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

EMAILS ON OUR CALVINISM ARTICLES

Received 10-11-06 Hi Colin, I'm an IFB and I'm very thankful for your work in the area of Calvinism, especially in regards to David Cloud and Dave Hunt. I'm thankful for other aspects of these men's ministries, but you've done a good job exposing their faulty and shallow argumentation when it comes to the Doctrines of Grace. I still have trouble calling myself a "Calvinist" (it might just be the stigma of being a dreaded "Calvinist" amongst IFBs!) but I'm seeing that the Scriptures do teach the moral inability of man, the unconditional election of God, and His overcoming grace in the heart of those He has chosen. Praise God for His grace! And thank you for being faithful to the truth in these areas, so He could use you as He has. God bless your evangelistic efforts. Your friend, Joshua.
Hi Joshua. Thanks for your note and appreciation of our work. Many people who are Calvinists do not take the name and I have no problem with that. I just take it as a matter of convenience and to save myself typing half a paragraph (like I'm doing now!) I spent the first 2-3 years of my Calvinist experience in an non Reformed Church. There were some other Calvinists, but the church was overwhelmingly free will in its teaching, although not easy believism. However when the Lord called me into Bible College among the Free Presbyterians, then it was time for me move. Sooner or later your Calvinistic beliefs are going to shine through. The secret is to be firm but gracious in them. Defend rather than attack if your church does not hold to them. Thanks for writing again. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 8-11-06 Hi Colin, I am just after reading thru some of your website. The site is excellent and the Calvinism stuff is particularly good. Anyway, I am writing to ask permission to put up some of your stuff on my own blog from time to time (with the usual full acknowledgment of where it came from). Wishing you  and your family every blessing, Yours from the Shankill, Ian Hall.
Hi Ian, Nice to hear from you. Go ahead and use what you want. That goes for anyone reading these lines, although do email us and let us know. It encourages us no end on this side of things. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 31-10-06  I was on the oldtruth.com/Calvinism website and you were offering bible studies on the sovereignty of God in salvation.  When I went to click on the link,  Yahoo said the page you requested was not found.  This is the link on the oldtruth.com website:  http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/calvinismstudyone.html Do you still have the studies available?  If so, where can find them.  Thank you and God bless.  Soli Deo Gloria!  AAZ
Hi. Nice to hear from you and to learn of your interest in our studies on the Sovereignty of God. We have upgraded our site away from the freebie one we were using in geocities. The page you are looking for is now found on: http://www.corkfpc.com/biblestudies1.html I trust that you find these studies helpful and encouraging to you. Thanks again for your note. Colin.
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
Sent 9-10-06 Dear Mr Cloud, I have answered your view made recently that Evangelising Calvinists are the exception rather than the rule. It is available on: http://www.corkfpc.com/exception.html Colin Maxwell.
*******************************************************
Received 4-10-06 Friend, I have some questions about Calvinism that I need answered as I am one that wants to be saved. However, some things about Calvinism both perplex and trouble me. I would like to ask some questions if you can spare the time to answer. Thanks. KS, USA
Feel free to ask these questions, but please do not send me more than one at a time :-) Things are pretty busy here and I can't afford to sit for hours on this Web site. Have a look first at our Calvinism Index page and see if your query is answered there. If not, drop me a line, but do remember the provisio above. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 4-10-06 Pastor: Thanks so much. [Immediately below] That response helped a lot. I enjoy your site. DF. Glad to be of help to you.
*******************************************************
Received 3-10-06 Pastor: I guess I didn't make myself very clear. [See 2-10-06]  I'm not saying YOU or your site advocates salvation by works. I know that. My question was HOW can a person KNOW with ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that he is regenerated, without waiting to die and find out then. The pat answer of the Calvinist is you will endure to the end and if you don't then you were NEVER saved in the first place. Surely there has to be assurance about salvation BEFORE you die!
Hi DF. Thanks again for your email on this important subject. I appreciate your concerns and you taking the time to write.
You asked me to show you one verse in the Bible that says someone is saved and they haven't performed good works. I guess the thief on the Cross would be one, although I know you can't make that normative for all.
I think the thief on the Cross did pretty well in his straitened circumstances. He bore witness to the Lordship of Christ, when the latter was hanging naked on a Cross, forsaken by the religious establishment etc., He rebuked his companion in his sins. I do not doubt that had he been allowed to live, then he would have been a zealous Bible student and pillar in his local church etc., However, I think we agree that this man is hardly the normative for all. The absence of any other example from the host of NT converts proves the point that once we are saved by grace through faith, then we show ourselves to be His workmanship created in Jesus Christ unto good works (Ephesians 2:8-10) It is most unfortunate that we often quote vs8-9 on the way of salvation, but stop at the infallible evidence as outlined by v10.
I enjoy your site, but I struggle with the above issue. Unless you could get a link to the Book of Life and click on "saved people," and find your name there, I don't see any way to KNOW FOR CERTAIN you are saved. Like I said, you might live a Christian life for years, and years, and then in the last two or three years you go off the deep end then die. So the Calvinists will say "well, the poor guy wasn't saved in the first place." I find that answer no different than the Arminian who says you can lose your salvation. Neither answer provides any type of ASSURANCE. DF.
The Bible itself presents us with two balancing truths. One: That if we believe i.e. trust explicitly in Jesus Christ, then we are the present and eternal possessors of eternal life. This enables Paul to say the things he did in 2 Timothy 1:12 "...for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." And again: "We are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but who beleive to the saving of the soul" (Hebrews 10:39) The balancing truth of this is that while we can have/enjoy such faith, we are not to presume. Hence Paul also said: Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12) Please excuse the cut and paste method in these comments on this verse  from Calvin, but he sums it up so well:

12. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth. The Apostle concludes from what goes before, that we must not glory in our beginnings or progress, so as to resign ourselves to carelessness and inactivity. For the Corinthians gloried in their condition in such a way, that, forgetting their weakness, they fell into many crimes. This was a false confidence of such a kind as the Prophets frequently reprove in the Israelitish people. As, however, Papists wrest this passage for the purpose of maintaining their impious doctrine respecting faith, as having constantly doubt connected with it, let us observe that there are two kinds of assurance. The one is that which rests on the promises of God, because a pious conscience feels assured that God will never be wanting to it; and, relying on this unconquerable persuasion, triumphs boldly and intrepidly over Satan and sin, and yet, nevertheless, keeping in mind its own infirmity, casts itself upon God, and with carefulness and anxiety commits itself to him. This kind of assurance is sacred, and is inseparable from faith, as appears from many passages of Scripture, and especially Romans 8:33. The other arises from negligence, when men, puffed up with the gifts that they have, give themselves no concern, as if they were beyond the reach of danger, but rest satisfied with their condition. Hence it is that they are exposed to all the assaults of Satan. This is the kind of assurance which Paul would have the Corinthians to abandon, because he saw that they were satisfied with themselves under the influence of a silly conceit. He does not, however, exhort them to be always anxiously in doubt as to the will of God, or to tremble from uncertainty as to their salvation, as Papists dream. In short, let us bear in mind, that Paul is here addressing persons who were puffed up with a base confidence in the flesh, and represses that assurance which is grounded upon men — not upon God. For after commending the Colossians for the solidity or steadfastness of their faith,(Colossians 2:5,) he exhorts them to be rooted in Christ, to remain firm, and to be built up and confirmed in the faith. (Colossians 2:7.)

