EMAILS ON OUR CALVINISM ARTICLES
JULY 2002 - DECEMBER 2002
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) The sender's email appears
in dark blue. My response, as ever, in red:
*************************************
Received 27-12-02 Dear Brother,I just finished reading much of what is
on your web site, and I must say it was very interesting and
enlightening.
Thanks for your email and encouragement.
I am a Baptist missionary in the
Philippines. I have had much trouble with a group here called
"Sovereign Grace, Landmark Baptists". Groups such as this have cast a
very bad light on Calvinism as a whole. They are very intolerant of any
one who does not agree with them. I would call them hyper-Calvinist.
They are not a group I know
anything about. It is hard to keep track of all the different groups. I
assume that they are American and the American scene can be very
bewildering to us in this somewhat parochial part of the world. While I
hold my Calvinism very dearly, I do not think that it is an essential
ground for fellowship with other Christians. If these folk you have
trouble with actually deny the free offer of the gospel and deny duty
faith and duty repentance...only then I would regard them as hyper
Calvinists. Otherwise they do not qualify. We need to keep the terms
accurate.
Your article has helped me very much in having a better understanding
of what true Calvinism is all about. I just wanted to thank you for
presenting this subject with such an humble, Christian spirit. It would
be wonderful if all of us who are sincerely trying to preach the gospel
of Christ could have such a spirit. You are to be commended, and I
consider you to be a brother in Christ. May God bless you. (DN) Thanks again for writing. We have quite a few Filipino nurses over here in Ireland. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 17-12-02 Greetings in Christ beloved brother in the Lord, I am
a Calvinist. A member of my church wrote this rebuttal of your answer
to this question on your site: Some Serious Questions for Calvinists:
Why preach ‘repent or perish’ when the non-elect
can’t repent and the elect can’t perish? His reply is
attached.... Please tell me what your thoughts are... (CF)
Thanks for your email. I have
taken the liberty of shortening it down somewhat and not putting up
your friend's rebuttal in full. I do this for two reasons: [1] Space!
[2] I have more or less answered the rebuffs elsewhere...true, not in a
question and answer style, but nonetheless effective for all that. If
the rebuttal can be measured against this list of what Calvinists do
and do not believe, then many of the allegations will melt like snow of
a ditch. However some things do need to be said about your friend's
reply:
[1] I was asked why do Calvinists
preach "repent or perish" if the non elect can't repent and the elect
can't perish. My answer "Because God commands us to in Acts 17:30-31"
is relevant to the question. It does not interfere with the issue of
the non elect being unable of themselves to repent. It is not as if I
ran away from the original question and hid behind a simplistic answer.
I simply addressed the question in all its fulness. Your friend might
be into conspiracy theories: "the many philosophical decoys, rabbit
trails, tap-dances, smoke-and-mirror arguments and misapplied Scripture
references" but I don't care for them myself. I would rather say "I
don't know" than try to bluff or mislead. Calvinists don't claim to
have 6 lane motorways through the hard parts of Scripture. It is my
opinion that overall Calvinism supplies better answers to some hard
questions in the word of God than the alternative system embraced by
other evangelical Christians. Both sides have difficulties with which
to contend...I believe that Calvinists have fewer than non Calvinists.
[2] Calvinists believe that men
are morally unable to come to Christ because they are unwilling to come
to Christ. Calvin comments on John 5:40 And you will not come to me.
"He [Christ] again reproaches them that it is nothing but their own
malice that hinders them from becoming partakers of the life offered in
the Scriptures; for when he says that they will not, he imputes the
cause of their ignorance and blindness to wickedness and obstinacy.
And, indeed, since he offered himself to them so graciously, they must
have been wilfully blind; but when they intentionally fled from the
light, and even desired to extinguish the sun by the darkness of their
unbelief, Christ justly reproves them with greater severity." Scripture
always puts the blame on the sinner and that is where the Calvinist
puts it also. It is only the non Calvinist who thinks that the
Calvinist blames God. We do not have to defend what we do not believe.
It may be helpful to remember that reprobation - the passing by of the
non elect - does not make man a sinner.
[3] The alleged inconsistency of
where I stated that except the elect repent they will perish is not
inconsistent with Calvinism at all...nor more importantly with the word
of God. I believe that the salvation of the elect is certain (because
preordained by God) The argument becomes hypothetical i.e. what if the
elect do not repent. Until they repent, they are in a state of
condemnation (Luke 13:3) they are lost (Luke 19:10) dead (Ephesians
2:1)...only when they actually come to Christ (through the preacher
preaching "Repent or perish") will they be saved. I think my Calvinism
is pretty sound on this aspect.
[4] My warrant for believing on
Christ for salvation (and assurance) is not whether I am one of the
elect...but am I one of the "whosoever" of Romans 10:13. If I come to
Christ, I may assure myself that I am one of the elect. This argument
of the non Calvinist is not one of their better ones. It is not
legalism to associate assurance with holiness. No man who lives in sin
may draw comfort for himself that he is among the saved people of God.
Such does not tie in with Matthew 1:21 and the whole tenor of Scripture.
[5] Your friend makes a most
amazing statement re: the law of God. To say that "God doesn't expect
anyone today to be able to keep His Law" negates his previous statement
that "the Law was given to show men their sinfulness" If what your
friend is saying is true, then men need not feel sinful at all nor fear
hell. How can a just God who does not expect men to keep His law (for
that is what it boils down to) send people to hell for not keeping it?
We might reword the original question..."Why preach repent or perish
when men, not being expected to be able to keep the law, need not
confess to sin at all?" Man's sinfulness lies in his chosen inability
to keep the commandments, as expected of Him by God. To be fair to
other non Calvinists...I think your friend is out on his own with this
one.
[6] On the matter debated here
(freewill and its implications) your friend could actually fellowship
with Rome. Calvinists are left to reel (if we took them seriously)
under Rome's anathema's on this very issue. I don't think it was the
right time to try and play that particular card.
[7] Calvin taught that some
undeserving men are saved by grace and all other undeserving men are
damned because of sin. Actually...this is what all Christians believe,
Calvinist or not. Perhaps your friend could produce a place where
Calvin actually denies the above statement. As Calvin himself
complained to one who attacked him: "If you will attack my doctrine,
why not at least show candour enough to quote my own language."
Calvinists seem to spend most of their time in these debates answering
what some folk think Calvin believed rather than what he actually said.
[8] There were several other
arguments which have been doing the rounds for years i.e. Calvinists
are proud etc., which really may be applied to any opponent's side i.e.
a malady of Calvinists and non Calvinists alike and so I will not
answer them here.
