indictment, clearly
accepted the Jews, which Peter laid at their feet in Acts 2:23 (even
when coupled with the determination of God in the matter) and Acts
2:37. If God can intervene in the affairs of men and prevent sin (as He
did in Genesis 20:6/31:29) and does not, but lets men have their wicked
ways, then these events have truly been ordained by Him. We may try to
lessen the force by saying that "God allowed this and that to happen"
and even Calvinists sometimes use this language, but this is only
delaying the inevitable deduction i.e. it happened in the plan and
therefore according to the will and purpose of God. If God purposed
that it should not happen, then it would not happen, otherwise, there
is a power greater than God and He ceases to be God.
4) Incidentally, there is a line of argument that Gods foresaw certain
events and then ordained they should happen. This is a logical nonsense
in that if He foresaw them happening, then they would happen anyway
even if He did not foreordain them.
5) It is virtually impossible for us with our pea sized minds to try
and reconcile the truths of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.
The secret is to fearlessly proclaim both with equal vigor and avoid
all dilutions of either of them. Man is not treated in the Bible as
a robot or a puppet. God entreats Him, warns Him, pleads with Him,
punishes/rewards etc., because man is a rational being and fully
accountable for his deeds. When Joseph spoke to his erring
brethren about their earlier despicable sin against him, he could say: "But
as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto
good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people
alive." (Genesis 50:20) One event, clearly ordained of
God since He meant to do it, but two attitudes towards it. It was sin
for the brethren to do it since their intention was evil i.e. rid
themselves of their godly brother with his irritating dreams.
Even though it was the same event and involved the scheming of the
wicked spiteful brethren, yet God detemined (the Hebrew word is
translated many ways elsewhere including devised and purposed) that it would be for good, since it led to Joseph gaining power in Egypt and ultimately preserving many people alive.
I'm sure that there is much more that I could write here, but these are
just a few thoughts which I trust prove to be helpful to you. Thanks
for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 12-12-06 Hi Colin! The person I am dialoguing gave his interpretation of Acts
13:48 from another perspective to try and teach me, this is what he
said: Here is another perspective of Acts 13:48. "Actually the
words of Acts 13:48-49 do not necessarily have any reference whatever to the
doctrine of God's eternal decree of election. The passive participle tetagnemoi
may simply mean 'ready,' and we might well read, 'as many as were prepared for
eternal life, believed.'" He adds, "Commenting on this word, Alford says,
'The meaning of this word must be determined by the context. The Jews had judged
themselves unworthy of eternal life (v. 46); the Gentiles, 'as many as were
disposed to eternal life,' believed...To find in this text preordination to life
asserted, is to force both the word and the context to a meaning which they do
not contain.'" This view is supported by the fact that the verb in Acts
13:48 is 'tasso', not 'protasso'. Thus, the translation of it as 'preordained'
by many translations was an unfortuate and biasing translation.Just
another viewpoint to consider when we consider
election. His
argument sounds pretty convincing, is what he's saying
true? Love, M.
I think it was James White who
looked up all the various translations on this verse (in response to
Dave Hunt's attacks) and observed that all the main ones translated the
word either "ordain" or "appoint". The only one he found which ran with the "disposed to believe" line was the Jehovah Witness "New World Translation".
Even David Cloud, whose attacks upon the Doctrines of Grace tend to
strain ethical standards, admits that Acts 13:48 is translated
properly. I quote: "Personally, I see no reason to believe that the King James Bible is wrong in the
way it translates Acts 13:48"
If this is the same Alford as helped oversee the translating of the
Revised Version (I suspect it was, but I am not 100% sure) then he
should note that the RV translates the word "ordained" also. The translation is pure. Anyway,
the doctrine of election does not stand or fall on this text since it
taught in many other places all over the Bible. Saving faith flows from
the grace of God (Acts 18:27) and it is evident that such saving faith
is not given to all....or else all would believe and be saved. The
heretic Socinus (as quoted by JA Alexander) went as far as to render
the verse: "As many as believed were ordained to eternal life"
which is to force the doctrine into the text. While most stop short of
doing this, yet this is the man centered interpretation which they put
these words. Let God be God - Sovereign in all His ways and One who has
mercy on whom He will have mercy (Romans 9:15) ! Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 11-12-06 Good day, Pastor
Maxwell! I have read a few of your posts with
great interest. I did not know that I was a Calvinist – I probably would have
never even thought about the term – but a few events brought me into the
awareness of it.