We may enjoy assurance of our salvation when we are continually looking to Christ as our Saviour. These are the means which God uses to that great end i.e. the infallible salvation of His own elect. How do I know I am elect (or to use the Scriptural phrase) How can I make my calling and election sure? Answer: By trusting Christ explicitly for my salvation and look unto Him each and every day, ever confessing my sins and failings to Him and actively renouncing any dependence upon my self. It is only as I do this that I can enjoy assurance of salvation. If I am not looking to Christ and doing these things, I have no right to take any comfort from the word of God. If this creates a doubt, then it is a needful doubt and should serve to bring me up to that place where faith can enjoy assurance, because it is directed to the right target i.e. Christ alone.  This is the scriptural balance that both assures and yet keeps us on our toes. I trust this helps. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 3-10-06 Thank you. Since I posted your article, [See 2-10-06] I received this email below.... (Josh)
Josh...thanks again for writing. Rather than clutter up this page with the email you refer to, I have moved to give it a page of its own, which may be accessed here. Colin.
******************************************************
Received 2-10-06 Hello!  I am Josh Rittenhouse from Lancaster, PA.  I run a blog www.bloodtippedears.blogspot.com Would you allow me to post your excellent article "Once saved...always saved???" on my site for my readers? Thank you either way! Josh
Hi Josh, Sorry for the delay in reply. I was away for a few days evangelising at a huge agricultural event. I see you have gone ahead with  posting the above article.  I am happy that you have done so. It is an interesting email to get especially in light of the email immediately below this one which was also waiting me in my inbox when I got home. I was up in Lancaster, PA about 12 years ago - I stayed in Newtownsquare for a few days.  Thanks for writing. Colin Received 3-7-06. Dear Brother Colin, I see that according to his speaking diary David Cloud is anticipating a trip to Ireland shortly. I wonder if he will come and visit yourself? Perhaps not. Also, I see that he has decided to print [and self publish] his diatribe on Calvinism, presumably the basis of his lecture he gave in the Baptist University in Greenwood, Indiana, USA. It is rather sad that he seems to be attempting to cause so much disharmony by his continual anti-Calvinistic writings. I see he still insists in including something called 'Quick Prayerism' and he keeps insisting that Iain Murray's book is entitled, 'Spurgeon vs. the Hyper-Calvinists', rather than 'Hyper-Calvinism'.  Perhaps, I should attempt to challenge him, as a fellow Baptist, though a Reformed Baptist, I hasten to add, on the matter and see what his response would be. Yours in Christ,  DQ
Hi, Thanks for your email. Let's say I have no plans to ask him to come this way :-) I have said enough about him and his supposed exposures of Calvinism elsewhere.  Challenge him, if you want, as a Reformed Baptist - he doesn't do face to face debates which is a pity. If any one does get to meet him face to face in such a situation, they should ask him to supply proof for what he says. He falls pitifully short in supplying it in his articles. I think he operates on the principle of "Cloud says it...that settles it...I believe it ."  Anyway, thanks again for your note. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 25-6-06  Sir, I thank the Lord for your ministry of the gospel of grace. I am a young pastor (31) in Delaware, USA who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation, the total inability of man to accomplish anything meritorious (including faith) unto salvation by his own power, and that the substitutionary atonement of our Lord is effectually applied only to the elect whom God will graciously bring to saving faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. The elect will never fully or finally fall from the faith. Having said this, I have for several years now had a question about the atonement that seems to remove me from the ranks of the common Reformed confession. This is troubling to me but I want Scripture to be my authority. For the sake of the Lord’s Name and the sheep with which I have been entrusted, I seek to understand and pray that I will be corrected if I am in error.
Hi. I appreciate you writing and your kind remarks about our ministry here. I do not set myself up as a theologian and therefore can only share with you my thoughts on the matter which you raise. However, I am happy to do so and hopefully prove to be of help to you.
*******************************************************
Received 31-5-06 I have just visited your web site for the first time (found it by accident).  I am a Methodist involved in weekly Bible study.  Last week the discussion centered around was Judas Iscariot preordained by God to betray Jesus. Our teacher said that yes, he was.  My problem is with "preordained."I cannot believe that God, who cannot sin, would preordain someone to specifically be born to betray his Son, thus committing a sin against God. Judas subsequently killed himself in despair, thus damning himself to Hell. While I do believe that God, being omniscient, knew Judas would commit this heinous crime, I am having a difficult time believing that God chose Judas for this very act. Our next study is this coming Monday.   Can you please help me to more fully understand what the Bible says about this? With my sincere thanks for your web-site. RH  
Hi. Thank you for your email. It brings back memories to me of a Bible study some of us younger ones had years ago when we decided to study the Book of Acts (in order to be non controversial!) However, we came up against Judas in the very first chapter (v25) and the burning question then was, "Was Judas born to be damned?" I was new to the Calvinistic faith and I foolishly said "Yes!" but I would give a different and more mature and scriptural answer now.  My answer now would be simply this: "Judas was born to glorify God and glorify Him forever - and he failed." This mightn't answer every last question on the subject, but then, neither does the Bible itself and we should be content with what God has chosen to reveal to us.  Salvation is all of grace; damnation is all of sin. God gets all the glory; man takes all the blame. Any interpretations of any passage or any circumstance in the Bible that interferes with these maxims is not a proper interpretation.
We must content ourselves to know that God can draw straight lines with very crooked rulers. He can use sinful acts (of others) to further His own righteous ends, without incurring their guilt. His doing so may be considered righteous because the end of the act was righteous (In Judas' case, it was ensure that Christ died upon the Cross to secure redemption). The same act was most wicked on the part of Judas because he had no righteous view in mind and delivered him up out of Satanic hatred and spite. Therefore God gets all the glory; man takes all the blame.  
You run into a illogical absurdity if you say that "God foreknew Judas would betray Jesus and so He ordained the event to happen." If God forsaw it happening, then it was going to happen whether He ordained  it or not.  Ultimately, Judas only committed this crime because God allowed him to do so. God could have prevented it - just as He had on other occasions  (John 7:30) - but  He didn't. We should not reduce the permission of God to bare permission. What God does, He had always planned to do, being unrestricted in His foreknowledge and power etc., I think the best answer is to say that God ordained the event  and all the details and yet Judas did what he did most freely.  Judas certainly did not blame God in any way, but rather blamed himself saying, "I have betrayed the innocent blood" (Matthew  27:4) and therefore when he fell, he did so by transgression (Acts 1:25) utterly perishing in his own corruption (2 Peter 2:12).  I trust this helps you. Thanks again for writing. Colin. 
*******************************************************
Received 25-5-06 Hi Colin,  I was reading a little from your website and was curious about your beliefs with respect to Calvinism.  A few concerns:
1. Accountability - I have read a lot about Calvinism and my main conclusion I came to is that by embracing the Calvinistic doctrine, I have ZERO accountability.  I am either of the elect or the reprobate.  This doctrine appears to relieve MANKIND of any responsibility for their actions.  Forgetting all else aside-interpretations of verses, freewill, etc-for the moment, this is my conclusion.
A.  You are either of the elect or not of the elect. 
Take the elect "person" - If you are travelling through life and do not believe and do not bear fruits, then at some point in time, you will have a change of heart via the Holy Spirit.  At such point in time, you will be saved etc.  Regardless if I have these facts exactly right, no person of the "elect" is going to hell.  They will eventually believe.
Hi. Thank you for your email. I appreciate you writing. First of all, Calvinism nowhere either in its logic nor in its writings denies the responsibility of man. We believe and preach that just as God is absolutely sovereign, so too man is absolutely responsible for all his thoughts, words and actions.  It is true that all the elect will eventually be brought to faith in Christ and be saved. This great purpose of God is brought to pass through the means of evangelism, and so Calvinists in their capacity as Evangelical Christians, readily evangelise.  Even the non Calvinists believe your summary as it stands. You have not stated the difference here among Evangelical believers on this subject.
Take the "non-elect" reprobate - No matter what they do, no matter how they live their life (same with above), they will never be of the elect and can never hope to be.
While your words are right doctrinally correct in themselves, yet their brevity omits some important matters as can be seen in your application of these things in the next paragraph.
B.  In the above two scenarios, whether or not I know exactly if I am of the elect, the "PERSON" or "MAN" has NO responsibility either way.
This, of course, is your application of these truths. They certainly are not those of the Calvinists who (as stated above) believe entirely in man's responsibility. I will tell you why when you state it again below.
 If I'm of the elect, then I am saved and going to heaven.  If I'm a reprobate, then I'm dead and on my way to Hell.  If I know I'm of the elect, if I don't know I'm of the elect or if I never heard of the Bible, it doesn't matter.  Everything is predestined - even my eventual salvation or damnation. 
It is you that says it doesn't matter. You won't hear the Calvinist say it. It matters much. Indeed, nothing else matters beside it! No unsaved sinner may presume himself to be reprobate, and when he comes to the promises of God, which are to be preached indiscriminately to every last sinner, this same sinner may believe that they are for him. This is loaded entirely in the sinner's favour. Should he decide to sit back and do nothing about his salvation, a thought credited in John 3:19 to his love of sin, rather than any doctrinal motives, then he will be lost for ever and rightly so. On the other hand, if he presses forward into the Kingdom in faith and repentance, then he will be saved. If I were in a burning building, I would not abuse the doctrine of the sovereignty of God to sit stil land say, "If it is the will of God, I will be saved, no matter what I do." I would head for the nearest exit and if I successfully escape the inferno, give God the glory that He enabled me to take the correct measures in doing so.
