emailscalvinism

Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt (Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org

Received 31-12-05 Colin, Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I was just re-reading your reply to my Nov 9 e-mail about David Cloud. In your reply, you made mention of a pastor going through Romans. This brought to mind an incident from my early days as a Christian: I had a friend at work who attended a church - and his pastor was going through Romans chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse. So, I would ask my friend about how the studies were going. Then one day I went in and asked about the study, and my friend told me, "He's skipping chapters 9, 10, and 11, and going from chapter 8 straight to chapter 12." Nice to hear from you again Bob. Certainly chapter 9 is the great chapter that demolishes the salvation by grace plus my free will teaching. God ties the knots so hard in this chapter that no amount of semantics can undo the teaching there. Some of the explanations are just plain silly. These range from God is dealing with nations and not individuals (does that not exacerbate the perceived problem?) to Jacob was being prepared for service (as opposed to salvation) and Esau wasn't. Just as God today may call one natural brother to be a pastor and not the other - so too Jacob etc., However, this is pure rubbish! Are those who sit in the pews to be considered vessels fitted for destruction? Anything but allowing God to exercise His free will!
At the time, I didn't know why this would have been done? But now I do - this pastor did NOT want to have to deal with "election." I heard someone once say, "We should never be afraid of what the Bible says." This is the best advice I've ever gotten about reading the Bible. Too many times, man's "principles" and "conclusions" have boxed the Bible in. As the radio program is titled, "Let the Bible Speak." I agree completely.
(By the way, I don't mean to knock David Cloud - he has done wonderful work maintaining his Website. His site is a great resource of information, and I thank the Lord for his Website.) Yours against popery and the BGEA, Bob Orris. Cloud has some good stuff on his Website, but he is away of beam not only on the Doctrines of Grace, but in his opposition to them. He goes down the Hunt line too much which damages his credibility as a critic of Calvinism. I have emailed in times past both to point out where he is actually misrepresenting Calvinism and opposing it. I can live with him opposing it - that's his problem and not mine - but I hate misrepresentation. This then colours my view of him as a critic on other matters also. However, I do keep an eye on his news reports and then seek to have them clarified from more reliable sources if needs be. Thanks again for writing. Happy New Year Bob. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 17-12-05 Hello Pastor Maxwell, I bring you greetings from the US. In addition to Apprising Ministries I am also pastor of a small 10 member house church. I'm also a contributor at: http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/ I came across this teaching of yours on "Once Saved" from a link a Jim Bublitz' Old Truth Website. What I was wondering is may I republish this on my Site as he did putting your link and information as writer etc. I would just like to have this balanced teaching in the Lord available for my readers. If you happen to see anything on my Site you are welcome to link to it or republish. Here is the link to one of my articles on the menace of the Emergent Church called "Emerging With The Social Gospel" : May the Lord continue to bless your labor for Him. Sincerely In Christ, Pastor Ken Silva President Apprising Ministries Hi. Thanks for your email. I am very happy for you to reproduce the above article on your site with the usual credits etc., That goes for anyone reading these lines. I would appreciate you letting me know. It encourages our folks at this end to know that the gospel is being furthered. Thanks again for writing. I check the http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/ site every day and appreciate its aims. (We are from the same Free Presbyterian connection as Ingrid.) Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 14-12-05 Hi, I grew up attending the Free Presbyterian church in Auckland. I have lately become a Christian. I have read with interest your information on predestination and believe it accurately reflects the bible. Hi Elizabeth. Thanks for your email. Delighted to hear that you have come recently to Christ and that furthermore, you appreciate the Doctrines of Grace.
The church I have been attending recently, (It is a Baptist church. I have not been able to find biblical support for infant baptism), had a sermon on predestination in which it was claimed that Judas Iscariot was a believer as evidenced by Matthew 10. 1-10 where Judas, as one of the disciples was commissioned and given the power to teach and heal the sick etc and as an unbeliever cannot cast out demons Mark 3. 23, Luke 11. 18 Judas must have received the Holy Spirit. This appears to contradict the perseverance of the saints and irresistible grace. Can a Christian lose his/her salvation? I was always taught that we could not. I would appreciate your view on this matter or any books that you would recommend reading on this subject. Thank you for your time, Elizabeth It is possible for a soul to go a long way with God and still remain in his sins. This is the teaching of Hebrews 6:4-6. Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray him and from those early days was referring to Judas as a "devil" (John 6:70-71) He later spoke of Judas as the "Son of Perdition" (John 17:12) and that in relation to an ancient Scripture. The folk in Matthew 7:22 claimed to have cast out devils, and yet Christ said to them, "I never knew you, depart from me ye that work iniquity." Not even: "I no longer know you" but "I never knew you." God can use even the unclean to further His purposes. A Christian cannot lose his salvation. He can lose his testimony, his joy, his peace, his usefulness…but his life is hid with Christ in God (Colossians 3:1-3) I am sure you are also familiar with the other verses like John 10:28-29/1 Peter 1:5 etc., I cannot think of any books of hand which tackle this issue.

Re: your choice of churches. As I write in the answer to the query immediately below to ST from South Africa, when it comes to churches, we must make wise choices. Often this is a balancing act between what we want, what we can live with and what we must reject. I am not altogether convinced on infant baptism either, but I would rather sir in a infant baptism church with the Doctrines of grace (providing it was an evangelistic church) than sit in what sounds like an Arminian congregation. However, I am not on the ground there as you are, but do weigh up the matter carefully. A small note in finishing, the Free Presbyterian Church in Auckland is probably associated with the Scottish Presbytery, Cork Free Presbyterian Church is under the Presbytery of Ulster and therefore is a separate denomination. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 13-12-05 My name is ST and I have but recently discovered the blessed assurance the teachings of the gospel according to Calvinism brings. I have found though that I get much opposition from both people who believe in a Universalist gospel and some Arminian friends. Hi. Thanks for your email. Nice to see that you have been brought into the knowledge and appreciation of the Doctrines of Grace. The best way to deal with criticism and opposition to sit your ground and not retaliate in any way. As you come to a greater understanding of the grace of God in salvation, then you might be able to answer better their objections and even prove to be an Aquila and Priscilla unto them (Acts 18:26)
I do need to ask you a question though and I hope you can help me with it. We attend the Assemblies of God in South Africa, and as I understand it they are essentially Arminian in doctrine (I looked up their doctrinal statement on their Website) What I want to ask is, would it do any harm to still go to an Arminian church even though I now hold to Calvinistic theology? And what churches do hold Calvinist theology? There seems to be so few of them and the one that we found in our area, is hyper Calvinistic-(Baptist) and not user friendly (to use a competer term) at all. Sometimes we are left with what we can get as opposed to what we want. How would you define "hyper Calvinist"? and again, the term "user friendly" may have certain connotations. Are they just unfriendly or unhelpful (as opposed to refusing to employ any means to get people into church?) I spent a number of years as a Calvinist in a non- Reformed Church which, nevertheless, had a very strong stand in the neighbourhood and preached the gospel faithfully. The matter of moving churches is always something to wait upon the Lord for., unless you are looking at modernism or apostasy in your church, in which case the Bible has already spoken: Ephesians 5:11 etc., (I don't consider Arminianism to be apostasy.)
