Any comments on the contents of this page? Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org

****

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

EMAILS ON OUR CALVINISM ARTICLES
JANUARY TO NOVEMBER 2006

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.
*******************************************************
Received 30-10-06 Hi Colin, Although I am not a Calvinist I was perusing your interesting article at corkfpc.com about what approach anti-Calvinists should take if they hope to be taken seriously by Calvinists. I too am disappointed that there have not been as many thoughtful responses from anti-Calvinists for which one might have hoped. To this end I recently completed a book that is just getting up and going on amazon.com. It is called Hoodwinked and Happy?: Evangelicals, Calvinism, and Why No One's Answering the Problem of Evil. It chiefly takes issue with the Calvinistic doctrine of absolute sovereignty, a doctrine I myself once believed for a number of years. Given your current viewpoint I don't think you would agree with much of what I say in the book. At the same time, I like to think that it might challenge your thinking more than certain other anti-Calvinistic books you have encountered. If you are interested at all in purchasing a copy I could forward you an attachment on some particular point so that you could get a feel for the text before spending any money on the book. I trust you would feel you got your money's worth not if you agreed with the content of the book, but felt that it offered an above average defense of its position. Since Amazon takes 55% of the price it would be much cheaper to buy it from me directly (about 40% less than online). I am hoping, at the least, to provide you with the kind of difficult challenge that you like. Just let me know if I can send you an attachment, and if you mention a particular point of interest that coincides with some passage from my book, I will forward that passage to you.  Best, Daniel Gracely/ Glassboro, New Jersey USA
Hi. Thanks Danile, for your email. I always appreciate feedback, even if ultimately the correspondent disagrees with me. Can you capsulate your main argument against our position in a paragraph? I would be interested in seeing what you have got to say. 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 2-10-06 Pastor Colin: This is not to argue with you since I consider myself a 5-point Calvinists, for lack of a better term. But the question I have is how can a person KNOW ABSOLUTELY that they are saved? I have not found a good answer to that yet, even in the Westminster Confession of Faith. You said on your site: Therefore instead of "Once saved…always saved" it might be better if we closed up a rather smug loophole which self deceived professors have exploited and believe instead: "If saved…always saved." This maintains the truth of the eternal security of the people of God while leaving room for that vital examination which is urged upon us by the Apostle Paul himself (2 Corinthians 13:5) Obviously no one is urging an excessive introspection which (having got us to take our eyes of Christ) would plunge us all into despair. But it is profitable to take time to weigh ourselves in the balances of Scriptures and see if we are really manifesting those evidences of the new birth (1 John) If we do and we are…we will rejoice all the more in what Christ has accomplished for us. Far better this, than to wake up in hell and discover that our hope was that of the hypocrite which will perish (Job 8:13)
------------------------------------------------
Even you are saying IF you are saved, then. This is what I find lacking. A person could go through 70 years but the year before he dies have a divorce or some other tragic event, go off the deep end, sin boldly, etc., and he would not be saved. This is no different than the Arminians. You have the same result. That position almost is CONDITIONING your salvation on your works. Ugh. That won't work.
And the pat answer of my Calvinists friends is, well IF you were saved, THEN you will endure to the end, but there is no way to give assurance to your salvation without depending on your works. That is unacceptable. Why can't you take a scripture like John 6:47, take Jesus promise for exactly what he says. He says you believe in me (and a person KNOWS if he believes the promises of Jesus) and you HAVE eternal life. Or John 5:24, or John 11:25-26 or the jailer asked what do I do to be saved. Jesus didn't say, well go to class, learn theology, get baptized, and live a life that produces fruit. No, all he said was "Believe in me." It seems if you take those passages and about another 20 like it for just what they say, you can believe the promises, and HAVE eternal life. And we agree, once you are saved you cannot lose your salvation. Period.
I don't know why Calvinists, or Baptists for that matter, will not say you cannot lose your salvation, without putting all these conditions on it. I firmly believe that if you are truly regenerated you WILL produce fruit, but how can that be a condition or evidence of being saved and then still believe in FAITH ALONE. Faith Alone plus NOTHING? DF, Colorado. "I tell you for certain that everyone who has faith in ME HAS eternal life."--John 6:47
Hi, Thanks for your email. I appreciate you taking time to write. Nowhere, repeat
nowhere, in any of our writings do we suggest that people are saved by works, either in totality or in part. Nowhere, repeat nowhere, do we suggest that people are kept by works, either in totality or in part. Salvation is by grace alone and we are kept by the power of God through faith (1 Peter 1:5) However, we do follow the Scripture when we say that works flow from saving faith and if a man say that he has [saving] faith but no works, then his faith is in vain. This is the whole argument of  the Epistle of James, especially chapter two. While we must not mingle justification with sanctification, yet we cannot divorce them either. The one (justification) leads to the other (sanctification) and the one (sanctification) flows from the other (justification). If we mingle them, we end up with popery; if we divorce them, then we end up with antinominism and neither are acceptable to God. Show me anywhere in the Bible where a man who professes to be saved but cannot produce the fruit of that salvation (good works) has any right to say that he has eternal life. I am taking the position here that tallys exactly with every verse/passage in the Bible that warns of false and empty professions. Thanks again foir 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.

Question: Why should I believe that the atonement had an inherent individual scope which limits its effect to the elect? My understanding is that election limits the effect of an all-sufficient atonement of sin to certain persons sovereignly chosen beforehand by God, not anything intrinsic to the atonement itself. My concern is that the common Reformed view of “limited atonement” seems to (1) negate the necessity of individual election and (2) remains difficult to substantiate in Scripture (Is. 53:6; John 1:29; 1 Tim. 2:6; 4:10; 1 John 2:2). The common use of texts that positively affirm the benefits of the atonement for God’s people (Rev. 1:5; etc.) truly demonstrate that the atonement is the grounds for the application of saving benefits of the elect (who in fact are saved) but I don’t think these texts say anything that reduces the scope of the atonement itself even though the non-elect are passed over and receive eternal condemnation. I apologize for my lack of brevity. I have yet to see the question approached in the literature the way I am approaching it and few issues are as pressing on me as the proper articulation of God’s mercies to His people. Soli Deo Gloria. BR. 
The atonement is set forth in Scripture as something DEFINITE and not merely potential. Therefore Christ really did die for and actually did make a full, absolute atonement for all for whom He so died. This is the nature of the atonement. You cannot have an atonement which does not actually atone. Now, if Christ made atonement for reprobates like Judas or Pharaoh, then why are they being punished for their sins? Surely, He made a definite atonement for them? If one would reply, "But they have not received this atonement by faith for themselves..." (or words to this effect) we immediately reply, that this sin of unbelief must also be atoned for, just as much as any other sin which is said to be under the blood of Christ. Otherwise, Christ did not die for nor make atonement for all their sins. This thought has led some to say that the only sin men go to hell for is the sin of unbelief...a thought we repudiate here. But we may safely assert that Christ did not atone for this damning sin of unbelief (hence it damns) and for that matter, none of their other sins, otherwise they would not suffer for them either. 

