Letter to Arminian Pastor Sean Hughes

Date: Monday, July 5, 2010

**This is a recent letter to a post-modern wolf preacher named Sean Hughes, an empty-suit Calvary Chapel mouthpiece from Tampa, Florida. Sean's questions are included in the text of my answer. Also, upon receiving this careful and loving letter which took much time for me to prepare, Sean withdrew from the disputation, announcing that "there is no fruit in debating with Calvinists." Apparently he believes this because they will not change their minds, even when confronted with fraudulent and illogical Arminian arguments, straw-men ploys, and deceptive machinations by unqualified and historically and theologically ignorant heretics. Enjoy***

Dear Sean,

Again, thank you for your letter and your questions. I appreciate the opportunity to answer them and to defend the traditional and historic view of these issues and of these important passages in scripture. I apologize for the length of this response, but I felt it necessary to give you all the materials or information necessary to properly answer your questions, and in many cases those answers require sufficient space for a proper exposition. It is not my intention to filibuster, and I wanted you to have all the information you require. I appreciate your stated desire to seek truth and to defend those with whom you have a relationship, and I also appreciate your desire that I not see hostility or confrontation in your email – I assure you I do not. These things can be difficult because it is so difficult to gauge "heat", anger, or intent when we are dealing in such an impersonal medium. I, too, would like to ask that you not impute any hostility, heat, or anger in what I am writing – because I assure you there is none. It is true that these things are often difficult to traverse because we must tell the truth, and we must do so with all of our might and our energy – and I for one am not interested in mitigating or lessening that truth for the sake of "feelings" or sensitivities. There are several points in your letter (or logical conclusions derived from them) with which I must strenuously and ardently disagree. I must call things as I believe they are, and I know that quite often such zeal is mistaken as anger or hatred when I feel neither. Many years ago I was on a preaching trip in the Pacific Northwest, and I made some very severe, but true, points about the errors and heresies of Mormonism. After the meeting, a very nice woman approached me and asked me point blank: "do you believe that Mormonism is heresy and a false religion, and do you believe that unrepentant Mormons, no matter how sincere, are going to go to hell?". I answered, "Yes, I do". The woman broke down in tears because and began to complain to anyone who would hear her that I was "callous and unfeeling". She said that I was shallow and unloving and that I was hurting people who "love Jesus just as much as you do". Well, the facts were very simple. There were two gospels in view. There were two different "Jesus’" in view. There were two contradictory understandings of God and Salvation in view. There is no concord one with the other. There is no peace between these two positions. Yet, because she was angry and hostile to my right to answer her questions honestly, she imputed that anger and hostility to me – and made sure everyone in earshot knew that she thought that I was angry and hostile to her. Such is the way of things. I say this to say that there is no anger or hostility in my response here to you. It is what I believe (and what I believe I can prove) to be true, and as such it is an unemotional statement of position (or in this case, answer to your fair questions). If, however, the questions are based on presuppositional or logical errors, or belie an ignorance or unfamiliarity with Biblical definitions or the proper explanations of words or concepts, I will do my best to take the time to point those errors out to you.

Let me also say, as a way of concluding this lengthy introduction, that we are not a fellowship that "recruits", and we in no way have attempted to sway or convince Larry or anyone else to move to Texas and join our fellowship. In my first response to the first email I ever received from Larry, I stated "We do not recruit" and "we are in no way trying to increase our membership or convince anyone that they must, or need to, do anything other than what God commands or leads them to do". Just as I intend to do here with you, I have only done my best to answer questions that are put to me and I do not concern myself with results. As opposed to modern "christianity" and the Statements of Faith of most modern ministries, we are NOT seeking members, nor are we at all willing to use any of the modern church’s recruitment techniques. We are a body of believers who want nothing more than to live in peace, work with our hands, obey God and His commandments, and do good to our fellow man (the house of Faith first, but to all men generally as well).