Calvinistic teaching strips away the accountability of "Mankind" which is my very first caution or suspicion, with regards to this doctrine.  Yes, life would be so much simpler if I had no accountability.  But any doctrine that allows for such, I would think is satanic and definetely NOT in line with God's word.
You are building up a straw man here and then knocking it down. As I say, Calvinism firmly teaches that man is a responsible creature. Although man is unable to repent and believe in and of himself because of sin, he does not lose his responsibility to do so. No man can sin himself out of responsibility before God. It is not God that has rendered man unable to so repent etc., but his own wicked sin and so he is still responsible.
Now you may say that it doesn't matter what I think, God is omnipotent, all powerful and I am proud to even be challenging this.  But humor me on the above subject, since I do not have the time (nor do you) to go over Eph, Rom 9 & 10, Titus, to discuss my views on some of the "core" Calvinistic passages.
Again, you are creating straw men here again. You have no idea what my thoughts are about you nor your motive in challenging (as you word it) the powerful  omnipotence of God. In these pages, I simply try to take each argument as it comes, accepting it if based on truth exposing and correcting any weaknesses if it is not.
Lastly, Is Man Totally Depraved? Isaiah.1:18  "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Unregenerate man can "reason" with God!
What kind of "reasoning" do you suppose the unregenerate man reasons with? Does the corrupt tree bring forth good fruit? (Matthew 7:17-18) What reasoning churns forth from a heart that is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things? (Jeremiah 17:9) Nevertheless, God calls men to meet with Him face to face with their arguments. Such a meeting will either harden them further in their sins (as it did when the Pharisees sought to confront the Lord Jesus with their wicked reasonings) or it will show them the utter bankruptcy of their folly and bring them to the Cross, where (in line with the text) their crimson and scarlet sins will be made as white as snow etc.,
Acts 17:30 "But now [God] commandeth all men every where to repent" God does not make impossible commands: man can "repent"!
As mentioned above, man's inability to do these things is self imposed and does not render him without any responsibility before a Sovereign God.
John 6:29 "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Man can "believe"! Total Depravity is false doctrine!
Again, as in your previous text, you are assuming that man's responsibility presupposes his ability. It is this this error that leads you to brand Total Depravity as a false doctrine. You neglect those verses which teach that man cannot come unless he is drawn (John 6:44/65) and that his carnal mind cannot receive the things of God because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14)
For the record, I am going to take Gods Word (Old King James) and I'm not going to trick myself and make excuses to change the meanings of words (IF GOD IS ALL POWERFULL, WOULD HE REALLY ALLOW ONE OF THE OLDEST TRANSLATIONS TO BE NEEDING TO BE EDITED)..I'm going to base my conclusion strictly on the word of GOD-When he says For God so loved the WHOLE world...I'm going to take it as the WHOLE world..when he says ALL, I'm not going to add my own conclusions "All of the elect".  Lest we be reminded of the 2nd to last
verse in the Bible.
I have no problem with the rendering of the Authorised (King James) Version at all, so the bit in the middle there, complete with CAPITALS etc., is really a bit needless. Many Calvinists also take the line that the "world" in John 3:16 is indeed the "whole world" i.e. every last person ever born. Others, while limiting the "world" in John 3:16 to the elect, yet look to other scriptures to show the benevolent love of God to all men without exception. Ultimately it depends on the extent of the love as to whom it was applied. All the world without exception have not known nor experienced the redemptive love of God (inasmuch as the whole world without exception is not saved) The verse is certainly a lot deeper than the one single interpretation you are putting on it.
Be wary --- If you are trusting in a "salvation" taking place before you existed, you may not be saved.. 
Thank you for your concern. Although I believe that my salvation was decreed from before the foundation of the world, I date my salvation from the day in February 1978 when I passed from death unto life (John 5:24)
Like I said earlier, a doctrine that 1) takes away Gods Love for all Mankind, 2) has to change the meaning of so many words, and 3) relieves man of accountability..Mr. Calvin is going to have to come up with something better. Sincerely, JRM, from California, 24 years old.
You haven't established with any proof that "Mr Calvin" has been guilty of any of these things. In fact, you never quoted any one at all, but merely what you think to be the case. This would not stand up in any court of law, and I only took the time to answer these things, as another opportunity to show why people who take on to criticise Calvinism really should  research the matter before they launch into saying things which do not stand up to scrutiny. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 24-5-06 Hi Pastor Maxwell, I know this question may seem simple, and you may be tempted to give it a quick answer, if any at all, regarding the fallibility of man (i.e. prejudgement, learned beliefs not easy to discard, etc.) For background, I am a Christian, with a solid understanding of and adherance to the Calvinistic, reformed theology. I also have been a pastor, and am educated by a conservative seminary in Portland, Oregon. Your answer to one person who asked the question "Can Arminians really be saved?" spurred me to write. What, in your opinion, causes two Christians (to simplify the issue) to have opposite beliefs regarding Scripture (i.e. Calvinist vs. Arminianist) while both reading the Bible, and both being (assumably) enlightened by the Holy Spirit? It would seem to me that there is more at issue than the fallibility of man and his own prejudices. Why do you believe the Holy Spirit would enlighten one man, and not the other. I hope you have time to respond. I have enjoyed your website and the sacrifices you make to propagate the Word of God. MB, Portland, OR
Hi. Thanks for taking time to write and to let us know that our site has been of blessing to you.  Evidently in the scenario you propose above, both (at least on the crunch issues) can't be right and therefore one is mistaken, not only in his theology but also in his claim of the Spirit enlightening him.  While it is for us as Christians to prayerfully study the word of God with an open and honest heart etc., ultimately God Himself decides the measure of knowledge and understanding which is given to each of His children. Flesh and blood does not reveal these things to us, but our  Father in Heaven (Matthew 16:17) It really is a case of "Father knows best"  The more light we have, then the greater our responsibility to live up to that light. It may also be observed that some folk rebel against the truth they do receive and therefore should not be surprised if their fountain of knowledge should yield less than before. 
*******************************************************
Received 24-5-06 Hi, Thanks for your email. Time demands that I keep my answers as short as your questions.
How did you become? This question is unclear. I assume that you are asking how I became a Calvinist. I was saved about 2 or 3 years when I first came across the controversy through other members of our open air team. I didn't warm to it as first, but I studied it further and I now believe that it best expresses the doctrine of the Bible and especially the New Testament. I have never wavered from it since, although I have discussed and debated it with many Christian friends since.
Are you sure you weren't a Calvinist from before the foundation of the world? Absoutely sure. I wasn't around then.  I only come on the scene in 1961.
Does Calvinist mean a follower of Calvin? I suppose so, by definition. The use of the term itself is a non issue with me, but I only follow Calvin inasmuch as he follows Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1) Where Calvin and Christ part company, I follow Christ.
Can I become a Calvinist by just reading my Bible? If you mean embracing the Doctrines of Grace, then yes, by the help of God's Holy Spirit.
Can I become an Arminian by reading the Bible? Not if you read it properly.
Does God say anywhere that we have to be a Calvinist? Not in so many words, but He likes it when you have proper and balanced views of the Doctrines of Grace as is evidenced by the inclusion of (say) the Book of Romans in the inspired canon of Scripture.
You say you made a Decision to be a Calvinist? Did I? OK...the answer would be "yes" if I didn't.
Isn't being Born Again good enough? To get you in Heaven...yes.
I thought being a follower of Christ was enough? It is.
Are both sides explained in the Bible? Just the Doctrines of Grace.
If I just read the Bible I would never know about either.  Read it again.
Seems like a lot of man's thinking and ideas come into play in either case. Possibly in some parts of Calvinism and certainly in most of Arminianism.
Maybe I should  just read the Bible and leave the Elect or not debate to others. Perhaps you should. The "others" should remember that the Doctrine of Election is a high doctrine that needs to be handled with due wisdom and care and always in the light of the rest of Scripture.
I know that while I was yet a sinner Christ died for me. I read it and I believe it. I read that Christ saved me and I believe it. I read there is nothing I can do to earn salvation or God's love and I believe it.  I read He is coming again and I believe it. I read that if I believe in Him and the One He sent that I have Eternal Life.  I read that he would never leave me or forsake me and I believe it. I read that if I hear His words and obey them then I would have a strong foundation and I believe it. I read that if I come to Him I will never hunger and  If  I believe I will never thirst and I believe that also.  I read that because of His righteousness in me that I can stand before God and I believe it. I read that if I continue in His Word I am His disciple and I believe it. Now do I have to be an Arminian or a Calvinist? To get into Heaven...no. To come to a deeper understanding of the Bible, you will face the issues sooner or later. Better to know where you stand.
I just don't see that anywhere to be read. Not a question. If you are including it here for my benefit, then see the previous answer.
God gave me Life Eternal and blessed me with a believing wife and daughter. Good.
I would not know where else to go. I would be completely lost.  I agree 100% which is a nice note to end on.
Sincerely, Mike Thanks again for writing. I trust these answers have proved to be helpful to you. Colin.
*******************************************************

