Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org
EMAILS ON OUR CALVINISM ARTICLES
MARCH 2003 - APRIL 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 26-4-03 Colin, You wrote: "However,
he [David Cloud] has found time to update his original article on a
number of occasions since. I have looked whether this particularly
offending part been corrected. I was greatly surprised that it wasn't.
I have emailed Mr Cloud again pointing out that it is inconsistent with
his objective study to allow this error to remain in the critique.
Calvin is being judged for a position which he did not take. Mr Cloud
seems quite happy to let this misrepresentation of Calvin blot his
article. To me, this compromises his whole objective." Hi...I
am greatly disappointed in David Cloud's treatment of Calvinism. As I
say elsewhere, fair enough to take another interpretation, but to
attack Calvin over the free offer is ludicrous. It was this allegation
of Cloud's which sparked off my study both on Calvin on the free offer
and other Calvinists on the free offer also. I knew it was wrong and it
did not take much effort to show just how wrong it really is. I think
when he endorsed Hunt's book, then he lost any credibility as an
authority on these things which he ever had. I have used his site for
several purposes of research, but I always get my facts checked
elsewhere. To me, he is basically unreliable when it comes to
information. One dead fly spoils the whole ointment. We all can make
mistakes. This is pardonable...but once they are pointed out, we are
duty bound to correct them. To let them stand is wrong.
[Particulalrly Serious allegation against David Cloud which I will not be repeating here] It
is here, you and I will probably part company. I am not a great Cloud
fan. I think I have made this clear. His treatment of Calvinism, as
said, detracts from his reliability ratings. However, I find it very
hard to accept your allegation. Whatever Cloud's faults may be, I do
believe that his desires are towards holiness. I appreciate his stand
on many issues, especially against the apostasy of the ecumenical
movement.
Cloud habitually lies, wrests, and misrepresents scripture and
everything else. He is a self-righteous hypocrite who condemns all
sinner without ever offering them a viable means of deliverance, just
like the wicked Pharisees of old.
I think you err here. If you look
at Cloud's site, you will find plenty of references to the gospel way
of salvation, both on his own site and on others. To be honest, I do
not know where you are coming from. In condemning Cloud on some matters
- and I am not interested in personalities here - be careful that you
do not fall into the same trap yourself. I have no time for that kind
of thing and I have mounted your email on this site purely to let
others know where I stand.
In short, Cloud is another manifestly unregenerate impostor, and while
I appreciate your defence of the faith, I thought you should be aware
of the man. S_____. My defence of
the faith runs far deeper than defending the Doctrines of Grace. There
is a scriptural procedure to go through if and when a brother offends.
If you have not initiated proceedings to give your allegations
credibility, then there is no point writing to me. Thank you for your
appreciation of my defence of the faith. That is appreciated. However,
on the other matter, which (in my view) mars your email, I trust that
you will suffer the word of exhortation. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 26-4-03 Here is a new anti-Calvinist web page
for you to check out. I think you will find this very interesting. I
have heard the owner of this web page explain Romans 9 and he seems to
completely misrepresent what we believe. In His love & grace, John McCarty Pastor/FFBC Thanks
for your note. If and when I get a chance I'll have a look at it,
although things are very busy here at the moment. I am in the middle of
moving my study and getting a new computer. This misrepresentation
thing really bothers me. Fair enough, we have differences of
interpretation, but why the misrepresentation? Sometimes it is just
shoddy workmanship...people blasting off on something they have never
really researched...just parroting someone else who haven't done their
homework either. What does it achieve? It neither converts the
Calvinists nor does it really work with those outside the Calvinist
camp who are interested in learning more. Site reviewed here. Thanks again for writing. *******************************************************
Received 26-4-03 I'm not sure of who you are but I have been looking at
this election thing and have come to understand that I have been
elected or chosen from the beginning. Hi...thanks
for writing. It is good that you have been giving a bit of study to the
doctrine of election etc., From your comments below, I see that you
very wisely have kept it balanced. Election, like any teaching, can
become dangerous if too much emphasise is placed upon it at the expense
of other doctrines.
Now I have always been taught the "Great Commission" and now that I
know I've been chosen by God, I best be getting to work winning souls
for the Lord. I think Calvinism and the "Great Commission" go hand in
hand meaning one complements the other and what you are saying
convinces me even more. In Christ, RC They
do! I can't quite understand why some folk say that they don't. Why
should they? If there was no election, there would be no conversions
following evangelistic services. It seems that some want God to ordain
the means but not the end. If I thought that this was true...if it were
all left to chance or the sinner's supposed free will, I think my
evangelistic knees would droop and my evangelistic hands would hang
down.Thanks again for writing.
*******************************************************
Received 15-4-03 Hi brother, I appreciate your help regarding the questions I have. How do you understand Luke 23:34 "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
Were all the Jews and Romans forgiven all their sins, forgiven only for
crucifying Christ, or does this apply only to the elect? Since
I believe this was an effectual prayer, then I would apply it only to
the elect of God among those who were crucifying Him. The language,
like the atonement, was pretty definite. Did Christ pray this prayer
and the Father not answer it? We know from elsewhere that he did not
pray for the world (the non elect) but only those who had or would come
to faith in the word of God (John 17)
If the nation of Israel only is meant and they were forgiven for
crucifying Christ, why then did Peter later accuse them of having
crucified Christ? Thanks for your insights, WK All
for whom Christ offered this prayer, I believe, came to Him for
salvation. However, a man needs to be reminded of his sin in order to
repent of it (Luke 5:31-32) and so Peter indicts his hearers of their
crime, in order that they might cry out for salvation...as indeed they
did in Acts 2:37 Thanks for writing again. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 4-4-03 Hi brother, I would like to ask you a couple more questions to help me clarify my thinking.
Fire ahead... I hope I can help. Good to hear from you again.
1.Why did God or would He need to harden Pharaoh's heart, if Pharaoh
already was depraved and non elect? I admit, I have no good answer for
this one. Sometimes in the Bible,
the one who allows something to be is done is credited with the doing
of it. This lead Joseph, for example, to claim that it was not
ultimately his brethren who had sold him into slavery but God (Genesis
45:8) i.e. although they did do so (Genesis 45:4) yet they only did so
because God allowed it...a point he takes up again in Genesis 50:20
When God is said to harden Pharaoh's heart, I believe this means that
he left Pharaoh to his own devices, withdrew any restraining influences
of the Spirit of God and left him therefore void of any hope. It is
important to remember that such hardening is judicial. Pharaoh is being
judged for being a sinner. Such hardening did not make Pharaoh to be a
sinner, but merely confirmed him in it.
2. It seems we believe that a person must be regenerated before they
believe in Christ. The Arminian comes back with verses like John 20:31
"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his
name." They say this verse proves we believe before we have life,
rather than we have life before we believe. Can you help me understand
better? I imagine you have heard these many times before, but I would
appreciate your input. Thanks. Men
by nature are dead in trespasses and in sins (Ephesians 2:1) and dead
men cannot repent or believe except through grace (Acts 11:18/18:27)
This being the case, they must be given life in order to believe. The
soul thus regenerated will infallibly believe in Jesus Christ. This is
effectively taught in the same gospel of John (3:3) Nicodemus was told
that he needed to be born again or born from above (as opposed to being
born from within) It is taught again in John 1:12-13 where those who
received and believed Christ were born...of God. As John draws his
gospel to a close, he addresses those unbelievers (unsaved) among his
readers. His purpose in writing was that they might believe in the
Person of Christ and in so doing they will have life through or in His
name. This is life as opposed to condemnation and death (Cp John 5:24)
The life given in regeneration which enables the sinner to savingly
believe starts to develop and it becomes evident that its possessor
really is a Christian with all the evidences we have come to look for
being made clear. It is my experience that Arminians (as you call them)
fear that Calvinists are giving life to sinners who might not believe.
The life given in regeneration (as stated above and repeated here for
emphasise) will not break down. There are no still birth's or abortions
in God's regenerative operations. Those who are regenerated will come
to Christ.
In His grace, WK Could you please notify me via email that you have answered? Then I can go to your site. Thanks. I
will. I can only answer these kind of emails through the medium of our
website as it justifies the time that it takes to make reply. It means
that we all benefit. Thanks again for writing.