I do, and our fellowship does, adhere to the Doctrines of Grace, or those Biblical Doctrines that are often nick-named "the 5 points of Calvinism". Let me say, though, that John Calvin never created nor put forth any such "5 point" theological scheme, nor would he have ever assented to such ancient and Biblical Doctrines being called "Calvinism". I do accept that due to historical manipulations and the twists and turns of political, social, and theological forces the Doctrines of Grace have taken on this nickname from the world, and so I will freely use the word Calvinism with that accepted modern baggage, regardless of whether or not it is right or good to do so – but I do want to clarify that to simplify good and historic Bible Doctrine into such scheme is not my cup of tea, and I also realize that – having had the unhappy nickname foisted upon itself by a crafty enemy, that enemy has been at all pains to utilize the misunderstandings and mental manipulations that can be had by (or used upon) the simple person who, honestly accepting the modern conclusion that "Calvinism" was a 5-point theological system put forth by John Calvin, believes that the enemy of his soul might also deal with him with such honesty. Just so you will know, the term "Calvinism" as it relates to the 5-points was never a codified theological system put forth by John Calvin. The students and followers of Jacobus Arminius had put forth a 5-point theological system called the "5 points of Remonstrance" in defense of Arminius and his unorthodox views. This remonstrance was considered by the Synod of Dort (a council called by the Prince of Holland) who asked several parties, including the representatives of Protestant Christianity from throughout Europe to respond to the Arminian Remonstrance, in 1618. The rest of "non-Romanist" Christianity (Protestantism) soundly rejected the 5-points of Arminianism and replied in answer to each individual point with a Biblical answer and historical evaluation of each point. That Biblical answer was called "The 5 points of Calvinism", as an answer to the 5 point remonstrance. So it was as if to say that you, Sean Hughes, have sent me this letter outlining several statements and questions concerning historic Christianity – it would be as if to say that, even as I respond to each question according to what I believe is true and historic Christianity – someone some many centuries later codifies my answer and calls it "Bunkerism" or the "X points of Bunkerism". The counter-remonstrance was merely an answer to 5 unorthodox and unbiblical points of issue brought before a national hearing and an international audience. In fact, the counter-remonstrance, which overwhelming defeated the remonstrants in all of Protestant Europe and which showed the Arminian position to be unorthodox and in many ways heretical, was merely a dissertation on Biblical Christianity and a proper and right understanding of the teachings of Christ, the Apostles and Disciples, and the early Church.

Now, I speak to you (and I hate to use the nicknames, but I will) as an ex-Arminian who became a Calvinist (no one is born a Calvinist, and no Christian stays an Arminian) – which means that I have thoroughly investigated the case, and am able (and have ably done so on many occasions) to argue and debate from either position with strength, having studied both at great length. The two positions are very unique in that they are both (or each) logically consistent and systemically self-necessary expositions of their position. By "systemically self-necessary" I mean that each is composed of parts that are necessary to all of the other parts in order for the system to remain logical. Logic is a difficult study and I have done a recent sermon series on the rules of Logic, so if you would like to receive it, let me know. Anyway, the point is that I was initially struck by not only the relationship of the two positions as fundamentally opposite to one another (one is A, the other is Non-A. They are fundamentally contradictory to one another. They are two different and distinct gospels.), but that they are each, in-and-of themselves, internally logical. In addition, even between separate elements of the same system, each element is intrinsically logical and necessary and requires the other elements in order to remain logical. While it is entirely possible (and even probable in most cases) for modern thinkers and teachers to pick and choose from the elements of differing and even opposing systems as if it were a smorgasbord, it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE for any adherent to this mish-mashing of opposing systems to successfully logically or biblically defend the hybrid position. Of course the Bible is the final arbiter, and it is good that it is, because greater and more spiritual minds than ours have established the truth and veracity of these polemical disputations a long time ago. The problem is that we live in a time of spiritual and intellectual entropy and laziness, and it is very difficult to find people who are willing to do the legwork to even attempt to find out the truth of these issues. As a "Pastor", I find it critical and necessary know these systems, their histories, etc. I have also taught a class on the Atonement, which is available on video, in which I debate some young "Calvinist" students (I take the Arminian/Unlimited Atonement position to prove a point). As always, let me know if you are interested in receiving it.