So that's it. I have written more
than I intended but I hope that this helps you somewhat. If you intend
to take up these points with your non Calvinist brother in the
congregation, do try and keep the debate civil! If you can get rid of
his misunderstandings etc., you probably have more in common than is
often perceived. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 5-12-02 Hi Colin, Thanks for your very good response to my
email, which I saw on your website, where you directed me to. I was
glad you did! I was very interested in much material on your website.
The Republic of Ireland is a very
Roman Catholic country (over 90%) and there appears to be a low
perception even among native Christians of the Church's debt to Calvin,
Luther etc,. and the Reformation in general. To my mind, this makes
them prey for the never ceasing encroachments of the ecumenical
movement.
Enjoyed Errol Hulse's piece. I
enjoyed it myself! It leaves those who propagate that Calvinism has no
evangelistic heart without excuse. [Note: Sorry I can't link this peice
any more - the link is now dead.]
Did not know that J.C. Ryle was a "4 point Calvinist"!
He faltered on Particular
Redemption. In his otherwise excellent notes on John's Gospel, he
states on John 1:29 "I dare not confine the intention of redemption to
the saints alone" and confesses that he can see no force in the
argument that if Christ died for those who are eventually lost, then
His sacrifice was in vain. But how else can you word it, if Christ
failed to achieve what He purposed to do? He can hardly see the travail
of His soul and really be satisfied (Isaiah 55:11) It pushes us back to
the old question…Did Christ merely die to make salvation
possible (and make people saveable) or did He actually save people by
His death? I go for the latter.
I am not sure if I understand correctly how anyone can be a "4 point
Calvinist"? Surely all the "5 points" "hang together"?! If there are '4
point' Calvinists, then what about the '3 point' guys? Can we squeeze
in a '2 point' friend?
The "5 points" really do "hang
together" as you put it and so we must charge the 4 pointers etc., with
inconsistency. I think when we start getting down to "2 point
Calvinists" we are really looking at "3 point Arminians" I suppose then
we should be glad that they at least have some light! Some who say they
believe in "Total Depravity" don't really do so. They still cling to
their notion of man's ability. Those who believe only in the eternal
perseverance/security of the saints - free from Hunt's weird
interpretation of what it means - make the saint to have less freedom
than the sinner…which is hardly satisfactory.
You are doing a great job with your website! Regards, (GC) Thanks for your encouragement. It makes the effort all worth while. Colin
*******************************************************
Received 2-12-02 Dear Rev Maxwell,
I was very interested in reading your review of David Cloud's article on Calvinism, and also your comments on Dave Hunt's book
"What Love Is This?". Your gracious comments about Cloud are in
contrast to your comments about Hunt. The contrast was significant! You
seem to have a high view of Cloud and yet a low view of Hunt?! This was
very noticeable to me. Thanks for
your note. I found Cloud's article on Calvinism - Who is the real
enemy? to be reasonably gracious in tone…even if he did get some
things wrong. I feel he was trying to be reasonably objective…at
least, compared to some. I was hoping that a gracious response on my
part might open up some kind of dialogue with him and I might be able
to point out where he is misrepresenting Calvinism. I take the line
that it is one thing to disagree with Calvinism…it is another
thing to misrepresent and caricature it. Hunt, on the other hand, seems
to have a vendetta against Calvin and Calvinists and stooped either in
gross ignorance or sheer mischief to paint the picture as black as he
possibly could…hence the difference in approach.
I have read Cloud and Hunt, and I cannot find very much difference, if
any at all, between them as far as their soteriology is concerned, and
their extreme dislike, of 'Calvinism'. I can almost 'feel' their bitter
dislike of all things Calvinistic whenever I read their material! Yet
you seem to treat Cloud so much differently to the way you treat Hunt.
I wonder why? I access Cloud's
site regularly and there is much there with which I basically agree.
Hunt was practically an unknown entity to me. I was aware of his books
on Romanism, Prophecy (I am not a Dispensationalist) and now Calvinism
but, apart from the latter, I had never read them. I wouldn't trust
Hunt "as far as I could throw him" as they say here in Ireland.
Cloud has written, about Hunt's book, "He has diligently researched his
topic and has made a great effort to be fair to Calvinists and to
represent them accurately". And, "There is very little in this powerful
book with which we would disagree." So
I see. I did, however, write the review of Cloud's page on "Calvinism -
Who is the real enemy?" before Hunt produced his book.
However…we can still say that Cloud's article is more gracious
in tone and I responded accordingly. I do try to respond as gracious as
I can anyway…although at times it is very hard. As you point
out…there seems little between them, particularly with this
ringing endorsement of Hunt by Cloud. To my mind, Hunt has simply made
a fool out of himself and those who endorse him obviously then must
share his folly. If Hunt is the model of a diligence researcher and
this is a great effort in fairness and accurate
representation…then thank you but no thank you.
The only apparent point that Cloud disagrees with Hunt on is where Hunt
seems to discredit KJV Onlyism! Is this significant to you? Would you
describe yourself as a KJV Onlyist? I
use only the KJV myself but I would not paint myself into a corner as
some KJV Onlyites (as you call them) do. I tend to take the position of
J.C. Philpot (as quoted in David Otis Fuller's "True or False") that
"…there are here and there passages of which the translation may
be improved" and certainly places where it could be updated to modern
English. Words like "prevent" have the exact opposite meaning to 1611.
However, Philpot does point out, and with this I agree… "But we
depreciate any alteration as a measure that the smallest sprinkling of
good would deluge us with a flood of evil…" and he then gives
his sound reasons why.
Have you read David Cloud's book "For Love Of The Bible", and Dr James
White's book "The KJV Only Controversy" ?. If so, could you comment on
what, if anything, you disagree with in White's book? I have read both,
and would agree with Dr Packer where he describes it as, "Sober,
scholarly, courteous, and convincing." What do you think? Having
read neither I cannot really comment. I am, however, a Received Text
man. I believe in the principle of "formal equivalence" as opposed to
the NIV (etc.,) dynamic equivalence" There is a bit of an outcry about
the latest edition of the NIV, but if we concede to the old NIV
translators the right to translate what they think God thought when He
gave the word, then we cannot consistently deny the new translators the
same right. On the other hand, if we keep to the word to word method,
there is no real dispute. I would take serious issue with Jim Packer on
his ecumenical compromise with Rome.
Do you not think that Cloud is just as 'bound' by tradition as is Hunt?
I certainly think so! And what about Hunt's misrepresentation of
Spurgeon! Doesn't Cloud also 'agree' with this misrepresentation of
Spurgeon? He certainly seems to.
Again, trying to be gracious, it
might well be that Cloud (and indeed Hunt) have arrived at their belief
through honest Bible study…although their interpretations re:
the Doctrines of Grace are flawed. Or perhaps, as you say, they are
just following a set of doctrines inherited from their own particular
circle. Who can tell? Re: Spurgeon, Cloud himself cannot seem to make
up his mind how Calvinistic Spurgeon was. In one page, he describes him
as a "staunch Calvinist" and elsewhere as "a Calvinist of sorts"
However they pick on the wrong man, as his works are widely available. See also our Spurgeon index page.
