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 6-11-11 Dear Brother
Maxwell, While I have yet to come to a more certain conclusion with
regard to how I should understand the relationship between God's sovereignty and
man's will, I want to thank you for your website. I
found your website after looking around on search engines to see if any
Calvinists had responded to David Cloud's rather inadequate booklet, The
Calvinism Debate.
Thanks for your encouraging note. I am glad that our website has been of encouragement to you.
While his books did help me become a separatist who
has come to despise ecumenism and modernism, as all Bible believers should, I
found that his booklet on Calvinism was quite short in comparison. As such, I
must say that Cloud's materials do not constitute the strongest possible case
contra Calvinism and that it seems that I would have to look elsewhere for more
authoritative, definitive defenses of a non-Reformed position.
As
you can see from our Calvinism Index page above, I have had quite a few
run ins with Mr Cloud on the Calvinism issue. Some of his points need
to be taken on board and answered and we have sought to do this on
various pages. Others just involve denying the various untrue charges
that he sometimes levels against Calvinism. Unfortunately, these are so
frequent that I felt the need to state why I do not believe that he is
a good critic of Calvinism. Thankfully Mr Cloud fervently exposes
modernism and ecumenism with which we would agree. In any
case, I would like to ask you if you have ever encountered materials written by
Dan Corner, an Arminian who is most known for his attacks on the doctrines of
eternal security or 'once saved, always saved.' Further, have you had an
opportunity to read the most recent articles by Cloud on Calvinism (http://wayoflife.org/files/category-calvinism.html)? It seems
as though Cloud has published about 3-4 articles on the subject recently. Do any
of his recent comments or updates warrant new responses from yourself?
I
have seen some of Corner's stuff but never took the time in a very busy
schedule to answer him. I don't see anything new in David Cloud's
recent stuff to warrant a new article. It's just the same stuff as
before rehashed. In
Christ, I.S.
Thanks again for taking the time to write. Colin. *******************************************************Answered 29-3-11 Brother_ I would like to tell you how much I have benefited from your web site, especially concerning Calvinism. May our Lord continue to bless you and keep this site up and running~ Yours in Christ Jesus our Lord, FW.
Hi! Thanks for your encouraging email. Always nice to get
feedback and to know that these pages are being blessed and helpful to
folk. If interested, you can get more Calvinistic stuff on my Twitter
page: www.twitter.com/weecalvin Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered
24-3-11 (See previous posting for the first email from Dan) Dear Colin,
Thank you for your reply to my question. However, your reply, or
Calvinism, seems to be a set of contradictions, one after another, in
my opinion.
Thanks for taking time to
read my reply to you. I am sorry that you have not received the truth of
what (I believe) the Scripture teaches. However, I am interested in
reading your criticisms and testing them by the same Scripture.
You
say that the sole cause for man's damnation is his sin, and nothing
else, and that Christ offered himself for the sin of the whole world.
But then you make the case that such an offering for sin is closed off
to certain innumerable people whom God has chosen not to save by way of
irresistible grace that draws them in. So Calvinism's number one
contradiction is that Jesus died for everyone, but only the elect whom
God has chosen beforehand and drawn through irresistible grace directed
toward them get that salvation. That is a contradiction of
insurmountable proportions. If Jesus died "for everyone" then isn't it a mockery of that achievement to say that God only allows that sacrifice to be accepted by a chosen few?
Did I say that "Christ died for everyone"? I think not. Reread the reply which is still on record in the post below. What I said was that Christ died for "all without distinction" (i.e. all kinds of) as opposed to "all without exception." I distinctly pointed out how the "Unlimited Atonement" folk fall short (I actually wrote: "Those who believe in an unlimited atonement
cannot say that.") What I did point
out was that Calvinists believe that the gospel is to be proclaimed
indiscrimately to all men without exception. I certainly do not
believe in an Unlimited Atonement where Christ died for reprobates who
were already in hell when He died or whom He knew would eventually be
in hell and that because of their unbelief. If it is any consolation,
you quote me right when you write: "You say that the sole cause for man's damnation is his sin, and nothing else..."
but you definitely err when you attribute to me (or Calvinists in
general) a belief that Christ died for all without exception. A
more consistent and Biblically faithful perspective - and one that does
not contradict itself - would be to say that Jesus died for all and has
given all the ABILITY (faith...all men have been given a measure of
faith in order to accept the free offer of salvation) to choose that
free gift.
These words are built on
your assumption alleged above that Calvinism is inconsistent,
believing that Christ died for all men without exception. I have shown
this assumption to be wrong.
Much scripture supports this perspective: For instance, the "whoseover will" verses (John 3:16, Rev.22). The word "whosoever" must mean "all sinners" (not "all the predetermined elect",
in accordance with Calvinism) else you have another implied
contradiction within Calvinism, and that is the idea that some of the
elect (the whosever) can "will" themselves to be lost forever by their own choice.
Calvinism has no problem with the "Whosoever will" verses, believing as stated again, that the gospel is to be preached and offered to every creature. See here for how Calvin stressed the free offer of the gospel and here
for other noted Calvinists on the same theme. I think your problem
begins when you assume that God inviting sinners and indeed commanding
sinners to repent and believe implies that they have the ability to do
so. You state above your belief that "God has given all ABILITY" (capitals yours) and then promise to supply "much scripture" by way of "support"
but you do not do so. Neither John 3:16/Rev 22 or 2 Peter 3:9 (quoted
below) says anything about every last sinner being given the ability
to render Evangelical obedience. You are assuming it, rather than
proving it. There is no doubt that, left to themselves, that elect
sinners would will themselves into hell. The glorious reality, of
course, is that they are not left to themselves but objects of Divine
grace that prevents their deserved doom.
II Peter 3:9 says that "God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentence". Again, the "any" and the "all"
of this verse must refer to literally all sinners, else, once again, we
have an implied Calvinistic contradiction, which is that some of the
predetermined elect (the "any" and the "all" of II Peter 3:9) CAN INDEED perish.
Before
we read the letter and start laying hands on the promises contained
therein, we need to read the address on the envelope. 2 Peter 1:1 was
not addressed to elect and reprobate alike ("all without exception") but to the elect (i.e. those who "obtain like precious faith") If the "will of God" here carries the force of a decree, then it cannot refer to "all men without exception"
otherwise God has decreed something to see it end in singular failure.
(Not only failure, but the most gigantic failed exercise in the
Universe). OTOH, if the force of the "will of God"
is less than a decree, but expressing a more general view of God's
character, then we might extend it to all men without exception in that
God is not a monster nor delights to see His creatures perish in hell.
So, Colin, it is more faithful to the intent of scripture to say that if God offers salvation to "the world" (John 3:16) then
he also provides the grace and faith (ability) for all sinners to
accept that free gift for themselves. This almost goes without saying,
as is commonly said.
