Any comments on this page? Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org

Anything hard in the doctrines of God is hard only to the flesh and the carnal mind. Otherwise, His commandments are not grievous (1 John 5:3) Just as the Lord Jesus refused to round off the rough corners in His doctrine in John 6, neither can we water down the Doctrines of Grace. As Spurgeon said so long ago,

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Chrysostom preached that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be a liar to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth. I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again." (MTP 4:78)

So this page is not in the business of scratching men's ears when they will not endure sound doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3) or heeding those whose great cry is "Prophesy unto us smooth things" (Isaiah 30:10)

However, we do recognise that many people who presently oppose the Doctrines of Grace (and yet who benefit the most from them, being themselves numbered among the elect of God) do not fully understand them. In many cases, they have received but a caricature of them from other sources, or they have often put two and two together themselves and arrived at the grand total of five. If you desire to know more about these doctrines and especially some of the more "severe" elements (as they appear so at first glance) then this page is for you. Hopefully any prejudices you have will be removed, and you will come to see that these doctrines are indeed "founded on and agreeable to the word of God." We are not here dealing with those gross misconceptions of Calvinism which other people have fathered on us. We deal with these misconceptions elsewhere. We are dealing here with those things over which we can happily stand, once we get the opportunity to defend our stance. Sometimes questions can be fired at people, often loaded, with the worst possible interpretation put on their answers, and all to have them condemn themselves. This is a cool, calm and collected page, directed (as the title declares) to those who desire to learn more, as opposed to those who have some kind of axe to grind. Read on!


This is in many ways the root doctrine of Calvinism. That nothing, bar nothing, happens outside the secret will of God. While God's will is but one (as God is one) yet we must use this phrase to come to a correct understanding of the will of God. If God reveals His will as being that none should (say) commit murder, then where do we stand when we read that Cain murdered Abel? In this sense only, can we say that God's will is violated every single day. This is God's preceptive will. However, we believe that God's secret will never knows any frustration. See elsewhere for a good list of verses which teach the absolute sovereignty of God. We believe that this extends not only to "good events" but also to evil. The ultimate event, of course, was the cross of Jesus. Unless you believe that either [i] it was the best God could salvage from the circumstances or [ii] it wasn't God's plan at all and He still can't make head or tail of it, then you are back to concluding that the Lord Jesus really was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:23) that the Lord Jesus really did go as it was determined of Him (Luke 22:22) and that the wicked really did do whatsoever [God's] hand and [God's] counsel determined before to be done. (Acts 4:28) God planned the cross before the world began. It is my experience from talking to and reading the comments of non Reformed Christians that this is an aspect of the atonement they walk very gingerly upon. We can only ward off "God's plan B" objection by embracing the Calvinistic idea that all events, including the Cross, were preordained by God. Furthermore, it is not logical to say that God foreknew what would happened and ordained it so. Obviously if God saw it happening, then it would have happened whether God foreordained it or not.

(Note Acts 2:23 and Luke 22:22 still indict the sinner and so the Calvinist, with all His belief in the sovereignty of God, still rightly holds men responsible for their own sinful actions. This is not under any dispute.)

Again, if God has not ordained all things which come to pass (as Ephesians 1:11 says He did) then the comfort we can draw from Romans 8:28 is likewise limited. There we read: And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Unless, of course, you are happy with the idea of God using what He is given from those "God free" spots all over the universe where He is not permitted to intervene/interfere (depending on how you view it).
God does not expect us to be able to understand it all. But He does expect us to believe that He really is enthroned and sovereign in all His ways and that ultimately, There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. (Proverbs 21:30)


You will notice here the qualification. If men meant by "freewill" that the sinner is a free agent (i.e. totally responsible for his actions) and that he is not a mere block of word, or bag of coal thrown around by God at will, then we would happily use this phrase. Some Reformed preachers including Spurgeon have used it as described above. In the Calvinistic context, Spurgeon said:

