EMAILS ON OUR CALVINISM ARTICLES
NOVEMBER 2004- DECEMBER 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 15-12-04 Hi Colin, Thanks for your response. I appreciate the
tone of your writings on your webpage, and that you consider Arminian
Christians to be brothers and sisters in Christ. Many Calvinists whom
I've corresponded with are quite adamant that Arminians teach a
different gospel and even a different Christ! Thanks,
Michael, for writing again. I unfortunately have to accept your charge
(although it does work the other way round i.e. "The god of the
Calvinists is a monster" etc.,) I think it is more accurate to say that
Arminians present a somewhat diluted gospel. If these folk who want to
damn all Arminians thought about it, who would be saved? Are you saved
when you simply trust the Lord as your Saviour, or are you saved when
you are able to conscientiously and intelligently sign the WCF or some
other Calvinistic creed? I was a Christian for about 2-3 years before I
came into Calvinism. Should I date my conversion from the day my face
lit up knowing that the Doctrines of Grace were true? (You wrote) "In
closing, I think it should be pointed out, that it is a logical
absurdity to say that God foresees something happening and then ordains
it. If He foresaw it, then it was certain to happen whether He
foreordained it or not. How could God not ordain something to happen if
He foresaw it happening anyway?" Well, if God foreknows that A
would do X instead of Y, but God wants Y to happen, then He can prevent
A from doing X. As Jack Cottrell said: "Such
foreknowledge gives God the genuine option of either permitting or
preventing men’s planned choices, and prevention is the ultimate
control. James 4:13-15 chastises the man who blithely says, "Today or
tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and
engage in business and make a profit." But wait a minute, says James.
You are not taking account of God’s sovereignty. "Instead, you
ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this
or that.’" In other words, it is not wrong to have plans, but we
should always acknowledge God’s power to veto them (as in Luke
12:19-20). This is the significance of Prov 19:21, "Many plans are in a
man’s heart, but the counsel of the LORD will stand" (see Prov
16:9)." (Cottrell, The Classical Arminian view of Predestination, p.
27, forthcoming) Yours in Christ, Michael. We
seem to moving away here from God knowing what will happen to what God
knowing what would happen if He did not intervene to prevent it. This
leads you effectively to say that "A would have picked X instead of Y
if he had been given the chance…but this if is redundant because
he never was given the chance and indeed never would be, since before
he ever had the opportunity which he was never going to get anyway, God
irreversibly wanted Y, determined that Y it was and Y it always would
be." (You will probably need to reread this sentence, but it does make
sense. I have just piled on the words to make the point.) Furthermore,
if God so intervenes to prevent men from doing what they willed to do,
then we cannot say that their will is free at all, but subject to the
intervening will of God who has a plan that He will enforce, come what
may. You are not that far from "Calvinism" with language like that! I
accept that the problem of sin in the world will cause us both
headaches, but your view of foreknowledge doesn't slacken the rope any
more than my view of fore-ordination. You allow that God could have
intervened, but chose not to. Why did He not? Especially when He
intervenes in other situations, preventing more sin from taking place
e.g. when he prevented Abimelech from defiling Sarah (Genesis 20:6)
Ultimately, because He wanted A (for Adam) to pick X (for the forbidden
fruit) instead of Y (for the fruit of any other tree) Another
headache…how do we both come to understand that God can do these
things and remain pure? Answer is, we don't, we just accept that He can
and worship Him and ever seek to conform to His will as it is revealed
in the Bible. With all of God's sovereignty, I am still conscious that
I am a responsible human being and I seek to live accordingly. Thanks
again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 12-12-04 Dear Pastor Colin Maxwell, I've read your webpage.
I used to be a Calvinist for 10 years, and have written a brief
introduction of my pilgrimage from Calvinism to Arminianism in my paper
on determinism and freedom. You can view it here.
By no means am I an "anti-Calvinist", and I'm sure that you will agree
that I haven't misrepresented my former beliefs. Any comments would be
appreciated. Yours in Christ, Michael J. Meiring Hi.
I appreciate you taking time to read the above web page and also to
write to me. I downloaded your article and read it quickly over this
morning. It is, however, the kind of article you need to nearly go
through line by line over a period of time and think long and hard
about (Not a bad thing!) I appreciate the tone of the article and
acknowledge that you raise some good points which are hard to answer.
