EMAILS ON OUR CALVINISM ARTICLES
JANUARY 2005- JUNE 2005

We sometimes get a response to our various articles, especially on Calvinism. I intend to reproduce some of the emails below, essentially as received but usually with the sender's name replaced with their initials (purely to protect their anonymity) The sender's email appears in black. My response, as ever, in red:

Received 26-06-05 Hi Colin, Thanks for responding. I found your answers helpful. I have learned over time not sway freely from doctrine to doctrine every time I uncover a new verse that seems a challenge at first, so these questions have not struck in my heart an actual challenge to consider rejecting TULIP. They simply brought lead me to seek a better understanding of them. I will prayerfully re-read your email a few times to further absorb your answers. Thanks, In Christ, MT Glad to be of help to you. Calvinism does not claim to have all the answers to the many facets of Scripture…but I still contend it has a lot more than any rival school of thought might have. Some of the non Reformed challenges to (say) the doctrine of God determining all things also challenge the doctrine that He knows all things which will happen. At least with our doctrine, we are prepared to let God be God rather than the lackey of the self willed sinner. Hold fast the form of sound words! Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 25-06-05 Hello, I've recently come to recognise that the doctrinal position commonly referred to as the 5 points of Calvinism are biblically sound. I've already come to see that many of the scriptures I used to quote in opposition to Calvinism, are not truly in opposition to it at all. That being the case, I should've expected that not long after coming to a clearer overall perspective of the scripture on these things, I'd find some challenging questions beyond the usual debate. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts or insights on the following questions - Hi. Thanks for your email. It is always nice to hear of those who come into a fuller understanding of the work of Christ.
I was recently discussing Matt 11:20-24 with some fellow believers, and I pointed out to them that according to Jesus, God knew that Tyre and Sidon would've repented if miracles were performed there as they were in Korazin and Bethsaida. The point I was trying to make was that had God wanted to save all people, including them, He could've sent someone to perform those miracles and lead them to repentance. Since He didn't, clearly the idea that God wills that every person should be saved is not the case. It is safer to say that God has not willed with the force of a decree that all men (without exception) should be saved. This is evident since what God so wills, He gets and since He has not got it, then He didn't decree it. Even an Arminian believer would be hard pushed to dispute that one. In trying to bring men to Christ, I simply assure them that God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9) and that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) and assure them that if they will come to Him, He will not cast them out (John 6:37) - as well as (naturally) telling them that they need to be saved and have a responsibility to seek the Lord who alone can save them through the Cross etc., We don't have to go down every last alley in these matters.

A similar point could be made based on Mark 4:12. It sounds like Jesus is saying that his parables were hidden because others may repent if they understand his teaching clearly. The only thing that keeps a man back from God and forgiveness etc., is his own hardened heart. God often responds to hardened hearts by withdrawing any privileges they did have. I believe this is the case here in Mark 4 etc.,
Both these passages seem very challenging to me, because, on the one hand, they both clearly challenge the Arminian position that God wants to save everyone. In the first, God could've sent miracles to Tyre and Sidon; in the second, Jesus could teach more clearly so more hearers would turn and be forgiven - On the other hand, if such individuals wouldn't ever repent apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, how can it be that miracles or clearer teaching could lead them to repent? Where it is suggested that miracles or clearer teaching might have led some to repentance - again it being hypothetical - we must assume that the regenerating power of the Spirit of God would have accompanied it. No sinner will repent without that Divinely given power to do so, and it is evident that it is not given to all. The problems in such texts are greater for the non Reformed than they are for the Reformed. Indeed, they are not a problem to the Reformed people of God at all.
I'm hoping that I'm expressing the question clearly. I look forward to your response. In Christ, MT You expressed your queries very clearly indeed. I hope my answers correspond in kind. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 15-06-05 A man called Victor Christensen sent me what he calls a rebuttal of Calvinism as an attachment. As a rule, I don't open unsolicited attachments, so I can't even make a private reply. Maybe he is reading these lines. There is 142kb of information in there. I would not have the time to wade through it all. It is always easier for someone to let the hares out than it is for me to round them all up. As I am busy in evangelism, I cannot spend time at my desk answering emails like this one. If any one wants to attack my Calvinism, the best way to go about getting a response is: [i] Keep your article short. [ii] Marshall your most powerful argument (a.k.a. the silver bullet) and [iii] at least have read those relevant pages where I deal with where I stand on the matter, and where I point out the best way to take on Calvinists. As I say, I don't know what the actual text of the email above contains, but if it constitutes a rehash of Dave Hunt etc., then I will consider my miss to have been my mercy. It is not that I won't discuss my Calvinist faith and how I can reconcile it with a full free gospel offer and evangelism etc., but I really do want any correspondence to be worth the effort I take to engage in it. Please also bear in mind that I once held to the alternative evangelical stance and I have several Christian friends of that persuasion here in Cork with whom I can freely discuss these things in a focussed and gracious manner. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 11-6-05 Hi, I'm very new to the Reformed Faith....and I struggle with limited atonement. I have no problem with believing that God chose me and that I'm elect...because there so many scriptures that will back that up. But, what I don't believe is that God sends some to hell. There is not a scripture for that and if there is…could you tell me? You wrote: "…unlimited nature of the atonement i.e. that Christ died for elect and reprobate alike without any distinction. This means that Christ purposed to save those who would finally reject Him, actually took their sins on His own body to the tree, paid the price in full of their redemption, satisfied the divine anger and justice, presumably rose again for their justification - although they were never justified - and sees His sovereign purposes frustrated because their sin out-bounds His grace. In all this…the Saviour is still meant to see the travail of His soul and be satisfied. I think not." What is wrong with Christ dying for those that will reject Him? People rejected Him when He walked on earth. Doesn't the fact that they reject Him make hell worth it? DQ Hi. Thanks for writing. The best way to view the issue of hell is to simply bear in mind that no one is there who does not deserve to be. This is the common belief of all Christians, Calvinist or not. Calvinism does not put any one in hell who should not be there. Sinners are not ultimately in hell because God passed them by when dispensing salvation or in the death of His Son, but because they are sinners. Whilst salvation is rooted solely in God's sovereign grace, damnation has a judicial aspect to it. Salvation is non deserving. Damnation is total deserving. The whole nature of the atonement shows that it cannot be universal. Christ actually accomplished something when He died…He did not merely make something possible. That would be a watering down of the atonement. If He atoned for all the sins of those who finally reject Him, then (logically) that sin of final rejection must also be atoned for. In which case, how can they suffer for it (or any sins) when the price has already been paid? Men suffer in hell for all their sins, not just Christ rejection and therefore "hell is worth it" even for the least sin. I trust this helps you. Colin.
P/s It might be worth saying that limited atonement does not limit the worth of Christ's death and that the reprobate does gain some good from it i.e. temporal blessings etc., However, it is most unscriptural to claim that Christ atoned for the sins of those who will one day atone for the very same sins which Christ has already died for. That actually detracts from the value of Christ's sufferings and therefore (in a different sense) limits the atonement also. The Reformed Faith protects the value and worth of His atonement.
*******************************************************
Received 21-5-05 (The portion below is part of a very long email which would require an even longer answer. In the interests of brevity, interest and helpfulness, I have decided to answer only the points made below on this Website.)
What Calvinism does not appear to have done is to remove the possibility of the accusation being levelled at God that He is an arbitrary tyrant whose creatures have to suffer the effects of His incompetence and His folly in deciding to initiate creation being fully aware of all the potentially disastrous outcomes. On the other hand if we realise that God's sovereignty is SUPERVISORY as opposed to DETERMINISTIC we know that His omniscience includes the knowledge of all potential outcomes and we can factor in a universally benevolent nature that can only be opposed by resorting to its contrary....ie...evil and thus we have an explanation as to the satisfactory rationale behind God's purposes and understanding in creation and the imperatives that he makes and an understanding that the choices that we make against God must of themselves be evil and unacceptable and expecially vis-a-vis the satanic origin and definition of all evil. PL. Hi, Thank you for your email. First of all, we need to bear in mind that wicked men will always seek to find fault with the ways of God. This is seen in the treatment meted out to the Lord Jesus. John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking and men said that he had a devil. Christ came eating and drinking and they branded Him a glutton and winebibber (Matthew 11:18-19) I wouldn't be intimidated by what the world thinks. Secondary, your alternative thought that God's ways are merely supervisory rather than deterministic do not solve any of your problems. We know that God intervenes to prevent certain things from happening. He prevented Abimelech from sinning (Genesis 20:6) with many other examples. The question may be asked…why did He not prevent Adam from sinning? He could have done so, but He chose not to. Your alternative theory cannot answer these questions either. It only puts the question back a row, but it doesn't give any answers. Furthermore, it creates a whole new range of questions i.e. How can God who committed Himself solely to a supervisory role (as you claim) be said to have determined (the Bible's own word) the death of the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:23/4:27-28) right down to the very man who would freely and willingly betray Him? (Luke 22:22) Calvinism doesn't have all the answers, simply because the Bible doesn't supply all the answers. However, it is my considered opinion that the answers which Calvinism supplies are those which are most in accord with the word of God. When all is said and done, the Judge of all the Earth in His absolute sovereignty always does right and therefore we should worship Him accordingly rather than trying to diminish His sovereignty in order to facilitate either our finite minds or the wicked attacks of the ungodly. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 14-5-05 Grace be to you, brother! My name is S______ and I live in Russia. I am quite interested in Reformed theology. I am trying to read as much as possible. I have been trying for some time to find the Calvinistic interpretation of Revelation 3:5, but was not able to. I also hold the concept of perseverance of the saints, but this verse is a difficulty to me. This verse seems to imply that our names can be removed from the book of life. Could you help me with my difficulty? Yours in Christ, SK Hi. Thanks for your email. I think you are the first Russian to write to me. There is a Russian shop here in Cork. I gave them a Russian Gospel calendar at the turn of the New Year. It certainly is an encouragement that work done here in Cork in Ireland reaches right around the world. As regards Revelation 3:5 (He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.) this verse should not cause Calvinists any difficulty. There is no implication at all in the verse, but a simple, straight forward declaration that the overcoming Christian - and all true Christians will overcome (because God has decreed that they will be eventually in Heaven with Him) - will not have his name blotted out. If the true Christian can have his name blotted out, then the following disastrous consequences are all true: [i] That God's decree to secure the salvation of His elect has been overthrown [ii] The atoning blood was shed in vain for that man - hardly a cause of satisfaction for Christ who shed it (Isaiah 53:11) - and [iii] The Spirit of God was unable to preserve one committed to His care. Of course, we must use those means which God has given to us to secure this grand end. Therefore we "take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. (Hebrews 3:12) However, we do so with the full assurance and encouragement that God will use/bless these means to achieve His decreed end. Thanks again for writing. May God bless you indeed! Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 14-5-05 "I trust this helps." It convinces me that I am not a Calvinist. LD My answers were not exclusively Calvinist, although entirely consistent with that position. Most, if not all, evangelical Christians would nod in agreement with what I wrote below. Which leaves me wondering are you even an Evangelical? Of course, the important thing is to flee to Jesus Christ alone for refuge. Being a Calvinist or an Arminian or even taking the title of Evangelical or whatever else can't save you. Only saving faith in Jesus Christ alone can. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 13-5-05 Are Calvinists prepared to entertain the thought that they themselves may not be amongst the elect? That they are not judge and jury in their own case, and that the identity of the elect is known only to God? LD Hi. Thanks for your email. There are three questions here which are easily answered. [i] No man, out of Hell, is at liberty to entertain the thought that he may not be among the elect. The Bible gives us all encouragement to seek the Lord while he is to be found. All men are thus invited to come (Revelation 22:17) [ii] We are not to be "judge and jury" in any spiritual situation, but bring our doctrines and experiences etc., to the word of God i.e. the Bible. Where this principle is not carried through, then the perpetrator is in error. [iii] The identity of the elect is only known to God as far as unsaved men are concerned (compare with your first question) However, we may make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10) which will therefore reveal unto us whether we are indeed among the "chosen few" John wrote his gospel so that men may know that they had eternal life (John 20:31) i.e. among the elect of God. Paul was pretty sure he was one of the elect (2 Timothy 2:12/Hebrews 10:39) I trust this helps you. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 7-5-05 To Colin Maxwell, My name is JJ, I am a Christian who goes to ___________Church Australia. We are evangelical church, and my pastor has recently challenged me to start researching Calvin and seeing whether or not what he says about God's amazing truth and grace to be accurate. I just wanted to thank you for your wisdom in this area, and for clarify some of his doctrine that are often hard to understand. I was pleased to see someone who was not misquoting Calvin as he so often is these days by many Christian leaders and theologians. I wanted to encourage and thank you for the article you wrote ‘WILL THE REAL JOHN CALVIN PLEASE STAND UP’. I believe what Calvin says to be right and true. He presents God's true gospel not only faithfully but with wisdom. Keep it up and I look forward to reading more of your work in the future. Hi. Thanks for your email. Glad the site has been of help to you. I have been twice in Australia, looking after our Free Presbyterian works in Port Lincoln (SA) and Perth (WA) Nice to see an appreciation of the Doctrines of Grace. Colin.
*******************************************************
 Received 2-5-05 First, thank you for your web site. It is informative, intelligent and helpful. Here is my question, and I apologise if you have had to answer it many times. What about the parable of the 4 types of ground which the seed falls upon? And, in particular, the ground in which the seed gets choked by weeds. Doesn't that suggest that a person's actions or inactions can impact whether they enter into the Kingdom? And that we must all be cautious and vigilant to make sure that our ground remains clear? Thank you, Sheleigh Hi. Thanks for your email and for your kind remarks re: this Website. In any passage of the Bible, we ought to keep both the doctrine of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in view. If we view the parable of the sower from the Divine Sovereignty side, then we are assured that there is a ground which will receive the good seed and will bring forth a good harvest. The sower will not any disappointment in that regard. It is the sovereign God who gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:7) However, we must also view the same parable from the human responsibility side and it would be very foolish for me (having no scriptural warrant) just to sit back and think to myself: "Well…I am one of the elect and therefore I am heaven bound no matter what I do." We never find that attitude in any of the Bible, even in those passages which propagate the sovereignty of God. Therefore (as you rightly say) I must be vigilant and cautious and resist the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches etc., In doing so, it will become evident to all that I am indeed among the elect, as represented by the good ground. It is not an either/or situation with regard to Divine Sovereignty or human responsibility but a very clear matter of both. This produces a balanced Christianity where faith and action go hand in hand to the glory of God. I trust this helps you. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 30-4-05 Colin, With interest, I have read many of your comments. Christ's love for all men always come into question when looking at the Doctrine of Grace. I think Athenasius nailed a good explanation a long time ago. Perhaps if we thought the same, there would be little to argue concerning God's love of each individual. His document is entitled De Incarnatione Verbi Dei. I know no language other than American English, so I was happy to find interpreted copies on the web. Perhaps you may find time to read his article. If you care to comment, I'll know where to look. (I do agree with your presentation of the Doctrines of Grace. I think you do the best job of it that I have ever encountered.) JV Hi Thanks for your note. I am not up on the Church Fathers at all, preferring rather to consult them looking for something specific and using either a good index or a search engine (if they are on CD) I usually find them tedious to read and I am content to let others filter their contents for me. My actual reading period (apart from the Bible) starts around the Reformation period. Glad you are finding our presentations on Calvinism useful. Colin.
*******************************************************
NOTE: 22-4-05 SK made another reply, but her true colours came out and she confessed to being an Agnostic. To think she actually wrote below: "I read (and quote) the Bible (God's Word), not John Calvin (a sinful man's word)." Agnostic piety at its best. Well in her email, which I am declining to reproduce, she doesn't believe in an infallible Bible and actually brings us the usual "examples" of where God "lied" My words: "You could be making them up for all I know" were closer to the mark than I thought. May the Lord keep each and every reader from the hellish delusion of such agnosticism. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 21-4-05 Dear Pastor Maxwell Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I think you still don't see the points I am making. Hi. Thanks again for writing.
1. You say "It is my belief that God loves the whole world" i.e. everyone. If that is the case why does He not elect/appoint everyone to salvation, He certainly has the power to? He can hardly love everyone if he appoints the majority to damnation. How can you not see the contradiction there? HE LOVES EVEY ONE YET HE DESTINED THE MAJORITY TO ETERNAL DAMNATION BEFORE THEIR BIRTH!! If he loves them why not destine them to salvation? If you are not called/chosen/elected THAT'S the reason you're going to Hell because everyone is a sinner. Therefore God's decision is the only factor. If the Heavenly Father loves the human race why destine any to hell? If he does not want them to perish why does he send strong delusions that they might be damned? It is always easier to ask questions than it is to answer them. However many questions can often be turned round again and the one who asked be required to answer them. Unless you are a Universalist, the questions you ask will pose you the same problems (if problems they be) that they pose me. Again, I repeat, those who are appointed to damnation are so appointed because they are judicially viewed as sinners. If you are obligating God to save all because He has chosen some, then you are robbing grace of its meaning i.e. undeserved favour.
2. I read (and quote) the Bible (God's Word), not John Calvin (a sinful man's word). It is not unreasonable for me to ask you to substantiate the things which you have attributed to Calvin. This would be required in any basic court of law. We call it evidence. You could be making them up for all I know. However, if you can substantiate them with viable evidence, then that would be another matter. I am not in the least interested in answering what you think Calvin said or believed.
3. You agree the elect and non-elect both deserve hell. You agree the reason the elect go to Heaven is because God chose them. Then you say THE ONLY REASON the non elect go to Hell is because they are sinners! WRONG! They go to Hell because they were not elected, how on earth can you not see that? If the only reason you go to Hell is for being a sinner then EVERYONE should be there. The non-elect are in Hell because like you they are sinners but unlike you they were appointed to damnation before birth, denied access to salvation. HOW CAN YOU SAY THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE IN HELL IS BECAUSE OF SIN???? Simply because this is what the Bible teaches. "The wages of sin is death…" (Romans 6:23) I cannot go beyond the word of God which puts the responsibility entirely on the sinner.
4. What's this about an age of accountability. Is that in Calvin because its certainly not in my Bible? You admit that adults are destined for hell but run from the idea that new-born babes are! Be consistent man! If we are predestined from the beginning that includes new-borns and infants, otherwise election occurs AFTER birth and later in life. Read Psalm 51:5 and Psalms 58:3. If children are covered by the blood of Christ, then why not kill them and ensure their "election" and entry to Heaven? To state the obvious, such would be murder. I am commanded to preach to every creature, not kill them. I think you are being plain silly here. As for the age of accountability, this is based on the idea of that time when people are able to discern their moral left hand from their right (Jonah 4:11) It is not unique to Calvinist thought. I am surprised you challenge it.
5. If man has been foreordained to sin, ALL his actions are determined by God and his eternal destiny is decided before he is born then how can he have free will? The damned might as well rape, kill, torture, mutilate and thieve everyone they come into contavt with. After all, they're going to hell anyway regardless. How can you not see the point I'm making?!?!?!?!? SK I don't see your point because it is not scriptural. Answer me this if you care to make any reply. I do make reference to it below, but you failed to make any comment on it. Acts 4:27-28 states: For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. Did Herod and Pilate etc., gather together at Calvary to do whatsoever God's hand and counsel determined to be done? If so, does this violate their free agency? After all…when God determines something, then it will be done, will it not? Personally I believe in both God's sovereignty and man's free agency. I cannot reconcile them and I make no attempt to, lest I should dilute what is strongly set forth in the Bible. I will leave it there. If you want to come back to me on the Acts 4:27-28 questions, feel free to do so. Otherwise, if it is just going to be a case of going round in endless circles, then it might be better if we left the matter rest. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 18-4-05 Pastor Maxwell, "For God so THE WORLD that he gave his only begotten son..." (John 3:16) According to your reasoning God does not love the world and in fact only loves the elect. Are you rewriting the most famous Bible verse of them all? There is a major error in your reasoning. Hi. Thank you for writing again. I think there is a case here of you merely thinking you know what I/other Calvinists believe rather than stating the facts. This may be seen in the fact that [i] Your statements are at odds with what I have written both on this page (see below, for example, on 17-2-05) and elsewhere on this site [ii] You fail to substantiate your claims about Calvin with any references. However, it will not be hard for me to dispossess you of your errors concerning what I/other Calvinists believe. It is my belief that God does love the whole world - elect and reprobate alike - and not the elect only. John Calvin shared this belief. His comments on John 3:16 include the words: "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." I cannot help but wonder if you have ever read Calvin for yourself or are you merely repeating what others have told you? Your questions below have been around for a long time as evidenced by the fact I had already refuted them elsewhere (unless, of course, you were the original author) However, if as I suspect, that you are relying on people like Hunt or Vance or Cloud for your comments, then you are not likely to get to the bottom of these matters which evidently trouble you. If I am wrong in my suspicion here, then I apologise.
Everyone is a sinner, "elect" and "non-elect", both deserve Hell. The reason the elect are going to Heaven is because God chose them. Both these statements are true.
According to Calvin the reason people go to Hell is because God chose not elect/appoint them. Therefore, the only reason a person goes to Hell is God's decision, will or personal choice on the matter. Since EVERYONE deserves Hell as a sinner, then it goes without saying that according to Calvinism God's choice is the only factor in deciding where you go. If God's holiness was the reason then why not send everyone to Hell and not bother sending His Son? Again, I wish you had substantiated your comments with quotations and references from Calvin. He himself once commented: "If you will attack my doctrine, why not at least show candour enough to quote my own language." Calvin on Secret Predestination) What Calvin actually taught was on why people go to hell may be seen in the following quote from 3:23:8 in the Institutes "Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of damnation in the corrupt nature of humanity - which is closer to us - than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensive cause in God's predestination." I could multiply quotes from elsewhere in his writings, but I will let the one given suffice. It is certainly a different story from the one you say that Calvin propagates.
If you had a young child who, God forbid, died in infancy aged one and that child was ordained/appointed to damnation (Jude 4/1Peter 2:8) and was going to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire, solely because the Lord refused to grant it access to salvation, then that would not be consistent with His character because He is just (Deut.32:4). Do you think a just God would do that to a new-born child? I must correct you here on two points. [i] Many, if not all, Calvinists believe that people who die in infancy before the age of understanding and accountability are covered by the blood of Christ and so go to Heaven. This fact on its own makes your question redundant. [ii] As already seen, no soul goes to hell solely because the Lord refuses to grant it access to salvation. A soul goes to hell because of sin. No one is in hell who does not deserve to be there.
In effect, you are saying God, who is love (1 John 4:16) creates people (including babies and infants) for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity. I'm sorry, but again I must correct you. We have already answered the babies and infants objection which was based more on your ignorance rather than any meaningful argument. Calvinists believe that the chief end of all men is to glorify God and enjoy Him for ever (WCF Shorter Catechism Q.1) While on earth, God showered them with His loving gifts and used them to promote His own glory. Hence even wicked men are acknowledged by God as being His servants e.g. Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:9) This cannot be reconciled with your statement that He creates people for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity.
