Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt
(Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland
Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org
EMAILS ON OUR CALVINISM ARTICLES
MAY 2003 - JULY 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 16-7-03 Dear Rev. Maxwell, I came across your site the other day; I am very grateful to have found it.
Nice to hear from you. It is
always a blessing to know that the site is of blessing to people and
especially when it has been a particular help.
Just over the last couple of days I have been very concerned about the
doctrine of preterition/reprobation. It has never worried me before
(indeed, I have rejoiced in the doctrine of election); but I think the
thought that there are people I know who, as far as I can tell, are in
hell today and will be so forever causes me deep anxiety. This is
especially so vis-a-vis family members who have died, as well as others
in my family (R.C.) who show no interest in genuinely closing with
Christ or who persuade themselves that they are right with God.
This is a burden which every
Christian most must carry and is not, as some allege, inconsistent with
the Reformed Faith. It should surely drive us to our knees in prayer
and to our feet in earnest evangelism.
I was very helped by your comments (excerpted below): "It
is wrong to say that the non elect have no chance to be saved. We are
to preach the gospel indiscriminately to all men (elect or not) There
is no bar on them coming to Christ, except their own chosen sin. They
cannot blame the decree of God because this decree did not make them
sinners. That God did not decree to save them is no excuse. He was
under no obligation to save any and therefore under no obligation to
save all. If any sinner uses the doctrine of God's Sovereignty as an
excuse, he can be easily answered. Ask him if he wants to be saved here
and now. God has made certain promises to every last sinner, summed up
in the invitation: "Whosoever will may come" That word "whosoever" can
never be whittled away. If he declines your invitation (which is really
God's invitation) then why does he blame God for withholding something
which he (the Christ rejecter) does not want? The utter helplessness of
the sinner is self imposed and therefore culpable. He loves darkness
rather than light...why should he complain if God leaves him in his
darkness? He does not apply his reasoning on the sovereignty of God to
other areas of life...why then this one which is the most important and
far reaching?" It is a very
logical matter indeed, for while faith can go where reason cannot, yet
faith itself is not unreasonable. The most illogical thing any man can
do is reject the gospel offer. They all with one consent began to make
excuses…but not reasons. An excuse (to quote Billy Sunday) is
the skin of a reason stuffed with a lie.
This has helped me, as also your view that God does genuinely desire
the salvation of people (i.e., there is no 'pretended' desire, if I may
use that term reverently). I just want to thank you for that. Distorted
Calvinism can tie a person up in knots, as I know only too well. I am
not yet entirely at peace with this whole issue but I am getting there,
I think.
I have been rereading Iain Murray's excellent little book "Spurgeon versus Hyper Calvinism" published by the Banner of Truth.
It is easy read and it straightens out a lot of things in Calvinism
which can get distorted. I think you would benefit greatly if you get a
copy.
May I ask you two questions? 1. I have come to Christ, but I am very
worried that I have come without an adequate recognition of my own
sinfulness and lostness. I can acknowledge (objectively) that I am a
very great sinner but I am not sure that this matches my subjective
belief. (Perhaps I am tying myself up in knots again.) William Guthrie
would argue that such a recognition is different in different people;
both John Owen and John Bunyan would deny that it is possible to come
to Christ for justification without a 'law-work' having been done in
the person's heart. (This does not necessarily mean, of course, that
they would differ from Guthrie.) What do you think?
Without being simplistic in this
issue…the important matter is how do you stand in the matter
here and now. If you dwell on what happened five, ten or twenty (or
whatever) years ago, you will never have peace. The important
thing is…do you hate sin now? Do you love Christ now? Are you
trusting the atoning blood of Christ now for your peace with God? If
you can honestly answer these questions in the affirmative, then (from
the testimony of Scripture) you may judge yourself to have eternal
life. Think of that man in the Bible who said "Lord I believe...help thou my unbelief"
The weakest faith saves as long as it is directed towards Him who is
mighty to save. The strongest recognition of personal sinfulness, in
itself, does not. Judas had a strong recognition but it didn't save
him.
2. I would also like to ask: how may we formally tie the need for
obedience (cf. the narrow road) to the fact that salvation is by faith
alone? My view is that it is the Holy Spirit who brings us to hope in
Christ and that this trust causes us to walk in his ways (i.e., it is a
fruit of regeneration). Nevertheless, it seems to me that we too much
stress the need for 'faith' (as opposed to works) when what we should
really be stressing is the kind of faith that is necessary for
salvation. I would be glad of your comments. Our
obedience is linked to our sanctification, not our justification. We
are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never
alone. The evidence of salvation is a holy life because we are saved
not only from the penalty of sin but also its power. I think it is true
to say that we do not stress repentance as much as we should. Again it
is getting a balance. We are not looking for reformed sinners, just
helpless sinners who long to be saved from the curse of sin. Again,
though, we preach to all sinners, believing that the preaching itself
will bring them to the place whereby they want to be saved. Evidently
this is what happened at Pentecost.
Thank you again, and thank you for your site. Would you be so kind, if
you do publish this email, to just use my initials, or similar? Yours
sincerely HK I am happy to keep
your personal details private. I like to put these replies up on site
because it helps others (as your above quotation proves) and it
justifies the time which it takes to answer these emails. Again, thanks
for writing. It has encouraged me too. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 25-6-03 Dear Pastor: Colin. Pretty interesting site, and
pretty fair and down to earth.. It was linked some months ago on the
BaptistBoard Calvinism/Arminianism forum where I have been debating
Calvinists for a couple of years. Thanks
for your email and kind words. I appreciate you taking the time to
write to me. Especially seeing that you take a different view from mine.
I had written my own page on the issue a few years ago, and had added
to it several times based on some of the discussions I had had on this
board, as well as Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals' forum, which has
since been shut down. Thus, I focus on actual claims of Calvinists,
rather than arguing so much on what Calvin, Spurgeon and others
actually taught or contradicted, as some others have done. While the
Alliance board was highly supralapsarian, the Calvinists on
BaptistBoard held mainly the position you, gty.org and others hold.
(Believe in evangelization, man's responsibility, etc., many profess
single predestination). There are also some Primitive Baptists there
who argue with both Arminians, plus even the Calvinists on different
issues. So while I thought all Calvinism was "hyper", I now am aware of
your position. It will greatly
help you to tell the difference between a hyper and a true Calvinist.
Failure to do so leads to all kinds of confusion.
Yet the statement made by David Cloud you addressed was very true,
especially in relation to much of the criticisms of Dave Hunt:
"Whenever one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there
are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting
Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism,
though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even
from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting their
Calvinism!"
Every doctrinal school has
different shades of adherents. Cloud, however, was using this as a big
stick with which to beat Calvinists. I was playing him at his own game
as he, himself, branded some Dispensationalists as "hypers" He would
probably get pretty uptight if I went around saying that
Dispensationalists deny that the Lord's Prayer is meant for Christians
etc., without making any distinction. Sometimes Cloud takes on too much
and then is unable to keep it all consistent and so leads to self
contradictions. On one page he praises the Calvinists for their
teaching on assurance and on another he joins forces with Hunt to
lambaste them for this very thing. He can be hard to fathom at times.
(Hard to believe I would ever agree with Cloud on anything. I have
personally written back and forth with him briefly on his teachings on
music, and also disagree with KJVO ism (though I actually prefer the
KJV), and his attitude towards modern evangelicalism (though some
things "separatists" like him say have some legitimate points) I
too believe in Separation, but then again I would embrace things that
Cloud would reject and he too would embrace things that I would reject.
But I do believe in separating from men and denominations which corrupt
the basic message of the gospel or support those who do. I agree with
Cloud on a lot of things, but his treatment of Calvinism leaves a lot
to be desired. He appears to be a very busy man but he isn't too busy
to write or publish long articles against Calvinism or what he has
convinced himself is Calvinism. His problem is that he is too busy to
listen to what people whom he has sometimes caricatured are trying to
tell him. His email replies - if you do get one - are one or two liners
and usually dismissive.
You then go to compare this with the different brands of Dispensationalism. As I reply on my site: "I
don't know as much about that debate, but in the Calvinism debate,
these differences and their "generalizations" are being USED to their
advantage; to brush off and discredit people's criticism of their
doctrine. As all will agree, this issue is a bit more crucial than
Dispensationalism and others as it involves the very definition of the
Gospel..." Does it involve
the very definition of the gospel...or the working out of the details?
If I conclude that those who take your position are wrong, am I to say
that they have failed to define the gospel at all? Surely we all agree
on the fact that sinners need to be saved, can only be saved by the
blood of Christ shed at the Cross and that faith alone appropriates the
work?
"...The differences are so great in
some areas that Calvinists practically call each other "Arminians"
[e.g. hypers, supras, Primitives see man's responsibility,
infralapsarian and "duty faith"/Gospel regeneration", respectively as
Arminian, and the Calvinists who hold those positions accuse them--
particularly the hypers, of "using the logic of the Arminians"]. (I
don't see non-Calvinists calling each other Calvinists, or
Dispensationalists calling each other non-dispensationalists). So there
is much "misrepresentation" going on even within their own ranks. It is
very hard to address each and every little variations, so general
agreements, such as the fate of the non-elect, the misinterpretation of
"sovereignty", etc. are the focus. Hunt's book is addressing all of
Calvinism, from Hyper on down, and didn't feel necessary to
differentiate between them but so much. (Vance's book deals with the
different variations a bit more, and still shows they ultimately lead
back to the same thing)." As
mentioned above, Cloud has branded other Dispensationalists as "hyper".
Elsewhere he puts distance between his form of non-Calvinism (an
awkward term, I admit) and what he calls the "Quick prayerism" of other
opposers of Calvinism in his school of thought. There has always been
disagreement in the Church of Jesus Christ...some of the epistles were
written for this very reason. There are certain differences which I can
live with within Calvinism, but those tenets of hyper Calvinism I
cannot. To deny duty faith etc., is effectively to lull sinners to
sleep. This is deadly. Whatever your disagreement with Calvinism, a
true Calvinist will urge men to repent and believe the gospel and this
is pure NT Christianity. Calvinists are willing to take the flak for
what they believe...but we refuse to be tarred with the failings of
other men's beliefs if they are not our own.
Likewise, when I and others spoke on the Baptist Board of people being
"elected to Hell", right away everyone jumped in disclaiming
"Hypercalvinism" and accused us of "misrepresenting" them or "not
knowing their position". In
trying to analyse these debates, I find that complex matters tend to
get reduced too much. Just to say that Calvinism believes in people
"being elected to hell" is a very bald statement. If it cannot be
qualified then it should not be stated. Calvinists believe that souls
of the non elect go to hell because of their own personal sin. That God
did not decree to save them is surely beyond dispute (unless you have a
God with frustration as an attribute)...that they are in hell because
of sin is also beyond dispute. Spurgeon's maxim that "Salvation is all
of grace and damnation is all of sin" is brilliant in that it is both
short and 100% true.
Even when I referred to "reprobation", one moderator insisted on "preterition". Calvinists
tend to use more precise terms and this can sometimes confuse those who
are not familiar with them or their meanings and so use them
interchangeably. Calvinism has been accused of being complex, but then
so can every other doctrine. We have all struggled with the theological
niceties of justification etc., Preterition is only a part of
reprobation.
So when Hunt quotes one thing Spurgeon stated, I notice, White and
others could go find something else he said, and say "see, he doesn't
teach that; Hunt doesn't know what he is saying; he is lying through
his teeth"! (Still, Hunt should not have made such a big emphasis of
that claim, as it is another tangent and source of unnecessary conflict
we are being diverted to, and Spurgeon clearly advocated the other
points of Calvinism)
I have documented Hunt's tactics elsewhere.
I hesitate to brand any man as a liar etc., as it can be very easily
done. Let's say that I must reserve my doubts as to whether Hunt tried
to be as objective as possible. I'm glad that he is not on our side of
the debate. I would probably die with embarrassment. Cloud endorsed him
and showered him with a few accolades which did nothing for Cloud's
credibility. Interestingly enough Cloud copped on when Hunt was up to
his old tricks in leaving out essential information re the AV rendering
of Acts 13:48 It is just a pity that Cloud hadn't the wit to see if he
applied the same warped reasoning to the rest of his book.
But everyone claims their variation is the "true" Calvinism, and if
you're going to deal with Calvinism, you must answer our exact
representation of it, else the whole person's teaching is dismissed as
"dishonest", "misrepresenting", "not knowing anything about our
position" and "unqualified to say anything about it".
I think you are being a little
unfair here. An entry below deals with differences among Calvinists
over the extent of the word "world" in John 3:16 Some of us believe it
is the world of elect and none elect alike. Others within our camp
limit it to the elect. If you came on and said that Calvinists believe
that the world in John 3:16 is limited to the elect, I would correct
you by pointing out that only some Calvinists do so but not all. I
wouldn't dismiss you as dishonest etc., but I would correct you.
Neither do I brand those who limit the world in John 3:16 as hypers
either. In itself the position is not hyper, but if it led to a limited
preaching of the gospel then the all important line has been crossed
and the opprobrium applied.
I concluded: "Just remember, when
Calvinists begin making sweeping statements [as in some of their calls
to "reformation", etc] beating up on non-Calvinism and its "man
centeredness", and how it has "eroded the truth", is "heretical", [and
has absolutely no scriptural backing] etc.; they don't then disclaim
the lesser distinctions between the different branches of Calvinism,
-which all agree on "sovereignty" (however they express it) and
therefore are treated as being on the same side (the side of "truth")
in the ultimate issue of "sovereignty versus human autonomy"; so they
should not then get mad and cry "misrepresentation" when the other side
responds and lumps their positions all together in one rebuttal.
Two things here. First: There are
certain beliefs which I happen to share with hyper Calvinists but not
with the non Calvinists. On the other hand, there are certain beliefs
that I share with non Calvinists but not with the hypers. Each case
must be decided on its own merits. Secondly: If we are going to apply
the term "heretic" to someone, then we must follow the Scriptural
injunction through to the letter and reject them (Titus
3:10) etc., I do not apply the term lightly and certainly not to a
non Calvinist evangelical.
If you all agree that the "non-elect" had no chance to be saved,
whether God actively reprobated them or passively preteritioned them
("according to" their will), and that this is one of the distinctives
of "sovereignty", then that is what Hunt and the rest of us are
refuting, and I think Hunt was basically on the mark in that objective,
even if everything he said was not completely right." It
is wrong to say that the non elect have no chance to be saved. We are
to preach the gospel indiscriminately to all men (elect or not) There
is no bar on them coming to Christ, except their own chosen sin. They
cannot blame the decree of God because this decree did not make them
sinners. That God did not decree to save them is no excuse. He was
under no obligation to save any and therefore under no obligation to
save all. If any sinner uses the doctrine of God's Sovereignty as an
excuse, he can be easily answered. Ask him if he wants to be saved here
and now. God has made certain promises to every last sinner, summed up
in the invitation: "Whosoever will may come" That word "whosoever" can
never be whittled away. If he declines your invitation (which is really
God's invitation) then why does he blame God for withholding something
which he (the Christ rejecter) does not want? The utter helplessness of
the sinner is self imposed and therefore culpable. He loves darkness
rather than light...why should he complain if God leaves him in his
darkness? He does not apply his reasoning on the sovereignty of God to
other areas of life...why then this one which is the most important and
far reaching?
This also addresses the other issues of use of the word "heretical" and
other insults you address. While I do not condone that, and try very
hard to avoid it on my page, you must remember Calvinists have said
many harsh things about Arminianism (or "semi-Pelagianism" as they like
to call it), so it is highly unfair to discredit non-Calvinist
arguments because of that, when Calvinists do the same thing, even
more, often. We are not to trade insults for insults, but then this
can't be used as an argument against one side when the other is doing
it as well.
I agree.
Thus I do admit that Hunt had said some things that were best left out
(Calvinism is warmed over Catholicism, etc.). I try to stick to the
main points that non-Calvinists really oppose rather than those side
arguments.
I agree again. 100%
So here Is my page
on Predestination. I hope you find it interesting and challenging, and
fair. I wouldn't even call it "anti-Calvinist", since I am not against
the people, but just challenging a position. I accept your distinction.
I am sometimes accused of being "anti Catholic" when I am in fact anti
Catholicism. However, the page is named now and it would take a while
to change one letter to make it 100% accurate. Yours in Christ, Eric. I
have downloaded your page and will look over it soon. Things are
getting busy here as we head for the weekend but I will review it when
I get a chance.Thanks again for writing. I enjoyed our exchange of views. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 25-6-03 Dear Colin Maxwell: Tom Nettles quotes Spurgeon to the
effect that if the Cross is preached, the rest of TULIP will fall into
place: Christ's redeeming death "is the fulness of all the blessings of
God," the "key of heaven, the channel of grace, the door of hope." It
constitutes "the substance of our worship, and thus the motivation for
our perseverance, on this earthly journey and will be the theme of our
eternal music above." (Spurgeon, 20:159). Growing up RC in the 1950s
the Cross was a constant theme in preaching. Sadly that is no longer
the case. I am grateful to you for the superb quotes on Spurgeon and
the Cross. Kind regards, AS (Eureka, California)
Glad that the web site is helping
fellow pilgrims towards glory. The page on Spurgeon and the Cross was
in direct response to the weird view of Dave Hunt that Spurgeon denied
the doctrine of Particular Redemption. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 17-6-03 The term "world" used in this verse (John 3:16) is
resolved, if it considered who Christ is speaking to ! A Jew who
thought in terms of a Jewish world and a Gentile world. He believed
only those of the Jewish world could be saved, Christ uses the word
"world" to embrace both genealogical groups, the Jewish world and the
Gentile world, the whosoever are the elect from both these races of
people. World does most definitely mean every single individual who has
ever lived or will ever live. To give the impression Calvinists
substitute the term "elect" in place of world is a straw man argument,
no sane Calvinist would do that. Yours in Christ, SF
Thanks again for your note. I
agree that the world here includes every last person ever born and tie
the universality of it all in with the offer of "whosoever" (rather
than the atonement which, although unlimited in its merit and power, is
limited in its intention.) Then reality of the matter, though, is that
quite a number of "sane Calvinists" do limit the "world" in John 3:16
to the elect. B.B. Warfield, no mean theologian or Calvinist, took this
more restricted view. We could name others including Matthew Poole
etc., Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 14-6-03 I have been reading the material on your excellent site web site and am interested in your review of Mr Hunt`s book. Nice to hear from you and encouraged that you find the site helpful.
More over I am particularly interested in trying to get to the bottom
of what seems to be a concerted modern day attack on what uninformed
individuals imagine is Calvinism. It appears to me this is mainly
focused among Baptist groups in the US. Would this be correct? There is certainly a strong attack from this quarter, although many US Baptists would hold to the Doctrines of Grace.
A friend has lent me a tape of Willie Mullan preaching upon the
subject of Election. I am sure you have heard it in the past. It would
indicate that Willie Mullan would have held what is classed as "4 point
Calvinism". He has no problem with the Lord choosing his elect to
salvation, but he embraces universal atonement. I
heard this tape many years ago and can't remember much about it. I do
remember though thinking that the first side of the tape where he
stated the doctrine was a lot sounder than the other side where he
expounded it. I heard Willie Mullan preach on several occasions in the
Iron Hall in Belfast and while always blessed through his preaching, I
can never remember getting the impression that he was a four pointer.
Apart from eternal security, I would reckon him to be an Arminian. Then
again, we are talking about a young Christian (me!) and over 20 years
ago.
Would this be the result of him being influenced by modern
Dispensationalism? or is it simply the case of a preacher who knows his
listeners compose an equal mixture of people from a reformed Calvinist
background, and others from an Arminian background and he is preaching
in a fashion to please both points of view? A common practice in modern
preaching. I pray the Lord rewards your labours in Cork. Yours in Christ, SF There
seems to be very few Dispensationalist Calvinists. I don't think Willie
Mullan could ever be accused of playing to the gallery. Thanks again
for your email.
*******************************************************
Received 14-6-03 Dear Colin, In your article SOME SERIOUS ANSWERS TO SOME SERIOUS QUESTIONS FOR CALVINISTS
(revised 19th September 2002) you mention something I find profoundly
confusing for a Calvinist to say. That the 'world' spoken of in John
3v16 means both the world of elect and non-elect! Surely in this verse
the love of God is most emphatically in connection with the salvation
of the elect. The verse is explicit in this meaning alone. Calvinists
are divided over who the "world" in John 3:16 - some teaching it to be
the world of the elect while others, equally committed to the five
points of Calvinism, hold it to be the world in general. Bishop Ryle (a
4 point Calvinist) in his unsurpassed commentary on John's gospel names
several Calvinists who take my position including Bucer, Bullinger,
Scott, Matthew Henry (which I was able to check and verify) and Manton.
'For God so loved the world that he sent His only Son,' If the Son died
only for the elect and was therefore sent to them alone, I feel that to
say that this verse is elect and non elect alike is to mix up the
tender mercies of God (which affords rain on the just and unjust), with
the love of God for those chosen in Him before the foundation of the
world. I have always thought that to apply John 3v16 to the whole human
race is the flagship view of Arminianism. Then Calvin must be, by your definition, an Arminian! His comments on the verse are as follows: "For
God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it
were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may
remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the
unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be
sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came
to us, and why he was offered to be our Saviour. Both points are
distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to
all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves
the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." There is no denial of the special love of God which God has towards His elect in that He graciously chose to save them and them alone to the exclusion of others, whom he justly leaves in their sins.
In Peters' epistles he is writing to the elect, he states so in both
letters, 1 Peter 1v2 and 2 Peter 1v10. Surely this is how we must
interpret 2 Peter 3v9. 'The Lord is not willing that any should
perish', but the fact that some will, must mean that this verse is
talking about the elect, who, out of them none will perish. Praise the
Lord for his indescribable gift! I
agree. Yet even if we take 2 Peter 3:9 to be universal in its scope, it
cannot be said that that He willed with the force of a decree. When all
is said and done, those who take the non Calvinist position can never
say that God has decreed to save all men, otherwise He is a frustrated
God.