David Cloud has also commented, "James White, who loves to debate, has
weighed in with an attempt to refute and discredit Dave Hunt's book.
White has entitled his response, "Blinded by Tradition: An Open Letter
to Dave Hunt." For those who care about what White says about the
matter, his remarks can be found at http://aomin.org/DHOpenLetter.html.
I will only say that White is very confused about who is blinded by
tradition and that his attempt to discredit Dave Hunt's position on
Calvinism is as weak as his attempt to discredit those who defend the
Received Text and the King James Bible. Dave Hunt's masterly reply to
White can also be found on the Internet at
http://www.thebereancall.org/calbook.htm." There is a fusing together of different issues here…which are not all related. I know little about James White and I don't think Cloud is the man to look to for an objective assessment.
His assessment of Calvin on the free offer is out of order, his
description of Spurgeon's Calvinism fluctuates as to be worthless and
his overwhelming endorsement of Hunt's book says it all!
I believe that I have read a lot, of what Dr White has written, and
preached on 'Calvinism', and I cannot believe that Cloud is any less
'confused' / 'blinded' by his traditions on this subject, than is Hunt.
I do not believe that either person is able anymore to engage in proper
exegesis. I get the impression
with Cloud that if you could just sit down with him for a good two
hours and chat him honestly, and without rancour, he would listen and
even clean up the Calvinist part of his site. This is just an
impression from afar. I might well be wrong because it is only a
haunch. Emails etc., can never convey that sense of sitting down as
Christian brethren if only to agree to disagree. I don't get that
impression with Hunt. Whether I am right in my impressions or even
consistent remains to be seen. [Much Later note: I would tend now
to put Hunt and Cloud on a par with each other. I have lost a lot of
respect for Cloud who has sunk down to Hunt's level.]
What do you think? Have you had any response from David Cloud about your gracious comments on his writings? I
did email him on a number of occasions. While I did some replies, he
has changed nothing on his site and still peddles the untruth that
Calvin did not believe in the free offer of the gospel. He would be
better arguing that Calvin's belief in the free offer is inconsistent
with his Calvinism - although I could not go along with this idea -
than trying to tell us all that Calvin did not believe in it. The one
quote he supplied as "proof" dealt with the impact of the gospel
offer…not its scope while the very next sentence affirmed that
the gospel is for all men. At this point, you start looking elsewhere
for credible opposition.
I have asked David Cloud, as has Dr White himself, to get together with Dr White for an online debate, but with no success! Cloud
is a busy man. At the time of writing nothing has been added to his
website for a number of weeks. I suppose you can't debate everyone. On
thing though about debates, online or otherwise, is that they tend to
degenerate into slanging matches. That's why I refuse to wax eloquent
when opposing men who take an opposite view, even when they present a
caricature of my position. You end up losing sight of what the debate
is about in the first place. However, as I said on the page analysing
Hunt and his book: you cannot keep playing "Here's-another-mistake"
card for ever either.
I eagerly await the upcoming book jointly written by Dave Hunt and Dr
James White dealing with this subject further! It is one book that I
will definitely be purchasing!
I hope that it is objective and deals with the real issues. I hate red herrings.
Really appreciate all of your work, and the material you have made available online. Regards, (GC)
Glad
you do. The truth is glorious. It should not be lost through default.
Thanks again for writing. I trust these replies clarify where I stand.
I have reviewed several anti Calvinist sites and given my assessment of their worth. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 21-11-02 Cobba (Aussie slang for friend) you haven't been on
the whiskey have you? When did John Bunyan become a Yankee??? Love,
Douglas (a Kiwi living in Australia) Soli Deo Gloria Aseity fides viva.
"JOHN BUNYAN (Famous 17th Century American Independent Preacher and author of Pilgrim's Progress)" Great quotes by the way!!! Linked from my most best study site: http://www.monergism.com/
Who says you lot "down under" are
slow? Well spotted. I remember ribbing a friend in Bible College who
sent William Carey to Africa rather than India. Oh well…even the
Pope limits his infallibility to doctrines and morals. :-) I have
brought the offending biographical detail into line and restored Bunyan
to England's green and pleasant land once again. Thanks for the link. I
had a brief look at the site you mentioned and it looks good. Just
while we are on the subject of the free offer…does any one out
there have a good quote from John Newton on this subject? I have none
of his works, except a single booklet with his sermon on Matthew 11:28
where (surprisingly) he limits the invitation in this particular verse
to those who are awakened.
*******************************************************
Received 11-11-02 Colin,
Hello, my name is Dan McPherson. I ran across your site about a week or so ago and think it's great! Hi
Dan…glad that you are enjoying the site. It's always good to be
of encouragement to God's people as we all seek to make it home safely
to the Celestial City.
The reason I'm contacting you is to see if you could use a study that
I've put together. It's called "Grace From First To Last" and is set up
to be printed out in booklet form. I originally put it together to
share with friends and family members so they could see that Calvinism
is scriptural. It's available on a few other sites and I thought I'd
send it to you to look over. If you'd like to use it please feel free
to do so. If not, that's fine. You have plenty of great info. already
available on your site. I got a
brief look at your study and it looks good. I prepared similar type of
studies on the Doctrines of Grace which we looked at here in Cork Free
Presbyterian Church. However, if any want to use your study, I'm sure
you will be glad to hear from them on
touchnotthecat5@indianaconnect.com and they can judge it for
themselves.
Let me know what you think regardless if you'd like to use it or not.
I particularly liked your anecdote
about the Methodist woman perplexed about election and I will repeat it
here below for the benefit of those who don't get as far as writing to
you:
I once heard a pastor tell a story
about a Methodist woman who was faithfully reading and studying her
Bible. She kept coming across those passages that deal with election,
the elect, and God choosing. Now, of course, the Methodist church
doesn’t believe much about election so she hadn’t been
taught anything about it. One day she decided she would go next door
and ask her neighbor, the Baptist preacher, to explain election to her.
"I think I can help you" said the
preacher. Then he asked the woman if she was saved. "Well, yes, I am"
she answered. "Who saved you?" asked the preacher. "God did" replied
the woman, "God saved me." "Are you sure?" "Yes, I’m sure God
saved me" answered the woman. "Well," said the preacher, "Did you help
him save you or did he save you all by himself?" "Oh no, he saved me
all by himself" she replied. " Now, I have one more question for you.
Did God do that on purpose or did he kind of do it by accident?" "I
guess he did it on purpose" exclaimed the woman. The preacher said,
"That’s election."