*******************************************************
Received 2-4-03 To whom it may concern, I am a high school student in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and am currently writing a thesis paper
for my history class on Calvinism, its fundamental principles, and the
basis behind both supporting and rebuking it as true church doctrine. Thanks
for your note. I appreciate you writing to me with your query. I
believe that I can help you, under God, to come to an understanding of
the Doctrines of Grace a.k.a. Calvinism.
As a Moravian, my church does not preach Calvinism as the only means of
salvation, and I'm not particularly sure if my denomination even has a
stand supporting or refuting it. I
know little about the Moravian Church. On an important point, I don't
know of any church, even the most Calvinistic ones, which preach that
Calvinism is the only means of salvation. In line with all Christians,
we preach that Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation. We don't
even believe that a man needs to be a Calvinist to be saved and admit
that there are many Christians who do not believe these doctrines.
This, however, does not make them to be untrue. The ultimate test of
their truthfulness is whether or not they can be reconciled with the
Bible...which I believe they can.
As you can see, without even a church basis on which to write my paper,
I am thoroughly lost within my topic. Also, with a lack of Presbyterian
churches in the area, there are no church sources in my city from which
to gather information supporting Calvinism. Have you tried the Free Presbyterian Church which meets in Winston-Salem?
The two questions (and these are probably really naive of me) that I
have about this "Doctrine of Grace" or whatever are these: If a
person's path is predetermined, and they are not accordingly chosen by
God to be saved, then why should they bother to be Christian at all, or
be a part of any religion for that matter? This
is a good question with far reaching consequences...yet it is very
easily answered. You will notice that it is built on an "if" and this
"if" is the key to the whole. No sinner can tell whether they have been
chosen by God or not. The only time a man can know whether or not he is
chosen is when he comes savingly to Jesus Christ i.e. when he calls
upon the name of the Lord. The question then is: Who has the invitation
to call upon the name of the Lord? Romans 10:13 assures us that such
belongs to the "Whosoever" i.e. every last person, whether chosen or
not. You cannot limit the word in any way. If a man really wants to
saved from sin, then he may confidently apply for the mercy of God.
None who came were turned away. When he comes, he may know that he is
among the elect.
Also, if a person is already predetermined to go to heaven, then why
should they bother to uphold Christian morals and such in this life?
This is really the flip side of
the first question. Again...it is built on the "if" principle. As
above, a man can only know that He is predetermined to go to Heaven
when he comes to Christ for salvation. If he is saved, then he will
show all the evidences of the Christian life and this includes holiness
of life etc., If a man does not show the evidences, he has little right
to conclude that he is saved.
Again, I apologise if it sounds like I'm trying to be confrontational
about this, but these big parts of Calvinism I really don't understand
at all. I appreciate your spirit
of enquiry. If you analyse the answers, you will see that in response
to your questions which emphasise the sovereignty of God, I balance it
all up by emphasising the responsibility of man. The two must run in
tandem to preserve a balanced view.
If you could write back and tell me the answers to these crucial questions it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and God Bless. Sincerely, A Befuddled Moravian. I
trust that I have been of some help to you. If you have any more
enquiries, feel free to write back or contact Rev. Reggie Kimbro at
your local Free Presbyterian Church. He is nearer at hand than I am and
perhaps a face to face meeting or a telephone conversation will prove
most profitable. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 25-3-03 Dear brother Colin Maxwell. Clearly volumes have
been written about this subject [Limited Atonement] and I no desire to
begin another with the following few questions. Thank you for your note. I appreciate you writing.
Briefly, I hold to 4 points of Calvinism to the stake and I could hold
to particular atonement if we define it as "sufficient for all,
efficient for the elect." Calvin
himself held to this position regarding the atonement being sufficient
for all men but efficient only to the elect. He says so in his
commentary on 1 John 2:2, although he did not think that it was
appropriate to that particular verse.
However, the position requires much more than that, and so these few
passages, observations, and questions. As a side note, I have asked
other Particular Atonement proponents to answer these questions, I get
a lot of "ink" but few answers. Hopefully
we will save on the ink and supply the answers, although it is usually
takes less time to ask questions than it takes to answer them.