Nice to hear from you in Maryland and to know that the site has been of blessing to you.
I am currently (although slow going)
working on the manuscript for a book that aims to provide a biblical refutation
of the Evangelical movement to influence politics/politicians and to effect
social change through boycotts and protests, all for the purpose of making
American a “Christian Nation” (again) or to make America righteous in God’s
sight through the full or partial integration of the Decalogue in American
Society. This includes some Dominionist theology asserting that Christians
should take over the government and order it according to the Decalogue (a “New
Israel” of sorts) – in this, the harsh realities of the penalties of the
Decalogue are proposed as the means for turning men’s hearts to God. That then,
would be the place for the gospel of Jesus Christ and His cross (of course, we
don’t see any historical example of this in the apostolic dispensation of the
methodological use). Nevertheless, a friend of mine (with
whom we stand at continual odds on this issue) made an “under the breath
comment” (derogatorily, of course) about Calvinists some time ago. Puzzled, I
shrugged my shoulders and continued on my way. Here’s where the “link” came for
me, Pastor Maxwell…I am utterly opposed to the idea that Christians can bring
about righteousness in the world by influencing social corners or political
power bases.
I
basically agree with you. I reject the Dominionist idea altogether...as
you say, the Apostles seemed content with preaching the gospel. I think
we need to balance up the matter though by remembering that Christians
are the salt of the earth, clearing with a preserving quality, and so I
would not frown against political involvement of individual Christians
or even churches making representation to political bodies or raising
the voice in protest against (say) so called Gay Rights etc., I think
the problem begins when we start relying on our voting muscle instead
of the preaching of the gospel. Ultimately, you cannot legislate
righteousness, although you can act as some kind of restraint to evil,
even if it only drives it underground. There is a balance out there
somewhere; finding and maintaining it is the order of the day.
The Bible clearly teaches the sinful man is fully incapable of
obeying God’s Law or performing any work in conjunction with His righteous
requirements that would please Him. “The carnal mind is not subject to the Law
of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please
God” (Romans 8:7, 8). With this doctrine, the total depravity of man, I open my
book; the purpose being, again, to demonstrate that sinful man cannot do those
things required of God to His pleasure – they must be changed by the voluntary
dispensing of God’s grace. The first chapter of my book is titled, “The
Depravity of Man”. Although many use this term, I believe that depravity is a
statement to the utter incapacity and unwillingness of man to come to or please
God. There is no internal means at man’s disposal by which he can (or even
desires to) escape this condition. Having drafted much of the first chapter, I
began to look at the writings of other men who broached the subject of man’s
depravity. Interestingly, I found that they called themselves, “Calvinists”!
Honestly, I struggle with terming or naming (other than Christians), but I
suppose that’s quite irrelevant. I thought it beneficial to provide this
introduction and, having done so, I’ll move on to the crux of my
question.
In
an ideal world, the term "Christian" should be enough. Sadly, the world
(and even the church) is not ideal and so we need other labels.
Personally, I have no problem with the term "Calvinist" - if someone
else has quibbles, well let them pick some other name and clearly
define what it means and ensure that it does the job it is meant to do
i.e. identify a particular set of beliefs. I am happy on this occasion
just to "go with the flow" seeing no major Bible principles are
violated. A book with a bad title might still contain a good story
inside!
