March 28, 1994
Dear Brother Jun,
I received your letter dated March 4, 1994, however, I've been so busy to reply immediately. We just finished our graduation exercises in the seminary last week.
Though I did plan to refute one by one, all the lengthy doctrinal correspondence you've sent me concerning the TULIP doctrine, I feel I need not make my reply right away, especially when I am busy. Besides, I have already sent you my write-ups last year, and the first lengthy one, about two years ago, refuting the Calvinistic beliefs on Total Inability, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace. Recently, I sent you my refutation of the Calvinistic belief about God's Decrees. There's no need for me to write again on the same subjects, however, I am planning to write again to refute your explanation on the TULIP and I will do this one at a time as the Lord will give me more time. Unless we clarify our doctrinal position by answering all questions, we will be spending great efforts in making letters with fewer accomplishments. I have already sent you my doctrinal position and you've sent me yours. Unless we start answering questions or clarifications, we will be compared to playing hide and seek. Last December 15, 1993; I wrote you questions for clarifications. I never received any explanation to my questions. I am sending you again a copy of that letter hoping that you will be able to explain and clarify your doctrinal position on that issue. Your latest letter discussing the matter of MAN'S WILL can be considered a new issue. I will deal with that later on.
My letters to you are based upon the simple teachings of the Bible and not from any religious or philosophical books authored by men. It is fair because the ideas were taken from the Words of God, not from some bias books written by scholarly religious men. The Bible is the oldest and grandest Book and is sufficient for History, Doctrine, Prophecy, etc. Human historians can sometimes make mistakes but God cannot. My letters are not shallow because they're deeply rooted in the Bible. In fact, the majority of Christians and Baptist in the whole world believe as I do that Christ died for all men. Therefore, most regenerated favor the argument I am presenting. It is harmonious with the Bible. Those who adhere to Calvinistic teachings have a problem on how to harmonize their teachings with the whole sound Bible doctrine. They often find some contradictions with the basic Biblical principles no matter how they try to adjust their teachings. One evidence to this is that Calvinists themselves are disunited and divided in their views and beliefs. If one's teachings are right, confusion can be avoided. Those who adhere to the TULIP doctrines are so divided among themselves due to their many varying views and opinions. How can such belief find harmony with the Bible?
I am aware that Calvinism influenced some Baptists in the past. Even their Confessions of Faith were stained by Calvinistic teachings. A Christian who will research on the history of John Calvin will not be surprised about this. History tells us that John Calvin persecuted many Baptists and forced them to accept his teachings. Due to his strong influence, he had led the state authorities to burn to death one who opposed his teachings* (Encyclopedia Britannica).
John Calvin is a divisive person in the sense that he had, in
his religious struggles, tried to divide the Baptists by persecution and
violence. But the worst thing is that his teachings continue to create
divisions within and among the Baptist churches. Even those who adhere
to Calvinism, the Calvinistic Baptists, are divided in their views and
doctrines in the five points of Calvinism. Thank God that many Baptists
have realized that Confessions of Faith are fallible and that only the
Bible is infallible. Many Baptists who were influenced by Calvinism
in the past are now returning to the Bible's principles. The churches
associating in the ABA have not departed from the true faith; rather, they
have strengthened their faith in the Bible by altering any man-made ideas
that stained their Confessions of Faith in the past. The best way
to prove the correctness of a church's doctrine is not through the Confession
of Faith created by fallible men but through the infallible word of God,
the Bible.
I sent you some clippings of Joe Wilson's writings from the Baptist
Examiner. He believes that the Holy Spirit uses the Gospel in regeneration.
I have read some of his writings. He believes in unconditional election
to conditional salvation, but R.L. Crawford believes in unconditional election
to unconditional salvation. I wonder what is your doctrinal position
on this matter. Joe Wilson believes that a person must hear the word
in order to be regenerated while R.L. Crawford believes that a person can
hear the word after regeneration. What's yours? I have read many
times in the Baptist Examiner during the time when Joe Wilson was the editor.
I have read many of his articles and he kept on fighting against Hardshell
heresy, which have influenced many pastors within the fellowship of those
who promote the Baptist Examiner. Pastor Joe Wilson had often mentioned
in his editorial the many fellow pastors who have criticized his doctrinal
views and those pastors were his fellow Calvinists. Calvinists are
so divided in their doctrinal views though they seem to be united only
in five points -- T-U-L-I-P. Do you believe that a person must hear
and understand the Gospel in order to be regenerated? I want you to explain
your doctrinal position. What is the purpose of the Gospel?