I found your Website through referral through links from other Calvinist Websites, and have enjoyed your very balanced view of presenting the gospel according to Calvin's theology. I hope you can help me with my questions. Yours in Jesus ST South Africa Glad that you have been helped through our Website. I hope indeed these answers have helped you also.
*******************************************************
Received 1-12-05 Hi Colin, Thanks for replying. (See entry for 24-12-05 below) Interesting. Hmmm. But can God not be disappointed? The scriptural evidence would lead me to think so. Genesis 6:6 has God being grieved that he made man on the earth and that His heart was filled with pain. Also 1 Samuel 15:35 where God was grieved by having made Saul king over Israel. I am struggling with this so you might be able to help me out here. Hi. Thanks for writing again. The Bible makes two distinct statements re: God. Verses like those quoted above say clearly that He repented. Yet we read elsewhere, that He is not a man that He should repent (Numbers 23:19) and that with Him there is no variableness or shadow of turning (James 1:17) At first sight, there seems to be a contradiction, but we know that this is not so. What is the answer? In the first set of texts which you quoted (Genesis 6:6/1 Samuel 15:35) we have the situation as it appears unto us. We see God pursuing one line and then seemingly taking another. It appears to us that He is doing a U turn and Scripture is simply accommodating itself to our perception. (Another example of this is when the Bible talks about the sun rising and setting when we know that, technically speaking, it doesn't. But it appears to do so to us.) The second set of texts, which I quoted, are as things really are and not merely as they appear unto us. If God really did change His mind, then it was for one of two reasons: [i] Something happened of which He was not originally aware and so He had to change His mind accordingly. This would deny His prescience or foreknowledge. [ii] Something happened that He could do nothing about. This would deny His Sovereignty and power. Both these things are totally unthinkable for One who proclaims Himself to be God.
Would God not have been disappointed at Adam and Eve's disobedience and all its consequences. They chose their path did they not, even though Eve was deceived and Adam made his choice to go with Eve. Although God has no pleasure in sin nor in the consequences of it, yet He overrules it for His own glory. While Adam and Eve freely chose their path and paid the heavy price for doing so, they God not only allowed it, but (I believe) actually foreordained it and will yet use it for His own glory. Such sovereignty does not negate nor excuse Adam and Eve's freedom in the matter nor their responsibility nor their sin. This might sound, at first, pretty difficult to grasp, but please consider the alternative. Was God helpless? Did God abdicate His sovereignty? Can God abdicate His sovereignty? Any difficulties are in our perceptions and it is easier to go with the flow of Scripture than it is to try and limit God in some way. Some try to soften the blow by saying that God saw beforehand what would happen etc., but that merely puts the inevitable back one row. He still allowed it and He allowed it because it was not incompatible with His overall will…otherwise He would have prevented it from happening.
In some ways your answer sounded a bit like trying to make scripture fit a particular view that was already held. As my view on these matters has yet to be formed. I am just seeking your thoughts and what you see as truth in the scriptures. I should hope that your charge is not so. I would rather surrender up my Calvinism than do despite to my belief in the word of God. However, when all is seriously considered, I consider my views to be compatible with what God reveals in His word on this matter. I feel there are many more problems with the alternative views. With my views, I exalt the Sovereignty of God. I do no despite to the Responsibility of man and I urge all men to comply with what is commanded of them in the Bible. What other line can I take with sample verses like these:
There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand. (Proverbs 19:21)
There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. (Proverbs 21:30)
For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27)
What about Hebrews 6:4-8 where it warns about falling away? It says that it is impossible for them to be brought back to repentance. I would be very interested in all your thoughts regarding these issues. Ultimately those folk in Hebrews 6 were not and had had not been actually saved. They may have professed salvation and even had some spiritual experiences (as outlined in the passage) but they all fell short of salvation. Like those in Matthew 7:22 who did many mighty and even miraculous works in Christ's name, yet He will say to them: Depart from me, I never knew you. (v23) Not merely, I do not know you now…but I never ever knew you at any time. It ought to be said, that no true Christian has the right to come along to Hebrews 6 or other similar passages and say "These passages are not for me." They are. They cause a needful anxiety that will test our profession of faith. However, the true Christian will pass that test.
I have many other questions to discuss but these will do for now. I look forward to hearing from you Colin. Kind Regards, AH Feel free to ask more questions, but in short doses please! I trust my answers help you. Please search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things be so (Acts 17:11) Thanks again for writing.
*******************************************************
I received the following email via my personal blog and decided to put it up here and so share the reply with others. It is in regard to a posting which I raise the point about who the "world" are in John 3:16. I have raised it on these pages before. I am reviewing my belief that the world in John 3:16 is the whole world (elect and non elect alike)
Received 24-11-05 Happy Thanksgiving from the States. You might check out No Condemnation by Michael Eaton - he wants to strengthen a believer's assurance by universalising the atonement (but not saying all are saved). He tries to make the case that a limited atonement works against assurance - how can I be sure Christ dies *for me*? BC I hadn't heard of this book, until you mentioned it. Just from your description of his argument, I can see two immediate objections:
1) The challenge "How can I be sure Christ died *for me*?" is just another way of saying: "How can I be sure that I am *elect*?" The answer is simple. I come to Jesus Christ as a poor, lost, hell deserving, sinner and I simply cry for mercy. I then rest on the promises of Him who cannot lie that such who come will in no wise be cast out (John 6:37) For each and every one who does that, Christ has personally died. The "what if" can be introduced any where along the line to produce doubt, and there is no reason to introduce it in relation to the cross of Jesus Christ. You don't get people believing (with a Holy Spirit wrought saving faith) in something that is not there for them. God cannot deny Himself.
2) If universal atonement is true, why should the sinner believe, that although Christ died personally for him, that this belief should be the basis of his assurance? Did He not so equally die for Judas etc.? Spurgeon rightly observed that the Universal Atonement bridge, although wide enough for all, only took you half way over the river. The Particular Redemption bridge, although narrow in its *intention* took you the whole way across.
To conclude: The perfect work of Christ, admitting of no failure (something which the Universal Atonement theory cannot supply), is sufficient to give the soul assurance. Faith should simply lay hold, not on the decrees of God which it cannot see, but on the promises of God which are found in the Bible and held forth to the "whosoever will"
There was a follow up discussion which may be followed here on my blog.