Regarding the title of the subject
post, you state that, “Since both Calvinist and non Calvinists believe that the
priceless sacrifice of the Son of God is sufficient to save the world, both of
the elect and non elect…” I don’t understand how to hold this statement in
balance with the issue of Limited Atonement. If the sacrifice of Christ is
sufficient to save all, then doesn’t that constitute an Unlimited Atonement?
Or, rather is the “limited” nature of the atonement found only in those for whom
the atonement would be and is effectual – that is, the elect? If we say that
the atonement saves only the elect, aren’t we saying that there is no intention
that it should be for the non elect – therefore there is no atonement available
for them? Jesus said that He lays down His life for His sheep. In that
passage, John 10, Jesus talks about wolves, robbers and thieves, and hirelings.
Not once does He mention laying down His life for these – only for His sheep.
Is it then that Jesus’ death is only for the elect? Can His death be for the
non elect, sufficient for their salvation and yet not touching on their
salvation?
I
don't believe that actually Christ made atonement for the sins of the
reprobate...otherwise the reprobate would be saved. Christ did
something definite...not potential (or hypothetical) but actual. I
deplore how those who preach an unlimited atonement subtly reduce what
Christ did. They take verses like John 1:29 where Christ is said to
have definitely borne away the sins of the world, but this quickly
becomes "He has borne away your sins if
you believe Him." The text doesn't say that. The object (Christ has
borne away sin) is not dependent on the subjective (if you believe) but
the subjective (faith) is dependent upon the objective
(atonement). While the reception of salvation is dependent on the "if"
- "if a man will not believe, he will be damned" yet the atonement is
not. If Christ made atonement for the sins of the whole
(unlimited) world - elect and reprobate alike - then their sins are
gone and there is no need nor just cause for a burning Hell. Unbelief
would not be a gateway to hell, because this sin too has (according to
the Universal Atonement man) also been paid for in full, atoned for in
full by the precious blood and cast into the depths of the sea,
never to be remembered any more. So we reject the idea that the
atonement stretches to save the reprobate.
Let
me come now to your objection about my statement of the sufficiency of
the death of Christ to save all men, elect or reprobate. While there
was no intention on God's part to save the reprobate - at least to the
point of decreeing that it
should be so - yet the blood of Jesus Christ is so precious (referred
to in Acts 20:28 as the blood of God) that had it been
God's decree to save every last sinner ever born, then Christ would not
have suffered any longer on the Cross nor would his anguish have been
any deeper. The worth of the Atonement depends not so much
on its application (which flows from its worth) but on the Supreme
Dignity of the Person who makes it i.e. the Altogether lovely Lord
Jesus Christ who pleased the Father in everything He ever did. It is
the sufficiency of the Atonement that enables us to honestly make the free offer of the gospel.
By and large the Reformed constituency has always held to my view. John
Calvin himself allowed the observation to stand: "They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole
world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed
in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny
that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to
make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the
reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were
then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made
evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only
true salvation of the world." (Commentary on 1 John 2:2)
Spurgeon also took this line: "I never have
subscribed — I think I never shall — to the doctrine of universal redemption. I
believe in the limitless efficacy of the blood of Christ. I would not say, with
some of the early Fathers, that a single drop of Christ’s blood would have been
sufficient for the redemption of the world. That seems to me to be an expression
too strained, though doubtless their meaning was correct. I believe that there
is efficacy enough in the blood of Christ if it be applied to the conscience to
save any man and every man. But when I come to the matter of redemption it seems
to me that whatever Christ’s design was in dying, that design cannot be
frustrated, nor by any means disappointed. When I look at the person of our Lord
Jesus Christ, I cannot imagine that such an One, offering such a sacrifice, can
ever be disappointed of the design of his soul. Hence I think that all whom he
came on purpose to save he will save, all who were graven on the strong
affections of his heart as the purchase of his blood he assuredly shall have.