The issue is not
whether or not it is commonly said. The issue is whether or not God has
said it in the Scriptures. You seem to be working on the principle that
God is obliged towards the sinner. You forget that the sinner has
ruined himself - his will is chained by sin: John 8:34 ('doulos' =
'slave') - but he cannot will himself out of responsibility before God.
God is under no obligation towards the guilty. If you start obligating
God to do something for those whose sole deserving is to die and perish
forever in hell, then you negate the idea of grace which is distinctly
shown in the Bible to be towards the "undeserving."
It is
an unavoidable conclusion of the aforementioned that happens to have
explicit scripture elsewhere to back it up: God calls "all men everywhere to repentence" (Acts 17:31)....again, if the "all" of this verse refers to the Calvinistic notion of only "some"
(i.e., God's pre-chosen elect), then that makes a mockery of the fact
that Jesus died for all sinners. Calvinists, therefore, are forced to
revise their definition of God's foreknowledge from "God foreknew a
predetermined group of elect who he chose to save before they came into
the world" to "God knew beforehand who would CHOOSE to accept his free
offer of salvation and also who would reject it due to loving their sin
more". This perspective does not make an inconsistent mockery of "Jesus
dying for the sins of the whole world (literally every sinner".
Your above paragraph is riddled with errors. First of all, you speak of "explicit Scripture"
as proof, but you fail to supply it. Yes, you can provide Scripture to
show that every last sinner is invited to Christ, but you cannot
provide any to show that God effectually provides each and every sinner
with the means to come. All you have provided so far is a "common saying"
which is of little use to a Bible believer. Secondly, you more or less
repeat your arguments from the first paragraph which appears to be
ignorant of the fact that Calvinists believe in the responsibility of
every man without exception to repent. Thirdly, you repeat your
erroneous assumption that Calvinists believe that Christ made atonement
for every last sinner, when we believe (as stated clearly in my first
reply below) that we believe that Christ made atonement only for the
sins of the elect.
I think that Calvinists need to understand that choosing to accept God's free offer of salvation is not a "work". The Bible never portrays our freewill choice to accept his offer as a "work". When Paul said that we are not saved by "works"
he was referring to the ceremonial works of the law, which Christ had
fulfilled. He was in no wise implying that our choosing to accept the
free offer of salvation was a work upon which salvation was contingent.
Choose ye this day whom you shall serve...that was the message of God
to the Israelites from the beginning, implying that those "elect" could choose EITHER WAY.
You
seem to be unaware that Calvinists actually believe that sinners do
choose to believe the gospel. Those who do so, do so because their will
has been freed from the bondage of sin in which it is held (John 8:34)
Such faith, as you rightly say, is not a work because it is grace
driven. We "believed through grace" (Acts 18:27)
Man is hopeless outside of the grace of God, which "came by Jesus Christ". The law came by Moses, and in that regard, we are hopeless because we have all become sinners by choice, not nature.
Actaully
we are sinners both by nature and by practice. We act according to our
nature and our nature is sinful hence the nature of the fruit tree (as
Jesus alluded to) determines what the fruit will be. A thorn tree
cannot bring figs. Your denial of the impact of original sin is very
worrying. Even Arminius and Wesley accepted it.
Just as we
chose to sin, we can choose to accept the free gift of God's grace in
Christ. God calls ALL men everywhere to prepentence. He is not willing
that any should perish. The "any", again, could not refer to a
predetermined elect, else you have a contradiction, since it implies
that some of the "any" group COULD perish - Calvinism teaches that NONE
of the predetermined few can be lost. Thus, the "any" whom God is NOT
willing to have perish must refer to "all men everywhere", as it says
in Acts, i.e., all sinners, who have the personal responsibility to
choose the free gift of God's grace over the love of their sin.
Dan FM
This
is a repeat of what you have written above. Again, Calvinism teaches
that the elect would be lost if left to themselves. Thankfully, this is
not the case because God chose to intervene and to draw us graciously
to Himself, working in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure.
(Philippians 2:13) Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered
19-3-11 Dear Colin, I am embarking on an indepth study of the Calvinism
versus free-will debate. This is something I have put on the
shelf for years, always meaning to get to it. I have a
question for you. In my experience, Calvinists always seem shy -
even embarrassed and ashamed - to come right out and say what the flip
side of their view on predestination declares, and that is that God
also predestines hordes of people to be lost forever (which translates
to suffering forever and ever in the lake of fire). If God
predestines certain few people to be saved before they ever come into
the world, according to Calvinism's teaching on predestination and
foreknowledge, then HE ALSO predestines people to be eternally lost in
the lake of fire before they ever come into the world - that is the
flip side of Calvisnism's teaching that they rarely ever come right out
and tell people.
Hi Dan. I
appreciate you visiting our site and for taking to time to graciously
write to me with your honest concerns. I have read carefully your
remarks and have noted one major point was missing in your description
of Calvinism on the subject of the doom of the lost. It is this: That
Calvinism teaches that the sole cause of any man's damnation is his own sin, and nothing else. Calvin
wrote at considerable length on this most awesome doctrine of
reprobation and wisely observed in his Institutes 3:23:7 "Accordingly,
we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt
nature of humanity—which is closer to us—rather than seek a hidden and
utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination." These
are vital words and Calvin effectively insisted upon them again and
again when he commented on the various books of the Bible. God always deals with people as sinners - He does make them so, but justly treats them so. God is not obliged to save any sinner and therefore He is not obliged to save all sinners. Sometimes God justly leaves sinners to their own devices. The sole
cause of their condemnation is that light came into the world and yet
they loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were
evil. (John 3:19) On this verse, Calvin observed: "All
think it harsh that they who do not believe in Christ should be devoted
to destruction. That no man may ascribe his condemnation to Christ, he
shows that every man ought to impute the blame to himself. The reason
is, that unbelief is a testimony of a bad conscience; and hence it is
evident that it is their own wickedness which hinders unbelievers from
approaching to Christ." (John 3:19) There is not an Evangelical Christian who could not say "Amen"
to such sentiments. That is the basic teaching of Calvinism on the
doctrine of the lost. Lost sinners get effectively what they [i]
deserve, what they [ii] desire (John 3:19) and [iii] all to the glory
of God.
It is hard to see why any Calvinist should be ashamed
to confess this. I think part of the problem is that they allow their
opponents to dictate what they supposedly believe and end up
fighting an uphill battle and often against a closed mind. I take
the more profitable line of articulating my own belief and have no
shame whatsoever.
