EMAILS ON OUR CALVINISM ARTICLES
JANUARY 2003 - FEBRUARY 2003
We sometimes get a response to our various articles, especially on
Calvinism. I intend to reproduce some of the emails below, essentially
as received but usually with the sender's name replaced with their
initials (purely to protect their anonymity) The sender's email appears
in black. My response, as ever, in red:
Received 24th February, 2003 Dear Pastor Maxwell: I have read your website against Dave Hunt's book "What Love is This?" and am sending this to you in response to some things you said. I
appreciate you writing and especially the tone of your letter, even
though we differ in our theology and views. I intend to be as gracious,
even if vigorous in my defence of what I believe.
First, let me say that as a moderate Arminian, I liked the book more
than you did. But it is not a great work. Hunt does get sloppy at
points.
Without being hard on you or Hunt,
the book is more than sloppy at points. I regard the book as a complete
hatchet job. It is one thing for someone to disagree with the
Calvinistic position...it is another thing to exhaust every last
channel to misrepresent the position. This disgust works both ways. I
have seen occasions where Calvinists have sought (for example) to
blacken John Wesley etc.,
First and foremost I want to reply to yours (as well as Hunt's)
citation of Norman Douty's work "The Death of Christ." The simple truth
here is you both got it wrong. Hunt misrepresented Douty, and you
simply accepted (without double-checking) Hunt's version of what Douty
said. (An alibi for you may be that the version Hunt cited (the
Williams and Watrous version) is long out of print.) Well
aware that Hunt was at best extremely careless and at worse willing to
abandon every last vestige of decency to paint Calvinism in black
colours, I put a disclaimer in early with the words: "if Hunt is right"
Fair enough, I challenge Douty's position later on...but all
conditional on whether Hunt told the truth in the first place. I
usually am careful on this matter, especially when unable to check
references.
But I am extremely familiar with Douty's book. Why is that? Because
believe it or not, I own the copyright. It is now back in print by a
different publisher and a different title. It is now called "Did Christ
Die Only for the Elect?" (Wipf and Stock Publishers). It can be
purchased on Amazon.com and I certainly recommend it. Without
denying your point or recommendation, it is likely that its contents
are contained in the many anti Calvinist web sites all over the
Internet. I take time to address the issue of the contention that
Christ died universally for all men elsewhere.
Anyway, here is the point. Hunt claimed Douty did a survey of 70 church
leaders who "opposed Calvinism." That is not quite accurate. What Douty
did was survey the writings of 70 church leaders from the first few
centuries of the church to the early 20th century concerning where they
stood on the extent of the atonement. It
might help the understanding of the issue if non Calvinists saw that
Calvinists (including Calvin) believe that Christ's atonement is
sufficient for every last man including the reprobates. In other words,
if the rich man in hell had been numbered among the elect then Christ
would not have suffered one iota more than He did. We believe in the
unlimited worth of the atonement...the "blood of God" (Acts 20:28)
cannot know any denigration of merit or value. Where we do limit the
atonement is not in its value...but in its intention. Calvinists
believe that it was the intention or purpose of the Cross to actually
save the elect and that this purpose will be fulfilled 100% This is in
line with every last purpose of God (Isaiah 46:10/Job 23:13/Proverbs
19:21 etc.,) It is worth pointing out that by taking your
position...you limit the atonement also. You cannot claim that it set
out to do what it intended i.e. save every last sinner ever born.
Indeed you have Christ dying at a historical moment in time for men in
hell [1] many of whom never have heard of the Cross any way and [2]
could not escape hell when Christ was supposedly suffering for their
sins...which they were suffering for as well. We both limit the
atonement, but in different ways. The Calvinist way, however, does no
injustice either to the power or holiness of God.
He provides convincing proof--in the form of quotes-- that ALL of them,
including leaders of the Reformation believed that Christ died for
humanity. That is very significant. I have further found many quotes
from Calvin's Bible Commentary that say he believed Christ died for all
people. Here is one example on Galatians 5:12: "So
far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument; for it is
the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without
exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole human race." Calvin's CD Rom renders it "...for the sins of the world" See below for explanation.
I can give more citations if you would like. I
have somewhere on my hard disk a whole pile of quotations from Calvin
to the same effect. This brings us into the deep waters of the will of
God as it appears to us to be both declarative and preceptive.