********************************************************
Received 10-11-05 Dear Brother, I had your article forwarded to me and I thank you for it. Perhaps, you could do something on the lines of what Calvinists believe as compared with Arminians and Pelagians and Semi Pelagians the predominant heresy amongst American Evangelicals today. Hi. Thanks for your encouraging email. I am unsure which particular article encouraged you, but it sure is good to know that some one of them brought you some help. Unfortunately getting time for these articles is another matter. I can cope reasonably enough if I have it "in my head" i.e. without too much research, unless I am tying the research in with something I am preaching in here.
I take it, forgive me if I am wrong , that you belong to the Free Presbyterian Church. I am an Orthodox Presbyterian Minister serving our Lord in Springfield , Illinois. However, I am from Ulster and very fond of Dr Ian Paisley who I have known and admired for many years. May our Lord bless you richly. Yes Rev Cairn's book is an invaluable tool. Every Blessing, Rev Terry Dowds Covenant Reformed OPC Springfield , Illinois. Yes, I am the FPC missionary here in Cork City. What part of Ulster are you from? And what took you "over the pond" and how long ago? There are Ulster men everywhere preaching the word. Long may it continue! Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 9-11-05 Colin, Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Thanks for your latest answers to latest answer to David Cloud. I went to Baptist churches for a few years - and every time they came across "God chose," or something with a similar meaning, every time it was explained as: "Well, God just knew ahead of time." I remember in Exodus 32:26 - where the Levites side with Moses - and the Baptist pastor explained that the Levites got to later carry the ark and take care of the other tabernacle items as a reward for this siding with Moses! I sat there thinking, "Then according to this guy, God didn't choose the Levites." I should have asked the pastor, "Did God choose Israel, or did He just look around at the whole world, and finally decide that the Jews looked pretty good, and should be the ones through whom the Messiah would come." I continue to check your Website on a regular basis, and pray that our Lord is blessing your family and fellowship. I remain, Yours against popery and the BGEA, BO Hi, Nice to hear from you again. I'm glad our comments on David Cloud's latest criticisms of Calvinism have proved to be so helpful to you. I agree with your analysis. I have a Pastor friend at the moment who would take Cloud's position on election etc., i.e. that God responds positively to our first choice of Him. However, he is currently preaching his way through Romans and has come to chapters 8 and 9. I just advised him to "Let God be God" and the questions flowing from his direction are interesting indeed! Thanks again for writing and remembering us in prayer. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 5-11-05 Pastor Maxwell: Thank you very much for your reply to my letter. The principal reason that I wrote my letter was the fact that I discerned that you are a great teacher. I have of course read most of what you're written on the churches' Website. In fact I could go so for has to say that I have studied what you have written. If my use of the word discerned troubles you, please disregard our correspondence. Thanks again for writing. I make no claims to be "a great teacher" and I know none, apart from yourself, who accords me such a title. I will answer your points made below and maybe we will leave the correspondence there.
I am very Calvinistic I believe in predestination and complete foreknowledge in God's mind. However I do not believe in limited atonement, rather I believe that all of mankind's sins have been paid for, thereby making the "whosoever will" a true teaching. The "whosoever will" teaching is not dependent on universal atonement. Men are variously invited and summonsed to believe on Jesus Christ who offers Himself as a sufficient Saviour. Those who trust him will invariably find that their sins have been atoned for. If Christ died for the sins of reprobates, then they must of necessity be saved also since (according to your teaching) he has done no more or no less for them than He did for His elect.
You mention "conveyor belt" profession (lacking repentance) as having no salvation at all. This I believe is clearly stating your position. I am unsure as to what you mean in these words.
Now my position is: I also believe in repentance. The Holy Spirits' work is to convict us of unbelief. And it is repentance of this unbelief (the changing of our mind concerning the Lord Jesus Christ ) that constitutes the repentance demanded by God. Men are to repent of all their sins. The erring brother in Corinth was brought to repentance, not for unbelief, but for a sexual sin. If men go to hell for sins other than unbelief (which they do: Colossians 3:5-7/Revelation 21:8) then they are to repent of those actual sins. Unbelief may be seen to be the crowning sin, but it is certainly not the only one.
As concerns repentance please let me direct you to the story of the woman at the well. Looking at John 4:10 we find the Lord Jesus stating the requirements for this woman to ask for living water (salvation). Where is repentance before the requirements are made known? Or for that matter where is repentance any place in the record of what happened? Only the repentant so ask for this water of life. The impenitent do not care for it, neither recognising their need of it (or if they do) would rather forgo it and enjoy the pleasures of their sins, though only for a season. The knowledge of 4:10 concerns not only the water of life, but also the character of the One who spoke to her i.e. the all seeing God (as she later referred to Him: v39) Regarding repentance in the passage quoted, although it is not mentioned by name, yet the Saviour's raising of the matter of her adultery more than suggests that this was an issue to be dealt with. Again, her forsaking her water pot is one of those suggestive statements by the Holy Ghost that she forsook more than a mere vessel of clay.