All of that is by way of introduction to my answers to your specific questions. In this response I will be posting your question(s) and will place them in a different font and a clearly identifiable paragraph so that my answers can be seen in the context of the question. I hope that works for you. Also, it is likely that for many of my answers I will be posting freely from historic writers and the giants of the faith from times path, because the questions are common and have been dealt with by historical writers: the Reformers, Puritans, early Church writers, etc. for many, many centuries and those answers are readily available to the diligent student. In some cases, I will contextualize or comment on the answers if I feel it needs to be better applied to the specific situation at hand, etc.

Are you familiar with the teaching of Keswick and the "exchanged life," and if so, what are your thoughts on it? I'm also curious if you are familiar with the "Calvary Chapel" movement that was started in the 1960's by Pastor Chuck Smith at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. Do you know of that movement, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?

I am very familiar with that teaching, and I would recommend you get and study my book "Swarms of Locusts: The Jesuit Attack on the Faith". It can be purchased on Amazon, or from your local bookstore (you might have to have them order it). In it, I identify the roots of the Jesuitical invasion and attack on true Christianity, and the branches (or tentacles) of Roman Catholic Jesuit doctrine, codified in the Council of Trent, and how they infiltrated and corrupted Protestantism as a part of a specific plan of Counter-Reformation. The short answer, in case you are not willing to get and read the book (which offers a historical play-by-play and connect-the-dots as to how these unorthodox and often heretical systems, movements, and doctrines were created and infiltrated into Protestant systems and even Bibles), is that I (and I do speak on behalf of our fellowship here in Central Texas) reject these unorthodox movements, and most of the proponents of them (particularly Wesley, Finney, and "pastor" Chuck Smith) as the fountainheads of The Great Deception and the final falling away, as well as almost every modern/idolatrous lie, and have noted in my book their errors as the breeding ground of heresy and themselves as the bastard fathers of all neo-Pentacostalism, false revivalism, emotionalism, free-will theism, the Charismatic heresy, etc. In fact, just to be sure that you are understanding my answer clearly, I lay at the feet of these men (and I’ll throw in Pelagius, Arius, Arminius, and Cyrus Scofield) every modern error of Apostate Christianity. As to the Keswick Convention and what proceeded from it, although there were some good notions and many admirable ideals, the system as a whole is a fundamentally un-historic, unorthodox, and in many elements heretical attempt to occlude the truth and simplicity of the Gospel and to deceive the simple into believing that emotionalism is a fine replacement for truth, and that mysticism is a good substitute for simple and actual obedience. I have a podcast that explains how the Spirit and the Soul are distinct, and what happens when someone has a dead spirit (the soul attempts to compensate by elevating the mind, will, or emotions to make up for the lack of spiritual life.) If you are interested in that teaching, please ask Larry or contact me and I will make it available to you. The antidote to these modern errors and movements is a firm foundation in the doctrines of true and historic Christianity, and a willingness to recognize the enemy of our souls and his historic works in the world. Without the heresies of Pelagius, we would have had no semi-Pelagians. Without the errors of the semi-Pelagians, we would have had no Arminianism. Without the Jesuitical manipulations that created and funded the spread of Arminianism as a battlefront in the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation, we would have had not John Wesley or Wesleyism. Without Wesley and his innumerable errors (emotionalism, witchcraft, rebellion, etc.) we would have had no Charles Finney, no Scofield Bible, and no neo-Pentacostal movement. Without these errors and the exuberances and follies they birthed, there would be no "great falling away" or General Apostasy Theory – in short, modern "Christianity" would not be apostate. Again, I recommend my book – which is a clear and easily understandable tracing of these movements and heresies back to the Roman Church and the Counter-Reformation.

However, I am troubled by at least 3 specific claims of Calvinism, and I would very much appreciate your input on them. The first one is in relation to the doctrine of "Unconditional Election." As I stated, I certainly believe that we are elect, however, according to 1 Peter 1:1-2 our election is according to the foreknowledge of God: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." However, Calvinist doctrine explicitly states under "Unconditional Election" that our election is NOT according to the foreknowledge of God. It is almost as if they purposely took a Bible verse that didn't fit into their doctrines, and flat out rejected it by repeating a phrase in the verse and preceding it with the word NOT. Do you agree with that aspect of Calvinism, and if so, why?

The question is founded in a few fundamental errors, some definitional, some logical, others presuppositional, and at least one in a mistaken view as to what "Calvinists" teach concerning foreknowledge and how it relates to election. First of all I have to object to the way in which the objection is stated, because (as a "Calvinist"), I know of no accepted Calvinist Statement or Doctrinal position that states "that our election is NOT according to the foreknowledge of God". I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I will tell you that the framework and the form of the question is very much in line with the "straw man" or "red-herring" logical fallacies, so I hope to help you avoid those errors. Let me state unequivocally the position of Calvinism on the issue of foreknowledge (these are taken directly from the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, but represent the position of all mainstream and orthodox Protestant confessions prior to the advance of the Arminian apostasy:

1. God the good Creator of all things, in His infinite power and wisdom, upholds, directs, disposes and governs all creatures and things, from the greatest to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, to the end for which they were created.

- God governs according to His infallible foreknowledge and the free and unchanging counsel of His own will;

- for the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, boundless goodness, and mercy.

2. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, Who is the First Cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; so that nothing happens to anyone by chance, or outside His providence, yet by His providence He orders events to occur according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

The true "Calvinist" position is that God absolutely elects according to foreknowledge (and here the word must be defined, because your presuppositional error is based in a faulty definition of that word), but that he absolutely does not elect based on FORESEEN FAITH. I have written on this extensively, and so have most other prominent "Calvinists" so the explanations and refutations of objections are pretty commonly known. Here are some articles you should check out for details:

http://www.lazarusunbound.com/bunkp_doctrinejustification.shtml(Michael Bunker, The Doctrine of Justification)

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/foreseenfaith.html(John Hendryx, Does God Elect based on Foreseen Faith)

Now, in one system, foreknowledge is defined as "to know beforehand", this can also be called "pre-cognition" (to know before), or "prescience" (pre knowledge). To the Calvinist, the concept that there is ever anything God doesn’t know, is laughable, so to argue when God knew something is really just a silly waste of time. God knew all things at all times, is absolutely omniscient in all ways and in all manners, never limits his own knowledge, and never ceases to be the great omniscient God. Now, only the Arminian (or those who are Arminians and don’t know it) attempts to limit the omniscience of God by trying to either: a) say God wound the world up and is just hoping it turns out alright, or b) God knows what is going to happen (he has ESP) but he has nothing to do with decreeing or causing it to happen. Now, both of those positions are unbiblical and foolish. So, IF someone is wise and Biblically astute enough to default to the position that God knows everything and always has, it would be a bit ridiculous to assert that God did something based on a specific knowledge that he had (as opposed to some knowledge he didn’t have), in other words, if you say God knows everything at all times, you don’t have to say, "God elected based on foreknowledge". So what does the scripture mean by "foreknowledge"? Does it mean to "know beforehand"? You have serious, serious problems with the Omniscience doctrine if you say foreknowledge merely means "to know beforehand", because the Bible Romans 11:2 says "God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew", which would imply that there are people who God did NOT know beforehand. If mere "cognizance" is meant, then isn’t it pretty obvious that God foreknew everyone? Or does foreknowledge mean MORE than mere pre-knowledge? I’ll ask you a question, when it says that after Jesus was born, Joseph "knew" his wife – do you think that he didn’t know her before then? Did he know her when he was married to her? Or when he found out she was pregnant with God’s child? Of course he did. Throughout the Bible, the term "know" has the connotation of affection or close, loving, interaction. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to hispurpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to beconformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" (Rom 8:28-31). There are only two possible conclusions that can be drawn from these verses: Either God knows some people and does not know others (which means He is not omniscient), or He knows everything and always has, but He had a very specific and special love for His elect (the called) from the foundation of the world, and according to His eternal purpose, called and elected them according to this foreknowledge.

To assert that God saved men based on "foreseen faith" creates a really comical and cartoonish alternate reality. Let me put it in plain terms… The Arminian (all adherents to the foreseen faith folly are Arminians, whether they like the term or not) states that God did indeed predestinate (pre DESTINE), but he did so because he, way in the past, looked way into some alternate future, and he saw that some would have faith and believe, so then he went to this timeline and in this timeline he actively DESTINED them to do what they already did on their own without Him in the other timeline. Comical, but there is no way to logically deny that that is what must have happened. If God foresaw faith (faith that He did not create or give), and then predestinates based on that which He had no part, then God is not the author and finisher of faith (and He is!). If God predestinates based on foreseen faith, then he is engaging in folly, because He alone is the author, owner, and distributor of saving faith. He certainly knows exactly TO WHOM He intends to give faith (this is foreknowledge), and He gives faith to whomever He pleases, based on His foreknowledge NOT of some concoction of faith they derive from their own fallen selves, but on faith that He intends to give them.

So the problem with the question is that it falsely states the Calvinistic position, and then it is founded on some presuppositional and logical errors. I hope this answer and the included article links will better help you to understand the Calvinistic doctrine, even if you don’t believe it – because honest and fair debate requires that the position of the opposing side be fairly presented. Additionally, if some "Calvinist" has told you or has stated that, as you said, "our election is NOT according to the foreknowledge of God", then he is misstating the Calvinist position. It is likely that such a person, if one exists, if he/she made such a statement, explained the position elsewhere in the materials, or just mistakenly used the term foreknowledge instead of "foreseen faith". However, in my many, many years discussing, debating, and studying the issue, I have never heard anyone make that statement in the words you used, in fact I put the statement as you wrote it into every known search engine and was unable to find it. Your statement, then, "However, Calvinist doctrine explicitly states under "Unconditional Election" that our election is NOT according to the foreknowledge of God" is an erroneous interpretation of Calvinist doctrine. For the best and most succinct statement of the Calvinist position on foreknowledge, I direct you to this short article:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_04.htm (A.W. Pink, chapter on Foreknowledge in "The Attributes of God")

Okay, next question:

My second question relates to "limited atonement." The doctrine itself is quite clear in that it states that Jesus suffered and died only for the sins of the elect, and not for those of the whole world. However, 1 John 2:2 states that, "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."Again, it seems as though they took a Bible verse that didn't fit in with the logical progression of their soteriology, and just flat out contradicted it. Do you agree with "limited atonement," and if so, why?

Since in the previous question, we determined that the error was not in Calvinistic teaching on the subject, but in your understanding of the Calvinistic position, I’ll start here with the emphasis you put on the word "seems" as in "it seems as if they… flat out contradicted it". The "seems" allows for understandable ignorance to the proper exegesis of the verse, and I’ll do my best to properly exegete the verse for you. As in the previous section, I will also link to some very good explanations of this verse. The first thing we have to understand is that there are no contradictions in the Bible. If you claim that the Calvinist didn’t like the verse so they just flat out contradicted it, you will have to own that IF the verse contradicts any other verse (properly and contextually understood) in the Bible, then the Bible is untrue and cannot be trusted. Also, if we learn that YOU are the one who improperly has understood the scripture, and IF that verse, properly and contextually understood, contradicts your own personal position on the Atonement, then you are going to need to repent of such a grievous error, because I can assure you that that error has infiltrated every other doctrine and position that you own. Also, we have to be a bit more historically aware when we make statements like "Calvinists just chose to flat-out contradict scripture". This is to say that the greatest minds in history and in the history of the Church, even Isaac Newton and Jonathan Edwards, as well as John Wycliff, Martin Luther, John Calvin, George Whitefield, Augustus Toplady and even James Madison did not pick up on such a brilliant contradiction to their doctrine. Seems a bit arrogant to me. It’s more likely that the modern preacher and teacher has not taken the time to study the history of the interpretation of the verse, don’t you think?

Here is A.W. Pinks’ succinct and inarguable answer to your error. Please take a few moments to study it, but then plan on a deeper study when you are able to devote more time to it:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Miscellaneous/1_john_2.htm(A.W. Pink on 1 John 2:2).

And here is the greatest commentator and Hebrew and Greek scholar Dr. John Gill on the passage: "but also for the sins of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles עלמא, "the world"; and כל העולם, "the whole world"; and אומות העולם, "the nations of the world"" (John Gill Commentary). Which is to say that you have misunderstood the verse as quite often the New Testament utilizes the term "world" or "whole world" to mean many different things. Jesus Christ was the "propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." The traditional and historic understanding of this verse, found almost unanimously in all commentaries prior to the Arminian invasion, and uniformly the interpretation of every major Protestant confession, is that the context of the verse explains the verse. Galatians teaches us plainly that John was an Apostle "to the circumcision". John was using a common Jewish Hebraism when speaking to Jews, and He was teaching that Jesus Christ was NOT just the propitiation for the sins of the Jews, but of all manner and kind of people (the Gentiles) of every nation, tongue, and people. If you are at all fair-minded and honest in your desire to know and understand the Word of God, the following comparison will make it known. The same author (John) speaking on the same topic (the propitiation/atonement), uses the exact same terminology… let’s take a look:

"Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad"(John 11:50-52).