Could you please speak to this
issue in a reply? In my opinion, nothing could be more
anti-gospel, anti-New Testament, and anti-Jesus than saying than "limited atonement"
and the notion that God predestined hordes of people made in his image
to suffer eternally lost in the lake of fire. Thank you. In Christ, Dan
I do not find the idea of "Limited Atonement" to be anti gospel etc., at all. I think it might be better described as "Definite Atonement" but the point is still the same i.e. that Jesus actually made atonement for and actually secured the
salvation of His own elect. Those who believe in an unlimited atonement
cannot say that. According to them, Christ's Atonement secured nothing
definite in itself. According to them, it is powerless to save, unless
actually empowered by the faith of a hitherto lost soul. However,
according to the Calvinist, Christ's death did secure the
faith of the seeking sinner and ultimately his salvation. If a soul is
lost (as seen above) because
of his own sin and nothing else, then he has no interest in who Christ
died for. He wanted his sin rather than Christ and couldn't care less
whether Christ died or not or for him or not. Please note that a
Definite Atonement does not mean a limited offer when it comes to
gospel preaching. Calvinists have historically invited all men
indiscriminately to the Saviour. To quote Calvin again: "It
is true that Saint John saith generally, that [God] loved the world.
And why? For Jesus Christ offereth himself generally to all men without
exception to be their redeemer... (Sermons on Deuteronomy, p.167)"
There
is much more than I could write, but today is a busy day. Thank you for
writing. I hope these few lines of explanation help you. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered
18-3-11 Brother, This past Lord's Day I taught an adult Sunday School
class of the free offer of the Gospel. I was amazed at how confused my
people were. Some thought I was teaching Arminianism! I don't think
they ever heard of the free offer of the Gospel and they certainly were
not familiar with John Murray's contribution. We attract high
Calvinists but we have little zeal for the lost. Now I know why.Thanks for your anthology. It's encouraging to read the statements of Reformed men through the centuries on this doctrine. BN, OPC, USA Thanks
for your recent email. I am glad that you found the above page so
helpful. It was certainly a pleasure on my part compiling it. If i
might suggest something to you. It might help your folk to get the
burden for the lost by referring plenty to the great Calvinistic
Evangelists e.g. Whitefield and Spurgeon etc., and (nearer to home) the
great American Calvinists like Edwards and Nettleton. These men were
solid in their adherance to the Reformed Faith and witnessed great
scenes of Revival. Calvin's evangelistic endeavour is also heart warming and challenging. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 28-2-11 Dear Colin: Re your fine work A Word To Those Who Take It Upon Themselves
To Write Against Calvinism please note:1 Corinthians
1:10-13 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but
that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of
the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say,
that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;
and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye
baptized in the name of Paul?" As Paul did his brothers, I also beseech you
to replace the idolatrous "Calvinism" with the far more accurate monergism (it's
not a little absurdly anachronistic to call Luther a "calvinist" when Calvin
hadn't even been born yet! but he was clearly a monergist vs synergistic Rome,
and since Reformed Baptists hold to the credobaptism error vs Calvin's
paedobaptism, it is just as absurd to call them "calvinists" even if their
soteriology and ordo salutis is similar). But sadly most I've found are too lazy
to conform their vocabulary to God's Word (e.g. th), so if you're like that, I
doubt you'll heed or even hear my plea. The biggest of the reasons for which I
have limited respect for Calvinists is this rank manifestation of idolatry,
witting or not, that Calvin himself would have at least abhorred considering how
he sought to prevent people from finding where he was buried lest they make it
an ungodly vile idolatrous shrine like what excites pagan papists. Soli Deo
Gloria. God bless you, RD
Hi!
Thanks for your email and for taking time to respond to the article
which you seem to have found some help in. Re: the title of "Calvinist"
- this is something which we have largely inherited from history.
Personally, I have no hang ups about labels and I use (and will
continue to use) it because it saves me about two or three paragraphs
explaining what I am. I deny that taking the name of "Calvinist" constitutes what you somewhat exaggerate a "rank manifestation of idolatry." We
do not regard Calvin as an infallible teacher, much less God
Almighty on earth. Since Reformed Baptist themselves happily take the
term "Calvinist" it is hardly
absurd to refer to them as that. You seem to work on the principle that
one must agree with Calvin 100% in everything to so identify with him.
Anyway, thanks for writing. Colin. *******************************************************
Answered 2-2-11 Excellent article on what Non-calvinists should know about
Calvinists… Very well said brother. Sincerely in Christ, CL, FBC, Florida
Hi. Thanks for your note of encouragement. Glad you found the article to be helpful. Colin.
*******************************************************Answered 1-1-11 (See immediately below for context) Hi Colin, thanks for your response. I read it, and also followed your link to the problems with unlimited atonement. In it you asked the question "If
Christ suffered and died for those in hell who are now suffering and
dying for their sins…is this not God exacting punishment for the same
sins twice? Is this just?" I actually have a problem with this
question. In your response to my question, you said that Christ's death
was limited in its intention, but not its worth, and therefore there's
room even for the non elect. But isn't this the same as saying that
Christ made salvation possible for the non elect? Isn't this still some
form of Christ dying for the non elect, and therefore supposedly
unjust? Daniel
Hi Daniel, Thanks again for
writing. The charge of injustice would ring true if we claimed that
Christ bore the sins of each and every sinner ever born and then
watched them bear the same penalty again. Calvinists do not make that
claim and therefore are not saddled with that problem. To limit the worth
of the atonement would be to limit the worth of the Lord Jesus and
leave us with a less than glorious God. Everything that Christ has
carries infinite worth. When we are preaching the Cross, we can assure
all men that if they come to
Christ, then He has what it takes to save them. They need not wonder
whether or not He can save. Ultimately those who come will be seen to
be the elect and it will be seen that their sins have been borne way.
Those who won't come have been justly abandoned by God to their chosen
sins and must pay the full debt themselves since Divine Justice has not
found another payment. I hope this helps. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 31-12-10 Hi. I just read your article on Calvinism at http://www.corkfpc.com/simplified.html.
Hi!
Thanks for taking the time both to read and respond to my article
on simplifying the Calvinism debate. I hope that I can answer your
questions below.
When talking about limited atonement, you said that "Calvinists
believe that the atonement of Christ did not merely make salvation
possible, but that it actually secured the salvation of all for whom it
was intended." I'm not quite sure I fully understood. When you said "secured,"
did you mean that because Jesus died, God will therefore save His
people? That because Jesus died, the elect's salvation is guaranteed?
If that's what you meant, then I'm still a little bit confused. If God
chose before the foundation of the world who He would save, then how
does Christ's death make their salvation any more secure?