Also I would remind you then it repented (made sorry?) God that he had made man, but we know for a fact that He did not stop making men. God's repentance in the Bible is not as man's repentance. It is a recognised literary device, for our very limited capacity to understand His ways, to teach us that God often appears to say one thing and yet back off and do another. If we only think of repentance in the terms of sorrow etc., then God is not the son of a man that He should repent. (Numbers 23:19)
After I begin witnessing, about 25 years ago, people who were getting saved by that witness begin to go to church's roundabout where I live. On one occasion while visiting a church where about 15 " conveyor belt " salvation people were in attendance the pastor called me forward out of the congregation and asked me to give the invitation "alter call." When five people answered that invitation, and accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour different churches offered to ordained me. Now because I do not recommend any certain church in my witnessing I have been invited to many baptisms in many churches, and so it goes. And so in closing let me clearly state that it is my desire to be counted as one who believes in "conveyor belt" salvation. I'm thankful to Lord for your salvation !! AP I still find the idea of a conveyer belt salvation alien to the word of God and must therefore repudiate it. As indicated above, we will leave it there. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 24-5-05 Hi there, I was just enjoying your Website and was curious as to your view on the scripture 2 Peter 3:9 where it states that God wants everyone to come to repentance. Is Peter talking about, everyone - the whole world or what? Because my reading of this verse is that it means God is not going to get what He wants is He? Everyone is NOT going to come to repentance are they? I would be most interested in your thoughts. Kind Regards, AH Hi. Thank you for your email. There are basically two ways to view the "all" of 2 Peter 3:9 where God would have all men come to repentance. One is that it is the all of the people to whom the epistle is addressed i.e. those who had obtained faith (1:1) so it is a limited "all" - a hermeneutic principle common to both Reformed and non-Reformed alike according to the context. Or if we have an unlimited "all" meaning every last sinner ever born, then we must either limit the impact of the word "willing" as to make it "willing…but not the point of making it a decree" otherwise you end up (as you indicate) with a disappointed God who possesses failure as an attribute. Some Reformed men take it one way, limiting the "all" while others, including Calvin, take it the alternative will, limiting the force of the willingness. I would tend to run with the latter interpretation, although I would not fight with those who take the former. Every last sinner ever born is not going to come to repentance. The fact that there is a hell indicates that this is so, since repentance is the alternative to perishing (Luke 13;5) Glad you are enjoying our Website. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 24-5-05 Pastor Maxwell: I am a easy believeism person. It says three different times in the bible that," Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. " Also the word says," Any man that comes to me I will in no wise cast out". In light of the above statements, along with much time spend in prayer (concerning whether the method you detail is right or wrong as concerns salvation) and over twenty years of witnessing I ask you to reconsider your position in this matter. AP. Dear AP, Thank you for your email. I am not really sure what you are getting at in the last sentence when you ask me to "reconsider my position in this matter." What matter? Like yourself I also believe that whosoever shall call upon the name SHALL (emphasis yours) be saved and the man who comes to Christ will not be cast out. I think you must be confusing me with someone else. Your phrase "easy believeism" is a very unfortunate one to use. Both Reformed and non Reformed Christians use it to describe a kind of conveyer belt profession which has no repentance in it and therefore no salvation (Luke 13:5) If you are that kind of person - and again the vagueness of your correspondence is not helpful - then you would need to reconsider your position, than I need to reconsider mine. My doctrine of salvation is God centred, enabling me to say that salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9) The easy believeism gospel, as defined above, has actually no salvation at all. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 19-10-05 Hello from the other side of the Atlantic. I ran across your Website and must say I enjoyed the read! It's good to know the Reformed faith is alive in Eire, even if you do have a deficient view of baptism. (What can I say, I'm a Reformed Baptist, so I'm obligated to get at least one little dig in about baptism when I speak to my Presbyterian brethren.) Thanks for your note and appreciation of our Website.
I noticed you have a list of anti-Calvinist Websites you have reviewed. Truly, to speak correction to one is to speak correction to almost all of them, but this one is quite a "doosey" as we say in the American South. It's hard to know where to begin. In questions about original sin, for example, he somehow thinks that Calvinists believe in the immaculate conception. Wow. I thought this one deserved to be on your list. God bless you all in your ministry! GMB I have come across the above Website before. It is usually very prominent in the search engines ratings. I haven't formally reviewed it because I reserve my comments on the above page for those criticisms which come our direction from within the evangelical/fundamentalist camp. The above site is run by the Church of Christ cult. I know the folk from the Cork address in their church directory. As you indicate, it is away over the top. I notice (to give one extreme example) that Calvin is attributed with saying that "there are children a span long in hell." As I point out in reviewing some of these anti Calvinist sites, many of them fail to give any references. The scribe has spoken and we, the faithful in the pew, are to sit up, shut up and believe it is so. I typed "Calvin "there are babies a span long in hell." into Google and there are several other sites (one of which is professedly evangelical) which repeat this most serious allegation. However, NOT ONE of them deign to supply the reference. Why not? I'll tell you why not. I don't believe Calvin said it. It is actually a (mis)quote from Robert Burns' poem Tam O' Shanter: where he actually refers to: A murderer's banes, in gibbet-airns; Twa span-lang, wee, unchristened bairns; Like many an anti Calvinist site, the above is either run by knaves or by fools - determined to do anything to blacken Calvin's name and the Doctrines of Grace. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 17-10-05 Thank you for the good reply. Your view is an acceptable one. I do not hold to Calvinistic doctrine however, it is not "evil" in the slightest as some so rudely say. The idea that we all deserve Hell and that God is under no obligation to save anyone but chooses to save some is a fair one. Thanks again for your note. I am glad my previous reply to you has found some acceptance.
Did you know that Luther also believed that an elect individual could be ultimately lost and frustrate Gods election by accepting the false righteousness of the law. This he thought was a mystery: that someone actually elected from eternity could actually be lost and that to try to figure this whole issue out would only lead to frustration. As a result Luther believed that many things, are a mystery that God has not chose to reveal. I am not aware that Luther believed this and, to be honest, I am very surprised to read it, bearing in mind his belief in the sovereignty of God. Can you please give references as to where Luther made such a statement?
A couple more questions for you please. The often forgotten first great reformer, John Wycliff, also believed in justification by faith alone and in predestination. Do you know if he held to Luther's view or Calvin's view regarding the potential for the elect to actually fall from grace utterly and be forever lost? Did Calvin believe that an elect person could loose salvation temporarily, but be finally saved in the end. Thanks again, Eric. I am unaware of anyplace where these 3 spiritual giants believed that any elect soul could ever be in hell. Such belief overthrows 3 vital doctrines: [i] The decree of God the Father who, when electing sinners, purposed that they should be with Him in Heaven. Evidently if one such elected one is in Hell, then God failed to fulfil His own purpose. Unthinkable! [ii] The ransom of God the Son who specifically died, not merely to make salvation possible, but to actually save His elect. Here we would have the absurd scenario where all their sins were actually atoned for and put away etc., only to be trundled back again. (The same argument applies to the universal atonement where Christ is said to have actually atoned for all the sins of Judas Iscariot, the rich man in Luke 16 and other reprobates, many of whom who never heard the gospel once.) [iii] The preserving power of God the Holy Spirit , who is said to abide with the people of God forever. In closing, I am genuinely interested in finding out where Luther may be attributed with believing in the damnation of any of the elect. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 16-10-05 Thank you for your web site. Can you point me to where on your web site I can find answers to the many warnings in the New Testament about falling away. Thank you, Eric. Thanks for your note. I am not immediately aware of any distinct page on our church Website dealing with the NT warnings about folk falling away. I think it is fair to say that the Website has grown somewhat piecemeal over the last few years, often in response to different emails which we have received or situations which have arisen. As Calvinists, we treat these warning passages (e.g. Hebrews 6/Hebrews 10) very seriously and regard them as the means God uses to divinely preserve His elect. When I come across them in my daily readings, I immediately register fear - not that the elect of God can be lost - but that one professing to be among the elect may be mistaken and ultimately lost. By doing this, I believe I am comparing spiritual things with spiritual and so preserving two cardinal truths i.e. God's absolute sovereignty and man's absolute responsibility. I trust this helps clarify our position for you. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 12-10-05 I just happened upon your Website (http://www.corkfpc.com/criticisingcalvinism.html) for the first time. Let me tell you, I am ecstatic. FINALLY I've found written what I've always wanted to say but didn't know how! I was also thoroughly delighted by your page (http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/avoidingconfusion.html). Again, finally someone has written out what I think whenever I hear or read that Calvinists believe such and such, when really we do not. I cannot think of any you did not touch upon. I felt liberated. THANK YOU so much. Hi. Thanks for your email. I appreciate both you writing and your very complimentary remarks.