Keep up the good work and God Bless, Dan McPherson Likewise! Colin.
*******************************************************
I got the following email from Mr
Mark Huss who has since given me permission to print his email here. I
replied first and then printed the reply…which makes it hard to
intersperse my comments. You can see the original article here.
Received 31-10-02 A note to Mr. Maxwell:
I appreciate his comments on my article titled, 'Four Implications of
Calvinism'. Thank you for taking the time to read it, I know we are all
busy people. Regards to Calvin's Institutes. I did get the initial
quote from a well known Calvinistic author here in the U.S.Long and
short of the matter is this; I cannot accept that God has created men,
women, and children specifically to go to an eternal hell apart from
Him. Even unbelievers recognize the inconsistency!In Christ Jesus our
Lord, Mark Huss
Dear Mr Huss, Thank you for your
reply. No Calvinist claims that "God created men, women, and children
specifically to go to an eternal hell apart from Him." God created men
to "glorify Him and enjoy Him forever" (If I may use the scriptural
answer from the old catechism) and some have singularly failed to do
so. The reason men are in hell is because of their personal sin.
Since God is not obliged to save
any...He is not obliged to save all. There is no provision made to save
the angels that sinned - no Mediator shedding His blood for them and no
earnest evangelists - Calvinist or otherwise - pleading with them to be
saved. And yet a fiery hell prepared for them. Is this fair? Are the
ways of the Lord equal here? Of course this is fair and of course the
ways of the Lord are equal and just.
The same principle applies to all
sinners. Who evangelised the lost heathens of the Gentiles in the OT
era? Why did God choose to save Israelites and leave the other nations
in their sin and darkness? Yet He did and still can call Himself a God
of love and mercy and still say that He is not willing that any should
perish but that all should come to repentance. Doubtless we can both
ask penetrating questions of each other that we both cannot answer...my
point is simply (as articulated above) is that God does not deal the
same with every single sinner and has left many without the necessary
revelation i.e. the Bible to bring them savingly to Christ. Yours, Colin Maxwell
*******************************************************
Received 27-10-02 Dear Pastor Maxwell, No need to reply to this;
I know you are a busy servant of the Lord--I just want to write and
thank you for your hard work and thoughtful, kind answers in your
response to Brother David Cloud's article on Calvinism.
I'm that this particular page has
proved to be helpful to you. Brother Cloud has a lot of good stuff on
his site, but his analysis of Calvinism leaves a lot to be desired,
especially after endorsing Dave Hunt's latest book on the subject. It
is one thing to disagree with Calvin or Calvinism...it is quite another
to misstate and/or twist its belief's.
Many of your answers were extremely helpful to me. I am a missionary in
________, Spain with _______. I am a Calvinist (a Christian who
believes the Gospel of God's grace), and I love evangelism else I would
not be here preaching the Gospel, and so I am delighted to find your
resourceful website. You make a
good point here, especially fitting for Calvinist missionaries! It is a
very simple point…but not always grasped. Some non Calvinists
are convinced that Calvinism kills evangelism
and missionary endeavour and even though you're standing in the street
or whatever with a bundle of tracts in your hand, won't hear anything
to the contrary.
I shall be studying from it in the days to come. I
trust that God will bless you in your study. Your email has been an
encouragement to me and I'm sure to others who read these lines also.
May God use your efforts to bring many Roman Catholics savingly to
Jesus Christ.
In Him Who cannot fail, MB Exactly. Hallelujah! Colin
*******************************************************
Received: 18-10-02 Hello! I wanted to let you know of a website you
might want to take a look at if you have the time. It definitely paints
Calvin and the Doctrines of Grace in a negative light. In fact, this
sight probably has not taken much effort to examine Calvinist doctrine
fairly- there is certainly much material on it that can be refuted.
Anyway, it is- evangelicaloutreach.org.
Thanks for your note. I'll get a
look at this website sometime in the next few days, although I'm very
busy at the moment. Sadly this is a characteristic of a lot of anti
Calvinistic sites. They seem to peddle one another's material, just
repeating the same old propaganda. I think that about 80% of it all is
misunderstanding and we could reduce the whole controversy down to a
hard core of verses…mainly those that centre around the
Sovereignty of God.
I visit your website quite often and as always appreciate your excellent presentation of reformed doctrine.
May God bless you as always! Cordially- MS
I appreciate your appreciation :-) Do keep visiting and encourage others to do also. Colin
*******************************************************
Received: 2-10-02 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Colin, You are a
very busy Christian. Your work truly inspires me! Your writings have
strengthened my faith and improved my knowledge. JV
You flatter me! Glad to be of help
to you. It's a learning process for us all, for His ways are past
finding out (Romans 11:33) but it is good to learn more and more of the
ways of God. Remember to put your knowledge to good use! There is a
lost world out there that needs to be saved…Calvinists have no
reason to sit back and do nothing but every reason to preach the gospel
to every creature. Colin
*******************************************************
Received: 25-9-02 Hi Colin, I've been looking up stuff on Calvinism
trying to understand its theology but with limited success I have to
say!
The best way is to ask the Lord to
make it clear to you. God's thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah
55:8-9) and it is for us to blend our thinking with God's. Often we
bring baggage to our study of the word of God - usually starting off
with MAN and making MAN the centre of our theology. I have on this site
a series of good studies on the Doctrines of Grace which start off with God.
I've looked through your web pages on Calvinism and was much impressed
by them. However I note that none of the questions deal with the issue
of those who never got to hear the gospel.
A good point. My articles on
Calvinism have been put together somewhat piece meal over a few months.
They are usually reactionary - taking on board arguments from the non
Calvinist camp where the plight of the heathen is not an issue. However
since you raise this particular issue, I am happy to try and answer
your questions. I am glad that you have been enjoying the various web
pages.
I'm not a Universalist in that I don't believe in either automatic
salvation or the inevitability of salvation. However nor do I believe
in the limited atonement that Spurgeon is so positive about - I read a
little of one of your links [here or here]
to his preaching on this. Now while I don't wish to offend or argue, I
wonder can you follow this line of thought which mitigates against Gods
sovereignty and towards God being frustrated (I've noticed the word
popping up a lot !) as I think Calvinists tend to state re: God's will
not being done or His purposes fully achieved. Fire
away…although the thought of a God who is less than sovereign is
frightening. If God's purposes are not fulfilled…then a greater
than He has triumphed, pushing Him into second place and at least on
this issue, He really has ceased to be God. I accept that this might
move a bit fast for some…but even in slow thought, the
conclusion must be the same.
Anyway here is the lead up to my questions ...