Even as an Arminian I was unable to resist or challenge the obvious truth here. I had to fairly admit that I was in error, and that this verse did not prove what I had hoped it would prove. In order to honestly confront my error, it was necessary that I repent, and that I make certain that every single verse I study is both contextually understood correctly, and that it harmonizes with every other verse of the Bible. It is not the Calvinist who has a harmony problem here, and I hope you are honest and straightforward enough to confess your error, even if it only "seemed" to mean something that it did not mean.

Next question…

My final question on Calvinism is about "Irresistible Grace," which states that humans do not have the capability to resist the Holy Spirit. Again, this seems to be a direct contradiction of Scripture, because in Acts 7:51, Stephen, speaking by the Holy Spirit, states, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Do you agree with Calvinism that a human cannot resist the Holy Spirit if He is drawing them to Christ, and if so, how do you explain Acts 7:51?

This, again, is a mistake in your interpretation of the Calvinist position. No Calvinist anywhere, that I have ever heard of, believes or states that people cannot resist the Holy Spirit. This is not the teaching of "Irresistible Grace" at all. The Calvinist position is that the Grace (and graces, since there are many graces included in the work) of salvation is irresistible – meaning that God so enlightens the heart, vivifies the understanding, and overpowers the resistance, that God’s work of salvation is not one that can be undone or thwarted by man. So the doctrine of Irresistible Grace is concerning God’s mighty and unstoppable power of salvation. This verse in Acts 7:51 is talking about unregenerate reprobates resisting the Spirit of God IN GOD’S MINISTERS! John Gill says this: "the resistance made by these persons was not to the Spirit of God in them, of which they were destitute, but to the Spirit of God in his ministers, in his apostles, and particularly in Stephen; nor to any internal operation of his grace, but to the external ministry of the word, and to all that objective light, knowledge, evidence, and conviction that it gave of Jesus' being the Messiah" (John Gill Commentary). So again, the problem was kind of a staw-man misstatement of the Calvinist position combined with a presuppositional error concerning the meaning of the verse. I won’t post any links for further reading since this one is very easy and straightforward.

I think that is it for "Calvinism"questions, so I will be pleased to answer your question about our own fellowship rules. Please feel free to ask me any further questions or allow me to assist you further, if you like, in putting away any false ideas about Calvinism (or more properly, "The Doctrines of Grace") because I would love to see you understand Calvinism properly, even if you end up rejecting. Better for you if you reject it after properly understanding it, than to reject it because of ignorance of the positions. I did not want to reject Arminianism (or Arminian positions, like unlimited atonement) without first properly understanding their arguments.

I also have one question relating to one of your church practices. I admit I am not clear on the details, but to my understanding you do not allow unbelievers in your church services. Is that correct? If so, how do you reconcile that church practice with what Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 14:23-25, "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth?" I also understand that Larry was not welcome in one of your meetings, which I certainly don't understand considering he is a professing believer. Could you please take the time to explain to me those church practices in light of what Paul wrote?