On the matter of the "universal" texts quoted above, I need hardly remind you that words like "all" and "world" etc., do not always mean "all without exception" as any concordance will bear out. I do not see how the Reformed view negates the necessity of individual election, if we view the whole plan of salvation together. Again, although Calvinists both scripturally and logically limit the extent of the atonement, we do not limit its merits which are infinite, and therefore each and every sinner may confidently apply, as invited to do so, for mercy for him. I trust this helps you. Thanks again for writing. Colin. 

*******************************************************
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 22-5-06 Greetings, I was so blessed to read your article which was posted on the Apprising Ministries website because while I have always believed that those who are saved always remain saved it has been often difficult to explain to others in the Church who think differently because they always seem to have as many verses that they believe prove that we aren't assured of always remaining saved. Your writing definitely made things a lot clearer for me and I've never wavered from the conviction of eternal security but sometimes, as I said, have had difficulty in defending the position with other believers who differed. I think you summed it up very nicely, and probably more accurately, by saying "If saved...always saved." even though it means the same thing as "once saved..always saved." Its unfortunate that many who have come to faith in Christ have tended to see the grace of God as license to live any ol' way they please with no regard for even attempting to please God by living a holy and godly life. So in closing let me thank you again for your words and my sincere prayer that God will continue to use you mightily for the advancement of his Kingdom. I've been exposed to both points of view regarding eternal security since I grew up attending an Assembly of God church (which is one of those denominations that doesn't seem to believe in eternal security) yet I also attended for a time Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia (a Christian university founded by Jerry Falwell..a Baptist minister). I know at this point I am no doubt running on but I never heard eternal security stated as clearly and eloquently as you have done. Again, thank you. In Christ, Jonathan Oak Harbor, Washington.
Hi. Thanks for your email. Glad our website has been of blessing to you. As you say,  "If Saved, always saved" doesn't change the doctrine, but it does give more emphasis to the application and that's where the rubber hits the road. Assurance and Presumption are two entirely different things. Thanks again for writing. 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? 
I'm not sure if I understand this correctly - if one reads that passage as it is, it says one's name can be removed. Kind regards, DBPta, RSA
Sorry, if I have not made myself clear. The warning is real. There are no empty warnings in the Bible. God preserves His people from anything that would ultimately cause separation from Him. He has decreed to save His people from their sins (which is why Christ came and died etc., Matthew 1:21) and He cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13) He accomplishes His will through the use of means, mainly from His word through precepts, warnings (as here) promises, examples etc., When we see such warnings, we are not to walk away from them and say "They don't apply to me because I am a Christian" but rather examine ourselves to see if this be so. Such warnings are a check on presumption, rather than a hindrance to assurance. Indeed, after such examination, if we really be in Christ, then our assurance should be strengthened, although such should be built on what Christ has done for us rather than what we have done (or think we are doing) for Him. See also our page "Once saved - always saved" for a balanced approach to this subject. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
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!'"  
You replied:
"Point taken…but is it fair to imply that Ryland was a typical Calvinist? Why not call him a hyper Calvinist? If nothing else it would help the true Calvinists who have a desire to see the heathen converted by the means of missionary evangelism put a distance between them and the hyper Calvinists..."
 I don't need to cite any more here, as I agree with your point here completely.  However, I do have a suggestion. Cloud is actually citing a quote that is, itself, questionable, so he's running with this information as if it's a settled fact.   This is, in addition to a failure to differentiate between hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism, not exactly a well attested quote. John Ryland Jr. denied that his father said this.  Michael Haykin's biography of John Sutcliff does does discuss this, but he doesn't say much, but he does mention that Carey recalled that Ryland had called his efforts "unscriptural."In a footnote in Volume 1 of The Baptists by Thomas J. Nettles, he cites p. 196 of Haykin's book. He writes:
 "In Haykin's account it is unclear as to whether the mention of Ryland was by Carey or by Marshman.  Eustace Carey discusses the event, believes it happened, but also indicates that Carey, at least on one occasion, did not recall its happening. 'At a meeting of ministers in Northhampton, about this time, Mr. Ryland, senior, called upon the young ministers to propose a topic for discussion.  As no one else obeyed the challenge, after waiting some time, Mr. Carey proposed for consideration, "the duty of Christians to attempt the spread of the gospel among the heathen nations." The old gentleman received the announcement of the subject with great surprise.  Mr. Morris, now the only surviving friend who was present upon the occasion, says, that Mr. Ryland called him an enthusiast for entertaining such an idea.  I am aware that Dr. Ryland questioned the accuracy of Mr. Morris's recollection as to this matter; and when he inquired of Dr. Carey some years ago, he was of the same mind.  But, with me, this does not invalidate the correctness of Mr. M's testimony.  I well recollect my relatives speaking to me soon after my arrival in India, respecting this meeting, and Mr. R's remark (Memoir, 62).  John Ryland Jr. calls it "that ill-natured anecdote respecting my father and young Carey' (Life and Death, 175) So, just thought you might want to know...God Bless,GMB
Thanks for your note. I was aware of the question mark hanging over this particular incident. I decided not to challenge the validity of the quote in my reply to Cloud, because he would probably regard it as a weakness. I thought it better to take it at face value, let it have all its strength, and then show how it fails to establish his point. As readers of these pages will know I am singularly unimpressed with Cloud as a critic of Calvinism. I don't think getting at truth is his first and foremost desire. He is politicking and is very selective in his use of quotes and "facts"I do make a point of answering him though. Personally, that kind of thing disgusts me. It pleases me no end to see that if you type David Cloud Calvinism
into Google that this site and our old geocities based site occupy the first 4 places above Cloud's own site :-) Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
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.