All that his heavenly Father gave him shall come to him. All that he chose from
before the foundation of the world, he will raise up at the last day. All who
were included among the members of his mystic body, when he was nailed to the
tree, shall be one with him in his glorious resurrection, and "not a hoof shall
be left behind." I know there are some who believe in a disappointed Christ, who
affect to lament concerning Christ a design not accomplished, a frustrated
cross, agonies spent in vain, blood that was poured out on the ground as water
that cannot be gathered up. I believe in no such thing. God createth nothing in
vain, nor will I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross in vain in any
sense or in any degree whatever. Not a hoof of all his purchased flock shall be
left behind." (New Park Street Pulpit: 6:328-329)
If
I had the time, I am sure that I could produce plenty of other
references from leading Reformed men to the same point, but as ever, I
am fighting against the clock. A good book to procure is "The Atonement Controversy in Welsh Theological Literature and Debate 1707-1841" (Banner of Truth)
which deals with the different aspects of this matter within Calvinist
circles in Wales (and by extension, everywhere else) It is a most
enjoyable and stimulating read.
I think about Noah, whose ark would
never have accommodated all men. The ark was sufficient for those whom God
intended to save – Noah and his family of seven, plus a host of animals. Also,
I think about the bronze serpent that Moses erected in the wilderness. We both
know that, with the bronze serpent, God had no intention of saving those who had
already died from snakebite, else they would have had to be raised to life
(according to the historic, biblical record that did not happen). We also can
infer that not everyone was bitten by the snakes (for not all had sinned against
God to receive the penalty of snakebite – Moses didn’t get bit). We do know
that all who were bitten, when they looked at the bronze serpent (and not if,
although I have not looked at the original language to see if there are any
variations) they lived. When I read that passage, it appears to me that the
giving of the bronze serpent by God fulfilled it’s intention – to save all that
were in need and were determined by God to be saved. It did not save those who
were not bitten, for there was no need. Nor did it save those who were decreed
to die, for they were dead. Nor was the bronze serpent given with some looking
to it, while others refused to look. According to the Scriptures, WHEN those
who were bitten looked, they were healed. It was sufficient for all those for
whom it was intended. Can we not make the same application for the death of
Christ?
While
these two incidents were clearly OT types of salvation in Christ alone,
yet they were also clearly limited in their scope and cannot completely
project the fulness of Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. For
example, the brazen serpent in the OT narrative was only for the
Israelites, while John 3:15-16 (following on from the reference to the
serpent on John 3:14) has a reference to the "whosoever" and "the
world". They who looked were healed of a bodily affliction and many of
them would have perished later in the wilderness because of unbelief
etc., OT types are valuable things, but we should be careful when using
them to establish any doctrine.
Why would the death of Christ need
to be sufficient for the salvation of all men and yet only accomplish the
salvation of those whom God intended to be saved? I would appreciate your
insights as I seek to understand your statement. I look forward to hearing from you,
Pastor Maxwell! Best
regards, MP, Baltimore, MD, USA
As
said above, the sufficiency of Christ's atonement is based on the
Dignity of His Person, rather than any real need outside of Himself.
Another aspect to Christ's death, which I do not have time to
develop here and now, is the thought that the reprobate gains certain
temporal blessings (stopping short of atonement and salvation) flowing
from the sacrifice of Christ. An example would be the fact that
the reprobate, while condemned already because of his unbelief, is not
immediately in hell, but often placed within the sound of the gospel
etc., I know John Murray takes this position in his book "Redemption,
Accomplished and Applied" but I cannot give you the exact quote as I
have misplaced my copy somewhere.
Anyway,
I really must go. Thanks for writing. I hope these answers will
stimulate not only further thought, but further worship of our all
sufficient Saviour! God bless. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 7-12-06 Hi and thanks for responding! You said that the unsaved should not abuse
this truth and wait for God to draw them, but should seek the Lord while he is
to be found But what about this: John 6:44 No man can come to me,
except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last
day. Meaning unless God first draws a person they absolutely are unable
to come. Love, M
Hi. Thanks again for your email.
