FREE PRESBYTERIAN  ISSUES -- GOSPEL ISSUES -- PROTESTANT ISSUES -- EVANGELISM ISSUES -- CALVINISM ISSUES -- C.H. SPURGEON INDEX -- SERMON NOTES -- MAIN PAGE

OTHER EMAILS

For a number of years, I have been running a Calvinistic emails page. This page will contain some of the other e-mails we get on other subjects. These are reproduced here, 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:
*******************************************************
Answered 14-6-08 Hello Colin, Just a few lines of "well done" on a great looking, fresh website ....I was trawling the Internet on the Papal Anti-Christ after reading the book by Dave Hunt "A Woman Rides the Beast".....this was recommended by a good friend at work...and I have since left the Church of Ireland, which I feel is far, far too close to Rome.  [and heading back into it's "mothers" arms very quickly!] I never fully understood, or studied Revelation 18, until having a chat with my friend, who became a Christian while in Crumlin Road prison during the troubles up here. It was a Free Presbyterian minister who opened his eyes to the Truth, and has not looked back since.  *******************************************************
Answered 9-6-08: Dear Pastor Colin Maxwell, Greetings in  Jesus precious name. Thank you very much for the Bible  study materials you have posted I enjoyed it. Can I use the materials for my bible study ? I am Pastor R.R. from ________ in the Philippines. God bless you, Pastor.
 Nice to hear from you, so far away. make free use of anything on this site, as long as it is for the glory of God. Thanks for writing and encouraging us here. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 19-5-08: Dear Rev. Maxwell, Regarding your web page: http://www.corkfpc.com/pope.html The following quote appears: 5) The RC New York catechism states: "The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Other than Boettner's book "Roman Catholicism" (in which has the same quote appears WITHOUT BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SUPPORT), is there any verifiable Bibliographical information, or is this quote just undocumentable  Protestant folklore? Thank you, PB
Hi. Thank you for your note. I fail to see how you can write and say that this quote appears WITHOUT BIOGRAPHICAL SUPPORT (Emphasis yours) when the opening words clearly attribute it to the New York catechism. (?) Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 1-5-08 Dear Pastor Maxwell, Thank you so much for the info re: the Pope. We have sent out many DVD's of  Richard Bennett (former RC priest.) I was a RC for 30 years of my life. To the praise and glory of God, He saved me! Australia is hosting WYD this July, to the shame of our lovely country. May the LORD bless you as you keep up the fight for the Truth with us. Mrs. JI, South Australia.
Hi! Nice to hear from you and to know that our site has been of use to you in your battle for truth. Most of our congregation here in Cork are made up of ex-Roman Catholics, all rejoicing now in peace with God. I have been twice in South Australia - once for a year in 1986 --87 and then for 3 months in 1999 - on both occasions filling the pulpit in our church in Port Lincoln on the Eyre Peninsula. I heard Richard Bennett preach here in Cork. He had previously studied for the priesthood in this city. Keep the gospel banner flying! Colin.

*******************************************************
Answered 5-4-08 Hello,  *******************************************************
Answered 31-3-08 Dear Sir, If God knows all things, how can He not remember our sins? EM
Hi, When the Bible declares that God will remember our sins and iniquities no more (Hebrews 10:18) then he is speaking in a legal fashion i.e. all the charges against us are dropped and we are justified from all things (Acts 10:39) It is not that God has either gone into denial or suffered a loss of memory.  Many of the sins of the saints are referred to later on in the Bible, long after they had been forgiven. This is for the purposes of admonition so that we might learn from and avoid their unfortunate mistakes. However, (as said) those same saints will not face legal charges, because legally their sins have been blotted out as a thick cloud. (Isaiah 44:22) Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
Answered 25-1-08 I have just visited your web site for the second time. I must love it, as I think I have been here for a couple of hours now. 

Thank you for all the encouraging articles etc. They will certainly be of help as I share the Gospel with people. Also, I will pray for you and the work that your church is doing in Cork. I live with my wife, and our youngest son in AV, CA. Again, thank you very much for your web site, I am so happy to have found it. CB.
Hi CB, I pray everyday that this website will be used for God's glory, both in the salvation of the lost and the encouragement and edification of the people of God. Your email has greatly encouraged us at this end. Keep sharing the gospel with the folk. There is going to be a mighty harvest! God's word does not return unto Him void.  (Isaiah 55:11) Thanks for your prayers for our work here in Cork. Colin.

