# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  James White refutes  Marc Carpenter

## Christian Liberty

OK, I'm seriously going to stop talking about Marc Carpenter soon.  I'll probably post the conversation I'm currently having with him via email at some point, if it actually goes anywhere worth posting.  But I found this response to Marc  from  James White to be quite interesting.  

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=242

Admittedly, James White may be misusing the term "Hyper-Calvinist" here.  I know that's a term with a lot of different definitions.  Personally, I don't think Marc is technically a hyper, as those usually deny that there is a duty to preach the gospel and a  duty to accept it.  Marc Carpenter does not.  But I'd say his views are just as bad, in different ways.

James White's clarifications of 2 John 11  were of particular interest to me.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Hmmm.  I thought they both make good points in that exchange.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Hmmm.  I thought they both make good points in that exchange.


I actually find that kind of funny considering I'm almost certain James White believes Marc Carpenter to be unregenerate, and its very clear that Marc Carpenter believes James White to be unregenerate.  I'm not sure how you can really be on the fence between the two, at least not without questioning your own salvation.  

I'm almost certain, at least 95% certain, that Carpenter would say that you are an unregenerate heretic if you spoke peace to James White, knowing that he speaks peace to Arminians.  I'm actually waiting for a response from Carpenter to that particular question, but I think I can infer from this http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl268.htm that Carpenter would probably define you as "Person C" in this article (Since he believes Arminianism is literally the same degree of heresy as being a Muslim, and thus he believes that a Calvinist who speaks peace to an Arminian is like someone who speaks peace to a Muslim, etc.).  So I'm pretty sure that even you would be unregenerate according to him.

What do you think about the exchange between White and Carpenter in general?  Specifically, what do you think about this?:




> It is so plain! So clear! So compelling! And so absurd! Such simplistic logic has led Carpenter to have to define Calvin himself as insufficiently Calvinistic, leading to the inevitable conclusion that Marc Carpenter and his tiny band define the extent of the work of the Holy Spirit in our world today. What an incredible thought!
> It is no wonder that God says that anyone who speaks peace to a person who brings a false gospel is unregenerate (2 John 11). 
> Hyper-Calvinists are not the best exegetes around. 2 John 9-11, in context, reads:
> 2 John 1:9-11 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.John is not talking about universal atonement as "the teaching." He is talking about the teaching concerning the Father and the Son, and especially, in the Johannine literature, concerning the doctrine of the antiChrists, who denied that the Son came in the flesh. John is exhorting his readers not to greet those who have gone out of the fellowship and who are denying the Father and the Son. To connect these words to Carpenter's idiosyncratic hyper-Calvinism is, once again, absurd. Only by extending a truth (particular redemption) to the status of the final and full definition of the gospel itself can Carpenter make such an outrageous leap.



I admit that I don't really care that Carpenter calls Calvin unregenerate.  I've never read his work, so I can't really say, but I've asked the question before about how an unrepentant murderer and a tyrant could be saved while still being unrepentant and murderous.  Also, Calvin actually did teach Universal Atonement, at least at some point, he didn't merely "Speak peace" to someone who did.  I don't believe Arminianism is a damnable heresy (I pretty much agree with James White's interpretation of such) but at least it actually is a heresy.

That said, James White pointing out the correct interpretation of 2 John 11 was particularly helpful.  The context shows that the passage wasn't talking about people who speak peace to Arminians at all.  I'm not sure if he was actually condemning the peace speakers to Hell there either.  Just because someone shares in someone else's evil work doesn't necessarily mean they are damned.  It simply means that they sinned because they participated in the spread of evil.  Although, those last couple of sentences are my own arguments, White doesn't address that part of it.

I'm rambling at this point so, do you have any thoughts on this exchange?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I actually find that kind of funny considering I'm almost certain James White believes Marc Carpenter to be unregenerate, and its very clear that Marc Carpenter believes James White to be unregenerate.  I'm not sure how you can really be on the fence between the two, at least not without questioning your own salvation.  
> 
> I'm almost certain, at least 95% certain, that Carpenter would say that you are an unregenerate heretic if you spoke peace to James White, knowing that he speaks peace to Arminians.  I'm actually waiting for a response from Carpenter to that particular question, but I think I can infer from this http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl268.htm that Carpenter would probably define you as "Person C" in this article (Since he believes Arminianism is literally the same degree of heresy as being a Muslim, and thus he believes that a Calvinist who speaks peace to an Arminian is like someone who speaks peace to a Muslim, etc.).  So I'm pretty sure that even you would be unregenerate according to him.
> 
> What do you think about the exchange between White and Carpenter in general?  Specifically, what do you think about this?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think I agree more with James White on 2 John 11.  But I think the Carpenterites are right when they say particular redemption/limited atonement is the heart of the gospel.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think I agree more with James White on 2 John 11.  But I think the Carpenterites are right when they say particular redemption/limited atonement is the heart of the gospel.


So you'd agree that when Carpenter claims that "tolerant calvinists" are condemned alongside Arminians that he is in error?

Regarding Particular redemption/limited atonement, James White addresses that as well:




> They deny that Christ's blood actually atoned.No, they say just the opposite. They say it did atone. They are inconsistent. They need to be taught. They need to be challenged. They do _not need to be damned by some cold, condemning hyper-Calvinist._


_


Again, ignoring James White's use of the term "hyper-Calvinist" (Which I have already admitted, I agree that Carpenter is not technically a hyper-Calvinist, at least not by the definition of "hyper-calvinist" that I've been taught) I think I agree with  White.  There are at least some Arminians who do not deliberately deny that Christ's blood did atone for sins, instead, they hold to an inconsistent stance where God nonetheless atoned.  So, while there are a couple of passages that I can see where you'd assume that Unlimited Atonement advocates are unregenerate, when I see the Apostles actually preach the gospel to unregenerate people, they say "Repent and believe."  I can't think of a single passage where any evangelist preaches belief in limited atonement as part of the gospel message to an unbeliever.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise.  As I told my father when I was devil's advocating your position, I want to know what the Bible says, and that's it.
_

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sola, I think I'm about to get an answer from Carpenter regarding whether he believes *You* can be regenerate in his mind, since you speak peace to James White and other "Tolerant Calvinists."  I'll post the answer in the thread if he gives me one.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, I think I'm about to get an answer from Carpenter regarding whether he believes *You* can be regenerate in his mind, since you speak peace to James White and other "Tolerant Calvinists."  I'll post the answer in the thread if he gives me one.


That doesn't bother me.  A Christian doesn't look at a man as an infallible prophet.   A Christian man can and should get truth from multiple sources.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That doesn't bother me.  A Christian doesn't look at a man as an infallible prophet.   A Christian man can and should get truth from multiple sources.


I can respect that.  Why do you think I have a lot more respect for you than I do for Carpenter?  

That said, my problem with Carpenter/Carpenterism isn't so much disagreement as its that Carpenter has the arrogance to think that virtually everyone who disagrees with him is damned.  I've never heard of anyone else who actually agrees with Carpenter, and I seriously doubt that there's anyone outside his church who does either, at least, I don't think there's anyone who actually came to those conclusions from reading the Bible on their own (As opposed to reading OTC.)

After reading some things on puritanboard that other Calvinists have said about Carpenter and some of the people who associate with him, I see some things that remind me of cults.

BTW: "I disagree with you" is very different from "I disagree with you so much that I believe you are unregenerate."  I probably wouldn't "Speak peace" to use Carpenter's word, to someone who believed I was unregenerate.  That doesn't mean they definitely aren't saved, of course, but I wouldn't assume such a person is saved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

And, to be clear, I'm not saying that means you shouldn't read OTC.  Heck, that would make me a hypocrite, because I sometimes read OTC.  Although, I also occasionally read "Jesus_Is_Savior" as well.  I would consider a lot of the material on both sites to be heretical,but I still read them.  Why?  Well, there's the entertainment value, and then there's the fact that they both don't give a crap what people think, which occasionally leads to very insightful conclusions on issues that other Christians so clearly get wrong (The Iraq War is a good example of an issue that BOTH OTC and the radically Arminian "Jesus_is_Savior" get right whereas mainstream Christians are lost in the "Support the troops" rhetoric).  But I am saying you probably shouldn't link them to people who aren't even definitively Christians.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sola, I sent Carpenter the following:




> I don't think "Arminians" believe the gospel.  That would imply that I believed all of them believe the gospel.  
> 
> Assuming we are defining "Arminianism" broadly as any person who disagrees with any of the five points (Note that I also did say "Rejects" not merely "Fails to articulate in five points") I would say that I do believe SOME of those people are regenerate.  I do not believe that all of them are regenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> The person who linked me to this site would take the stance that all Arminians are unregenerate.  He would not take the stance that every person who speaks peace to an Arminian is unregenerate.  For instance, he believes people like John Robbins and James White are wrong when they say some Arminians could be regenerate, but he does not believe that this fact makes them unregenerate.  
> 
> 
> ...


I got this response:




> My answer is that if this person knows what Robbins believed and White believes and still thinks they were/are believers, then yes, this person is unregenerate.


I really can't add any commentary to this.  Judge for yourself.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That doesn't bother me.  A Christian doesn't look at a man as an infallible prophet.   A Christian man can and should get truth from multiple sources.


It doesn't bother you that a pastor you apparently respect not only believes that another pastor you respect is damned but also believes you're damned for "speaking peace" to that other pastor?

Sola, I think I respect you more than any other poster here does.  Carpenter is still  full of it.  As I've told you, his rabbit trail never ends.  James White absolutely destroyed him on the "speaking peace" bit, which absolutely destroys OTC's reason for existing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It is so plain! So clear! So compelling! And so absurd! Such simplistic logic has led Carpenter to have to define Calvin himself as insufficiently Calvinistic, leading to the inevitable conclusion that Marc Carpenter and his tiny band define the extent of the work of the Holy Spirit in our world today. What an incredible thought!


I had to laugh at this comment.

Forget Calvin.  Marc Carpenter doesn't think *Sola  Fide* someone who believes every single Arminian is unregenerate, is sufficiently "Calvinistic" enough to be saved.

I think pretty much EVERY Christian here has a right to laugh at Carpenter now.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sola, this one doesn't address Carpenter directly, but I think this article from Mongerism is interesting:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...o_gnostic.html

If you have time, read it and let me know what you think after reading it.

EDIT: THere are multiple essays there.  Feel free to read all of them, but the one I was looking for you to comment on is the first one, quoted below:




> *The Bane of Neo-Gnostic Calvinism*by Greg FieldsWho among us who have been illuminated by the Spirit of God to heartily embrace that exalted system of Pauline Theology commonly called "Calvinism" can forget the sublime joy experienced when these verities became manifest in our believing heart? For many of us grasping these truths or better, being gripped by these truths, was the real "second blessing" in our Christian pilgrimage. For me personally, sovereign grace teaching revivified my entire demeanor as a saint and delivered me from the morbid introspection engendered by Arminian, fundamentalist pietism. I have a passionate commitment to Calvinistic soteriology and am quite emphatic in my apologia for these truths that so exalt and glorify the grandeur of the Sovereign Triune Lord. Thus, it is with both sadness and reticence that I issue this urgent caveat regarding an extreme chimerical form of Calvinism that is spreading great mischief among the elect of God and dear souls seeking spiritual solace.
> I have subsumed this subtle heresy under the rubric neo-gnostic Calvinism because the main tenets of this aberration of Calvinism involve primarily a comprehensive cognitive system of knowledge (gnosis) that must be firmly grasped and indoctrinated into before the professing Calvinist or seeking Arminian is truly considered "saved" by these ersatz-Calvinist "teachers". The subtlety involved in this neo-gnostic Calvinistic soteriology is that they vigorously promote truths that any committed believer would commend. For example, they incessantly exhort all to focus on Christ's imputation of Righteousness as being indispensable to one's salvation. Of course this is true and this needs to be emphatically declared in our presentation of the gospel. Particular Redemption is stressed with great vigor. Again, a hearty amen to the vital importance of this great doctrine is in order. They clearly enumerate the "five points" with undiminished zeal. Again, I concur and wish we all would stress these great doctrines with the zeal demonstrated by these men.
> If this was the focus and crux of what these men taught, I would be promoting their writings and encouraging all interested Calvinists to bookmark their websites and to participate in their e-group discussions. But, alas, these glorious doctrines are merely the frosting on the cake of their real agenda. After elucidating these verities they then go on to add to these truths a dogmatic unsubstantiated requirement for salvation that in effect nullifies all the peace and joy that should attend sovereign grace. They assert with bellicose intensity that unequivocally, all Arminians are lost because "Arminianism is a false gospel" and under the anathema of Gal. 1:8-9. They set the stage for this "leap of logic", by describing the five points of Arminianism and showing how incompatible Arminianism is with the gospel of grace. Again, any thoroughgoing evaluation of Arminianism would demonstrate this to be true but they then use this evaluation to assert that all who have never yet grasped the doctrines of grace to be by default, Arminians, thereby validating their "lostness". The insidious nature of their neo-gnosticism becomes manifestly transparent here. The major tenet of gnosticism was the acquisition of knowledge to achieve, N. B., salvation. Similarly they make the precise apprehension of soteriological doctrine the sine qua non of salvation. By utilizing a patina of superspirituality, they create a psychological ambiance that can easily intimidate a young believer who may be new to Calvinism or a seeking Arminian (although most folk, if we are honest are utterly oblivious to this historical-theological debacle) to capitulate to this cold, unrelenting dogmatism, creating a vituperative unloving demeanor and ironically robbing them of the comfort and joy these glorious doctrines should inculcate in their hearts. This, to my mind, is the most utterly insidious forms of "works-righteousness" that I have ever encountered. By cleverly demanding that for one to truly be saved they must achieve a solid understanding of Calvinistic soteriology is to "make the cross of Christ of none effect". "Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling" as Toplady's exquisitely penned words succinctly state is the essence of the gospel offer. To make mere cognition the predicate of entrance into the kingdom of God's dear son is to despise God's sovereignty, Christ's finished work on the cross, and the blessed Holy Spirit's sovereign application of the redemption accomplished to "the apple of his eye", his beloved elect. It is vital beloved to discern the subtlety of their enticing words of wisdom. It is Christ who saves through faith, not our soteriological knowledge.
> To further exacerbate their dissimulation, they dare to go even further. They dogmatically and shockingly assert that any professing Calvinist that does not concur with their Calvinistic neo-gnostic pretensions and believes that Arminians can be saved has "spoke peace to Arminians" thereby abrogating their own salvation. As one gleans their writings on this matter, one amazingly discovers that according to this chimerical premise, the most eminent saints in church history are apparently "lost"! A. A. Hodge, Spurgeon, D. Martyn-Lloyd Jones, Gordon Clark, Van Till ad infinitum, ad nauseum, are consigned to God's wrath by the unmitigated temerity of these neo-gnostics. These men simply did not "measure up" to their conceptualization of what constitutes "the doctrines of grace" and furthermore, they had the audacity to be gentle and forbearing and tenderhearted (they even dared to offer them Christian equanimity) to those of non-reformed persuasion. The tragic, belligerent absurdity promoted by these neo-gnostics should be evident to the discerning saint. Again, this is why it is vital to "study to show thyself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" to counter this ancient heresy in new garb. The emperor still has no clothes as gnosticism, Satan’s grand masquerade, nefariously continues to attempt to vex and thwart God's saints in their earthly pilgrimage. It is admittedly difficult and requires God-given wisdom to sound forth these wonderfully God-centered, Christ-exalting truths in a bold yet loving manner that will in God's providence engender interest in Calvinism while giving glory to our Sovereignly Majestic Thrice-Holy Lord. Worshipping our Majestic Lord in spirit and in truth is true Calvinism. May our Lord illuminate our hearts to this glorious truth thereby granting us the Spirit-wrought discernment to live righteously, soberly and godly in this present evil age and to keep us from the evil one's subtleties, such as neo-gnosticist "Calvinism".

----------


## Icon O'Clast

You guys really think that James White did a good job??  I thought this was a forum for thinking people.  Have any of you seen www.outsidethecamp.org/jameswhite.htm ?

----------


## Icon O'Clast

There is also a reply to Greg Fields's "The Bane of Neo-Gnostic Calvinism" at www.outsidethecamp.org/review81(2).htm .

----------


## Christian Liberty

At first I thought Icon O'Clast was Marc Carpenter because I know he's used some variation of "Iconoclast" before, but then I saw his first post and I don't see Carpenter actually addressing that subject at all.  

Just out of curiosity, @Icon O'Clast, who are you?  Are you one of the OTC posters?  Do you go to Carpenter's "church"?

----------


## Christian Liberty

Yes, I think James White did a good job.  Specifically with regards to 2 John 9-11.  I simply see no way to take these passages the way Carpenter takes them.  Those verses had nothing to do with Arminianism and "speaking peace" meant something very different to John the Apostle than it does to Marc (Specifically, it included inviting a false teacher into your home and encouraging their ministry, not saying that an untaught person who holds to X doctrine cannot be saved.)  Marc is twisting these verse to make judging into the gospel, which is not Biblical.

I'm genuinely curious who this is.  How many followers does Marc Carpenter have?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, I think James White did a good job.  Specifically with regards to 2 John 9-11.  I simply see no way to take these passages the way Carpenter takes them.  Those verses had nothing to do with Arminianism and "speaking peace" meant something very different to John the Apostle than it does to Marc (Specifically, it included inviting a false teacher into your home and encouraging their ministry, not saying that an untaught person who holds to X doctrine cannot be saved.)  Marc is twisting these verse to make judging into the gospel, which is not Biblical.
> 
> I'm genuinely curious who this is.  How many followers does Marc Carpenter have?


I do though think that judging and discernment is an integral part of the Christian life.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do though think that judging and discernment is an integral part of the Christian life.


I'm not denying that judging is important at times.  You know I've told the works-salvationists here that they weren't saved before.

But... and I know we've discussed this before, but since you bring it up, Marc and his followers take it a step further and act like judgment is not just important but the gospel itself.

Not to mention judging nearly everything.

My relationship with God is not based on my ability to tell someone else that they aren't saved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You guys really think that James White did a good job??  I thought this was a forum for thinking people.  Have any of you seen www.outsidethecamp.org/jameswhite.htm ?


Yes, I've read it.  I've had this discussion with Marc Carpenter before and it didn't really go anywhere.  I made one logical error and he ended the conversation, calling me an "idiot" despite the fact that I admitted to the error.  Besides that, it wasn't really going anywhere anyway.  If you're going to put all your eggs in the basket of that one interpretation of 2 John 9-11, well, I guess that's your choice.

Just out of curiosity, do you attend Carpenter's church?  Are you either Marc Carpenter or Christopher Adams?

----------


## Terry1

I find it ironic how Calvinists define themselves other than "Christian", seems fitting in a way though.  I don't like being called an Arminian either.  Just because I believe that Jacobus Arminius was right for the most part, doesn't make me his relative.  I'm a Christian--I believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ--that's who I am.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I find it ironic how Calvinists define themselves other than "Christian", seems fitting in a way though.  I don't like being called an Arminian either.  Just because I believe that Jacobus Arminius was right for the most part, doesn't make me his relative.  I'm a Christian--I believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ--that's who I am.


Just out of curiosity, who or what is this addressed to?  Do you actually know what this thread is about?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I find it ironic how Calvinists define themselves other than "Christian", seems fitting in a way though.  I don't like being called an Arminian either.  Just because I believe that Jacobus Arminius was right for the most part, doesn't make me his relative.  I'm a Christian--I believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ--that's who I am.


First, Arminians don't believe the gospel.   The gospel is the good news of what *God* has done to save rebel sinners.  You believe in a false gospel of what man has done to cooperate with God to save himself. 

Secondly,  how many times have I said that I don't identify myself as a Calvinist because I disagree with Calvin?   As usual with you its in one ear and out the other.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You guys really think that James White did a good job??  I thought this was a forum for thinking people.  Have any of you seen www.outsidethecamp.org/jameswhite.htm ?


If I recall correctly (I didn't reread it) Carpenter ranted for a LONG time about how much of a "spiritual harlot" James White was.  I guess because he couldn't refute his arguments?

In all seriousness though, is there anything SPECIFIC you wanted us to address in that long winded anti-White rant, or did you just want us to read it?

At any rate, I have read it.  I'm guessing Sola has too.  Don't know about any of the others, but I wouldn't really recommend it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> First, Arminians don't believe the gospel.   The gospel is the good news of what *God* has done to save rebel sinners.  You believe in a false gospel of what man has done to cooperate with God to save himself. 
> 
> Secondly,  how many times have I said that I don't identify myself as a Calvinist because I disagree with Calvin?   As usual with you its in one ear and out the other.


I don't really know why an Arminian-leaning poster would even want to waste his time in this thread.  The debate by its very nature kind of excludes them.  At any rate, I'm curious who "Icon O'Clast" is, considering he seems to have joined the forum primarily for the purpose of bumping this thread.  I know Marc Carpenter has used some variation of "Iconoclast" as a username before, but I don't think its him.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> First, Arminians don't believe the gospel.   The gospel is the good news of what *God* has done to save rebel sinners.  You believe in a false gospel of what man has done to cooperate with God to save himself. 
> 
> Secondly,  how many times have I said that I don't identify myself as a Calvinist because I disagree with Calvin?   As usual with you its in one ear and out the other.


Ironically, your post was actually more "on topic" than the post you responded to

I'm not sure I have anything to add to this.  I generally agree with your anti-arminian points.  I think that sometimes Arminians hold intellectually contradictory positions and/or don't take their own positions to their logical conclusions, so I don't immediately judge them all lost like you do.  For instance, I'm sure there are Arminians who would agree with second sentence of your post.  But... the only proof I can offer for that is that, when I first started posting here, I didn't agree with all of the "five points" yet I would have agreed with that second sentence.  I doubt I'm the only one.

I am, however, interested to hear what Icon O'Clast has to say about James White's interpretation of 2 John 9-11, assuming that Icon O'Clast is not Marc Carpenter.

----------


## Terry1

> First, Arminians don't believe the gospel.   The gospel is the good news of what *God* has done to save rebel sinners.  You believe in a false gospel of what man has done to cooperate with God to save himself. 
> 
> Secondly,  how many times have I said that I don't identify myself as a Calvinist because I disagree with Calvin?   As usual with you its in one ear and out the other.


But you're the one who made the bold assertion that we have already been perfected.  I haven't seen you refute my reply yet.  You seem to step right over those scriptures that disprove your Calvinist theory.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But you're the one who made the bold assertion that we have already been perfected.  I haven't seen you refute my reply yet.  You seem to step right over those scriptures that disprove your Calvinist theory.


I don't think he means that the way you do.  Sola_Fide isn't claiming that he doesn't sin.  He's claiming that we're perfected in the sense that we have been DECLARED perfect by God, because when God looks at us he sees Jesus Christ and what he did, not us and what we've done.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't think he means that the way you do.  Sola_Fide isn't claiming that he doesn't sin.  He's claiming that we're perfected in the sense that we have been DECLARED perfect by God, because when God looks at us he sees Jesus Christ and what he did, not us and what we've done.


Is that consistent with the Tulip doctrine then?  Who can believe they're so depraved that repentance is a dead work beyond what Jesus did on the cross, when that's exactly what Jesus instructed us to do.  Then again make the claim that they're perfect because God sees Jesus in us.  How can God see Jesus in someone who doesn't believe the very command of Jesus that tells us is the only path to salvation?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'll probably post the conversation I'm currently having with him via email at some point, if it actually goes anywhere worth posting.


I find this to be one of the most annoying things that people do.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I find this to be one of the most annoying things that people do.


What?

Needless to say, that conversation ended a long time ago.  I've since, mostly, stopped talking about these people.  For some reason Icon O'Clast joins the forum and decides to just bump this thread out of the blue, with an Outside the Camp article no less.  I almost thought it actually was Marc Carpenter for a sec, but I don't think he'd post the comment that was posted there.  Marc usually at least tries to argue his point before calling other people "unthinking" or whatever.  

If he is, as I suspect, a Carpenterite, I'd be curious what his thoughts are on the marriage thread, since Chris Duncan for some reason decided not to answer my questions on that point.  I guess we'll see if he actually posts again and if he actually wants to have this discussion or if he was just trolling us or something.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is that consistent with the Tulip doctrine then?  Who can believe they're so depraved that repentance is a dead work beyond what Jesus did on the cross, when that's exactly what Jesus instructed us to do.  Then again make the claim that they're perfect because God sees Jesus in us.  How can God see Jesus in someone who doesn't believe the very command of Jesus that tells us is the only path to salvation?


Repentence is the immediate fruit of regeneration.  When a man is regenerated, he will immediately repent.

Everyone has a responsibility to repent, but only those who God regenerates can.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Repentence is the immediate fruit of regeneration.  When a man is regenerated, he will immediately repent.
> 
> Everyone has a responsibility to repent, but only those who God regenerates can.


Yes.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes.


Just out of curiosity, WRT the thread topic, are you curious who exactly this new poster is who just joined out of the blue and decided to bump this thread of all possible threads?  I know I am.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just out of curiosity, WRT the thread topic, are you curious who exactly this new poster is who just joined out of the blue and decided to bump this thread of all possible threads?  I know I am.


I'm curious to know yes.  But I hope he or she continues to post regardless.  That would really shake up the religious discussion here.

----------


## RJB

> I find this to be one of the most annoying things that people do.


If he hasn't posted it by now, I assume he was spanked pretty well.  He does like cause a scene when he thinks it's in his favor.

----------


## RJB

> I'm curious to know yes.  But I hope he or she continues to post regardless.  That would really shake up the religious discussion here.


If you guys talked about the Lord half as much as you gossip about Arminians, Carpenter, etc, you might actually know God better.

I really hope you guys are segregated in heaven.  I can't imagine hell being any worse than listening to you guys echoing each other for eternity, LOL

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm curious to know yes.  But I hope he or she continues to post regardless.  That would really shake up the religious discussion here.


I do too.  It would be interesting.  I don't think it was Marc, but I could be wrong.  I don't know, can you see Marc posting the three posts that he's posted so far?  I don't really see him going in with the presupposition that this is a "forum for thinking people."  I don't know, I know Marc posted some good things about opposition to the Iraq War and some things the US did in World War II, but I don't really see him being tied in with any political movement to the point where he'd assume that we are "thinking people" or whatever.  you'd probably have more experience than me.



> If he hasn't posted it by now, I assume he was spanked pretty well.  He does like cause a scene when he thinks it's in his favor.


By Marc Carpenter?  Lol!  That would probably be one conversation where you would take my side.  I deleted that conversation awhile ago.  I did reference, if you check above, one point in the discussion where I inadvertently asked about SF.  But the rest of it, from my recollection, just kind of went into circles.  If "Icon O'Clast" is Marc or a close follower of his this could be interesting, as it would mean that Sola_Fide is no longer the most radical person in the religion subforum.  But other than that... yeah, think what you want.  If you really think Marc destroyed me you might want to consider becomming a Carpenterite  Not me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you guys talked about the Lord half as much as you gossip about Arminians, Carpenter, etc, you might actually know God better.
> 
> I really hope you guys are segregated in heaven.  I can't imagine hell being any worse than listening to you guys echoing each other for eternity, LOL


Blah.  I didn't bump this thread.  I've argued with SF about plenty of things, so saying we "echo" isn't really fair.  I'll spare my obligatory anti-Catholic post for now as I'm genuinely curious what this new poster has to say, and this thread is really a war between the, for lack of better terms, "Tolerant" and "Intolerant" Calvinists.  Catholicism and Arminianism only indirectly relate to it.  If you have any thoughts on James White's debate with Carpenter I'd be curious what they are.  But I'm guessing you probably don't care, and I wouldn't really expect anyone who isn't into Reformed theology to care.

----------


## RJB

> By Marc Carpenter?  Lol!  That would probably be one conversation where you would take my side.


I very rarely read or take anything you say seriously anymore.  You're more for entertainment if I'm bored.

----------


## RJB

> Blah.  I didn't bump this thread.  I've argued with SF about plenty of things, so saying we "echo" isn't really fair.  I'll spare my obligatory anti-Catholic post for now as I'm genuinely curious what this new poster has to say, and this thread is really a war between the, for lack of better terms, "Tolerant" and "Intolerant" Calvinists.  Catholicism and Arminianism only indirectly relate to it.  If you have any thoughts on James White's debate with Carpenter I'd be curious what they are.  But I'm guessing you probably don't care, and I wouldn't really expect anyone who isn't into Reformed theology to care.


Fair enough.  I'll quit trolling your thread. Good night.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I very rarely read or take anything you say seriously anymore.  You're more for entertainment if I'm bored.


OK.  I really, really don't care.  At all.  

I'd probably agree with most of what you say in the politics subforums, though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Fair enough.  I'll quit trolling your thread. Good night.


I don't really mind.  I wasn't even the one who bumped this thread (Who did?  I'm curious...) I just don't think you'd enjoy this conversation much, at least assuming Icon O'Clast decides to start posting again and it actually gets on topic.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sola, this one doesn't address Carpenter directly, but I think this article from Mongerism is interesting:
> 
> http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...o_gnostic.html
> 
> If you have time, read it and let me know what you think after reading it.
> 
> EDIT: THere are multiple essays there.  Feel free to read all of them, but the one I was looking for you to comment on is the first one, quoted below:


Sola,just out of curiosity, do you have a response to this?

----------


## agrammatos

> Yes, I think James White did a good job.  Specifically with regards to 2 John 9-11.  I simply see no way to take these passages the way Carpenter takes them.  Those verses had nothing to do with Arminianism and "speaking peace" meant something very different to John the Apostle than it does to Marc (Specifically, it included inviting a false teacher into your home and encouraging their ministry, not saying that an untaught person who holds to X doctrine cannot be saved.)  Marc is twisting these verse to make judging into the gospel, which is not Biblical.
> 
> I'm genuinely curious who this is.  How many followers does Marc Carpenter have?


Have you read the article, "Shares in his evil works": A Study on 2 John 11?

----------


## agrammatos

> After reading some things on puritanboard that other Calvinists have said about Carpenter and some of the people who associate with him, I see some things that remind me of cults.


One of the main characteristics of cults is that the cult leadership actively seeks to recruit and retain as many people as possible  or at least emotionally or psychologically vulnerable people. This in and of itself would disqualify us as a cult. We do not recruit at all. And if someone says he disagrees with us in essential doctrine, that person is not only free to go, but that person must go. So much for the cult charge. To adapt and apply a quote to you and your Calvinist associates: "If careful and informed thought were a rich hard wood, we are talking oak veneer for the mobile home bathroom." 





> BTW: "I disagree with you" is very different from "I disagree with you so much that I believe you are unregenerate."  I probably wouldn't "Speak peace" to use Carpenter's word, to someone who believed I was unregenerate.  That doesn't mean they definitely aren't saved, of course, but I wouldn't assume such a person is saved.


"Speak peace" is Carpenter's word? Read Jeremiah and Ezekiel, much? 

The warnings in the Old Testament against committing spiritual fornication are pervasive. In Ezekiel 13:9-15 God not only destroyed the wall, He also destroyed those who plastered the wall. In Jeremiah14:11-16 the false prophets and those to whom they spoke peace were consumed in judgment. This inextricable link that is established in the Old Testament is reaffirmed in the New Testament: If you share in her sins, you WILL receive of her plagues (Revelation 18:4; cf. 2 John 9-11). The immediate & inevitable result of Gods regenerating His people is NOT to dally with, but to come out of the Great Harlot. And since they come out of her by true faith & repentance (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/gosprep.htm) they do NOT speak false visions of peace to themselves back upon their former times of ignorance (cf. Romans 10:2-3; Philippians 3:8).

----------


## agrammatos

> It is so plain! So clear! So compelling! And so absurd! Such simplistic logic has led Carpenter to have to define Calvin himself as insufficiently Calvinistic, leading to the inevitable conclusion that Marc Carpenter and his tiny band define the extent of the work of the Holy Spirit in our world today. What an incredible thought!


Actually, Calvin is altogether sufficiently Calvinistic enough. That's precisely the problem.





> 2 John 9-11, in context, reads:
> 
> 
> 2 John 1:9-11 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
> 
> 
> John is not talking about universal atonement as "the teaching." He is talking about the teaching concerning the Father and the Son, and especially, in the Johannine literature, concerning the doctrine of the antiChrists, who denied that the Son came in the flesh.


Yeah. The "teaching of Christ" almost certainly had absolutely nothing to do with what Christ actually "came in the flesh" to accomplish. 




> John is exhorting his readers not to greet those who have gone out of the fellowship and who are denying the Father and the Son. To connect these words to Carpenter's idiosyncratic hyper-Calvinism is, once again, absurd. Only by extending a truth (particular redemption) to the status of the final and full definition of the gospel itself can Carpenter make such an outrageous leap.


A complete exegesis this is not. Read Marc's article on 2 John 11 for a necessary corrective. Though deep-thinking is a rare and difficult thing to find in these here parts, try real hard to consider the necessary implications (yes, necessary) of one who professes to believe the gospel of Romans 1:16-17, but who also considers the false gospelers of Galatians 1:8-9 to be his "inconsistent and muddleheaded" spiritual brethren. The concept of "speaking peace when there is no peace" is not novel. The false prophets in the Old Testament engaged in it. And multitudes upon multitudes of professing Christians also engage in this spiritual harlotry. 

Read Ezekiel 13:9-15 and see the counterparts to present-day Tolerant Calvinist lime-daubers plastering the Arminian wall. Those like FreedomFanatic believe that even if the wall is destroyed, that doesn't necessarily mean those who daubed the wall will be destroyed as well. What saith the Scripture?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Have you read the article, "Shares in his evil works": A Study on 2 John 11?


Just for curiosity, are you Chris Duncan?  (I assume you are based on your blog name.)  I'll respond to this in a bit, gotta go.

----------


## Sola_Fide

The first place I learned that Calvin believed in universal atonement was outsidethecamp.org.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just for curiosity, are you Chris Duncan?  (I assume you are based on your blog name.)  I'll respond to this in a bit, gotta go.


It doesn't matter who it is FF.   I would be overjoyed if a consistent Christian would post here.  (Wow....The truth that could result on RPF's....)

----------


## agrammatos

> Just for curiosity, are you Chris Duncan?  (I assume you are based on your blog name.)  I'll respond to this in a bit, gotta go.


Yep. This is Chris Duncan (And if your last name is Cooke, then I'm really not sure how profitable this thread will be).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yep. This is Chris Duncan (And if your last name is Cooke, then I'm really not sure how profitable this thread will be).


Chris,  your blog is one of my favorites on the net.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yep. This is Chris Duncan (And if your last name is Cooke, then I'm really not sure how profitable this thread will be).


Yeah, that would be me  Even if this doesn't go anywhere else, maybe you could answer some of the questions in this thread for us: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ight=Sola+Fide .  Other than that, its up to you if you want to have this conversation again... it could be enlightening to other people here. 

At any rate, welcome to RPF.




> It doesn't matter who it is FF.   I would be overjoyed if a consistent Christian would post here.  (Wow....The truth that could result on RPF's....)


I was just honestly curious.  I agree that it doesn't matter.




> Actually, Calvin is altogether sufficiently Calvinistic enough. That's precisely the problem.


I posted the comment you quote awhile ago... I should clarify that I don't necessarily stand by everything I posted back in September.  At any rate, I suppose I get your point.  If I changed "Calvinistic" to "Monergistic" how would you have responded?





> Yeah. The "teaching of Christ" almost certainly had absolutely nothing to do with what Christ actually "came in the flesh" to accomplish.


OK, so Matthew 28:19-20 is clearly teaching that only those who are being made disciples should be baptized.  So obviously all paedobaptists are unregenerate, right?  I mean, that would be the logical conclusion of what you're saying, after all, baptism of disciples is a "teaching of Christ."  Or eschatology.  What does "This generation" mean in Matthew 24?  If one interprets this wrong, does this mean they are unsaved?  And before you inevitably fall back on the fact that those aren't gospel issues, you guys also judge by whether or not a person believes in 24-hour day creation (I don't think I got to this in our email conversation, but you guys are definitely hypocritical to say that a true believer can believe the "thousand years" in Revelation 20 can be figurative yet cannot believe that "six days" in Genesis 1 cannot be figurative... right there you have a blatant example of hypocritical peace speaking and thus should consider yourselves unregenerate according to your own tortured logic) and 24 hour day creation is not a gospel issue by any stretch of the imagination.  In fact, I've honestly given up on trying to figure out logically what you guys would or would not consider a gospel issue.  If you could clear up the logic on this point, that would be helpful.

As for what Christ "came in the flesh to accomplish", every Christian believes that Jesus came to save them from their sins.  Its the logical conclusions where I believe you guys err.  You are correct about what the logical implications of a saving atonement are, and you are correct about the logical conclusions of Arminianism.  But, you assume that everyone has fleshed this out in their minds, where it is never explained with the level of precision that you would require in any Biblical gospel presentation.  You are welcome to prove me wrong on this point, and if you can, I will repent.  Note that I am not suggesting that the doctrine of the atonement is not fleshed out in the Bible... of course it is, I am saying that it is not fleshed out in gospel presentations to unbelievers. 




> A complete exegesis this is not. Read Marc's article on 2 John 11 for a necessary corrective.


I've read that, and most of Marc's articles on OTC.  Marc should stick to what he's good at, articles like his "American Atrocities" article, because his interpretation of 2 John 11 is absolutely ridiculous.  




> Though deep-thinking is a rare and difficult thing to find in these here parts,


You obviously haven't read RPF very much.  We're some of the most "deep thinking" individuals in the US, hence why we're here.  I get told by family and friends that I'm "too logical" all the time.  Of course, I know Outside the Camp views everyone who disagrees with them as "illogical" so I doubt you'll actually consider the above.  It doesn't really matter, though.




> try real hard to consider the necessary implications (yes, necessary) of one who professes to believe the gospel of Romans 1:16-17, but who also considers the false gospelers of Galatians 1:8-9 to be his "inconsistent and muddleheaded" spiritual brethren. The concept of "speaking peace when there is no peace" is not novel. The false prophets in the Old Testament engaged in it. And multitudes upon multitudes of professing Christians also engage in this spiritual harlotry.


First of all, Galatians 1:8-9 is referring to those who add works as a condition for salvation.  If you've read my posts here (Which: for the record, I don't really expect, seeing as at least half of my posts are not in the religion section of this forum, and I have a lot of them) I've always uncompromisingly held that works salvationists are lost, and I've been criticized for this stance many  times.  It extends off the internet as well, I disappointed my mother when I claimed that baptismal regenerationists are inherently lost, and I've disappointed some other people when I used Mother Theresa as an example of someone who had far more "good works" than I have yet is still lost.

I disagree with the OTC view on two points: first of all, lumping faith-alone Arminians in with the Judaizers and other works-salvationists, and second of all, claiming that someone who "speaks peace" to such a person is necessarily lost.  I also disagree with Marc's definition of peace-speaking, which I will get to in a moment.


> Read Ezekiel 13:9-15 and see the counterparts to present-day Tolerant Calvinist lime-daubers plastering the Arminian wall. Those like FreedomFanatic believe that even if the wall is destroyed, that doesn't necessarily mean those who daubed the wall will be destroyed as well. What saith the Scripture?


Only a Carpenterite could read that passage as having anything to do with Arminians.  Do you have any idea about the historical context of when Ezekial and Jeremiah were written?  God was saying Babylon would overcome Israel because of its sin, and the false prophets were telling them that they could continue to live in peace, contrary to the word of God that Babylon would attack and overcome them.  Plus, that specific passage is referring to "false visions and divinations."  If any of us are claiming to have visions and divinations, particularly those which contradict scripture, you'd have a case.  And you know full well that you yourself are lying when you make these accusations.  Should I therefore judge you lost?  




> One of the main characteristics of cults is that the cult leadership actively seeks to recruit and retain as many people as possible — or at least emotionally or psychologically vulnerable people. This in and of itself would disqualify us as a cult. We do not recruit at all. And if someone says he disagrees with us in essential doctrine, that person is not only free to go, but that person must go. So much for the cult charge. To adapt and apply a quote to you and your Calvinist associates: "If careful and informed thought were a rich hard wood, we are talking oak veneer for the mobile home bathroom."


OK, if that's your definition than I would agree that you aren't a cult.  but, I personally wouldn't restrict it to that.  You guys also demand agreement with your particular doctrines on almost everything before you will fellowship with that person, all the way down to declaring those who tolerate tolerant Calvinists to be unregenerate, and believing that Genesis 1 is referring to literal, 24  hour days.  Cults also usually demand adherence to most or all doctrines which are taught by the cult leaders.

I don't really want to discuss this though, because I agree that throwing the term "cult" around is not really helpful.  Let's just debate the issues.


"Speak peace" is Carpenter's word? Read Jeremiah and Ezekiel, much? 



> The warnings in the Old Testament against committing spiritual fornication are pervasive. In Ezekiel 13:9-15 God not only destroyed the wall, He also destroyed those who plastered the wall. In Jeremiah14:11-16 the false prophets and those to whom they spoke peace were consumed in judgment. This inextricable link that is established in the Old Testament is reaffirmed in the New Testament: If you share in her sins, you WILL receive of her plagues (Revelation 18:4; cf. 2 John 9-11). The immediate & inevitable result of God’s regenerating His people is NOT to dally with, but to come out of the Great Harlot. And since they come out of her by true faith & repentance (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/gosprep.htm) they do NOT speak false visions of peace to themselves back upon their former times of ignorance (cf. Romans 10:2-3; Philippians 3:8).