Obviously this cannot be explained in a line or two, but suffice to say
this: God reveals Himself as willing to save the sinner and desires to
have the gospel preached to all without exception. In line with every
gospel preacher, the Calvinist will set out the invitation of God for
all to come and drink of the cup of salvation and will plead etc., with
all men without exception to be saved. Without there being a
contradiction, it is evident that God has not decreed to save everyone
who receives the gospel offer. If He has, then (to quote Shedd) He must
be the most frustrated Being in the Universe. Every single minute of
every single hour of every single day He sees His decree smashed to
pieces as Christless souls die and go to hell. Satan really has then
managed to get one over God, again and again and again. On the other
hand, if His counsel really does stand (Proverbs 19:21) and He really
does whatsoever He has pleased (Psalm 115:3) then what actually comes
to pass has been decreed by God. If He decrees to save only His elect
then His purposes are gloriously fulfilled. This leaves us facing the
thought that Christ died to fulfil the decree of God to bring "many
sons" to glory and this must then interpret for us who the "all men"
are in Hebrews 2:9 The "world" admits of several interpretations in the
Bible. Go through a concordance and read into every rendering of "the
world" the following interpretation: "every last son of Adam who ever
lived" and see if you can consistently hold the line with a mono
interpretation.
Anyway, there is also the issue of Charles Spurgeon and where he stood
on these issues connected with Calvinism. Though Spurgeon did claim to
be a Calvinist, a case can be made that he was a nominal one at best
and bordered on being more middle of the road. I went through the CH Spurgeon CD Rom and made great use of the search engine. I have catalogued every mention which Spurgeon made of "Calvin" and "Calvinism" I think it is best to let the man describe himself. All references from the CHS CD Rom include:
"...I confess myself to be to the very backbone a believer in Calvinistic doctrine..." (MTP 21 page485)
"Modern ideas do not affect me in
the slightest. If all men that live or ever shall live should throw up
the old Calvinism, there remains one that will hold it, for this reason
— that he could not hold any other: I must be crushed out of
existence before my convictions of the truth of the doctrines of grace
in the old-fashioned form can ever be taken from me. I am miserable,
wretched, lost if the doctrines of grace be not true." (MTP 30 page 875)
"You remember the day, some of you, when you first learned the doctrines
of grace. When we were first converted, we did not know much about
them, we did not know whether God had converted us, or we had converted
ourselves, but we heard a discourse one day in which some sentences
were used, which gave us the clue to the whole system... I know it was
to me. I can remember well the day and hour, when first I received
those truths in my own soul — when they were burnt into me, as
John Bunyan says — burnt as with a hot iron into my soul; and I
can recollect how I felt I had grown on a sudden from a babe into a man
— that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, from having
got a hold once for all of the clue to the truth of God." (MTP 7 pages
155-156)
I forbear to multiply quotes, but the above hardly qualify him as a
"nominal Calvinist at best" or being "middle of the road" What Spurgeon
did do (and any fair minded Calvinist will follow his example) is
acknowledge that the Arminian has some good points. Even Arthur Pink
acknowledged this. However, to use such to try and weaken their solid
confession of Calvinism is really abusing their desire to be fair. It
is this kind of thing which drives men into opposing camps, making the
weaker ones (wrongly) afraid to acknowledge any good in the other side
lest they be misrepresented.
He did say many things that angered hyper-Calvinists. This is explained
at length in the book, "Election and Predestination" by Samuel Fisk.
(Also available through Amazon.com) in a chapter title "C.H. Spurgeon's
Other Side."He also came under fire from the Arminians some of whom were most
cutting in their remarks. Joseph Parker in an open letter to Spurgeon
said that he hated Spurgeon's Calvinism as much as he hated selfishness
and blasphemy. The links below will show just how solid Spurgeon was in
his Calvinism: *12 proofs Spurgeon believed in Total Depravity --- * 12 proofs
Spurgeon believed in Unconditional Election --- *12 proofs Spurgeon
believed in Particular Redemption --- * 12 proofs Spurgeon believed in
Irresistible Grace --- * 12 proofs Spurgeon believed in the
Perseverance of the Saints --- * CH Spurgeon - a Calvinist to the last
Fisk provides many interesting quotes from Spurgeon. Here is one example:
Inanimate matter obeys the divine law by force, but a human being can
only obey God with his will, since unwilling obedience would be no
obedience at all. There can be no such thing as unwilling love,
unwilling trust, or unwilling holiness. Voluntariness enters into the
essence of a moral act. Having, therefore, so fashioned man, the Lord
doth not forget this fact, but ever treats man as a free agent. The
divine compulsions of His grace are only such as are congruous with a
willing and nilling creature. (Illustrations and Meditations, or
Flowers From a Puritan's Garden, p. 124) I do not have access to this particular writing of Spurgeon. It is not
on the CD Rom and I do not have a hard copy in my library. However,
every Calvinist believes that man is a free agent i.e. that he is free
to follow the dictates of his own heart. God does not regard man as a
robot or a pawn or a puppet. Although man's will is free to follow the
dictates of his own heart...yet man's heart is not free. It is in
terrible bondage to sin (Jeremiah 17:9/Mark 7:22-23/John 8:34) If man's
heart is not free from sin...then neither is man's will. A good
illustration of this might be that a man is free to move within the
confines of a prison. No corridor or room is denied him...but he cannot
get over the wall or through the main gate. This imposition, however,
is self imposed. God did not make man a sinner. Man fell himself and
can only blame himself. Man will always do that which is sinful, unless
restrained by God.