*******************************************************
Received 14-5-06 Colin, Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Thanks for your continued work on Calvinism at your website.  As I read your "The Calvinism Debate Simplified." my heart just burst out with joy, praising and thanking our God for His blessed, electing, saving grace! I pray our Lord blesses your ministry, it has certainly touched a heart here in America. Yours against popery, BO
Nice to hear from you again and to know that our site drew out such praise unto God. The Psalmist said, "O that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, for his wonderful works to the children of men" and this has been fulfilled in your case. Thanks for encouraging us as we battle on here in the work of God. Colin.
*******************************************************
 8-5-06 I have not reproduced the original email which was sent to me from PRW, but below is the reply which I made.

Thank you for your email and your comments on my article entitled "The Calvinism Debate Simplified." Since you intersperse your comments freely through the article which you have returned to me in toto, I will not mount it here, but will content myself with the following remarks:

1) While you do raise some good points, you seem determined to fight every last statement you can. This extends to butting into my sentences before they are finished with objections based on what has not been said, or by treating some statements as virtual islands, and devoid of any kind of context. For example, When I wrote that "all who will be eventually saved have been saved on the basis of God's sovereign grace", you jump in with your bracketed reply after the words "have been saved" with ("Already? A done deal? If the elect are already saved why was Christ sent?") ignoring the opening words "who will be eventually saved" and (as said) splitting the sentence and so robbing it of its intended meaning. I have not bothered answering these kind of objections, as they seem to me to be more of a desire to squabble over words than have any kind of understanding in a doctrinal discussion.

2) It is possible (and needful) to see that while God ordains sinful events to take place - for example the Cross (Luke 22:22/Acts 2:23/4:27-28 etc.,) - yet He Himself is not the Author of any sin that flows from it. God did not merely take advantage of the Cross, but actually ordained it in its every detail and yet He stands without any blemish whatsoever. I have yet to see any non Reformed advocate tackle this issue head on.

3) Christians pray, because God uses means to achieve His ordained end. Therefore although Daniel knew God had decreed that Israel would spend 70 years in Israel, he still gave himself to earnest prayer on the matter (Daniel 9)

4) If God changes His mind, as you are advocating, then He must either have been mistaken to hold to the original position in the first place, or He has, upon new information received, found a better position to take. This denies His perfections.

5) Your denial of original guilt will repel both Calvinist and non Calvinists alike.  I quote: "The problem with the Calvinist view of salvation is they hold that man emerges from the womb already guilty of sin." John Wesley - no Calvinist - enshrined the teaching of original guilt into his 25 articles of religion. I quote: "whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men."

6) Your imputation to Calvinists of salvation by grace plus obedience is without any foundation.

7) Your views on the atonement will likewise repel both Calvinist and non Calvinists alike. I quote:
 " the security of salvation by the atonement is found nowhere in Scripture! our salvation is secured by our faith that Christ died for us, was buried, and that he rose on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that is in Scripture, I Corinthians 15:1-4)
"It was not His intention to save anyone through the atonement. Salvation is through faith in Christ. Stated explicitly in Scripture."
"The atonement does not save. It is faith in Christ that saves."
"The Cross cannot save your soul from hell. It is faith in Christ that saves your soul from Hell, and that is written throughout Scripture."

This, of course, is nonsense. Why should I put faith in an atonement that, in your repeated words, does not, cannot, and was never intended to save anyone? This is rank modernism on your part. The Cross is the basis of salvation, faith is but the channel which brings it to the soul.

8) I  note your  following statement: "Why are you being mean-spirited? Christ did not die for those already in hell prior to his death, they have already been judged, that is why they are there. To assume that Christ suffered for those already judged and in Hell to make your point does make one question the schooling you received." 

Surely this is limited atonement? You are (rightly) saying here that Christ did not die for all men without exception, since He did not die for Cain, Nimrod and Pharaoh etc., and everyone else in hell prior to Calvary. Yet earlier and again afterwards, you keep insisting it was "for man" implying mankind as a whole and again "not only mine, but everyone else's as well" Again as you summed up: "The only limitation on the atonement found in Scripture is that , it was for sinners that Christ died. The last time I looked that was everyone." And again, as you argue against my doctrine of limited atonement, you say that "He died for us all" But, as quoted above, you deny your own words by telling us "Christ did not die for those already in hell prior to his death" and actually accuse me of being "mean spirited" because I ask the one great question that holes the Unlimited Atonement ship beneath the water line.