It is true that unless God draws a person, then they are absolutely
unable to come. Such is the hold of sin upon them, that they love
darkness rather than light (John 5:39) and so will
not come to Christ that they might have life (John 5:40) This truth,
however, does not rob man of his responsibility to come to Christ,
since failure to do so is punished (John 3:18/36). God draws His elect
to Himself through means i.e.
gospel preaching and evangelism. Knowing the terror of the Lord, Paul
sought to persuade men (2 Corinthians 5:14) and urged men to seek the
Lord (Acts 17:27) It was none less than the Lord Jesus Himself who said
that men ought to strive to enter in (Luke 13:24) - again a
wholesome and necessary emphasis on man's responsibility. When Jesus
called Lazarus to come forth from the grave, even though he could not
come in himself, the call contained the power enabling him to do so.
When we preach the gospel, the call itself contains the power enabling
the elect to repent and believe the message to the saving of their
souls. If we keep emphasising the sovereignty of God to the
exclusion of man's responsibility, then we slip into fatalism and that
is the road to nowhere. A good book on this matter is "The Soulwinner" by CH Spurgeon where we have the perfect blend of both doctrines. Colin.
*****************************************************
Received 6-12-06 Hi! I am having trouble understanding this verse. Can you clarify this
for me? "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the
word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life
believed." (Acts 13:48) Love, M
Hi. Thanks for your note. I am not
sure what clarification is required in this particular verse as it is
really quite straight forward. Paul had been preaching to a mixed
multitude both of Jews and Gentiles. The Jews (by and large) rejected
the word of God and so judged themselves (man's responsibility)
unworthy of eternal life (v46) However, among the Gentile listeners,
there was more favour shown towards the word of God (which can often be
the case, even if the person ultimately does not get saved -
consider the parable of the sower.) The ones who ultimately did beleive
to the saving of the soul were those who were ordained by God to that
end. The controversy begins when we seek to understand the basis on
which they were so ordained. Non Calvinists say that their ordination
to eternal life is based on their faith i.e. God forsaw that they would
one day believe the gospel and so ordained their salvation. However, it
is more accurate to say (as v48 indicates) that faith flows from the
ordination to eternal life. Calvinists rightly hold that the ordination
to eternal life is unconditional and is rooted solely in the good and
sovereign pleasure of God. The important thing to note in this chapter
is that the Apostles preached the gospel indiscrimately to the people.
Note the number of "unto you" and similar phrases. Secondly, (as noted
already) those who did not believe have none to blame but themselves.
They freely chose to reject the gospel, being left to their own
devices. There can be no riling against God. Thirdly, the elect will
surely and infallibly come in the day of God's appointment and this
great truth should serve as a spur to every evangelist. The unsaved
should not abuse this truth and "wait" for God to draw them, but should
seek the Lord while he is to be found (Isaiah 55:6) and strive to enter
in etc., Divine sovereignty NEVER negates man's responsibility. Colin.
P/s Later addition: Notes of my sermon on this text here. mp3 recording here.
*******************************************************
Received 5-12-06 Hi! I visited your website and couldn't find the answers I was looking
for. This person tells me that in Romans 9:21, there are 2 vessels involved.
He is trying to refute predestination and election I sent your reply to this
person and he said: "I
understand that it is one lump of clay and two separate vessels. One to
honor, one to dishonour. Two separate souls? No. One lump of clay. Two
natures. Just as Paul demonstrated two different vessels here:"
[Quotes well known passage from Romans 7:14-25 about the struggle Paul
had with sin etc., gaining victory only through our Lord Jesus
Christ] Two vessels. One Paul. Two
vessels. One lump of clay." Is
this correct? Love, Madeline.