*******************************************************
Received 10-3-06 Hello Sir!  I have really enjoyed reading your section about the myths [about] Calvinism.  I am saved by faith in Christ and I am learning that He chose me to be His.  I am thankful for your writings. Is there anything I can do to help you and your church? God Bless, GP Hi. Thanks for your email and for letting us know that the above page has been of help to you. I suppose the best thing you could do is to pray for the ministry here, that God would use it for His own glory and the salvation of souls. Colin. 
*******************************************************
Received 10-3-06 Hello Brother Maxwell, Great articles! Thank you for putting them on the web, they are very useful. Now as of late (just 3 weeks or so ago) I came face to face with the teaching of Calvinism, of which in the past few years I have always just dismissed it as an error; however, this time the Lord had other plans, and I decided to look into it a bit more. I bought a couple books, like Arthur Pink's, "Sovereignty of God", and "Attributes of God", and a few other articles by Warfield online; and they have REALLY impacted me to search further into this matter---it's almost like this teaching was made for me or something. I am a real 'thinker' you could say, I seem to have been all my life. So when I started to read some stuff from these great Christian men of old who held to Calvinism, and noticed how deep their thinking was, and how they seemed to really have thought things through, I was totally captivated by them!
Hi. Thanks for your email. I am always encouraged to read of Christians coming into the appreciation of the Doctrines of Grace. Warfield, whom you mention above, said that Calvinism was simply evangelicalism come to its own i.e. in its fullest expression. I agree.

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.

*******************************************************
Received 8-3-06 Dear Pastor Maxwell, I am a young high school student, and your brother in Christ.  As I was researching for a paper that I'm writing on the doctrine of justification I stumbled upon your website and began reading some the article entitled A Word to Those Who Take it Upon Themselves to Refute Calvinism.  I was dismayed at what I read.  I do not wish to discuss the merits of Calvinism vs. Arminianism with you (I don't know where to put myself on the spectrum in between the opposite ends).  I was simply dismayed by the language you chose to speak of your opponents.  You are speaking against those who misrepresent the views of Calvinism.  You claim to have the truth, and all truth is from God.  Therefore, if you have the truth you should be speaking it as "the oracles of God." (1 Peter 4)  Yet your words convey, not a genuine love and desire for the truth to be known (as should the words of God), but haughty disdain.  It sounds like nothing more than blowing your top.  If you have the truth, the speak it in love.  I believe that you love God and desire to see his name glorified: then change your website, because what is up there now will do nothing but create division in His body. I will pray for you. Sincerely, MA
Hi, Thank you for your note. I'm sorry that you should be offended when reading the above article. Obviously I must disagree with your views and I do so because the whole point of the article is to take out of the debate those things which are untrue and which tend to create tensions between Calvinists and non Calvinists. I have seen too many debates on these important things slide into a mere trading of insults and the precious truths which both sides were claiming to love and defend got lost in the rancour.
The division is already there in the Body over these doctrines. If I can at least try and remove the misunderstandings, then maybe Calvins and non Calvinists can move unto the place whereby they can see where each other is coming from. Perhaps at the end, we may have to agree to differ, but we can do this (as we do) in a spirit of grace and love towards one another. I purposely refrain, even if I am riled, from using any insulting language. An example of this is my declining to use the term "Arminian" (which I notice that you use) when I know that this term is offensive to many. I am quite happy with the tone used in the above article and therefire intend to keep it posted.Thanks again for writing. Colin. 
*******************************************************
Received 8-3-06 Hi, Brother!  My name is Chuck Roberts, and I'm the guy who signed the EIPS "Guestbook" right after you.  I mentioned I'd be praying for you, and I will.  I'm sure countless others will too.  After signing it, I decided to "surf on in" to your homepage.  GREAT SITE!.  Like yourself, I'm a Calvinist, and like yourself, I neither believe nor practice what non-Calvinists say we do, to wit, that Calvinism is a soul-winning deadening belief.  After all, Brother Apostle Paul was a Calvinist (even before Calvin :) ) and he was certainly one of history's best soulwinners.  Your exposition of John 3:16 is excellent.  I hope to use it myself one day, Lord willing.  Anyway, keep up the great work and I'll remember you in prayer.  Maybe someday if I ever get to visit the Emerald Isle (as I'd love to someday, along with all of Great Britain) I hope to visit your church. CR.
 Received 8-3-06 Hi, Brother!  Please permit me one more email.  If I weren't a Calvinist (perhaps better put as "Biblicist") I would be very discouraged vis-a-vis soul-winning.  If I believed that the best I could do is pray that God would see to it that the person I'm burdened for will hear the gospel and be brought under Holy Spirit conviction - and nothing else - knowing that God is 100% dependent on said individual to obey the gospel on his own free-will, I would be very discouraged indeed!  But because I know that God chooses the Blessed and causes them to approach unto Him (as Brother King David wrote in one of the Psalms) I know every person I pray for and/or give the Gospel to could very well be saved.  That encourages me to absolute no end.  That's why I can pray daily for ex-Beatles Paul and Ringo, knowing that in spite of their wicked lives and hardened hearts "the Lord's arm is not shortened that it cannot save."  That's all.  Thank you for your time.  CR
Thanks for your emails. I appreciate you taking the time to write and also your appreciative remarks. Keep evangelising! You have evidently got the zeal there and the dependence upon God to use your efforts. Certainly their strong belief in the sovereign grace of God never hindered Whitefield or Spurgeon or McCheyne or indeed Calvin himself in their evangelism. Thanks again for writing. I agree with you 100%. Colin. 