Well, that's it from this end. I have left some things, more from the limitation of time than anything else. If you want to take up one particular point to pursue the discussion, then please state it briefly and I will seek to reply to you. However, if you are going to resort to the behaviour I complain of in my first point, then I cannot afford you the time and patience that such discussions takes and I am not into time wasting. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 22-4-06  Mr. Maxwell, After reading all eight pages concerning the calling of sinners to redemption thru the gospels of the new testament, and other references. I have the opinion that I have already come to this same conclusion some years past. I am 69 years old and have been born again for more than 50 of them. I don't see where John Calvin did anything great in teaching the gospel, according to Jesus Christ. It is very simple to read and understand, I only hope that all mankind had the same convictions as we do. Thanks B&BB Ala. USA
Hi. Thanks for your email. I am not quite sure of the page(s) which you are referring to or of the point that you are trying to make. John Calvin's influence upon gospel preaching is still ongoing even over 400 years after his death. His wisdom, example and Bible commentaries are still an inspiration to many, even to those who disagree with his views on the sovereignty of God. If you wish to make your self clearer, feel free to write again.  Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 9-4-06 Thank you very much - so you're saying warning passages are there for preservation, that God is saying "I will remove your name", so we don't do what he's forbidding, but that He will not remove your name? I'm not disrespectful, but isn't that an empty warning?  *******************************************************
Received 6-4-06 Hi there. Thanks for the great site - I'm still working through it. Can you perhaps help me with Rev 22:19?  "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Doesn't this refute perseverance of the saints? I looked through some commentaries, and some say it should read "tree of life". I couldn't find anything substantial on this passage though - I hope you can maybe help me. Kind regards,  DB
 Hi. Thanks for writing and letting us know that our website has been of some use to you. It is largely immaterial whether we read it as the Book of Life or the Tree of life as the meaning is largely the same. The short answer is that the saints are preserved from anything which would separate them from God, as clearly taught in Romans 8:28-39. The warning is there as the means which God uses to effect this great purpose and should not be taken lightly. A point which holds for all warning passages in the word of God. If a child of God can be saved and lost, then it casts a slight on the [i] Decree of God to save Him [ii] The efficacy of the Blood of Christ to actually redeem Him and [iii] the power of the Holy Spirit to indwell Him and preserve Him. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
******************************************
Received 1-4-06 Brother Maxwell, How do you do? Just to ask if someone has already translated your articles into Spanish. If not, may I be allowed to translate some of your Calvinism articles to Spanish? Thanks in advance,  Louis.
Hi Louis. Thanks for your email. I am unaware of any one having translated any of our Calvinism articles into Spanish, so feel free to do so yourself. If you could just acknowledge the source i.e. "Colin Maxwell, Cork Free Presbyterian Church" somewhere on the article. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 27-3-06 Hi. Thanks again for your site, it's a great resource. I was having a discussion with a non Calvinistic brother, and he tells me that the passages in the New Testament which deal with the elect almost always have the context of "in Him," ie Christ. For example, Ephesians 1v4,  "According as He hath chosen us in Him..." and others. Now he says that God doesn't specifically elect individuals, but that those who choose Him through use of their free will are seen as elect because they are in Him, and Christ is described as the elect one in notable passages such as  Isaiah 42v1, "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles."  And because we are "in Him", and that when God looks on us He sees Christ, for that reason, we are considered elect, not because we are the subjects of the Father's special electing love. What would you say to this argument? I disagree with him on the grounds of Romans 9, but do you see other contradictions to this perspective? Thanks again, Robert.
Thanks for your email and for taking the time to write and express your appreciation for the site. We were elected, as individuals, in Christ as seen, for instance, in the command for us to make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10) Although addressed to the brethren (plural) yet how can this done except each man within the fellowship see it to himself as an individual? How can I make the calling and the election of another man sure? How can another make my calling and election sure? The language of election in John 6 (v37, v44,45 etc., ) deals with individuals. Romans 9 is a good reference also, as you have observed. If there is no special electing love, as is implied above, then we effectively elected ourselves and there is no Scripture for such a thing. Election is specifically credited to the Father who gave us to Christ (John 17/1 Thessalonians 1:4) Finally, the election of Christ in Isaiah 42:1 is obviously a different kind of election - ours was unto salvation from sin, something which Christ obviously had no need of. His election was unto service i.e. in becoming the Captain of our Salvation. Thanks for your note. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 27-3-06 Hello Brother, Having listened to your Heart Of The Matter interview, I was interested to hear you repeat the charge against Calvin regarding Servetus. Please read this article, and maybe you could lead the way in correcting this false view of Calvin. Thanks for your efforts on that debate by the way, and it was a joy to hear you were even able to preach the gospel! Yours in Christ, PF, Liverpool.
Hi, Thank you for your email. I read the article as requested. While I don't hold Calvin totally responsible for what happened to Servetus, I think the best we can say is that he was a child of his time. However, any thing short of  pleading for Servetus to be spared (even if exiled) falls far short of what the Bible requires. I would dearly love to be able to find evidence to this end, because I am an admirer of Calvin, but I cannot let the wish father the thought. In the interview referred to above, which refers to a public debate I had with a RC priest, I was denying the Church of Rome her claims to be a Christian church and mentioned the Inquisition as evidence.  I was waiting for the priest to raise the issue of Calvin, but he did not do so. The difference though is this. No Calvinist or Protestant today calls for the return of so dealing with heretics. The Society of Pius X, which the debating priest represented, continues to justify the Inquisition. Thanks for writing. Colin.  
*******************************************************
Received 27-3-06 Good Day Sir! Perhaps you may find time to take a minute to respond. Do you have an opinion on the writings of William Huntington? A friend of mine, who has hypercalvinist tendencies, has been recommending me to read a bit of his work such as Arminian Skeleton. As I try to be selective in what I read am trying to find out more about Huntington first so I know his perspective when reading. Plus I want to thank you for a fine web site. I found it thru a link at monergism.com and have read most of it. Thanks for taking so much time to supply the information and reviews it contains. In Christ, MSO.