I would absolutely love to share your Website with others. Thus I am posting a link to it on my Website. Please email me and let me know if this is okay with you. If it is not, I will remove the link from my site, though I should be very sad about it. If you would care to look at my site in order to decide, you can find it at. Feel free to link to our site. That goes for anyone else reading these lines. These Calvinistic pages are designed to be instructive.
Once again, I LOVE your site. Thank you so much for it. You have a friend in Greenville, South Carolina, USA!! SMB I gave a report and showed slides of our work for the Lord here in Cork down in Greenville S.C. a few years ago in our Free Presbyterian Church there. I stayed there for a few days and really enjoyed it, visiting BJU etc., Pastor Cairns who ministers there has a good message on "Calvinism - what it is and it is not" on the Sermon Audio site. I found it very profitable. Thanks again for writing. You have been an encouragement to us here in Cork. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 6-10-05 I recently broke free from a church that was into Calvinism. It wasn't the doctrine on salvation that really bothered me, it was the part about being depraved. God put me face to face with a horrible person who launched a character attack against me. The minister brought us in and tried to 'reconcile' me to a bully. It was scary to have served so faithfully, and yet be lowered to the level of a so-called Christian (because we are all depraved?). They tried to insist that I have a dark side and get me to admit to having one. Well, I have been washed, blindly clean by the blood of Jesus, so how can I exist with a 'dark side?' Hi, thank you for taking the time to write to me. It is a bit hard for me to answer your question because it is tied in with a pastoral matter of which I have no knowledge except for the very patchy details which you have given me. Indeed, since all Christians, Calvinist or otherwise, teach depravity, it is not even an exclusive Calvinist issue. I think it is fair to say that all Christians are justified before God (Romans 5:1) and are accepted in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:6) This is our perfect standing in Jesus Christ. However, in our imperfect state, we are still sinners and need to seek the cleansing blood every day (1 John 1:7-2:1) I suspect that this is what your minister (and I assume elders) also might have been getting at. However, as I said, I do not have access to all the facts and therefore my answer must be analysed with that rather fundamental fact in mind. If you have been dealt with improperly, I don't think you can blame Calvinistic doctrine for it. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 28-9-05 Hello there, I am not a Calvinist, but I am a Christian and I just wanted to say thank you for your article "Some things non Calvinists should know about Calvinism." I don't know how long ago you wrote it, but I find it very helpful. It is non-threatening and very well written and although I don't agree with most of it, I think it is very needful if any controversy and/or debate is to be engaged in. Yours, Joshua. Hi Joshua, Thank you for your kind and gracious email. The Calvinism controversy has often attracted more heat than light. This is just a simple attempt to get more light into the debate. As you indicate, even if some people don't actually agree with Calvinism, at least let them criticise what Calvinists actually believe rather than the many doctrines fathered on us and of which we know nothing about. Enjoy the rest of the site! Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 22-9-05 Thanks for the web sites Mr. Maxwell. Those web-sites will help me out. The tone was depressing because I find the lack of hope depressing. I am a Christian so I do have hope in Christ. I think I just answered one of my questions. Thanks again, Jon. Hi, It has been well said that the future of a Christian is as bright as the promises of God. Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises…(2 Peter 1:4) There is nothing in Calvinism that ought to disturb or depress either the saint or the sinner. We believe that "whosoever will may come" (Revelation 22:17) going one further than those who are non Reformed, that it is the gracious power of God that enables the sinner to believe (Psalm 110:3/Philippians 2:12-13) It is not for us to pry into the unfathomable decrees of God and speculate about their content. It is for us to take up the gracious, indiscriminate offer of the gospel which is to be preached to every creature (Mark 16:15) Your hope in Christ is not in a Saviour who merely wants to save sinners, but who actually saves His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) Thanks again for your note.
*******************************************************
Received 21-9-05 My name is Jon. I am doing a research paper on Calvinism. What are some things I should talk about? I personally do not believe in Calvinism. I feel that Christianity loses its hope if man is just picked by God. How would a person know that they are really saved? It can't be because of a feeling can it? Mormon's have a feeling too, so what is it? Hi. Thanks for your email. Your comments have a kind of depressed and depressing feeling about them. I get the impression that I am being asked to help a teenager here with their homework or class assignment. The best and most warm hearted presentation I know on Calvinism is Spurgeon's Defence of Calvinism. After that, you might like to look round our Calvinist index page. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 19-9-05 Dear Friends, We hold no theologian in higher esteem than John Calvin, whose theology has blessed millions of souls. But even Calvin nodded now and then. One of his errors was asserting that Roman Catholic baptism is Christian baptism, and many other Reformed theologians, aping Calvin, have defended Romanist baptism ever since Calvin's time.
One of Calvin's arguments is so laughable that one wonders if Calvin wrote it tongue in cheek. In the Institutes (Book IV) he wrote: "Thus it did not harm the Jews that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so as to make it necessary to repeat it. It was enough to return to its genuine origin. The objection that baptism ought to be celebrated in the assembly of the godly does not prove that it loses its whole efficacy because it is partly defective. When we show what ought to be done to keep baptism pure and free from every taint, we do not abolish the institution of God, though idolaters may corrupt it. Circumcision was anciently vitiated by many superstitions, and yet ceased not to be regarded as a symbol of grace; nor did Josiah and Hezekiah, when they assembled out of all Israel those who had revolted from God, call them to be circumcised anew."
That is an argument offered in defence of Roman Catholic baptism by one of the most brilliant Protestant theologians of the last 500 years. Seeing how such a great mind can fall into laughable absurdity should keep us all humble. It should also warn us against a Protestant traditionalism, now becoming popular in some circles, that ranks the opinions of theologians higher than Scripture. Cordially, JR Hi, thanks for your thoughts. My own views on baptism are far from settled. The Bible says that great men are not always wise (Job 32:9) and certainly, as you indicate, we should not elevate any man, no matter how brilliant, to equality with or supremacy over the Scriptures. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) is as needful advice as ever. Colin.
******************************************************
Received 14-9-05 With all due respect sir I would like to let you know that I have been studying both sides of the "Calvinism" debate. As a new Christian unfortunately this issue has been raised much earlier than I would have wished. Thank you for writing to me. I appreciate you taking the time. I believe that these doctrines, commonly called Calvinism, constitute the gospel at its fullest expression. Therefore, they cannot but help even the youngest Christian. However, partly because of the fierce opposition which even other Christians show towards it, it does have to be taught very carefully indeed. John Newton said that he liked his Calvinism the way he liked sugar in his tea i.e. stirred in rather than in solid lumps (or words to that effect) There is with every doctrine a right way to teach it and a right spirit with which to teach it. Some of it can be pretty solid meat when perhaps milk would be better.