*******************************************************
Answered 12-11-07 I read your piece on OldTruth.com.  I was attending a discipleship class last year.  While working on a homework lesson, Ephesians 2:8 started a change in me.  I see election throughout the Bible now.  I still can't believe how plain it is to me now and how before I could just read past without noticing.  I actually have a question on a different topic.  I have been struggling with dispensation and covenant theology.  I have two good friends, each are on a different side of this.  The churches where I have been are dispensationalist.  I would like to someday settle as comfortably with this issue as I did with Calvinism.  I feel dispensationalism has been explained well enough but not covenant theology.  What would you recommend? Sincerely, Curt in Michigan *******************************************************
Asnswered 1-10-07 Dear Rev. Maxwell, I was just blessed to listen to the mp3 on your Church's web site titled, "The way of Salvation" and wanted to tell you what a blessing it was to hear the old, old story once again, as always.  Though we may not fully agree on some theological issues I am fully persuaded you are a true and faithful servant of my Lord and the accounts of your ministry are a great blessing and encouragement to me. May God continue to greatly bless you and those who serve with you. CC, AL, USA
Nice to hear from you and to know that you have been blessed in viting our website. Bookmark it and come again! Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 12-06-07 Dear Brother Maxwell, A friend of mine doesn't believe that the Bible specifically says anywhere that the non repentant sinners go to hell.  I told him that Jesus preached "repent or perish" but he said that only meant that they die.  Does the Bible say that the unbeliever goes to hell or just that he dies?  Thanks for your help. God Bless, DS
Hi. Thanks for your email.  The simple answer is that  the impenitent and unbelieving sinner goes to hell when he dies, as taught in the incident which our Lord refers to in Luke 16:19-31. Your friend might be coming at this question from a number of directions. On one hand, he may be influenced by the soul sleep or Jehovah Witness people who do not believe in an eternal burning hell  or from a Universalist/Modernist position who also deny this truth. On the other hand, he might be one of the self styled Free Grace people who deny the need of repentance for sinners and insist that people are only lost through unbelief. If the latter is true, then he will groan as you shift from the unrepentant when referring to his question to the unbeliever in wording your own. These folk dumb down the "perish" in Luke 13:3/5 to merely being of a physical nature. However, when we remember that Christ began to upbraid the cities where many of His great miracles were done, it was because they "repented not" and the woe that would fall upon them would be worse than that of the likes of Sodom (Matthew 11:21-24) We cannot suppose that any physical retribution would be worse than fire and brimstone falling out of Heaven. It is clearly a reference to hell. Thanks for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 7-6-07 Pastor Maxwell: I want to thank you for your recent debate on the "free grace" blog:  http://unashamedofgrace.blogspot.com Your answers help people like me to learn and improve.  Many people today say that debating is not worthwhile, but I just want you to be assured that it is. --Jim Bublitz    www.OldTruth.com
Hi Jim. Nice to hear from you again. I appreciate your comments and am encouraged to know that you have been helped. The debate to which you refer to is very important i.e. on the subject of repentance. It is amazing how some professing the evangelical faith have relegated this fundamental doctrine to being an optional extra. Years ago, we called them Modernists. I agree that there is value in debating, although it can be time consuming and there is a big lost world out there needing evangelised too! Thanks for writing. I trust that God is blessing your own ministry. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 30-5-07 I came across your website while looking for some "critiques of Calvinism" via Google. Some stray feedback:
Hi. It is always nice to get some feedback, even of a "stray" variety.
 [1] I have had my own dealings with David Cloud, and even though I am not a Calvinist, I wish the man could debate issues in the sort of irenic approach you took with him. And that applies on issues, like secondary separation of the KJV, where you two would more or less agree.
 I think it is the nature of his site that makes him what he is. I think he takes on too many controversial issues which invariably draw the ire of many people and he snaps back at those who query him. Rather him than me. I wouldn't go the whole hog with Cloud on the KJV. I don't hesitate to give what I consider to be better renderings of the Greek if needs be and I do it without feeling that I need to qualify myself and close up every last possible rabbit hole in case someone thinks that I am less than a 100% Fundamentalist.
[2] I live in Scotland, where the strong churches seem to be that that way because of all the non-Scots in them (I'm in Edinburgh), and where the weight of the evangelism being done is through something called Christianity Explored, or even, for all its faults, Alpha. But where is the FPC's evangelism? The church of Scotland is a dead loss, and is so regarded by many of its own.
 I am unable to comment with any authority on the Scottish scene. Sufficient to say that Scotland was once noted for its strong evangelism. Again (seeing you mention Calvinism in your opening line) there is nothing in Calvinism that should hinder earnest evangelism. Not sure as to what you mean when you ask "Where is the FPC's evangelism?" The FPC of Ulster has 4 small congregations in Scotland and I believe that they are as active as they can be in seeking to reach the lost for Christ. Certainly this would be the thrust of our church as a whole.
[3] On the KJV issue, why can't someone take the Received Text and undertake a translation into modern English? That's only a century overdue. I grew up and was saved as a Pentecostal; we were very much KJV people until the NIV came along and swept all before it. So that's why I think that an opportunity has been missed. PS The NIV include "God" as a footnote to 1 Ti 3:16.
 I think you have a good point there. I don't think any  - including Cloud - are opposed to the idea of a fresh translation in principle. It is a big undertaking though. I think the best way would be to increase the marginal readings. I don't believe that God has to communicate to 21st century men in 17th century English.   The NIV footnote on 1 Timothy 3:16 is very inadequate. My edition simply reads; "Some manuscripts God" That gives the distinct impression that there are only a few mss, whereas the reality is that the vast majority of mss render it as "God" and only a very few, such as the ones the NIV draws from, render it "He". The NIV, as you are probably aware, thinks nothing of putting an interpretation into the text. It did this in John 12:41 which reads: "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him." This, of course, is a true interpretation and therefore a proof text for the deity of Christ, but it is an unwarranted translation. I wonder why then (without getting into conspiracy theories) even if they stuck with the (in my view) inferior texts, that they just didn't change the rendering to God in 1 Timothy 3:16?
[4] Ian Paisley .... I think he has got in the way of preaching the Gospel to Catholics in Northern Ireland, because he has associated the Gospel with loyalty to the United Kingdom - thus putting the flag before the Cross. I have friends who are Northern Irish who do work with Catholics who confirm this.
It is my experience that while the recent political unrest in Ulster as a whole caused great polarisation, yet many RC's simply used it as an excuse to reject the gospel. Here in Cork, where Ulster and its troubles seemed a million miles way, while I got my connection with Ian Paisley cast at me on a few occasions (although not very often, but things might have been thought rather than said) yet I also noticed that the RC's weren't queuing to get into the likes (say) of the Brethren Assemblies in Cork or into the Baptist Churches (who also would have been hostile to Ian Paisley) Now, they are not even queuing to get into their own chapels. Incidentally, over the years even during the worst of the troubles, quite a number of Roman Catholics were converted through the FPC as a whole and in the Martyrs Memorial in particular, while others converted elsewhere have come into fellowship with us. Again, I wonder now that Mr Paisley is being hailed as a statesman even in RC quarters if they will now queue to get in through the doors? If not, then my view that they got the excuse they were looking for holds.
By the way: he might want to stay with the UK, but the mono cultural, Protestant, white UK he is committed to doesn't exist any more - and I don't think the UK want Northern Ireland - they'd hand it back if they could to the Republic, except I'm not sure the Republic want it either.
I am unsure as to where you get the idea that Mr Paisley was committed to a mono cultural, Protestant, white UK. You almost make him sound like a Fascist. Are we talking about the same Ian Paisley? As for the UK...if media reports are anything to go by, we wonder how long as a unit it has to go. Do the English want the Scots? Do the Scots want the English? What about Wales? The recent Irish election showed that the ROI are quite satisfied with things as they are re: Northern Ireland as shown by the rather poor election results for Sinn Fein.
 Otherwise, an enjoyable read! In Christ, RC
Nice to hear from you. I appreciate you writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Answered 31-3-07 I Read your article -I am a former Catholic and convert to Protestant and Presbyterian also. I will send you a letter which I sent to a Presbyterian minister at a congregation I am thinking of joining. My Catholic family is upset at my conversion.
"USE OF THE TERM PROTESTANT TO DESCRIBE BELIEVERS LIVING IN THE IRISH REPUBLIC. 
I proudly proclaim I am now a Protestant and Presbyterian. I am of Irish and English ancestry but a very Catholic family. I live in the U.S.

MY  LETTER:

Friday, March 30th 2007. "Dear Pastor GW,

I look forward to being with you on Sunday. I want you to know these are a few of the things I told my brother who argued with me today and tried to persuade me to return to the Catholic church. I said "No", and tried to help him understand I have experienced a conversion of heart and soul -I am still a Christian, but I am a Protestant Presbyterian. I was still upset when I called you earlier. I argued these points with him.... and others I have discussed with you a few days ago....

Regarding communion....
The Roman Church says Christ is physically present. I also believed that even as an Episcopalian until I studied the Reformed theology of the Presbyterian Church. Rome falsely teaches: "The bread and wine are changed truly, really and substantially into the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, and the bones and sinews of Christ," (Current Catholic Catechism and also of the Council of Trent) even though it still appears to be bread and wine. I now see that as absolutely ludicrous and I renounce that teaching and the Catholic Church.

The Lord’s Passover was itself symbolic. Now as a Presbyterian and a Protestant when I receive the Lord's Supper, I believe the elements are symbolic and I believe the sacrament seals me in communion with my fellow like believing Protestant Christians and we experience and have Christ presence because of our acceptance of faith by his election of us and our Justification through faith alone and by his saving grace. I approach the table of the Lord at His invitation. I go to His table. I do not any longer approach a Roman altar.

Justification by faith alone is denied by the Catholic church, so Catholics can not even begin to understand the Protestant Presbyterian position. I feel Christ’s Presence to me more so now when I receive the Lord's Supper as a Protestant Presbyterian than when I use to receive" the Eucharist' as Catholics prefer to call it and I was taught Christ was physically present. I totally renounce the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass, both now I see as ludicrous and an abomination and heresy (false teaching.) It was the Roman Catholic Church that had drifted and corrupted the truth as proclaimed in scripture. It made the wonderful sacrament of the Lord's Supper into "a sacrifice” which also led to what I now call the “superstitious adoration of a wafer” in a gold monstrance. That to me now even seems to be idolatry. I, as a former Catholic, see the beauty of the Reformed theology that even some Protestants do not appreciate. I do very much. I have discovered truth. I have been reborn. The mass wafer even IF transubstantiated into the body of Christ soon corrupts. That is contrary to Psalm16: 9-11 (quoted in Acts 2:27), which declares that His body would not see corruption.

How can a priest of the Roman church create out of a piece of bread, a wafer, used in the Roman mass not only the true physical body, but also His soul and divinity? This makes the priest to be greater than the Creator??? Surely I now say of “the mass wafer” as I now call it- and the mass both are ridiculous. I repent forever having believed this corrupt teaching. I no longer recognise the authority of the Roman Church, as it is not Biblically based. They all still are my brothers and sisters in Christ. They have not received the grace of justification; I pray that someday the Roman church will change its position. I thought it would after Vatican II, I was wrong. However I do not see that happening under the current Bishop of Rome. He has recently even talked of  returning the mass to Latin. It’s also why I renounce the Pope - he is not the Vicar of Christ. No man is.