*******************************************************
Received 8-3-06  This may answer many of your difficult questions about God. Christ's death is a rescue mission, not a bargain. JN Hi JN. Thanks again for writing. I have perused the short article linked to here and I cannot agree with its contents. It denies the fundamentals of the gospel including the blood atonement of Jesus Christ and the wrath of God in a Christ rejecter's hell. Christ described Himself as being a ransom (Matthew 20:28) and without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22) Luke 16:19-31 along with 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 make it clear that God is also a God of wrath as well as a God of love and mercy. The above link has little if anything to offer anyone. I hope this doesn't come across as being unduly blunt, but the central tenets of the gospel must be protected at all costs. Thanks again for writing. Colin. 
*******************************************************
Sent 7-3-06 to David Cloud, Way of Life Web site. (It is not often that I publish an email which I sent first. See below at 21-3-06.  Still in red though, for if and when I get a reply.
Hi, Just a courteous note to let you know that I have posted an analysis of your Refutation of Calvin's proof texts on our site. I find it very hard to believe that you could state things like: Calvinists don't believe that the sinner can reject the gospel (Even put in capitals) and again that Calvinists believe that faith is a work. I notice that you do not give any references for such statements, and the simple reason is that you cannot. I draw attention to these things in the above analysis. Colin Maxwell, (Cork Free Presbyterian Church)
*******************************************************
Received 25-2-06  I was recently reading your article on Some advice to those who take it upon themselves to write against Calvinism. While reading it I thought, "Yes, I think I do agree with the Calvinistic argument" but at the same time I think God is laughing at us all.  I say this because I see so many Christians argue about who is right about baptism who is right about once saved always saved and so on and I think "Okay, let's say I'm right; let's say that I think a baby should be baptised or that I think the Calvinists are right once saved always saved" Who really cares what I think anyways? GOD WILL DO WHAT HE WANTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE THINK, so then that ends all debates.  No reason to debate, God is in control and I think we should focus our attention and time on things that are important like living for Christ - not trying to prove what we think is right or wrong.  Silly waste of time!!  Sorry just thought I'd let you all know that you are all wasting your time and God will let us all know who was right in the end and maybe it might not be either of us!! Colleen.  
Thanks Colleen for your email. I'm still trying to work out if  it would be a further  waste of time answering it (?) Colin. 
 *******************************************************
Received 23-2-06 [See original email 21-2-06] I said: I like that statement, "we only follow [Calvin] as far as he followed Christ." But I'm rethinking it.  It still *really* bothers me that as you said, "Without having researched the whole matter, Calvin does seem to throw us up some unsavoury aspects." The problem I still have is "we shall know them by their fruits."  According to the aforementioned site: Calvin is a "Life-Long Unrepented Murderer."  If that's true and we are to recognize bad teachers (and their bad teaching) by their fruit, shouldn't we reject Calvin?  How else shall we recognize bad teachers? This is very troubling.  I don't worship Calvin, but if he was indeed unsaved, wicked, a wolf in sheep's clothing then to me his teaching is corrupt.  We don't have to throw out TULIP I suppose, but how much should we let Calvin influence us, assuming he's guilty and unrepentant? We as Calvinists should not be afraid to wrestle with this stuff. On the subject, I found these pages: http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue02/c_vs_s.htm and http://carla_b.tripod.com/realfacts/truth_calvin.html While wrestling, I will ask myself if putting to death a heretic might be similar to stoning in the OT; justified killing. CVD.
Thanks again for your note. I take the line that what Geneva (including Calvin) did to Servetus was wrong. We might try and soften the whole thing by saying that they were children of their time, that other evangelical people applauded their actions and that Rome also endorsed it (although the last observation cuts no ice with me) but that doesn't  excuse it in any way. Today, we don't argue for putting heretics to death. We believe the pen to be mightier than the sword. Despite what some of his critics say, Calvin tells us that he cared deeply for the spiritual wellbeing of Servetus and desired that he would turn to Christ. I quote from Deubine's Life of Calvin:
"Calvin resolved to accept Servetus’s invitation. These two young men, born in the same year, gifted each of them with marvelous genius, unshakeable in their convictions, are about to enter the lists. What blows they will deal each other! What a struggle! Which will come off conqueror? If Luther, Zwingle, and Bucer are so animated, what will Calvin be? He was the one who showed the most moderate sentiments with regard to Servetus. Alas! why did he not continue so to the last? ‘ I will do all in my power to cure Servetus,’ he said. ‘If I show myself in public, I know that I expose my life; but I will spare no pains to bring him to such sentiments, that all pious men may be able to take him affectionately by the hand.’" (Vol 3:95) Without doubt, the whole matter is a deep blot on the testimony of Calvin and I have no desire to minimalise it. I believe that Calvin was indeed a saved man, as the immense spirituality of his writngs, admired even by his theological enemies, prove. I must admit that I am much happier defending the doctrines which, for good or bad, bear his name than I am for defending the man himself.  Colin.
Also received the same day:
I like that statement, "we only follow [Calvin] as far as he followed Christ." Now what of the textual issues he brings up? CVD
A good look round our Calvinism index page will help you tackle any objections to the Doctrines of Grace which are raised. Colin.
*******************************************************
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.

Hi, I have glanced through your republished article "Calvinism - Who is the Enemy?" 
I notice that you have since dropped the things which you once appreciated about Calvinism, although Calvinism hasn't changed and I see the pretty useful and balancing examples of Calvinist soulwinners have been dropped also, which to my mind detracts greatly from your article.
However, I am actually writing to see if you have actually have a verifiable reference for the added statement:
"Calvin wrote about Servetus, 'One should not be content with simply killing such people, but should burn them cruelly.'”
As you know, I tend not to take any man's word for any serious charges against God's people. I sincerely hope it is not some mere rumour, void of any truth or substance. If you could supply the reference so that I can check it myself, I would be grateful.
 Yours, Colin Maxwell, (Cork Free Presbyterian Church)

Received 21-2-06 Hello. I might have gotten that quote from William Jones, but I don't recall and my library is in the States. You said, "As you know I tend not to take any man's words..." I have no idea how I would know such a thing, such I do not know you in the slightest. I do know that you have written before and said something about something you have written but I am deluged with mail and am extremely busy and have no interest in yet another Calvinist who wants to challenge me. In Christ, D. Cloud

Sent 21-2-06: Thanks for your reply.  Might it not be better that such a horrendous quote be withdrawn until it can be verified? Would this not be the God honouring way to go about things? Colin Maxwell, (Cork Free Presbyterian Church)
*******************************************************
Received 21-2-06 Bravo! on your Calvinist site. I loved this page on criticising Calvinism. Have you reviewed this siteAside from spending too much time criticizing the character of Calvin himself*, I like his honesty. He makes a good point though when he says, "You Shall Know Them By Their Fruits."  I like to stick to textual arguments, but if it's true that Calvin is a murderer that's disturbing. Nonetheless the actions of a sinful man don't refute sound doctrine.  We don't worship Calvin. CDV.
Hi. Thanks for your email. Glad you have found our site to be helpful to you. I don't think I have reviewed the site you mention above, and to be honest, at the moment things are very busy here. Currently we are shifting many of the files from our old geocities site over to this new site as well as keeping the other parts of the work running. Without having researched the whole matter, Calvin does seem to throw us up some unsavoury aspects. However, the other side of the story is that even people like John Wesley could say "John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man;"  However, strictly speaking, Calvin is no one is this debate. As you say, we do not worship Calvin. We only follow him as far as he followed Christ. The issue is "What saith the Scripture?" and  on this basis, we are to proceed. Thanks again for your views. Colin.

*******************************************************
Received 20-2-06 Hi Colin, Thanks a lot for your quick reply. [See 14-2-06] Since you differentiate between God's love for elects and non-elects, so in your view: God doesn't love non-elects enough to save them? Not much different from those who insist that He eternally hates non-elects, right? Btw affirming God's impartial love for all human beings doesn't necessarily mean affirming Universalism (that God will eventually save all regardless of their response) since God doesn't force His love unto us. From what I see, both Calvinism and Universalism deny the importance of our response in salvation.Again, thanks and God bless! Shalom, JN  
Hi JN, Thanks for your email again. Re: God's love to the non elect, perhaps I should point out that there is nothing deficient in God's love. However, obviously,  such cannot be said (by definition) to be an electing love towards the non elect and there is an immediate difference. This is a million miles away from those who insist that God eternally hates the non elect and has no gracious or merciful feelings towards them, at all. These are the kind of people who use the illustration of the farmer simply feeding the turkey in order to fatten it for slaughter at Christmas, and to be honest, they leave me very cold and numb. Far from leaving the sinner without any required response, Calvinism requires the sinner to repent and believe the gospel. This is basic Evangelicalism, and it is worth noting that most of the great Evangelists from the past, whose deeds are acknowledged by all Christians were in fact Calvinists. Although Calvinism can hold its own in debates (see the current one at the moment) yet controversy is never going to thrill the heart. Calvinism's beauty is to be seen in its undergirding of the sermons of its adherents. If you read the sermons of Spurgeon or of WhitefieldMcCheyne or the Bonars, or the writings of John Bunyan etc., you will see Calvinism in its warmest manifestations. I don't know where else you have reading, but don't let the likes of Dave Hunt or David Cloud demonise us. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
 
*******************************************************
Received 18-2-06 Hi Colin, enjoying reading your website, keep up the good work. I was wondering if you could tell me what is meant by the term "offer of the gospel."? Does it mean that the gospel should be preached to everyone, and to deny this, is to deny the "offer of the gospel"? or does it mean that preaching to everyone as though they were elect, i.e. declaring to them that Christ has died on the cross for their sins, and that they can be forgiven? I am a bit confused here, and if I'm completely of the track, please put me right. Thanks, RS.
Hi, Thanks for your email and query. The "free offer of the gospel" insists that the gospel message along with its gracious promises are offered to every one, without any exception. The gospel preacher is not to look out the elect (or since he does not know who they are among the unsaved) those whom he merely thinks are elect  or who seem to show evidences that they could be among that number, and offer Christ to them.  When preaching, he must assure every sinner that there is mercy for them if they have it. Evidently, if they will not receive it, then God will not bestow it, but it is to be offered to them whether they believe it or not. Some hyper Calvinists seem to object to the use of the word "if" in these offers, suggesting that it limits God or makes Him to be a kind of beggar. This is not so. The first use of the word 
"if" in the Bible was used by God to a reprobate (Cain) telling him that if  he did what God was telling him, then it would be well with him i.e. he would be saved. A good exercise in seeing how the gospel should be preached is to consult any of Spurgeon's evangelistic sermons, or any of the Calvinistic evangelists along his line. Sometimes, while we sit twiddling with the niceties of correct doctrinal statements, sinners are simply wanting to know, or at least need to know, what they must do to be saved. The answer is not to try and discern whether they are elect, but just urge them to flee to the Christ of Calvary and trust Him. If you fail to cross a few theological "t's" or dot a few theological "i's" along the way, I'm pretty sure God will forgive you for your zeal, even if the hypers don't. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 14-2-06 Dear brother in Christ, In your Calvinism: Does God love elects only? Does He love non-elects? I get different answers from different Calvinists. Could you help to shed some info on which view is the true Calvinism? Thank you. God bless! Shalom, JN
Hi. Thank you for your email. While acknowledging that some of my Calvinistic brethren would disagree with me, I take the line that God does have a love for the non elect as well as for His elect. This is a benevolent love that generally ensures that the non elect  have many good things in this life (such as the the good things which the Rich man in hell enjoyed while on earth: Luke 16:25) and for which they have much to bless God. However, the love which God has for His elect goes much deeper and includes the fact that they were elected unconditionally in Jesus Christ, saw Christ making atonement for their sins of the elect alone, covers their effectual call to faith and reception of all the benefits that flow from salvation. I cannot see how any one , outside of a Universalist, can say that such special love was extended to all men, elect  and non elect alike.  A useful resource on this matter is John Murray's writings on "Common Grace" Thanks again for writing. Colin.
 
*******************************************************
Received 13-2-06 Thanks for answering my questions, Colin. (11-2-06) I was particularly struck with your comment on the unpardonable sin, so being a cantankerous sort of fellow, I just emailed WELS seminary to answer that particular issue.  Their answer to my original question (asked via my Lutheran friend) is here: In my question today, I made use of -"Christ died for every sin of every person, including the sin of unbelief." to ask if that included the unpardonable sin Jesus mentions.  I will send you their reply! JT Virginia
Hi, Thanks for writing again. I had a look at the comments of the Lutherans as linked above. I sure would love to make reply, but [i] It is a reply to a third party and not to me [ii] I'm very busy here at the moment. Suffice to say this...John Owen isn't denying that men are lost through unbelief, but that Christ died for ultimate unbelievers. I think the Lutherans (judging from this reply) see Christ's death as only securing salvation from the guilt of sin. They fail to see that it also secured salvation from the grip of sin. Those for whom Christ died will infallibly  forsake their sins, including those of unbelief.  Like all non Calvinists, they reduce much of the work of the Cross to a potentiality rather than an actual achievement. They would have to admit that if it was the intention of Christ to save all for whom He died, then He utterly failed, being overthrown at last by sinful men. This has been nicely put as "God in the hands of Angry Sinners" It will be interesting to see what they say about Christ dying for the unpardonable sin. Thanks again for writing. Colin.

*******************************************************
Received 13-2-06 Dear CFPC webmaster, My name is LA, and I am really glad your website is posted on the net. Believe it or not, it was the spark God used to get me to the Scriptures and become a Monergist.
Hi. Thanks for writing to us here. Your email has really encouraged us. I really do believe that the Doctrines of Grace, properly understood and stripped of misrepresentation and misunderstanding by professing friends and foes alike, really do conform to the Scriptures and are glorious! I'm glad that you have come to appreciate them.

I have one question, however. You said: "Calvinists, being without access to the Lamb's Book of Life, see every man as potentially elect and preach the gospel to him." 
I was going to link to the page in question, but I notice that I have made this statement a number of times in different places. Shows I must really believe it.

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.
My good friend is a conservative Lutheran.  He and I spar over our differences.  According to his understanding of Lutheran doctrine, Lutherans believe that Christ really did fully atone for all men's sins for all time, but that those who are lost don't receive the benefit due to unbelief.  Unlike Arminians, the Lutherans believe that belief is a gift from God alone (OK so far).  So what we have is unlimited atonement with particular redemption due to God's grace (I think).  I have peppered him with some of the same questions you raise, but he retreats into "mystery" and "that's what scripture says." 
We believe that the atonement is unlimited only in the sense that it is unlimited in its merit. Christ would not have suffered more if the number of the elect was increased. However, we do contend that it was limited or particular in is intention i.e. to atone for the sins only of the elect. Although sometimes we all use the "mystery" reply especially concerning the Trinity or the two natures of Christ in one Person etc., yet it can easily become an excuse. It should be plain enough that if Christ made atonement for sins, then they can only be forgiven. The logical outcome of Unlimited Atonement  in the Arminian/Lutheran sense must be Universalism, although thankfully, they do draw back away, even if inconsistently, from that absurdity.

And as always, when a Lutheran is confronted with a question as to how something fits or is logically consistent with the rest of scripture, he will reflexively insult the powers of logic and reason, as if Calvinism is a theology bent by sin.
Are the finer details of Lutheranism then unlogical and unreasonable? How  can anyone defend the reasonableness of their faith (1 Peter 3:15) or offer reasonable service unto God/ (Romans 12:2) 
We have discussed John Owen's famous logic puzzle regarding the atonement, and he even sent the puzzle to a Lutheran seminary for a response.  WELS (the seminary) said Owen's argument was silly, because unbelievers "throw away the payment" that Christ made for their sin.  I maintain that this argument is a non-sequitir.  The payer is Christ, the payment is his blood and body, and the payee is God the Father.  Man is not a party to this transaction at all, so he can't "throw away the payment".  He (man) doesn't receive the payment, but rather the benefit of the payment.  Lutherans maintain that God was fully propitiated through Christ's death for all sins everywhere.  I ask, if this is so, then how can a sinner be punished?  They say because God doesn't give them the grace to believe.  I say this is bizarre.
I agree with you.  Did Christ die for the sin of throwing away the payment? Or...did Christ die for the unpardonable sin? (This last one usually sets them thinking!) If He did, how is it unpardonable? If he didn't, then He didn't die for all their sins. 
Could you please comment on Calvinism vs. Lutheranism in particular? Thanks, JT, Virginia
To be honest, I'm not particularly read on the Lutheran  side of things.  I tend just to divide any opposition to these things into "Reformed" (as in Calvinist) and Non Reformed - as in anything else. So I'm sorry, I can't help you there. But thanks any way for writing. Enjoy your debates with your Lutheran friend...and keep them civil! Colin. 
*******************************************************
Received 11-2-06 I have been reading quite a bit of John Piper and listening to an evening teacher on a Christian TV site -- I've learned quite a bit about God's sovereign power. The issue of the elect, however, is very unclear to me. Perhaps your answer to this question will clarify some of my lack of understanding: If a person living in a remote area of the world lived and died without ever hearing the gospel from a teacher, friend, missionary or any other person -- would he be saved if he were indeed one of God's elect - "chosen in Him"? Thanks for your help and your time - God bless you!
Those who study doctrine like to use the word "ordinarily" which means that they are not prepared to pigeonhole God. Ordinarily then, those whom God has elected, will be saved through the means of hearing the gospel - whether from a teacher, missionary, friend etc., Certainly we must act upon this principle and do all that we can, either by going ourselves or by prayerfully and practically supporting those who do, to reach every last tribe and people.  Certainly, it would not be amiss of God to reach the heathen without human means, nor would it be a denial of Himself. We do not read of any missionary knocking Abraham's door, but  we do specifically read that "God...preached before the gospel unto him" (Galatians 3:8)
If God steps outside the ordinary use of means for some folk, then that's His business, but we are not to work on that  principle since it is not revealed to us in the Bible for such a purpose.  If any heathen dies without hearing the gospel from whatever means i.e. dies unsaved, then he goes to hell for those sins which he committed (Colossians 3:5-6) being condemned by his own conscience (Romans 2:15) Although the very least place in hell must be a terrible experience, yet it will be worse for those who had greater light and rejected it (Luke 12:46-47)I trust this answer helps you. Thanks for writing. Colin. 
*******************************************************
Received 9-2-06 I ran across your site looking for some Spurgeon info, as a recent convert to a Calvinistic view of the scriptures I found your site most edifying! Praise the Lord for your stance in truth. In Christ, Rick Barnes, www.repentnow.us
Hi. Thanks for your email and encouragement. Glad that our site is being used for God's glory. I think more and more Believers will come into the knowledge of the Doctrines of Grace, especially those who are tired of the entertainment end of the non Reformed churches. I enjoyed looking at your site, especially the pages with the photographs of your street evangelism. Thanks again for writing. Colin. 
*******************************************************
Received 8-2-06 Dear Sir, I came upon your question, "if anyone can show where Calvinism hinders the evangelism, e-mail me" Well here I am e-mailing you!
I appreciate you taking time to email me. I intend to answer your  points below and hopefully change your mind in your opposition to Calvinism...at least on the points where you accuse us. I am sure we can discuss these matters in a friendly manner. Just one simple request: If you decide to reply, can you please ensure that you use only capitals for the beginning of sentences and proper nouns etc.? Otherwise YOU ARE SHOUTING AT ME and, if nothing else, it makes your comments hard to read. I have altered your email in this regard for inclusion on this page, but have not touched the content in any way.

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
evangelize at all than to deceive some poor soul into thinking he might be saved, since it is not necessary with sovereign regeneration.
I fail to see how you can make this charge stick when Church History shows otherwise. Many of the greatest names among Christian evangelists and missionaries were/are Calvinists. Calvin's soul winning exploits have been well documented on this site. George Whitefield and CH Spurgeon etc., who were notable revivalists (in the pure sense of the word) were Calvinists etc.,  Well known contemporary Calvinists, heavily into evangelism, include John Blanchard (author of Ultimate Questions) and many others.  Furthermore, Calvinists follow the Bible line that the Lord knows those who are His (2 Timothy 2:19), that although regeneration is the sovereign act of God, yet God regenerates people through the preached word (1 Corinthians 1:21) and therefore we preach the word to every creature, as commanded (Mark 16:15) See "Seven reasons why Calvinists evangelise" I do not think you can produce me any  quote from any standard Calvinist church confession or notable Calvinist who argued or even stated that he was afraid to evangelise lest he should give false assurance to anyone. If you can, then your next email will prove me wrong.

I don't know why Calvinists make a distinction between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. A better term would be fundamental Calvinism (for the
hyper) and morphed Calvinism for those who don't really hold to what Calvin taught. Let me quote you from the Institutes: "Nothing is more absurd than to think that anything at all is done but by the ordination of God.... Every action and motion of every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing can come to pass but what was ordained by him.. The wills of men are so governed by the will of God, that they are carried on straight to the mark which he has fore-ordained." (Book 1 chap 16 sect. 3) 
I  have looked for the above quote, both in my hard copy of Calvin's Institutes at 1:16:3 (Battles Translation) and also in my two CD copies (both of Battles and Beveridge) - the latter with very effective search engines - and I cannot find it. If you can double check your reference or relate as to who the translator is, then I might be able to comment further on this particular quote. 

There is no room for free will whatsoever in regular Calvinism, hence puppets on a string comments are totally accurate in regard to what he believed. It is not a hyped up Calvinism but the facts of what he taught. So I do not see the distinction.
It is very strange that you should say such a thing, because the Calvinistic Westminster Confession of Faith has a whole chapter (Ch. 9) entitled "Free Will" Spurgeon himself could say, Ay, we believe that God has given to man a free-will — that we do not deny... (New Park Gate Pulpit Vol 6 p. 244) The issue swings on what is meant by free will. Calvinists rightly believe that sinceJohn Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man; man is in bondage to sin (John 8:34)  therefore his will is likewise in bondage. You can't have a will in bondage and free at the same time. We believe in free will in the sense that man is free to follow the dictates of his enslaved will and whatever he does, he does freely. Therefore although Christ was crucified according to the pre-determined plan of God, those pre-ordained hands that took him are still considered to be wicked, for what they did, they did freely. (Acts 2:23) Hyper Calvinists do not believe in the responsibility of men to repent etc., whereas Calvin and  true Calvinists do, hence the distinction. I'm afraid that if you fail to recognise the very big differences, then you are not going to get very far in any debate on the matter.  The differences are there and they are real.

 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
don't get rewards according to Calvin, so I'd just do nothing, except live my life to the fullest for me and my friends, there is no incentive to preach the gospel, it really is unnecessary. I don't waste my time on things that aren't necessary, others might but I do not.
I notice that you fail to give any reference for this charge against Calvin and I must ask you either to do so or to retract your charge. Just to show that I am willing to research this matter for the sake of accuracy (which is a God honouring way to conduct any debate) I looked up Calvin on Colossians 3:24 where Paul spoke of the believer being rewarded. Calvin comments: "Here, truly, is choice consolation for all that are under subjection, inasmuch as they are informed that, while they willingly serve their masters, their services are acceptable to Christ, as though they had been rendered to him. From this, also, Paul gathers, that they will receive from him a reward, but it is the reward of inheritance, by which he means that the very thing that is bestowed in reward of works is freely given to us by God, for inheritance comes from adoption." Or again on Hebrews 11:26 where Moses had respect unto the recompense of reward, Calvin writes: 
"Then faith, as to righteousness before God, does not look on reward, but on the gratuitous goodness of God, not on our works but on Christ alone; but faith, apart from justification, since it extends generally to every word of God, has respect to the reward that is promised; yea, by faith we embrace whatever God promises: but he promises reward to works; then faith lays hold on this."  I really don't know where you are coming from here on this one, and I am pretty sure that you cannot up your charges.  As for evangelism, as before, I refer you to our page: "Seven reasons why Calvinists evangelise"
I wouldn't pray much either, I wouldn't have a need for God to do anything special for me, it isn't going to change his sovereign plan anyway so why waste my time? Again, some might take the time but I wouldn't, I am a practical person. If the job is done, why would I try to interfere? Does that seem strange thinking to you?
Yes, it is a very strange way of thinking indeed. I think you fail to see that Calvinists believe that God not only ordains the means, but the end to achieving those means. Therefore he ordains that His elect will be brought into the fold through evangelism and so we evangelism. Even though He knows what we have need of before we ask (Matthew 6:8) He still would have us ask, nevertheless (v11)  He works through means.  In his classic book "Power through prayer" E.M. Bounds (a non Calvinist) gives quotations from great prayer warriors - the majority of which adhered to the Calvinistic faith.

