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).
Nice
to hear from you. I hope that you were helped by reading the various
articles. Your questions below are good ones and written in a
respectable manner which is appreciated.
1) Everything that happens
is ordained by God - you ask the question as to what would be a viable
alternative? Consider the analogy of someone in charge of a business:
they are in overall control of the direction of the business (which in
my analogy would be a good profitable business) - so overall everything
works well and the business works and goes according the the manager's
plan. There may be issues on a day to day basis that do not work well
for the business or actions of individuals that have small negative
effects. The manager however does not control these actions or even
'ordain' these activities - but nevertheless is in overall control.
This seems to me to be one way in which every little thing that happens
is not necessarily the direct will of God, but His overall plan
will of course be worked out according to His will and sovereignty.
The Scripture itself points us to
the fact that even the little things are ordained of God. The sparrow
flying in the sky (or hopping along the ground) cannot fall outside our
Father's control, or the very hairs of our head being numbered etc.,
(Matthew 10:29-31) Another example is the casting of the lot into the
lap (Proverbs 16:33) I think it interesting that non Calvinist J.
Vernon McGee wrote of this verse: "God
is saying that you cannot even go to Las Vegas and throw the dice but
what He is there seeing how they come up." (Commentary on Esther)
2) How do you square the point that those who are not saved were never in
God's plan to be saved with the fact that it is God's will that none should
perish? From a brother in Christ, TJ
It seems to me that God has made
certain statements in His word but has not seen fit to back them up
with the power and authority of a decree. While He has no pleasure in
the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) - for He is not a cruel,
despotic, tyrant God - yet it is also evident that He has not dealt
with those in hell as He did with those in heaven who are saved purely
by His grace. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered: 13-2-08 Sir, I may have
done this before and if I have, forgive me. I
wanted to thank you for your Calvinisticindex web page. I've benefited so much from that and I thank you for
providing it. God's glory seeps out from every word and
link. God bless, Bob
Nice to hear from you, Bob. Glad that God is getting the glory through your encouragement and edification. Colin
*******************************************************
Answered 22-1-08 DEAR PASTOR COLIN MAXWELL; Greetings in the precious name of the Lord Jesus
Christ. This is just to comment about your comments about David Cloud's
assessment on Calvinism...Are we bound to be Calvinist or Biblicist to be a
born-again Christian? Why is it that there is much debate about these issues of
Calvinism or Armenianism when in fact apostle Paul instructed to follow only the
words of the prophets and the apostles? Is this not a manifestation of exalting
the teachings of men who are not apostles neither prophets of the the Lord of
the Scriptures and upholding the traditions of men? Who is Calvin and Armenius
compared to the men of God mentioned in the Scriptures? Why is John Calvin
teaching the teaching of Origen who is the father or doctor of Roman Catholicism
and believing in infant baptism and the universal church when these issues are
non-Biblical and not New Testament terminology? Why not stick to the Biblicist
position. Why is John Calvin's teaching created a great influence on the
ecumenical movement of the reformed churches and other Protestant churches who
are in the drift of global apostasy? Can you explain to me these
questions? I am writing a paper on Calvinism: its impact on
reformed theology and the Ecumenical movement. I need your comments about this
matter. Thank you very much for your help. In Christ's holy service, Pastor OOC
Hi. Thank you for your note. You
ask a lot of questions here, so you will need to be content with one
line answers, which in many cases will suffice. [i] Your question
regarding being a Biblicist or
a Calvinist is blatantly loaded. I accept that Calvinism is a man made
label, but in its purist form, it is Biblicist (Which, incidentally, is
another man made term.) [ii] The debate between Calvinism and Armininianism (Not Armenianism) is over the interpretation of certain passages and verses of Scripture., not least Romans 9 etc., I don't see what "the traditions of men" have got to do with it. [iii] Unsure as to what you mean by the "men of God mentioned in the Scriptures" in making a comparison with Calvin and Arminius. If you mean the inspired writings of
the Apostles vs the mere thoughts of Calvin/Arminius, then obviously
the inspired writings must and do take precedent. But if Calvin and
Arminius bring forth Biblical
thoughts, then we cannot dismiss what they are saying. [iv] I think you
are mixing up Origen with Augustine whom Calvin frequently quotes,
although not always favourably. To state the obvious, Calvin only
quoted anyone favourably when he judged what they had to say as being
Scriptural. With all his flaws, Augustine often produced good theology
and this was worth quoting. [v] The Evangelical church is divided over
the matter of infant baptism and the universal church idea and it is
debatable among good men as to which constitutes the Biblicist position
as you simplicitly put it. [v] Your charge that Calvin's teaching is
highly influential in global apostasy is a bit wide eyed. You can
certainly see the David Cloud influence there. Those who are ecumenical
would do well to obtain the deep respect which Calvin had for the
Scriptures. Calvin loathed the doctrines of the church of Rome,
especially her so called "free will" teaching (embraced by Cloud and
others) which only serves to elevate the sinner and panders to the
fleshly desires of his wicked heart.
In closing, I respectfully suggest that any paper you are attempting to
write would need to be a little more objective in your research. Loaded
questions are quickly seen for what they are. Regards, Colin
*******************************************************
Answered 31-12-07 Hello, I've been reading with great interest your comparisons of
Calvinism with the opposite teachings. I am still reading and studying, but
one thing I am really struggling with is the Assurance of Salvation. I have
believed myself to be saved for years and years. However, under Calvinism
it's possible that I am not one of the elect. Maybe God didn't elect me to
be saved and I only think I am. This is my biggest hurdle to what Calvinism
teaches. How can anybody have assurance of salvation? How can anybody
KNOW that they have really been called by God? If you have thoughts on
this I would love to hear it. Thank you...JA
Hi. Thank you for your email to
us. You write about a very important matter and yet something that is
reasonably simple to answer. First of all, under Evangelical
Christianity as a whole, it
is possible that someone may not be elect. It is not a peculiar tent of
Calvinism, any more than Evangelical non Calvinism. That said, the
Apostles addressed their letters to the elect - Peter does so in his
first epistle (1:2) while Paul exhorts the Colossians "as the elect of God" (3:12) so
election was something that could be known and enjoyed in their day,
and therefore in ours. The elect are known by something very easy to
distinguish i.e. the fact that they have come in repentance and faith
to Jesus Christ for salvation. This is seen, for example, in John 6:37
where Jesus said: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (John 6:37) If we have come to Christ for salvation, then we have been given to Christ by the Father - another way
of saying that we have been elect. Again, it says in Romans 8:29-31
that those who are predestinated unto salvation are called and those
who are called are justified. The evidence of justification is
conformity to the likeness of His Son. It does not say that this
likeness is complete and we should not look for sinless perfection (in
this life) but if the evidences of the new birth are there i.e. we can
say that we love God and the brethren etc., (as outlined in 1 John)
then we may conclude, on the basis of Scripture, that we are
indeed elect.
Election concerns the decree of God. This is largely something that is
hidden from us. Our guiding star is not that which is hidden to our
eyes, but that which is revealed i.e. the written word of God. The
Bible is breath takingly simple about this. It simply says: "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13) That word "whosoever" cannot be narrowed or watered down. Therefore my warrant
to call upon the name of the Lord is not based on a decree which I
cannot see, but on a promise written on the pages of Holy Writ for me, - for me, not even as an elect sinner, but just simply as a sinner. Therefore
I call upon His name and I AM saved and since I am saved, I am among
the elect, for they are the ones who actually call. Any man who casts
his soul in faith upon the promises of the gospel will enjoy assurance
of salvation. I hope this helps. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 24-11-07: Dear Brother Maxwell, Is Arminianism a heresy? Would you consider
Arminians among the elect? I am asking this because some consider Arminianism a
heresy and that it leads people away from Christ rather than to Christ. I was
brought to Christ through Arminians. What are your thoughts? Thanks and God Bless! Dave.