It goes like this ... the elect have faith ... God is the source ...
the means is the gospel ... the means is also along with the saving
faith predestined and an act of God's sovereignty ... those who are
saved are elect ... to get saved and be a part of that elect you have
to have heard and responded to the gospel ... the gospel is and has
been preached primarily in the west ... the mortality rate in the non
West is very high for kids and people and the populations much higher
(China, India etc) ... the non Western populations have historically
and up to today only very limited exposure to the gospel though
certainly in the last 50 years that has changed greatly.
Having stated your prelude…lets go direct into the questions.
* What then of those who don't or didn't get to hear - the 'means' - the gospel? We
need to be careful here and state first some Bible principles. [1] Men
are damned in hell because of sin i.e. the transgression of the law of
God (1 John 3:4) [2] God is not obliged to save any sinner and
therefore not obliged to save every sinner. [3] God is not therefore
obliged to so order that every last sinner hears the gospel. This last
point is obvious since every last sinner has not heard the gospel. [4]
The sinner - whether pagan or not - has the law of conscience which
will either accuse or excuse him (Romans 2:14-15) [5] The works of
creation leave men without excuse (Romans 1:20/Psalm 19:1-6) but are
not sufficient to teach them the gospel (Romans 10:14-17) To
answer your question…those accountable heathen are lost because
of their sins. They are not obviously guilty of gospel rejection -
since they never heard the gospel - but their other sins bring them
into a state of condemnation (Ezekiel 18:4 etc.,)
* Is it logical to conclude that God for the last 300 years (to take a
small slice of time) God has predestined that those saved should be
born out of the wombs of women residing in the 'west - USA\Europe -
parts of the world saturated with or exposed to the gospel?
You will notice that I make the
distinction above about the accountable heathen being lost. There are
many souls world-wide who are not accountable i.e. those who die before
coming to the age of understanding or who never attain to understanding
i.e. are mentally deficient. Although the Bible does not give us a
wealth of information on this subject, it is the general belief of
Calvinists (and Christians in general) that such are covered by the
mercy of God and were redeemed by the blood of Christ, even if unable
to formally "come forward" in faith and receive it for themselves. At
the end of it all, Heaven will be peopled by those "out of every
kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Revelation 5:9) We
many conclude concerning those who do reach the age of understanding
that God has arranged the circumstances leading up to their conversion
and this generally speaking places them within reach of the gospel.
While the west may be saturated with the gospel now…it was not
always so. Once North Africa and other places were "hotbeds" of gospel
activity.
* Is it also logical that there have been whole peoples and nations who
have lived and died full of predestined non-elect over the course of
the last two thousand years? No,
for the reasons given above i.e. those who were not accountable are
elect and therefore will be in Heaven in accordance with Revelation 5:9
Also, some of these folk have been able to travel and come into places
where they were reached with the gospel. However, it can't be denied
that vast multitudes of peoples have been passed by in the providence
of God who have not had the gospel opportunities of others. How great
then will be the condemnation of those who have the gospel preached to
them daily and still refuse to repent. It will be more tolerable for
Sodom and Gomorrah than for them (Matthew 11:20-27) These words should
not be construed to mean that the Christian Church should sit back and
do nothing. We are guided by the precepts of God…not His decrees
and the command is still to go into all the world and preach the gospel
to every creature (Mark 16:15)
* Can we be conclude they were non-elect and predestined to hell precisely because didn't get to hear the gospel? As
stated above, the cause of man's damnation is ever his own personal
sin. That God has evidently chose to pass some by when it comes to even
hearing the gospel would appear to indicate that they are not numbered
among the elect.
I'd be very interested in your reply
to this and hope you will reply as you seem more than open to discuss
and clarify questions people have. I
hope that this clarifies the issues for you. They can be complex enough
- though no more than any branch of theology - but they always bring us
to marvel that we ever heard the gospel and that in hearing it, were
brought by grace both to repent (Acts 11:18) and believe (Acts 18:27)
the message.
God bless and thank you for your work on your web pages. KM Again...glad
that you appreciate the web pages. I also struggled somewhat with these
issues before coming to accept them. There are many things out there
still beyond human understanding (Romans 11:33/Deuteronomy 29:29) There
is no shame in not having all the answers. We must remain content to
know that God knows and that the Judge of all the earth will do right
(Genesis 18:24) To my mind, Calvinism presents the least problems and
is more in line with the overall Scripture picture and Christian
experience. Thanks again for writing to me.
*******************************************************
Received: 30-8-02 Colin Maxwell, Thank you for your articles on your website. They have been very valuable to me. This
is always "music to my ears" when I read that God's people have been
helped. I cannot give the time that I would like to the website, but
emails like yours surely justify the time that is given.
I recently broke fellowship with a church that had a new leader that,
as I understand more fully, taught a "hyper-Calvinistic" doctrine.
A wise move. Hyper Calvinism
has a deadening effect upon the soul and it is best to get as far away
from it as you can…without going to the other extreme of
Arminianism as you mention below.
I moved toward an Arminian philosophy, but I chose to scripturally
argue with another, more patient Christian who had a strong reformed
Baptist background. Both of us learned much as a result of our many
passionate discussions (they were mostly written discussions, so we
formed our thoughts into complete and documented statements), and I
think we are in much agreement. God's Word won. Good.
Too many throw out the baby with the bath water. Truth is always
balanced and it is good to research as much as we can, ever probing and
asking questions and testing the answers by the Scriptures.
After the Bible taught me the doctrine of grace (I never could experientially agree that I chose God),
Actually we did choose God because
such is the result of a renewed will. We did not choose him in the
Arminian sense of the word (i.e. through the ability of our fallen
will) but we did choose him, being made willing in the day of His
power. Spurgeon comments: "I
shall not fear to be called an Arminian, when I say, as Elijah did,
"Choose you this day whom you will serve. If God be God, serve him; if
Baal be God serve him." But, now, make your choice deliberately; and
may God help you to do it! Do not say you will take up with religion,
without first counting the cost of it; remember, there is your lust to
be given up, your pleasure to be renounced; can you do it for
Christ’s sake? Can you? I know you cannot, unless God’s
grace shall assist you in making such a choice. But can you say, "Yes,
by the help of God, earth’s gaudy toys, its pomps, pageantries,
gewgaws, all these I renounce? — "These can never satisfy, Give
me Christ or else I die." Sinner, thou wilt never regret that choice,
if God help thee to make it; thou wilt find thyself a happy man here,
and thrice happy throughout eternity." (3:131)
I was very much thrilled to find your web discussions. I was looking
for Spurgeon's comments when I discovered you. You have expressed with
much clarity, the doctrine of grace. I
am totally convinced of the truth of Calvinism. Often it is lost for
the want of clarity. Spurgeon, quoted above, had the happy gift of
being able to preach it in a manner that was both faithful and popular.