Among
many other things, God decreed the following from before the foundation
of the world. He decreed the salvation of His elect through the
redemption that is found in the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ. IOW: He
decreed not only the end (salvation of His elect) but the means to that
great end (Cross) [For the record, God also ordained that the elect
would be gathered through the means of evangelism, but this lies
outside the immediate question.] When I say that Christ actually
secured salvation, I was contrasting the Calvinistic view of a definite
atonement with the more fuzzy non Calvinist view that Christ died for
no one in particular and only really provided a hypothetical redemption
for hypothetical people. Certainly, we would have to conclude that if
Christ died with the express purpose of redeeming every last soul that
was ever born, then He has signally failed. OTOH: If He died
specifically to save His elect, then the last day when all are finally
gathered in will show His 100% success.
I have another
question as well. I know I'm not an Arminiast. I believe in election.
But when it comes to limited atonement, I don't know what camp I belong
to. I used to think I was a Four Point Calvinist, but now I'm not sure.
What makes the Four Point Calvinist view on the extent of the atonement different from the Five Point view and the Arminiast view? Do they believe Christ's death made
salvation possible for all? Do they believe it secured the salvation of
the elect, but nonetheless made salvation possible for the nonelect as
well? Basically
the Four Point Calvinist view of the Atonement and the Arminian view
are one and the same. They have an atonement marked by abject failure.
They have Christ dying to atone for the sins of reprobates who will
never be in Heaven - millions of whom were actually in Hell when Christ
died - and all with the intention of bringing them to God. My page on
the many problems which Unlimited Atonement throws up may be viewed here.
In
the Calvinistic scheme of things, we believe that there is an infinite
worth in the atonement of Christ that could save a million worlds - had
God so decreed it. Christ Himself is the propitiation (1 John 2:2) and
He is of infinite value. Our limiting of the atonement lies not in its worth, but in its intention.
We believe that what it ultimately delivers i.e. the salvation of the
elect is what it had ultimately set out to do, However, it's infinite
worth enables Calvinists to preach the gospel (as we are commanded to
do) to every last creature, assuring them that if they will flee to
Christ, then they will be saved. We can sing as much as any one: "There's room at the Cross for you. Though millions have come, there's yet room for one, there's room at the Cross for you." We
have the advantage over the Four Pointers and the Arminians in that we
preach a redemption that actually redeems. It is part of a thought out
plan that will actually deliver what it set out to do. If you revert
back to the Arminian view, then Christ has done something which in
itself has secured nothing. In Arminianism, man's faith is not the
product of the Cross, - as in Calvinism - but the extra spark needed to make it work and not fail.
If you could help me out on these issues, that would be greatly appreciated. Daniel
I have tried my best. I hope that I have helped. Thanks again. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 16-12-10 Dear Sir, I came across your blog today while doing a google search on
"David Cloud". There is a certain gentleman on the Web at
av1611reformation.com,who issued a challenge in a particular sermon to all
Calvinist "bashers" to debate him in an open forum. I took it upon myself to
inform the Calvinist "bashers" that I knew of, including David Cloud, of this
challenge. His (David Cloud's) reply was short and sweet " I am not a debater". I
further emailed him asking him if he was afraid of being exposed. He then
engaged in name calling calling me a Weirdo Hypercalvinist!!
I have documented my thoughts and views on David Cloud elsewhere, with my recent spat with him recorded here.
Perhaps it might have been better had you but informed Cloud of the
challenge and left it at that, particularly as you came in as a third
party.
I was saved at the
end of 1987. The words of the Bible Ephesians 2:8,9 made entrance into me and I
was born again. Being born of the incorruptible word, I began reading God's word.
Such are the times that a few months later, I was introduced to the NIV, touted
at the time to be a great easy version. As I read this book the corruption of it
became very obvious to me.
I wouldn't be an NIV
man - my main issues being the corrupt W&H texts and its so called
thought for thought (as opposed to word for word) method of
translation.
It was at this time I got "hooked" up with the
Fundamental Independent Baptist movement. They were, after all, KJV. It took me
many years to realize that they are a false outfit themselves. They deny the
doctrines of grace and God's sovereignty. They attack relentlessly the
Protestant Reformation. I have found them truly to be tools of the
Jesuits.
My
experience with the Independent Baptists is mixed. I have met some good
ones whilst others (like Cloud) leave a lot to be desired. Yet for all
their foaming against the Protestants, they use a Calvinist Protestant translation i.e. the KJV, use their commentaries (like Matthew Henry) and sing their hymns! See here.
Salvation is by grace through faith alone. The Fundamental Baptist
method of the plan of salvation, prayer of salvation for salvation is found
nowhere in the Holy Bible. But I am saddened to see many professing Calvinists
employ these same methods. Sincerely JA
Whilst
we all want to avoid the conveyer belt conversions whose shelf life is
so limited, yet we are called upon to deal with anxious sinners.
We need to point them to Christ and exhort them to look to Him in
repentance and faith. Each case can only be dealt with in its own
merits. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered
6-12-10 Greetings Brother, Can you explain Ezekiel 33 1-19 where it
says that a righteous man that would turn away will die? If you cannot
lose your salvation, how do you explain this please? Thank You, WL. USA
Hi. Thank you for your emails. Sorry for
the slight delay in reply. That no man can lose his salvation is clear
from verses like John 10:28 and Romans 8:28-39 and those of a similar
nature. A saved man losing his salvation would cast irrepairable doubt
upon [i] the decree of God the Father to save him, [ii] the blood of
Jesus Christ to redeem him and [iii] the power of the Holy Spirit to
indwell and preserve him. One of the arguments of Moses, when God
threatened to cast away His people, was that the enemy would mock and
say that God was not able to do what He had promised. Yet any failure
to bring a group of people into a relatively small land mass would be
small fry indeed compared to the grand announcement of a redemption
that failed to keep the elect of God out of eternal bliss in Heaven.
In
Ezekiel 33, the "righteous" must be seen to be those who merely profess
to be righteous rather than being actually so. When the Saviour
talked about ninety nine just persons who did not need repentance - a
dig at the Pharisees - He did not speak strictly according to how
things were (There is no just person upon the earth i.e. just in and
off themselves) but spoke in relation to how things had been professed.
Paul used the same tactic in Romans 7 when he said that he was alive with out the law once. Paul was never spiritually alive, nor was he ever without the law. What he was saying was: "I thought
I was alive - it was before the law really convicted me." This is seen
in the folowing words, but when the law came (i.e. in convicting power)
sin revived (made itself known) and I died i.e. I finally saw myself as
God was telling me that I was the whle time i.e. dead in trespasses and
sins and needing a righteousness from outside myself i.e. in Christ."