Hi. Thanks for your email. Nice to have you visit and benefit from our site. I  remember reading some of Huntington's works a few years ago and found him quite engaging. I read William Ella's biography of him last year. I do not rate him very highly at all, mainly because of his great bitterness against Arminians and John Wesley whom he regarded as a child of hell etc., and his hyper Calvinism. AW Pink didn't think much of him, "…Mixed up with considerable truth (or none had so readily swallowed his poison) were errors of a serious nature, such as his repudiation of the free gospel offer to all who hear it, his denial of duty repentance and duty faith…" (Letter to John T. McNee May 1947 Quoted by Iain Murray in the Life of Arthur Pink BOT p.138) Overall, Spurgeon also distanced himself from his views, while acknowledging his undoubted gifts. He had a tendency to read Calvinism into every verse and on one occasion, he applied the 7th Commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") to the doctrine of Particular Redemption, arguing that Christ to have given Himself for any other than His own bride (i.e. the Church) would be in violation of this commandment! This is reckless nonsense! On the other hand, William Romaine held him in very high regard - "God raises up such men as John Bunyan and William Huntington but once in a century." I know we should read every man with some degree of caution, but I think with Huntington, I would be so cautious as to rob myself of any enjoyment in reading. I trust this helps. Thanks for writing. Colin. 
*******************************************************
Received 21-3-06 Brother Colin, How do you do? I thank you for your wonderful reply to my first email about evangelism and Arminians. However, I do have a question that have been troubling me these last days. Can Arminians (either 5 or 4 point; especially 4-point) be saved? This is my explanation. When we want assurance of salvation, we, as Calvinists, look back to the cross where our sins have been laid on Christ. We don't look back at the time when we made a profession of faith, or repented, or exercised faith in Christ. However, most of the Arminians I have been talking to always refer to the moment when they "made a decision for Christ", and I reckon they place their faith in THAT instead of in the finished work of Christ. My argument is a two-fold one-- Since they believe that Christ died for everyone, they don't believe that Jesus' sacrifice itself is savable or that it actually secures the salvation of people. So they are most likely (I say most likely because I, as an inconsistent Arminian, looked back to the cross!) to look back at the time when they made a profession of faith, because they believe THAT is the moment when the blood of Christ is made powerful to their lives. My final question, can such people be saved? I know that God saves some people in spite of bad theology. However, how can a person be saved if he/she trusts a decision rather than what Jesus did at the cross for them? Belief is not a one-time act, but a continuing/ongoing exercise of the faith has granted us. I thank you for your kindness in answering these questions. In Christ, -LA
Hi. Thanks again for your email. I appreciate you writing and sharing your thoughts with us. I would find it very hard to "damn" the Arminians of whatever variety. I think their problem (apart from their flawed theology) is their stating of their position. As you say, they often refer back to their decision (which is subjective) rather than the finished work of Christ (objective) I see it though more as a communication problem than a theological one. There is nothing in their theology that demands that they should make their decision rather than the Cross their hope for eternity. It is this that puts them apart from sincere, though lost, religionists. Thankfully many of them are better than their system of doctrine and are, in fact, inconsistent Calvinists! We should always bear in mind  that different folk emphasise different things at different times too, especially if debating/discussing with someone from the other camp. Although we root our salvation solely in what Christ as done, yet it is important too that we link to this finished work by faith. Without faith, we cannot be saved. This is why we should strive for a balanced presentation, emphasing both the objective and the subjective. I trust this helps. Thanks again for writing. Colin. 
*******************************************************
Received 21-3-06 Pastor Maxwell,  
I was reading over your article on David Cloud (here) You cited David Cloud:"At a meeting of ministers, where the senior Ryland presided, Carey proposed that at the next meeting they discuss the duty of attempting to spread the Gospel amongst the heathen. Ryland, shocked, sprang to his feet and ordered Carey to sit down, saying: 'When God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your aid or mine!'"   *******************************************************
Received 20-3-06  Dear Pastor Colin, I came upon your website. It is a good defense of Calvinism. Let me tell you my experience. I was disfellowshipped for preaching on the Sovereignty of God and that it was God who chose us first. Just after I finished my sermon, the pastor "corrected" it from the pulpit to the congregation. Yet, when his friend David Cloud caricatured and misrepresented Calvinism he said nothing. The ironical thing is that the Trust Deed of the Church says the minister must give a Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture. Here is an e-mail I sent to friends:
"http://www.bethelwimbledon.com 
http://www.bethelwimbledon.com/gcf.htm
Dear Friends, I have constructed new web pages. I am new to this and I am learning as I go along. I am using Frontpage. The Web pages are simple and need to be improved but I hope the information contained will be useful. The main web page concerns factual and historical information about Bethel Baptist Church, Wimbledon. I was a member and deacon of this church.In March 2005 I preached a sermon on the Sovereignty of God  ("Who chose who?"). As a result, I was disfellowshipped despite the fact that I was merely preaching on what the Trust Deed specifically stipulates. I regard what has happened at Bethel something akin to a coup d'état. I still consider myself as a deacon and member of Bethel, albeit, in exile. The present pastor is being investigated by the Grace Baptist Trust Corporation who are Trustees of the building. He is an American, Independent, Fundamentalist, Separatist, KJVOnly, Scofield, Pre-mil, Pre-Trib Dispensationalist Baptist. He supports Gail Riplinger. The other pages concern the Greek missionary work in which I am involved. I welcome any advice and comments on these web pages.God bless you all. In Christ, Pavlos"
Hi. Thanks for your appreciative email. I am sorry to read of your troubles in your church. As you are probably aware, I have a few pages listed in our Calvinism index page about Cloud's attacks on Calvinism, especially one which shows his incompetence as a critic of our side of the argument. I found the above information interesting, because in one of Mr Cloud's latest blasts (which I analyse here) - last month he ran 3 or 4 long articles blasting away at us - he laments that "Many churches that were established as non-Calvinist assemblies and that have non-Calvinist doctrinal statements are being infiltrated by and in some cases taken over by Calvinists."  Hmmmm! It will be interesting to see how this investigation by the Grace Baptist Trust Corporation get on. It sounds a bit like the old cuckoo method of taking over someone elses nest. Anyway, I have to run as things are very busy here. Thanks for writing. Colin. 
*******************************************************
Received  20-3-06 Hello, I think you should spend your limitless energies on bringing the simple Gospel of Christ to the lost.  I'm just an average Christian.  I believe that Jesus intended His truth to be simple and obvious; I believe little children and even those with Downs Syndrome can accept Christ as their savior and know they will spend eternity with Him.  