Is it intended for the spiritually dead in order to have life or it is
for the spiritually alive to be comforted? It is hard to understand
the various ideas of the Calvinists because they themselves are contradicting
each other.
There is no question as to who hardens the heart. There is no argument in that area. The answer is found in Exodus 10:20. We differ in our explanations in how God hardens the heart. I believe that the Biblical statement "God hardens the heart " means that God withdraws His grace or influence and leaves man to act according to his depraved and corrupt nature. The words "God gave them up" emphasized this truth as found in Rom. 1:24-28. However, your belief is God is involved in the lives of people who have fallen into sin* (C.M 's letter). As I understand your point, you mean that God is the efficient cause of the hardening of man's heart. Is that right? Did I get your point? Is God actively the efficient cause of the hardening of man's heart? Who hardens the heart of man first, God or man himself? There seems to be no Calvinist's answer to these questions.
Do you really believe that God is the creator of sin? Do you mean that He is also the author of sin? Is it possible for one to be the creator of a certain thing and at the same time, not the author of it? In your recent letter, you mentioned, "Sin is a creation; Satan is only a creature, and God admitted that He is the one who do these things" (CM's letter, 3/4/94). When God created the heaven, and earth, and all things therein, He saw that everything He made was very good (Gen. 1:31). Are sinful deeds good in the eyes of God? I believe that God made good Angels and Lucifer, an archangel made sin by rebellion. When the prophet Isaiah spoke of God as creator of evil, he did not mean the evil of sin, but the evil of punishment. According to Matthew Henry's Commentary:
"... I create evil, not the evil of sin (God is not the
author of that), but the
evil of punishment" (Matthew Henry's Commentary,
Vol. IV, p. 252).
In your recent letter dated March 4, 1994, p. 4, you mentioned, "And the greatest majority of the people have no faith. This shows that God is responsible in their having no faith at all or in their having unbelieving hearts." Do you mean that God is responsible why some people reject Christ? Since you believe that evil or sin is created by God, is God responsible for man's sinful actions such as idol worship, rape, & murder? Does God want people who do such wickedness to repent of their sins? Does God want the non-elect to repent of his wrong doings? If God were responsible for man's unbelief and sinful action, why would He judge and condemn man for his sin or unbelief? Why did Jesus rebuke the unbelieving people in Chorazin and Bethsaida if God Himself was responsible for their unbelief? (Matt. 11:20-26). Why will God take vengeance and punish those who disobey the Gospel if God Himself is responsible for their disobedience? (II Thes. 1:7-9). If God decreed God including sin ordains all events, the question is, is God happy and satisfied everytime sin is done or accomplished by a person? Will God actively and effectively cause a man to do blasphemous things, which are against His (God's) pleasure?
INCONSISTENCIES OF THE CALVINISTS:
I. ADAM'S FREEWILL:
A. Calvinists believe that Adam has no freewill before the fall. -
Of this, one Calvinist said: "Was it Adam's own will to eat the forbidden
fruit? No, it was not his own will... We can only say that Adam has
his own freewill if his action was not influenced by prior notice or caused
by divine intervention" (C. Mangubat Jr.'s Letter, 3/4/94) Calvinists believe
that Adam has a freewill before the fall. - Concerning this, another Calvinist
said: " Adam's will was a freewill because it was self determined"
(Freedom of The Will, p.2).
II. GOD'S INVOLVEMENT
A. Calvinists believe that God is involved in the lives of people who
have fallen into sin. Concerning this, Brother Jun Mangubat
said, "Certain text speak of God's involvement in the lives of people who
have fallen into sin" (C. Mangubat Jr.'s Letter, "God Ordained Sin
and Unbelief," p.3). But, Calvinists believe also that God is not
involve in the life of a person who chooses to sin. In p. 3 of W.
Best's writings copied by C. Mangubat, Jr., it is said, "Adam's self determination
to evil began and ended with himself. God was not involved in it"
(Slavery Of The Will, p.3).
B. Calvinists believe that God will do something to cause a person
to sin. Concerning this, Bro. Jun Mangubat said, "several texts speak
of God sanding an evil or lying spirit that caused a person to sin" (God
ordained Sin and unbelief, p. 3). However. Calvinist believes also that
God does not cause a person to sin. Bro. Mangubat included in his letter
some of W. E. Best's statements, "God's decree has no causal influence
on sinful action "(Depravity Of the Will, p. 1).