Hi Dave, While I consider
Arminianism to be a serious compromise of the gospel - a severe
watering down - I do not consider it to be strictly speaking heretical,
at least in the sense whereby I would feel that I should separate from
those who hold it. Yes, I do consider Arminians to be among the elect.
(I was, broadly speaking, Arminian myself even after my salvation.)
Arminians generally preach more for Christ than against Him. John
Wesley was a noted Arminian evangelist who led thousands to Christ
through his amazing ministry. There are many fine Christians who hold
to broad Arminian views (with the possible exception of the loss of
salvation) and I am (for I have little choice) happy to tolerate their Arminian views if they hold them within their own fellowships. I would not, however, tolerate it within my own church and would seek to keep it at bay as much as I can. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 19-11-07: JOHN CALVIN ON THE CAUSE OF
DAMNATION: "Accordingly, we
should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of
humanity - which is closer to us - than seek a hidden and utterly
incomprehensible cause in God's predestination." (Institutes
3:23:8)
CH SPURGEON ON THE CAUSE OF
DAMNATION: "No man who is lost
will ever be able to blame God’s sovereignty for it. The man that perishes shall
justly perish because of his sins; and in hell, this shall be to him the pang of
pangs, that he cannot reproach God, but that his damnation lieth at his own door
since he incensed the justice of God, which must punish him for his
sin."
These statements are absurd. What difference does it make to a man who is
in hell for eternity whether it was him who is responsible or God who is
responsible? RJ.
Thank you for
your email, although I am unsure where you are coming from on these
matters, since you simply barge in with your judgment, followed
by your question. The question itself is easily answered. It makes a
lot of a difference to a man who is in hell whether he is
responsible for it or not. It adds to his misery that he has subjected
his soul to eternal suffering because he chose to indulge it in sin
while here on earth. The Lord Jesus said that it would be more
tolerable for Sodom and Gormorrah than for those who despised their
great gospel privileges. Another thought as well: If God is responsible
for men being in hell, then He is not the God that He portrays Himself
to be on the pages of the Bible and that has consequences for us all.
Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered:
8-11-07 [See previous entry first] Perhaps you could talk more of why
an elect would have regrets? Also, what you’re your thoughts on
libertarian free will? I had always thought that it did not exist, but
recently someone had made a case for both God’s foreknowledge and
man’s libertarian free will being compatible. The argument goes
something like this “will happen” {certainty} is not the
same as “must happen” {necessity}. The main proponent of
this theory is Dr. Robert E. Picirilli. Your thoughts would be greatly
appreciated. Paul.
The verse that came to my mind
which probably shows the greatest sign of regret in the heart of one of
the elect is where Paul laments that he is a wretched man (Romans 7:23)
and reproaches himself for doing things which he would rather not have
done. Here he acknowledges clearly that he transgressed the written
word of God, which is to be our guiding star in all things, no matter
else what happens. We are all aware that we could love Christ more and
serve Him better and it is a cause of regret that we have allowed a
sluggish and worldly spirit to detract from our efforts to please Him.
(Not to be understood in any legalistic way.) Likewise when Peter
denied Christ etc., It would be improper for Christians not to have
regrets over such incidents. That God ordained them to happen does not
detract from our responsibility in that we act also freely and
therefore feel the guilt more. If you are asking me where God's
sovereignty and man's responsibility meet, the simple answer is "I do not know" and furthermore, I do not need to know. I do know my responsibilities and it is enough for me to try and meet them by the help of the Spirit of God.
Re: the difference between something being certain as opposed to being
necessary, I would need to think on that one! There is a wealth of
loose cords hanging in there. An alcoholic who spends his time at the
bar may conclude that it is certain that he will succumb to the temptation to drink, even if he has signed the pledge. But he has no grounds to say that he must necessarily
do so. To go back to Luke 22:22, was it both certain and necessary for
Christ to go to the Cross? Yes, if we would be saved. Was it both
certain and necessary that Judas be the traitor? Hmmmm! At the risk of
incurring someone's wrath somewhere, I would say that it was certain, but not necessary.
Certainly when the dark deed was done, Judas did not seek to hide in
the decree of God but blamed himself. Certainly Judas could not
read anywhere in the word of God (especially in Psalm 55 and Psalm 69
etc.,) and say; "I must, by necessity, fulfill that role." Something for me to think about.. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered
7-11-07 I was hoping you could answer a question about regrets. If
Calvinism were true why would man have regrets? I mean we are only
doing what God has decreed from the beginning so why should I regret
anything? Why regret something that I could not avoid doing, am I not
just doing what has been eternally decreed by God himself? Any help on
the matter would be appreciated. Thanks, Paul.
Hi Paul. Nice to hear from you. I
appreciate you writing. Your question is a good one and logical, but
only as far as it goes. Men have room to have regrets because running
alongside the doctrine of God's sovereignty is the equally important
and equally forceful doctrine of man's responsibility. Any interpreting
of God's sovereignty must be viewed through the glasses of man's
responsibility. God's sovereignty does not negate my obligations and I
am often left confessing my
sin and therefore my responsibility in the matter. We both know
that the Lord Jesus went to the Cross as it was written of Him (Luke
22:22) yet it would be better for the man that betrayed Him
(Judas) had he never been born. Was Judas right to have regrets? We
would both answer in the affirmative, yet the deed in which he
willingly played his part had been decreed from all eternity. Calvin
rightly observes on this incident: "And
yet Christ does not affirm that Judas was freed from blame, on the
ground that he did nothing but what God had appointed. For though God,
by his righteous judgment, appointed for the price of our redemption
the death of his Son, yet nevertheless, Judas, in betraying Christ,
brought upon himself righteous condemnation, because he was full of
treachery and avarice. In short, God’s determination that the
world should be redeemed, does not at all interfere with Judas being a
wicked traitor. Hence we perceive, that though men can do nothing but
what God has appointed, still this does not free them from
condemnation, when they are led by a wicked desire to sin. For though
God directs them, by an unseen bridle, to an end which is unknown to
them, nothing is farther from their intention than to obey his decrees.
Those two principles, no doubt, appear to human reason to be
inconsistent with each other, that God regulates the affairs of men by
his Providence in such a manner, that nothing is done but by his will
and command, and yet he damns the reprobate, by whom he has carried
into execution what he intended. But we see how Christ, in this
passage, reconciles both, by pronouncing a curse on Judas, though what
he contrived against God had been appointed by God; not that
Judas’s act of betraying ought strictly to be called the work of
God, but because God turned the treachery of Judas so as to accomplish His own purpose." It
is a recognised maxim in Scripture that when good is done, God gets all
the glory. When evil is done, man takes all the blame and surely he
must have regrets for his own evil - and not only regrets, but
repentance for the same. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 31-08-07 Salvation is always by free grace: Not true. IF Salvation was by "free
grace" the whole world IS saved. Salvation is always by "grace through
faith". Ephesians 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through
faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- " Indeed
grace IS a gift of God - but NOT EVERYONE HAS FAITH. Please don't add words
to the Bible.
Hi. Thank you for your email,
although I think it is a bit OTT. However, your charges are easily
refuted and will not delay me long here. I assume that you would
brand Jonah as a deceiver and charge him with adding words to the
Bible when he declared that "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9) I
have never denied that salvation is by grace through faith.
Furthermore, even the faith that saves must be attributed to the grace
of God, for we read of those in Acts 18:27 who "believed through grace." We are not saved by grace plus faith, but (as you say) by grace through faith and therefore the faith is already encompassed in the saving grace of which I speak.
Calvinists should not be so self-centered with love only for
the assurance of everlasting life - but seemingly no love for "lost souls"
which are destined for hell. John Calvin proved this hate by burning
innocent people at the stake - even women and children.
Your allegation about Calvinists is so broad as to be utterly worthless. In fact, it barely rises more
than a rant. I know of no Calvinist today who excuses any of Calvin's
faults. To produce the sins of one man who lived 500 years ago as proof (!) about
the evangelistic desires of millions of Calvinists who have helped
populate the mission fields of the world since, I think, tells us how
low you set the standard of any kind of justice.
As a Christian, I
humble myself before God with the greatest of all - love.
To be perfectly honest about it,
your talk about your humility and love does not measure up to the
contents of this email. You come on without one word of greeting, throw
round you base and untrue allegations, damn the whole school of
Calvinists on the sinful failings of one of their number and leave
quoting us verses about adding or taking away from the Scripture. Is
this humility and love and that before God?
Please end the
deception of quoting scripture out of context and ignoring other verses such
as, "I stand at the door and knock." Are we NOT to answer His
call?
I preached on this text a few
months ago and urged the unsaved gathered to open their heart's door
and admit the Saviour. Calvinistic commentator, Matthew Henry, writes
on this verse: "Behold, I stand at
the door and knock, etc., Rev_3:20. Here observe, [1.] Christ is
graciously pleased by his word and Spirit to come to the door of the
heart of sinners; he draws near to them in a way of mercy, ready to
make them a kind visit. [2.] He finds this door shut against him; the
heart of man is by nature shut up against Christ by ignorance,
unbelief, sinful prejudices. [3.] When he finds the heart shut, he does
not immediately withdraw, but he waits to be gracious, even till his
head be filled with the dew. [4.] He uses all proper means to awaken
sinners, and to cause them to open to him: he calls by his word, he
knocks by the impulses of his Spirit upon their conscience. [5.] Those
who open to him shall enjoy his presence, to their great comfort and
advantage. He will sup with them; he will accept of what is good in
them; he will eat his pleasant fruit; and he will bring the best part
of the entertainment with him. If what he finds would make but a poor
feast, what he brings will make up the deficiency: he will give fresh
supplies of graces and comforts, and thereby stir up fresh actings of
faith, and love, and delight; and in all this Christ and his repenting
people will enjoy pleasant communion with each other. Alas! what do
careless obstinate sinners lose by refusing to open the door of the
heart to Christ!" I do not presently have the time to peruse
what other Calvinist writers have said or written on this verse, but
you really should take your baseless and untrue allegations back. Yes,
we are to ARE to answer the call. No Calvinist says otherwise and you
fail to produce any evidence (or proof) otherwise.
Revelation 22 (NASB) 18 I testify to everyone who hears the
words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to
him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes
away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part
from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Gander.
The Bible gives us many warnings,
which of course, are applicable to every child of God, not least those
who believe themselves to be shining examples of love and humility
before Him. Anyway, thanks for writing. Maybe next time, we can engage
in a more amiable discussion. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 28-08-07 Colin,
I
know that you are solid in your faith and also that you have many
dialogues with people on doctrine, so I have a question for you. I have
a new friend who has been a Christian for a long time, and most of
that time attended a solid church. As I said, though, I’ve
just befriended him in the last year. Every time I get with this
friend, he brings up doctrinal differences that he has with
various people, including former pastors and teachers. He is quite
adamant about the finer points of reformed doctrine and has no
grace toward people who might consider themselves *4-point* Calvinists for instance. Now I
happen to agree that it seems an inconsistency, but I still wouldn’t consider
such a person a false teacher. He is also adamant about how the law is to
function in the life of the Christian, and is very vocal against anyone
who teaches that we are no longer under the law. He acknowledges that we are
not under the law for salvation, but it is still a must in the Christian life.
This issue in particular I am new to, but I just do not have the energy at this
time in my life to research what he is saying to see if it is right or wrong.
At this point, I trust my pastor and teachers at my church on the
issue. I
am at a loss. I do not know how to deal with this friendship. So far, I
have tried to redirect the conversation, I have tried bringing some
balance to the statements which he makes, and I have tried just
ignoring him. It almost seems an obsession. And like I said, it happens
every time we meet, and so it is very discouraging to me right now for
a number of reasons. Overall, I feel a conviction that
Christians ought to encourage one another etc., talk about their
love for the Lord and point one another to Him. We ought not be arguing
and striving about doctrine and such. I also feel that we ought to be
in submission to our leaders (unless they really are in serious error)
and that it is wrong to confront them and/or talk about them in a
questioning way regarding every jot and tittle that we may disagree on.
What would you advise? J.
Hi. I appreciate you writing and I
can understand your problem. I think we have an example here of how we
can have the doctrines of grace, but not the grace of the doctrines!
Christians enjoy differing levels of sanctification (although we all
enjoy 100% perfect and unflucuating justifciation in Christ) and this
shows itself in many various situations. Here the issue seems to be
about how we treat other believers who do not quite see eye to eye with
us on what we might call non fundamental doctrines. Basically, we have
to learn to tolerate in others what we would not tolerate in
ourselves. Why bring up our disagreements when there is so much that we
do agree on and especially concerning the wonderful person of our Lord
Jesus Christ? While I am all for doctrinal purity, I think it is only a means to an end i.e.
devotion to Christ. There might well be an issue here with the fact
that he is an old person and probably set in his ways. As well as
prayer for him, if I were you, I would seek to come across (in a cheery
manner) the fact that Evangelical Christians should enjoy close
fellowship with one another and that more unites Evangelical Christians
than divides them. We cannot go through this short life on this earth
always bemoaning the failures others. Another thought is, of course, is
that he should acknowledge that he himself doesn't know it all
either and that there are probably Christians who could look at him and
"tut tut" at his weaknesses, yet nevertheless treat him with respect. Again, even if he was right in all his doctrine, is it showing through in his life where it matters? Truly, knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth (1 Corinthians 8:1) You are right about obeying our leaders, unless they are seriously leading us astray.
Regarding the Christian and the law, it is true that the law is a rule of life
to the Christian i.e. as seen in the Ten Commandments. This is on
the basis that the Commandments are obligatory upon the whole human
race and Christians do not cease to be human. We seek to keep the law
because we are saved by grace alone in order to serve God. The
indwelling Spirit of God enables us to keep the law - true, not
perfectly, but nevertheless, we seek to obey God in the things that are
written there. It should also be said that the whole Bible is
the rule of life for the Christian and not merely (but certainy
not excluding) the Ten Commandments. I hope this helps. In
Christ, Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 10-08-07 Dear Colin,
I recently received this from an "Arminian" pastor of a Baptist Church. How
would you answer him regarding the scripture references he raises? Paul. Letter as follows in ilatics within boxed italics...my reply in Red.
[Dear Paul, I understand the conflict re the trust deed and accept
that. However I am sad to read the rest of your letter.
God chooses
people - the Bible is clear and that cannot be denied - I believe it with all
my heart! God knows everything - He knows WHO will be in Heaven and who will
not. Some Christians of Calvinistic beliefs (and I guess you are one) believe
being Chosen refers to Salvation. I beg to differ as I see the Word of God
and "being chosen referring to Service NOT Salvation".As I see the Word of
God, there is no mention of salvation when God speaks of Election - but
foreknowledge and being conformed to be like Christ!
If we believe God
chooses some for salvation and not others, there is Great difficulty over
many verses in Scripture - 1.Timothy 2 vs 3 and 4 "God Our Saviour who
desires ALL men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" John 5
vs 40 Jesus says "You are NOT WILLING TO COME TO ME THAT YOU MAY HAVE LIFE" -
No cannot but WILL NOT! 2.Peter 3 vs 9 - John 3 vs 16
etc.