Besides, if everything is determined already then man has no free will and no moral responsibility. If we are only acting out a predetermined scenario written by God then we are just robots. I believe (as taught in the Bible) that God has ordained all things after the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11) and therefore nothing happens outside of His appointment. We may apply this also to individual acts and here we must include the Cross of Christ. See Luke 22:22.Acts 2:23/4:27-28 I don't know how you can read these verses and not see these things. But I also believe (for it is not one or the other, but both) that what man does, he does freely and therefore he is accountable for his deeds. Again, Calvin words it perfectly: "And further, it must be noted, that men are not exempted from guilt and condemnation, by the pretext of this bondage: because, although all rush to evil, yet they are not impelled by any extrinsic force, but by the direct inclination of their own hearts; and, lastly, they sin not otherwise than voluntarily." (Comments on Genesis 8:22)
If Calvin is correct answer this question: Does God know the day you are going to die? The answer is yes. He does. Could you die a day sooner? The answer is no. Why do you eat? To live. Suppose you do not eat? Then you will die. Would that be the day that God planned that you should die? SK God more than merely knows the day of my death. He has actually appointed it (Hebrews 9:27) Therefore the day I actually die, is the day God appointed. I eat and use other methods of survival, because I believe God ordains both the end and the means thereto. I believe in both God's absolute sovereignty and man's absolute responsibility. This helps me maintain a balanced ministry. Do feel free to write again, although you really should give evidence that you have researched your subject i.e. by giving references etc., rather than making statements which are without any support. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 16-4-05 Dear Pastor Maxwell, If the following is true of Mr. X: 1. He was deliberately foreordained to commit sin. 2. He was hated before God before he was born. 3. He was predestined to go to hell before he was born. 4. He cannot repent because God deliberately refuses to give him the gift of repentance. 5. He cannot believe because God deliberately refuses to give him the gift of faith. 6. He was not, is not and never will be loved by God in the slightest degree. 7. He was deliberately excluded from the group of people for whom the Lord Jesus Christ died for at Calvary so that salvation was intentionally and forever put completely out of his reach; Then how is it Mr.X's fault when he ends up burning eternally in the lake of fire?" Hi. Thank you for writing. I have come across these questions before and answered them elsewhere, so I won't duplicate here what I have written there. GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH BUT THAT ALL SHOULD COME TO REPENTANCE" 2 Peter 3:9 If the only factor effecting a person's eternal destiny is the Holy Father's personal choice and he is not willing that ANY should perish then how come he CHOOSES to send ANY to hell? SK. I think you assume a little too much in the statement that the Father's personal choice is the only factor which effects a person's eternal destiny. This is not the teaching of Calvinism. We believe that men go to hell because of their own personal sin. In other words, hell is a judicial decision and not arbitrary. No one is in hell who does not deserve to be there. You would be hard pushed if you were required to produce a mainline Calvinistic church confession or main line Calvinistic preacher (including Calvin) who taught otherwise. For your part, I can't see how you can say that (at least by implication) that God sends any to hell - for He does send men to hell in Matthew 25:41 - without choosing to do so. He chooses to do so because of His holiness, justice and wisdom etc., Again, while He was not willing that any should perish, if we take the "any" to refer to "any of the human race as a whole" obviously He did not so wish with the force of a decree otherwise none of the human race would ever perish. If we limit the "any" to the elect of God - to whom the whole epistle was first written - then this decision on God's part, backed up with the full force of a decree, will fully come to pass and not one will be lost. I trust these answers help you. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 16-4-05 Friend, I am a truth seeker and I want to study, or at least read, Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. This work has been recommended for my reading by a bible college dean. I have noticed that various persons have served as editors. Is anyone of them, Ford Lewis Battles or John McNeill or ..... who give the most readable and most authentic view of Calvin's true teachings? If I must sacrifice one for the other I would rather sacrifice readability.... I most of all want to know exactly what Calvin taught. (I have a B A and am close to completing my MA. I share that with you simply to let you know that I am familiar with the idea of studying and not having everything "spoon fed" to me.) I have also hear about an "analysis" of Calvin's Institutes. Can you give me some information on that work. The cost of the Institutes of the Christian Religion is not a primary factor. I do want to get it in hard cover. So, if you were going to recommend a specific editor or publishing company I trust it would be the very one which you would most desire in your library. In Christ, DG. Hi. Thanks again for writing. I am not really in a position to answer your questions as I simply don't know. However, I do have and recommend the Westminster Press hard back volumes (2 in all) which are "edited by John McNeill" and "translated and indexed by Ford Lewis Battles" The indexes are pretty extensive which is a must in this matter. The Ages edition of Calvin's works (CD ROM) give both the Beveridge and the Battles translations. These supply a helpful search engine which is most useful for research. You can download the Institutes through the free e-sword Bible software, again a useful search engine comes with this tool. The print and binding are very good on the Westminster Press copy I have. Beyond this, there is not much more I can say on the matter. Hope this helps. Thanks again for writing.
*******************************************************
Received 11-4-05 Pastor, Hello again! I'm not sure if you remember my email a couple of weeks ago thanking you for your insights on Calvinism, but I wanted to write you again (I hope briefly), with a question. I pray that I am not being too much of an inconvenience but I wanted to see if I "have it right" by placing the doctrine of double predestination in layman's terms. Okay so we know absolutely that God does not cause any to fall into sin. I also can't recall an instance where God has ever lead anyone into direct temptation. However, we see stories like that of Job, where God directly gave permission to Satan to tempt Job, and also the story of the Israelites in Egypt where scripture tells us that God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart in order to direct his actions. I think quite possibly though, the best scriptural evidence of double predestination is in the Garden of Eden. God created the Garden, including the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. and then He created Adam and Eve. Now, being omniscient, God knew beforehand when He combined these two elements in the garden and that by commanding Adam and Eve to not eat from those trees, then the trees became temptation by their very nature. God in no way attempted to get Adam and Eve to eat from the trees which places the full burden of responsibility on the two humans (I exclude the serpent because the blame was ultimately on the humans). Although by understanding the full power of God's foreknowledge of His own creation, He proceeded with the creation of the "temptation" (in other words, the predestination of action on the part of His creation) in order that He might be glorified through Christ's redemptive work (this time predestining their restoration). This makes God absolutely sovereign in His power and glory and man absolutely responsible for his own actions with regards to sin. Now sir I wonder if I have come to a correct conclusion (or at least a close approximation) with regard to this doctrine? It is sometimes very hard to search the "deeper" mysteries of God, having never been educated as a seminarian, but I praise the Father that I can make the attempt and that He has made available all of the rich resources through tools like the internet. Thank you sir, so much for all of your help with this, and I hope that I have not been too much of a burden upon you. That said, God Bless you and your congregation with all of his mercy and rich blessings, and with the grace to accept His will, whatever it may be. In service of the Master, MS. Hi. Thanks again for writing. I am not altogether sure whether we can describe the tree of knowledge of good and evil as a temptation. The tree itself was good and perfect. Can we call (say) a beautiful woman a "temptation" just because some might entertain impure thoughts about her? Only if she deliberately dressed to lure. The tree was not put there to tempt man at all. It was certainly there to "test" him…but that is another matter. Yet man's fall was known and ordained of God (Ephesians 1:11) and man, who partook of it freely of his own volition, is held responsible for it. Sometimes these things are easier stated than explained. I don't know whether this helps you or not. A good verse to bear in mind is Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law. I don't know if this reply helps you any, but I am not that sure how to answer you. Cautious, I suppose, lest I say something which may prove to be wrong. However, thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 1-4-05 Pastor, I have been reading many of your insights on Calvinism the last couple of days and I felt that I should take a moment to stop and thank you. I have travelled many spiritual roads throughout my life, not all of them Christian, in search of understanding both the nature of God and of myself as well. It has been almost 2 years now that God has lead me to a Southern Baptist Church where I live in Kentucky, USA. The Senior Pastor and Youth Pastor are both Calvinists (single predestination) and have been mentoring me in the understanding of it. I have only come to embrace it in the last year or so, after an intense struggle with the Father over the matter that nearly resulted in my renouncing of the faith altogether. It's difficult to accept absolute sovereignty when you've been taught absolute freedom your whole life. But I am here now praise to the Almighty. Recently I've been dealing with some things spiritually that have lead me to research the concept of God's ordination of sin. I am growing in my understanding of double predestination and the more I study it, the more I gain understanding of the inner struggles between my spirit and my flesh. Some of your insight has helped a great deal in that and I thank you very much sir. I look forward to reading more of your teaching and I praise the Father for using you in the way that He has, both in my life and in the lives of those who seek. Bless you brother, and may the Father continue in His mercy and grace towards us all in His will. Your brother...MS Hi. I appreciate you taking time to write. It is always good to know that our Website has been of encouragement to others. Re: Double predestination, we ought always keep Spurgeon's great maxim in mind: "Salvation is all of grace. Damnation is all of sin." Alongside God's absolute sovereignty is man's absolute responsibility. Both are as absolute as each other. When preaching or otherwise testifying to the great truth of God's sovereignty, we should always emphasise the other to avoid imbalance. Both doctrines are vital and wonderful especially when God has joined them together and what God has joined together, let not man put asunder! Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 1-4-05 Can I ask a question about Calvinism? I've been studying different web sites (yours is great) but can't find a direct answer. Maybe you can point me to scripture texts or resources which can help. Hi. Thanks for taking time to write and also for your appreciation of our site. I hope I can help you further re: the questions below.
Calvinism says all sinners are lost, and no one is capable of "making a decision for Christ" (as the evangelism that I grew up with expresses it). There is nothing worthy in us that would cause God to choose us. By what criteria are people saved? If someone doesn't make a decision to follow Christ and THEN get saved, but instead confirms a previous election through the decision, then how DOES God choose one person over another for salvation? The Bible says God is not a respecter of persons, so how does he take all sinners, who are equally lost, and choose some for salvation and leave the rest for damnation, if none can save himself? What criterion does God use to make the decision? E.g.: Given two lost people in front of the throne of God, how does God decide to save one and leave the other for damnation? First of all, we should remember that of the two people you mention, both of them (as you say) are lost (because of sin) and therefore both deserve eternal death in hell. If we left the story there, none could complain and God would still be perfect in all His attributes including His kindness and love. Who is to say that if a million people so stood before God that He would save any of them? Therefore His decision to save any, whether it is 50% of the crowd or 100% or 0.000001% of the crowd etc., is based solely on His sovereign grace. That any should be saved at all is a marvel beyond words. God has mercy on whom He has mercy and has compassion on whom He has compassion (Romans 9:16) The rest are simply left to their own devices and have none to blame but themselves. They perish in their own corruption and therefore are authors of their own damnation. When the Bible says that God does not respect persons (Acts 10:34) this does not mean that He cannot choose whom He will (since He does) but rather than He does not choose any on the basis of their good works or even their responses to the gospel. If He did, then 1 John 4:19 would read: "He loves us because we first loved Him" instead of the other way round.
The Bible doesn't seem to answer this question directly, and further spells out the "plan of salvation" very clearly (believe Jesus, confess him, and you will be saved) so I am stumbling over it. In spelling out the plan of salvation, we move into the equally vital doctrine of man's responsibility. No sinner need despair about the doctrine of election. Morose thoughts should be banished. Our guiding star is not the decree of God, but rather the revealed word of God and there are many promises for every sinner to lay hold upon. Whosoever will may still come (Revelation 22:17) and every last sinner is invited to venture forth upon this promise and cry out for salvation and receive it (Romans 10:13) If a sinner does not want to be saved from his sin - even here and now - then he cannot complain if God has passed him by and left him to his own devices. The sinner scuttles his own ship. If he perishes (as above) he does so in his own corruption (2 Peter 2:12) No man is in hell who does not deserve to be there.
Since Jesus said that many will say "Lord, Lord" but not be saved, it would be impossible to know if you were actually saved or not in Calvinism, since you could even confess Jesus as Lord but not be saved. This issue is not a problem, and if it were it would not be an exclusively Calvinistic one. Those who confessed Jesus as Lord in Matthew 7:21 etc., were false professors. No man can truly confess Jesus as Lord and remain unsaved, since this is the way of salvation (Romans 10:9) No man can truly so confess without the working of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3) and the Spirit of God cannot fail in His work. Evidently then, the Spirit of God is not so given to every last sinner but only to the elect. However, this should not prevent the sinner from crying out to God for salvation. We should focus on the promises of salvation, rather than the internal workings. Without trivialising an important matter, yet we should concentrate on getting the car going rather than seeking to understand why and how the engine starts when you turn the key.
I'm struggling with this because Calvinism has to be the correct interpretation of the Bible. Total depravity is the only real difference between true Christianity and other religions: all other religions, including pseudo-Christian ones, say you can save yourself through some system they've developed. Only Calvinism has the sinner depending on the grace of God, and over the years I've come to see clearly that the grace of God is the only chance I have (or anyone has) of being justified before God. Thanks for any help! Scott. True again. I hope the above answers help you. Thanks again for taking time to write. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 21-3-05 I am reading on your site The Sovereignty of God Set Forth in Scripture. I belong to a PCA church in Indiana that seems to have lost it's moorings and is being called by the Spirit of the Age. Not many in the congregation understand the Doctrines of Grace. So the leadership, instead of addressing the lack of education seems to want to be a contemporary Church that will minister to felt needs. It is a man made ministry they seek. Not worship in Spirit and Truth. Recently they conducted a survey to ask what people want to see or like in worship. Sort of like asking the creation how they should worship the Creator. I am so grieved by the goings on. It is when I see the faithful work of men such as you I am reminded that we are called to be faithful servants. May you continue to do the work of an evangelist for his Glory. TW Hi. Thanks for emailing me. I am glad that you have been encouraged in what you have read on our site. Without "sheep stealing" as they call it in these parts, are you aware that the Free Presbyterian Church have a congregation in Indianapolis? Contact: Rev. Geoff Banister, 1702 South Franklin Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46239 Telephone: (317) 322-0200 Church (317)356-6357 Home or Email: gbanister@juno.com The FPC contend for the Doctrines of Grace and believe in reverence in worship etc., Hope this proves helpful to you. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 20-3-05 Hi Pastor Maxwell, I just wanted to say hello to you from Dothan, Alabama, USA. I read several of your articles on Calvinism last night and I wanted to thank you for the clarity and the wisdom you have shown in your presentations and refutals, especially to the book by Dave Hunt. I have been a subscriber to his newsletter, The Berean Call, for several years. I have gleaned some good insights from him in some things, especially the seeker friendly movement, but on the subject of Calvinism he does seem to be quite blinded. The church does seem to want to present Calvinism as evil in our day but to those of us who truly seek God and want to get His take on things, there seems no other position to take. I appreciate you for walking on the old paths and shunning the shallowness of the day in which we live. Keep diligently seeking Him and sharing that knowledge. I love you, my brother! MW Hi. Thanks for your encouraging email. I'm glad the Website has helped you. I knew little about Dave Hunt before his book on Calvinism. I knew he wrote a book on Romanism (The Woman Rides The Beast) but I had never bought or read it. As documented elsewhere, I think he did a hatchet job on Calvinism. This leaves me wary then of what he puts in his other books. I certainly would not like to quote him as an authority, if What Love is This? is an example of his ethics or research. As you say, re Calvinism, there is no other position to take if we would do justice to the things of God. Charles Hodge once said that the last great battle would come be between Calvinism and Atheism and all the other systems would be crushed as half rotten ice in between. I agree. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 19-2-05 I have yet to find any real theologically sound sites on the internet that give a solid presentation of Calvinism. Calvinistic theologians continually refuse to use sound exegesis when studying the Scriptures. In Christ alone, TK Senior Pastor Hi. Thank you for taking time to write to me and share your views re: Calvinistic theologians. To be honest, I find your charge a little surprising, although you have kept it very general and therefore somewhat vague. Jacob Arminius, although viewed by some as Calvin's great enemy, was candid enough to admit his admiration of Calvin himself on this very point (emphasise mine) He said,"Next to the perusal of the Scriptures, which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse CALVIN’S commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself; for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the Library of the Fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent gift of prophecy." However, thanks for writing and sharing your views with us. Be assured that when I prepare my messages, I do try to keep them as watertight as I can and in accord with what God has said. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 17-2-05 I wanted to thank you for your web-site. Several months ago a friend suggested I investigate to doctrinal positions taken by those of the reformed faith and Calvin in general. Hi. Thanks for writing and expressing your appreciation of our church Website. I always appreciate the feedback, especially if positive. It encourages us at this end.
I first professed my faith in Jesus Christ in 1992. I must tell you though when I began to read men such as Calvin, Baxter, and Edward's I was angry. How can they state that I did not accept Christ of my own free will? But as I continued to read those men and the studies I found here on your web-site and above all the Word of God, I realized something, I had nothing to do with my salvation. I discovered that God chooses those whom He is pleased to save. For the first time in my life I discovered the true definition of grace and sovereignty and my anger turned to fear. I have "been there and done that" and have a whole load of Banner of Truth books instead of a T shirt :-) Without making you an offender for a word, you had nothing to do with your regeneration. In your salvation, it was you who called upon the name of the Lord, you that repented and you that believed etc., I only point this out because while I know what you mean, yet you could run into problems later on with those who don't. Calvinistic theology (like any theology) is a very balanced thing. While we carefully emphasise the sovereign grace part, we need also to be careful we don't upset the human responsibility end either. Initially, you were moved of God to seek Him but move you did and you sought and you found him. I know the non Reformed emphasise these parts (often to the exclusion of the grace end), but don't let that intimidate you from emphasising both.
I have been sharing with many people the truths that I have found. Not everyone has been thrilled with this doctrine of election. They tell me I am taking the Scriptures out of context and I ask them to show me how and they can't. My Pastor said I am right on track and has encouraged me to teach on predestination and election. This probably sounds a bit rich coming from me (especially with our disclaimer at the bottom of the index page) but again we urge caution even in teaching these truths. The Westminster Confession of Faith wisely exhorts us that this "high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care…" (chapter 4:8 on God's Eternal Decree.) I say this because I remember discovering these truths as a very zealous 18 or 19 year old and wanting to share them with everyone. Which (like your own experience) didn't exactly go down too well in the open Brethren Assembly I was worshipping in, although I didn't get into any trouble. However things settled down, and while I am more than happy to exalt the grace of God in election, yet when preaching to sinners, I do not hesitate to exhort them to seek the Lord while He is to be found (Isaiah 55:6) or to strive to enter in etc., (Luke 13:24) Again, remember that there is much more in the unsearchable riches of Christ than election. Spurgeon once said that he hadn't given up the Five Points, but he had found five more and that is the mark of a balanced preacher. Preach all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27)
I do need your help locating something. Isn't their an article on the word "world" in John 3:16 by A.W. Pink? I am trying to find this because I know that will come up when I begin teaching. I am not sure if Pink wrote an actual article on John 3:16 or not. You will find out sooner or later that 5 point Calvinists are divided over the extent of "world" in John 3:16. Some limit it to the "world of the elect" while others (including myself) take it to mean "all mankind fallen in Adam" (John Trapp) Not all who take the more limited "world of the elect" view deny that God has no love for the reprobate, but they hesitate to use this verse to establish this truth. Pink took the limited view and while he denied (at least at some part of his ministry) that God loved all, he did hold that God pitied and was kind to the reprobate. However, as said, I take a much wider view, although holding that God only loved His elect with that deeper love unto salvation.
Any other advice you may have I am thankful for and again thank you for your web-site. May God be Glorified, HAW Plenty of advice above! Thanks again for writing. May the Lord bless you. Colin.
*******************************************************
16-2-05 NOTE: GMcN below made reply to my comments below. More of the same, so I'll spare you the gruesome details. However, having gone through the "false god" and "god who is infinitely evil" routine again, he does admit: "There are many who confess that when they were saved they did not believe Calvinism. I believe that one can believe such lies and still be saved, but not by believing such lies." I had intended to ignore him but I just couldn't resist asking him how a man can believe in "a god much worse than Satan" and be a Christian at one and the same time. In his reply, he pointed me to the Galatians who almost immediately departed from the gospel. I then pointed out that if he were right, then the Calvinists in Galatians 1 must be those who preach the other gospel and they are the accursed ones defined by Strong's concordance as "a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction." However GMcN is still sticking by his guns. Spurgeon was saved, but when he preached his false gospel of Calvinism, he became devoted to destruction without hope of being redeemed. I have since challenged him on this absurdity, but unless there is some major development, I'll leave it there on this particular correspondence. Most, if not all, of the discussions on these pages are courteous and sane from both Reformed and non Reformed. I just included this particular item to show how it isn't always so. From fanatics on both sides of the debate, may the good Lord deliver us all. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 14-2-05 If the many books which have been written by such as Vance, and Bryson have not convinced you that Calvinism is the worst theology ever perpetrated on the Christian Church then I have no hope for you. Calvinism teaches the very opposite of Christianity and what God is like. The god of Calvinism is much worse than Satan, for Satan is but a finite creature, but the god of Calvinism is portrayed as being infinite. Hence Calvinism teaches an infinitely wicked person as its god. I pray that the true God will help you to open your eyes before it is too late. Sincerely, GMcN Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Hi. I will bow to the honorary custom of thanking you for writing, although I do find your comments to be insulting. Not all the correspondents in these email pages agree with the doctrines of Calvinism, but I don't think of them any have resorted to the vicious words which you employ. I include your letter here purely for the purposes of showing what bitterness any dispute can produce and how this ought to be avoided by all who profess to know the Lord Jesus. In the words that appear above, not only have you blasphemed God, but you have effectively damned in hell many of the greatest names in Church History who are honoured and loved among Evangelical Christians of both sides of the Calvinism debate. You have damned the mighty Reformers, William Tyndale and the translators of the Authorised Version, the great Evangelical preachers from Whitefield through to Spurgeon and the saintly McCheyne etc., You also cast a slur upon those many fine non Reformed Christians who, despite the obvious doctrinal differences, happily fellowship and work with Calvinist believers.
For the record, Calvinists do not believe that God is the author of sin. Certainly, He has ordained that sinful acts come to pass - the Cross being the obvious example (Luke 22:22/Acts 2:23/4:27-28) - but He Himself is not, and cannot be, the author of sin. As regards Romans 11:32, I take the liberty of quoting Mr Calvin himself on this verse: "Paul then intends here to teach two things — that there is nothing in any man why he should be preferred to others, apart from the mere favour of God; and that God in the dispensation of his grace, is under no restraint that he should not grant it to whom he pleases. There is an emphasis in the word mercy; for it intimates that God is bound to none, and that he therefore saves all freely, for they are all equally lost. But extremely gross is their folly who hence conclude that all shall be saved; for Paul simply means that both Jews and Gentiles do not otherwise obtain salvation than through the mercy of God, and thus he leaves to none any reason for complaint. It is indeed true that this mercy is without any difference offered to all, but every one must seek it by faith." I am sure that there is not a balanced non Reformed reader of Calvin's words who would not say "Amen!" to this interpretation. We will leave it there. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 5-2-05 Hello, I came across your Website and want to react to a particular statement which follows here: Hi. Thanks for your email. I appreciate you taking time to respond to the things which appear on our church Website.
"If Calvinists are wrong in this overall belief that God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, then you have to come up with a viable alternative which still allows God to be God. Bluntly speaking, I cannot see what alternative there is. You will reduce God to being helpless or a mere spectator in His own universe. You will rob believers of their assurance in prayer because if God is not absolutely sovereign but is under some obligation to wicked men, then how can we pray with any confidence that we are not overstepping some boundary behind which God has caged Himself in?"
The reason why I respond to this is the fact that you said that you can not see that there is a viable alternative to the belief that God as ordained whatsoever comes to pass, without violating God's sovereignty. Now, I want to show you an alternative, that is in my opinion is a very reasonable one! However I do not claim to know all the answers to all questions. I only want to show you that there is a way to explain the existence of sin, without God having ordained it! I think that this is the very issue where certain theologies start to develop. What one beliefs here, as a great impact on how one interprets the Bible. Anyway, I was raised a Calvinist, so I know the basics. I am just a guy that is looking for some truth, so I am not here just to argue. Also, I am not a studied person, just doing a lot of reading. I do not think that you have never heard about what I have to say, you might very well have, but either way, whether you have heard it or agree with it or not, I hope to learn something from you anyhow. Your observation here about how this impacts our interpretation is true, although we should add that on the fundamentals of the faith, there is remarkable agreement between those of us who are Reformed and those who are not. However, you are obviously going to expound your thoughts and I am happy to respond accordingly. I am glad you are not to argue. Hopefully, we might even learn something from each other.
There are two questions that have kept me wondering about certain doctrines. 1. Where does sin or evil come from? 2. How could Holy Adam sin in the first place? Now, I think that these two questions have the same answer! I read several commentaries including Calvin and Zechariah Ursine and the Westminster Confession of Faith. They all more or less say that God ordained sin that good may come out of it! Not that He makes any person sin, but He ordains them to sin so that they will freely sin! The WCF catechisms both relate that God ordained whatsoever comes to pass (including the entrance of sin into the world) for His own glory. Why God did not prevent sin from happening, as He had power to do (if He was powerless to prevent sin from entering, then the principle of sin is greater than God) is not a problem confined to Calvinists. Whether we say "God allowed sin" or "God ordained sin to enter" is largely immaterial. He could have prevented it one way or another and He chose not to. All Christians, Reformed or otherwise, have to face this problem.