Hi Madeline. Thanks for your
email. I appreciate you taking time to write. I must say that the view
which your contact has put forth is certainly novel. I notice that
neither John Wesley nor Adam Clarke,
both of whom greatly opposed the Calvinist position, venture forth
such views, but rightly teach that the verse speaks of God's dealings
with people. I really do wish that I had time to go through the
various non Calvinist commentaries both in my own library and through
the Internet and check what others have said on this verse. I suspect
that your contact is practically standing alone in this peculiar
teaching and cannot produce any notable Evangelical scholar to back up
his views. It seems to be to be just another attempt to try and whittle
down the somewhat unpalatable teaching of Romans 9 - a chapter which
those who believe in the sovereign will of man find hard to swallow. I
have perused many websites and books dealing with the
Arminian/Calvinist controversy, and yet I can honestly say that until I
opened your email this morning, this was the first time that I came
across such a view. It doesn't even fit into the context, but is
transposed into the setting to try and blunt the force of the teaching.
I should point out that in Romans 9, and the Bible as a whole, no man
is ever damned without any reference to his sin. Death is the wages
(earned and deserved) of individual and personal sin. There is no one
in hell who does not deserve to be there. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 1-12-06 Yes, please, maybe you could clarify some things for me. I was raised in
church and been a Christian since a child. I am now 56 yrs old and I can
remember asking my mother what faith does our church hold to. She said that we
are of the Calvinist faith, but I do not really know what that means. Could you
please tell me how you believe in as much detail as possible so that I may have
a greater understanding. I think all my mother expounded on was that we believe that everyone is
welcome to receive the gospel, but only the elected do. Like the door example,
that says over the top before you enter "Whosoever will may come", but then
after you walk thru the door, it says something like "you were predestined to be
saved". Also, that God is sovereign, that He is in full control, but we do indeed
have a free will, but I do not understand how prayer enters into this. Please help me to understand. Thank you, Martha.
Hi, Martha. Nice to hear from you. I suggest that you have a wee look round our Calvinism Index page. Helpful pages include: Calvinism Simplified and also the page on the three legged stool.
Another good place, which will require a little more effort (but well
worth it) would be the Calvinism Bible Studies, starting here.
The door example that you give is a good one. It is usually attributed
to DL Moody. It is important to preach the gospel to every creature,
without any distinction. We do not know who the elect are, and so the
gospel net must be put into the water, regardless of what good or bad
will be caught in it (Matthew 13:47-48) It is true that only the elect
will be brought - the rest will be left to their own chosen pathway of
sin. It is not God who actively keeps them back - He simply leaves them
to their own desires and they effectively damn themselves. The wonder
is not that God does not draw the reprobates, but that He does draw His elect., when He was under no obligation to do so.
It is true that God is sovereign in all His ways and also that we are
free agents (a better term than that we have a free will) We cannot
discern where both these truths meet, and we do not need to. We are not
to be led by what we discern (or think we discern) to be the decrees of
God, but rather by the revealed word of God i.e. the Scriptures.
Therefore we seek to keep the various commandments, heed the various
warnings and claim the various promises as fully responsible creatures.
Regarding prayer, while God is completely sovereign and sees all His
decrees come to pass, so that it might be said that there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. (Proverbs 21:30) yet
He normally works through means. Christ could have rolled away
the stone Himself when He raised Lazarus, but He got the folk standing
around to do it instead. (John 11:39) It pleases God not only to save
sinners, but it is through the foolishness of preaching (1 Corinthians
1:21) Subsequently, when He is going to bring something to pass,
it is usually in answer to prayer. This is clearly seen in the case of
Daniel in Babylon. He clearly read in the Book of Jeremiah that the
captivity was last but 70 years. He quickly did his sums, worked out
that the time was near...and prayed (Daniel 9) He just didn't sit back
and wait for it to happen, although it had been ordained of God. If
Daniel had not have prayed, then someone else would, because God brings
His decrees to pass through various means, not least the prayers of His
people.
I trust that these few lines help you. Any more queries etc., do not hesitate to write. Colin.
These Calvinistic emails, starting at page 1, go back to July 2002
Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland