EMAILS ON OUR CALVINISM ARTICLES
JUNE 2004- OCTOBER 2004
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
31-10-04 Therefore, every passage in the Bible that says "all" or
"every" or "whole world" must be interpreted in submission to the
limited atonement view? CH Obviously
not. I make no reference to "every passage in the Bible" in my replies
but restricted my comments to "every last text about the atonement" The
use of words like "all" or "every" etc., is determined by the immediate
context and the Bible at large. I base my belief that the use of these
words in relation to the atonement do not extend to every last sinner
ever born (as said) from the nature of the atonement. Christ either
made a full and complete atonement upon the Cross or He didn't. You
can't hover half way between the two. If He atoned for the sins (say)
of Pharaoh, then why is Pharaoh in hell paying the same debt twice?
This would be unjust of God and therefore cannot be. What did Christ
actually do with the sins of Pharaoh when (as the unlimited atonement
folk would have us believe) He so suffered and atoned for them? Did He
take them away as He has done with the sins of His elect? Did He bring
them back (having made a full and complete atonement) and put them
again on Pharaoh to suffer for these already fully atoned-for sins
again? I have asked this of several people, via email and face to face
(graciously, of course) and the only reply I can get is that Pharaoh
did not receive the benefits of this atonement for himself. But this
shows nothing. If this unbelief is a sin, then it was also atoned for
in the suffering and so it cannot be used in condemning Pharaoh. If
this unbelief was not atoned for, then you are looking at limited
atonement in the Calvinistic (and better still, Biblical) sense of the
word.
Truth is, both sides limit the
atonement. Non Calvinists limit its power because they believe in an
atonement which fails to keep those atoned for out of hell. Here we
have (according to them) people having to pay the price of sin even
though Christ has already done so. Calvinists do not limit the worth of
the atonement or the merit of the blood of Christ in any way, but we
limit (as we say God does) the intention of the atonement i.e. that it
was ultimately intended to keep the elect out of hell and that it
delivers 100%. How can Christ be satisfied with the travail of His soul
(Isaiah 55:11) if many of those for whom He atoned for will end up in
hell? Unlimited atonement has failure stamped all over it. Limited
Atonement (or Particular Redemption) has 100% success. To me it is very
clear which is the case. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 30-10-04 Thank you for your kind reply to my question about
limited atonement. What is your explanation of I John 2:2? CH (And he
is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for
[the sins of] the whole world.) Thanks
again for your email. The "world" in 1 John 2:2 is a reference to the
Gentiles (as opposed to the Jews) Again, taking the unlimited atonement
view, if Christ actually did make propitiation for the sins of every
last man ever born - for the text uses definite language, not merely
potential but actual, then it follows that every last man ever born
must be propitiated for and if so…then every last man ever born
must be saved i.e. Universalism. Yet this is evidently not so. Every
last text about the atonement must be viewed in this way. Follow
through the clear statements and their implications in these texts. If
a man ends up in hell then it is evident that no atonement was made for
his sin…otherwise he would not be there. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 29-10-04 Hello Pastor Maxwell, I am a pre law student and I
was looking up Calvinist Doctrine when I came on your web site. I have
just one question. Man has free will, and God allows us the make our
own decision. God wants all his creation to worship him. God does not
want us to live in sin, but the body does not always agree with the
mind. God said your days are numbered and that you can shorten or
lengthen, now that is God giving you a choice to make on the live style
you choose. So how can you say that every thing is predetermine? Thank
you for your time. Mrs. Morris Hi.
Thank you for writing. It is more scriptural to speak about man's free
agency. He is not a robot or a block of wood, but a free moral agent,
totally responsible for his actions. His will, by nature, is not free
in the sense that he is neutral. It is free in that it is able to
follow the dictates of the heart. Man's will is in bondage to his heart
(Proverbs 23:7) and his heart is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9)
therefore man (including his will) is a slave to sin (John 8:34) You
cannot have a free will and an enslaved will at one and the same time.
God allows many to freely follow the dictates of their wicked hearts,
although He does mercifully restrain them from plunging headlong into
deeper sin (Psalm 76:10) This is a mercy to them and to society at
large. However, it is evident that He stops short from saving them,
leaving them in their chosen unbelief and hardness of heart. He offers
salvation to them (Mark 16:15) and they willingly refuse it and
therefore deserve to perish. Others (His elect) are stopped on the road
to hell and graciously saved when their wills are renewed (Psalm
110:3/Philiipians 2:13) and they are born, not from within, but from
above (John 3:3)
That everything has been
determined before hand is the clear teaching of Ephesians 1:11 where we
read: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated
according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will: (Ephesians 1:11) It is this thought that makes
Romans 8:28 so precious and potent. Since there is (ultimately) no
wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. (Proverbs 21:30)
what can we conclude but that all things really are working according
to His plan? The ultimate proof of these things is the Cross of Jesus
Christ: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified
and slain: (Acts 2:23) There you have both God's sovereignty and man's
responsibility, side by side. A similar verse concerns the individual
and specific part played by Judas Iscariot: And truly the Son of man
goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is
betrayed! (Luke 22:22) Remember, it is not necessarily for us to be
able to explain these verses, but we are called to believe them.
Calvinists do so. It is the others who hack and hew at them and seek to
lessen their meaning. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 29-10-04 Can you give me some scriptures that show that limited atonement is true? CH Thank
you for your email. The Bible teaches us that Christ died for His
church (Ephesians 5:25) and purchased the church with His own blood
(Acts 20:28) He gave His life for the sheep (John 10:11) effectively
repeated again in John 10:15 He shed His blood as a ransom for the many
(Matthew 20:28) bearing their sins (Isaiah 53:12) It may be argued -
and it is a better class of argument than is usually put forth by those
who oppose this doctrine of particular redemption - that these texts do
not declare that Christ died only for His church and His sheep etc.,
Obviously we do not interpret that when Paul said "The Son of God loved
me and gave Himself for me" (Galatians 2:20) that atonement was for him
alone. As regards those texts which use the word "all" or " the world"
or "every man" we interpret them as meaning "all kinds of " as opposed
to "all without exception". This is totally consistent with other usage
of these words. e.g. does "every man" in Luke 16:16 literally mean
every individual ever born? Obviously not.
The very nature of the atonement
means that either Christ paid and God accepted the full price of all
the sins that were suffered for or He didn't. There is nothing merely
potential about Christ's atonement. It was actual. If Christ died (say)
for the rich man in hell, then why is the rich man in hell at all?
After all, were not his sins paid for in full on the Cross? Is God
exacting payment twice? Did Christ die for the sin of unbelief or
apostasy? If so, why then are men condemned for a sin already paid for
and put away and buried in the sea of God's forgetfulness etc.,? If He
didn't, then He did not die for all the sins of all men and that is
limited atonement. Again, did Christ die for the fallen angels who
await the eternal, conscious torments of hell? No, He didn't. Is this
fair that these creatures of God will be damned without any provision?
If you follow the reasoning behind the unlimited atonement camp that
God cannot be love to let some perish for sins without making an
attempt to save them, then this is grossly "unfair" On the other hand,
if you see that God owes no sinner anything and to save some is an act
of sheer grace, void of any obligation to the others then it is totally
fair that the fallen angels should be left without any atonement being
made on their behalf. Again, what is this but limited atonement? Trust
this explanation helps you. Spurgeon's comments on this doctrine with prove helpful to you. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 21-10-04 Hi, I have been studying Calvinism off and on now for
about 25 years. I now have 2 daughters who are both attending "RUF"
Bible study fellowships on their college campuses in the US. Usually
when I read about Calvinism I find that I have a different idea about
election and so the arguments miss the point. Tell me what you think
about this view which I rarely hear discussed by Calvinists. Nice to hear from you. I hope I can help you.
Salvation and Election are separate. God does not elect us to
salvation. Election has to do with God choosing a people to witness to
the world of His greatness. It is
surely wrong to deny that election is unto salvation when the Bible
says that whom God predestinates, them he also calls and justifies
(Romans 8:29-30) And what is holiness, but salvation from sin?
(Ephesians 1:4) Witnessing to the greatness of God flows from our
election unto salvation.
Salvation is purely by faith and solely based on Christ's work on the cross. Agreed.
I have a free will and sadly I can choose to reject His wonderful offer of salvation. The
sinner, by nature, has a self will and because of this many do reject
God's wonderful offer of salvation. While man is not a puppet or a
block of wood, yet his will is only free to follow the dictates of his
heart, and his heart is in bondage to sin (John 8:34) It is more
accurate to say that man is a free moral agent, rather than to ascribe
to him free will i.e. that he possesses the power to choose that which
is good.
But salvation is not just a free ticket to heaven. It is also the
wonderful privilege of God choosing us to tell others about Him--to be
His witnesses. As it stands, true.
God chose Israel, but not all are saved who are of Israel. The election
was separate from salvation which has always been by faith. Obviously
God made different "choices" and not every choice was unto salvation.
He chose Judas to be an Apostle, yet this choice was not unto salvation
(John 6:70) However, the vast majority of times when the word "choice"
or "election" etc., is used, it is unto salvation. Faith is not the
cause of salvation, but the God given channel which brings it to the
soul.
God chose us before the foundation of the world for the awesome
privilege of being His people and telling others about Him. He didn't
choose us for salvation, but for this task. The above verses show that election is unto salvation.
Salvation has always been about having faith in the incredible
Creator of the Universe who came to earth as a baby and who died for
our sins.
Now, the one question I have when I get to heaven is to find out why I
believed and someone else didn't. It was not based on my righteousness.
I was completely lost and still would be except that He came into my
life. IF I did anything it was only to recognize my sin. Somehow by
shining the Light of God's Word on my life I recognized how lost I was.
Exactly! But you don't have to
wait until you get to Heaven to find out these answers. The Bible tells
us why you believed and someone else didn't. You believed because God
chose you to salvation and gave you faith to believe. You believed
through grace (Acts 18:27) Others didn't believe because they loved
darkness rather than light (John 3:19) If in Heaven we should ask why
we were chosen, the answer may well be as expressed by the Lord Jesus:
Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. (Matthew 11:26)
Even your recognition of sin was the work of the Holy Spirit upon your
life (John 16:8)
I really do not know the answer to this question of why one person
believes and another doesn't, but I just don't think it is "fair" if
God "rigged" it. Which is how I view predestination or Calvinism. To me
that is adding to the work of the cross. The
word "rigged" is a loaded word. Far better to say that it was planned
or decreed. It is only "unfair" if God owed the whole human race
something or the race hadn't forfeited any claims it might have had by
its sin. If God is not obliged to save any (He's not) then He is not
obliged to save all (He won't) and the wonder is that He has decreed to
save some (He did and will) You mention the Cross…in the light
of Acts 2:23, would you say it was "rigged"?
My main point is that usually when I read about the Calvinist debate
the arguments always assume that election is election to salvation and
I don't think that is true so the arguments are pointless in my
estimation. As said above, far
from being an assumption, this is the blessed truth of the Bible and so
the arguments are valid, not pointless.
Thank you for all your great work on your site. I also think that if
"Calvinism" were so true it would be a whole lot simpler to explain. Every doctrine has its depths. Try explaining the Trinity in a small paragraph.
Jesus, thank God, can be understood by the simplest of people.
True, but it is very hard to explain, never mind defend, how (say) God
can be just in punishing people for sins which Christ paid the debt for
on the Cross, which non Calvinists believe. When I preach the gospel to
the unsaved, I don't hit them with hard doctrine (of whatever shade)
but simply proclaim that there is salvation for all who will look and
live. The two men mentioned below had very effective soul winning
ministries and yet they were neither shallow nor difficult to
understand.
And, most Reformed sites spend more time talking about Calvin and Spurgeon, etc. than Jesus and Paul. Thanks for your time. Susan (in Virginia, USA) Whether
you or I have accessed "most Reformed sites" remains to be proved, but
even if what you allege is true, it does not detract from the truth of
the Doctrines of Grace. Personally, I would rather talk about Jesus
only and I would rather talk about Paul than Calvin and Spurgeon. Yet I
recognise that they too were mighty men of God and it is fitting that I
recognise what God in His sovereign grace did through their
ministries. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 20-10-04 Here is a URL you might find interesting regarding "once saved always saved" God bless, A brother in Dallas, Texas Hi, Thanks
for your email. I had a look at the above site. Both pages above deal
with the abuses of the doctrine of eternal security. Our page "Once saved, always saved"
does not throw out the truth of eternal security, but tackles head on
the awful abuse which men have made of it. The other site you refer to
unfortunately throws out the proverbial baby with the bath water and
rejects not only the abuse, but the truth also. There is no advantage
in this. Both abusing a Biblical doctrine and denying it are sinful in
the sight of God. However, thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 11-10-04 I have just found your site and wish to express my
thanks for the work you are doing and have done. Just yesterday, when I
was teaching about election, I got a question about whether the offer
of the gospel to the non-elect is "real." Your page of quotations
on the subject gave me a wonderful tool to provide to the questioner!
Be strengthened in the Lord's work. I know that to teach the Doctrines
of Grace is to swim upstream in today's church. Be a strong and
tireless swimmer! DB, Arkansas, United States. Hi.
It is always an encouragement at this end to get an appreciative email.
A fair bit of work goes into preparing internet pages but emails like
yours richly repays all the effort. Keep evangelising! Preach the
gospel to every last person you meet and plead with them to repent and
be converted. It's not our side of the business to say who will and who
wont be saved. We see every one as potentially elect. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 4-10-04 Greetings from the US (specifically Louisville, KY).
Someone sent me a link to your web page. Good stuff. I enjoyed reading
your insights. I am a student at Southern Baptist Seminary. I have a
friend in the ministry (who lives and ministers in West Virginia) who
will be going to Ireland as a missionary. He is currently raising
support and will not be "on the field" for a year or so. He is not a
Calvinist...however he has a deep love for R M McCheyne which I have
always thought was ironic. You made comments to this point on your
page. Just wanted to drop you a line and let you know you page is being
read in the States and enjoyed by many I'm certain. Press on. In
Christ, Jesus Christ, Louisville, KY USA Hi.
Thanks for your encouraging email. It is always good to know that the
site is being blessed of God to the help of other believers. Ireland
needs all the missionaries she can get. The fields are white unto
harvest, but the labourers are few. McCheyne is always a blessing to
read. I remember the first time I read his Memoirs (as edited by Andrew
Bonar) It really was special. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 26-09-04 Pastor Maxwell: I just finished writing a review of
one of the most disturbing books that I've ever read. You might
remember "The Other Side of Calvinism" as being the book that Dave Hunt
copied his "research" from for his book. My critique of the Vance book
has some links to your excellent WebPages, so I thought I'd let you
know about it. You can read my review here. Hi,
Thanks again for your email. I had only heard of Vance through the
Calvinism debate but have never otherwise seen his book. This makes
your information below valuable, although I don't see anything new
there. These anti Calvinists seem to be able to make money at parroting
each others diatribes. One good thing from Vance is that he repudiated
Hunt's strange notion that Spurgeon unequivocally denounced Particular
Redemption. I appreciate you linking to our pages.
I don't know if you are aware of some of the things that Vance says in his book, but some examples are:
1. Calvinism is the greatest heresy to ever plague the church (p.x). It
is "blasphemy" (p.2) and is "essentially immoral" (p.3). John Calvin
"caused millions of souls to be damned" (p.71)
2. Calvinists intentionally cause confusion by inventing their own
vocabulary in order to confound people (p.35), and use "double talk"
(p.272) and "ploys" to change the subject when they are confronted
(p.189).
3. Calvinism teaches "fatalism" (p.278), and that God randomly chooses
people to be saved by "arbitrary" methods (p.258). Calvinists "deny
free will altogether" (p.274)
4. Vance claims that prayer and predestination are incompatible (p.276) and Calvinism kills evangelism (p.239,273,369). We have answered these kind of allegations elsewhere.
It would be very hard to reason with Vance, especially if he considers
that we are talking only to confound people. These seem to be the
symptoms of some kind of paranoia. The rest of us recognise that there
are different viewpoints, sincerely held by both sides, on some of the
details of salvation. Without doubt some of these are misunderstandings
where we only think the other side hold a particular view. This is why
we try to talk reasonably one with another etc., But if one side or the
other appears wide eyed with conspiracy theories etc., then it really
is time to go and get a life elsewhere.
5. A sample of "Dr. Vance's" exegesis. For 1 Cor 1:22-24 he says: "The
'them which are called' are so designated because they answered the
call". Also the word "chosen" in the Bible means "valuation or worth"
rather than selection (p.365) Anything but a Sovereign God choosing whom He will without respect to what Vance calls "free will" Sad.
If you would like to link to my page refuting Vance feel free to do so.
Also, if you have any suggestions of how I could improve my page,
please let me know. I'm a novice at this, and I hope somebody will one
day write a more extensive review of this horrible book than I did. I
was limited on time and knowledge. --Jim Bublitz, Brookfield WI I
have linked to your page as requested above. Things are very busy here
at the moment, as I am getting ready with 5 other Calvinists to go on a
soul winning trip to a huge agricultural show here in Ireland.
Certainly Calvinism hasn't killed our desire for evangelism…or
this is another example of double talk and a Calvinistic ploy designed
to change the subject. :-) Anyway, probably best to leave Mr Vance to
fight his imaginary battles and to get on with the real task of
glorifying God in the seeking out of lost souls and winning them to
Christ. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 18-09-04 I was reading your page on THE CALVINISM DEBATE SIMPLIFIED
when I came upon your views on the atonement and the limitations of the
word 'all'. I would like to say that what I have read so far is
'concise, intelligent, and to the point' and the more I read, the more
I value your point of view. Thanks
for your email. Glad that the above page was of help to you. I am
particularly anxious to have the Calvinistic view point set forth free
from any misunderstandings.
Our church had a revival last week and the visiting pastor brought up
several items that I (thankfully) will be able now to discuss with some
in our congregation. Some of those teachings were closely related to
the doctrines of grace and I believe that God has given me a gate to
use now. One of his teachings was unfamiliar, he said that Jesus
suffered the ultimate fate for him because he - being a sinner
following his sin nature - deserved the ultimate punishment. Therefore,
Christ went to hell - as is described in Luke 16 - to suffer the
ultimate death, then He was resurrected, then ascended to the right
hand of the Almighty. Christ did
not go into the regions of the damned i.e. into the place of torment
but it may be said that He bore our hell for us i.e. the punishment due
for our sins. For us, such sufferings would be eternal i.e. everlasting
in nature because [i] we are finite creatures and [ii] the soul does
not stop sinning in hell. However, since Christ is both God and man and
therefore infinite, He could bear the sins of His people and pay the
price in a shorter time span.
When reading Luke 16, I find no mention of Jesus being there - just
Abraham. I must admit that when this pastor brought this out, I liked
it, now I wonder. My questions are:
1) What happened to the Old Testament saints? Even
within Reformed and Fundamental Christianity there is some debate about
this. I tend to run with the view that when they died they went
straight to Heaven as Elijah did when he was taken up (2 Kings 2:11)
2) If Abraham believed and it was imputed unto him as righteousness[and
he did and it was], then why was Abraham in Luke 16? It has been
proposed that Abraham enjoyed communion with God [because he believed]
and since Abraham was one of the elect, the blood would be eternally
[past and present and future] effectual to cover his presence with God.
I'm not sure of the point you are making here.
3)What about the Apostle's Creed? Again, I'm not sure of the point you are making here.
Thanks for your response. JS Likewise, thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 11-09-04 Dear Rev. Colin Maxwell, First of all, let me
introduce myself once you, most likely, have never heard about me. I'm
Antonio Fonte, a Brazilian Presbyterian seminarian at the
Seminário Presbiteriano do Norte North Presbyterian Seminary in
Recife, Brazil. I'm a designer and concluding my theological studies in
order to become a minister. You can find my church on the web. I'm also the webmaster and one of the web designers responsible for that.
Hi. Nice to hear from you. I
always appreciate when people who find our site helpful communicate
with us. It is most encouraging.
Some time ago, I was making a search at Google's Site and I found an article "Seven reasons for a Calvinistic Evangelism"
(something like it). I've really appreciated your essay, and I
translated into Portuguese and published. I'm sorry, I know I should
have asked for your permission and that's the point of this e-mail.
Would you mind if I keep it there?
No. I am "chuffed" (pleased) that you found it worth translating and
making available for others to read. Go ahead and translate whatever
you want. Please, however, acknowledge the source.
It's said that Brazil is the World's Largest Catholic Nation. And I
think so, even though most of Catholics don't follow all of Pope's
commandments. But as in Ireland, Roman Catholicism is very, very
influent and powerful. I hope we can make a friendship and we can be
learning from each other. May God Bless you, Antonio Fonte.
Romanism is on the wane here in
Ireland, although (in light of Revelation 17) I don't think we can
write it off yet. Someone commented later that she will reinvent
herself. Perhaps when and if they get another Pope, they will realign
themselves. Meanwhile, keep preaching the word! Speaking of the
doctrines of Calvinism, Spurgeon said: "From
the mouth of this cannon the Lord will blow the Pope and all his
myrmidons into a thousand shivers, but no other doctrine will do it." Thanks for writing again. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 11-09-04 Dear Colin Maxwell, In reading your page on "SOME THINGS NON CALVINISTS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CALVINISM",
I ran across a dead hyperlink at article 26. This is an area that I
can't define as well as I should. I know that God is not the author of
sin, but I cannot prove it any farther than that. Proverbs 16:4 is a
verse that is not quoted often and could be read that God created the
wicked. That is obvious error. Also, I have a friend I have been trying
to minister to for the past two years. He was talking about suicide,
not in the sense that he was considering, but in the sense that if he
were to suffer through, say, a combination of Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's, that he probably would. He believes that this may not be
sin. He then says that God is sovereign, therefore God controls all
things including suffering and the ability to take your own life.
Please excuse the poor grammar. JS
Hi. Thanks for your note and also
note of the dead hyperlink. When God created man, He created him
upright. It was man who sought out many inventions and so corrupted
himself (Ecclesiastes 7:29) Proverbs 16:4 teaches us that even in the
day of evil, the wicked cannot overthrow the purposes of God, their
vile actions being known to God and permitted and used to further His
own ends and promote His own glory. Re: your friend's views on suicide.
It is all a bit hypothetical. I admit it is easy said while in full
health…but it would be sin to take your own life even in such
harrowing circumstances. God gives not only grace , but "more grace"
for all situations (James 4:6) God controls man's ability to fornicate,
steal, destroy and murder etc., but we still rightfully recognise these
things as sin. I didn't notice anything wrong with your grammar. Thanks
again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 11-09-04 Dear Brother, Would you agree with the following
statement? God saves men without violating their free will the same way
he caused men to write the Bible without violating their free will. If
you could let me know what you think I would appreciate it. Larry. Hi,
Thanks for your email and question. I am not sure whether we are really
comparing like with like here. We know little of the process of
inspiration, except that the penmen were moved or borne along by the
Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) to write down the very words of God and were
kept from error when doing so. That this was not mechanical may be seen
in the different styles of writing. Isaiah uses an elegant style while
Amos the sycamore fruit gatherer is more rough and ready, yet both
equally inspired. In salvation, man's corrupt will which cannot receive
the things of the Spirit of God (Romans 8:7/1 Corinthians 2:14) is
graciously renewed or regenerated by the Spirit of God and so he is
enabled to willingly embrace Christ. No one is saved who doesn't want
to be saved, but those who desire salvation have evidently been wrought
upon from above (John 3:3) God worked in them both to will and to do of
His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13) I trust this helps you. Colin.
*******************************************************
4-09-04 Some one wrote a kind note
of appreciation re: our Website. Unfortunately I accidentally deleted
his email before replying to the same. Sorry about that!
*******************************************************
Received 3-09-04 Dear Pastor Maxwell: I was recently confronted by a
claim that Mark 4, Matthew 13, Acts 28, and John 12 disprove the
Calvinistic doctrine of Human Inability. These verses talk about the
hardening of the Jews, and go on to say "otherwise they might have
seen...heard...understood and I would have healed them" (caused them to
repent). Does this imply that, had they not been hardened, they COULD
HAVE repented? For example, in Mark 4:10-12 why did Jesus have to speak
in parables to keep some from repenting if they were already morally
"unable" to repent, absent an effectual call. Thanks very much for
considering my question. JB. Milwaukee Wisconsin, USA Hi,
Thanks for your email and question. I think the best way to view these
passages is to consider, first of all, the truth that it is the
goodness of God that actually and effectually leads men to repentance
(Romans 2:4) Not merely potentially or possibly but actually. In the
absence of such specific grace being effectually given, men are then
left to their own sinful devices and ultimately perish in their
deserved doom. No man is in hell who does not deserve to be there. It
can never be argued concerning such that it was the intention or
purpose of God to save them, because God's purpose or intention can
never be frustrated. In Matthew 13:12 we read: For whosoever hath, to
him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever
hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. The
reprobates never possessed true faith or repentance, but they did enjoy
other spiritual advantages. The Spirit of God strove with them (Genesis
6:3) they had access to the word of God and some even to great miracles
continually (John 12:37) - but still, they loved darkness rather than
the light they did have (John 3:19) and subsequently even this was
taken from them. The whole argument of the deniers of human inability
are basing their argument on an "if" i.e. the Lord Jesus is saying in
effect: "If I had not have removed their ability to believe, then they
might have seen, heard, believed etc.," But the point is He did remove
it and we can challenge them to explain why He should do so if it was
His decreed intention to save every man without exception and
distinction. He does not deal with all men equally and is under no
obligation to do so. I'm putting to you that while there is an "if"
employed here (in order to aid our understanding of the matter) there
are no "if's" in the providence of God and the Lord Jesus knew well to
whom repentance would be given and who wouldn't. If I were discussing
these passages with an unsaved sinner, I would follow their emphasis
and urge him to make full use of what he does have. It may be that my
urging him to repent and believe etc., will be the means which God uses
to bring another of His elect to Himself. I view all men still alive as
potentially elect, being content to know that the Lord knows those who
are His and that He will employ the means He sees fit to bring every
last one of them to Himself. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 13-08-04 Dear Colin Maxwell, I somehow stumbled upon the above
mentioned article (in the subject line) while looking up something
(forget what I was even looking up! It took me two days to read through
the article). I thought it was a well written rebuttal if you indeed
took all of Mr. Cloud's article and not just pieces of it. It is nice
to see articles written without personal attacks. So I thought since
your e-mail was posted I would let you know how refreshing it is to
read an articulate debate without the attacks. You may not even be at
this address anymore, this article might be several years old, but if
this gets to you, I enjoyed reading it. Sincerely, DS Hi…still
here, although just returned from a 3 week holiday (vacation to our
American friends) Glad you found the web site useful and enjoyable. I
think it is important to avoid personal attacks as much as we
can…indeed just avoid them altogether. Even our page on why we
feel Mr. Cloud is not a reliable critic of Calvinism carefully avoids slipping into personal vindictiveness. Thanks again for your kind and encouraging email. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 13-08-04 http://www.corkfpc/calvinismindex.html
If you are the gentleman would wrote and is in charge of the website
above, I must first say, "I am very impressed." Not only is the content
logically laid out, it is full of useful information. Even more
importantly, it is written in a nice and honest tone. This is something
we rarely see in "Debate-Theology Websites." Hi.
Glad to hear from you and to know that our Calvinistic contents are
encouraging you. It is a pity that many theological debates do end up
in bitter wrangles. Why should they? What is to be gained?
My favor is this... Could you send me your site so that I might keep
the content on my server (and credit you for the work)? I do not want
to loss this valuable content and with it hosted on Geocities, I am a
little nervous. If you don't know how to send the pages, please email
with permission to download the pages myself. Please respond with an
answer. God Bless, TT
Feel free to download them
yourself etc., although (as indicated) with appropriate credits. Re:
Geocities…I have never had a problem yet with them. Only very
occasionally has the site being off the web and that for "routine
maintenance work" Having said that, when I tried to upgrade the site to
a proper title, I just couldn't do it. A useful "help line" telephone
number would not go astray. A customer willing to pay who can't pay is
not good for business. They do have a UK based branch but they can't
accept money, so we're stuck with the rather cumbersome URL for a while
yet. However, we digress. Thanks again for your encouraging email.
Colin. LATER NOTE: We are, now of course, with another server.
*******************************************************
Received 13-08-04 You did a good job on refuting Dave Hunt.