To be brief about the matter, I am quite happy with the position that
God really has ordained whatsoever comes to pass and yet I am
absolutely responsible for my actions. When I sin against God, my
conscience smites me. It never crosses my mind to find an excuse in the
sovereignty of God. I did it…I should repent and seek
forgiveness. On the other hand, if I do something good e.g. take an
unpopular stand for God and defend/proclaim His truth in very
uncomfortable circumstances, I never feel I should praise myself, but
give God all the glory. Sometimes if we try and find where divine
sovereignty and man's responsibility meet, we are in danger of diluting
both. I think they are best left as absolute as possible and both
applied to every situation. Although Judas did what was determined for
him to do (Luke 22:22) yet he blamed himself when his conscience smote
him: "I have betrayed the innocent blood" - Matthew 27:4 and the Bible
also indicts him: "Judas by transgression fell" (Acts 1:25) I remember
struggling with the old chestnut when I was but new to the Calvinist
faith: "Was Judas born to be damned?" My more mature answer to that
would simply be: "Judas was born to glorify God and enjoy Him for
ever…and failed." I don't have to go any further than that. No
doubt the Lord has many things yet to say to us. Whether we can bear
them now is another matter. In closing, I think it should be pointed
out, that it is a logical absurdity to say that God foresees something
happening and then ordains it. If He foresaw it, then it was certain to
happen whether He foreordained it or not. How could God not
ordain something to happen if He foresaw it happening anyway? Thanks
again for writing. Colin. P/s Try and email me with stuff like this in
the middle of the week. Monday mornings are rough enough without
further taxing my brain :-)
*******************************************************
Received 7-12-04 Hi Colin, Hope you are keeping well. I'm curious on
your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:4. ("Who will have all men to be
saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.") Some Calvinists
say it means all as in all the elect of John 6:37, others say it means
all kinds of people and others say it means a desire to save all people
but not a decree. (as in the sense of the Lord regretting making man in
Noah's day or regretting anointing Saul as king) What way would you
interpret it? It is a tricky issue, just want to get different opinions
of all spectrums, God Bless you, PT (Republic of Ireland) Hi.
Thanks for your email. One thing is sure, God does not will to save all
men without exception with the force of a decree…otherwise all
men would be saved (Universalism) This leaves us with either "all kinds
of men" i.e. the elect with the force of a decree (Traditional
Calvinist interpretation) or the Spurgeon view that it is "all men
without exception" but with less than a decree. I think it all hinges
on the force of the word "will" There are two main Greek words, one
meaning "mere" desire (which is used here) and another stronger word
meaning with deliberate design (used in Romans 9:19 "For who hath
resisted His will?") which would refer to the decree. This would seem
then to point us in Spurgeon's direction. One thing is sure though, we
need to be evangelising every last person we meet. The gospel is not
for awakened sinners only, but for all men, as Calvin put it, elect or
reprobate. Thanks again for writing Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 24-11-04 I came across your web site today and I agree with
what you are writing about Calvinism. Although I don't bear the name of
any man, only Jesus Christ, I appreciate John Calvin and all the other
men who wrote and believed the doctrine of grace, sharing with us. Hi!
Nice to hear from you. Thanks for taking the time to write. I
appreciate your position on labels, although I don't fret too much
about them. They are necessary in an age of confusion. It is only my
saving union with Jesus Christ which will get me into Heaven in the
end.
I am having problems in my family. Although all my family are believers
in Jesus Christ and are in Baptist Churches, and I believe they are
born again, they think that my husband and I have "departed from the
faith" Some of them are in Independent Baptist Churches, the rest are
in Southern Baptist Churches.
Departure from the faith, (taking you literally) as defined by the
Bible, is apostasy (1 Timothy 4:1 Greek) If they think that Calvinism
is apostasy, then they have just jettisoned millions of Christians and
damned many of the great heroes of the faith. They probably sing the
hymns of these apostates, probably use their translation (See below)
and probably use their commentaries (Matthew Henry etc.,) If we use the
term "apostate" to denounce those with whom we disagree on any less
than fundamentalist doctrine, then we lessen the force of the word when
we use it against those modernists etc., who really have departed from
the faith.