C. . Calvinists believe that God is responsible for the sin of unbelief
of the majority of people. Concerning this, Bro. Jun Mangubat said,
"And the greatest majority of people have no faith. This shows that
God is responsible in their having an unbelieving heart" (Jun Mangubat’s
letter, 3/4/94, p.4). But Calvinist's believe also that God is not responsible
and cannot be blamed for man's sinful action. Of This, W. E. Best says,
"A man denies his responsibility for sin when he blames something or someone
for his own sin. Christians refuse to attribute their sin to God" (Depravity
Of The Will, p.1). He further added, "What then is the cause of sin?
It is found in man's depraved will" (p.2).
D. Calvinists believe that God created sin and evil. Concerning
this, Bro. Jun Mangubat says, "Sin is a creation; Satan is only a creature,
and God admitted that He is the one who do these things." He further stated,
“He is the one who created evil, therefore He is the one who ordained sin
and unbelief" (Jun Mangubat’s letter, dated 3/4/94, p. 4). Thus Calvinists
believe that God is the one who did all the sinning that exist in the world
as they say, "Sin is ordained of God considering that without God, sin
will not exist" (Same letter, p. 4). However, the statements above are
contradicted by statement found in the same letter.
Calvinists believe also that sin entered into the world not by God's creative
hand. In the copy of the writings of W.E. Best sent by Bro. Jun Mangubat,
a statement can be read, "Sin entered the world by Adam's fall and not
by God's creative hand" (Depravity Of The Will, p.1). Did God create
sin or not? The Calvinists have double answers, positive and
negative.
III. REGENERATION OF THE SOUL
A. Calvinists believe that the regeneration of the soul
(with all its faculties, intellect, emotion, and will,) occurs before a
person can hear, repent, and believe. Concerning this, one Calvinist says,
"No person can believe on the Lord Jesus Christ without the aid of God's
grace (I Pet. 1:18-21). He must first be regenerated by the Spirit of God"
(W.E. Best, God Dethroned by Freewill, p.5). However, Calvinists agree
to the fact that the will must first be influenced by the emotion in order
to decide, and mind or intellect must, first affect the emotions, before
it can influence the will. Of this a Calvinist says, "The will
is influenced by what is heard or understood; the affections are affected
by the understanding; and the will is influenced to volition " (Best, Slavery
of The Will, p.2). There is a contradiction here. If the intellect,
emotion, and will were renewed or regenerated, (when the soul was
regenerated), were they renewed before the intellect understood and before
the emotions were affected? If so, the mind at the point of regeneration
was still corrupt and filthy, and the heart still loves sin. There
is a time element in hearing and a person needs to hear before he can understand.
Since Calvinists believe that regeneration occurs before hearing, how can
the intellect be renewed apart from understanding? In the Baptist
Examiner, Abraham Booth says, " It may therefore be concluded that regeneration
is not, in order of time, prior to faith in Christ, and justification by
Him" (Baptist Examiner, vol. 65, No. 23).
QUESTIONS ABOUT CALVINIST'S DOCTRINE OF FREEWILL
Calvinism has many inconsistencies. According to the Calvinists, "Since Adam's fall, the will of every person is inclined toward sin by nature. It remains so until the Spirit of God regenerates him" (Best, Freedom Of The Will). In this point, Calvinists believe that a sinner cannot have the will to believe in God until he is regenerated. W. E. Best said in his book, "Their wills are changed through regeneration which make them willing to accept" (Slavery Of The Will). It is true that the will of the sinner is inclined toward sin by nature, however, it is not true that God cannot influence a sinner to make a decision of faith before regeneration. Though the will of the sinner is inclined toward sin, the Spirit's influence makes the sinner capable of deciding to believe in Christ before regeneration. If the Devil can influence the will of the regenerated, then, why can't God influence the will of the unregenerate person. I believe God can, because He is powerful. Though believers have inclination toward God, it does not mean that the Devil can no longer tempt or influence the saved ones to sin, or else all will be perfect and sinless.
Before I close, I'd like to answer one question of the Calvinist: "If freewill is the same in all men, why does it attain salvation in some and not in all?" First of all, all men were given by God the freedom of choice because God offers salvation to all men on the basis of what Christ did on the cross. God does not force men against their will to believe in Him. Men still have freewill when they decide to believe in Christ under the influence of the Spirit because such decision was not forced against their wills. The Spirit appeals to the mind and emotion until a person decides, so such influence is not forced and there is still freewill. Unbelievers have freewill because they decided willingly not to believe. Their minds and emotions were influenced by sin but they were not forced to sin. They willingly chose to sin. Thus all men have freewill in matters of salvation. Secondly, it is not man's freewill that attains or achieves salvation for him but the blood of Jesus which is the basis for God's gift of salvation. Man under the influence of the Spirit can decide to receive the gift of salvation. Because all men have freewill, therefore not all men accept salvation.
In Christ,
Brother Edwin