But you need to remember e.g. Smith's statement that every heresy,
whether doctrine or morals, either first or last, works itself into a
frenzy against Calvinism. When you deal with Arminianism you are
dealing with human perversity. Logic and scripture will have no effect
on them. Arminians can be easily deceived by charlatan preachers and
deceivers such as you see on Trinity Broadcasting. They are biblically
ignorant. I know, I used to be one of them. So thank God for the great
Westminster Confession of Faith and the fact a Calvinist is protected
against the deception of the modern day hawkers. JWM Hi.
Thanks for your note. I appreciate you writing. I think the best way to
deal with Arminian or non Reformed fellow believers is to patiently set
truth before them. Answer their objections with Scripture and trust the
Lord to teach His own family. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 9-7-04 Hi Pastor Maxwell: I'm involved in a debate with an
influential leader in our (semi-reformed) non-denominational church who
keeps saying that Calvinistic doctrine is a "side issue" that we should
not be dogmatic about, or divide over. His motto is "in essentials
unity, and in non-essentials charity". Now to me, Calvinistic doctrine
is inter-meshed within the Gospel itself. Obviously my friend does not
agree, and he even talks about how Spurgeon (apparently) said that it
is "not of the marrow of the Gospel" (or something along those lines).
Can you recommend any articles or writings that would help me convince
my friend that Calvinistic doctrine is not "optional", or just a side
issue which we can talk about as though it were a "hobby" of some sort?
Thanks in advance, Jim B. Brookfield WI Thanks
for your email. It's hard to think of any particular article or
writings. While I believe (along with Warfield) that Calvinism is the
fullest expression of the gospel, yet I have never felt the need to go
around actively convincing every last Christian to embrace it. True,
there are quite a few articles on our church Website which both defend
and promote Calvinism, yet I think there is a point where we must agree
to differ with those who either disagree with the doctrines entirely,
or (as per your friend) fails to see their fuller significance. There
is only so much you can do. While Spurgeon was an out and out
Calvinist, yet he saw the gospel as being wider than the five points
and he saw too, how Arminians generally were better than their man
centered creed and also believed the gospel. Maybe you have taken your
debate as far as you can. At least your friend is not on an anti
Calvinist crusade as many others seem to be. Thanks again for writing.
Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 9-7-04 Hi, I happened upon your Website while doing a search
on the internet. I was looking forward to reading a review of my
Website (particularly my article on Romans 9), but was disappointed to
find that you did not respond at all to my position. You incorrectly
assert that White has responded to my position on Romans 9 "is answered
by James White and the debate between Norman Griesler and James White."
(Spelling error of Geislers name in original). The fact is that James
White has not responded, even though he began a debate with me on
Paltalk. After I posted my article, he then refused to have any further
dialogue with me, except to publicly slander my screen name over the
internet.
In the Potters Freedom, White does a lousy job on Romans 9, and then as
his excuse points to John Piper. You are now pointing to White in much
the same manner, offering no real substance of your own. I would like
to challenge you to get your Bible out, and read through my article on
Romans 9. Once you have done so, please describe to me any and all
errors that you might have found. Anything that I state is a Biblical
fact, and is not, point this out to me please.
Unless you can provide a real response to my actual position, your
WebPages is not doing much to help your cause. I do however thank you
for the link to my page, as those who are searching for Biblical truth
might discover my work through your site. In Christ, John Hi,
Thanks for your email. Sorry if our site has disappointed you. I tried
to download your Romans 9 page, but I don't seem to cope too well with
the .pdf format. Trying to print it only got me as far as page 2. Do
you have it in .html format? Obviously with 53 pages, I can't spare the
time to comment on every point. However, when normally challenged on
any doctrinal position, I propose that the challenger formulate his
points in 200 words of less and send it to me. I will open up a page
here on this Website and make reply to you in 200 words or less. We
could be exchanging emails every couple of days and so getting
reasonably quickly yet tirelessly through your points. It is a great
deal less tiresome for debaters and readers alike as the portions are
bite size and to the point. You can see how this worked well in another
debate I had with a non Calvinist. That debate did not start off on
these conditions, but we soon disciplined ourselves and it was a great
deal easier. You can say a lot in 200 words as this paragraph proves!
Colin. UPDATE: THIS OFFER WAS NEVER ACCEPTED
*******************************************************
Received 30-6-04 I have been studying Reformed doctrine for at least
two years, but never believed it until at least 2 months ago. I am a
pastor of a Baptist church so I take these matters seriously. Thanks for your email. It is an encouragement to us to see how the Lord has been leading you into the Doctrines of Grace.
The reason I contacted you is to ask you a question that has perplexed me and a friend. The question regards Limited atonement.
This is perhaps the hardest of all
the 5 points of Calvinism for many to grasp and if you find a "4
pointer" it is usually here where they stumble. Although the TULIP
acrostic is a man made memory device, yet it is significant that the
atonement is at the heart of it. It is hard to justify all the
Doctrines of Grace and still maintain that Christ died for reprobates
whom He knew were not elected to salvation (i.e. passed by in their
sins) and who would be going to hell (or indeed already in hell) when
He supposedly died and made full atonement for their sins. We take this
point up in our page challenging unlimited atonement.
Two verses: 1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 2:1. If you can give me scripture
for what these two verses mean it would be useful. Thanks. (Anon)
…the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (1 Timothy 4:10) This
text is usually taken to mean that Christ has actually died for the
sins of all men in some general sense, but for the sins of the
believers in a special sense. Those who qualify only for the first
sense are eventually lost (although full atonement for actually made
for their sins) and only the believers who qualify for the second sense
are saved i.e. because they "claimed" this atonement. However, the text
does not say this. It does not make the Living God a potential Saviour
or a frustrated Saviour, but an actual Saviour. Again, if the salvation
of all men without exception is intended in the first phrase, then the
second clause is superfluous since the believer is included there
anyway. Noting the distinction between the "all men" and the believer,
Calvinists believe that the Saviour in this verse is used in two
different ways, as marked by the two different classes mentioned. The
Bible elsewhere uses the term salvation in a lesser sense (Nehemiah
9:27x2 and Obadiah 21 etc.,) To be brief, we hold that the first group
("all men" without distinction) enjoy the common grace of God which
meets their physical needs while the second i.e. the believers enjoy
much more even the forgiveness of the sins, based on the actual,
definite atonement made at Calvary.