I am sure you must be busy and get hundreds of emails like this, so not
to worry if you can't answer. But perhaps you have an article on this
subject, why you hold that particular view of John 3v16. And if I have
completely misunderstood you, just ignore me, I'll learn to be more
careful! Yours in our Saviour's name, Frank. No…emails
can be numbered in a few dozen. I don't think I could cope with
hundreds. I usually mount them on this page. Thanks again for writing.
Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 11-6-03 Hi, I found your site searching in Google for
‘anti-Calvinistic views’ as I am keen on reading what the
latest views are against what I hold to be Biblical. Thanks
for your email. I like to look round Google myself from time to time.
It prevents us from getting too comfortable in our Calvinistic cocoons.
It is very easy to stay on "safe ground" and fight imaginary battles.
It tends to sharpen the wits, if nothing else, and by forcing us back
again and again to the Bible can only be to our spiritual good.
Your reasoning with and answers to those opposed to Calvinism is very encouraging and useful.Thank you, for your hard work. Yours in gospel bonds. Frank (London UK) I
like to think I am approachable and I do try to be patient even with
those who seem to be unreasonable in their attacks upon my Calvinistic
faith…although I think I nearly lost it on a couple of occasions
even on this site. However, there was a time when in my youthful folly,
I said a few unfair things against Calvinism and perhaps this helps
keep me in check. It is always encouraging to know that the work is
appreciated. I was over in London last autumn and stayed overnight with
the Rev Gordon Ferguson who is the minister of our Free Presbyterian
Church in the city. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 19-5-03 I enjoyed browsing your site. However keep in mind that some of us
Americans are not as polished in the English language as you fellas
across the pond. Please take it easy on us. The toughest 3 years of my
life was 2nd grade. Words like the following tend to just confuse us
Yankees: polemic zeal/impugners/obtrude/cavils of heretics Good
to hear from you...it is always encouraging to hear that the site is of
blessing to the people of God. So it is true after all...the brains of
this old world reside outside the USA! I must commend your humility in
facing up to it :-)
Keep it simple. Our merciful Lord did. Will try to do so...although the offending words come from another American - W.G. Shedd.
May the Lord bless you and may our every thought and deed be according to His magnificent will.
Ditto (which means: likewise which means: the same to you) Thanks for writing.
His unworthy servant, MJV
Unworthy? You mean "not good enough" :-)Colin
*******************************************************
Received 14-5-03 I have just begun to read your 1st study on God's sovereignty. Good to hear from you and to know that these studies on the Doctrines of Grace are being used.
I am curious what translation are you using? I am using the Authorised (King James) Version.
I am using the NASB and I am a little confused with the question: What
does the Bible mean when it declares that He can be limited? (Psalms
78:41) The AV reads: "Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel." I
do not have the NASB, but I notice that the American Standard Version
renders the same verse a little differently, so giving rise to the
confusion: "And they turned again and tempted God, And provoked the
Holy One of Israel. (ASV)" Where there was a limitation, it was in
effect to themselves i.e. they did not participate in the full blessing
of God. The NT parallel would be Mark 6:5-6:
"And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon
a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their
unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching."
The same explanation stands. In the strict overall sense, God cannot be
limited. His counsel will stand and He will do all His pleasure (Isaiah
46:10)
Thank you for your time and making available these studies. JM
My pleasure. Thanks for writing and enjoy the rest of the studies! Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 14-5-03 I have perused through your website, and have gained
some insight into Calvinism as you state it. I personally am not along
the Calvinist line as I have a hard time reconciling verses like Matt
13:21-22 and Heb 6:4-6, 10:26-27 with the idea that we can't be choked
out or reject the truth after we have been saved. Good
to hear from you and to know that you have gained some insight into the
Doctrines of Grace. If you really want to understand Calvinism, then
you need to start with God and work your way though back to God again. This is what Paul does in Romans 8:28-34
However I do believe the Calvinism/Arminianism camps have split quite
wide over grey areas that might not be fully known this side of heaven.
For instance Eph 2:8 says "grace through faith" which requires God's
'offer' if you will, and man's 'acceptance'; yet children dying before
the age of accountability go to heaven when they may not have made that
choice yet. It is my
understanding that both Calvinists and Arminians (as you call them)
accept the idea of God's offer and man's acceptance. We just differ on
the details of how this is all worked out. As for children dying before
the age of accountability, this is an issue on its own, far removed
from the Calvinistic debate. Both Calvinists and non Calvinists tend to
believe that such infants will go to Heaven.