"But is it not all idle talk, even to controvert for a single moment, with the absurd idea that man can fetter his Maker. Shall the purpose of the Eternal be left contingent on the will of man? Shall man be really his Maker’s master? Shall free-will take the place of the divine energy? Shall man take the throne of God, and set aside as he pleases all the purposes of Jehovah — compelling him by merit to choose him? Shall there be something that man can do that shall control the motions of Jehovah? It is said by some one that men give free-will to every one but God, and speak as if God must be the slave of men. Aye, we believe that God has given to man a free-will — that we do not deny, but we will have it that God has a free-will also — that, moreover, he has a right to exercise it, and does exercise it; and that no merit of man can have any compulsion with the Creator. Merit, on the one hand, is impossible; and even if we did possess it, it could not be possible that we could possess it in such a degree as to merit the gift of Christ. Remember, if we deserve salvation, man must have virtue enough to merit heaven, to merit union with Jesus, to merit, in fact, everlasting glory. You go back to the old Romish idea, if you once slip your anchor and cut your cable, and talk about anything in man that could have moved the mercy of God. "Well," saith one, "this is vile Calvinism " Be it so, if you choose to call it so. Calvin found his doctrine in the Scriptures." (New Park Street Pulpit 6:243-244)

However, the Non Reformed use it in a different way. They hold that every last sinner has been given the power to choose for himself. The sinner is not so dead in trespasses and in sins (Ephesians 2:1) as to be unable (because of sin) to choose Christ. He is not so lost (Luke 19:10) as to be totally unable to find his way back again to the right path. Sin has not crippled the sinner completely or robbed him of all his sight. All the preacher needs to do is to present a few well thought out arguments and let the sinner decide for himself. I am all for seeking to persuade sinners. I seek to prepare many thought out reasons for the sinner to think about. I preach them from my pulpit. I utilise them in the many tracts/gospel booklets I prepare, print and distribute indiscriminately, but still, I believe that my preaching must be attended to by the mighty, irresistible power of God before the sinner will believe. Men are not born again from within (common freewill logic) but born again from above. (John 3:3) Man is in total captivity to his sins (John 8:34) The leopard cannot change his spots (Jeremiah 13:23) and it takes the mighty grace of God to draw the sinner to Christ. While it is only his sinful will that's holds the sinner back (John 5:40) yet its hold is so strong, the sinner cannot come unless the Father draws him (John 6:44) It is not God who holds the sinner back. It is not God who (as it were) bore out the sinner's eyes so that he cannot see, or chained his feet or gave him wrong information as to mislead him. True, God sometimes withholds the means of grace to certain sinners. Even the Non Reformed have to admit this, but ultimately the sin and the inability lies heavy on the sinner. No man is in hell who ought not to be there. He is there because of his own personal sin.

Say what you will about the decree of God - His ordering of all things that come to pass - but as Calvin points out:

"We must, therefore, acquiesce in the judgment of God, which pronounces man to be so enslaved by sin that he can bring forth nothing sound and sincere. Yet, at the same time, we must remember, that no blame is to be cast upon God for that which has its origin in the defection of the first man, whereby the order of the creation was subverted. And furthers 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: Genesis 8:21)

This is the "free will" we contend for. In order to avoid confusion, Calvinists generally refer to it as "free agency" It does not match up with that which is commonly called "free will" and therefore may well prove to be a hard saying to some…but we cannot change it.

Calvinists do not particularly glory in this doctrine, but we do believe it. If you believe in election (and we do) then you must believe in reprobation. It is this doctrine which sends many non Reformed to their keyboards and causes them to put all kinds of allegations (and dare I say it, blasphemies) against God. Yet a sober look at the whole should dispel any misgivings.

Calvinists believe that election to eternal life is unconditional. God does not ordain us to eternal life on the basis that He foresaw that we would believe the gospel. If we were going to believe, then we would have eternal life whether God ordained it or not. There is a logical absurdity involved in the non Reformed position. To make faith the condition of election to eternal life is to effectively make it meritorious. God rewards faith with election and that is merit. We reject this and teach that faith flows from election: As many as are ordained to eternal life believe (Acts 13:48) While there is no salvation without faith, yet faith is never the cause of salvation, but the channel. So we believe that election to eternal life is unconditional and in Jesus Christ.