OK, I think I've addressed the Old Testament thing, but this immediately brings to mind two questions:

First of all, say a child is in a "tolerant calvinist" church with his parents, yet he believes the true gospel and is regenerated by believing something the pastor read directly from scripture.  He is too young to go to church on his own or decide where he wants to go to church, despite the fact that he believes the exact same gospel you do.  Is this child unregenerate because he did not "come out of the Great Harlot" despite being unable to do so?

Second of all, what if a true believer (your definition... assume they agree with every point in the Christian Confession of Faith) knows of no other true believers or churches?  What would be the right thing for them to do, in that situation?




> Have you read the article, "Shares in his evil works": A Study on 2 John 11?


Yeah, I've read it.  Considering the fact that I've proved your Ezekiel reference is misinterpreted, to draw your entire peace speaking theology based on one verse seems like a huge stretch.  And, I don't mean to rely on fallible men, but if this doctrine were really that obvious (And it would have to be to be able to defend such a judgmental  philosophy from a single verse in scripture) I'm pretty sure at least one Protestant Reformer would have noticed it when they were figuring out all the other ridiculous errors in the RCC by studying their own Bibles.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Double post, please delete.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm genuinely curious who this is. How many followers does Marc Carpenter have?


I wanted to clarify this question for agrammatos, because I realize that if I don't he will somewhat plausibly accuse me of caring about the opinions of men.  Without qualification, it could rightly be argued that even if Marc's fellowship was the only one who held these doctrinal beliefs, they could still be correct.  And I'd agree with that, absent some Biblical proof.  But there is Biblical proof that the number of believers will be numerous.  

Revelation 7:9 (ESV) says "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude *that no one could number* from every nation, from al tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches and their hands.

OK... other than on the internet, I've never met a single person who believed and taught the doctrines on OTC.  The person who first linked me to that site (This forum's Sola_Fide) does not hold enough of their doctrines to be considered saved by their standards either.  I read somewhere on OTC that Marc's fellowship has nine people in it, and that Marc knows of no true churches close enough to their congregation to join together with them.  The only other websites Marc recommends on his "links" page are from either you or Chris Adams, both of whom attend his congregation.

So, where in the world is the "Vast multitude that is too numerous to count"?  How much am I supposed to suspend my disbelief on this one?

----------


## eduardo89

I don't like James White, but at least he's intelligent. That Marc Carpenter fellow is just a complete and utter moron.

----------


## moostraks

> One of the main characteristics of cults is that the cult leadership actively seeks to recruit and retain as many people as possible  or at least emotionally or psychologically vulnerable people. This in and of itself would disqualify us as a cult. We do not recruit at all. And if someone says he disagrees with us in essential doctrine, that person is not only free to go, but that person must go. So much for the cult charge.


The level of exclusivity with arrogant condescension towards anyone who disagrees with the tortured theology and separation to the extent that one is not allowed to speak peace to those who disagree with them lest they be tainted puts this crowd right in the crosshairs of the term cult. Am curious if said person is not passively recruiting by attempting to post here then seems like they might be in danger of getting our cooties, so why bother? No need to defend themselves as they seem to believe they have it all figured out and they are the chosen ones. So what is the reason behind posting here?

----------


## RJB

> So what is the reason behind posting here?


On threads where atheists question the existence of Jesus, these guys attack other Christians instead of spreading the Gospel.

I sometimes wonder if Sola isn't a 17 year old atheist just having fun.  He's either one of the more brilliant trolls or one of the worst prostelytizers.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't like James White, but at least he's intelligent. That Marc Carpenter fellow is just a complete and utter moron.


Even though I like you as a friend Eduardo, Marc Carpenter would wipe the floor with you in a debate.  Sorry.

----------


## eduardo89

> Even though I like you as a friend Eduardo, Marc Carpenter would wipe the floor with you in a debate.  Sorry.


Perhaps, but if he debates the way you do his arguments against my faith would most likely be misrepresentations and falsehoods of what RJB and I believe.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Even though I like you as a friend Eduardo, Marc Carpenter would wipe the floor with you in a debate.  Sorry.


Depending on what they were debating, I might be inclined to side with Ed.  At least Ed is a nice person.

What Marc does cannot accurately be called "Debate" most of the time, its more just "if you disagree with me on soteriology, you're lost and I'm going to call you a God-hater."  

For what its worth, I said the exact same thing about the Ezekiel and Jeremiah passages when I was having an email discussion with Chris Duncan ("agrammatos") and he never addressed it there either, instead simply saying that he didn't feel like the conversation was going anywhere.  I hope he'll at least try to address it here.  I'm not holding my breath, though.

@eduardo- I doubt they'd even bother.  I've only ever seen them address Catholicism in passing.  They're too busy bashing "tolerant calvinists" to even bother debating Catholics.  To make a political analogy, its like not taking the time to discuss war or the Federal Reserve because you are too busy debating immigration and intellectual property.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The level of exclusivity with arrogant condescension towards anyone who disagrees with the tortured theology and separation to the extent that one is not allowed to speak peace to those who disagree with them lest they be tainted puts this crowd right in the crosshairs of the term cult. Am curious if said person is not passively recruiting by attempting to post here then seems like they might be in danger of getting our cooties, so why bother? No need to defend themselves as they seem to believe they have it all figured out and *they are the chosen ones.* So what is the reason behind posting here?


I have to address the bold as it would apply to any monergist, and not just particularly nutty ones.  No monergist, including the OTC people, would claim to know who the elect are.  There are unregenerate people who are part of God's elect, and they know that just like any other monergist does.  So, the reason they would be posting here would be so the elect (their view) would believe what they are saying and be saved.  Its the same reason I debate religion here.  Ultimately, God knows who the elect are, and God uses the preaching of the gospel in order to bring those people to himself.

----------


## eduardo89

> @eduardo- I doubt they'd even bother.  I've only ever seen them address Catholicism in passing.  They're too busy bashing "tolerant calvinists" to even bother debating Catholics.  To make a political analogy, its like not taking the time to discuss war or the Federal Reserve because you are too busy debating immigration and intellectual property.


I think a better analogy would be they're too busy debating whether or not Kim Kardashian got butt implants instead of debating the necessity of the Fed.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think a better analogy would be they're too busy debating whether or not Kim Kardashian got butt implants instead of debating the necessity of the Fed.


LOL!  I'm not sure if I'd go that far, but it would depend on what issue exactly you're talking about.  I pretty much just view the peace-speaking doctrine as being ridiculous out of hand.

----------


## moostraks

> I have to address the bold as it would apply to any monergist, and not just particularly nutty ones.  No monergist, including the OTC people, would claim to know who the elect are.  There are unregenerate people who are part of God's elect, and they know that just like any other monergist does.  So, the reason they would be posting here would be so the elect (their view) would believe what they are saying and be saved.  Its the same reason I debate religion here.  Ultimately, God knows who the elect are, and God uses the preaching of the gospel in order to bring those people to himself.


Then that would refute the position that they are not "recruiting" as that is in effect which he is passively doing. I thought the little spiel was odd considering most Christians feel at least a need to passively "recruit". So the speech strikes me as dishonest on its face and I think your gut feeling of cult is one you should listen ff. This thought was on my mind when I posted and I should have been more clear when I responded yesterday.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> If you guys talked about the Lord half as much as you gossip about Arminians, Carpenter, etc, you might actually know God better.
> 
> I really hope you guys are segregated in heaven.  I can't imagine hell being any worse than listening to you guys echoing each other for eternity, LOL


lol

+rep

----------


## agrammatos

> Then that would refute the position that they are not "recruiting" as that is in effect which he is passively doing. I thought the little spiel was odd considering most Christians feel at least a need to passively "recruit". So the speech strikes me as dishonest on its face and I think your gut feeling of cult is one you should listen ff. This thought was on my mind when I posted and I should have been more clear when I responded yesterday.


The all-important context (or not so important, in your case) was recruiting and retaining despite disagreements on essential doctrine. Cults seek to recruit AND retain people DESPITE disagreements. Christians are admonished by James to turn a Christian from the error of his way (James 5:19-20), but if he were to persist in this error then he is to be kicked out of "the group" (Matthew 18:15-17). This is the very ANTITHESIS of a cult. The principles found in Matthew 18:15-17 are the exact opposite of a cult. Matthew 18:15-17 screams out loud and clear: "We are the anti-cult!"  Copper and tin constitute bronze. Take away one and you don't have bronze. Likewise, take away the "retain-members-at-any-cost" characteristic and the description of "cult" vanishes. True cults (e.g., Jim Jones; Heaven's Gate) are all about retaining members, even members who are having misgivings. We, on the other hand, insist that those who are having misgivings about the truth must leave our fellowship.

----------


## agrammatos

> LOL!  I'm not sure if I'd go that far, but it would depend on what issue exactly you're talking about.  I pretty much just view the peace-speaking doctrine as being ridiculous out of hand.


You wrote this to me on 9/29/13 in response to my Three Blind Mice blog post:




> I have a hard time imagining N.T. Wright truly understands the gospel, considering that he speaks peace to a man who rejects the resurrection.  It should be fairly easy to show him in 1 Corinthians, as you just pointed out, that those who deny Christ's bodily resurrection are unregenerate  So, I'd agree with you that N.T. Wright is unregenerate.


Do you still hold this position concerning which gospel N.T. Wright believes is the power of God to salvation for everyone believing? Peace-speaking is a Biblical concept. It is seen in places such as Galatians 6:16 and it is necessarily implied in Romans 1:16-17 and Galatians 1:8-9. A person judges saved and lost by the gospel they believe is the power of God to salvation to everyone believing. Whether that is Paul's in Romans 1:16-17 or anothers' in Galatians 1:8-9. Eh, but that is just ridiculous and should be summarily dismissed out of hand.

----------


## agrammatos

> You wrote this to me on 9/29/13 in response to my Three Blind Mice blog post:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you still hold this position concerning which gospel N.T. Wright believes is the power of God to salvation for everyone believing? Peace-speaking is a Biblical concept. It is seen in places such as Galatians 6:16 and it is necessarily implied in Romans 1:16-17 and Galatians 1:8-9. A person judges saved and lost by the gospel they believe is the power of God to salvation to everyone believing. Whether that is Paul's in Romans 1:16-17 or anothers' in Galatians 1:8-9. Eh, but that is just ridiculous and should be summarily dismissed out of hand.


When someone says that a professing Christian was unregenerate because he knowingly spoke peace to obvious God-haters, what does this intolerant person base this judgment on? Is it just to be mean, or is it for a logical, Biblical reason? What does belief in the true gospel have to do with judgment of those who do not believe in the true gospel? Is there any necessary connection, or can one truly believe in the true gospel and yet judge others who do NOT believe in the true gospel to be his brothers in Christ?

Important questions to consider. Stay focused. Try to restrain and resist the temptation to drag red herrings or pave rabbit trails. Legion are those who wickedly attempt to immure this simple Biblical concept in incoherence.

----------


## moostraks

> The all-important context (or not so important, in your case) was recruiting and retaining despite disagreements on essential doctrine. Cults seek to recruit AND retain people DESPITE disagreements. Christians are admonished by James to turn a Christian from the error of his way (James 5:19-20), but if he were to persist in this error then he is to be kicked out of "the group" (Matthew 18:15-17). This is the very ANTITHESIS of a cult. The principles found in Matthew 18:15-17 are the exact opposite of a cult. Matthew 18:15-17 screams out loud and clear: "We are the anti-cult!"  Copper and tin constitute bronze. Take away one and you don't have bronze. Likewise, take away the "retain-members-at-any-cost" characteristic and the description of "cult" vanishes. True cults (e.g., Jim Jones; Heaven's Gate) are all about retaining members, even members who are having misgivings. We, on the other hand, insist that those who are having misgivings about the truth must leave our fellowship.


The means by which members are utterly and completely ostracized from those whom they have formerly had fellowship with in your "group" is the method by which most cults retain members. Cults don't bend to conform to the needs of the people being used by them. They demand a strict adherence to a specific guideline of behavior.

----------


## Brett85

> When someone says that a professing Christian was unregenerate because he knowingly spoke peace to obvious God-haters, what does this intolerant person base this judgment on? Is it just to be mean, or is it for a logical, Biblical reason? What does belief in the true gospel have to do with judgment of those who do not believe in the true gospel? Is there any necessary connection, or can one truly believe in the true gospel and yet judge others who do NOT believe in the true gospel to be his brothers in Christ?
> 
> Important questions to consider. Stay focused. Try to restrain and resist the temptation to drag red herrings or pave rabbit trails. Legion are those who wickedly attempt to immure this simple Biblical concept in incoherence.


Man, that is a hardcore cult you belong to.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You wrote this to me on 9/29/13 in response to my Three Blind Mice blog post:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you still hold this position concerning which gospel N.T. Wright believes is the power of God to salvation for everyone believing? Peace-speaking is a Biblical concept. It is seen in places such as Galatians 6:16 and it is necessarily implied in Romans 1:16-17 and Galatians 1:8-9. A person judges saved and lost by the gospel they believe is the power of God to salvation to everyone believing. Whether that is Paul's in Romans 1:16-17 or anothers' in Galatians 1:8-9. Eh, but that is just ridiculous and should be summarily dismissed out of hand.


If N.T Wright really believes that the resurrection of Christ is a non-essential, than I'd agree with you that he hasn't a clue what the gospel is.

On the other hand, I've encountered many people, and I don't remember what N.T. Wright said exactly, but I have encountered plenty of people who know exactly what the gospel is, and know how (insert position here) is a blatant contradiction of the gospel, yet for some reason they are slow to actually call a lost person lost, and I see a difference between that and really believing (Same heretical position) is actually compatible with the gospel.

And then there are varying degrees, its relatively rare that someone will say definitively of someone they don't know is either saved or lost.  A lot of the time its somewhere in between, such as "So and so might be saved" or "I think he's saved" or "I think he's not."  Even with you guys there's uncertainty because a person could be straight up lying about their beliefs, or misunderstanding can occur.  But for most people its a little trickier than that.  For what its worth, I honestly don't really care whether the people you mention (N.T. Wright, or Phil Johnson) is saved or not.  I don't know them personally.  I'm not in the same church as they are.  I have zero personal contact with them.  Its one thing to say someone is unregenerate because of what they actually preach.  That seems reasonable to me, and I do it all the time (At least enough so to tick normal people off once in awhile, which is still next to nothing because of you guys.)  Its another thing to say someone is unsaved even if they believe orthodox doctrine because they think someone who believes heterodox doctrine on whatever point might be saved.  Could that form of "peace-speaking" be a sign of not being regenerate?  Sure.  But why is that my job to figure out?




> Man, that is a hardcore cult you belong to.


OK, let's not do this.  Refuting their arguments is infinitely more useful.  And if any given argument they make has Biblical merit, it should be accepted.  I agree with you but all this is going to do is destroy what could be a decent discussion.

----------


## agrammatos

> If N.T Wright really believes that the resurrection of Christ is a non-essential, than I'd agree with you that he hasn't a clue what the gospel is.
> 
> On the other hand, I've encountered many people, and I don't remember what N.T. Wright said exactly, but I have encountered plenty of people who know exactly what the gospel is, and know how (insert position here) is a blatant contradiction of the gospel, yet for some reason they are slow to actually call a lost person lost, and I see a difference between that and really believing (Same heretical position) is actually compatible with the gospel.
> 
> And then there are varying degrees, its relatively rare that someone will say definitively of someone they don't know is either saved or lost.  A lot of the time its somewhere in between, such as "So and so might be saved" or "I think he's saved" or "I think he's not."  Even with you guys there's uncertainty because a person could be straight up lying about their beliefs, or misunderstanding can occur.  But for most people its a little trickier than that.  For what its worth, I honestly don't really care whether the people you mention (N.T. Wright, or Phil Johnson) is saved or not.  I don't know them personally.  I'm not in the same church as they are.  I have zero personal contact with them.  Its one thing to say someone is unregenerate because of what they actually preach.  That seems reasonable to me, and I do it all the time (At least enough so to tick normal people off once in awhile, which is still next to nothing because of you guys.)  Its another thing to say someone is unsaved even if they believe orthodox doctrine because they think someone who believes heterodox doctrine on whatever point might be saved.  Could that form of "peace-speaking" be a sign of not being regenerate?  Sure.  But why is that my job to figure out?