I hope you do not mind me using your words at times to help convince
others who have been struggling with alternative doctrines. Yours in Christ Jesus, JV Feel
free to make use of what you can. It is not my truth…it's God's
and if I can be of help to some struggling saint or sinner in these
things, then I count it a joy indeed. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received: 13-08-02 Colin: Was having a discussion with one of my
employees today about David Hunt's book on Pseudo-Calvinism. I haven't
had the opportunity yet to read the book, but judging from the comments
around the 'net, he doesn't have the real Calvinism in his sights. I
did some searching and ran across your site. Hi!
Thanks for your note. I think Hunt has really lost his credibility with
his book. I hear that he has been trying to defend his idea that
Spurgeon didn't believe in Particular Redemption - that Calvinistic
phrases were often on his lips but he had different meanings. Our page on the matter must put it beyond doubt!
I was very impressed with the content on the site and the even-handed
presentation of your topics. All of us could follow your example. I
do try to be fair to opponents. It is morally wrong and
counterproductive to misrepresent someone. Truth always gets out in the
end.
I came to the Lord at a young age and grew up in a neo-evangelical
church. During my high school years I came under the influence of a
Fundamentalist Baptist pastor and eventually attended BJU. I came by my
Calvinistic convictions as a result of my personal Bible study and only
later studied Calvinistic literature. That's
good to hear. I have often heard it said that no one would come to a
knowledge of Calvinism without Calvinistic literature.
I did have one question that struck me as I perused your site: What was
the source or root of your Received Text views? Do your views extend to
an inerrant translation? I don't agree, by the way, but I have looked
at both sides of that controversy. I
suppose, initially, I inherited my KJV stance from the Free
Presbyterian Church, but having studied (like yourself) a little, I
have come to believe more firmly that the majority of the ancient texts
(which support the KJV) are to believed over the few which support the
non evangelical Westcott and Hort stable. The argument that the old
must be better - even when in a small minority - is based on the
presumption that the older available are pure. I also reject the New
International Version idea that the translator is there to give me
God's thoughts (as opposed to God's words) This is the job of the
commentator or the preacher - not the translator. I want to hold fast
the form of sound words. How can God communicate to me apart from
words? Whilst I am prepared to hold up my KJV and say "This is the word
of God" I am also prepared to update words where necessary e.g. change
"let" to "hinder" in keeping with the rather dramatic change of
langauge. When all is said and done, the KJV is a version and the word
version is a relative word.
Congratulations on a great web site. I hope that you are able to keep it up. I think it's a great testimony to the Lord. Thanks, M.M. Greenville, SC 29614 USA Thanks again for your encouragement. It is always good to get positive feed back.
*******************************************************
Received: 22-07-02 Hello Colin, I wrote out a detailed response to your
last two emails (which I combined into one, since we both covered the
same ground twice). But then I remembered you'd asked me to be brief
with whatever I next sent your way. So, since this whole debate boils
down to just one issue (for me, anyway), I wanted to send this:
Hi! Good to hear from you again. I
appreciate you taking time to write and also seeking to avoid long
rambling points which necessitate long rambling replies. As you say,
often the whole debate can be boiled down to one issue.
a. Calvin taught that "...election [unto salvation] itself could not
exist without being opposed to reprobation...Whom God passes by, He
reprobates, and from no other cause then His determination to exclude
them from the inheritance which He predestines for His children."
Before I comment on this actual
quote from Calvin, can you please supply a reference for it so that I
can read it for myself in context. Sorry to insist on this, but it is
my experience that little snippets of what Calvin said or supposedly
said get lifted out of context and all sorts of things are fathered on
Calvin. Calvin's style is not suited to this age where we expect short
and to the point statements. However, see below for a couple of
important points regarding the doctrine of reprobation which perhaps
will show what Calvin is getting at in another light.
b. The Bible teaches that men can and will be condemned for the specific sin of unbelief. Actually,
the Bible teaches that men are damned for all their sins. It is not
just the unbelieving who have their part in the lake of fire and
brimstone, but murders and whoremongers etc., (Revelation 21:8) Yet it
may be said that the sin of unbelief is certainly the crowning sin and
so you are right. Unbelief is a sin for which men are condemned.
c. Calvinism teaches that the only way the non-elect could possibly
believe and be saved is if God hadn’t decreed them unto
reprobation in the first place, but had instead chosen them for
salvation along with the rest of His elect. True
but only as far as it goes. However, there is much more that needs to
be said. The next statement gives us an opportunity to expand a little.
d. But given the unalterable decree of God from eternity past, the
non-elect are stuck in their reprobation and, let's be honest, have
zero hope of salvation even if they somehow hear and understand the
Gospel of the grace of God. It
would be more accurate to say that the non elect are stuck in their sin
and unbelief and since their chosen sin blinds their eyes and stops
their ears, they have zero hope of salvation unless God deigns to save
them. God's reprobating
them in time past certainly did not make them sinners. It is vital to
see that reprobation comes in two distinct stages, although one act.
[1] In His eternal decree, God
comes to the whole human race, as yet uncreated, and therefore
unfallen. However, before He either elects or reprobates, He views the
human race as fallen - a situation which has yet to come to pass but
most certainly will. Out of this mass of humanity, viewed as fallen,
sinful and guilty, He decrees that some will be saved. This is
election. Election in itself does not save these people, but simply
marks them out for salvation. It will take the shed blood of Christ and
the saving power of the Spirit of God through the preached gospel to
save them. By the same token, obviously those passed by are reprobated.
This does not make them sinners, for they are viewed already as sinners
and will only become guilty when Adam sinned and they too are born and
sin. All God has done is to simply pass them by and chose others who
are likewise undeserving.
[2] The second stage is
condemnation. This is not entirely sovereign like election or
preterition (i.e. the passing by) but has a judicial aspect to it. No
man is condemned because he is reprobated. Man is condemned because he
has sinned. The non elect are left to perish in their own corruption (2
Peter 2:12) The elect are graciously lifted from their own corruption,
like beggars from a dunghill, and set among princes (1 Samuel 2:8) This
leaves us with that most scriptural maxim that salvation is all of
grace, damnation is all of sin.
Perhaps you are one of those who do not accept the idea of "dual
election," or whatever one may call it. If so, Calvin DID believe in
it.
I do believe in dual election, but
strictly on the basis set out above. Anything that either infringes
upon the sheer grace of God in election or the sheer responsibility of
man for his sin and consequent damnation I must reject as being
unbalanced. Click here for our interesting article on the three legged stool.
So I ask you, as a brother in Christ, to show me how God can remain a
just and righteous Judge in condemning reprobates specifically for the
sin of UNBELIEF.
