FREE PRESBYTERIAN  ISSUES -- GOSPEL ISSUES -- PROTESTANT ISSUES -- EVANGELISM ISSUES -
- CALVINISM ISSUES -- C.H. SPURGEON INDEX -- SERMON NOTES -- MAIN PAGE 

EMAILS ON OUR CALVINISM ARTICLES

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 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). *******************************************************
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: 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,   *******************************************************
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!  *******************************************************
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 *******************************************************
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 Answered 16-05-07 Hi Colin, I read your response re Phelps, thanks. The difference between him and the rest is inter alia, that they preach as if everyone is reprobate, as one of them said somewhere, The default is hell. You somewhere mentioned you treat everyone as if they are elect. According to the Word, in the last days everyone (for all intents and purposes) is reprobate, as in the days of Noah. Luke 18:8 Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? People without the righteousness of God are going to hell, ie all Arminians, which is everyone. The "god" of Arminianism can't overthrow man's natural righteousness. If you're not preaching the righteousness of God alone, you're a false prophet. Richard Baxter describing pastor Phelps:"I preached as never sure to preach again, And as a dying man to dying men." Some advice: Act 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: Act 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. D.
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) *******************************************************
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. *******************************************************
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.  .*******************************************************
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 t