But that doesn't answer the second question, how God could say that Adam was very good, and still he sinned! God pronounced the whole creation very good before Adam sinned. Of course, we might ask: "Why did God pronounce Adam very good when Adam had the ability to sin?" which is a good question. However, He did and we must fall back upon the general principles of the Bible that God's ways are perfect. He was not wrong to do so.
In fact neither one has a clear explanation, if they try to explain it at all! Or they tell us to not be wiser than God, or that it is just not meant to be known. These are wise answers to difficult questions. God has yet many things to say to us; it is a mercy that He holds back some information from us (John 16:12)
Actually, here is a reasonable explanation: Holy Adam sinned. The very fact that he sinned, tells us that he had the ability to sin! Adam's nature allowed him to sin! Why? Of course because he was created a moral being, not a robot that was pre-programmed. God did not want a robot. God wanted a relationship with His creature that was based on free-will. God wanted Adam to obey Him freely. Why? There is no meaning in a robotic relationship, if you can speak of relationship at all. If the only thing Adam could do was to obey and love God, there would have been no virtue in his obedience. God could not have felt loved and obeyed and feared and served if Adam could not have done differently! So this means that Adam was created with the ability to do either good or evil. There is no other way to explain Holy Adam sinning! How could otherwise something that is good, do evil? So here we have the concept, that choosing good is better than doing good necessarily. Moral being versus Automaton. Calvinists allow that Adam had a free will and was able to sin in the Garden. Your observations here are only stating the obvious. The problem (for us all) is how do we reconcile those verses which teach that God "works all things after the counsel of His own will" (Ephesians 1:11) and that "there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. (Proverbs 21:30) with the idea that Adam acted freely. I find that in these situations (or a thousand others like it) that both sets of principles are best stated as true, rather than trying to reconcile them. The danger in going for a reconciliation is that we could end up diluting both.
If this is true, than why not applying this to God Himself? Was Adam not created in His image? Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that God is a Moral Being instead of a robot? The fact that God does not sin becomes than more meaningful. It means that even God is subject to is own Law! Only the fact that His Holy will is in conformity with His Law, makes Him unable to sin, although in theory sin would be possible! Of course this sounds strange, but in light of the moral concept it seems almost certain. I think it is more accurate to say that God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:12) than to say that He is subject to His own Law. To word it as the latter, suggests that God has created something greater than Himself. It prevents us saying (as you do) that God could sin in theory but doesn't. This is certainly not orthodox doctrine and I don't think any of the older Arminian theologians would take it as far as that.
So, God choose to create moral beings that were actually able to will against His will! It was either that, or God could not have created beings that would have the ability to serve Him freely at all! Again it is not an either/or situation which would suit our desire to neatly pigeonhole every theological problem. We need to avoid on one side the error that God has just stood by as a spectator and on the other side the error that God became the author of sin. I believe the Calvinist alone takes the balanced view.
Does this mean that God lost His sovereignty? I don't think so. Did God tell Adam to serve Him or not? Does God in the end punish the ones that sin? Can men do whatever they want, without being held accountable? No! God is in control anyhow! I don't think what you are saying actually solves any of the problems (and creates a new, major one with the thought that God can sin but doesn't) Does God always get His way or does He often knows disappointment? If, ultimately He is always going to get His way, then man is going to conform to the will of God, sooner or later. When all is said and done, none can stay His hand or say unto Him, What doest thou? (Daniel 4:35) Hence the statement I made before, repeated above and responded to by yourself. I am not trying to reconcile these things, I am just stating them as the Bible states them.
In spite of being raised a Calvinist, I find myself agreeing with all of this. Therefore, whether you agree with it or not, I would really appreciate your opinion on this because if I am wrong, than I would like to know! God bless you, Pieter de Wit Thanks again Pieter for writing. I hope the answers above make things a little clearer. To summarise, the best road to accept the two great truths of Scripture - that God is totally sovereign and man is totally responsible and live accordingly. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 24-1-05 Your web site is concise and logical. As a fellow believer in the doctrines of grace, I am happy to know that a web site such as yours is so easy to find with a simple search. I will pray for many people to be exposed to God's truth on this web page. Why is it that regenerate, God-loving people are so willing to be logical with unbelievers, and yet so incredibly irrational in their argumentation with fellow believers? Thanks for your encouraging email. The KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid!) is the best way forward. You have a good point as to the relationship which believers have with the unsaved on one hand and yet how it can differ with other Christians who happen to differ with us on the other. A far cry from By this shall all men, know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:35) I always try to keep my arguments cool and logical. Apart from any ethical considerations, there is always the fear that a good argument can be lost in the verbiage!
I am sympathetic to you as well because I myself grew up in an Arminian background, and then "converted" when exposed to clear expository preaching . Incidentally, is your church Dispensational or covenant in it's interpretive stances? I have been under the impression that Presbyterian churches are of the latter persuasion, but it is only an impression, not the product of much research. Does your stance have to do with the word "Free?" An encouraged brother in Christ, (Ryan) The FPC is covenant in its interpretation of Scripture. The word "free" relates to our separation from the apostate Presbyterian Church of Ireland (PCI) We are "free" from modernism, ecumenism and (at least ought to be) from worldliness. Glad you were encouraged through our site. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 23-1-05 How does one reconcile this? All things are decreed by God. Nothing happens apart from His decrees. Isaiah told Hezekiah that "You shall not live, that you shall surely die." This is an unchangeable decree, and God cannot lie. Yet, God changes His mind, (yet God does not change) and gives Hezekiah 15 more years to live. Hope you can help me. And thank you for your web site. God bless you, and yours! Lamont. Hi, Thanks for writing. Ultimately, whatever age Hezekiah died at, that was the age which God had eternally decreed would be the case. I always use the illustration of a twisty road which meanders here and there. This is the way God often takes His people. He doesn't have to take us by the direct route. God did not "change His mind" otherwise He does change (Can't have it both ways) Calvin comments that the original statement about dying and not living was not with the force of a decree, but was given to test Hezekiah's faith (Comments on Isaiah 38) It certainly is a hard one to grasp, never mind explain. However, the main lesson is that it is only the things which actually come to pass which are ordained by God. When in doubt about the Lord's will…pray to Him about it! Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 23-1-05 Dear Brother Maxwell, I happened to find your article, and want to thank you for pointing out the truth about Calvinism to Mr. Cloud. Hi, Thanks for your email. I always like to get feedback of any kind, and especially encouraging feedback like yours. I have emailed Mr Cloud on a number of occasions about his various writings against Calvinism, but to no avail. My problem with him is not so much his opposition to the Doctrines of Grace - that's life - but the subtle and not so subtle way he has of setting forth our position or, what he thinks and wants to think our position is. A very generous pinch of salt is sometimes needed.