I attend a Baptist church in the USA and our pastor has embraced the "Calvinistic" view on scripture. By saying the "Calvinistic" view I mean that in a literal sense, as I have said I am a new Christian being saved only a year Sept 11, of 2004. I was not brought up in the word as my mother is an atheist. I praise God for my Salvation as everyday I KNOW I am an unworthy sinner. The Holy Spirit has shown me so many truths in such short time I am amazed and give it all to the power and glory and wisdom of my Lord. I have embraced the truth of scripture wholly and except it as infallible truth. That is what has led me to study both views on these parts of scripture, as I don't feel (as some) that it should be ignored. I however must admit that no matter how hard I study, no matter how much I pray, I can't see the Calvinistic view of things...In fact in my ( I am by no means a scholar or theologian) view of such the way I see it is one has to do gymnastics to make the view fit with the rest of scripture. A lot of it depends where you start. If you start determined to uphold man, then Calvinism will probably get on your nerves. On the other hand, if you are determined to start where the Bible starts i.e. with God, then I believe you will end up in Calvinism. In any conversations I have had with those Christians who take the opposite view to mine, the first marker they put down is "man's free will" and work from there. That is why in our Bible studies on the subject, I start with God. You maybe should print these studies out and over the next few days work your way through them. The last I thing I want to do is twist any Scripture.
But if you look at it in a "Whosoever will" view it clearly fits together, without the gymnastics. As a Calvinist, I also believe in the "whosoever will" view of Scripture. I believe in the free offer of the gospel i.e. that every last sinner must be reached in evangelism and invited to Christ. I believe that those who do not come have only themselves to blame (John 5:40) and that those who do come, do so because grace alone has made them willing and that they have been drawn sweetly (not forced) to Christ: John 6:44. There are no gymnastics there!
Meaning the view I take is the "elected or predestined" means those that come to the Lord are the "elected or predestined" because God knows all from the beginning of time etc. Actually I believe the same, only I hold that coming to Christ is the result and not the cause of election.
Why would the Lord go to such trouble to get his word out other wise? Things would just not be as complicated… just can't seem to make it fit. God uses means and by the means of evangelism, He draws in His elect.
And, Sir, I so long not to be on the wrong side of scripture, but I can't help but wonder why the Holy spirit wouldn't make it so clear as he has made everything else so abundantly clear. "Was blind but now I see..." It is pretty clear to me! The sinner is not required to understand all the theology of salvation i.e. the workings of it. The Calvinist preacher will urge him to simply trust the Saviour as much as the non Calvinist preacher. Without making you an offender for a word, everything else is not abundantly clear. Peter didn't think so in 2 Peter 3:16
And forgive me Sir but I must ask honestly what is the point in dwelling on the "predestined" view in teaching truths of scripture? Is it because the rest of scripture must be moulded in order to make this depressing, hopeless, no encouraging view work? I feel unfed, and utterly hopeless when listening to this part of doctrine, when shouldn't my heart be uplifted and joyful, as the rest of scripture makes us feel? And with all due respect wouldn't the" Holy Spirit" convince my heart if it were truth? No balanced pastor will dwell on any part of Scripture to the exclusion of others. He must preach all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27) I wonder at you thinking that the doctrine of election i.e. that God has elected out of a lost humanity a multitude that no man can number to salvation is depressing etc., Remember, that if there is no election to salvation, then there is no salvation itself and we would all be left in our sins to be damned. However, if you should be entertaining wrong views of this doctrine, either through the inability of your preacher to communicate it or through imbalance etc., then it is unlikely that you will be joyful etc., An other element may be unbelief on your part. Even in God's people, there can be an unwillingness to lie in the dust before a sovereign God and this can rob us of those joys and convictions we should have.
My pastor even went as far out of line as to say "Well then you should question your salvation" With all due respect I have NOT ONE QUESTION in my HEART and mind as to my salvation. If I were to say that sort of (in my own opinion.."ungodly") thing, I could have said the same as he claims to have been saved since the age of 7 and was brought up under the word his whole life. And that is just one of the thousands of negative things that come from this "understanding of predestination" How if this is truth can it be so damaging? Since I was not present to hear the whole conversation, it is better for me to refrain from commenting on that matter. Suffice for me to say, that a true understanding of predestination can only be helpful to you. Seeing I have sought to direct to the Scriptures in the comments above, I suggest that you do some research into what others have said about it. I think Spurgeon had the ability to communicate it very well.
Maybe that is a sign that we should really look at the much bigger picture, no other part of scripture causes this much division among believers, and negative accusations and all the controversy that comes with it. Believe me, Christians can fight and divide over all kinds of doctrine whether prophecy, church government etc.,
I am no theologian but no matter what it just doesn't sit right on my HEART. With all due respects, the ultimate place of testing is the word of God (Acts 17:11). If I argued that it must be right because it sits right in my heart, you would protest and rightly so. Therefore your heart's feeling cannot be used to influence others. I wasn't at all happy with Calvinism when I first came to hear about it, but I studied the Scriptures and I came to see that it was a lot closer to the Bible than my non Reformed position.
I thank you very much for you time and patients and hope that maybe you could shed some light for me, as well as for yourself . I do understand that you have heard it all and I do know that you mean well as do I and hope that if you have anything compelling that you would like to share that you feel free to do so. CD. Thanks for writing. Have a look at our Calvinist index page and even these email pages raise all sorts of questions and answers etc., Don't fall out with any Calvinists you meet! If true to their creed, they will want as many sinners to be saved as you do and, like you, damn none but non believers. I'll leave it there. Thanks again for writing and sharing your thoughts. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 8-9-05 Hi, I am a little confused about some aspects of Calvinism. I do not claim to understand everything about it, but rather I want to learn more about it. Hi. Thanks for your email. I appreciate you writing and sharing some of your concerns about the Doctrines of grace. Hopefully I can help you come to a better understanding. Specifically, I am confused about the "elect". Do Calvinists believe that God has chosen some to be saved and some to be damned, before they were even born, before they have ever done anything right or wrong? Calvinists believe that although God made His choices before the creation of the world and therefore none were even born or did right and wrong, yet He viewed us as fallen and sinful in Adam. This fundamental fact means that God could have walked away from this fallen race yet to be created, left us all to be damned, and still have been a God of holiness and justice. For reasons best known to Himself, He chose not to save the whole sinful race, but certain individuals who will eventually constitute a great innumerable multitude. He simply passed the others by, leaving them in their chosen sins. Why He should do this, along with the thought of why He should go ahead and create men whom He (at least) knew would not be saved, is a "problem" for all Christians and not merely Calvinists. When men are saved, they are saved purely because of God's grace. When men are lost, they are lost primarily because of their own sin. God did not make men sinners when He passed them by, He merely left them void of His saving grace. If we hold that God is obliged to save all if He would save some, then we deny the basic concept of grace. Once we put God under any kind of obligation, then it ceases to be grace. It is vital to remember that no one is in hell who does not deserve to be there.