That sounds like something from C.S. Lewis. It hardly squares with the
Calvinist position that man's heart is absolutely bound by sin and that
the only way he can repent is through first being sovereignly
regenerated.
JDW, Glendale, Calif. USA
If we bear in mind the above explanation i.e. that man is not a robot
etc., it doesn't deny it. No man ever came unwillingly to Jesus Christ
for salvation. In regeneration, the Spirit of God enables the sinner to
overcome the shackles of sin which hold him back and he thus becomes
willing in the day of God's power. (Psalm 110:3) Men repent through
grace (Acts 11:18) and believe through grace (Acts 18:27) and such can
therefore only be given them by God. It is evident to us that all men
have not faith (2 Thessalonians 3:2) and so God needs to move first.
That God has not so moved in every last sinner's heart is clear. He has
chosen to leave many in their wilfully chosen sins. He has done so
without compromising any attribute. Thankfully, He has also chosen to
save His elect and this too without any compromise on His part. Thanks for writing. As said before I appreciate the tone of your
letter, even if I disagree with some of its content. I trust that I
have reciprocated this tone. It is good that you have decided to access
Calvin's commentaries for yourself. If his opposers would only do this
instead of relying on what men like Hunt or Cloud have cooked up for them, then
a lot of good would be done. It is awful to see how falsehood gets
replicated so many times. Keep in touch. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 19th February, 2003 It was a great blessing to read your article and came in great help when I wrote on the danger of Hyper Calvinism.
In Christ Jesus, Nick:
http://www.sounddoctrine.net/ Lovely to hear from you. Glad to hear that the various articles on our
site have their uses. Hyper Calvinism is a real danger and as true
Calvinists, we need to put as much ground as we can between us and the
"hypers." Every doctrine has it's "hypers" but truth is always balanced
and needs to be kept so. If the unbalanced lead the unbalanced...they
too will fall into the ditch. I got a quick look at the your page. It is very good...although I think
you have made a mistake re: Arthur Pink. Having read the article
referred to...he is standing for duty faith...not against it. By 1936,
he had already resigned the pastorate of a Gospel Standard type church
in Australia because its articles (unknown to him when he accepted the
position) denied duty faith.
Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 18th February, 2003 Shalom! Hi...Good to hear from you. The internet is an amazing tool for communication. We are getting emails from all over the place.
Thank you so much for your balanced articles on Calvinism. They help to understand the whole thing in a wider perspective.
Thank you and God bless! J.H. (Finland) I think this is the secret...keeping every thing balanced. It is very
easy to get tunnel vision on a particular doctrine (whatever it is) and
lose out in the wider perspective. We are to observe not only the
teaching of Scripture, but also the emphasis of scripture.
I have a question, however. I'd like to know or have a link about how
does the number of Calvinist Christians compare with that of others. To be honest...I don't know. I would imagine that the non Calvinists
are in the majority among evangelical/fundamental Christians. However
we are a sizeable minority and we have deep roots. We are growing! I
think as the fruits of shallow evangelism (usually non Calvinist) come
more to the fore - more Christians will rethink their position and see
the immense beauty of letting God be God and will preach the word
confident (as only a Calvinist consistently can be) that it will not
return unto Him void but will accomplish that whereunto He has sent it. Thanks again for writing. Glad we were able to encourage you. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 14th February, 2003 Colin, Thanks for recently posting a word about the Authorised Version. I have
written before telling you of the spiritual changes in me that began to
occur when I switched to reading and studying the AV Bible. Hi again. Always good to hear from you. Although this page is really
dedicated to emails on the subject of Calvinism, you do touch on it
later on. I'll let the tent ropes out a little on this one.
From the time I was born again until I began using the AV exclusively
for my own study, I primarily used the "well advertised" NIV bible. I
also suffered with many uncertainties in my faith: 1) Was Jesus really
God? - in my heart I knew He was! 2) Is God a Trinity? 3) Do I really
have assurance of my continued salvation? 4) Will all people be saved?
5) Can I believe Genesis? Though I pushed these doubts away and sided
with orthodox Christianity, I still needed solid Scriptural proof and
the NIV kept me questioning. When the footnotes keep telling us that the "oldest and best
manuscripts omit" etc., it sure doesn't do anything for strengthening
our faith. Why not say..."Over 90% of all available manuscripts contain
this verse and only two don't"? This would be a fact...the other is a
fact wrapped in an opinion. While all the above doctrines can be proved
from the NIV, there has been a weakening of the defences and a
foundation laid for further doubt.