My husband and I live in a small town in south central Kentucky. Albany
has Southern Baptist, Independent Baptist, Freewill Baptist, Separate
Baptist, and United Baptist Churches. My husband Jim and I are born
again believers and are members of a Southern Missionary Baptist
Church. Our church is the only Southern Baptist Church here, that
preaches, and teaches the doctrine of grace. Our pastor is a Calvinist.
I teach piano, and last week, I felt that I should speak to one of my
Christian students and share my testimony with her. She started
smiling, and said "that is just the way we believe" they attend a
United Baptist Church here in our county. She said that her pastor is
Calvinist. I just praise God to know that where there was one, now
there are two. I believe that the teaching of doctrine of grace is
popping up everywhere. I realize that I may not be wording this exactly
right. I trust that you will know what I mean. I told someone, the
doctrine of grace is not Calvin's doctrine, it is Bible doctrine and
John Calvin taught it. Are you familiar with Don Fortner's web site? I
read his articles and I am so happy that I ran across yours. I
think people are getting more and more wearied with the man centered
emphasis of the free will doctrine. The church growth movement has more
attachment to the Non Reformed side of things than it has to the
Reformed. This is not to say that Calvinists will not or have not gone
down that road…just that they have to abandon their base
completely to do so. No, I am not familiar with Don Fortner's site.
I need to ask you, about a comment in your article about the KJV (which
we use) did I understand you that the translators of KJV were
Calvinist. Were they not of the Anglican Church. I read that King James
adopted that Church when he inherited the throne. Are the Anglicans
Calvinist? I would appreciate a reply by e-mail if you have the
time. God bless you. In Christ, PB The
Anglican Church has a Calvinistic creed (Article 17 of the 39 Articles
on predestination is stoutly Calvinist) and many (if not all) the
translators were Calvinists. King James, himself, was a politician,
rather than a church man. The whole Stuart line did not excel
themselves and I cannot vouch that he was even a Christian, never mind
a Calvinist. Anglicanism in the past has produced some giants of the
faith, from the Reformers (Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer etc.,) right
through Whitefield and Wesley and John Newton etc., to men like Bishop
JC Ryle, Hanley Moule and TC Hammond. Unfortunately today the glory
really has departed from the Anglican Church. Thanks again for writing. Glad our web site has been encouraging you. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 13-11-04 Dear Pastor Maxwell, The "world" is simply the Elect
Jews and also the rest of the "world" of the Elect Gentiles. "World",
"all", and "any" simply includes from the Gentiles. In Christ Jesus, JC
Hi. As we indicate below, there
are differing views among 5 point Calvinists. Bishop Ryle, in his
comments on John 3:16, lists a number of Calvinists (including Calvin)
who share the view that the world is not merely the "world of the
elect" but the "world of elect and reprobate" alike. It is out of this
world that the "whosoever believes" and so evidence the greater love
which God has for His own elect. However, whatever our disagreements on
this one verse, the important matter is that we do not limit our gospel
preaching, but ensure, as Calvin reminds us, that the gospel "be preached indiscriminately to the elect and to the reprobate"
If we believe that the gospel promises are only for the elect, we will
end up in the bogs of hyper Calvinism. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 12-11-04 Dear Pastor Maxwell, I am writing from Chicago and I
am Reformed. It isn't always that I run into a defense of the Doctrines
of Grace like yours!!! I was searching under "Spurgeon". I am really
enjoying your "Some advice to those who take it upon themselves...", and "Taking on Calvinists"!
The whole web site is great! Hi. Thanks for your encouraging email. I
appreciate you taking time to write. It is always good to encourage
each other in the things of God. I passed through Chicago airport once
en-route from Buffalo NY to Indianapolis, but that's about it.
Does your Bible read like this, because mine doesn't: For God so loves
all the world, that he offers his only begotten Son that anyone who
will believe in him wont perish but will gain everlasting lives. I
didn't think so! It is all open-ended, future-tense, and man-centered. Actually
there are two views on John 3:16 between 5 point Calvinists. There are
those who believe that the world in John 3:16 is the world of elect.