THE ISSUE OF BELIEF AND UNBELIEF
"And they said, Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16:31)
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time
his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him
which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:25,26)
And consider the consequences of unbelief: "He
that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth
not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
(John 3:36)
But, exactly what is it you need to believe about the Son in order to
get eternal life? You can't just believe he lived and died, everyone
lives and dies. You can't just believe he did lots of miracles, or was
a good teacher. You can't even just believe he was God. You must
believe a particular and specific thing about Jesus to receive
salvation, you must believe he died for your sins. You must believe he
atoned for your sins. Not the sins of the whole world, you must have a
particular belief in his particular atonement for you. This is the only
way to get salvation. The gospel is not universal, it is particular.
You must have a personal belief, not a universal belief.
Spurgeon takes up your very question and says: "I
have sometimes thought when I have heard addresses from some revival
brethren who had kept on saying time after time, "Believe, believe,
believe," that I should like to have known for myself what it was we
were to believe in order to our salvation. There is, I fear, a great
deal of vagueness and crudeness about this matter. I have heard it
often asserted that, if you believe that Jesus Christ died for you, you
will be saved. My dear hearer, do not be deluded by such an idea. You
may believe that Jesus Christ died for you, and may believe what is not
true; you may believe that which will bring you no sort of good
whatever. That is not saving faith. The man who, has saving faith
afterwards attains to the conviction that Christ died for him, but it
is not of the essence of saving faith. Do not get that into your head,
or it will ruin you. Do not say, "I believe that Jesus Christ died for
me," and because of that feel that you are saved. I pray you to
remember that the genuine faith that saves the soul has for its main
element — trust — absolute rest of the whole soul —
on the Lord Jesus Christ to save me, whether he died in particular or
in special to save meet or not, and relying, as I am, wholly and alone
on him, I am saved. Afterwards I come to perceive that I have a special
interest in the Saviour’s blood; but if I think I have perceived
that before I have believed in Christ, then I have inverted the
Scriptural order of things, and I have taken as a fruit of my faith
that which is only to be obtained by rights, by the man who absolutely
trusts in Christ, and Christ alone, to save." (MTP 58:p733 CHS CD ROM) I
think it is worth noting that every last Roman Catholic, Jehovah's
Witness Mormon etc, believe that Christ died specifically for them. Yet
we would not accredit them with salvation. Spurgeon has a point.
Obviously (to keep ourselves right here) we are not teaching salvation
by the Cross plus something else...but to answer your question "What
are we to believe?" We are to believe that Jesus Christ is able to save
to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him alone and we are to back
that belief up by actually coming ourselves to Christ and saying (to
the effect) "God be merciful to me a sinner" (Luke 18:13)
The Bible is clear, (to me) when the gospel is preached, the sin the
Spirit of God convicts men of is their sin of not believing on the
atoning work of Jesus on their behalf: John 16:8-9
"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of
righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on
me"
I take up the several problems associating with the theory of Christ-died-for-reprobates elsewhere
and they must come into play. Did Christ really die for Judas Iscariot
when the former betrayed Him to the Cross? Did Christ really take all
Iscariot's sins, including that of apostasy, upon His own body to the
tree, plunging them into the depths of the sea (Micah 7:19) blotting
them out as a thick cloud (Isaiah 44:22) and remembering them no more
(Hebrews 10:17) etc? Did He do this before He cried "It is finished?"
(John 19:30) Either Christ did something for Judas at a particular
moment in time or He didn't. If He did...the language of the Cross is
"Christ was delivered for our offences and raised again for [or because
of] our justification - "as a "propitiation" etc., ... then when did
this great "finished" work become undone and be turned back? When were
the sins which were laid on Jesus Christ and paid for sent back to
Judas...to be paid for again? Is this just? etc.
Refusal to believe in Christ is to
remain on in sins and decline to come to Him in order that you might
have life (John 5:40) The offer of salvation is to every last sinner,
elect or not, and those who refuse the kind invitation to come are thus
convicted and ultimately condemned for their chosen unbelief.
Romans 3:25,26 "Whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the
forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness:
that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in
Jesus." In fact, if you don’t believe God gave His Son you are calling God a liar: "He
that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that
believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the
record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath
given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the
Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These
things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of
God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may
believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:10-13,) Those
who believe the record "that God hath given to us eternal life, and
this life is in his Son." Will have eternal life, and those who do not
believe will not have eternal life. So this verse teaches there is one
record, the record that God gave eternal life of his Son. True.
There are two responses to this record: 1. Believe it and be saved. 2.