I studied Genesis with the help of Dr. Henry Morris' books in order to
teach a high school class, and since he used AV, so did I. I began to
notice my doubts disappearing. So I began using it exclusively. Soon I
was caught in a situation where I needed to defend my use of the AV,
and I realized all I had was a testimony that, not only had it settled
my doubts, but my zeal for evangelism and Bible study had exceeded that
of the days of my initial conversion. So I began studying the issue
with the use of the internet. This answers the charge that no one can understand the AV.
I read many good articles that produced a vast quantity of evidence
that most of the new versions could actually be tied to the
Westcott-Hort New Greek Text as well having been written with the
employment of modern textual criticism techniques. Not only are the W&H (and the NIV) texts corrupt, but the modern
textual criticism techniques as well. We cannot treat the Bible as if
it were just another book.
Now I have the evidence I need and my testimony to defend my use of the
AV Bible. (To my dismay, several of the pastors I know do not have this
information, and have refused to even look at any. However, I do not
make this a major issue.) A wise move. I would make it an issue if I were in a church that had a
decided stand on the issue and someone tried to weaken that stand.
Outside of that, you have to move very carefully, certainly maintaining
your own stance, but recognising that others do not see it quite the
way you do. Sometimes you come under attack for your position, even
when you don't make it an issue.
The best article (actually it is a book) I read was by E. F. Hills
entitled The King James Version Defended. It may be read or downloaded
from several websites. I downloaded and printed this book out last week and read it while
travelling the length of Ireland on the train. It is very good. He
doesn't paint himself into a corner and leaves room for minor changes
to the AV while not surrendering to doubt.
I must also note, that as I was reading his Chapter 9, I finally
accepted the Doctrines of Grace. Scriptures that I had been studying
concerning the cases for and against "Calvinism" came to heart and
mind, and I suddenly knew which case was Biblical. David Cloud often refers to this book and endorses it, but he would do
well to think about the bit concerning the hyper Calvinists missing the
point and the Arminians also. I have a good book here by a man called
George Bishop. Although it is entitled "The Doctrines of Grace" and
deals with Calvinism yet it tackles the modern version issue also and
comes out strongly for the AV. Hill's book reminded me of Bishop's
effort.
(This also brought another increase to my spiritual zeal for evangelism
and Bible study, but that is another long story that has no end as of
yet!)
This answers the charge that Calvinism kills off evangelistic zeal and
has a deadening effect upon the soul. These charges are as nonsensical
as the charge that no one can understand the AV.
Please post more information about the Authorized Version on your
website. There are probably others, like me, who have yet to experience
the joy of having solid Scriptural evidence for orthodox doctrine that
opens up new levels of Spiritual zeal.
LICJ, JVereen (Richmond, VA, USA)
I'm afraid it is much easier (I find) to write about Calvinism than it is
to deal with the various issues about the AV and textual criticism.
However, with care, there is a lot of good sites out there. I think the
Trinitarian Bible Society site is a very balanced one - certainly very
reliable. It would be worth your while contacting them and buying the
various booklets they have produced on various matters (Some are
online) Although in booklet form, there is enough of them to really
equip you for the battle.
Glad the site is of blessing to you, Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 8th February, 2003 Dear Colin, I have been reading the "Open Letter"(s) of James White and Dave Hunt
concerning Dave Hunt's book What Love Is This. I quit with disgust. I
wanted to write both men and tell them just what this typical Christian
thinks about their argument.
There is a ever present danger in debate i.e. that the ante gets raised
and voices (or their literary equivalent) with them. It can be very
hard to debate such important issues in a cool, calm and collected
manner. It's probably best done in a one to one situation with no one
looking on. I think sometimes (and I condemn myself here) that fingers
can be too nifty on a computer keyboard. Playing to the gallery can
also play a part especially when there is a website to keep going.
Hunt accuses White of elitism because of White's challenge to Hunt's
lack of education in Greek. (Hunt used Greek to make points for his
argument, and he used it wrongly; one time he even concluded wording
that is only found in the New World Translation (!!) siding against all
other English translations.) It is not hard to discern the use of the various debating tactics. If
Hunt knew NT Greek, he would doubtless make use of it also. Since he
can't, then the next step is to denigrate White's use of it i.e. brand
it as elitism. I tend to regard debating tactics as mere wrapping
paper...you quickly tear it away to get at the substance. If it is all
wrapping paper then I turn my attentions elsewhere. Life is too short
and precious to waste it on such debates.
White charges Hunt with misinforming his readers through abridged
quotations from Spurgeon and others and his wrong conclusions of what
is said and really does come off as an elitist. Hunt did a complete hatchet job on Calvin and Spurgeon. He has lost all
credibility as far as I am concerned. Those who endorse him cannot be
far behind him either in the credibility ratings.