HOWEVER- God has not made us uniform and we all see things
differently re: God's Word but trust we stand together in the Gospel! (and let
the Lord sort the rest out!) Every blessing in all your future labours
for Christ! We may not quite agree but we will meet in Heaven! Keep preaching
Jesus Christ and Him Crucified!"]
Hi Paul. Thanks for writing. Your
pastor friend, whose seems a nice enough person, judging from his
eirenical remarks in closing, is wrong to say that the Bible does not
speak about being chosen to salvation. Two verses which come to mind
are Acts 13:48 where it speaks of those who were ordained (i.e. chosen)
to eternal life believing. Secondly, we are chosen in Christ to be holy
(Ephesians 1:4) Salvation is much more than being saved from the fire
of hell. Salvation is as much about being saved from the power of sin as it is being saved from the penalty
of sin. In 1 Timothy 2:3-4, the "willeth" and the "all men" need to be
discerned. "All men" can refer to "all kinds of men" and still be
grammatically and doctrinally correct. It is actually decided by the
extent that God has willed their salvation. If it is with the force of
a decree, then the "all men" wil be saved, because what God wills (with
the force of a decree) God gets: Psalm 33:9-10. If it is a general
willing (denoting His common grace) then it may be said to apply to all
men without exception. The argument that John 5:40 has "will not" as
opposed to "cannot" is a very weak argument, as the stronger word is
used elsewhere: John 6:44/65 along with 1 Corinthians 2:14 etc., As
your pastor friend points out, it is unlikely that these things wil be
sorted out on earth and we should therefore stand together on the
fundamentals of the gospel, even if we disagree on the outworking of
those same fundamentals. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-08-07 Here is a
suggestion for David Cloud, David Hunt and Colin Maxwell. Get back to
the Bible, the very word of God, and all the confusion on Calvinism
will be solved. The Bible is God's Word; believe it to be saved and
continue in in to be sure. The Corinthians were followers of men, and
God called them "carnal." MH
Hi. Thanks for your comments,
which sound good, but really have very little depth or meaning to them.
Cloud himself in his sermon "Calvinism, who is the enemy?"
(reviewed here) repeatedly stated "I just believe the Bible"
but failed (in my view) to show where Calvinism is wrong. I "just
believe the Bible" too, but I radically disagree with Cloud (and
Hunt's) man centered emphasis on the gospel. Therefore your exhortation
is meaningless. Your comments re: the Corinthians would be most apt, if
we were indeed followers of men, but we are not. As I have often
written, the name Calvinist is only a label, used first (I think) by
our opponents. I personally don't have a hang up about labels and use
it only for convenience sake. Thanks anyway for writing. Colin,
*******************************************************
Answered 7-08-07 I don't disagree with Calvinism at all. I am going through a tough time in
my life and I wonder if I'm really God's elect. Better to beat myself up in
truth than be pleasured in lies. The latter is just a big
disappointment. JB.
Hi. Thanks for writing. I'm sorry
to hear of your present struggles in your life. I suggest to you
that your worries about whether or not you are "really one of God's elect"
is a misplaced worry. Are you a sinner? (Yes) Does the gospel
invite sinners to be saved? (Yes: Whosoever will may come:
Revelation 22:17) Have you or are you prepared to come to Christ
alone for salvation? If the answer is "yes" then you be assured that
you are among the elect, for they alone are those who come. It really
is that simple as that. Colin
*******************************************************
Answered 25-07-07 Dear Brother Maxwell, Could you please help me understand this scripture from a Calvinistic perspective? 1Timothy
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits, and doctrines of devils; If unconditional election is
true, then why does it say that some will fall away from the
faith? Were these people who fell away from the faith ever saved
to begin with? Thanks and God Bless, Dave.
Hi. Thanks for your email and
query. The commentators, including noted Arminians such as John Welsey
and Adam Clarke, agree that "the faith" from which some shall depart is
objective i.e. the body of doctrine to be believed (as in Jude 3) rather than the subjective i.e. the trust that saves. The
elect cannot be fatally deceived, as Mark 13:22 makes clear, along with
all those many verses which teach eternal security e.g. John 10:28
etc., Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 26-06-07 Dear Brother Maxwell, could you help me understand the following
explanation of Romans 8:29-31 made by http://www.afcministry.com/Calvinism_unconditional_election.htm.
Thanks and God Bless!
"29 For those whom He
foreknew, He also
predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that
He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom
He predestined, He also
called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He
justified, He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-31) These
verses clearly state that those who are predestined are those whom God foreknew
and that they were predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.
Calvinists teach that "foreknew" does not mean those whom God knew would choose
Him but rather those God ordained to eternal life by His own decision. It is
clear from the English that "foreknew" indicates a knowledge of something in
advance. What is the Greek word and definition of "foreknew" here? The Greek
word is "Proginosko" which means, "to perceive or recognize beforehand." DS
Hi, thanks for your two emails. If the Greek word "proginosko" is taken to simply mean "know beforehand"
in the sense of prescience, then it carries no evangelical meaning at
all, because God knows everyone and everything beforehand - there is
nothing outside His divine knowledge, past, present and future. Non
Calvinists interject their particular brand of election into the verse and move from God foreknowing individuals (which Paul is getting at) to God foreknowing information about individuals.
The Non Calvinist tenancy is always to water down the gospel and
elevate man's part e.g. they reduce Christ's mission from coming
to save the lost to merely making the lost savable. Here, according to
them, the Lord merely knows what man is going to do and makes man's
contribution the principal grounds of election. I repudiate that
position completely. The Greek word is correctly translated as
"foreordained" in 1 Peter 1:20, signifying the sovereign (and gracious)
choice of God.
*******************************************************
Answered 26-06-07 Dear Colin, may I have your thoughts on this paragraph? Thank
you! Arminianism vs. Calvinism by Mike
Stine
Arminianism was started by Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). He
was born slightly before John Calvin died and was actually taught by Calvin's
son-in-law. He was a Calvinist until one day when forced to defend his beliefs
and found that his opponent could more ably defend his views against Calvinism.
This caused Arminius to reject his Calvinistic background and "sought to modify
Calvinism so that 'God might not be considered the author of sin, nor man an
automation in the hands of God.'" DS
This
presupposes that Calvinism teaches that God is the author of sin and
that man is a robot in the Divine hands. Both of what Calvinism is very
careful to repudiate. Although Calvinists cannot understand every
working of God, we maintain two great Bible truths i.e. that God is
absolutely sovereign and man is absolutely free to follow the dictates
of his own will (which is in bondage to sin) and is totally responsible
for his actions. If Arminius was setting out to refute Hyper Calvinism,
it would be a different story. Hyper Calvinism is fatalistic since it
reduces man's responsibility and practically takes the use of means out
of the equation. Arminius (and his later followers) create their own
problems by the answers they supposedly supplied to answer those of
Calvinists. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 8-06-07 Dear Colin, In 1 John 2:1-2 he states "My
little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if
any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours
only, but also for [the sins of the whole world" It seems to
state that Jesus advocating is not only for those born-again but also
for those who haven't repented. A Calvinist I know claimed the
words ".. and not for our only.." referred to the Jews and the phrase "..but also for [the sins of] the whole world.." referred to Gentiles. This doesn't seem to make sense to me, compare with the following: John 3:16 "For
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" Clearly "world" in John 3:16 means Jew, Gentiles, everyone. With regards, GB
Hi. Thanks for your email. I think we need to agree that the Lord Jesus gets
whatever He asks for in His position as Advocate with the Father.