Don’t believe it and call God a liar. Look very carefully at this
"he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave [eternal life] of his Son." Now,
(to my mind) particular Atonement has a real problem here. Particular
Atonement teaches the record is this - God gave eternal life through
his Son for the Elect, and no one else. Surely
this is the belief of all Christians? When did God "give eternal life"
to Judas? Or the Rich man in Hell? You are a "4 pointer" with a belief
in unconditional election. You believe that God chose to pass the non
elect by and leave them in their sins. It can be said that God had no
purpose to save the non elect. As stated, he left them alone to their
chosen sin. Why did He purpose to give the non elect something which He
equally purposed they would never have?
So if we tell sinners the record is this: God has given eternal life
through his Son, and the unsaved says "I'm here to tell you God has
done no such thing for me, Jesus didn't die for me. God is not offering
eternal life to me, it's all a lie." According to this passage the
unsaved is calling God a liar. The unsaved is denying the record that
God gave eternal life through his Son. If
this is the response of the sinner to the preaching of the gospel, then
they err in two points. [1] They have no authority to say that Jesus
Christ did not die for them. This is yet to be proved. [2] God does
offer eternal life to all men, whether elect or not. The gospel is for
every creature (Mark 16:15) Therefore (as you say) they are truly
denying the record God has given through their Son. This is not, as
suggested, a problem for those who believe in Particular Redemption.
Certainly it never hampered the highly successful ministries of
Whitefield, Spurgeon, McCheyne or a host of others.
But what can the Particular Atonement position say? "Oh no, you're
wrong, Jesus did die for you?" I don't think so, in fact the Particular
Atonement person must agree that, in fact, it is most likely that the
unsaved person is right. The
particular Atonement preacher is in no position to say "Jesus didn't
die for you." As stated, this is yet to be proved. We are not guided by
the secret will of God, but the revealed will of God which makes clear
that all men without exception are to be offered salvation through the
Cross.
Jesus probably didn't die for him. The Particular Atonement position
teaches that for a majority of mankind the record is that God
DIDN’T give of His Son for them, and eternal life is not really
available to them. I think there
is a confusing of two issues here which are not really all that
connected. Whether the vast majority of the human race will be saved or
just a small part is a controversy that extends beyond Calvinists.
Calvinists (like other Christians) are divided on the matter. Calvin
believed that overall few would be saved...Spurgeon believed the exact
opposite. I think your statement is flawed. You are working on the
grounds of probability. It is better to keep to the grounds of what is
expressly stated in the word of God. It is sufficient for the sinner to
know that Christ has died for sinners and that faith in Jesus Christ
leads to him entering into the benefits of His work.
Let me put it another way: This passage says if you say Jesus didn’t die for your sins then you are making God a liar. The
passage actually doesn't say this. It says that if we deny the record
that God has given of His Son...then we make God a liar. You are
working on the assumption that Christ has died for the sins of every
last son of Adam and then reading it into the passage.
John is rebuking the unbeliever for his unbelief and accusing the
unbeliever of making God look like a liar. But this is exactly what
particular atonement teaches - that Jesus only died for the elect and
if you are not the elect then Jesus didn’t die for you. This
gives many unbelievers the right to say God didn’t send his son
for them and not make God a liar. A direct contradiction to this verse.
By putting it another way, you
still come back to the same error and therefore to the same antidote
for that same error. No unbeliever, out of the grave, has any right to
make such a statement. Their case is not provable unless or until they
die without faith in Jesus Christ. If Particular Redemption is true
(and I believe it is) then try and imagine Saul of Tarsus stamping his
feet in intense gospel hatred and declaring Christ never died for him.
Had he a right to do this? Evidently not.
You can't have it both ways. Either the record is that God gives life
through his Son and you believe it and make God a truth teller, or you
don't believe it and make God a liar. True
in itself...but misapplied to support an untenable belief that Christ
actually took all the sins of all the reprobates but that they are
still suffering for those same sins which Christ paid the price for in
the first place.
A further observation about belief/unbelief; Obviously (to me) the
greatest sin is the sin of unbelief, this is the sin that will send you
to hell.
"He that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life;
but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36) "And when he is come,
he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of
judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me" (John 16:8-9) True.