One of the biggest problems is that many people have distorted/adjusted
Calvinism to a malignant Antinomianism (Jude 4) of which I don't
believe it was ever really intended to be. Antinomianism
is an abuse of the grace of God. It is not confined to Calvinists. I
know several non Calvinists who would be Antinomians, if not in
practice certainly in doctrine. Of course many Christians who are
Antinomians in doctrine are not so in practice...in which case they are
better than their creed.
You appear to be a reasonable man so I would like to ask you a few
questions or just strike up a dialogue for you to comment on to
possibly find some common ground. I
am always happy to be of help on these matters ,although bear in mind
that there is plenty of work round here to be done and I cannot always
respond quickly as I sometimes do in these emails.
When I read verses like 2 Pet 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4, John 1:7, Matt 18:14, Eze
18:23, I can't see how God possessing attributes of 'irresistible
grace' and 'not willing that any should perish' could send any to hell.
At this point my mind wanders a bit as to what all this down here would
be about if God had already decided who was saved and who wasn't. And
if he truly did 'have all men to be saved' and some weren't, it appears
to take away God's omnipotence. As
you say above, there is much which we will not fully know this side of
Heaven. What we do know is that while God declares His will to save all
men, it is not always with the will of a purpose or decree. If it was,
then either God has failed and some can stay His hand and say unto Him
"What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35) or we are looking at Universalism i.e.
every one eventually in Heaven. Both of which are non starters. Men go
to hell because of sin. Sin and nothing else is the determining factor
in the condemnation of the lost. That God has passed some men by and
left them in their sin (a vital point often missed by non Calvinists in
this debate) is true, but the sinner must bear his responsibility for
his sin.
I suppose the argument goes the other way also when you have someone
who is able to reject God's grace but I use this analogy. Because I
truly love my wife I would not put her in a cage, she would be free
either to love me back or to leave. I have the physical power to put
her in a cage but because I love her and desire to be loved by her in
return, she has a free choice.
Calvinist's believe that men are
able to reject the grace of God and do so, even the elect (!) although
we believe there comes a time for the elect when they will reject it no
more. Regarding the freedom which the sinner has, he is free to follow
the dictates of his own heart -he is not a pre programmed robot or
block or wood- but we should remember that his heart is in bondage to
sin (John 8:34/Jeremiah 17:9 etc., and therefore his carnal mind is not
subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be (Romans 8:7)
There are many verses like Eze 33:11, Jer 36:3, Prov 1:24-26, 2 Ki
17:13-14, Luke 13:3,5, Rev 3:20 which show that God wants us to 'hear'
'turn' 'repent' 'answer', that show that there is an active response to
his call. We should not confuse
man's responsibility (which is 100%) with his ability. Man has sinned
away his spiritual ability but such inability does not negate his duty
before God. If it could, then all the sinner needs to do is plunge
himself into further sin and so put himself beyond the pale of the law.
Another absurdity.
Again in Eph 2:8 God supplies us through his grace everything we need
to see, and yet leaves us with a decision to accept or reject by faith.
I can't fit this in with irresistible grace or with total depravity, as
to make that decision must take even the tiniest mustard seed of faith
which would not be total depravity. If
the sinner is totally depraved (i.e. totally unable to respond
positively to the gospel in and off himself) then how does he exercise
saving faith? Bible reveals that he believes through grace (Acts 18:27)
being willing in the day of God's power (Psalm 110:3) God Himself
working in him both to will and to do His good pleasure (Philippians
2:13) It is a divine work on the sinner's will. We need to be careful,
though, that we do not view it as God believing for the sinner...it is
the sinner who believes, but only by the effectual working of His power
(1 Thessalonians 2:13) If God did not so work, simply put: none would
be saved.
Another thing is that I see many who exhibit Calvinist beliefs (I
should add these are those with an antinomian slant) comment on someone
who appeared to be saved, was Joe Christian for many years, and then
fell totally away. They say that he was never really a Christian. My
question with that is, if that is possible how can one who believes the
gospel and follows in Calvinist tradition ever know for sure that they
are truly saved as in 1 John 5:13? I really can't understand how that
would go with Heb 6:4-6 and the parable of the sower where true life
sprang up and then died. I suppose you could get part way there with 1
John 2:19...Again we need a
balanced answer to this. While I trust solely in the work of Christ for
my salvation - never on my works or even my faith - yet I must look for
the fruit or the evidence of salvation in my life. I have said this
before elsewhere and got blasted as confusing sanctification with
justification. This is not the case. No man has the right to say that
he is saved if he is consciously and deliberately living in sin. This
is the argument in the Epistle of James. We may only enjoy the rich
fruits of assurance of salvation if we are earnestly seeking to live
for Christ. There are many warning verses in the word of God and far
from being redundant are there to keep true Christians in line. The
last thing God wants His children to do is to get complacent. The Bible
is a balanced book...the same writer who wrote Hebrews 6:4-6 (and
Hebrews 10:26-30) also wrote Hebrews 10:38-39
There are potentials for two grievous errors in both camps, in the
Calvinist side there is the opportunity for complacency, and in the
Arminian side there is the opportunity for legalism. It really comes
down to Eph 2:8-10.