Otherwise, He is obviously praying outside the will of God and that
would be a sin. Furthermore, failure to
get what He requests would result in a frustrated and
unsuccessful Saviour, instead of the Perfect Saviour which He is set
forth as in the Bible. So if we have the Lord Jesus pleading
(say) for certain individuals to be saved and they live and die in
their sins, then He has signally failed and not only once, but again
and again and again. Depending on your view as to whether there
will be more people in Hell than in Heaven (not a distinctly
Calvinistic issue) then you might be faced with a greater failure than
success rate. But one failure is enough to mar the all glorious Saviour
whom we are faced with each time we lift our Bibles.
It is true to say that the Lord Jesus prays for unregenerate people. He
himself indicated that He would in John 17:20 where He said: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word"
i.e. for those yet unborn in future generations who would be born in
sin, live in sin, hear the gospel, repent and believe the word and be
saved. People who repent do so through the goodness of God (Romans
2:4) and that goodness comes to them through the pleading of the Lord
Jesus in Heaven.
Your Calvinist friend is correct in his interpretation of 1 John 2:1-2,
otherwise you have many problems with an atonement that doesn't
actually atone, or if it did, you have the problem of a God who got the
full price of sin, but is extracting that price again and again. Click here
to see other problems associated with unlimited atonement. The issue in
John 3:16 (in my view) is not if God loves every last sinner ever born
(I maintain that He does) but rather the degree of that love. God loves
His elect with a special love that effectually ensures their
salvation. If the "so loved" of John 3:16 includes a love that effectually ensures salvation, then "the world" will be a world without distinction i.e. "Jew and Gentile" On the other hand, if this love falls short of this, then we may indeed view "the world" here as that wider constituency i.e. without exception.
Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 22-05-07 Dear Brother Maxwell, I have a statement made
by Jeff Paton that I would like your thoughts on. Here it
is: "One thing that I find most amazing is the way that Calvinism
approaches some difficulties. For example: If God limits the atonement to the
elect, and those that are "chosen" are not selected by anything within
themselves, for God is no respecter of persons; then what happens to
babies that die? Well, based upon their theory, they are either elect or they
are not. God cannot base His election on their infancy since that would make Him
a respecter of persons. So, the God of "love" chooses to torment little babies
for eternity in a fiery hell! If God is the "cause" of "everything" then
is He not the "cause" of sin? Doesn't He have to "will' sin for it to
exist? Wouldn't that make God evil?" Thanks for your help, God
Bless! DS
Hi,
thanks for your note. The critic raises a number of points here. The
Bible has very little to say directly about people dying in infancy.
This leaves us trying to apply general principles e.g. that God is rich
in mercy and delights in the same and therefore it is my belief (as
generally shared among Calvinists) that all who die in infancy are
among the elect. It is not a matter of God basing his election on their
infancy. No Calvinist believes that and so the critic is simply
building and demolishing a straw man. The elect will eventually
experience death one way or another and at one time or another. Those
elect infants have simply experienced it before the years of
accountability. We not only refute, but repudiate and abominate, the
claim that "the God of "love" chooses to torment little babies
for eternity in a fiery hell!" The
critic comes from that breed of criticism that obviously does not see
the need to back up his arguments with verifiable quotes, which would
enable us to distinguish whether we are dealing with authentic
Calvinistic claims or the lurid imaginations of a critic's mind. We can
only conclude the latter in this case.
On the matter of God being the cause of everything and therefore sin,
the problem alluded to is one which Christians of all schools must
struggle with. That God created the world knowing that sin would invade
it is beyond doubt. That He had the power (and continues to have the
power) to stop it is also clear. But He didn't and still declines
to do so. Does that make God evil? It is no answer to say that man's
sin, caused by his voluntary decisions, has brought sin into the world.
That is, of course, true but still God knew that this would be the case
and yet still freely chose that this would be the path that was to be
trod. God Himself is absolutely holy and can use sinful deeds in a
sinless way to further His own righteous ends. If the critic here is
trying to splatter mud on Calvinists by his argument, then he only
succeeds in splattering himself, unless he belongs to the atheistic
school. Thanks for writing.
You sent a whole host of other questions in another email which I
cannot afford the time to answer. Suffice to say this: Man has a
responsibility to seek and choose God etc., Although sin has robbed him
of the ability to do so, yet it cannot rob him of the responsibility.
Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 19-05-07 Brother Maxwell, I have a question for you regarding a statement made by
Cooper Abrams in opposing Calvinism. Could you help me understand his
argument? "The Great Commission "to go into all the
world and teach the Gospel" loses its purpose in Calvinistic teaching. Why teach
salvation too all the world if God is going to save the elect anyway? The
Calvinist again counters by saying that God commands us to preach the Gospel and
that is God's method to reach the elect. Again, this is an example of the
failure of human reasoning. If the Bible teaches we are to tell all men
everywhere they can be saved by trusting in Christ Jesus and God in fact has
limited the offer to only a select few, then we become liars and God is sending
us with a tainted message! Please excuse the redundancy in making this statement
again, but it is a lie to stand before an audience and preach that God will save
them if they will believe and put their trust in Jesus Christ, if God has
elected that some of them cannot respond! God is not the author of lies....Satan
is the author of the sin of lying (John 8:44)." DS
Hi. Abrams' reasoning is sound enough, but only if his statement re: Calvinism is true...and it isn't
on two points: [i] The offer of the gospel is not limited to a select
few, but is to be preached to everyman, whether elect or not. As Calvin
himself puts it: "The gospel is preached indiscriminately to the
elect and to the reprobate…" (Commentary on Isaiah) Many are called, but few are chosen. Reprobation is simply God passing some by and leaving them to their chosen sins. The "cannot"
responsibility belongs to the soul destroying sin which the reprobate
has chosen to love and serve, hence his condemnation (John 3:19) It
does not belong to God and therefore He, and those who seek to defend
his ways, cannot be indicted. It is true that God is not the author of
lies, but rather Satan, but it is wrong to imply that Calvinists are
peddling lies when we are doing anything but. No man has ever sought
God in faith and failed to find Him true to His word. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 18-05-07 Hello again, Mr. Maxwell, I'm sure by now that you'll be aware of my
penchant for pedantry... I wouldn't mention it if it didn't seem important, but
in your Calvinistic Emails you said: "Some of those who accuse us of believing
it also believe in eternal security where no man professing faith in Christ can
be lost. (As we do too)" I don't think you believe that a simple profession of
faith makes anyone eternally secure. Also, thank you for taking the time
to debate the Doctrines of Grace with me. You're right that we must accept what
the Word teaches, no matter what problems it may seem to cause to any
system. Blessings, J.
Hi. Nice to hear from you again.
The point that I was asking back there on the 6-5-07 is that some
folk accuse us of teaching holy violence when we preach irresistible
grace, yet themselves believe that God (effectively) keeps people in
the state of salvation. This is what we also believe, but if one is
being attributed to holy violence, then it is but reasonable to
attribute the other also to the same cause. As to a simple profession
of faith, it depends what you mean by this. If you mean a mere mental
acknowledgment, void of a heart faith and repentance, then the answer
must be negative i.e. I do not believe that. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 18-05-07 Hi Colin, Thanks for the reply. One thing people fail to
understand is that people's lives reflect the decree made regarding their
election or reprobation. On the one hand someone is going to hell because he's a
sodomite, on the other hand he's a sodomite because he's going to hell, ie giving
evidence of God's hatred to him/reprobation. That is what Phelps is trying to convey - you are a
homosexual because God reprobated you. Should you listen to that debate you'll find Phelps
explaining that one can't understand God' love unless you understand his hate -
Mal 1 Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith
the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, Mal
1:3 And I hated Esau
Hi.
Thanks for your note. I don't accept that the fact that Sodomites are
sinners because of the decree of God. That makes God the author of
their sin and constitutes blasphemy. The decree of God does not
make men sinners, but deals with them as sinners. Phelps, and by
extension yourself, seem to think that all Sodomites are reprobates.