But the sin of unbelief is the sin of not believing what exactly? We
can not believe a lot of things about Jesus but the thing we must
believe about Jesus is his atoning work on our behalf, if we
don’t believe that all other things are for naught. But, how can
it be a sin to not believe on the atoning work of Jesus when Jesus did
not do the atoning work for you? The
sin of unbelief is the sin of rejecting the record which God has given
of His Son and especially His willingness to save sinners. The
evangelist preaches that Christ died for sinners (Romans 5:6-8) The
unbeliever chooses to reject this message. Why does He reject it?
Because he loves his sins (John 3:19) If this unbelief becomes fatal
(i.e. he dies in his sins) then he is judged for having rejected the
message that Christ died for sinners and that he wanted no lot or part
in it. The sinner, generally speaking, couldn't care less whether
Christ died for every last sinner or not. He was offered the gospel
(Particular Redemption does not lead to a limited offer) and refused
it...and so is left to pay the price himself for those sins which no
one else ever atoned for.
If particular atonement is true then what place is there for the sin of
unbelief? In fact I would just be lying to myself to believe Jesus died
for me if he didn’t. A man
who believes with a saving faith - called in Titus 1:1 the faith of
God's elect - would not be lying to himself. As you know yourself...God
only give's saving faith to His own elect and therefore this faith in
the Cross work of Christ would not be misplaced. However, every last
sinner may apply to Christ for salvation, being assured that he who
comes will not be cast out (John 6:37)
And how can my belief, in the truth of his non-atonement for me, be a
sin? How can unbelievers be in the sin of unbelief if their unbelief is
true? In fact, how can their "unbelief" be "un" belief unless it is a
belief that "un" does the truth? The truth of what? The truth that
Jesus’ blood was shed for them. According to Particular Atonement
it wasn’t. Making the sin of unbelief a practical impossibility
for the unelect. No sinner is
being asked to believe that Christ did not die for him. He is being
asked to believe that Christ died for sinners and will save those who
turn to Him from their sins. If the sinner chooses to disregard this
message, then he will be judged accordingly...along with his other
sins.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. RGM
If your arguments were watertight,
then ultimately the 5 point Calvinist has no gospel to preach. His
preaching cannot convert the soul but give it an excuse with which to
silence the accusing voice of God. Does history bear this out? As
above, the history of evangelism is strewn with the names of 5 point
Calvinists who maintained their stance and yet saw a myriad of sinners
come to Christ. However, as demonstrated, your main contention is not
watertight. No sinner can "comfort" himself with a belief that there is
nothing there for him to believe. If he believes that God has provided
salvation for repenting sinners and will not refuse those who so
come...then he is free to come and take what God offers. If he declines
to take what God freely offers, he can blame no one but himself. Thanks
again for writing. I appreciate the tone of your letter...vigorous but
gracious. I trust that I have reciprocated that tone.
*******************************************************
Received 18th March, 2003 Hi brother. Thank you for getting back with
me about John 11:52 "the children of God that were scattered abroad."
I can see where this would be prophetic. However, I was wondering, if
we were not children of God before He regenerated us, (though we were
already chosen in Christ) were we children of the devil? I don't see
where we are ever called that. So, what were we? The
Lord referred to the Pharisees as children of the devil (John 8:44) The
question has been raised whether this is a universal term for all
unsaved people or was just appropriate to these Pharisees. I tend to go
with the broader view. One thing is sure, as mentioned below, we were
"children of wrath even as others" (Ephesians 2:3) - a term Paul
applied to himself ("we") and to those Ephesians chosen in Christ (v4)
It is hard to see how we could actually be children of God and children
of wrath at one and the same time.
Also, it sure seems that we were His sheep BEFORE He calls us by name
and gives us faith to believe in Him. He lays down His life for the
sheep and "other sheep I HAVE which are not of this fold; them also I
must bring, and they shall hear my voice" John 10:16. So, were we His
sheep but not yet His children? "My
sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give
unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish." John 10:27-28. You see the little problem I have reconciling these two ideas - being His sheep but not yet His children. Thanks for your help. In His grace - the only way to get there from here. WK
As
below, we are viewed as being his children, sheep etc., because God
decreed that one day we would become such. This decree made the event
certain. However, until we actually come to Christ, we are "without God
and without hope" etc., (Ephesians 2:12) Again...we are trying to
reconcile the secret will of God with His revealed will. I think we
should content to know that whatever name we may be called...if we do
not come to Christ, then we will not have life (John 5:40) and
therefore we do need to repent and believe the gospel if we would be
saved. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 16th March, 2003 Thanks for your answers. They are helpful.