But
there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be
false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,
even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift
destruction. (2 Peter 2:1) We deal at length with this verse in another page which supplies Biblical support.
Thanks again for writing. I hope these explanations iron out any difficulties you might have. Feel free to write again. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 15-6-04 Dear Mr Maxwell, Hi. Thanks for taking time to look at our Website and also to email us.
I have read your refutation of the anti-Calvinist preaching of a Mr David Cloud. Could I ask you whether Mr Cloud attempted to reply to your refutation? There
has been some email contact, but he is sticking by his guns. I don't
think he is particularly open to correction. I suppose with a Website
as big as his, covering so many different topics, he must get many
letters from folk not too happy with what he has written. This creates
the need for a kind of defense mechanism…but it is totally
unsatisfactory to be defending some of the things which he has written.
My problem with David Cloud is not so much his rejection of Calvinism -
that's his problem - but his caricature of it. I loathe inconsistency.
Mr Cloud's position seems to be hardening on this issue if I look at
his Website and seeing a sermon audio link on the issue, but he does
not supply his position in a readily available written form.
Our friends in Sermon audio
(Free Presbyterians) refused to carry Cloud's sermon on Calvinism.
However, he got his own apparatus so that you can listen to it in his
site. There is no facility, as far as I can see, so that you can
download it and listen later. However, I am pretty sure it is basically
the same message as that which appears under the title:
Calvinism…who is the enemy? This article could be a lot worse,
but his insistence that Calvin did not believe in the free offer of the
gospel is totally ludicrous as is his refusal to distinguish between
hyper Calvinists and true Calvinists. If he did, many of his arguments
would disappear like snow of a ditch.
I noticed another Website condemned Mr Cloud as a false preacher. I would appreciate your comments. Kind Regards, VW
I tend to keep allegations like
this for modernists etc., who deny those fundamentals of the faith
which are essential for salvation. If I believed (and I don't) that
only Calvinists would be in Heaven, I would not hesitate to brand him
as a false preacher. However, every time he reruns ("updates" as he
calls it) these articles, I tend to lose more and more respect for
him…at least on this issue. His endorsement of Hunt's book on Calvinism was no help to him either. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 12-6-04 Wonder how the non-reformed get by this Scripture? John 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven. Least of all his Servants, Larry Hi
Larry, Thanks for your email. The immediate context of John 3:27 does
not pose any particular challenge to the non Reformed., as it relates
to the office which either Christ or John (or both) received from God.
If we relate these words generally - and there is a principle
established here- then the non Reformed "get by" John 3:27 very easily.
They say (in effect) that God has given every sinner all that is
necessary for him to receive Christ. All sinners have to do now, by his
own free will, is to exercise it and receive Him as his Saviour. This
may "get by" (or as we word it in these parts: "get round") this text
very easily but explaining it in accordance with the rest of Scripture,
of course, is another ballgame completely. The Lord Jesus made it clear
that there were many who were not given that which it takes to bring
them to Christ: He answered and said unto them, Because it is given
unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it
is not given. (Matthew 13:11) This is when God leaves them, as desired,
to their beloved sins. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 11-6-04 Thank you for your web site. I am a recent Calvinist
believer (18 years as a Christian, about 8 as a Calvinist). I am sick
of the unlearned ways some fundamentalists try and attack us. I led a
man to Christ 4 years ago that joined a fundamental church and he has
been telling me why Calvinists are heretics!! Hi,
Thanks for your email. Glad to know that our site has been of blessing
to you. I agree it is very hard to take the way some (although not all)
fundamental brethren attack the Doctrines of Grace from the platform of
ignorance. It is one thing to disagree with these doctrines (bad
enough!) but to caricature and misrepresent them is another. It gets
worse again when you point out the caricature and they dig in their
heels and refuse to correct the error. The answer is simply to expose
the error and propagate the truth and do so in a very calm, cool and
collected manner. Truth always surfaces in the end.
These people remind me of the liberal news media. They don't check
their sources, but instead stand on the street corners shouting slogans
to rouse the rabble. I have heard some fantastic stories about Calvin,
but when they start that, I just tell them I'm not defending him, but
the Bible. It is amazing how, without failing, the Word of God quiets
them down. A good strategy. Get
them to the word. When Martyn Lloyd Jones preached/printed his great
series on Ephesians, he got an irate letter from a Calvinist who
complained that he never mentioned the great Reformer's name once when
dealing with chapter two. Which shows a danger on our side of the
fence. With all due respects to Calvin, his name need not be mentioned
once in this debate.
I too am a defender of the KJV and the Textus Receptus. It is too bad I
cannot seem to find anyone other than fundamentalists that share that
view. Although the Trinitarian
Bible Society, who prints only KJV Bibles and uses the TR for the
foreign languages, does not specify the Doctrines of Grace in their
statement of belief, yet it's directors etc., are largely, if not
entirely, made up of Calvinists. It is interesting how the KJV only
Fundamentalists who attack Calvinism as heresy, use a Bible translated
by the same heretics. I cover this thought elsewhere.