I side with White concerning Calvinism, but I am disgusted with his -
yes! - elitism. (I have also read other articles he (White) has written
including his arguments concerning English Bible versions levelled
against the KJV.)
White is a man I know little about. I haven't been following his debate
with Hunt at all. To brand someone as an elitist is really a subjective
thing. Am I elitist? Am I pontificating here, commenting on various
matters as if I were Sir Oracle? And having the cheek to put it all up
on a internet site? Or am I just passing comment on various issues as
any one with an interest can do? I certainly would not want to be
elitist.
I think it teaches us a vital lesson. Sometimes those with the wrong
views have the best approach contrasting with those with the right
views and the wrong approach. If this is the case, we can learn from
both. The KJV debate is, of course, another matter...which I don't particularly want to go into here.
Hunt is either unable to understand what he reads, or is making
comments on things he has never read, thus he appears unintelligent or
dishonest.
Either a knave or a fool., depending on your depth of charity and/or
naiveté. I am content to say that he is totally unreliable...for
whatever reason.
After reading several debating letters I became disgusted: I think both
men are elitist, neither has an easy to find Email address (they may
not have one that any Christian can find), both are depicted as being
VERY (!!) busy on their respective supporting websites. I really wanted
to tell them how I felt. I do not think either man could reach me with
the gospel now, nor am I now willing to use any of their materials for
study. Learn to separate the precious from the vile in whatever site you visit.
Having read your responses toward those who think differently, I think
you could reach anyone with the gospel. I am praying that I may become
at least as competent as you in the gospel presentation. (I am not
trying to flatter you, God is manifested in you and He gets the glory,
but I think you fulfil the admonishment "to let this mind be in you"
from Phil. 2:5.)
LICJ, JV (Richmond, VA, USA) If only...! There are a few pages in this site where I lose it and "let
rip" as they say. However it is better overall to sit tight and
graciously defend. Where the most awful things are alleged against what
Calvin believed...simply ask for proof. I find that in many occasions,
the attacker hardly has a clue where to even start looking. There is an
awful lot of duplication out there. One merely repeating the platitudes
of another. A good friend of mine quoted Calvin as believing since you
were either chosen to be born again or not and therefore you just have
to sit back and do nothing. I queried where Calvin said this. Unable to
find a quote, this was changed to a summary of Calvin's position. All I
had to do was look up Calvin's comments on those Bible verses which
distinctly teach the responsibility of the sinner i.e. Isaiah 55:6 and
Matthew 11:12 and there Calvin distinctly warned against those who
would just sit back and do nothing. What have I lost by being gracious
but thorough? If I had "gone to town" as they say, the issue could have
been buried in counter allegation after counter allegation. As it
stands, in this case Calvin has been exonerated of a position he never
took and the other website is marred by a gross inconsistency. Thanks for writing. Colin. See also Criticising Calvinism.
*******************************************************
Received 7th February, 2003 Dear Brother, You ate up my afternoon, it seems, and I am not even annoyed with you! Glad that you have been enjoying and using the site as you indicate
below. The Internet is a useful tool...although like everything else,
in moderation. I once read a warning about the danger of Pastors
spending time accruing information which, although useful in itself, is
not really needed. However, if the Lord blessed your afternoon and used
the website to encourage you, who am I to pour cold water on it?
I send you greetings from Northwestern Romania, where I pastor a small,
yet growing independent, evangelical, and yes, "Calvinist" church. We
do not use the word 'Calvinist' a great deal, however, as in our
country to say that you are such, labels you 'ethnically', as being
Hungarian Reformed, and therefore liberal. The term "Calvinist" is just a convenient title. Spurgeon spoke to the
effect that he cared nothing for the name but that the doctrines were
everything to him.
Our congregation includes perhaps one-third ethnic Hungarians, yet the
majority are ethnic Romanians. We simply try to teach the truth of the
Bible as we understand it, and often admit that we know less today that
in years gone by, but we do through His Grace, know 'Him' better than
ever before. This is one of the many paradox's of Christianity...the more you know,
the less you know. The world can't figure that one out but the Bible
student can.
Today I had a conversation with an American Fundamentalist Baptist
missionary. He can speak in a very 'anti-Calvinist' manner, and did so
today! Yet the fellow does not even consider that just because we, too,
call ourselves 'Independent Baptists' (for lack of a better term,
perhaps), we are Calvinists. The term "Independent Baptist" can be a very wide term. I perceive that
there are many strains of Independent Baptists... just as there are
many strains of Presbyterians. No one group can lay hold to the
term...although some try.