Pastorally,
passage like Ezekiel 33 should never be dismissed as being irrelevant
to the child of God. I believe that they are part of the means which
God uses to keep his elect in line. We should never dally with sin on
the basis that we are eternally safe in Christ. God's privileges always
bring responsibilities and ought to provoke a spirit of gratitutude
such as Paul also expressed when he said: "I
am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ
liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the
faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
(Galatians 2:20) Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered
24-11-10 Greetings Pastor, I do have a few items from David Cloud and
enjoy him. I refer to his history of the church. John Calvin is
supposed to be part of the murdering of Michael Servetus in 1553. There
are other places on the Internet that agree. Would you be kind enough
to comment. Thank You, WL, USA
Hi. Thank
you for your email. I appreciate you taking time to write. You ask
about the very sad case of Calvin's involvment in the murder of the
heretic Servetus. It seems to me from reading here, there and yonder
that Calvin (in line with almost universal thinking of his barbaric
age) believed that Servetus ought to have been executed by the
authorities for his stubborness in holding to blasphemeous doctrines -
Servetus denying that Jesus Christ is God, the same in substance with
the Father and the Holy Spirit, equal in power and glory, which is the
orthodox Trinitarian position. I think Calvin's position can be explained, though not excused, and I know of no modern Calvinists who share Calvin's views on the matter.
That
said, you usually need to look outside anti Calvinist sites, to
find that Calvin sought to have a less brutal form of death (he did not
want Servetus to be burned) but was overruled by the Genevan Council
(of which Calvin, as I understand it, was not a member). Calvin's biographer records Calvin's desire was to turn Servetus to the truth of the gospel. In J.H. Merle D’Aubigne's "History Of The Reformation In The Time Of Calvin" we read these words attributed to Calvin: ‘I will do all in my
power to cure Servetus,’ he said. ‘If I show myself in
public, I know that I expose my life; but I will spare no pains to
bring him to such sentiments, that all pious men may be able to take
him affectionately by the hand.’ (Vol 3:95)
I think it pretty sad how Calvin's enemies have sought to make the most of the incident - with pages referred to here,
once hosted by David Cloud, using heavy inuendo to try and smear all
Calvinists. If any charges are laid against Calvin which ultimately
prove to be untrue, then this must also be viewed as a serious matter.
Although no one can legally slander or libel a dead man, yet they may
morally do so, and such should be repugnant to any professing
Christian. If any have a gripe with Calvinistic doctrine, then the best
route to take is that of Scriptural debate rather than resort to anti
Scriptural methods. Do have a look at our Calvinistindex page, linked
above, where Calvinistic matters, including answers to David Cloud and
others, are persued, hopefully in a helpful manner. Thanks again for
writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 24-7-10 Dear Colin, I hope you are well. Can you please help me with Acts 13.46? It seems a
favourite verse for Arminians. However, we are not
dependent upon knowledge of the original language to understand what is true.
After Paul’s second speech in the synagogue, the Jews were filled with envy and
they contradicted, blasphemed and opposed the things spoken by Paul. “Then
Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, it was necessary that the word of God
should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves
unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13: 46).
The idea expressed here is that they judged themselves unworthy of eternal life
by rejecting God’s word. Then the opposite would be true: people judge
themselves worthy of eternal life by accepting and believing the word of God.
And that is exactly what those people did who were appointed or ordained to
eternal life in Acts 13: 48. They were disposed to eternal life and therefore
accepted the word of God and believed. One modern Greek
translation has for verse 48 "... as many as had set / fixed / themselves for
eternal life believed." The translator
claims this is in agreement with v.46 Christian
greetings, Pavlos.
|
*******************************************************
Answered 3-5-10 Can you give me your definition of Hyper-Calvinism? The reason I am asking you
is because you seem well versed and honest. It seems everyone has their own
definition. Can you point me in the right direction? Thank you for your time. In
Christ, Joe
Hi
Joe, Thanks for your email and kind remarks. A Hyper Calvinist is
someone who emphasises the Sovereignty of God to the practical
exclusion of man's responsibility. Human responsibility insists
that all sinners should repent for their sins and believe the gospel as
a duty. God commandeth all men everywhere to repent....(Acts 17:30) etc., The Hyper Calvinist denies what he brands "Duty Faith" and "Duty Repentance" (See here for a good example)
arguing that duty suggests ability, although this is not actually the
case. Man's inability is sin induced and he cannot sin himself out of
his duties before a Holy God. Hyper Calvinism also frowns on
indiscriminate gospel preaching and shrinks in horror from the concept
of the free offer of the gospel, so alien to the thoughts of Calvin and historic Calvinism. See here for a balanced view of true Calvinism. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 25-3-10 Hi! I recently ran across your web site
(http://www.corkfpc.com/calvinismindex.html) and promptly bookmarked it under my
Reformed folder. I rejoice in finding good resources defending the doctrines of
grace and thank the Lord for you efforts. One thing I do not understand.
On your index page, you have this statement: "Neither do we regard
Arminianism or its watered down version as "another gospel" but we do see it as
a dilution of what was taught by the OT Prophets, the NT Apostles and by the
Lord Jesus Christ Himself." For certain, most people who claim to be
Arminian do not hold to the entire theology - man is not so consistent in either
camp. So I concur in being careful not to blithely label a man as an heretic.
However, the theology itself - in various forms and details - has been (rightly)
considered heresy over the ages. Why do you not consider it so? I am not
looking to argue this point, I want to understand the reasoning. May the
Lord bless you and glorify Himself in your service, SB (TX, USA)Hi! Thanks for your comment. I am aware that many Reformed folk, including CH
Spurgeon, openly stated their view that Arminianism is a heresy. I think what
probably prevents me from doing so is the Bible instruction that necessarily
follows i.e. Titus 3:10 where we read "A man that is a heretic, after the
first and second admonition, reject." with the latter word being interpreted
by Strong as "shun" Now, it is true that we might meet with many
Christians whose theological savvy might not be too great and who, as they say,
go with the flow and so we might cut them some rope. Howwever, this is
only a temporary thing. If we try to educate them and bring them the fuller
truth and they still hold to the old errors, then we move into different
territory. Paul told Titus to give two admonitions and then reject. If we regard
such convinced Arminians as heretics, then we are to reject or shun (as Strong
defines the word) some of the godliest people in the Church of Christ. Spurgeon
himself did not go that far and spoke very highly of Wesley (hypothetically
nominating him as an Apostle!) and had Arminians at times in his pulpit.
I think the punishment of heresy being so severe leads me to use it in a
restricted manner and apply it to those doctrinaires whom I feel will not be in
Heaven if they hold unto their views. I do still retain the right to try and
lead those of Arminian faith (of whatever degree) into a fuller understanding of
the gospel, hence the website of which you have kindly spoken so appreciatively.
Whether my position is the right one here, remains to be seen, but it
would take a brave man indeed to follow through his charge of heresy if he
applied it to godly Arminians, or godly Pentecostalists (or whatever).