This is not the case as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and other cases prove. I
accept that the perception of the love of God is heightened
by the fact that others do not share that love.
The Arminian lie that God loves everyone which is sending
billions of souls to hell, can only be exposed by telling people of God's hate.
I never in my life knew about God's hate, because no one ever mentioned it until
I heard it from pastor Phelps. You never "examine yourself" if you think God by
default loves you. Only when you know that He loves only a few, and them He
gives holy lives, do you take a serious look at your life, ie start fighting
your self-righteousness. That was my experience in any case. And that's why no
Arminian could possibly be saved, because he doesn't have this most
humbling truth on the subject that God doesn't necessarily love you. Pastor
Phelps puts the filthy lives of people to Bible examination and reaches one
conclusion - God hates you. Some it will humble, but in most cases that is 100%
true, and only serves to harden them, giving further evidence of their
status. Kind regards, D
The Apostle Paul did not come to the one conclusion that God hates filthy people. He taught that "Christ died for the ungodly" (Romans 5:6)
The Lord Jesus gave sinners every hope that they were loved in that He
emphasised that it was for such that He came to call to repentance
(Luke 5:21-32) To keep pounding a man with the thought that God
automatically hates him because his lifestyle is sinful, only to change
the message and tell him that God loves him because he responds to the
gospel hardly leads to him having confidence in the said God. When I
preach the gospel, I assure people that God loves sinners. He has
no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) - quite unlike
your friend Phelps who publicly wished that 33,000 were slain in Virginia, but said that he was happy enough with the 33.
I preach that whosoever will may come (Revelation 22:17) It may
well be that only the elect will prove to be the "whosoever will" but
nevertheless I must preach the gospel to every creature. Furthermore,
there is more than one way to be humbled in the sight of God, other
than ascribing to the Calvinistic view of Reprobation. Otherwise,
only Calvinistic could be saved. I'm sorry, I can't run with that. It
is the message of Jesus Christ. Perhaps, we should leave this man
(Phelps) in this matter of debate. I have probably given him enough
publicity as it is. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
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)
These are the folks that taught me Calvinism. www.Godhatesfags.com After
30 years in a so-called reformed church in South-Africa, I'd never
heard of the 5 points of Calvinism! It was not until conviction of sin
from verses like Hebrews 6 that lasted for long (sometimes I think I'm
still under conviction, but I've had some sweet communion with God)
that I started feverishly, in a panic to search the Scriptures, and
that inevitably lead me to the Doctrines of Grace. Anyhow, thanks for
the website - it's few and far between these days. Here's a seminary
I'm thinking of studying through. www.reformation.edu All the best. D. RSA
Whilst
it is nice to know that you have embraced the 5 Points of Calvinism,
and even perhaps learned them (doctrine wise) from the Phelps, I don't
think they do a good job in living out those same doctrines! I cannot
run with their idea that God hates everyone, apart from His own elect.
Nor that He wants His people to picket the funerals of dead American
soldiers etc., Of the folks at the seminary named, I know nothing save
what they reveal in their website. If you are happy enough with the
position of the Phelps family, then I suggest that you make this known
to the folk in www.reformation.edu
and inquire as to their position on these things. I would imagine that
such a move could save a whole load of problems later on both parties.
P/s I also wanted to ask you what the correct way is to
deal with unsaved people in your life - who want to become saved, but haven't
been called effectually. Should one separate from them, or stay
friends? Kind regards. D.
I
find it difficult to imagine the idea of anyone wanting to be saved
i.e. seriously wanting in the Biblical sense, as opposed to merely
wanting to hold on to their sins and yet escape hell, and not being
effectually called. Your wording of this matter creates the impression
that there are non elect people who earnestly desire salvation, but
that the decree of God is holding them back. I cannot run with that
idea either. The only thing that keeps a man back from Christ is
effectively his own unbelief. They will not
come to Christ, in order that they might have life. (John 5:40)
As to friendship with the unsaved, I would encourage it. The only
grounds in which it should be broken is if it is having a serious and
obvious detrimental influence on your profession of faith. In
which case, the level of friendship should be reduced down
greatly, if not altogether removed. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-05-07 Colin, I have read this about limited atonement at: http://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html: "I believe that Total Depravity, Unconditional
Election, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints are Biblical
doctrines. Man is definitely sinful and incapable of believing in God on his
own. God elects people based on His will alone – it is not based on any merit in
the person chosen. All those whom God has chosen will come to faith. All those
who are truly born-again will persevere in their faith. However, I do not
believe that Limited Atonement is correct. Jesus died for the sins of the whole
world, not just for the sins of the elect. “And he is the propitiation for our
sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John
2:2). Other verses in opposition to limited atonement are John 1:29; 3:16; 1
Timothy 2:6; 2 Peter 2:1."Do these scriptures mentioned refute limited atonement
like this article claims? Thanks and God Bless, DS
As indicated before, I take up the issue of the serious problems that attend to the Doctrine of Unlimited Atonement here, while specifically answering the 2 Peter 2:1 objection here.
If Christ died for all the sins of all men, then did He die for the
unpardonable sin? If so, why is it unpardonable? If not, then he did
not die for all the sins of all men. If Christ has taken away all
the sins of the world (as interpreted to mean "every last sinner
ever born") then where did He put them? Do they come back again as far
as the reprobate is concerned? See Spurgeon's comments on this doctrine
here. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-05-07 Dear Brother Maxwell, Thank you for taking the time to reply to the questions I asked you in
my last couple emails. Thank you for the articles you have linked me to also,
as I believe my questions were very well answered. I have also found answers
that I wanted to ask you, but found those questions answered in some of your
other articles. That was very helpful to me. I have a few thoughts and some questions that I want to ask you
about.
Nice to hear from you again.
1. When we preach the Gospel to every creature, God only enables those who
he is drawing, regenerating, elected, to respond to the Gospel, right?
Correct.
2. If I preach the Gospel to someone and he rejects it, that is
because he wasn't one of the elect, right? Meaning that God hasn't elected or
chose him for Salvation from before the foundations. We reject the Gospel
because of our sin, but my question is, If someone rejects the Gospel, does it
mean that this wasn't one of God's chosen persons to have been regenerated so he
can respond to the Gospel?
Although you are correct in what you are saying, yet the emphasis of the Bible in this matter is always
on the refusal of the sinner to repent and believe the gospel. Let no
man claim that he is refusing to believe because he is non elect. None
can blame God on this matter. The cause of condemnation is clearly
given in John 3:19 that those condemned loved darkness rather than
light because their deeds were evil. But you are right to observe, that
those who die in their sin were not of the elect.
3. Doesn't the Bible say that if we preach the Gospel to someone and they
reject it, to dust off our feet and move on? It doesn't say to stay there and
plead with the sinner until you can finally talk him into believing, which many
people do this when they witness and usually makes matters worse.
I
am not of the view that a person should only hear the gospel once and
if he refuses, then the dust of our feet is to be shook off. The Lord
Jesus preached many times in Jerusalem: "How often would I have gathered thee..." (Matthew 23:37) It
is only thing to plead with sinners to be saved in evangelism, yet it
is another to "button hole" them and lead them into some kind of "forced confession" which
is probably only made to get rid of you. It is all a matter of balance.
When I evangelise, I view all men as potentially elect and
therefore I reason with as many as I can to seek to persuade them to
believe. They are rational, accountable beings and (under the Spirit's
help) capable of understanding the matters. Without abandoning my
theology, yet I do not witness to them as a theologian (I use the term theologian
in the sense that every Christian is a theologian to some degree) but
as a witness of what Christ has done. In other words, I am not clinical
about the matter, but a concerned friend.