One strange thing is, people like him will 'kill', so to speak, over
the issue of eternal security. This is sad, because I might like to
tell them to 'be careful'. :) I assume by this, you mean that while you are urging caution while he
takes the "Once saved always saved-no-matter-what-you-do" doctrine. I
go along with the line of "Be careful" I believe: "Faith saves and
keeps...presumption damns."
Anyhow this conversation led me in a different 'direction than normal
in web-surfing today. Instead of looking for 'reformed' and 'calvinist'
sites to read from, I typed in 'anti calvinist' at the Google search
engine and found you!
I have several pages of interest to those who are anti Calvinists
including one on how to criticise Calvinism properly. It must be
counter productive to assume to rebuke someone when you haven't really
a clue what they actually believe. Ignorance is no platform from which
to speak.
I [see you are] 'related' to Dr. Paisley's ministry. We are not,
however we certainly know of him, in that my family and I tend to visit
Ulster for about one week each Autumn. There, we always visit a
supporting Presbyterian Church in Portrush. A couple of years ago, the
Assistant Minister there moved near Dublin to minister at a small
church. I work under the auspices of the Free Presbyterian Church. Dr Paisley is the Moderator.
In early 1995 a commercial/political 'force' was trying to remove us
from a state-owned store-front building we had leased for five years.
Dr. Paisley was informed of the situation - by an Ulster charismatic! -
and he (Dr. Paisley) wrote a letter on our behalf to the Romanian
government. I will NEVER forget this act of kindness. We lost 'that'
battle, and a bar is in that location to this day. However, now, after
much suffering, we enjoy a building to worship God in.
Dr Paisley, of course, has no sympathies with the Charismatic movement
at all...but is big hearted enough to help any gospel cause.
Our seven year-old adopted son is named 'Colin'; our having named him
after a dear friend in Ulster. I thought it a good name to introduce
into Romania! Please pray for Romania, as I pray for ALL of Ireland. (I
am reportedly, as much as 25% Irish (Ulsterman)!) Will do. The FPC has connections with some Baptist folk in Timosara and have brought over some Romanian orphans etc.,
Prayer Request: You mention being 'TR' at your website. The
London-based Trinitarian Bible Society has released a new 'revision' of
an archaic Romanian transcript that was said to be TR-based. I
anticipate receiving an 'evaluation copy' within days. Romania needs a
good translation. I must 'correct' the version we use in almost every
message. Please pray with me that this new one will prove to be a true
light in the darkness that surrounds us in Romania. The TBS are a very reliable Bible Society indeed. I trust that the new revision will be greatly blessed of God.
Well, may our Lord bless you and keep you - as He always does! In Him,
Fritz Hoffman, pastor/Director, Couriers for Christ, Baia Mare -
Romania:
http://www.CouriersforChrist.org Thanks for your note. It is always an encouragement to know that the
site is being accessed from far and wide and of use to those battling
for the truth of the gospel. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 6th February, 2003 Colin: Continue to love all the great material you have made available on your
website. I noticed that you had a link to my site
(http://www.monergism.com) near the bottom of your home page but the
link is broken. It looks like you forgot to add the ".html" after the
URL. Thanks, John, for your email. Sorry about the broken link. I have fixed
it, although being on the update page and "near the bottom" it will
soon be disappearing off the screen altogether. However, I have added
your URL to the links page which will give it a more
permanent listing. I enjoyed your web site and indeed I have it book
marked under "Favourites" If any one else notices broken links... let
me know. They are easily fixed.
I attend a PCA church here in the US and am very pleased to see the faithful articles you continue to write. Keep them coming. I'll do my best. It's all pretty piecemeal. I do enjoy it though...but I really am busy in other things.
I have also added quite a few of your links to my page on Charles Spurgeon - have a look.
Hopefully this will send some traffic your way.
Blessings to you and your family,John Hendryx, http://www.monergism.com Yes...I noticed this recently. Appreciated. Colin.
*******************************************************
See the email immediately below to make sense of this one!
Received 23rd January, 2003 Greetings in Christ,Maybe I should have said that he preaches a false gospel, that cannot
save. But he (D---) is thinking about agreeing with Greg Boyd on the
issue of Open Theism, and he has told me that he does not even agree
with Arminians; but leans towards Semi-Pelagianism. I am concerned
about him. God Bless, Love in Christ, C.F. D------- is not receptive to the truth of what we believe and appears
to have his own built in mechanism to resist it. There is not really
that much that can be done about this. In such circumstances, I think
the best way is to show by practice that his worst fears about
Calvinism are unfounded, at least in your life. For example, if
Calvinists are seen evangelising, our opponents can hardly charge us
(justly anyway) with having no concern for souls etc., The best
argument in such circumstances is a holy life...for such is the fruit
of a true belief in the Doctrines of Grace. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 21st January, 2003, Greetings in Christ, Hi, Thanks again for your email. Last Sunday at church, D------ told me that he thinks he has spoken
with you before. He said he had spoken with a Colin from Ireland.