Thanks for commenting. Regards, Colin.*******************************************************
Answered 22-02-10
To Colin Maxwell:
Since John Calvin believed that the efficacy of the
"irresistible grace" of Christ's atonement is "limited" to only God's
"unconditionally elected" ones, does it not follow that he did believe that
non-elect infants who die as infants will go to hell, whether or not such a
quote by him can be found in literature? I guess I shall never be able to understand
how it can be perceived as "slandering" John Calvin's character by concluding,
because of the implications of his theological system of TULIP, that he believed
that non-elect infants who die as infants will go to hell.
Hi.
Thank you for your email. Your question would be a good and logical one
only for the fact that it is based on this premise (I quote) "that he [Calvin] did believe that
non-elect infants who die as infants will go to hell," - a point that you make twice in the two sentences above. This assumes
that Calvin believed that the non elect do die as infants. I cannot
claim to have read every thing Calvin wrote, or to be any kind of an
expert etc., but since both his admirers and detractors have flooded
the Internet with his various statements, there is nothing (as far as I
can see) that suggests that this was his position. I suggest that one
reason why this supposed quote cannot be found is simply because it is
not Calvin's position. To reverse a saying from an old Bogart film, I
would rather defend than prosecute.
But it is not perceived as slandering God's
character by believing that He brings the non-elect into existence for the
purpose of sustaining them in an inescapable state of everlasting suffering
(presumably for the purpose of eternally demonstrating to all creatures how
"holy" He is), and there is absolutely nothing that the non-elect can do about
it. TJ
Again, your point here would be a good one, but only if it were true. Like
many detractors of Calvinism, you fail inexcusably here to mention [i]
the non elect (as part of a guilty world containing both elect and non
elect) deserve to be damned
and are damned only for the sins and for no other cause. [ii] You
fail to mention also that the said non elect reject the offers of the
gospel which God sincerely sends to them via the Great Commission (Mark
16:15) and they do so, because they love darkness rather than light.
To say that there is absolutely nothing that they can do about it
is to ignore the parallel truth of man's responsibility. Therefore
Calvin rightly taught in his comments on John 5:40 "He
again reproaches them that it is nothing but their own malice that
hinders them from becoming partakers of the life offered in the
Scriptures; for when he says that they will not, he imputes the cause
of their ignorance and blindness to wickedness and obstinacy. And,
indeed, since he offered himself to them so graciously, they must have
been willfully blind; but when they intentionally fled from the light,
and even desired to extinguish the sun by the darkness of their
unbelief, Christ justly reproves them with greater severity." (Comments
on John 5:40)
Thanks for writing. I hope this clarification clears up your misunderstanding on these important matters. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 20-02-10 Dear Mr Maxwell, I read your article about Calvin and Moorman. I commend you for writing it
so well. I really appreciate the stand that Moorman and Cloud take in defense of the
TR and the KJB, but abhor their publicly displayed hateful spirit with
everything that smells Calvinism. You put the finger on the right spot when you spoke about "bearing false
witness" in the way they seem to have researched this whole issue. If we are
commanded to fervently love the brethren, and we are, then why do they so openly
show their dis-love for their Calvinistic brethren?
Hi. Thanks for your email. I am
glad that you found the above article so helpful. You would have to ask
the two gentlemen involved themselves about why they do what they do. I
cannot answer for them, although I can show the great weaknesses of
their various attacks and have done so.
In 1998 I came from H____ to C_________ where the Lord saved me. Recently I
had a year-long correspondence with an old atheistic friend still living in the
Netherlands. I repeatedly urged him to embrace the wonderful truths of the
Gospel. However, in our correspondence he found out that I am a 'Calvinist'. He
immediately trumped up the Servetus case after having done some web surfing. It
was like reading Mr. Cloud's "O Timothy" when he sent me his findings. The divisive spirit of men like Cloud play in the cards of many Gospel
haters, and use this to their best advantage. How sad this is, and unbecoming,
of brethren who are commanded to love one another fervently.
First
of all, regarding your atheist friend, he is only using Servetus as an
excuse to divert attention away from himself and his own standing
before the Lord. We are not asked to trust in any Christian, Calvin or
anyone, but in Christ. If he thinks he can hide behind the sins of
Calvin, then he more than justifies the condemnation of "The fool"
which God indicts him of (Psalm 14:1). Secondly, any gains that Cloud
hopes to make by this tactic are very small indeed. I think Moorman
took it to a new level (supported by Cloud) by trying to hatch a
conspiracy theory. Calvinists are not in denial of the sad fact of
Calvin's sin. We condemn it unreservedly. Having observed Cloud's
tactics over several years, it seems to me that he is happy to rake up
all the dirt he can against Calvin and Calvinists. I feel sorry for him
in this regard that he appears to view such tactics as necessary.
Mr. Moorman's last reply to your excellent letter is very telling. He
states that "evangelism is to be our main thrust". How wrong he is in this.
Walking with the Lord in the fear of Him all the day is to be our main thrust,
meaning that God demands that we walk so circumspectly that we do not offend Him
in any way. The flippant and hateful way these men drag their Calvinistic
brethren (and the doctrines of grace) through the mud is, I believe, very hateful to our Lord. God is not served
in evangelism by men who disobey Him in the "six things that doth the Lord hate... "(Proverbs 6:16-19)
I overall agree with you here.
Didn't the Lord Jesus say: "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?
. . . and in thy name done many wonderful works?" (Matt.7:22) It is my impression that they do not sufficiently display a fear of the
Lord that they might not offend Him. Obedience, not sacrifice is what God asks
from us. Also, true Christianity is proved and tested by the love we have to the
household of faith, our brethren. The apostle John expressly urged that upon us
in his first epistle.
Personally, I would hesitate to
quote Matthew 7:22 concerning them as it relates to unsaved professors.
Whilst I abhor some of their tactics, I don't think I should
unchurch them for the same. They must answer to God for themselves.
Perhaps, we all step over the acceptable line from time to time.
What are your thoughts on this Mr. Maxwell? Looking forward to hear from you, AV (C_____)
Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 06-02-10 Bro. Maxwell, My point in my study of
Ephesians is that Calvin's view of God is that He forceably takes a rebellious
heart and makes it soft towards WITHOUT the volition of the sinner. THAT is so
basic to your doctrine, how can you claim it is not so? The example almost
always given is Acts 16:14. The problem with that portion is that her heart
already was soft TOWARDS GOD!!! She was not regenerated yet, but spiritually
hungry. She is a poor example for irresistible grace. Calvin himself
admitted, writing in his Institutes, “Nothing is more absurd than to think
anything at all is done but by the ordination of God….Every action and motion of
every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing can
come to pass, but what was ordained by Him….***The wills of men*** are so
governed by the will of God, that they are carried on straight to the mark which
He has fore-ordained” (Cal. Inst., book 1, chapter 16, sect.