When I think of masses before Vatican II (which continued for hundreds of years in Latin) and even today the priest is still dressed in a gaudy fashion chasuble and Roman clothing. The candles on an altar, not a table as it should be -sometimes even incense - ringing bells etc., How far removed it is from the simple meal presented in Scripture and I now believe and respect as a Protestant at our Presbyterian worship service on the Lords day-I think the service of the Presbyterian church is beautiful-because it could not be simpler. I am at home I believe we as Presbyterians have the true form of worship as it was and intended by Christ before the Roman church corrupted it.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation was not founded on the word of God, The Bible-the only real authority- but by the Bishop of Rome and his Council of  Trent. It was created and put forth and taught to me and all Catholics who do not know any better. It is truly a false teaching from the Church of Rome and is a major error, as are many other Roman teachings, it is also now why I renounce the Roman Catholic church and so happily embrace the teachings of the Reformed Protestant Presbyterian Church.

Jesus cry: "It is finished"? Is another reason I now renounce the Roman mass and the Roman teaching on communion. I embrace the teachings of the Reformed Theologians and the Presbyterian Church on the Lord's supper.

Nowhere in Bible is any sacrament presented as an instrument of salvation, be it baptism or the Lord’s Supper. We are saved by our faith alone - Justification. I proclaim Jesus Christ as My Lord and Savior; my conversion to Protestantism was my being reborn in the Lord.

I believe now in only 2 sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Only two are founded in scripture. Again the Church of Rome and its Pope still maintain there are 7 sacraments. I renounce that and all my former Catholic beliefs, which are contrary to the teachings of the Presbyterian Church. I submit to the doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Presbyterian Church.

Even though I have not decided which Presbyterian congregation I will join, you have treated me as a member of the congregation. You have made me feel welcome and at home. You accept me as a fellow Protestant Presbyterian and allowed me to commune with you and the Redeemer congregation at the Lords Table. I made a profession of faith to you in writing a few days before I came to worship. After receiving the Lords Supper with you on Feb 11th, I did begin to experience a further conversion. I began to understand "Justification" not just because of the books you gave me, which I study regularly. I felt reborn after making my confession of faith to you. I fully understood the Presbyterian position on the Lord's Supper. For the first time I accepted the symbolic nature of the elements as a Protestant and yet felt Christ’s presence more so than when I was a Catholic receiving communion. Sincerely and respectfully, DD"
Hi, Thanks for your email. Delighted to read of your journey from Rome to Christ. You certainly seem to have grasped some of the fundamental differences between the Bible and the Church of Rome which necessitated the Protestant Reformation. I do not want to judge you too harshly on some of the terms which you use or the experiences which you describe. One thing, however, that I must state for the sake of maintaining our own position here, we would not confess of those within the RC Church: "They all still are my brothers and sisters in Christ." They may hold to certain fundamental truths of the Bible i.e. the Trinity, Virgin Birth etc., but in denying justification by faith alone, they  forfeit the term Christian at all. This is not to say that we cannot love them dearly etc., but we cannot go further in these matters than warranted by the Bible. Thnaks for writing. God bless you. Colin.  
*******************************************************
Received 27-2-07 Colin:  Thanks.  Good to hear from you. May I ask you a quick (hopefully) question.  Does your church practice the exclusive use of psalm singing? I assume so.  If so, do you believe that those who do not do so from biblical conviction are in sin and if so, what sin and is it damnable? GD, Florida, USA
Hi. Thanks for your note. Quick answers to your quick questions. [i] The Free Presbyterian Church is a Psalm and Hymn singing church. [ii] This being the case, naturally, I do not believe that those who sing good spiritual and Christ honouring hymns are in sin. [iiii] Not applicable [iv] Not applicable, although I think if I took the line that hymn singers were in error, I would not count it a damnable sin, otherwise some of the mightiest men in the Christian Church like Luther, Spurgeon, Horatio Bonar and the American Calvinists like Dabney etc., would be in hell, which I think is an absurdity. Trust this helps. Colin.
 *******************************************************
Received  5-11-06 Dear Colin, Just visited you web site. I'm praying for you this morning as we begin our worship day. Songfully, Lindsey Bloodworth, Minister of Music, First Baptist Church. Victoria, Texas USA
Nice to hear from you and that you have enjoyed our site.  May the Lord bless you too today. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 23-10-06 Dear Mr Maxwell. Where might I purchase an above Bible.........apart from the TBS in LONDON. I'm over in Scotland...and I collect Bibles in all languages for reference and reading.......but they must be KJV, Textus Receptus authenticated. I am a KJB only believer.....I am keen on any second hand ones as along as they are semi-decent. They do not have to be NEW. Sound Christian bookshops are becoming quite rare you'll agree. Irish gaelic as you know is slightly different to Scottish gaelic. I can purchase a Scots one in the SFPC. I enjoy your website as I have an interest in evangelism in the Isle of Ireland and especially Ulster. Are the Brethren still going in the southern part of the Isle? Also interested in the work of Edward Nangle his missionary work and labours: Herbert Carson was an authority on that. I also enjoy listening to Dr Paisley and you'll agree ... a lot of people don't realise how EMINENT A SCHOLAR  he is, because he is such an excellent preacher and evangelist. I am presently reading the booklet the Red Republic by Rev A.Hislop writer of the Two Babylons, excellent enquiry. Anyway if you can help with Irish language bibles let me know, if not don't worry. Wish you every blessing in your work of evangelism and church planting endeavours. Incidentally my great grandfather Andrew Mitchell l was in the Free Church of Scotland. 1880. Yours, Every Blessing, JM

*******************************************************
Received 10-10-06 Pastor Maxwell, I am continually being edified by your writings.  May I please continue to post your articles on my blog?  Thank you either way. Josh: www.bloodtippedears.blogspot.com
Permission granted with the usual requirement of acknowledgement of the source of any articles. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 2-10-06 Hi, Brother!  Thank you for  the article "Jesus Christ: All Sufficient Savior."  Being convicted of not memorizing Scripture on a regular basis (actually, not at all), I'm going to memorize  ALL the verses and the wording that goes with them.  It will be a blessing to me as a believer, and no doubt it will help tremendously in soul-winning.  Keep up the great work.  BTW, for the longest time I've considered David Cloud's Website THE best on the Internet, in spite of his tirades against the biblical doctrine known commonly as Calvinism.  But from now on, as far as I'm concerned, you BOTH have The Best sites on the web.  Chuck Roberts,  WV,  USA.  Psalm 126:5-6
Hi, Thanks for your note. It is always encouraging to know that some are blessed through our Internet efforts. I must admit that I really enjoyed preparing the article on the All Sufficiency of Jesus Christ. Just a little bit of time with a concordance can do wonders for the soul. There is some good stuff on David Cloud's site, but his anti Calvinism stuff is totally off the wall altogether.  I have emailed him on a number of occasions about the places where he misrepresents the Calvinistic position, but he just gets pretty thickheaded about it (as they say in these parts) and keeps churning it out.  This colours for me some of his other criticisms on other subjects, since it leaves me wondering if he has done a hatchet job on them also. there is some corn there among the chaff and we can feed on that and leave his peculiarities to those who want them. Thanks again for your encouragement. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 6-9-06 Dear Pastor Maxwell, *******************************************************
Received 1-9-06 Dear Colin, I came across your site and thank God for the witness in Cork to the Lord Jesus. Blessings, Aidan, Cindee and children (John-Keith,Mary,Noah, Evan, Isaiah) Greenville S.C., USA
Nice to hear from you and to know that the site here has been of blessing to you. Colin.
 ****************************************************
Received 27-8-06 I got an email from a young Mormon in County Kerry, Ireland, taking me up on material found on our various pages exposing his church i.e. on their teaching about Christ's return, their salvation by works doctrine, and the so called sacred burning.  Since he quotes large parts from our pages, I am not reproducing his letter here. However, you will be able to discern from our reply (reproduced below) the nature of his views.