Others believe that the whole world indiscriminately is intended here
in this verse. I tend to run with the latter, although I do recognise
that the love which God has for the elect is far deeper than the love
He has for the non elect. However, we do need to guard the doctrine of
"common grace" which I believe in taught in the Bible.
I agree with your quote from Dabney against over stressing
predestination. But it charity or graciousness isn't so much a matter
of "proportion" as it is spirit. Sometimes the problem is that we
aren't as courageous and simple and direct with Arminians as we should
be. I agree and yet there is more
to the Bible than the 5 points of Calvinism. Spurgeon said that while
he hadn't given up the 5 points, he had gotten 5 more. Sometimes the
problem is that we can end up with one string on our harp, hence the
disclaimer. It really is a case of "This is what I believe the Bible
teaches…now let's get on with it."
But over 95% of the Church is not predestined to the Reformation and in
that case then we are really challenging the Sovereignty of God to be
fighting with someone--much to our grief--who He has decided will
remain in their immaturity. Of course the same is true for
fully-Pelagian Roman Catholics who are still under His eternal wrath.
Discerning whom to continue the witness with is in the teachableness of
their spirit. In Christ Jesus, JC It
is one thing to fight with people, it is another thing to seek to
instruct them in the things of God. I have never let my views on the
Sovereignty of God put me off propagating truth whether to doctrinally
immature Christians or unsaved Romanists. We witness to all men, yet as
you say the teachableness of their spirit goes a long way as to how
long and how deep we can go with them. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 10-11-04 The whole point in the controversy over the free
offer is NOT that the gospel is to be presented to all, after all we
all believe that. The real question in the controversy is Does God
through the preaching of the gospel desire and intend the salvation of
the reprobate as Murray and Stonehouse assert? RH, Pottstown pa. Hi.
Thanks for your email. Yes, God is sincere in the offer of the gospel.
We cannot charge God with insincerity. It is true to say, as far as the
reprobate is concerned, that God did not follow through His sincerity
and desire in the offer, with the force of a decree, otherwise they
would be saved. None can argue with this. Was Christ sincere when He
said that He would have gathered unbelieving Jerusalem but they would
not? (Matthew 23:37) If you limit the gospel promises to the elect
only, then you have insurmountable difficulty persuading men to be
saved (2 Corinthians 5:11) Who can you approach and plead with to be
saved? The warrant for coming to Christ is not that a man is elect, but
that is he is a sinner. I think McCheyne got it right when he said: "No
one ever came to Christ because they knew themselves to be of the
elect. It is quite true that God has of his mere good pleasure elected
some to everlasting life, but they never knew it until they came to
Christ. Christ nowhere invites the elect to come to Him. The question
for you is not, Am I one of the elect? But, Am I one of the human
race?" (Sermon on Proverbs 8:4: "Unto you O men, I call; and my voice
is to the sons of man" Remains of McCheyne BOT edition p.369) Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 6-11-04 What does T.U.L.I.P. stand for when discussing Calvinism? Dean T.U.L.I.P.
is a man made acrostic (the author of which is unknown) used to
marshall together a reply to the 5 objections which the followers of
Jacob Arminius made at the Synod of Dort in 1619. [T] stands for Total
Depravity. This doesn't mean that everyone is as wicked as they can be
(God restrains them) but that sin pervades the whole of man. [U] stands
for Unconditional Election where some hell deserving sinners are
predestined to everlasting life on the basis of the mercy of God alone
i.e. not because of anything done by them. (The rest are justly left to
perish in their sins) [L] stands for Limited Atonement or (as some
prefer) Particular Redemption. Christ died only with the intention of
redeeming the elect. See immediately below for a deeper discussion on
the nature of the atonement. [I] stands for Irresistible Grace. This
teaches that the elect will not ultimately resist the grace of God
which calls them to Him. It is irresistible violence, but irresistible
grace. They come willingly because their corrupt wills have been
renewed by the grace of God. [P] stands for the Perseverance of the
Saints. This means that those so predestinated to eternal life,
effectually called and atoned for by Christ on the Cross will persevere
through to the end and be received up into glory. Thanks for writing.
Colin.
*******************************************************
RETURN TO LATEST CALVINIST EMAILS PAGE