He might well have done so. I'm not very good at remembering names, and
especially when I do not have faces to associate with them.
If you want to reply to this, you may.
As before, for the sake of space, I omit to include the original
objections from your friend. Unlike before, I will decline to answer
him this time. There seems little point. When before, I supplied a
pertinent quote from Calvin,* which proved him wrong, he simply
dismissed it as Calvin "tap dancing" so there seems little point taking
the time to find others...even when he desires "to raise the ante"
somewhat. There is no point "raising the ante" for if running with the
footmen weary him...how then will he contend with the horses? Suffice
to say that I stand over what I said. If he should feel that he has
gained the victory in this dispute, then he is welcome to take whatever
comfort he can from his feelings.
* "He [Christ] again reproaches them that it is nothing but their own
malice that hinders them from becoming partakers of the life offered in
the Scriptures; for when he says that they will not, he imputes the
cause of their ignorance and blindness to wickedness and obstinacy.
And, indeed, since he offered himself to them so graciously, they must
have been wilfully blind; but when they intentionally fled from the
light, and even desired to extinguish the sun by the darkness of their
unbelief, Christ justly reproves them with greater severity." (Calvin
putting the blame on the sinner in John 5:40 yet when I say that
"Calvinism puts the blame on the sinner" this is dismissed as
"FALSE!!!")
I am very upset that D------ does not worship the true God of the
Bible; but one that wants to save, but cannot. Love in Christ, C.F
I think there is a great danger in both sides of the Calvinistic
controversy contending that the God of "the other side" is not the true
God. If we are not worshipping the "true God of the Bible" then we are
worshipping a false god and that is gross idolatry. This means that
those who contend for this very extreme viewpoint must unchurch and
therefore damn some of the greatest Christians who ever lived.
According to this viewpoint, John Wesley must be in hell or his great
friend George Whitefield. When all is said and done, we are disagreeing
over details of how God is seen to work out His purposes. Both
Calvinistic Christians and Non Calvinistic Christians cry out to God
for salvation, recognising in fact (if not in doctrine) that we cannot
save ourselves and that God Himself must save us by free grace alone. I
feel this is best expressed within the Calvinistic interpretation of
Scriptures. Obviously your friend will disagree. If I were you, I would
move on to other matters with your friend, agreeing to disagree until
we all come into the perfect knowledge of Heaven. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 21st January, 2003
Brother:
As a Calvinist I think you let David Cloud off the hook too easily. The
man is an enemy of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace and Calvin would
have rebuked him soundly...probably calling him a barking dog...which
he is. People like him that resent the sovereignty of God...EXALT MAN
AND HIS ALLEGED "FREE-WILL". Calvin probably would have a called him a barking dog as you say.
However, I'm not Calvin. I do rebuke Cloud on this web site and I email
him from time to time to point out where he misrepresents us. Just this
week in another debate, he complains how he got lumped with Ruckman on
the KJV only issue. He complains that this is unfair and accuses his
opponent of using a debating tactic. I emailed him to point out that he
does the same thing himself i.e. he lumps Calvinists and hyper
Calvinists together. He simply emailed me back denying my charge. Which
reduces his credibility as far as I am concerned. And that, for him, is
self defeating. I try to keep to the doctrinal arguments rather than
get into name calling. It is my experience that name calling lets more
people of the hook than doctrinal arguments. I have watched many a boy
slip away from the main issue and debates that could have gone
somewhere i.e. exposed the fallacies of the non Calvinist position just
collapsed as insults were piled on insults.
Lets warn the faithful about men like him. I agree...as far as Calvinism is concerned. However, I do not treat
Cloud as an unsaved person. He might exasperate me at times with his
persistent caricature of Calvinism and especially with his endorsement
of Hunt's reckless book "What Love Is This?" but I have no reason to
doubt his salvation. I believe in the Doctrines of Grace with all my
heart...but I do not make them an essential belief for entrance into
the Kingdom of God. Or put it another way...I do not believe that
Arminianism is a "damnable heresy" (2 Peter 2:1) I tend to keep the
"barking dogs" comments for those apostates who are trying to bring
their "damnable heresies" into the church.
For the Defense of the Unborn and the Elderly, JP James 1:27 Free Grace--NOT FREE WILL ! Thanks for writing! Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 13th January, 2003 Thanks for your response Colin, I have no problem with any of it.
Glad that you enjoyed the response.
Your email from 'A Reformed Presbyterian Brother' on 10 Jan 02,
interested me too, so I took a very quick peep at the website he gave.
It seems to me to be yet more misrepresentation of the Calvinist view.
In fact the misrepresentation was so frequent that I gave up!