I believe the explanation above
will sufficiently answer your problem. The source of the reprobate's
unbelief is his own wicked heart (Hebrews 3:13/Mark 7:21-22) Unless we
are going to insist that God was obligated to save everyone and so
debunk grace of its very meaning, God was not obliged to save the non
elect who are viewed as being guilty for their sin. Indeed He was not
even obligated to save the elect…but simply chose for His own
glory to do so. The non elect cannot sin themselves out of
responsibility before God. Their inability to repent and believe is a
moral inability - it is self imposed - God merely abandoning them to
their own devices.
I cover this ground a little more on another web page
which should be consulted, especially the other side of this argument
i.e. How can God condemn men for not keeping His law (1 John 3:4) when
we know and God knows that no man has the ability to keep the
commandments without offending in one point and so being guilty of all?
The answer is: man is responsible for His own sinful inability and is
punished accordingly. What we all readily apply to the other sins like
murder etc., Calvinists consistently apply also to the sin of unbelief.
If you can reconcile this for me, you will have gone a long way toward
converting me to what you and every other Calvinist claims is the
truth. Have a good week, Yours in Him, D.M. Although
Calvinists see these things as important to the correct understanding
of the Bible, yet we do not insist that they are essential for
salvation. The Bible and indeed the Reformed Faith is greater than the
issues raised here. However, this is where we stand. It is important to
see our guiding star is not so much the secret decrees of God, but
those which He has revealed to us. It is suffice for us to know that
the gospel is to be preached earnestly to every last creature in an
indiscriminate fashion, with the foundation of God standing sure that
the Lord knows those who are His. Thanks for writing. Colin.
********************************************************
Received 17-07-02 Dear Brother Maxwell, I found your pages
while browsing for the subject of "hyper-Calvinism" today. I needed to
find more information because I was under the impression that it was a
term given to true Calvinists by those who reject Calvinism. I know
this to be the case with "extreme-Calvinism" which Norman Geisler (in
his book "Chosen but free") names Calvinists who deny the free-will of
man, yet "moderate Calvinists" like himself (actually 4 or 5 point
Arminians) exalt the free choice of man. So, I thought
"hyper-Calvinism" was yet another one of those "bad names" given to
those who exalt the sovereignty of God. For
some strange reason - I try and avoid going down the conspiracy theory
road - many non Calvinists cannot tell the difference between Calvinism
and hyper Calvinism and so use the terms synonymously. Their
misunderstanding on something which seems so simple is fatal as far as
their credibility as a critic is concerned. At best, it depicts shoddy
research since the two systems are absolutely poles apart. There does
seem to be a dullness though when you try to make it clear to them.
I thank you for the information on your pages, however. It really shed
some light to see that while Arminianism is dangerous, there is a flip
side that goes to the other extreme. Glad
the site has been so helpful to you. As ever truth lies between the two
extremes. God is sovereign and man is responsible but unable to repent
and believe without God regenerating his heart. These truths are like a
three legged stool - deny any one of them and the whole collapses.
I do have a question that perhaps you could help me with. The main 3
areas what cause hyper-Calvinism to set itself against Biblical
Christianity are listed:
Hyper-Calvinism denies:
1. the universal calling of the gospel upon all men.
2. that faith and repentance are the duties of all men.
3. the universal and free offer of the gospel to all.
I understand the first two quite well. I have questions about the third
point, however. How does this differ from point #1? I can't recall
where I got this list of the 3 differences, but perhaps you could shed
some light or at least direct me to some resources that might (and
Biblically would be best) :) Unless
there is some small point of distinction, the first and third points
are more or less the same. I suppose any difference might lie in the
word "calling" which could denote a summonsing or command and the word
"offer" which has a warmer tone to it. God both commands the sinner to
believe - a position covered then by the second point - and also
invites him. Despite what the hyper Calvinists say, this does not
denote creature power but creature responsibility. The gospel is to be
preached to every creature (Mark 16:15) Since we do not have access to
the Lamb's Book of Life, Calvinists view every sinner as potentially
elect and exhort and plead etc., with him to be saved.
One website I saw referred me to an article that discussed how God
desires all men to be saved regarding this point. Now, generally I have
fallen in with those who take "all men" to refer to the elect only, but
I have not ruled out completely that it can still be consistent, be it
our understanding still limited, for God to desire all men to be saved
and yet only choose to have mercy on some and actually grant them
salvation.
Calvinists are not in the position
to reconcile or explain everything. We do know that we cannot charge
God with insincerity. The Bible states that God invites all men
indiscriminately to be saved (Revelation 22:17) and yet it is also
evident that God withholds saving faith and repentance from some of
those who are thus invited (John 6:44) One of the strengths of our
position is that we can challenge any man to prove from the Bible that
the purpose of God is to save every last sinful son or daughter of
Adam. They cannot do it…or else they are presenting a frustrated
God whose plans have been effectively scuttled while He looks
helplessly on, making do with little more than a salvage job. On the
other hand, if they believe that God purposed to save only His elect,
they clear Him of the charge of failure and allow that Christ will see
the travail of His soul and really will be satisfied, for every last
soul for whom He died will repent and believe the gospel and be
eternally saved. We should not lose sight of the fact that the death of
Christ is sufficient to save every last sinner. Christ would not have
suffered more had the number of the elect been increased or suffered
less if it had been diminished. The limit is not in the sufficiency of
the "blood of God" (Acts 20:28) but the intention or purpose of God
which limits it to the elect. Spurgeon's sermons are particularly clear
on this point CHS SERMON ENTITLED PARTICULAR REDEMPTION and CHS SERMON ENTITLED: THE MISSION OF THE SON OF MAN and a pleasure to read.
Aside from this, I also want to say that I think the information you
posted is great. I was blessed greatly. How's the weather up there this
time of year? Grace and peace in Christ, Your brother, T.G.
Again,
an encouragement to me that you have been helped a little on your
pilgrimage. It has been a typical Irish summer - warm rain! - but I was
out today at Blarney Castle seeking to reach the tourists with the
gospel. Although it was one of the quieter days, a few Spanish and
Italian young people got portions of Scripture in their own language
and also a few American tourists as well. We can only sow the seed in
faith trusting God to bless our feeble efforts and knowing as only a
Calvinist can consistently know that God's word shall not return unto
Him void but will accomplish that which God pleases and will prosper in
the thing whereto He sends it (Isaiah 55:11) Thanks for writing. Colin.
********************************************************
RECEIVED: 13-07-02 Greetings to you in Christ, Likewise Christian Greetings to you. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to the issues raised on our web page
I just read your questions answered by a Calvinist, and I must comment on this point. You wrote:
"(It is vital when trying to understand Calvinism that we believe that
men are damned because of their sin. Many fail to understand this and
make all kinds of foolish statements. Men are lost because when God
offered them mercy - and the offer of mercy is indiscriminate -
reprobates refused it. It was genuinely offered to them but they
preferred instead their sin. They therefore can be said to have forsook
their own mercy. The damned souls in hell are not cursing the righteous
decree of God that decided to leave them in their guilt, but their own
folly in obeying not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ - 2
Thessalonians 1:8)" Yes…I
wrote these words and stand over them. As I say, they are vital words
if we would understand the belief of Calvinists as opposed to what men
often think Calvinists believe.
