JANUARY TO NOVEMBER
2006
Received 12-11-06 Sir: On your page concerning the free offer of the gospel (http://www.corkfpc.com/freeoffercalvinists.html)
you have a link to the Highway for Errol Hulse and evangelicalism.
unfortunately the url ends as a 404 error. Here is the URL : http://www.the-highway.com/Evangelism_Hulse.html Your
code is this: <a style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);" href="www.the-highway.com/Evangelism_Hulse"><www.the-highway.com/Evangelism_Hulse</a> I
would suggest you modify it thusly: <a href="http://www.the-highway.com/Evangelism_Hulse.html"
target=_blank>The Local Church and Evangelism</a> The
target=_blank will allow it to open in another page thus allowing the viewer
to keep the originating page. On a separate note I must thank you that
you have place the free offer page on the Internet it is good to see so many
great Calvinists proclaiming the gospel as God meant
it.Yours, PDN, Knowing
therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men. Servabo
Fidem
Hi, thank you for your note and
for pointing out the broken link. I'm afraid HTML language to me is
indeed "a strange tongue" but I have fixed the link to do what it
purports to do i.e. link. I feel very strongly on the free offer of the
gospel and I shudder to think what my preaching in evangelism
would be like without it. Thanks again for your encouraging note.
Colin.
*******************************************************
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.
*******************************************************
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, DB, Pta, 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. T
hanks 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