I actually know a whole church full of people like this, reformed of course, self indulgent to the max, and very convinced that their every move is
ordained by God. I have never heard of one person getting saved there. They just replicate the same self indulgent sort of people.So there is my answer on how Calvinism hinders evangelism. Truly yours, JJT
This might be so, but you cannot take a particular group of people, found in a particular location during a particular period of time, and use them to brand all who hold to the Doctrines of Grace. It is a very small point to make, when there are thousands of Calvinistic churches who are fully committed to evangelism etc., Even Mr Cloud in the 
article where I invited these emails acknowledges that there are Calvinists who are busily engaged in evangelism.  He gives contemporary examples. You fail to do so, but rather light on one example, and worse still, refuse to let us put any ground between us and them because (according  to you) there is no such difference to be made. I must leave it there. Feel free to come back on these issues, although I must request that you give references (and accurate ones at that) for your comments. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 21-1-06 [NOTE: I sent David Cloud, by email, a copy of my latest answer to his charges against Calvinism. My subject heading was: ARE YOU SURE MR CLOUD? If you check this page, I ask Mr Cloud to substantiate just who the Calvinists are who believe that men are damned solely because they are not elect. I received the following reply the very same day:]
Yes, I am 100% sure that Calvinism is not Scripture. And infant baptism is an abomination.
Thank you Mr Cloud for your reply to my email, although I note that you avoided giving any proof of your original claims. I can only assume that not only do your original claims not stand the test of a courteous examination, but that you are painfully aware of this also. I fail to see what the matter of infant baptism has to do with my original email, but then my original email queried what Calvinism had to do with a RC priest's thoughts on Judas Iscariot. If this kind of reply to a courteous letter brings you some crumb of satisfaction, then you are entirely welcome to it. Be assured if you find something on my site which you feel must be challenged, then I will deal with your challenge in a way that is not designed to be hurtful or rude. Colin.

*******************************************************
Received 20-1-06 Dear Pastor Maxwell, Thank you for your carefully considered and thought-provoking response to Mark Huss. My name is JT. I have just started an Mdiv at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I am writing a paper called "Predestination for the Glory of God" for Prof. Paul Helm. In considering this issue from a pastoral perspective, I am writing my paper using the scholastic approach, examining individual objections in turn. I came across a quote on another "Fundamental Baptist" Website critiquing Calvinist doctrine. I have spent a fair bit of time trying to find the quotes to which they were referring, but to no avail. Admittedly, I have found the process somewhat frustrating but was encouraged to see that I was not the only one unable to find the references. I have requested information regarding their referencing, but was wondering whether you have had any response from Mark Huss. Were you able to find the references that were quoted in the end? The specific quotes were: "The reprobate like the elect are appointed to be so by the secret counsel of God's will and by nothing else" (Calvin's Institutes II, xxii, Page 11). And nothing in them could transfer them to the contrary class, any more than anything in the elect could result in their becoming reprobate..." (Calvin's Institute III, iii, page 4). Thank you for your time, JT
Hi. Thanks for your email. Glad that you have found the above article answering Mr Huss to be helpful. I think it was one of the worse attacks I have ever seen on the Doctrines of Grace. I did hear from him eventually, but he just thanked me for my comments and that was about it. I'm sorry but I never did manage to trace the above quotes in the end. Mr Huss never offered to clarify them. The first quote would seem to contradict another quote which can be sourced: "Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity - which is closer to us - than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God's predestination." (Institutes 3:23:8) I noticed the other Website before, with its teaching of God's limited sovereignty. I suppose it is the logical outcome of its man centered doctrine. Thanks again for writing. Sorry I can't be of more help to you. I trust your paper goes well. Colin.

********************************************************
Received 18-1-06 Thank you for creating the Website on Calvinism. It is an excellent resource to learn about Calvinism. May God bless you in your work. Sincerely, PM.
Glad that you have found the site so helpful. Thanks for your comments. Colin.

*******************************************************
Received 4-1-06 Colin, I hope you are doing well. I found you this weekend on the internet and am very pleased I did. I guess you can say I have been studying the subject of Grace for the past year or so. I have read so many book on Election, Regeneration, Justification that I can get my hands on. Most have been by Arthur Pink which I really enjoy reading.
Nice to hear from you and to know that this site has been of blessing to you. Pink is usually good. I was listening recently to a non Calvinist preacher who described him as "one of the greatest of all the commentators"

But it seems to me that most of these theologians are A-millennial thinkers and I differ from that being a Premillenial thinker. My question to you is where do you stand on this debate? Can you be a reformer and premillenialist? Thanks CS.
While most of the actual Reformers were A-millennial in their eschatology, many of the Puritans were actually Post Millennial in theirs. There are not a few men who were Pre Millennial and Calvinistic, most notably the Bonar Brothers and also Robert Murray McCheyne in Scotland. CH Spurgeon once signed a Confession of Faith that was Pre Millennial. His position is discussed here in great depth. The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony takes the Calvinistic and Pre Millennial line. Many of our ministers in the Free Presbyterian Church are both Calvinistic and Pre Millennialist. These men would be classic Pre Millenialists i.e. non Dispensational and would place the Great Tribulation before the events in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 I can't see how taking a position other than the A-millennial position endangers any of the essential points of Calvinism. The important thing is to have your prophetic views in line with the Scriptures…not necessarily the Reformers or anyone else! My own prophetic views are far from settled. I tend to keep my brush sweeps pretty broad, although I am pretty definite in my view that the Church will go through the Tribulation. (This comes from my more settled doctrine of the Church.) Trust this helps. Thanks again for writing. Colin.

*******************************************************  

RETURN TO CURRENT CALVINISM EMAILS PAGE


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