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your note. I am glad,  given your present circumstances, that you have found our site and the various pages dealing with your Mormon faith. You will appreciate, no doubt, that we do not write to needlessly offend, but that we must preach the truth as it is in Jesus (Ephesians 4:21) It is our hope and prayer that these pages and this correspondence will lead you out of the errors of the Mormon religion.

You take issue with us on our rejection of your doctrine that Christ appeared physically, from Heaven, to the Red Indians in AD 34. You claim that this appearing is not Christ's Second Coming which you also claim is still future. However, since Christ went to Heaven (as testified in Acts 1:9-11)  - how can this coming, which is after this ascension, be anything other than the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? How many Second Comings at there? Or what number goes between One and Two? The Scripture is very specific about what must preceed, accomapny and follow after the real Second Coming...and the Book of Mormon doesn't match up. Therefor eit is to be rejected.

You seek to explain, very lamely in my opinion, how the words in 2 Nephi 25:23 that we are saved by grace through faith "after all we can do" can be reconciled to the word of God. I once challenged a Mormon missionary, purporting to be Christ's messenger to my soul, with these words. He used the illustration of a young lad desiring to purchase a bicycle but found the price far beyond his financial means. However, according to this missionary, the lad paid the small sum which he could afford and his kindly father graciously made up the difference. That is salvation by works plus faith. This is the gospel of Rome, the Jehovah Witnesses and every other cult on this earth. Again, I have been told by Mormons - in County Kerry at the Rose of Tralee Festival a few years ago, that Paul and James contradict each other on this issue. I accept that these observations are both anecdotal, but they are real and they are painting  adifferent picture from what you say. Furthermore, the logical outcome of your denial of eternal security doctrine invariably leads to salvation by works - if not in doctrine, at least in practice. You are effectively keeping yourself in this so called state of grace. Affirmation of the Eternal Security doctrine does not invariably lead to Antinomianism. Regarding the sacred burning, you do not take up my challenge on the peace I might acquire when standing in front of the RC altar etc.,

I think you miss my point re: the doing of miracles. In themselves, they prove nothing, but only have effect when tied to a true ministry which may be tested by its faithfulness to the word of God.  It is my belief that the Mormon religion falls far short of the teaching of the word of God.