True. We often quote Ephesians
2:8-9 but leave out the evidence that we have been saved by grace
through faith i.e. the good works of v10.
Cheers LR
'And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire'
I appreciate you writing.
*******************************************************
Received 9-5-03 Dear Pastor Maxwell, Greetings in Christ Jesus. What a pleasure it has been to run across your website. Hi! Lovely to hear from you and to know that you have been enjoying the site.
I am currently living in Virginia, USA and am in seminary studying to
be a pastor in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. My hope is that I will
be able to plant Reformed churches in the North of Ireland in areas
like the Bogside and Crossmaglen. We
certainly pray that God will open up the doors for you. These places
are very dark spiritually...but nothing that the mighty power of God in
the gospel (Romans 1:16) cannot sort out!
I recently ran across "SOME THINGS NON CALVINISTS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CALVINISM: " from a mailing list I am on and was wondering if I could get your permission to place it on my website. Yes...feel
free to go ahead. I had a quick look at your site and it is very good.
The Lord has certainly led you along with Himself. Nice to know that
our site is being mentioned in various mailing lists too.
What a wonderful list in dealing with the fallacies that so many place
on Calvinistic belief. I will be glad to provide a link as well. I
think an awful lot of the friction between Calvinists and non
Calvinists would be removed overnight if the non Calvinists actually
took the time to see what we actually believe and (in this case) don't
believe. If nothing else, it would help the credibility of the critic
i.e. we would take him seriously if he displayed [1] knowledge that he
knew what he was talking about [2] the ability to acknowledge that his
previous views of Calvinism were built on an misunderstanding. I cover
this in more depth on our page on criticising Calvinism.
LG. Bethel Reformed Presbyterian Church (OPC) PS. My grandmother, Ellen Lynch was born in Cork.
Great to hear from you. Currently
it is 08:10 here in Ireland, so it is an early encouragement for us in
the day. Lynch is a common name here in Cork - the city's most famous
son was, of course, Jack Lynch who became Irish Prime Minister in the
late 1960's. I am originally from Belfast myself...called Colin after
the Colin Glenn area mentioned on your website. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 03-5-03 Hi brother, thanks for all your help. I find a lot of
your explanations to be very helpful. I have another question which I
am sure you have heard before. I think I understand, but wanted to get
your ideas about it. Thanks again for your email. Glad to be of assistance to you.
In 1 Samuel 23:12 David asks: "Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my
men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee
up." Of course David escaped from Keilah and this didn't happen. The
Arminians argue that this verse disproves God's foreknowledge- whatever
happened was dependent on man's "free will". I
have not come across any Arminian arguing from this verse. If they do
so argue...the issue is more serious than they suppose. It would mean
that God got it wrong and would therefore be less than perfect. Many of
the arguments which are used against Calvinism go a lot deeper than
some people suppose and actually cut right into the very heart of the
Christian faith. Many arguments, for example, against the sovereignty
of God do not stop short at the foreknowledge of God either.
I way I understand it is that God here was not predicting the future,
but stating what men would do if circumstances allowed. God's intention
was to deliver David, as is seen in verse 14 "And Saul sought him every
day, but God delivered him not into his hand." God actually worked to
prevent man's purpose from coming to pass. If you can add anything or
correct my understanding of this passage, I would appreciate it.
I agree with your interpretation
completely. It was a mercy for Saul as well as for David that God so
intervened. The Arminians so badly want their freewill (as opposed to
free agency) yet fail to recognise that when man's will is left free,
without any restraining hand of God, it rushes man to his own
destruction.
Kept by the power of God, WK Nice
thought with which to close your email. When I was at Bible College, a
brother once pointed out to me that the Greek word for salvation
("soteria") is actually made up of two other Greek words: [1] "Sodso"
meaning "I save" and "tereo" meaning "I keep" so in God's salvation, we
are both saved and kept. Any thing less than this is not God's
salvation. God bless you. Colin.
*******************************************************
RETURN TO LATEST CALVINIST EMAILS PAGE