My wife and I have been Christians for 25 years. We were Roman Catholics that the Lord saved through the Charismatic movement in 1979. We later left the RC church and joined an Assembly of God Church during the Jim and Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert era, then we joined a non-denominational mega church for a while and then moved to an area where we joined a small Bible Church. I know that we were saved in 1979, but it took 23 years before the Lord opened our eyes to His sovereignty by sending a pastor to the Bible Church that was a hyper dispensationalist who began teaching that repentance is not a requirement for salvation, but that we all need to do good works in order to earn our inheritance in the millennial kingdom, or avoid being cast into outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, at the judgment seat of Christ, etc. In questioning these teachings, the Lord graciously led us to the doctrine of Grace and an appreciation for the writings of the reformers, especially Calvin. May God richly bless your ministry. K&E C, IL. USA Truly God is good. Even the Children of Israel had to meander here, there and yonder (and that for 40 years) before they got into Canaan. When we arrive late into the promised land, we [i] appreciate it more [ii] are able to sympathise with and better still, help others who are in the errors we were once in. I enjoy reading Calvin myself. I currently have a bookmark in his commentary on Genesis and I am really enjoying it. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 12-1-05 Dear Colin. Thank you very much for your website, especially the information on Calvinism. Thanks for writing to us. It is appreciation like yours that encourages us to take the time on this part of our ministry. Your articles on David Cloud have been very helpful. I had previously read his views, which gave me doubts regarding the doctrines of grace. I think David Cloud is too selective in his criticism of Calvinism. While he does mention in his main article some of the good points of Calvinism, he compromises this elsewhere by repeating Hunt's allegations against these very matters. With all his talks about books and phone calls etc., I don't think he has done his homework or has his mind made up before he started. I made the mistake of agreeing with his views on music and ecumenism and trusted him too readily with Calvinism. I basically agree with him on the music issue and ecumenism, although at times, you get the overall impression that he is boxing himself into a Fundamental Baptist cocoon. It really is a matter of taking each issue individually and checking everything out. Now I am making up my mind with God's help where I stand regarding these teachings! I think that right now I have one foot on the fence and one foot on the Calvinist side! Yours Sincerely, RS You should find the pages on our Calvinist index page helpful here. If you have the time, try the Bible studies…say one every few days and get your Calvinistic faith rooted in the Scriptures. Here it will stand the test every time. Thanks for writing again. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 8-1-05 Mr. Colin Maxwell, Cork Free Presbyterian Church, Dear Sir, Thank you for your very interesting site, especially the topics on Calvinism, my only concern is that it is not easy to find again when one comes back to it after two or three weeks. Hi. Thanks for taking time to write to us. I suggest you include our site among your "favourites" Then you can return to it again and again.
However, I write to say, I do not know if you are aware or not, but both Dave Hunt and Dave Cloud are at it again. Hunt has recently republished his book, What Love is this? A book which no decent Christian publisher will nowadays handle, he has decided to assault the intelligence of Christians and Calvinists in particular by publishing, in-house this time, a new edition of the same dribble, there is nothing new, though it has been entirely retypeset, lengthened, and now is presented in hard-back form only (according the James White’s web-site). Has the man lost his marbles, or what? Many Calvinists, including yourselves, have written to him, condemning the badly researched book when it was first published by a company who has since gone out of business, but he arrogantly refuses to head the warnings and because of his own self-importance has decided to have it reprinted and published in-house, though with few, if any changes to his main thesis. I was aware that Hunt republished his book and I know that Cloud occasionally lets the odd blast against Calvinism. There does not seem to be any change to Cloud's article mentioned below, apart from adding some in site links at the end. So my review of this particular article still stands. I don't take Hunt seriously at all, and I tend to view Cloud as an unreliable critic of Calvinism.
David Cloud in one of his latest web articles has recently revamped and enlarged his own document, entitled: THE CALVINISM DEBATE: WHO IS THE ENEMY? I’m afraid the debate must go on for another year yet, it seems. Yours in Christ Jesus, DQ. These things will be debated until the end of time. As Spurgeon said, "If there is one doctrine in the world which reveals the enmity of the human heart more than another it is the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. Men will bear with you unto that word, but when they hear the Lord’s voice saying, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion," they gnash their teeth and call the preacher an Antinomian, a High Calvinist, or some other hard name. They do not love God except they can make him a little God; they cannot bear for him to be supreme, they would fain take his will away from him and set up their own will as the first cause, and say, "These be thy gods, O Israel." (MTP 18:266) Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 2-1-05 OK Back to the public dialogue :) Thanks again, Michael, for your response to our discussion begun below in December.
You wrote: "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!" Whilst God does intervene and direct the course of human history, it is equally true that God's preventive will does not always happen. In most times, God permits / allows human choices and actions which are directly contrary to his perfect and purposive will. My qualm with the Calvinian doctrine of eternal decrees, is that they believe that God determines "whatsover comes to pass" (as the Westminster Confession says). This includes human decisions, and even human sinfulness. Surely if God's preventative will does not happen, then evidently He did not want to prevent what He ultimately allowed. If He has ultimately allowed something, He had always purposed to do so, because He is not subject (as we are) either to mixed emotions, or doubts, or changes of mind, or any circumstances that make His decisions uncertain. Once you allow that God intervenes at all in the affairs of men, then ultimately you are looking at classic Calvinism. Deny this truth and, at least logically, you are looking at a limited God. A limited God is not God at all. As for the WCF teaching that God ordains whatsover comes to pass; the proof text (Ephesians 1:11) is saying practically the same thing which it says that God "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" Ultimately, without (I hope) sounding somewhat patronising here or in any way bombastic, your problem is not with Calvin, but with Paul and ultimately with God as He has revealed Himself in His Book.
Reformed theolgian, John Frame, wrote: "It is important to see that God does in fact bring about the sinful behavior of human beings, whatever problems that may create in our understanding. However we address the problem of evil, our response must be in accord with the great number of Scripture passages that affirm God’s foreordination of everything, even including sin." (No Other God, 2001, p. 68) Human responsibility just flew out the window! Yours in Christ, Michael. Without studying all that Frame said on the matter, it is like this: If God works all things after the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11) including sinful events e.g. the Cross (Acts 2:23) then it may be said that even sinful behaviour comes within the gambit of His sovereignty. This is clearly taught in the Bible. What is also taught is that God is not the author of sin and that man is responsible for His sinful actions. If you asking me to reconcile all these truths…the answer is simply "I can't" Furthermore, I don't even have to try. I am just the postman delivering the mail. Sometimes when I preach, the emphasis goes on God's sovereignty (where the passage demands it) Other times, the emphasis goes on man's responsibility (where the passage demands it) I never preach the one to the exclusion of the other, no matter where the emphasis is in the particular passage. God gets all the glory…sinners get all the blame. I cannot see how Frame's words - as they stand - goes against your "God wanted Y to happen" scenario below. Whatever happens, does so because God ultimately wanted it to happen.  Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 2-1-05 Sir: First, let me say that I do not endorse Calvinism or Arminianism. I am an old fashioned Bible believing fundamentalist who attempts to get at the real truth of scripture by studying the original Greek and Hebrew, and other languages if I can. I believe the Bible if it uses the word Elect, Predestinate, etc. and if I can find that the word means what we think it does in the 21st century. Hi. Thanks for your email. I appreciate you taking time to write. The secret is to discover what the Bible words meant when they were first written. The AV translation is pretty accurate in these things.
I have come to a conclusion: it must be a fact that either Calvinism or Arminianism is wrong. The argument has been in progress for centuries, and no one has set down with his enemy and asked how this matter can be solved. I believe that Jesus says in Matthew if you come to the altar with your gift and conclude that you have "ought" with a brother, you leave your gift at the altar and go solve the problem with the brother. From that it seems that both sides are "picking" and choosing" those scriptures that fits their human belief and making that their doctrine. I think this statement is somewhat rash. First of all, why should Calvinists or Arminians view each other as enemies? We recognise each other as Christians with a different view on some parts of Scriptures. Furthermore, you are in no real position to say what people have been doing. I talk regularly to Christians with other opinions on these things. We both exchange views etc., and usually at the end agree to differ. If we never worshipped God until every last doctrinal dispute was settled, then God would never be worshipped. I understand Matthew 18 to refer to some personal grudge etc.,
It is because of arguments like this that I do not go to church and listen to the petty humanistic beliefs without any Bible doctrines to back them up. Then, they usually get to a point where they say, "Well, if I don't get my way, I'll just start my own church." Usually the church ends up being theirs and not Jesus Christ's. I am not sure whether you mean you do not go to church at all…at all, or that you do not go to hear humanistic beliefs. If the first, then you are in direct disobedience to Hebrews 10:25. If the latter, then no true Evangelical goes to hear humanism. Just because there is a division between the two main schools of thought (Calvinism and Arminianism) it does not follow that both these doctrines are wrong.
Who does your church belong to: Calvinism or Arminianism? Neither. We "belong" to Jesus Christ. However, if you want to know where we stand on the issue you have raised, we are happy to be known as a Calvinist church.
I remember that the Bible says, "Let man be a liar, and God be true," Both of those people were men and not gods. True, although I don't know any Arminian or Calvinist who believes that their champion is a god. May the Lord bless you in every endeavor. Thank you; WW. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
RETURN TO LATEST CALVINIST EMAILS PAGE