Yours, Colin Maxwell (Cork Free Presbyterian Church)
*******************************************************
Received 31-7-06 To Mr. Maxwell, Thank you for your web pages on Calvinism. Even though I don't agree with  you 100% I find your articles very clarifying, unlike a lot of the other Calvinistic websites out there (I've written to you, thanking you for this, before). However, the reason I write is to mention what I think is as an error of fact in one of your articles.
Hi Joshua. Thank you for writing again with encouraging words. I am glad that you are finding our Calvinism articles helpful. I have mounted this letter in this particular place (other emails) because the main thrust of your letter concerns the non Calvinist matter below.
Although this may seem trivial and I understand that as a pastor you must be a busy man, I thought to myself, "If there were any error of fact on my website I would want someone to point it out to me." The statement is in your article "How Reliable is David Cloud in His Examination of Calvinism?" and it is this: "I also admire his [Mr. Cloud's] work on the exposure of modern versions of the Bible, although I cannot match his view that the Authorised (King James) Version is a perfect translation and cannot be improved." Here is a quotation from Mr. Cloud that I think shows that you have got his position wrong: "I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors. (That is not to say that it cannot be updated or that things could not be translated differently.)" I don't mean to defend David Cloud to the hilt but I trust you'll forgive a nit-picker like myself. Your brother in Christ, Joshua.
It is not nitpicking if it puts the record straight. I have adjusted the appropiate page to reflect his position. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received Late July, 2006 I got a nice email from a Pastor in the United States overcoming an addiction to pain relieving drugs. Unfortunately I must've deleted his email. If he is reading these lines, my humble apologies for not replying. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 2-7-06 I had skimmed through your critique of Scott Hahn's conversion and took extra notice of how you point out his apparent merging of the Justification and Salvation issues. My question doesn't really concern the critique, but I wanted to know the common Protestant stance concerning "justification by faith alone" - is that distinguished as the initial moment of accepting Christ from ultimate salvation at the end of one's life. Or is the Protestant stance a sense of "salvation by faith alone" as well, even if a person falls into what Catholics call "mortal sin" yet are repentant of it? Thank you sir. Justin. Hi. Thanks for your note. I was asked a few months ago to compile a study on this fundamental doctrine of justification by faith alone which you may access here. To be brief about the matter, Protestants believe that sinners are condemned by God for their sins. Condemnation does not make sinners guilty, but merely declares them to be so. Sinners need to be justified before God. Justification does not make them righteous, but pronounces them to be so. Men justified God in Luke 7:29 so it cannot mean "to make righteous" (as God was not unrighteous) but they simply declared that He was righteous. The blood of Christ cleanses away our sins (1 John 1:7) and this enables God to declare righteous, those who come by faith alone and receive it for themselves (Romans 3:28/Romans 5:1) Justification is an one off act of God (Romans 3:24-26) and it is perfect - the Believer cannot be more or less justified. Sanctification is the ongoing work of God, which takes a life time to complete, and indeed is not completed until the Christian enters into glory - which Protestants believe is at death (without so called purgatory) or at the Lord's Return (Whichever occurs first) While Believers can fall into sin (1 John 1:7-2:1) and, sadly often do, yet this does not affect their justification, as it is based on the ever perfect work of Christ. This, of course, is no excuse for anyone to claim to be justified and then "live like the devil" as sanctification follows justification, as sure as night follows day. I hope this answers your question...do have a good look at the above study for scriptural proofs etc., Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*********************************************************
Received 6-6-06  Hello, I am in the San Francisco, California, USA area and I just found your site. I was reading Slice of Laodicea blog and someone posted the link to your site. I am very interested in reading your site and will try to read through it.  We have come out of a seeker/mega  neo -evangelical church and are now in a conservative reformed bible believing /teaching church. The nearest Free Pres. church is hundreds of miles away from us in the state of Arizona. I just found out about FP churches recently because I started listening often to SermonAudio. I love that site. I have just started hearing this kind of real meaty, serious preaching, after being a believer for 21 years.  I am one who came out of the RCC (and into new evangelicalism) and finally found a truly Christ centered church, for which we are very thankful. Much love in Christ, Your sister, L. I am a mother raising 3 children, I am trying to learn doctrines that I never learned in all these years, and I've been involved in evangelism since I was saved. I was saved through the work of the Holy Spirit as I read the Word of God as a 17 year old teenager- after being confirmed in the RCC!! After the Lord saved me, I came out of the RCC  and started studying God's word.
Hi. It has been lovely to get your email today and to read a little of your testimony. God certainly has been gracious. I personally have gleaned much help from the Sermon Audio site. Whoever invented mp3 has done us all a great favour! I usually walk into the city centre when evangelising and I listen to a sermon (or half a sermon) on the way down and another/remainder on the way home. The walk back is all uphill and you would hardly notice it when listening to the men of God preach the word.  Thanks for writing and encouraging us here. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 24-4-06 Greetings, I was reading your website on the struggle between Creationism and Evolution, and I discovered an interesting quote by Charles Darwin.  It is the quote on the development of the human eye..."To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [The Origin of Man, Chapter 6.] The problem with quoting this as a defense of Creationism is that it doesn't take into consideration what Charles Darwin really believed.  It was only his way, as a writer, of generating a thought in his readers.  He later confesses, after piling over volumes of evidence..."When we reflect on these facts, here given much too briefly, with respect to the wide, diversified, and graduated range of structure in the eyes of the lower animals; and when we bear in mind how small the number of all living forms must be in comparison with those which have become extinct, the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing that natural selection may have converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve, coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the articulate class." [The Origin of Man, Chapter 6.] In June of 1982, Ronald Reagan wrote "Marx was right."  But, he conclude his remark with, "We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis -- a crisis where the demands of the economic order are colliding directly with those of the political order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union.... "  Wouldn't it be a bit foolish to write a defense of Communism and Socialism, and begin it with the quote "Marx was right," and attribute it to Ronald Reagan?  Only a little more foolish than quoting Charles Darwin out of context in regards to the human eye, right? Thanks for your time, For Life, PS. Hi, Thanks for your email. I appreciate you taking time to write. I think Darwin was being very honest with the initial quote (which I quoted) and somewhat hopeful in the second, which you have quoted. Indeed, it seems that the wish has fathered the thought. He cannot scientifically prove his point and so he moves from the very strict, no rules breaking realm of sceince into pure, fanciful philosophy. However, judging from his comments in a letter in February 1860 to his evolutionary friend, Asa Gray, where Darwin lamented: "To this day the eye makes me shudder" he didn't seem too convinced by his own explanation himself. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
Received 7-4-06 Hello Pastor Maxwell, Here in the U.S., most Catholics of Irish ancestry would never THINK of leaving the RCC for a Protestant church.  Over the past decades, thousands of American Roman Catholic priests have abused children, and many American bishops have enabled and protected pervert clerics.  It has been four years since The Boston Globe cracked the Roman wall of secrecy.  Since then, news media across the U.S. have informed us of horrid attacks against children in almost every diocese in the nation.Some  Catholic laypeople shy away from regular church attendance, but they are reluctant to shed their Roman labels.  They still submit to the RCC for baptisms, first Communions, confirmations, and weddings.  Others behave as if all is well.  They attend church, pay tuition to Catholic schools, treat priests with humble deference, and donate regularly. Many in the Roman culture (from ranking prelates to laypeople in the pews) minimize the scandal and vilify those who expose awful crimes against innocents.Victims, lawyers, reform-oriented Catholics and journalists are reflexively sprayed with "anti-Catholic" defensive venom.    *******************************************************
Received 14-3-06 Dear Pastor Maxwell, I enjoy your website and drop in from time to time.  I especially like your defence of Protestantism. I was browsing the Internet and came across your defence against the argument that Protestants were hopelessly divided put forward by Rome's apologists. It's a great article but I was wondering if you were familiar with another excellent article by Eric Svendson that I think would compliment your article well. It deals with debunking the "30,000 denominations" myth and does so quite effectively.  I thought I would pass the URL on to you in case you weren't familiar with it and you might find it useful.  Thanks for the good work, God bless you and your congregation, Rev. TH. Hi. Thanks for writing. Nice to know that the website has been of blessing and use to you. This issue was raised briefly in our recent debate with a RC priest - not by him, but from the floor. The speaker gave the 30,000 figure also. I suppose if something is said long enough... However, the article linked is very good. If the "end justifies the means" then telling a few lies will hardly cause the harlot church to blush with shame. Thanksa agin for writing and encouraging us. Colin.
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