I'm glad you use the King James Bible. I believe this so strongly that
I really hate to see the other versions used. I have already
recommended your site to some other people.In His grace, WK
Glad to be of help to you and I appreciate you spreading the word about the site.
*******************************************************
Received 15th March, 2003 Thanks for your site. I've been looking around and reading some of the articles. Hi...I appreciate you writing!
I have a question. You say we are not children of God until God
regenerates us and gives us faith. This would clear up several
passages. Not least John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" However, how do you see such verses as John 11:52 "also he should gather together the children of God that were scattered abroad." It seems He is referring to the Gentiles, yet they are called children of God even before hearing of Christ. True.
Christ is speaking here in a prophetic sense. He speaks as if it were
already done (so certain is its fulfilment) We observe this method of
speaking in Isaiah 53:5 where it says that "He was wounded for our
transgressions" even though the event itself was still some centuries
away.
Then there is the parable of the wheat and tares. Matthew 13:38 the
good seed are the children of the kingdom and the tares are the
children of the wicked one. Christ sowed the wheat which are his
children, apparently when sown. He also says My sheep hear my voice. We
are His sheep before we hear His voice and before He gathers us. These are variations of the above theme.
How do you see these verses? If I could better understand how to reconcile these passages it will help quite a bit. Thanks, WK As
above, although we are actually children of wrath even as others
(Ephesians 2:3) and show all the signs and evidences of being tares and
goats...this is what we are in ourselves. However, when viewed in
Christ, we are viewed as children of God, wheat and sheep. In God's own
time, through the evangelistic labours of His people, those thus viewed
(namely the elect) are drawn to Christ and actually cease to be
children of wrath and become, as viewed in Christ, children of God
etc., This reconciles what is essentially the secret and the revealed
will of God. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 15th March, 2003 Hi brother, I wrote you about another
question and really would like some clarification of when we are or
become children of God. I am not looking to argue or dispute. We are on
the same side. I too am a Calvinist. WK I 'm glad to know that you are of Calvinistic faith. I trust that the above explanation settles this matter for you.
Some time ago I wrote this article.
It is a bit long, but I believe it has some good points that may
interest you. I like your site and what I have read so far. Your
article ran to 17 pages on Microsoft word and I can't spare the time to
study it all. I will comment on one verse referred to: 1 Timothy 2:4
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of
the truth." The two key words here are "all" and "will" The non
Calvinist gives both their fullest force and so has God actually
decreeing to save every last single sinner ever born...and obviously
failing. The Calvinist working on the principle that what actually
happens is what God has decreed (Ephesians 1:11) limits either the use
of the word "will" or the word "all" Most Calvinists limited the "all
men" to "all kinds of men" and give the "will" the full force. Spurgeon
in his sermon on this text reverses the order and publicly disagrees
with the Calvinistic divines. He believes that "all men" is really
unlimited but then he does limit the "will" He says: "It
is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be
saved it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a
divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed
to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the
salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved." The
result is the same. God only willed with the force of a decree to save
the elect. This is consistent with the Bible and what actually comes to
pass. Otherwise you end up with a frustrated God. From
verses like Matthew 23:37 etc., we see God expressing Himself as
desirous in an indiscriminate sense of the salvation of all men,
obviously elect and reprobate alike. However, it cannot be argued that
this desire has the force of a decree behind it. The answer of "Why?"
or "Why not?" can only find an answer in the Saviour's note of praise:
" Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." (Matthew 11:25)
We are not being asked to reconcile everything. Some things are to be
simply stated and believed rather than analysed with an attempt to
explain. Whatever our views on these matters, we should always be
careful to preach the gospel indiscriminately to all men, as Calvin put
it, "elect or not" Thanks for writing. I too use only the Authorised
Version of the Bible, treating those versions based on the corrupt
W&H texts and employing the "dynamic equivalent" method of
translation with considerable caution. Colin.
RETURN TO LATEST CALVINIST EMAILS PAGE