Evidently not everyone is so elected - otherwise every one would be eventually saved - and those who are non elect are reprobated. It is here people start getting upset, but let me state a number of doctrinal points which should take the sting out of it.

[i] Everyone, because of sin, deserves to be lost in hell. Agreed? True, there are differences among Calvinists over the order of the decrees of God (although strictly speaking there is no chronological order as far as God is concerned) yet many, if not most, believe that God ordained (or permitted) the fall first, before He chose to save some out of it. So if God chose none to be saved, we would all be lost. None are in hell who do not deserve to be there. The only thing that takes a man to hell is unconfessed and unpardoned sin. Calvinism does not put any more people into hell than the non Calvinist. We believe in the damnation of unbelievers and no one else.

[ii] While sin is the cause of damnation (a judicial matter) yet the choice as to who is elected to eternal life and who is left to perish is not decided on the basis of sin, but on the pure sovereignty of God. It cannot be sin, because all men are viewed as sinners. One (reprobate) will simply left in his sins, while the other (elect) will be called out of his sins by an effectual call and cleansed and saved. To say that this is not fair to the reprobate is to violate the whole concept and meaning of mercy and grace. You cannot obligate mercy and grace. If you do, they cease then to exist. The non Reformed accept this when it comes to refuting the idea that salvation is by works (Romans 4:1-4) They should simply apply the exact same principles to the doctrine of election. We should not start off by viewing men as neutrals. Or start off with man at all. We should start with God.

[iii] We are not arguing that God does not have anything good things to give to the reprobate or that He refuses to show them any mercy or compassion etc., we are simply saying that He does not extend to them the ultimate blessing i.e. saving faith to believe the gospel. Again, we should always remember that He is not obligated to do so. That God should show any sinner (elect or reprobate) any good is a matter of sheer mercy i.e. undeserved grace. When questioned as to why God chose to save some and to leave the rest to their own devices, we can only answer as Christ did in similar circumstances: In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. (Luke 10:21) Remember, Calvinists did not invent the doctrine of election and its sister doctrine of reprobation. We are simply seeking to interpret them in a manner that does justice to whole of the Bible.

It goes without saying (especially to any who are familiar with this Website) that Calvinists believe in evangelising all men, elect or not. We cannot pry into the secrets of God. We can readily justify our indiscriminate evangelism with its indiscriminate appeals to all to repent and believe the gospel. See our page on why Calvinists evangelise.

Where Calvinists utilise those Scriptural phrases of God hardening people etc., as He did with Pharaoh, we believe it to be judicial. Whether it is passive or active hardening is largely immaterial. In line with every other Christian, we believe that the Judge of all the earth does right (Genesis 18:25) He does not have to give men a chance to believe the gospel. The cold fact is that many men have not even heard the gospel. Billions of them died during the OT era when the only family God knew on earth was Israel (Amos 3:2) There are still millions on this earth who have never had the gospel simply explained to them in its simplicity and purity. As it relates to today, the church to a large extent can blame itself. We certainly could be doing a whole lot more. But we do not fail to see that God has chosen to leave many people without the light. Even non Reformed Christians use phrases like "If God wants you on the mission field, He'll get you there." No man can shut doors which God opens. If this is the case, and it is, then we must conclude that some doors are never opened or opened sufficiently so that large numbers of people in certain regions or at certain times will be saved. These comments are not designed to stifle any evangelistic efforts (God forbid) but they are merely a reflection on what should be obvious to every Christian and what is obvious to every Calvinist. To come under flak for stating these things does not deter us from stating what is patently obvious to any reader of the Bible.

This then is the doctrine of reprobation, as we believe it. It does not damn innocent people in hell or damn people who deserved a chance. It damns sinners who loved their darkness rather than the light (John 3:19) No man in hell has the least excuse. No man in Heaven has any room to boast. Spurgeon's great maxim still stands: Salvation is all of grace. Damnation is all of sin. Non Reformed reader: Don't you agree?