 Received 7-3-06 Hi Colin, Well done last night.  You fought the good fight but time was so short for both of you.  A little less time from the floor and more for the speakers would have been in order. Your finishing remark about JP2 and universal salvation hit home I imagine - nice one. I bet you didn't sleep too well, replaying the night - at least, I know, I would be. Different tent, same camp YM Hi YM. Thanks for your email and encouragement. I really enjoyed the debate. As you say "Time was so short" but we took what we could get. Initially, we were to 7 minutes each, but I got it extended out to 9. I was very tied to my notes, but this was to stop me fattening them out any more and getting guillotined before I had finished. I slept like a log...at least until our Andrew decided to waken us all up. You should have a look at the Pius X Society site. Defence of the Inquisition and all that - they only used torture in special cases etc., Reassuring! The quote re: John Paul II was from another associated site. Any way, it was a good time and we can only let God have all the glory. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 21-2-06 Brother Maxwell: I found your web site to be helpful.  Thank you for sharing your insights on the web.  We Yanks need all the help we can get! God bless, JR Hi, Glad that you have found the site to be helpful. It is not often we find the "Yanks" putting themselves down! Maybe I shouldn't spoil it, by acknowledging the help that I have had from those on your sirde of the pond! Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 18-2-06 Dear Colin Maxwell, My name is FC.  I am twenty four years old.  I am very interested in Ireland, and am going to visit a Christian brother in Belfast this June, who is going to bless me through a free tour of Ireland proper for a week, beside a tour of his Northern Ireland.  I am very excited about this.  I'm kind of an Ierophile (if that's the right word)! Well, I am an American Christian, born again and thankful for it!  I was so impressed and thankful for your website on Catholicism, that I felt moved to write and thank you for it, and share a bit of our burden here in America.  I don t call myself a Protestant per se, as here in the US, our Christian mission is not so much combating the heresy of Catholicism as it might in a land that still holds to her religion.  Here, the lines are not so sharply divided as in Ireland, because there are so many different sects, cults, denominations and world religions mixed together.  For the most part we deal with witnessing to those in the New Age, and to the spirit of agnosticism and skepticism that is growing profusely. Hi. Nice to hear from you and to receive such a chatty email. Ireland sure is parochial compared to the USA, although recent yearsvhas witnessed quite an influx of many other nationalities and religions. Many of them at the moment are Poles, and the whole Catholicism thing is likely to regain some momentum.
We do have born-again Catholics here, though I have not yet figured them out.  They are sometimes referred to as charismatic Catholics.  I know they revere the Word and they believe in the spiritual gifts, but I do not know what they have rejected from Catholicism and what they hold to still.  In my own church I am frustrated by some who got saved in the charismatic Catholic renewal, and left the catholic church to find greener pastures.  They hold favorable opinions of the Catholic church and are timid in making judgements on doctrine, and easily offended by contrary opinions.  They cannot seperate the good God did through a movement, from the bad doctrines the movement might hold.  I have heard and read that the singer Moire Brennan, from Ireland, is a born again believer, but remains a Catholic.  I love her music very much, and her lyrics are moving and honoring only to the one true God and Jesus Christ.  It confuses me though, because she reads the word profusely, calls herself born again, is married to a Protestant born again believer, and yet remains a Catholic.  I do not know how to think on those such as her, though my heart hopes that she is truly in the Lord. The big issue is "Do they still go to Mass? or pray to Mary? etc.," If they do, and more so, if they continue to do so, then I am left wondering how genuine their profession of faith really is. While I would not like to uproot the wheat with the tares, yet I would tend to treat with some caution. I certainly would not afford them any influence in my fellowship and I would not identify with them in witnessing to others etc.,
Well, I do thank you for your work.  Your website has given me confidence when teaching others about how to judge doctrine by the word of God.  You take a hard line stance against Catholicism, and yet you continuously reaffirm your love for Catholics themselves, and your belief that they may turn to Christ.  I feel much as you do, for I am an ex-Catholic myself, and though I hate the Catholic institution, I love the people in it.
Good!
Besides thanking you I suppose I should take the chance to ask a couple questions.  How should we approach Catholicism now that it is not the institution that it used to be?  We do not face the same beast as Luther did.  It used to be so powerful and it was truly an antichrist in the world, but now I see it as weak, and even the heretical faith that held the world so strongly in its grip is growing cold, and every man does as is right in his own eyes.  In many respects, because of so much relativism, materialism, and immorality that we deal with here in America, I respect more those Catholics such as the present Pope Benedict, for example, who sticks to his guns about the doctrine he believes is right and refuses to give in to the voices of liberalism within his own religion.  I know many of his beliefs are heretical, but do you understand what I mean?  In the society I live in, especially in the Northeast, spirituality is cold and no one believes in any authority anymore.  At least someone like the Pope knows how to stick to his guns!  Anyway, do we treat Catholics as apostate and wicked brothers, or do we treat them as unbelievers?  It's tough because they aren't quite pagans (though nowadays as I said above, they live like them), but they aren't Christians either, and most don't even call themselves Christians, so its not like confronting a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon.  But yet, I see Catholicism as a whole institution more like Israel when she worshipped Yahweh along with other gods, as opposed to the pagan countries who did not recognize Yahweh, and His judgements fell harder on Israel than on the world.  The point being, I guess, is that its not so black and white anymore, and I don t know how to think about them.  What are your thoughts on all this, and what is the spiritual landscape you have to contend with in Ireland? I would not write Rome of at all. If she is weakened, it is not by choice and where she is dominant, she still displays her violent hatred against Protestantism e.g. in Mexico. As an institution, she is only interested in getting Protestants back into he fold. Christian Unity means Roman Unity under the Pope. It is not a matter of choosing between secularism and Christianity including Romanism. It is a matter of choosing between all that is anti God (including secularism, Romanism and any other -ism including apostate "Protestantism") and all that is godly and Biblical, which works itself out in best Bible Protestantism  - whether we call it that or not.
I thank you for your response and taking the time to reflect to a brother across the sea.  I was talking to my friend that I mentioned above, about me missing the week in Belfast where there are the marches and bombings/violence, which pits Catholics against Protestants.  It is so sad to hear.  That kind of hate clouds people's perceptions of true Christians such as yourself who deem it right to judge another religion and at the same time to love the people in it.  No religion should be above scrutiny, but those in all religions should be looked upon with compassion and grief for their deception.  We Christians (perhaps on both sides of the Atlantic?) get swept into the group of bigots and haters, and our message is soiled by the sins of a few.  A similar thing occurs here with homosexuality, where there are so-called Christians who yell, scream, spit and hate homosexuals, showing them no love or hope for change and renewal in Jesus.  Then when true Christians, in love and compassion, try to witness to them, the world's perception of Christianity is already marred and it makes it harder to get through to them.  It is my belief that the condemnation for those so-called Christians filled with hatred and who mar the gospel is greater than the torment that will be faced by the sinners themselves.  May our message never be marred by the sins of our false brothers.  I agree.
I hope and pray that your message, the message of our Lord and Saviour, and the church in Ireland, will grow and prosper in truth, as I pray it will here, on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. God bless you, brother, FC Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
*******************************************************
Received 12-12-05 Dear Colin, I read the above article, [Justification by faith alone]  you can you establish absolute proof to this with out the use of Paul? That this can you use the words of God the Father or my Lord Jesus to prove what you said? Using what both the Father and Son said in the context in which they say what you will use; Can you defend he is exposed in Revelations 2:2 For in the whole bible there is only one who calls himself and apostle to this church and this person never identifies other false apostles to this church. Thank you for your email. I'm sorry you haven't expressed yourself very clearly. Indeed, parts of the above paragraph are positively incoherent. Which, to be honest, Mr Theodore Three Bears, doesn't induce me to think much of your theological abilities at all. We may establish the great doctrine of justification by faith alone from other scriptures written by other men. John 3:16 might well be taken as a good place to start. While you might not be too happy with Paul as an Apostle, yet his argument in Romans 4 draws impeccably from the OT. (I assume the OT meets with your approval?) Even the Epistle of James may be brought into the argument here. I always find it amazing that those who bring works into the equation in the matter of justification before God go to James. They usually start at James 2:13 whereas 2:10 tells us that if we are to be justified by works, then we must keep the law in its entirety to do so - and none of us have.  
I call Paul into question, and until he is justified, I will only take my faith from Jesus as He said I should in John 10:1-6. You misread John 10:1-6. The Lord Jesus Himself sent forth His apostles and said that whosoever heard them heard Him (Luke 10:16)  