I guess I should pray that the LORD would send me someone, but everyone
knows Calvinists don't pray!! (sic) May God richly bless you, MS, PA
(USA)
Thanks for writing again. Are you
near Malvern…just outside the city of Philadelphia? The FPC has
a thriving congregation there which is both solid in its Calvinism and
its defence of the KJV. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 9-6-04 Love your web site it is very helpful. Wanted to send
you this web link so you could refute this x-Calvinist. Again your web
site is great!!! This is the web site: (REMOVED) In his control and
loving it! LT Hi, Thanks for your
email and appreciation of our site. I came across this site before. I
haven't included it on our page because it is not sourced from within
the Evangelical community. The site is a Universalist one i.e. they
believe that all men will be ultimately saved. I could spend all day
every day refuting such sites, but I judge it better to answer those
attacks (often based on ignorance) which emanate from the people of
God. However, thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 2-6-04 Hi, I have some questions and principle Calvinist
questions for you...Please email all the answers at my email if you
can. I greatly appreciate it. I want to have your point of view on
Calvinism to better understand the aspects. Hi.
Thanks for your email. You have quite a few questions. I have edited
some of them out, either because they are unclear or not particularly
edifying.
Is John Calvin to be worshipped? Obviously
not. I don't know of any Calvinist who worships Calvin. It is one thing
to greatly respect and admire him, but worship is reserved for God
alone (Matthew 4:10)
Why don't Calvinists refer to themselves as Christians who most accurately interpret the Bible in stead of another ism? In
an ideal world, your suggestion would be a good one. However every
theological school would like to think they could claim this
description and we would be back to square one. The original term
"Calvinism" was given by the opponents of these doctrines and the name
has stuck. Personally, I don't get hung up either way about labels.
If God hates the Esau's of the world, why don't Christians carry guns
to church and start killing anyone who rejects them? Punch a smoker in
the face and tell them to Repent or get shot? I mean the Jews in the
Old Testament killed the men, pregnant women, and children of the
Amalekites? Because Christ says that we are to love our neighbours as ourselves (Mark 12:31)
Christians sometimes gain peace by killing until only themselves are left. This is a very strange observation which has escaped my notice.
What would you do if you didn't have the Lord in your life? Would you
go out and sin? what if you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt you were
going to hell? and there was nothing to do about it and God didn't
elect you? Would you go out and party? Please be honest. No
man can know, on this earth, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is non
elect, and so your question is hypothetical. I think we should keep to
those questions which help us face the realities of the Christian
faith.
What kind of attitude does God have for the non elect? Does he laugh
when they burn in hell or sin? After all didn't God ply Adam's free
will to eat the apple just so He can throw people in hell? God gets a
kick out of predestinating people to hell? I
believe God loves the non elect, although (obviously) not with an
electing love. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel
33:11) and is not a Sadistic God, as your questions suggest.
What are the worms in hell? Will those in hell have a memory of all they did? or will they have a conscience without memory? Some
relate the worms in hell to be the conscious memories of sin and Christ
rejection etc., Whatever the meaning, hell is a place where the wicked
are cast and where the smoke of its torment ascends for ever and ever.
(Psalm 9:17/Luke 16:19-31 etc.,) Colin.
Thank you for your time. Joe
*******************************************************
Received 1-6-04 Hi Colin, How would you define the difference between what God wills, and what God allows?
Keeping the Calvinistic and Arminian positions in view, if God allows
me to write this email to you, it seems I must believe the following:
God preordained this email and chose the time and place of the act of
my writing, therefore it was in accordance with His will because [i] it
IS His will, or [ii] God has allowed me to write this email because it
is in agreement with His will. Hi
Darren, Thanks for your email. Although the theologians may draw
distinctions in the will of God - I do not object to this - yet in
reality, God's will is but one. Our problem is that we have to try to
grapple with how it is revealed to us in Scripture.
Either way it seems that God had to make the choice: If He willed
something to occur, it is obviously His choice and His will. If he
allowed something to occur, He still had to make the choice to let it
occur. So when Satan approached God concerning Job, God made the choice
to allow Satan to do his deeds (within limits). Yet if God allowed it,
isn't God also willing it? Yes He
is…but the fundamental difference is the reasoning behind it.
God did it in love and Job was the better person afterwards for it all
(Romans 8:28) Satan's motives were entirely different i.e. in full
malice an hatred against God and His righteous servant Job and
therefore Satan will suffer accordingly. But all things which come to
pass are in accordance with God's holy and wise will (Ephesians 1:11)
God takes the glory, the sinner takes the blame. The Westminster
Confession of Faith section on the Decrees of God are very useful on
this subject. They keep the balance between the absolute sovereignty of
God on one hand and man's freedom and responsibility on the other.
I recently was brought into a conversation with a fellow believer who
has Arminian leanings, although he doesn't really know where he stands
in the sense that his personal studies have never brought him to a
point where he has wrestled with some of the deeper issues of our faith
and he had never considered what Calvin or Arminus taught, and
therefore he is ignorant of is position either way. I found it
interesting as we talked, that he had no problem with the notion that
God allows everything, yet he could not agree to the notion that God
wills everything. In my own mind I realised that I myself am a bit
confused on this point. If we say that God allows bad things to happen,
we must also say that God doesn't will bad things to happen or God
would not be Holy. Yet as I tried, pitifully, to explain above, doesn't
the decision lie squarely with God either way? Some insight would be
appreciated. Darren
Instead of trying to reconcile the
matter, we should simply state the facts. God ordains whatsoever comes
to pass for the holiest and wisest of reasons. He does so in such a way
whereby He is not the author of sin. Those who violate His law do so
willingly and lovingly (John 3:19) and therefore must and do bear their
own guilt. Christ went as it was written of him and yet better for
Judas had he never been born (Matthew 26:24) Judas by transgression
fell (Acts 1:25) To argue with these basic observations is effectively
to say to God "What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35) There is many a matter,
both theological and practical, which we do not know now, but we will
know hereafter (John 13:8) I hope these few lines help you out. See
also our article on HOW CAN GOD ORDAIN SIN AND YET NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT? by Shedd which you will find very helpful. Colin.
*******************************************************
RETURN TO LATEST CALVINIST EMAILS PAGE