It has often been said that "God has no favourites" This statement is simply untrue. It is true that God loves all men, elect or otherwise, but that He loves all men equally goes beyond both the Bible and even common observation. It is evident, from the nature of the case, that Christ loved Peter more than He loved Judas. While both men were tempted and both fell grievously, Christ was praying for Peter (Luke 22:31-32) but not for Judas (John 17:9) Why was this? Not because He did not have some feelings for Judas, whom He called His friend (Matthew 26:50) but because His love for Judas did not extend to that special love which He has for His church whom he describes as His bride (Ephesians 5) It seems all nice and wonderful to say that God loves all men equally, but if this is the case, it seriously dilutes what God has done for His elect i.e. He not only provides but actually secures salvation for them. If we are all reduced to the same love which He has for the non elect, then no one would be saved. Salvation is all of God, not only in its provision, but also in its application. It is the goodness of God that actually leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4) The non elect are not so led to repentance since (to state the obvious) they do not repent.

In making these observations, we may add that no man, still unsaved, should conclude that he is a reprobate. John 3:16 carries the widest possible invitations and overtures and he should avail immediately of its offer. As for the one designated "the least of Christ's brethren" He should ever marvel at the love which His Saviour has had for him, even if, in this world, he finds himself, hungry, sick, imprisoned etc., (Matthew 25)

If you meet a "4 point Calvinist" then the missing 5th point will usually be found on this very matter. The term "limited atonement" (a phrase tied into a mere memory device i.e. the acrostic on T.U.L.I.P.) often gives the unfortunate impression that Calvinists believe there is something deficient in the atonement. We do not and so many prefer the more accurate description of "Particular Redemption." If you find this pill somewhat bitter to swallow, please consider that if you don't believe that Christ died to redeem fallen angels, then you too believe in limited atonement, although not as limited as Calvinists. For the record, Calvinists believe that the atonement is sufficient to save a million worlds had God so decreed it to do so. This is because the Infinite Christ Himself is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2) We do not limited the worth of the atonement. What we do limit - and so must you if we pressed you to it - is the intention of the atonement. Bearing in mind that God does whatsoever He pleases (Psalm 115:3) that none can stay His hand (Daniel 4:35) and that there is no wisdom or counsel against the Lord (Proverbs 21:30) can you honestly say that the determination of God which extended to so much of the atonement (Luke 22:22/Acts 2:23/Acts 4:27-28) extended to the saving of every last men, some of whom were in an eternal hell when Christ died and others of whom would never ever hear its message? It is a hard saying, but it is not as hard as believing that Christ atoned for the sins of people who are now or will be in hell atoning for those same sins. As Spurgeon said: "Once again, if it were Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has he been disappointed! for we have his own evidence that there is a lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit must be cast some of the very persons, who according to that theory, were bought with his blood. That seems to me a thousand times more frightful than any of those horrors, which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of particular redemption." (Sermon 204 New Park Street Pulpit 4:553) Your choice here is between an atonement limited in its power but unlimited in its scope (the non-Calvinist belief) or an atonement limited in its scope (to the elect) but altogether unlimited in its power (Calvinism)

Many, although not all, Calvinists also believe that there is something in the death of Christ for every last man, although there is only actual atonement only for the elect. John Murray words it like this:

"The question is not whether many benefits accrue to men from the death of Christ. The unbelieving and the reprobate in this world enjoy many numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is over all things and is given all things in heaven and in earth. It is within this mediatorial that all the blessings which men enjoy are dispensed. But this dominion Christ exercises on the basis and as the reward of his finished work of redemption (Philippians 2:8-9) Consequently, since all benefits and blessings are within the realm of Christ's dominion and since this dominion rests upon his finished work of atonement, the benefits innumerable which are enjoyed by all men indiscriminately are related to the death of Christ and may be said to accrue from it in one way or another. If they thus flow from the death of Christ, then they were intended thus to flow. It is proper, therefore, to say that the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and the reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ. The denial of universal atonement does not carry with it the denial of any such relation that the benefits enjoyed by all men may sustain to Christ's death and finished work." (Redemption, Accomplished and Applied BOT pp.61-62)

Because of the infinite nature of this atonement and its sufficiency, we may preach it fully and without any reserve to all men without exception and assure all who come that there is a fountain for them to wash in and be clean (Zechariah 13:1)
 
OTHER SUBJECTS TO BE COVERED:
GRACE IS IRRESISTIBLE