I am afraid you are no difference than the Catholics, you have made Paul the holy father of your dogma. May the Lord rebuke you for leading His sheep astray. Brother Theodore Three Bears. I deny your charge and therefore your rebuke is as totally meaningless and strange to me as the name by which you choose to identify yourself. I only put your email up here to show my readers that having an interactive part on a Website can draw all kinds of people to respond. However, it helps brighten up an otherwise drab Monday morning which I trust will improve as the day proceeds. Thanks for writing anyway. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 10-12-05 Pastor Maxwell, I found your Website showing your favorite study books. Do you know about what year "The Outlined Bible", by Robert Lee was written? I received my copy (undated, not copy-writed) in 1959 during Bible college days. Does your copy have a date on it? I was thinking it may have been in 40's or 50's or maybe even earlier. Do you know anything about Robert Lee? Google was very helpful. God bless your week! Love, Juanita USA Hi. Thanks for your email. My edition of the Outlined Bible by Robert Lee is published by Pickering and Inglis of Glasgow and is referred to as "Revised Edition 1982." In the "Preface to the New Edition" reference is made to the idea that Lee wished to introduce the Revision Version of 1881 and that might suggest an early enough date. I'm afraid I know practically nothing about the man other than this. My edition tells me that over half a million Bible students have been grateful for Robert Lee's Outline Bible. It is certainly very useful. Sorry I can't help you further. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 24-11-05 Dear Pastor Colin Maxwell, I am doing a project on Mel Totter for school. I was wandering if you had any information on him that might be of help. Sincerely, KM P/s If you don't have anything, it's ok. Hi. Thanks for your email. A quick look round Google gave me a Website, presumably of his organisation. Amazon offer a book about him also. You can download and listen one of his sermons. Thanks for writing again. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 23-10-05 Thank you so much for taking the time to place your sermon regarding Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley on the Internet. I recently became aware of their existence over the summer and have been searching for more material on their lives. I was amazed and pleasantly surprised to find your notes as I was searching, not realizing that just this past Lord's Day was the anniversary of their martyrdom. I wanted to send a thank you and a praise to God for guiding your words and thoughts to speak His glory. Amen! Your Brother in Christ, Brian P.S. I am a resident of Struthers, Ohio, USA, and a member of the Poland Village Baptist Church of Poland, Ohio, USA Hi Brian, Thank you for your email. I am glad that you were encouraged through the sermon I preached last Lord's Day on the martyrdom of Latimer and Ridley, and which you found on the Internet. It is great that sermons can live on and be accessible to others long after they were originally preached. Thanks again for writing and encouraging us here in Cork. Colin.
*******************************************************
 Received 15-10-05 To whom it may concern, I cannot understand why you are using the word christ-mass, this is a Roman Catholic festival with pagan origins! Please explain? B.Y. Hi. Thank you for your email. I employ the word Christmas simply after the popular usage of the word. I assume that you do likewise with the days of the week e.g. Thursday (Thor's day) etc., Even though we, as a family, exchange presents and take a few days off work etc., and eat turkey and mince pies etc., around this time of the year, yet it can hardly be claimed or even thought that we are celebrating the Roman Catholic mass. We do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or in the idea that Jesus Christ is still being offered in a continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary or in the role of the priest. In fact, the religious connotations are not very prominent at all and we don't go along with the somewhat trite saying that Jesus is the Reason for the Season. Regarding those who oppose even the use of the term Christmas, I sometimes wonder do they ever give or receive presents on December 25th? Do they ever sit down to a turkey/ham dinner on that date like the rest of us? Do they bin any Christmas cards they receive or send them back with an explanatory note? Personally, it is not something I get all het up about. It comes and it goes every year and I do not appear to be any the worse for the few days break with family that it brings in its wake. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 15-9-05 Dear Colin, You have been very helpful to me in the past and I request a moment more of your time, please, to ask if you know anything about a new group in the RC church called "Sedevacantists" from a Protestant point of view. It is something I was not aware of but in light of Rome continual claim to be semper idem I find such an anomaly inconceivable. Your comments would be very gratefully received. Yours in Christ, DQ Thanks for your note. I'm sorry but I had never heard of the "Sedevacantists" until I got your email I had a quick look on Google to see what was available there. At first glance, they seem just to be the more traditional pre Vatican II wing of the RC Church. Whether it is old Romanism or new Romanism...if they still deny justification by faith alone then they are preaching another gospel. Still, it is proof that the Rome are not as united as their propagandists would want us to think. Colin.
*******************************************************
[Received 6-9-05 I got another reply from the man who write yesterday below, still insisting the worth of studying the early Church Fathers etc., Not a subject I am particularly interested in getting into. However, he did take up the matter of baptism from a Scripture point of view and so I have reproduced those parts of his email.]
In Matthew 28:19 it specifically says the way you become Christian is to be baptised. The reason why you don't hear of it as much "later" in the Bible is because those were local churches where Baptism was required for membership. All through Acts the Apostles call people to Baptism. How can you say its not a means of salvation when mentions (e.g. Acts2:38) are made to its regenerating powers including the forgiveness of sins? As is common with adherents to the errors of Rome, you are reading into Matthew 28:19 what isn't there. Christians are to be baptised, but that's a different thing from saying that people become Christians through baptism. In Acts 2:38 the "for" carries the thought of "on account of" as it does (for instance) in Romans 4:25 where Christ was delivered "for" [on account of] our offences and raised again "for" [on account of] our justification. You need to take into consideration those passages from our Baptism page where people were saved without baptism and especially where Paul said that his main mission was not to baptise but to preach and thanked God that he had baptised none of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:14/17) Again, if baptism imparted the regenerating power of God, why then Peter tell Simon that he had neither part nor lot in the matter (Acts 8:21) when Simon had been baptised? (v13)
[Other scriptures were raised on a number of matters, but things are pretty busy here at the moment. I might get back to some of them, but there are another couple of Roman Catholics "in the queue" before this man. Any correspondents should bear in mind that the Website is only a very small part of our ministry here. I do enjoy the work it involves, but it must play second fiddle to a host of other things which are more pressing. Correspondences which are short and to the point are more likely to get greater attention than those which tend to ramble on a bit, especially if they go off on tangents about matters outside the Bible. However, we do enjoy getting feedback, even if we cannot deal with it as we would like. Colin.]
*******************************************************
Received 5-9-05 I was looking through your Calvinism page and saw some stuff on the Catholic Church. Most of it was misconceptions and false conclusions. Also I saw that Baptism page and was shocked at what you said, especially the part where you said Baptism was hardly mentioned in the NT. Thank you for your email. I appreciate you taking the time to write. I must correct you. I didn't say that baptism was hardly mentioned in the NT. I said: Very little, relatively speaking, is said about Baptism in the NT. This is relative to the importance of the subject. While it is considered to be important in Protestant circles, yet it is not elevated to being a means of salvation which it is in the Church of Rome, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Church of Christ and other faiths. I also deny the content of these pages contain misconceptions and false conclusions.
If you believe that your views are truly "RE-formed", I challenge you to show me where the Early Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils support your views more than mine. After all, the whole point of the Reformation was to reform the Church to what it once was. I challenge you to look into that past and show me where what the Early Church Fathers and Councils said that is radically different from what the Catholic Church teaches today, and at the same time show how your beliefs are supported by those writings. This letter is a wake up call, will you show your beliefs are historically correct, and that the Reformation was really that, reform to what the early church believed? I offer this challenge to many Protestants though I have yet to get a response. One reason why many Protestants (and you can add this Protestant to your list) decline your challenge is two fold. One. It is very easy to go around challenging folk to read and study the many Church Councils with their massive tomes and many of the Church Fathers etc., I must confess, I usually get a bit peeved with boys who try and organise other people's lives for them. Secondly, the benchmark of what is doctrinally right or wrong is not found (with all due respect) in the Church Fathers and the Councils, but in the Bible itself. The whole point of the Reformation was to bring the Church back to the Bible. If we bring the Church back to the Church Fathers and Councils, then we are bringing it back to a mixed bunch of completely fallible men. Not so when we bring them to the word of God.
I haven't read that much of the Early Church but I have read enough to feel confident in the Catholic position. We can use the early church fathers and councils as listed on the fully reformed page ccel.org - after all, if its on a reformed page it should indicate the reformed position is correct it its views. Maybe you should spend your time (if you so desire) reading the Early Church yourself, before going round challenging others to do likewise.
I ask this because it is my duty as a Christian to inform people of the truth as well as give you the opportunity to change your ways. Christ expects those fully competent enough to really look into the facts so when that day comes you may reply to Him that you did your best and did not avoid the facts. I don't think I want to be able to say on that great day that I spent my time taking up out-of-the-blue challenges to read the many tomes etc., of Church Councils and Church Fathers.
I say all this because of the important teaching of Baptism (especially concerning your page on Baptism), it is the most important Sacrament, which I see Protestantism downplaying more and more to the point it is insignificant. To say what you said about Baptism is a mockery to the Gospel and Christ. I deny your charges. I notice that you make no attempt to refute my position from the Scriptures. How competent are you with the word of God? You should meditate upon these things that your profiting may appear unto all (1 Timothy 4:11)
It should be required of every pastor of this modern age of technology to read the Church Councils and many of the Early Church Fathers, especially now that this information is easily accessible and even free. If every pastor did what you now think he should be made do…where is he going to get time to pastor? Time is to be redeemed (Ephesians 5:16) I don't think your suggestions are helpful to that end.