Regards, GC
The site you refer to is quite extensive and I didn't get looking at it
all. However, as you say, it is flawed in its understanding of
Calvinism in the first place. To my mind, any writer who fails to
recognise that Calvinists do believe in the responsibility of man and
the free offer of the gospel and which omits to add that we believe
man's inability to believe is self imposed because of sin does not know
what he is talking about! This must greatly diminish the worth of his
contribution. It was with this in mind that I actually put together a
page on "What Non Calvinists should know about Calvinists" and even
"How to criticise Calvinism" I am so confident that true Calvinism can
stand up to any review...because it is scriptural. I review the site
referred to on another page. Thanks for writing. Keep in touch! Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 10th January, 2003 Hi Colin, Thanks for your website article 'Quotations of C H Spurgeon used in
Dave Hunt's book, "What Love Is This?"'. It is very well and clearly
presented. Not having read Dave Hunt's book, ( I am saving my money for
his next book jointly written by James White!), I was very interested
in Dave Hunt's comments. Thank you for making them available.
Thanks for your email. I hope the next book will not get bogged down. A
lot will hang on James White being able to keep Hunt to the issues at
hand. My views on Hunt are all over the Calvinistic content of this
site and I need not repeat them again. It would be an interesting
exercise to see if he modifies some of his more extreme statements or
takes on board the many misperceptions which have been pointed out to
him. Apparently he is sticking to his guns that Spurgeon regarded
Limited Atonement as an heresy. (Refuted here) If he continues in the
same vein as the last time, then he will prove himself to be a complete
waste of time and (dare I say it) a liar. You can only really play the
"Sorry-I-made-a-mistake-card" once unless you plead complete inability
to grasp the obvious...in which case authoring a book is the last thing
you want to do.
One little comment of yours I would draw your attention to. It is "We
do not believe that men are irresistibly dragged to Christ". I do not
know Greek, but understand from Dr R C Sproul that the word 'drawn' (in
drawn by the father) is the same word for 'dragged'. therefore could it
not be said that men are irresistibly dragged to Christ?
My knowledge of NT Greek is very limited. I rely mostly on the various
lexicons etc., which are widely available (and which, I'm sure, many a
Greek scholar still consults!) I notice that the Greek words ("helkuo"
and "helko")are consistently translated "drawn" in the AV. Strong gives
one of the meanings as "dragged" which would, at first sight, be
consistent with its meaning in John 21:6/21:11 (relating to a fishing
net) and in Acts 16:19/21:30/James 2:6 where believers were drawn out
or dragged before judgement seats. However, I note W.E. Vine (a non
Calvinist) makes a difference between "helkuo" and another Greek word
"suro" which also appears in John 21 (v8) According to Vine "helkuo"
carries a less violent meaning seeing it is also used to signify the
drawing by inward power, by divine impulse (John 6:44/12:32) -
something which cannot be said of "suro" Vine sees "helkuo" as carrying
the thought of being vigorous and I think this best describes the
Calvinistic position. I certainly was not dragged unwillingly to
Christ. I came because I wanted to come. I wanted to come because my
will was vigorously though graciously enabled to be willing by the
power of the Holy Spirit. To use the word "drag" to a non Calvinist
will only conjure up thoughts of God bringing men against their will as
opposed to bringing men through their renewed wills. Enough of them
have this misperception even without use of this word. True, we may
ask...why then is the word "suro" not used in Acts 16:19/21:30 etc., We
can only conclude that the Holy Spirit was content to convey the
thought of a vigorous action even though "suro" is used elsewhere in
similar circumstances. Is this a case where our theology/experience is
being used to decide the finer meanings of a New Testament word?
Well...try and imagine the scenario of men being brought unwillingly to
Christ, violently pulled into the Kingdom of God, all the while wishing
they were somewhere else. It doesn't add up does it? By going for the
above explanation, we can reconcile theology and experience together
and do justice to both.
Regards and best wishes, G.C. Thanks for your note. I particularly enjoyed the research for the answers. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 10th January, 2003 Dear Sir, On your website, you had
requested readers to submit links to anti-Calvinist websites for your
perusal.
Thanks for your note. On the page in question, I have a space with the
following: "Reserved for a well researched and accurate anti
Calvinistic site. Please email me!" I think we have enough of the
hatchet job sites which betrays the ignorance of the writer more than
overthrows the faith of the Calvinist.
Here is one that I found to be comprehensive; unconvincing, but comprehensive nonetheless.
Sincerely, A Reformed Presbyterian Brother
I got a quick look at this site and I note that there are several
pages. I intend to examine them in the next few weeks...although
attempting a point by point reply will lie beyond me due to other
commitments here. However I intend to give my analysis in due time.
[Note: Analysis now available]
*******************************************************
RETURN TO LATEST CALVINIST EMAILS PAGE