Although Christ did die to save everyone, it is up to each person to accept or reject Christ, therefore gaining salvation, correct? Calvinists believe that while even the non elect gain much temporal blessings by the death of Christ, yet it can never be said that Christ actually made atonement for their sins. Certainly there is enough merit in the death of Christ to make atonement for the sins of the whole world - the atonement is not limited in that sense - but when all is said and done, when the purposes of God are all fulfilled, it will be impossible to argue that Christ actually atoned for the sins of folk like Pharaoh and Judas etc., who are in hell suffering for those very same sins whose debt was supposedly paid. As far as gospel preaching is concerned, we preach the gospel to every one (Mark 16:15) and man is responsible for his actions. So yes, it is "up to each person to accept or reject Christ" as you put it.
If this is so, then will a person who is not chosen to be part of the "elect" by God's sovereign choice, be eternally damned even if they choose to accept Christ and follow Him for the rest of their life? The non elect being passed by and left in their sins will not choose to accept Christ etc., Only the elect are given the needed faith and repentance to do that. It is true to say that the non elect don't want to be saved and God simply leaves them to their chosen vices. There is no scenario of people genuinely wanting to be saved by kept back some decree of God. Many non Calvinists foster this thought on Calvinism, but they have yet (as far as I have found) to produce any evidence that Calvinists actually believe this.
What I am really getting at is a question of fate versus free will. God's sovereignty is not to be confused with fate. Fate is something which is blind and random. God's sovereignty is based on His attributes of wisdom, love, mercy, goodness, justice etc., As for free will, this term needs to be defined. If you mean that the sinner is responsible for his actions and does freely what he desires to do, then I accept it's use, although I prefer the term "free agency." If you mean that the will is practically in a state of neutrality and that man is able, of himself, to choose what is good, then I fervently deny it. The sinner is in bondage to his sin (John 8:34) and you cannot reconcile the Scriptural use of the word bondage with man's notion of freewill.
Are we, as human beings destined to go to either heaven or hell regardless of our decision to accept Christ and live for Him alone? i.e. is someone who is "elected" still going to heaven even if they reject Christ and live a life of sin? And for the non-elect righteous Christ following believer - will he still go to hell? This is similar to above. The elect will infallibly, through the means of evangelism, come to Christ at some point in time. None of the elect will ultimately reject Christ and remain in their sins. Christ shall save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21) There are no and never will be any non-elect righteous Christ following believers.
I believe some of my questions are based on a lack of complete understanding of your faith. So please do not take them as an attack. I just want to understand Calvinism from a Calvinist's perspective. I would appreciate it if you would clear up my confusions. CW I appreciate the sincerity of your questions and I do not view your email as aggressive in any way. Have a look round our Calvinism index page or those pages by Spurgeon where he sets out these great truths. Then search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things be so. (Acts 17:11) Feel free to write again of you have any further queries. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 27-8-05 Dear Pastor Maxwell: I think your interactive defence of Calvinism is the best on the net, and I've been a big fan of it for quite some time. Hi. Thank you for your note and kind remarks. I assume you are referring to this very page with its various comings and goings. I just recently opened my own Website, which compares the modern church to orthodox Christianity, through examination of recent new stories. I was wondering if you would give me permission to copy several of your Calvinism pages onto my site, where I could increase their search engine visibility. I would not change anything on the pages other than the font type and formatting (the wording stays the same). And I would include your name and the originating reference link to your site, on every page. Thank you in advance for your consideration, and for your excellent work. Jim from www.OldTruth.com Permission granted! Any may "go and do likewise" providing they follow the generally accepted conditions given above. It would be good too to let me know that you are planning something along these lines. It greatly encourages us as a church at this end. Colin.
********************************************************
Received 2-8-05 Dear Pastor Maxwell, I really appreciate your Website. You are humble and yet thorough with your explanations. Nice to hear from you and to know that you are appreciative of our church Website.
I also appreciate the disclaimer at the bottom of the homepage: ....we take the words of R.L. Dabney very seriously when he wrote: "..In preaching it, [the high mystery of predestination] that proportion should be observed , which it obtains in the Bible: and no polemic zeal against the impugners of the doctrine ought to tempt the minister to obtrude upon it more often. To impress it prominently on anxious enquirers, or on those already confused by cavils of heretics or Satanic suggestions, or to urge it upon one inclined to scepticism, or one devoid of sufficient Christian knowledge, experience and humility, is unsuitable and imprudent." (Systematic Theology BOT p.246) Yes…important and precious though the Doctrines of grace are, they are not the be all and end all of the Bible. The whole counsel of God must be all aim.
I believe that is so true; sometimes I wish that Calvinists in general would be more gracious and also wait to explain this until someone is ready, and not to try and force it on people. Some people can be really confused by too much doctrine all at once. I also wish that those of us who believe the doctrines of grace would begin our explanations with God's sovereignty and His purpose in Christ's atoning death. I agree. This is why I start off there in our series of Bible studies on the Sovereignty of God.
Sometimes the argument just becomes "you think that Jesus only died for a few people?" So there is defensiveness and the person's mind becomes closed to a clearer understanding of God's power, purpose and oversight of all that occurs. They also think of Christ's death as only a potential saving act and fail to understand how wonderfully God provided for His children all that they would need for salvation and eternal security in the death, burial and resurrection of our wonderful Lord. There is also the lack of understanding of the covenant which God makes with His children. I agree again. It is really the Non Reformed who have limited the atonement. We might limit its application…but if their theology is true, then they have limited its power. I think it was Spurgeon who said that Calvinism has a narrow bridge which goes over the river completely, while Arminianism has a wide bridge, but it only goes half way over. A good illustration.
So it is a tragedy that many Christians fail to really grasp what salvation means to them; I was one of them for many years. I became spiritually exhausted from trying to "carry" the Jesus that I had been told I had accepted at salvation. It felt as though it was all on my shoulders because of the decision I had made. Now it was up to me to keep myself, obey the Bible and never fail. So many sermons I heard were about how not to sin, how to do right - really nothing more than moralism. This isn't Christianity. There certainly is a need to get back to basics. While we are to keep ourselves in the love of God (Jude 21) obey the Bible (Joshua 1:8-9) and sin not (1 John 2:1) yet we cannot do these things without being in union with Christ - and this latter thought must not be merely tagged on to the end. Otherwise you have evangelical moralism. You have a good point there.