I expect a reply to this challenge and why you can or cannot take it. I will assume a failure to respond indicates your beliefs are not historically sound (and that failure is usually an indication of unscriptural sound beliefs). Nick. Well, Nick, I have made reply. Whether it satisfies you is another thing. My suggestion to you - and I am practising here what I preach - is that you study what the Bible says about the matter, I believe you will come to the same conclusions as I and many other Christians have come to. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 27-8-05 Mr. Colin Maxwell, I have just read your "Questions which every Roman Catholic should answer" and am amazed. Thank you for taking the time to write. It is always nice to get feedback, even if the correspondent doesn't agree with what is written. I myself, a mere 18 year old freshman in college, knew answers to all of those questions and, it makes me ruminate upon how much you know about Catholicism. Yes, you know the stance of the Holy Church and your reasons why it is wrong, but I don't believe you know the Church's retort. Anyone can believe themselves right in an argument if they hear their answers and only their answers. My knowledge of Roman Catholicism is born out of careful research (from both Protestant and RC literature) along with face to face discussions with RC activists here in Cork, Ireland (a city which is over 90% RC) and in email discussions/debates with RC's. I do not write out of ignorance.
The answer to "Peter the Rock" was especially aggravating, as that answer proves so essential for all the others and if you don't know that, it would seem crazy what we believe. But the fact of the matter is that you seem to forget Jesus spoke Aramaic (Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani?) and Matthew was translated from Aramaic to Greek to others. I did have a prolonged email debate with a RC who tried to convince me that Peter was the Rock. This is online. Whatever language Jesus spoke, the Holy Spirit saw fit to inspire it and record and preserve it in the Greek language. Away and above whatever language used, there is only one foundation laid and that is Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11)
If you would look farther into it, you might see the correct logic. I do not wish to sound condescending because I am not, but you should learn more about the religion you practice and the religion you believe is wrong. If you stop halfway through the truth, you may be on the right path but you will never reach the end. If you care to respond, I will gladly talk to you more about this matter. Thank you. AJL. I doubt if any man alive can honestly says that he "knows it all" both about his own faith and that of another. However, I am very happy to leave Christ as the Head of the Church (Colossians 1:18) and decline the idea of a two headed body as effectively proposed by Rome. However, I appreciate you writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 17-8-05 I won't go into detail right now, but I will give you this, Psalm 92:14 They will bear fruit in old age (in other words many years later) They will stay fresh and GREEN. Is this a special verse put there by God for Ireland? There are many more, it is like seeing the four leaf clover, they are actually every where. JH. Hi. Thanks for your note. I'm afraid I can't share your hermeneutic principle that green in the Bible represents Ireland. I think this is rather fanciful and therefore of no profit whatsoever. A good verse in the Bible for any country might be: Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. (Proverbs 14:34) Until Ireland forsakes her sins and especially her false religion, then she will not know any spiritual blessing. A good book to get to help you with Bible interpretation is Arthur Pink's book: Interpretation of the Scriptures. Thanks again for writing. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 25-7-05 Greetings Pastor Colin Maxwell, In online discussion with a Roman Catholic priest from Belfast, I noticed that you did not refer to him as Fr McCafferty. This annoyed me. I thought the old "call no man father" argument, was dead, but it seems it is alive and well in County Cork. In other areas of your Website, you quote Matthew 23:9, which I assume would be your scriptural defence for your position. From a study of the entire body of revealed scripture, I hope to demonstrate to you that it is entirely scriptural to call a Priest, father. Thanks Michael for your email. I appreciate you taking time to write to me. While I have no real desire to get into a prolonged email debate with you on this matter (which takes at least 10 times longer than a good face to face discussion) I have given you my views on the matter below. I suggest if you wish to pursue the issue longer that you contact the Free Presbyterian Chaplain in your university. I think we all agree we must never take Scripture out of context, We must be sure never to build a doctrine on one single verse, without acknowledging its context or other Biblical evidence. And I hate to say it, Pastor, but I believe this is what you're doing with Matthew 23:9. Note: In his original email, Michael quotes in full from several scriptures. For the sake of space, I am just including the references: Ephesians 6:2-4/Luke 16:24/Romans 4:1-18/James 2:21/1 John 2:13-14. Michael admits himself that "Time does not allow me to quote to you 1 Thessalonians 2:11, John 4:12, Acts 4:25 and Romans 9:10." Putting it briefly, here he argues that the term Father is used by the NT writers and often in a religious sense. His finishing paragraph explains his view of what Matthew 23:9 does teach:
The real key to understanding Matthew 23, is found in a proper understanding of the nature of the Body of Christ. The Douay Rheims translation of Ephesians 3:14-15 expresses it well. 'For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity [Greek: paternia, English: fatherhood] in heaven and earth is named.' God the Father is our one, true Father. All other fatherhood, be it biological or spiritual, participates in His unique Fatherhood and represents it to us. Our biological and spiritual fathers neither take away nor add to this one unique Fatherhood. Rather, they establish it on earth. The context of Matthew 23 shows that it's addressing the sin of pride among the scribes and Pharisees. They loved to be called 'teacher' and 'father.' But in their pride, they pointed to themselves rather than to God the Father, from Whom they received true fatherhood, and in Whom their fatherhood subsisted. Outside of God the Father, there are no fathers at all in the true sense of the term. Perhaps this is a relevant point to look at the word pastor; a study of etymology shows it to mean Shepherd, to lead to pasture, from the Latin Pastorem. Just as there is One Shepherd (Christ), you who claim to be a pastor, i.e. a spiritual Shepherd- I don't see this as a claim to be infringing on Christ's role as shepherd, But rather a sharing in, participation in a secondary derivative sense of course, as in the same context as the father-from The Father in Heaven. Conclusion: Remember There are texts that say Christ is man and there are texts that say He is God. We don't throw out either. Both are true. Analogously, Jesus says we are not to call any man 'father,' yet Christ Himself, St. Stephen, St. James and St. Paul all refer to men as 'father.' "Your final comment to him is this: "Don't throw out any of these texts! Our fathers in heaven, Abraham, David and Jacob for example, and our fathers on earth, religious leaders and dads, participate in the one, unique Fatherhood of God. They don't add to it, but neither do they detract from it. They represent and establish that Fatherhood on earth." I look forward your reply. With every Prayerful Good wish, Michael. There are two issues here re: the one whom you refer to as Father McCafferty. One: The Lord Jesus desired that we would avoid elevating mere men to a position beyond their right. It can happen in any denomination and not only Rome. While there are teachers etc., who should be respected as such, yet they are not to go beyond that which is lawful i.e. written in Scripture. If they do, they are not to be obeyed. Secondly, this being so, I cannot as a Bible believing Protestant, recognise that a RC priest like the said Mr McCafferty is worthy of the title. After all, if you read our exchanges with Mr McCafferty, you will see how he basically wrote to me and insulted my Protestant faith, Although he later calmed down, yet he maintained his false doctrines and this prevents me giving him any spiritual recognition. It is also worth pointing out that your church, while it might refer to Protestant ministers by their designated titles i.e. Pastor or Reverend etc., and even turn up at ordinations etc., does not actually recognise those same ordinations as valid. Anyway, I'll leave it there. Thanks again for writing. I appreciate your gracious enough tone. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 1-7-05 (A response to my comment immediately beneath) Ah .. There are always exceptions to the rule….[You write] "I believe that all bitterness, from whatever source, should be put away." Me Too! Cool. Follow your own advice. AG.
PS… The Web site you linked to is Dave Armstrong’s…If you took the time to actually read through it you would find that he has nothing but praise for his Protestant roots and separated brothers and sisters…He has high praise for his deceased brother (an evangelical Protestant) and all people who seek God…Read through his site… It’s truly a great read! Buy some of his books.. You got the faith.. why not have it in its fullness? Why tip toe trough a wadding pool when you can swim in the ocean? That’s the whole point of his web site ! (Glad you found it though.. God’s scratching your earth here!!) God Bless! Hi. I find it hard to take your emails seriously. First of all, having capitalised the words WITHOUT FAIL in your initial email, you then admit there are always exceptions to the rule. Secondly, you tell us that Dave Armstrong has "nothing but praise for his Protestant roots" yet the page referred to pounds away hundreds of times against the Protestant religion. Which doesn't add up, for he cannot have it both ways. However, you have had your say. In closing this correspondence (lest it run on and on and on ad infinitum) I can honestly say that I have no bitterness towards Roman Catholics. Otherwise, I would not have specifically left my homeland to live among them and bring them the gospel. Colin.
*******************************************************
Received 1-7-05 I think God must be pretty wise to see to it that guys like Scott Hahn get more exposure than you! A simple observation …Why is it that anyone who goes from the world of Luther to Rome has nothing but solid good things to say about the "Protestant world" they left behind while everyone who leaves Rome for Protestant waters has nothing but bitter things to say about Rome..? …WITHOUT FAIL… Your web site is a good example of that axiom. God Bless! AG. Hi. Thanks for your email. I assume that you are speaking about our critique of Scott Hann. Your "observation" is so obviously ridiculous, with its "WITHOUT FAIL" claim adding only to the silliness of the whole. Have a look at this site here and show me where this convert to Rome "has nothing but good solid things to say about the "Protestant world" His charges include the following lie: "63. Classical Protestantism, and Calvinism today, make God the author of evil. He supposedly wills that men do evil and violate His precepts without having any free will to do so. This is blasphemous, and turns God into a demon." I don't have the time to spend on something so silly, but I'm pretty sure that if I were to trawl the Internet looking for sites where folk converted to the Protestant faith, I could find you at least someone who would say something good about his church. I, myself, have heard many converted Roman Catholics speak and they were honest enough to give praise where praise was due. Our controversy is not with individual Roman Catholics - we are not "anti Catholic" as Hahn and others keeps insisting on - but we do oppose the unscriptural doctrines of Roman Catholicism. Your own charges, evidently so untrue, are actually a slur on honest converts to the Protestant faith while they whitewash any bitterness