Again, there are some presuppositional errors here that I want to deal with. First let me state our position, and I will include a link to a sermon I delivered on "The Lord’s Supper" that we also forwarded or made available to Larry’s wife, so that she could understand our position on the issue. First, our fellowship meetings (Church meetings, if you will) where the manifestation of the callings and duties of the Church are manifest are all open to the public and always have been. The only fellowship meeting that is closed is our communion (or Lord’s Supper) fellowship, which we hold on Sunday afternoon. All means of grace, preaching, teaching, Q&A, singing, etc. fellowships that are outreaches to the lost or to the unbeliever are open to the public. We, like you, desire to participate in worship and fellowship in a corporate way, while also attempting to balance the sometimes difficult requirements of the scripture. While it is true that the Church has an outward ministry of works and helps, it is also true that we have an inward ministry of spiritual feeding, spiritual growth, and Holy Spirit fellowship. While the Bible commands us to make the Gospel available free of charge, and to allow those who are athirst to come to the waters freely, it also charges us to protect ourselves against the unruly, to put out the unrepentant or the wicked of life, to not even let those who have contrary doctrines enter our houses (2 John 1:10). Since we do not see the authorization for corporation owned "church houses", we meet in our own houses or common places of worship, which means that we have a further obligation to the Word of God that the modernist and the apostate do not have. Next, we are obligated to keep the Lord’s Table pure, according to the Word of God. We learn that because some partake of the Lord’s Table unworthily, some are sick, and some die. This is a heavy truth, and it is our obligation to maintain the purity of the table. Historically John Calvin himself was fired from his pastorship in Geneva because he bodily (and almost lethally, he being nearly killed) blocked the Lord’s Table with his own body to prevent the wicked from profaning it. Later, when the fellowship and Church suffered mightily for their wickedness, they begged Calvin to return as their pastor, which he did. When he returned to the pulpit, he opened his Bible and began preaching exactly where he left off. Jonathan Edwards (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God) was also fired from his Church for blocking unqualified communicants from the Lord’s table, and he went to another Church where the Great Awakening broke out.

The point is that this is not a new conflict. The debate between open and closed communion has existed for well over 500 years. 100 years ago, it would have been difficult to find a Pastor who was not familiar with the two positions. We, as a Church body, have studied the Bible and believe that the balance that scripture requires (open access to the unbeliever and seeker) to the means of Grace, while restricting the wicked, the profane, or even those whom we do not know their doctrine, morality, or way of life, from the Lord’s Table. There is no mystery, nor is there anything sinister going on "behind closed doors". We merely partake of the Lord’s body and blood, according to our understanding of scripture, in complement to a whole fellowship meal of our Body. That is all. Larry was not restricted from attending because we think he is lost, or for any other reason than that our fellowship has rules and Elders and a process for accepting people into the communion of the Saints here. Not knowing Larry, we asked him humbly to understand that our rules exist not only for our protection, but for his. He understood it, and I hope you do too.

Here is the link to my sermon on The Lord’s Table, it is an audio sermon. If you need a printed copy, please let me know:

http://www.audiobunker.com/media/UC/Michael%20Bunker%20-%20Underground%20Church,%20Part%2011%20-%20The%20Lord's%20Supper.mp3

I will close with your words, and a few of my own. I hope you forgive me if this comes across as confrontational, and by that I mean as hostile or angry. It is impossible, in my view, to not confront error with truth, and not to confront a lack of knowledge (ignorance – not a harsh or mean term), with knowledge. So there will be some confrontation when one confronts the other. I also hope that you do not do as the Mormon lady did. Please do not allow any personal emotions or reactions to "project" or be imputed to me when I did not intend them. I do not hate you and I do not have any emotional reaction at all to your questions, other than to be sad at a few things (and I hope you will not take offense at my sadness):

a) That the true Gospel is so little understood, so improperly and inadequately taught, and so erroneously portrayed, and

b) One that is a Pastor or Shepherd or leader in the professing Christian Church does not know these things; as Jesus said, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"

Sean, I mean no disrespect to you, but I am desirous that all whom God wills will come to a knowledge of the truth, and that especially those who take upon themselves the perilous position of "teacher" be helped as much as possible. For this reason, I will also forward a letter I wrote to a pastor in New Orleans after the Katrina disaster. I recommend very, very strongly that you purchase and read A.W. Pink’s book "The Sovereignty of God", even if you remain in opposition to the Doctrines of Grace, because, it is better for you that you know the so-called "Calvinist" position, and there is no more clear or more simple declaration of the fullness of The Doctrines of Grace, along with a very complete refutation or answer to objections to the Sovereignty of God. Make it a priority, you will be glad you did.

I am also open to answer any more questions you may have.

Please forgive any editing errors, misspellings, etc., it took me enough time to answer all of the questions, and I’m afraid a proper edit session is probably out of the question. If something is unclear though please let me know.

Your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker

 
DISAGREE? Discuss or Debate this: Forum