Hi. Thank you for your email. I appreciate you taking the time to write. If you care to consult some of our evangelism pages, you will see that we do spend time and energy bringing the simple gospel to the lost.  I agree with you 100% that Christ's truth is obvious and about  little children and those with Down's Syndrome. There is nothing on our  site to suggest otherwise.
I believe that because, no matter how you cut it, salvation is a FREE gift and God would not take back a gift.  You, as an 'Armenian' say, 'that is impossible'.  Well listen, I believe the simple Gospel dictates both a choice of free will and I also believe the free gift will not be taken back. Wow, here is a real simpleton, huh?  Think again, my 'intellectual' friend. (If someone 'falls away' from their faith, us simpletons just say, 'well he must have never really believed in the first place). How sad that you spend so much time trying to convince people of things that we don't need to and can't know.   I believe, (now this will probably drive you nuts), that Calvin and Armenian (of course I spelled it wrong) are both in heaven right now thinking about what a waste of time this unending parsing was; arguing about cunundrums instead of building each other (I know they didn't know each other) up and sharing the simple Gospel.
I'm not quite sure where you are coming from in some of your comments. You seem to be arguing more with yourself on this posting than you are with me. I get the drift of what you are saying, but I do not see myself as an intellectual (certainly, none of my friends do) nor do I see people who take a different position from mine as simpletons. I don't understand while professing to strive for simple and obvious truth, that you deliberately misspell Arminian? I don't agree with you that trying to maintain the gospel in all its purity is either a waste of time or a conundrum.
I love you, brother (I don't know you, but if you've turned your life over to Jesus you are my brother). Simplify your life.  Concentrate on spreading God's love (Jesus). DC
I love you too; but please, I am rather busy, especially on a Monday morning. Thanks again. Colin.
*******************************************************
******************************************************* Now I must admit, I am a KJV Onlyist; I came to this understanding only 2 years ago, after going through about 17 modern bibles and realizing that they were far inferior through and through. But I have engrossed myself with the KJV Only teachers for the last 2 years there from, and I feel that I am unevenly 'balanced' now? Subsequently, seeing as how these great authors like Pink and company have showed in their writings that going to the Greek and Hebrew on some passages is not from Satan, and that the KJV is not infallible made me wonder, Could it be true? There is absolutely nothing wrong in studying the Greek and the Hebrew. After all, the KJV translators evidently did so! While we believe that the word of God is infallible, yet we cannot hold up an individual translation and say that it is infallible in its every jot and tittle. There is an extremism out there which we ought to carefully avoid.
I have been told that EVERY single word and comma is perfect and without mistake in our KJV. So, Colin, if you will, could you please show me how that this could be a blinding way to live the Christian life (that is, if you think it would be?)
Maybe the word "blinding" is too strong a word to use, but it is not a healthy position to adopt, since it is simply not true. Some folk may believe it and yet it do them little harm if any. However, others may be susceptible to other false and more serious premises and this lead them away from the things of God.
Namely, do you know of any words in the KJV that are clearly wrong or clearly not as good as they could be, when compared to the Greek? And is there a Greek text (TR) that we can trust as infallible?
To use the phrase "clearly wrong" is maybe a bit strong on it, but "clearly not as good as they could be" is more like it. Some of the words are very archaic and I would not be amiss to updating them. I would like to preserve the KJV text as it is, and so I would put these updated words into the margin or footnotes. I think "Easter" in Acts 12:4 should be translated "Passover" as it is everywhere else the Greek word paschal is translated.
 And do you know of any good books or articles that would really help me to see clearer that the KJV is not infallible? (but, I would prefer to see stuff from men that still at least hold that the KJV is the only reliable English Bible).
The Trinitarian Bible Society have a wealth of good articles on their website. Many of their personnel are Calvinists and hold to the Authorised Version has the only really reliable English Bible.
Do know what Calvin thought about this subject? or any other well known Calvinists of the past?
The KJV wasn't printed in Calvin's day and anyway, he was a French man labouring for God in a Swiss City, so he was hardly interested in an English version! His war was with the Latin Vulgate which was promoted by the RC Church. Perhaps, though, he quoted the Vulgate if and when it gave a better sense of the original. I don't know because I have never looked at Calvin from this particular point of view. He was involved in Bible translation himself and I am nearly sure that the texts used would have been those which underlie the Authorised Version as the Reformation Bibles tended to be. Other Calvinists from the  past were divided on this issue, although the division only really started in 1881 after the publication of the Revised Version. What unites  Calvinists is their adherence to the Doctrines of Grace...not what Bible translations they use.
And most importantly, if you could, could you show me two or three OBVIOUS errors in the KJV? I just need to know that it isn't perfect through and through. I have read and seen writings by men who apparently had found some mistakes, and places that could have been better improved upon in the KJV; but to be totally honest with you, Colin, none of what they said seemed to pan out, everything they said I was able to find an honest, truthful, and accurate rebuttle for, showing that the KJV was correct. Now Pink and a few others have said that 2 Thess 2:11 should be "THE lie" and not "a lie", is that correct?
I don't read my Bible looking for errors and I don't think it is particularly helpful to go down that line. If I pick up a better rendering somewhere else (usually through the commentators) I am happy to run with it . While I am an Authorised Version man, I am not blindly so. Words are only there to convey truth and if other words make the truth clearer, then I cannot stick with an inferior set of words. It is true that 2 Thessalonians 2:11 should be "the lie" The other rendering " a lie" can hardly be called wrong, but it cannot be doubted that the rendering of these words as "the lie" is a better translation.
Thank you for whatever you can lead me to sir, Sincerely, Josiah P.S. - And do you know of any good Calvinistic, King James using, preachers or teachers that have online audio sermons to listen to?
Thanks for writing again. I trust these words have helped you. Let me encourage you to continue using the Authorised Version, although be open to any improvements made upon it where needs be. This is a more balanced approach and it will deliver you from some of the more wacky "defences" that have been put up for it, which are clearly in error. The Free Presbyterian Church used only the Authorised Version in its pulpits  and literature. We are also a Calvinistic Church, with our Bible based theology finding its expression in the Westminster Confession of Faith.  You will good sermons based on this position here and here and here etc.
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
Sent 21-2-06 to David Cloud, Way of Life Web site. (This is a unique situation on these Calvinism emails pages, where I publish an email which I sent first. Still in red though, for if and when I get a reply.