3).
I have plenty of documentation, just not much time. I hope that you
break free one day from the blindness of TULIP, and just stay Biblical.
They may have similarities, but they are not the same! God bless your
labours for souls. They are worth all our efforts! CL (ROI)
Hi, Thanks for writing.
Did Calvin ever use the phrase "force" in his expositions of the grace of God? Or did he deny that force is being used, when (as quoted before) he wrote: "True,
indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel
men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy
Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and
reluctant." (Calvin's Comments on John 6:44)
Here, Calvin distinctly teaches:
1) No violence or compulsion by external force is used in the drawing to salvation.
(This alone makes your charge totally unwarranted.)
2) It is a powerful impulse by the Holy Spirit that enables them to
come when, before hand, they had been unwilling and reluctant.
3) Those who come do so willingly.
When man is willing to be saved, it is because the grace of God has
lifted away the chains and blindness that had bound his will because of
its own sin and enables it to believe.
I would be interested to see if he (or any other prominent Calvinist) ever used the word "force"
without any qualification in regards to the sinner coming to Christ.
There is a hymn (I assume) that talks about the sinner being "sweetly forced"
to come, but the use of the adverb so qualifies the verb as to take
away anything sinister from it. Spurgeon used it in his great sermon on
John 6:37 and said that there was "no other word that can so accurately describe my case." In the same sermon, he explained what he meant: "They
shall be made willing in the day of God's power. God knows how to make
a passage through the heart of man; and though man is a free agent, yet
God can incline him, willingly, to come to Jesus. There are many
sentences even in Wesley's hymn-book which contain this truth. If God
took away freedom from man, and then saved him, it would be but a small
miracle. For God to leave man free to come to Jesus, and yet to so move
him as to make him come, is a divinely-wrought miracle indeed."
If you want to see what the Arminian Wesley wrote on the matter, then see the hymn which Spurgeon once referred to, esp. the last two lines of the last verse.
This would indicate to me that the term "forced" was
often used by Christians of all schools, but without any nasty
connotations. (Spurgeon, however, did not include this hymn, which he
described as "remarkably strong" in "Our Own Hymnbook" )
However, I repeat, I doubt if you can find me where Calvin used the word "forced" in regards to salvation. Colin.
P/s I remember once debating someone who took to me to task over the
Lord "forcing people to be saved." (As they put it) I went down the
road we have covered above. I then asked him whether the "Once saved,
always saved" doctrine (which I obviously hold to) could not be open to
the same charge. Can a Christian ever walk away from the faith and wish
himself to be detached from all the benefits of salvation, including
his eternity security? If the answer is "No" then the logic is that he
is being forced into something which he no longer desires.
*******************************************************
Answered 24-12-09 Hi, I noticed your article on Calvin and the Free
Offer on the Monergism website. Have you read David Engelsma's book Hypercalvinism and the Call of the Gospel? I believe it to be much better than Murray's Spurgeon V. Hypercalvinism.
Also, did you know that the "Free Offer" is for the most part
today equated with what is known as the "Well-Meant Offer"? The
Well-meant offer is the idea that though God has determined from
eternity only to save some, whenever the gospel is preached God desires
the salvation of all to whom it comes. This John Calvin most definitely
did not believe. Calvin taught that God designs the gospel to work out
the salvation of the Elect and to bring the reprobate to their final
destruction. Regards, W___ .
Hi W___. Thank you for your email
and responding to my article. I have in my library and read both the
books that you mention. I am aware of the bigger picture behind the
doctrine of the “Well meant”
offer. I think it a bit strange that any could challenge the sincerity
of God in making the offer. Can we charge the Holy God who loves truth
with insincerity? While it is true that He did not follow through all
His desires with the force of a decree, yet this does not cast any
aspersions upon the distance that He does go. As for Calvin, his comments on 2 Peter 3:9 must put it beyond all doubt that he held to the sincere offer:
"Not willing
that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that
he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to
bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God
is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in
these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every
one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter
in by this way. But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why
is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is
here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the
reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made
known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand
without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them
to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world."
(Commentary)
What is Calvin saying here?
1) God has a wonderful love towards all mankind including some who will be eventually lost i.e. the reprobate.
2) God’s wonderful love
toward the reprobate includes a will that they would be saved so He
shows a preparedness to bestow salvation on the lost.
3) God is ready to receive all to repentance – not merely “all who repent” but “all to repentance.”
4) All who desire to be saved must learn to repent.
5) So many whom God does not wish to perish will eventually perish.
6) 2 Peter 3:9 does not give the full story i.e. what is the hidden purpose of God.
7) In God’s hidden purpose (i.e. election or reprobation) the reprobate are doomed
8) The cause of the reprobate’s doom is their own ruin. *
9) 2 Peter 3:9 only reveals the will of God in the gospel.
10) In God’s will, as revealed in the gospel, God indiscriminately stretches forth His hand to reprobate and elect alike.
11) Although God indiscriminately reaches forth His hand, it only lays hold savingly upon the elect to lead them to Himself.
* Calvin wisely tells us elsewhere on this matter: "Accordingly,
we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt
nature of humanity—which is closer to us — rather than seek
a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s
predestination." (Institutes 3:23:8) Thanks again for writing, Colin
*******************************************************
Answered 12-12-09 Dear Colin, I
have been mulling over your site for the last few hours after trying to
look up some stuff on David Cloud. I will try to make a long story
short. I am born again, and just the last year or so have been studying
the scriptures on 'election, predestination' listening to
preachers such as John MacArthur, Ray Comfort, Wretched Radio, etc. The
book All of Grace by Spurgeon is
my favourite! I brought this to my pastor's attention (Baptist Independent
Fundamental) and he rejected it all and said, "It doesn't make sense". He then
pointed me to David Cloud's site and I went ahead and got a subscription to his
O Timothy monthly news magazine....(some good stuff in there, but a lot
not so good!)
I asked the Pastor to preach Wednesday nights on the book of Romans.... and
he, as expected, stumbled over or completely dismissed Romans 9: 10-13, saying God
was talking about Israel not an individual., In v14-18, he completely skipped over,
and would then talk about Calvinism at this point if it was heretical... no,
wait he said it was....He would say that Calvinism teaching 'just didn't make
sense'. I had been shunned from the pastor ever since and most people that I called
friends from this church have stopped talking to me....