Thankfully, the Lord began to teach me through the scriptures and also good books and teachers about the doctrines of grace and I became more grounded in the faith. Of course I still struggle with the old way of thinking. But more and more as the Lord impresses these wonderful truths upon my heart, I find the joy in my relationship with Christ that I had lost along the way. I also enjoy reading the updated versions of John Owen's works which are a source of real encouragement to me. (Communion with God is a treasure). Maybe someday I will be able to read the original version! God bless you in your ministries, JP John Owen is good. I remember when I had just come into the Doctrines of Grace buying Volume 10 of his works (No abridged or updated editions in those days!) where he deals with the atonement of Christ and Arminianism in general and starting at the very first page (p.i) beginning to read. I didn't get too far, but later learned to dip into Owen and make good use of the contents/index page. Thanks again for writing. I appreciate your comments. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 30-7-05 Dear Pastor Maxwell, I found you through the Fundamental Evangelistic Association. I am a Charismatic. It seems that the FEA despises the Charismatics even more than Calvinists. Thanks for writing. I appreciate all feedback.
I presently belong to a church (Calvary Chapel, Fort Lauderdale) which has in its statement of faith: 9. We are neither Five-Point Calvinists, nor are we Arminians. We adhere firmly to the biblical teaching of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. We avoid any theological systems of belief that go beyond the written Word and thereby divide the body of Christ. My confession of faith on this matter would be: Being a Five-Point Calvinist and not an Arminian, I adhere firmly to the biblical teaching of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. I avoid any theological systems of belief that go beyond the written Word and thereby divide the body of Christ.
I read on your site that you are a fundamentalist and a Calvinist and that there are hyper-Calvinists. I quickly reviewed some of your messages and appreciate your thoughts very much. I am a Fundamentalist in that I believe in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith (e.g. Deity/Christ, Virgin Birth, Blood Atonement etc.,) and I believe in fighting for them and separating from those who deny them or associate with those deny them. I am a Calvinist in as much as I believe in the 5 points of Calvinism and in the sovereignty of God in general. I am not a hyper Calvinist because I believe in the free offer of the gospel and that all men are responsible to repent and believe the gospel, notwithstanding their sin robbing them of the ability to do so. Somewhat quick definitions and probably creating more questions than answering.
Could you explain or refer me to a site that concisely explains Calvinism and the 5 points in particular so I can make my own decision about whether or not I believe in it? I would like to hear what Calvinism is from the horse's mouth and not from organizations like FEA. Cordially, FK I think one of the best ways to approach this subject is to start from the Bible itself. I suggest you set aside time each day and work your way through our series of Bible studies on the Sovereignty of God. It will require some effort, but like climbing up a steep mountain…the view from the top will be well worth it. If the FEA's Mark Huss on the Five points of Calvinism is anything to go by, then you would do well to give them a miss. You should find various items of interest on our Calvinistic index page. Thanks again for writing. Let me know how you get on. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 23-7-05 (Slightly edited for sake of space) Greetings Mr. Maxwell, I'm in the midst of a dilemma right now regarding my church and the sovereignty of God, and I was wondering if you could give me some advice. Five years ago my wife and I began attending an ________________ congregation. Six months later we became members of that particular church…I have come to believe that the complete sovereignty of God over all things is one of the most important doctrines of the Bible and is indispensable in trying to grasp God's plan as it is worked out in history…
Well, here is my dilemma. The ______ church, and thus its local congregations, does not give God's sovereignty a high priority in its doctrinal statement of beliefs. Arminians and Calvinists are welcome as members. I've even heard some members call themselves "Calviminians". A meaningless term, to be sure, but one used by those members as a way of saying that they don't want to take sides because unity and relationships are more important than this debate. I was recently in a small group meeting where the subject of limited atonement came up. We had a good discussion with both sides represented, but when all was said and done, the consensus was that this issue was not that critical to understand and let's all just work on our relationships with the Lord.
Now I understand that the leader of that group couldn't choose sides in the debate and have any hope of continuing as a group leader because of the policy of our church in that regard, but to hear it said that this issue is not that important is very disturbing to me. I think the issue of God's sovereignty is of supreme importance. Is God truly all-powerful and all-knowing or is he, as you have said, caged to a certain extent? This is not a minor issue. Can we have complete trust in Rom. 8:28 if God is not completely sovereign?
In spite of my church's policy of accepting both Arminians and Calvinists as members, the church seems to have a decidedly Arminian leaning. It is often pragmatic in its approach to evangelism and leans heavily on the Rick Warren/Bill Hybels model of church growth, a model, which in my view, denies God's complete sovereignty. I have considered leaving my church in search of one that has had the courage to face this debate squarely and glorify God in his total sovereignty. My wife, however, has not studied these things thoroughly. It is, I feel, hard for her to study these things. Deep theological studies are not her forte. Her gifts lie in other areas. She understands to a certain extent and sympathises to a certain extent with the conclusions I've drawn, but it puzzles her why I would consider leaving our current church since Calvinists are welcome there. Plus she and I both have developed many good friendships there. My fear is, though, that I'm putting my wife before God and the 2nd commandment before the 1st. To stand before God and hear the words, "you valued your friendships (or wife) more than my glory" is a dreadful thing to contemplate. I love my wife with all my heart and it pains me to think of doing something that will hurt her, but continuing in a church environment where the glorification of God is held in check by an ecumenical approach to the doctrine of God's sovereignty is difficult to take week after week. Believe me, I'm not asking you to make my decision for me. Perhaps you have some additional insights. Maybe there's something I'm not considering. Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks for your time, Dennis. Hi Dennis. Thanks for your note. I am glad that you are not asking me to decide for you whether to go or to stay. There are a lot of factors here which must be taken into account as you decide whether to move or to stay. You have, under God, a few responsibilities as a Christian, not least your believing wife. It is not a matter of either/or with your wife and God, but both. Other factors include the practically availability of a Calvinistic church near you and if so, how evangelistic is it along with other matters. For some (including myself) the versions of the Bible would come into play here etc., I certainly would not be happy with the Rick Warren/Bill Hybels idea - and this concern is not a specifically Calvinistic matter. For a number of years, I as in membership of a non Reformed Brethren type Assembly, where my Calvinism was at least tolerated, although I was not in a teaching position and if I was preaching, I just kept it all simple fundamental gospel. (I was a relatively young Christian and I think God preserved me from blowing myself up with the dynamite of His truth!) While I am glad that I am now in a distinctly Calvinistic church - where only the office bearers are required to confirm their Calvinism through signing the WCF, but not the rank and file membership - yet I know that there are issues greater than the Doctrines of Grace. They are only a part of the overall truth. It really is a case of weighing up the pros and cons and waiting upon the Lord who has the ultimate say in what you ought to do. I hope this has been of some help to you. Colin.