*******************************************************
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
If we are to see every man as potentially elect, would it be Biblically correct to tell him/her "Jesus died for you", since this is part of the gospel [I Cor. 15:1-4]? If not, then, to what extent should we see everyone as "potentially elect"?
I tend to use the phrase "Christ died for guilty sinners" and then argue that all sinners, without exception, are invited to receive the benefits of His work. I did a random check on Spurgeon's sermons from the Ages CD for about 5 minutes with my search engine. He usually, but not always, tied the comment into faith. For instance in Vol 1 p.503 "If you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners, Christ died for you. And if you put your trust in him, and believed that he died for you, you may rely upon him, and say, “Lord, I will be saved by thy grace.”   I wouldn't feel that I had abandoned the Reformed Faith if I made an unqualified statement, but I usually do (like CHS) tie it into faith. I don't look for faith before I preach it. That would take me into the realms of hyper Calvinism. I preach it and argue for it (in the right sense of the word) etc., and I am content to let God apply it to the hearts of whom He will. I wouldn't like to strangle the invitation by a thousand qualifications.
Technically speaking, how should the gospel be preached? I live in a country where Calvinism is vilified. 90% of all the churches here are either
5-point Arminian or 4-point Arminian. It's very rare to see a Fundamental Monergist around here. They all preach that Jesus loves everybody and that He died for everybody, but we know that's not what the Scriptures teach. Well, once again, thanks for your useful website! In Christ, -LA www.biblicist.co.nr
Just get on with evangelising e.g. handing out tracts etc., in the most indiscriminate fashion you can.  Don't try to keep the non elect out, but bring the lost sheep home.  I think I've used the illustration on these pages before. When you drive a car, you just get in, turn the key, and go. Let the mechanics and the engineers worry about the "whys and the wherefores" Thanks again for writing.
*******************************************************
Received 13-2-06 Colin,  I dealing with some issues of Sinless perfection and those in that movement that say Calvinism leads to a life of wanton sin, can you point me to some writing on that? In Christ,Rick, www.repentnow.us  
Hi  Rick, Thanks for your note again. A good book on All things Calvinism is Lorraine Boettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Presdestination." Boettner is easy to read. He has about 8 pages on the objection that Calvinism is "unfavourable to good morality"   If I was being challenged on the matter, I would return the challenge by asking "How?" or "Why should it?" Our Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints forbids it. (See: Once Saved Always Saved) Many of the saints in Church History most noted for their personal  holiness were Calvinists e.g. Robert Murray McCheyne. That some who professed Calvinism strayed off into wanton sin cannot be denied, but then the Sinless Perfection movement doubtless has its black sheep as well. Besides, the only difference between wanton sin and hidden sin is the adjective. I have seen how some of the Sinless Perfection folk arrive at their conclusions, namely by lowering the standards which God has set. Thanks for writing and also for the link on the www.repentnow.us site. Colin.  
*******************************************************
Received 11-2-06 Dear Sir:  I love your website!  You have helped me immensely with my understanding of the Reformed faith.
Thank you for writing to us. It is always an encouragement to know that our ministry has helped the saints of God. It takes a fair bit of time to write some of these articles (which I enjoy immensely doing) and now with our new site here, quite a bit of time to transfer them over from the old site (less enjoyable, but satisfying once done) so it is nice to know that the work is not in vain. *******************************************************
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
Calvinism has historically hindered evangelism, for fear that some one who wasn't elect might be convinced that he was saved, so better to not I don't know why Calvinists make a distinction between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. A better term would be fundamental Calvinism (for the
 If I were a Calvinist I would not evangelize, I'd have better things to do like feed the poor, cloth the poor , earn rewards in heaven, oh, but we
*******************************************************