4. If I preach the Gospel to someone and they reject it, does that mean
that God won't ever draw or regenerate that person so he can respond to the
Gospel? I ask that because I probably have rejected the Gospel a few times when
it was preached to me before I finally responded to it, and I now desire to want
to know God better. So my basic question here is, if the Gospel is preached to someone and they
don't respond, does that mean this is the only chance this person will ever get
to respond to the Gospel?
I
think you have answered your own question here. Very few people
respond positively to the gospel on their first hearing. Yet the sinner
ought to bear in mind that his first time hearing the gospel might well
be his last. No man can presume upon hearing it again.
5. I have heard some people say that if Irresistible grace is true, that
is like someone beating his wife into loving him. Their argument goes something
like this: "God wants us to love him, but it wouldn't be any fun for God if
he had to beat it out of us, just like it wouldn't be any fun if we had to beat
it out of our wives". I don't know as if this is a fair analogy, but it's
often used. Because God is our creator, He has the power to change someone's
heart where we don't, as we are only His creation.
It is a very unfair analogy,
spoken out of ignorance (at best) of what irresistible grace is all
about. I have yet to meet a Calvinist either in person or in
writing etc., who believes that his love for God was beaten out of him.
God works in His elect both to will and do of his good pleasure
(Philippians 2:13) If that constitutes a situation akin to a man
beating his wife, then their problem is with the inspired writings of
the Apostle Paul and not with modern day Calvinists.
There is a verse in the Bible which says "We love Him, because he first
loved us". To me, that actually would refute the argument which I just laid out
above. However, I would like to know your thoughts on this.
I agree with your refutation.
6. I notice that many people who try to refute Calvinism use such verses
as John 12:32, where it says "Jesus will draw all men
unto himself". Thus, they believe Jesus will draw all men ever born. (Side
note: If people take the "men" to be literal and accurate, I sometimes wonder
why they never ask why the Bible nevers say anything about God drawing women
unto himself? Just a thought.) I have read that in the King James Version of the Bible, that the word
"men" was not found in the original Greek text. Do you know anything about
this?
The word "man" is obviously being use din the generic sense. In John 12:32 it all depends on what is meant by the "drawing" and how effectual it is. If it seen to be totally effectual i.e. a saving drawing to Christ, then the "all" must mean "all without distinction" since "all without exception"
are not saved. On the other hand, if it refers to a lesser drawing,
consistent with God's non pleasure in seeing men damned, then it may
carry the force of "all without exception." I tend to vrun with the former idea.
Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions and others, with
Biblically based and well thought out answers. God Bless You! DS
Glad to be of help to you. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 6-05-07 Dear Brother Colin, I have read some of your articles regarding David Cloud's articles and
found them very informative, seeing that I have read his articles on Calvinism
and didn't know quite what to think.
Thanks
for your note and for letting us know that our articles refuting David
Cloud's various attacks on Calvinism (or what he thinks is Calvinism)
has been helpful to you. Cloud seems to be well skilled in the art of
propaganda. Some of his criticisms are fair enough and you arrive at
the place where Christians on both sides of the argument have to agree
to differ, since it falls to how you interpret various verses or, more
particularly, how you interpret phrases within these verses. Other
criticisms are plainly absurd and untrue e.g. that Calvin denied the free offer of the gospel
or that Calvinists believe that faith = good works. It is
noticeable that on many occasions, he fails to supply any references
for his claims and it is not hard to see why. With all his concerns on
other pages about morality, he sees no problems quoting Calvin either
out of context, or ignoring those other quotes from Calvin which
balance up his teaching. It reflects the problem of lifting
quotes from here, there and yonder and all with a view of blackening
someone with whom you disagree. If we were so inclined, we could go
through Cloud's writings and do a crude hatchet job as well.
I have a few questions. I have heard that John Calvin had put to death
those who disagreed with his doctrines, is this true? This article is the
article in which I have heard this from:
http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm (under
the category "
Calvin's Reign of Terror")
Basically,
the charge is true, although we must say this: That many things are
charged upon Calvin of which he was not directly guilty. Calvin did not
run Geneva, the City Council did and Calvin did not always get his own
way. It is interesting that those who seek to blacken Calvin as much as
they can, tell us that one one hand he ruled Geneva with an iron fist,
but also milk the fact that they threw him out. Again, they do not use
the fact to moderate their views about Calvin that they asked him to
come back. Cloud published material, not that long ago, from the pen of
his friend Jack Mooreman in London about a so called Calvinistic
silence re: Servetus. I answer it here.
I repeat my view from that article that we do not condone Calvin's
behaviour if he stepped over the line of what is acceptable in the
sight of God. We condemn it unreservedly.
Those who so claim obviously haven't read Romans 9!
My last question is what do you believe about the rapture, and if the pre
trib rapture is true, will there be any converts during the tribulation? If the
post trib rapture is true, what happens if the elect take the mark of the
beast? Or is that not even possible?
Although
I have still a lot of thinking to do as regarding what prophetic school
I should attend, I reject the idea of a pre tribulation rapture for the
church. If taking the mark of the beast brings damnation upon the head,
then the elect will be graciously preserved from accepting it. Anything
that would prevent the elect from coming savingly to Christ will be
removed from their path, until at last they are safely gathered within
the fold.
If you have a chance, could you check out these articles and get back with
me on your take, and also my rapture questions? That would help me out a lot.
If you have any articles regarding any of these matters that you think would be
helpful, please feel free to give them to me. Thanks and God Bless! EDS
P/s Sorry to write again, but there is another article that I wanted to show
you that I came across in my studies of Calvinism.
http://www.biblelife.org/election.htm After researching many different points of view of this subject, I am
leaning more towards the Calvinistic teaching as opposed to the Arminianism and
Hyper Calvinism teachings. This article that I have here was one of the
articles that I have read before knowing all that much on the subject. If you
have time, could you check it out and offer some refutation on it? I am still
studying this subject and these refutations help out a lot. As did the ones you
did on David Cloud's articles, it helps give me
"the other side of the story".
I like to see both sides to the story in order to arrive at a truth. Thanks again, and God Bless, Dave
I have had a quick look at the
articles which you list here. Unfortunately due to time and my many
commitments here, I am unable to go through these statements line by
line as I have done with Cloud's attacks in the past. Such exercises
take a lot of time and there
is only so much effort that can be allotted to maintaining our Internet
site. Here, however, are a few pointers which should help you when
reading these criticisms of Calvinism:
1) Words like "world" and "all" or "every man" do not automatically mean "each and every one ever born" i.e. "all without exception." They can carry the meaning of "all without distinction" e.g. "Jew and Greek, rich and poor etc.," See here for the problems which interpreting "all"as "all without exception" regarding the atonement can bring.
2) Calvinists only "limit the atonement"
in regards as its purpose, not in its merit or sufficiency. We deny it
was the purpose of God to make atonement for the sins of any reprobate
who will spend eternity in hell, but had God lessened the number of the
reprobates and increased the number of the elect, then Christ's passion
would not have increased one iota more.
3) Such a belief in the sufficiency of the atonement ("Sufficient for all men, effecient only for the elect") enables us to preach the gospel (as commanded) to all men, elect or otherwise.
4) Commands in the Bible do not imply ability to obey them. Our critics
often accuse Calvinists of not believing in man's responsibility. This
is untrue. We believe that man is totally responsible for his actions and for his obligation to obey the gospel and should do so immediately.
5) God does not prevent sinners from coming to Him. Sin prevents them,
more particuarly their own unbelief. God does not have to impart to any
sinner saving grace, much less to all sinners. No man can sin himself
out of responsibility before God.