So... I thank God for people like yourself that have stood up to people
like David Cloud who has said:
"They hold to a heretical
replacement position which sees the church as the fulfillment of God's promises
to Israel, they reject the literal interpretation of prophecy and the
pretribulational return of Jesus Christ." I never knew anything about Calvinism and believed that it was a 'dirty'
word... this former church of mine speaks of Calvinism in the same as Mormonism,
etc. Also they say Calvinism is just a branch of Catholicism (I was Catholic when
I was saved) and it should be avoided at all cost. I do believe in the Doctrine of Grace... and I am richer for doing
so....I have favorited your site and plan to go there to do more study...the one
thing I am concerned about it infant baptism...is it really baptism or is it at
form of dedication? I don't believe that one should be baptized until they are
believers... I would like to know what you think or do you have something about
this on your site? God Bless you Colin .... JM
Hi J_____. Thank you for your email. I am so glad that you found the articles on Calvinism
in general and on David Cloud in particular to be so helpful to you.
I think Cloud's greatest problem is that he believes his own
propaganda. I have politely emailed him on a few occasions, but you can
never get far with him. I suppose it would be too big a climb down for
him to admit that he has spent countless man hours writing what is
basically untrue rubbish about Calvinism. Or (to be more precise) what
he thinks is Calvinism. It is
true that there is some good stuff on his site, but when he attacks and
quotes others, you can't help but wonder if he is doing a crude hatchet
job on them as well. Which is probably why the Bible insists on two or
three honest witnesses.
The issue of infant baptism is a big subject. The Free Presbyterian
Church gives liberty to all its members to adopt either infant baptism
or believer's baptism as their conscience allows, but rules out
baptismal regeneration. In my own case, I am somewhat reluctant
to rule out infant baptism as understood by Presbyterians, although I
have two children of my own and neither of them were baptised. So if
actions speak louder than words, then you can see where I stand.
Or where I think I stand. Thanks again for writing. Your email has really encouraged us. Colin.
Answered 8-12-09 [Part of an ongoing email exchange] My
understanding of this has been that Christ DID pay the debt of sin for
every last sinner, but those sinners in hell are there because they
refused to believe. The offer of atonement is open to all, but
most never come to accept that sacrifice, most never believe (Matthew
7:13, 14). But there had to be a sacrifice for EVERYONE, so that
ANYONE can come to Christ. Everyone must have the chance to
repent, because Jesus came to seek and save what was lost (Luke
19:10). Those who died in sin BEFORE the death of Jesus on the
Cross are condemned because they did not live by faith in God
(Galatians 3). The sins of those who DID live by faith are atoned
for at the Cross (Hebrews 10). [I understand that there is a hell
for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:31 - 46), and it is the
ultimate destination for those who reject the Lord.] Thanks! DM (USA)
Hi. Thanks again for your email. We know that sinners go to hell because of the guilt of their sins. It is a judicial sentence, ministered by a lawful Judge i.e. the Lord Jesus. Yet, according to your theory, the guilt
that sends them to hell has already been paid for in full. I agree that
men are in hell because of unbelief also (John 3:18) but this unbelief
is a sin, is it not? "Of sin because they believe not on me." (John 16:9) yet
howcan they suffer for that sin which (according to you) has already
been paid for in full? Justice has been satisfied but not satisfied
because the one whose sins have been removed etc., is still left to pay
for them. It just doesn't add up.
I am more than happy to run with the thought that the intrinsic worth
of Christ's atonement is sufficient to save a thousand worlds forgiven if God so desired.
It is this that enables us to preach the gospel to every last creature
as commanded. However, that is a different matter from saying that the
Lord laid the sins of the reprobates who are now in hell upon His Son
and that He actually made atonement for them.
If you wish to follow through some of the problems of Unlimited
Atonement, then I suggest that you see some of the obvious objections here and also read Spurgeon's comments on the subject here. Thanks again for writing. I trust that you find these comments helpful. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-11-09 Hi, I have just read your article here: "http://www.corkfpc.com/criticisingcalvinism.html" and I have
to say I have the very same experience. I sometimes find on google "against
calvinism" and so on and I had to laugh when reading your article, how precisely
you are describing what it is about. So thanks for that.
Greetings from the Czech Republic. Martin
Hi Martin, Nice to know that our
site is helping and encouraging folk as far away as the Czech Republic.
I think tremendous good can be done just by dispossessing people
of their unwarranted prejudices against Calvinism. It is one thing for
them to reject it as it truly is, but to reject it on the basis of what
they wrongfully think it is is another matter. Thanks again for your email. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 5-11-09 Hi Brother, I came across your site whilst researching
some info on Calvinism - with the aim to warn a member of our church of
the evils thereof. He is dabbling around with something he does not
fully understand enough. I found your site very informative and your
answers and manner very good indeed, not the usual tirades of invective
and evasive argumentation (that you correctly point out in your reviews
of "anti-calvin/ist" site/articles). I have "favoritised' your page for
further reading and will recommend it to the above mentioned brother
when I have prepared some material in response to go along with it. If
the said brother understands properly what he thinks he likes the sound
thereof and can justify it in conscience and (more importantly)
Scripture, then that is his choice/persuasion. As yet I have not been
able to swallow the TULIP and have not yet read anything sufficient to
persuade me otherwise.
Hi!
Thanks for your email. I appreciate the tone of your words, especially
seeing that you take an opposite view to mie on the Doctrines of Grace.
I made a conscious decision to refrain from invective etc., when
dealing with these matters. The fleshly part of me would return to such
things at the drop of a hat, but if we have not love, then we are
nothing even if we understood all mysteries. All I can say about
the Doctrines of Grace is that it took me a while to come to appreciate
them. I opposed them when I first heard them taught (to be fair, the
man propounding them did them no favours) but a balanced look
eventually brought me to appreciate them more and more. I have seen
them misrepresented so many times that I am convinced that many people
spend their time opposing the straw men which others have erected.
However, I would encourage you to keep reading - not the likes of Cloud or Hunt
etc., - but men like Spurgeon etc., Above all else, when you read in
the Bible and esp. the NT, see how salvation is set forth as something
definite as opposed to merely being offered. Christ did not come to
make salvation possible but to actually save His people from their sins
(Matthew 1:21)
Anyway I do like your site. Just one
almost related question if I may - Do you regard John piper as a hyper?
And (Now there is more than one question!!!) what do you think (a
recommended web page on?) of his "future grace" ? Thanks. (This request
is for the mentioned brother who is listening to Piper)
An honest answer re: John Piper is
that he is not a man of whom I know a lot. Certainly not enough to pass
any judgment upon him.
Your AV only, dispensationalist, non Calvinist and non Arminian either,
fundamentalist, independant, pre trib, pre mil, eternally secure,
double separationist, missionary emphasist, saved by grace, SINNER
(Phil 3:13) friend. Have a great week. Roly
:o) Colin.
*******************************************************
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 than
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.
*******************************************************
These Calvinistic emails, starting at page 1, go back to July 2002