Forgive me for saying so, but this is evasion and doubletalk that
refuses to deal squarely with the implications of the passage. Obviously
I must refute your charges. I have no desire to evade any passage of
scripture or use double talk. I don't need to. I accept that there are
parts of the scripture that I cannot entirely reconcile together i.e.
where God's sovereignty and man's responsibility meet - but then that
is a common problem of all Christians, not only Calvinists.
If words mean anything, being punished for disobedience (which Paul
unmistakably describes in this passage) implies the punished ones MUST
have had the genuine ability, freedom, and will to recognize and to
CHOOSE between two clearly distinguishable options with regard to the
Gospel (obey and please God, or disobey and be damned). We
believe that man lost his ability through sin to obey God. This
inability was not inflicted by God, but by the sinner's own sin, first
as inherited from his representative Adam and increased by his own
continual sinning against God. If you believe that the sinner must be
able to do what God commands him to do…then you must likewise
believe that the sinner is able to fully keep the 10 Commandments, both
in letter and in spirit, because we urge their responsibility upon men
and warn them that failure here leads to damnation. I assume that you
do not believe that unregenerate men have the ability - naturally or
God given - to keep the law…yet recognise that man's failure to
keep it does not compromise God in any way. Well…the exact same
principle applies. The Calvinist is only being consistent.
Please look at the passage again...Paul says God will condemn to Hell
those who "obey not the Gospel." True, this means they chose not to
believe it. But since (according to Calvinism) the only reason the
"elect" come to believe is ultimately because of God's election, and
not their own choice, likewise the only reason "reprobates" do NOT
believe is because they CANNOT believe. Why can they not? BECAUSE OF
THE SAME ETERNAL, UNCHANGING DECREE OF GOD. You
err here in your analyse of the situation. It is true that the only
reason why the elect do believe is because of the gracious decree of
God, but the reason why the non elect do not believe is because of
their sin. You cannot father man's disobedience on God. True…He
permissively allows it to happen. True…He could intervene and
draw the sinner to himself. But then it is equally true that He could
have prevented sin entering in the first place or prevented Satan from
tempting Adam etc., The Bible puts the blame on man…I am not
going to shift the blame unto God.
There is no such thing as a LEGITIMATE "indiscriminate offer of mercy"
if Calvinism is true. God knows He did not give ALL the ability to
believe and be saved, so such an "indiscriminate" offer is a sham
because it is NOT REALLY OPEN TO ALL. Again,
you omit the fundamental thought in this debate that man's inability is
self caused and sin caused. Why God offers the gospel to men who will
eventually end up in hell, however, is not exclusively a Calvinist
matter. The non Calvinist position where the foreknowledge of God means
simply that God-saw-what-would-happen-in-the-future must struggle with
the same thought. Why does God offer the gospel to those whom He knows
will reject it? This can be pushed further: Why did God send His Son to
die for people whom He foreknew will reject the sacrifice? Or not even
hear about it in the first place. There are a lot of "why's?" out
there. As I read the Bible, I discover that God invites the "whosoever
will" to come (Revelation 22:17/John 7:37 etc.,) making the offer
indiscriminate. I dare not charge the Lord with being insincere.
The only way God can remain just in condemning them for their choice to
disobey the Gospel, is if the choice is genuinely theirs. However, the
Calvinistic view of election (as it is commonly taught and defended)
denies this.
The choice is genuinely theirs.
They have sinned themselves out of ability, but not out of
responsibility. We preach that men should "Choose life" (Deuteronomy
30:19) Why do we do this? [1] God commands it (Mark 16:15) [2] God uses
it to bring His elect to Himself (1 Corinthians 1:21) [3] It reveals
the loving heart of God to all the world [4] It shows the long
suffering of God even towards the non elect (Romans 9:22) The
Calvinistic view of election - where man is the object of the choice -
does not contradict the free offer or any part of the Bible. Our
inability to fully explain the plan of God should not be taken as a
denial. (Deuteronomy 29:29)
So if Calvinism is true, then the lost in Hell, if they learn exactly
why they are there, COULD curse God as an unjust monster like Allah,
and they'd be justified in doing so. You
are drawing wrong conclusions from wrong premises. You cannot arrive at
a true perception doing that. Men in hell blame themselves…not
God.
Luckily, the Calvinist concept of God is NOT the God of the Bible, and
all men everywhere MAY be saved IF they but believe the Gospel of the
Grace of God (that IS what Grace is all about, after all). The offer IS
legitimately open to ALL, even if Calvinism denies it. I
know I cannot make a man an offender for a word…but your use of
the word "Luckily" (!) hardly commends your theology to any serious
Christian. And yet what other word can you really fall back on? You
effectively drive God from His throne and what is left? Sin
out-bounding grace. Sovereign man and a sovereign Devil keeping God
waiting outside the door. I am pretty sure the reality is that you
don't really follow through the logic of your own conclusions, but like
the rest of us you pray that God will intervene in the life of your
unsaved friends etc., and draw them to Himself etc.,
Please believe me, I mean you no ill will nor disrespect. I
accept totally your unquestionable respect. Our debate is a sincere
attempt from two Christians to arrive at what the Bible actually
teaches.
But the Calvinist view of election, I am convinced, is a false doctrine
which slanders God. And you have defended it to the point of giving an
impossibly wrenched explanation of 2 Thess 1:8. Please reconsider! Obviously
I must disagree with your analysis and refute your allegations. As
pointed out, you seem to overlook the depth of man's depravity. He is
not as lost or as without strength or as dead as the Bible teaches him
to be, if we follow your theology. Your failure to grasp this, then
leads you misunderstand the necessity of unconditional election and
that has the knock on effect of you misunderstanding the whole
Calvinistic system., including its insistence on the sincerity of the
free gospel offer. I stand over my original claim that in 2
Thessalonians 1:8, men are damned because they obey not the gospel. God
sincerely offers them eternal life, knowing as He does that some will
not come to Him that they might have life (John 5:40) And yet,
graciously, He still offers them eternal life.
Yours in the Body, D.M.
Thank you for writing to me. I
hope that if you do not receive for yourself my position, yet you will
at least understand how I arrive at it. Please be assured, that our
ministry here in Cork City is an evangelistic one. We spread the gospel
to all indiscriminately and seek by all means to win some. Colin.
********************************************************
RETURN TO LATEST CALVINIST EMAILS PAGE