6) Irresistible grace does not mean irresistible violence. Some of
those who accuse us of believing it also believe in eternal security
where no man professing faith in Christ can be lost. (As we do too)
However, we are entitled to ask whether God uses irresistible violence
to keep His people safe and prevent them from going to hell?
7) Have a look at our Calvinistic Index page where many hours labour on these themes have been spent. Especially the pages on What Calvinists do and do not believe and The Calvinism Debate Simplified.
Indeed, any of those pages under the Doctrinal Controversy section.
Thanks for writings. I'm glad to read that you are able to see
the difference not only between Calvinism and non Calvinism, but also
between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism. See here on this matter also. There's a fair bit of reading for you! Colin.
.
*******************************************************
Answered 26-04-07 Bro.
Colin,Thank you so much for your WEB site.
I find it to be both educational and inspiring. I have long been an advocate for
the Doctrines of Grace and have spent countless hours reading the works of the
Puritans as well as the great English Baptists. I also find it refreshing that
you have used my WEB site (www.pbministries.org) as reference to
A.W. Pink in some of your responses to David Cloud. I look forward to reading more of
your WEB sits as it is always a blessing. Please do keep up the defense of the
faith as defined in Scripture and best understood from a Doctrines of Grace
perspective. Ron Cook
Hi Ron. Nice to hear from you and
know that our site has been of blessing to you. I appreciate the work
that you have done with your site. What a blessing the Internet can be!
I am a great admirer of RL Dabney, and I notice that you have his
entire Systematic Theology online. What a useful tool it often proves to be. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*************************************************
Answered: 17-04-07 Dear Pastor Colin Maxwell: Greetings in that most blessed of all names,
The Lord Jesus Christ, in whom we are eternally saved and united. Great is
our God and satisfying are His glorious doctrines of His sovereign free
grace. I enjoy your website and the vast amount of pertinent and easily
acceptable information it contains on the blessed doctrines of the
Bible.
I have wrote to you in the past and you had posted one of my
letters about David Cloud and his misconceptions on Calvinism. We had
attended Bethel Baptist church, where David Cloud is officially an member,
supports him and which prints his O Timothy magazine. We had left about
a year or so ago, but stay in touch with some of its members.
I wrote
an, "Open Letter to David Cloud" about his recent O Timothy concerning the
Christianity Today, article on the, March of Calvinism in Evangelical
Churches. I believe it is non-confrontational and seeks to encourage and
guide David Cloud and others of like mind, to see and study these truths we
'nickname' Calvinism in a better light. As George Whitefield said, "We are
all born Arminians" and it is only by the grace of God that we spiritually
embrace the doctrines of sovereign grace.
As I am not well computer
literate to know how to post a blog or article of this nature online, can
you post it on your site, as I believe God may use it to enlighten some
souls, that are now opposed, to these blessed truths. I attach the
letter. Thank you and may God continue to bless you in all your ministry
for Him. By His amazing grace: John Van Eyk vaneyk@execulink.com
Hi. I have provided a page for your open letter here. Thanks for your kind comments about our site. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 17-4-07 Dear sir: My name is Fred and I live in Georgia, USA.
I have a small request. I would like to know how you view 1st John 2:2
in the light of context and language. It seems to be a major focal
point against "Limited Atonement" by a friend of mine. Thank you for a
great website. Fred
Hi Fred, Nice to hear from you.
Glad that you are enjoying our site and that it is proving to be of
some help to you. One key word in 1 John 2:2 as far as the
atonement debate is concerned relates to the word "world" with our
Unlimited Atonement friends insisting that it means each and every
person ever born of a woman. Even a casual study of the word shows that
it is not so, and indeed cannot be so. The word "world" in the
Scripture carries different meanings. Personally, I believe here it
means "Gentiles" as opposed to the Jews., who are the "not ours only"
in the text. Another key word is "propitiation" and this relates to the
nature of the atonement itself. If Christ made propitiation for
the
sins of each and every sinner ever born (which the Unlimited Atonement
folk
allege) then their sins must have been forgiven, since propitiation has
been
made. A good question to ask is: Did Christ die for the unpardonable
sin? Part of the problem is that our friends themselves limit the
atonement to something which is more potential than real. If Christ
really did die for the sins of Judas Iscariot and other reprobates, why
are they in hell suffering for those very same sins? It is true
that there is a sufficiency and merit in the atonement which Christ
made to atone for a million worlds and this is why the free offer of
the gospel can be made and every last sinner assured of its power. But
it detracts from the atonement to say that it is the purpose of God to
have Christ specifically die for the sins of each and man in order to
save them. If this is the case, then God and His Son have signally
failed. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-3-07 Dear Colin Maxwell, Greetings. This is DP from
Los Alamitos, California. I live in the greater Los Angeles area when I
am home but much of the time I drive trucks throughout the USA and
Canada for a living. As a result most every Sunday I am in a different
state or province and I have attended FPC churches in Indianapolis,
Calgary, Greenville, Toronto and Columbia, SC. That to say this. I am
more "Calvinistic" than I used to be. As a result I posted an e-mail to
a number of friends. That e-mail elicited some responses four of which
I forwarded to you. The text of my original e-mail is encased in
at least two of the e-mails I forwarded to you. I came across your site
while surfing the Internet and saw you have quite an extensive section
on Calvinism. If you have time your feedback would be welcome. Am I on
the right track so to speak? And how would you respond to such
responses such as I received. Sincerely, DP
Salvation by Grace alone thru Faith alone in Christ Jesus alone according to the Scriptures alone to the Glory of God alone
On Christ the Solid Rock I stand, all other "rocks" are SHAM-rocks
Hi. Nice to hear from you and to
know that you have been fellowshipping in a few of our FPC in the USA
and Canada. I am delighted that you are coming to a fuller
understanding of the Doctrines of Grace. I thought the langauge
in some of the emails you sent me was a bit strong, particularly from
one of the women. On the Calvinism issue, sometimes there is little you
can do, if you get a long BLAST just after you have put your head over
the parapet. If people do not have a reasonable spirit, then you have
just to wait until and pray that God will give them one. Whatever you
do, dont't respond in kind. Nothing is achieved. Have a look around our
Calvinistic Index Page.
There are a lot of articles there covering the subject from many
different angles. Thanks again for writing. Give my regards to the
folks in the different FPC churches which you visit. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-3-07 Colin, It is good to see that you are continuing to
preach the truth! I corresponded with you some several years back. I
was also corresponding with David Cloud at that time. Are you not quite
weary of doing battle with David Cloud? I see you are awaiting a
response to your February 16, 2007 email to him. His responses to me
were very brief, and indicated that he really did not even read what I
said.
Nice to hear from you again.
Although I usually write, as a matter of courtesy, to David Cloud after
I answer him, I feel that I am writing for a larger audience.
I think it is a sign of weakness on Cloud's part that he refuses
to meaningfully engage. As I wrote in my last article, anyone can do what Cloud does. He
is churning out sheer rubbish in his so called Calvinism articles. He
seldom bothers to give any references and often when he does, they
don't say what he says they say, or they have been yanked out of
context or ignore the overall picture. Sometimes I think that there is
not a trick in the book that he is not prepared to play. I take
some satisfaction that when you Google "David Cloud Calvinism" that
my articles follow immediately after his on the very first page.
Sometimes, they are in front, but I'm happy with immediate following.
I would rather speak of a success - an answer to prayer: Somewhat
depressed because I could not find a fellowship in proximity of my
neighborhood that was fundamental and reformed, I quit searching and
began attending the closest fellowship to me - a conservative
Southern Baptist congregation. The Church just hired a new pastor who
slowly revealed that he is reformed and fundamental (though we still do
not see eye to eye on the KJV - my leaning is with you on this issue).
The Sunday School class has had me teaching (more like reading with
light commentary) scripture. The class decided to use t