I thought this series of questions might help to answer why it is NOT your job "to figure out," but it IS the job of true Christians "to figure out":




> When someone says that a professing Christian was unregenerate because he knowingly spoke peace to obvious God-haters, what does this intolerant person base this judgment on? Is it just to be mean, or is it for a logical, Biblical reason? What does belief in the true gospel have to do with judgment of those who do not believe in the true gospel? Is there any necessary connection, or can one truly believe in the true gospel and yet judge others who do NOT believe in the true gospel to be his brothers in Christ?

----------


## Brett85

So anyone who doesn't believe in limited atonement/unconditional election is a "God hater?"  I really do try to be civil, but this stuff is just absurd and beyond ridiculous.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So anyone who doesn't believe in limited atonement/unconditional election is a "God hater?"  I really do try to be civil, but this stuff is just absurd and beyond ridiculous.


If you think THAT's ridiculous you might want to get out of this conversation, because its actually far worse than that.  These people would call SF a God-hater because he doesn't necessarily agree that limited atonement/unconditional election believers that don't agree with the proposition that all Arminians are God haters are themselves necessarily God-haters.

In other words:

SF does not necessarily believe James White is a God-hater.

James White does not necessarily believe that Arminians are God-Haters.  SF knows this...

Therefore, SF is a God-hater.

Or at least, that's what OTC would say.  Personally, I think this is ridiculous., of course.

@agrammatos- OK, so what does a man have to believe in order to be saved?  What propositions are essential and which ones aren't?  How can you possibly know for sure?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I thought this series of questions might help to answer why it is NOT your job "to figure out," but it IS the job of true Christians "to figure out":


I have two comments to this.

First of all, OTC presents a black and white dichotomy: either you judge someone who believes X doctrine to be saved, or you judge them unsaved.  In reality, there are lots of shades of gray and "I don't know" that goes on.  Believe it or not, there are people who will say that "X" is a false gospel and yet the person that holds "X" might be saved.  Sometimes its also difficult to tell whether "Y" is a false gospel per say or a distorted version of the true gospel.  I know that even Marc will admit that he does not demand perfect understanding of doctrine as an immediate fruit of salvation, so how can you know for sure which doctrines are absolutely essential and which ones are not?  While it is possible to make Biblical arguments that certain doctrines are essential, there's no exhaustive list.

For example, I strongly believe that baptismal regeneration is a false gospel and a form of works salvation.  I don't think there is any such thing as a regenerate person who confesses that gospel.  I know people who disagree with me, and who believe that its possible for such a person to be saved.  This does NOT believe that they actually believe the baptismal regeneration gospel to be true.

Second of all, yes, I agree that its not just to be mean.  I do think the way OTC does it comes across as unnecessarily mean and over the top in many cases (This is the less important point to me, the more important point would be that OTC judges too strictly and in an incorrect way) but I definitely do not think its inherently wrong to judge people who believe certain doctrines are unregenerate.  As mentioned above, I do so on certain issues.  So yes, I agree that judging someone to not be saved is not to be mean.  That doesn't mean that its inherently a correct judgement, however.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

FF - have you visited this website, yet?  There are tons of articles from various authors and MUCH from Michael Jeshurun, too.  

http://michaeljeshurun.wordpress.com...ist-confusion/

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If you think THAT's ridiculous you might want to get out of this conversation, because its actually far worse than that.  These people would call SF a God-hater because he doesn't necessarily agree that limited atonement/unconditional election believers that don't agree with the proposition that all Arminians are God haters are themselves necessarily God-haters.
> 
> In other words:
> 
> SF does not necessarily believe James White is a God-hater.
> 
> James White does not necessarily believe that Arminians are God-Haters.  SF knows this...
> 
> Therefore, SF is a God-hater.
> ...


I do understand OTC's position though.  One of the revolting things about tolerant Calvinists is their refusal to stand for the gospel and speak peace to unregenerate heretics.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do understand OTC's position though.  One of the revolting things about tolerant Calvinists is their refusal to stand for the gospel and speak peace to unregenerate heretics.


Personally I'm not sure I see a point in an Arminian being involved in this discussion.  I know Chris Duncan is going to disagree with me, and you might as well, but there's really no place for Arminianism in a debate between "tolerant" Calvinism and "intolerant" Calvinism.  Its kind of like someone who's on the Atkins diet getting into a debate over what flavor of pizza tastes the best, or something like that.

I'll be honest, I have a hard time understanding OTC's position.  When you realize what Ezekiel and Jeremiah are actually talking about ("speaking peace" in that context referring to false prophets claiming that Babylon would not go to war with Israel and bring God's judgment on it) the entire peace speaking theology is built upon one relatively vague passage in scripture, a passage which does not tell us specifically what doctrines are being  anathematized beyond those who do not believe that Christ came in the flesh (gnostics), does not tell us specifically what "sharing in  one's evil works" means, and does not actually define "peace-speaking."  I believe there are degrees between absolutely saying someone in lost and speaking peace to him (Which would be, at the very least, assuring him that he's saved), I don't think this passage is really talking about Arminianism, and I'm not convinced that "sharing in his evil works" definitively means that one is lost, although I do think its possible that it means that and I certainly believe that its not something to be taken lightly.

If a Jehovah's Witness came to a professing Christian's door, and that Christian knew full well what Jehovah's Witness doctrine is, yet they invited this person to a Christian fellowship and donated money toward their ministry, that, to me, would be "peace speaking", and a sign that this confessing Christian is probably lost.  He has no clue what the gospel is.  I think there's a difference between that and saying "Well, the Jehovah's Witness who came to my door is probably not saved but I'm not the judge" which, while I still believe that is wrong, I don't think this would count as "speaking peace."

With regards to Arminianism, most Arminians are too inconsistent for me to know for sure.  Show me a consistent Arminian, and he's probably either an open theist, a universalist, a believer in infused righteousness, or something similarly extreme and heretical.  But I know of at least some "Arminians" who would clearly reject all of the above, and even some who would say that God chose us but would simultaneously say that we choose God and not really try to reconcile the two (Maybe those types aren't really Arminians... your call.)

I was called "arrogant" by my mother earlier today because I questioned whether Arminians are qualified to hold church office.  I think its funny because the average Christian, even if we leave Arminians out of that equation entirely and limit "Christian" to those who actually believe in predestination, election, and limited atonement, would say that's extreme, and yet you'd probably call me a "tolerant calvinist" because I won't go so far as to say every Arminian without exception is definitively lost.  When I made my comment my mom immediately brought up John Wesley.  I didn't really respond to her but I wanted to tell her frankly, I don't really care about a guy who was dead long before anybody I'll ever meet was born.  His ministry is completely irrelevant to me, and completely irrelevant to the question of to what degree Arminians are qualified for ministry or whatever.  

Heck, I get resistance from most for saying C.S. Lewis wasn't a Christian because of his inclusivism and belief in  purgatory.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF - have you visited this website, yet?  There are tons of articles from various authors and MUCH from Michael Jeshurun, too.  
> 
> http://michaeljeshurun.wordpress.com...ist-confusion/


I just read your link.  I think his point was interesting.  I'd love to see Sola_Fide and/or Agrammatos write a response to it.  I do want to point out a couple of things:

First of all, the article presents a date that Toplady was saved, but it bases this date on the assumption that Arminians can be saved.  Sola_Fide would argue (SF, correct me if I'm misinterpreting, I'm trying to state your position as correctly as possible) that he wasn't saved until he gave up Arminianism, and to my understanding agrammatos would argue that absent a deathbed conversion that Toplady is in Hell because he "spoke peace" to his Arminian self.  That's not to say that I disagree with the article, I don't really disagree, but its an assumption based on a specific theological framework, specifically, that is IS possible to be saved as an Arminian, which the "intolerant" monergists would reject.

Second of all, the rest of his points in the article explain why, though I may be sympathetic to it, I can't accept the idea that all Arminians without exception are unsaved.  If this were the case, I think GOSPEL PRESENTATIONS would be completely clear about the issue.  And, while the scripture is clear about this issue, I do not think it is ever so in a gospel presentation.  I do think that stubbornly clinging to one's Arminianism in the face of Biblical evidence, or resorting to emotion (ie. "my God wouldn't do that" or "I can't reconcile this so I won't accept it", etc.) when one realizes he cannot defend his Arminianism from scripture, may be signs of being unregenerate.  But I don't necessarily think that a new believer will understand these details beyond the fact that Christ Alone is responsible for their salvation, through faith and not by works.




> I do understand OTC's position though.  One of the revolting things about tolerant Calvinists is their refusal to stand for the gospel and speak peace to unregenerate heretics.


I wanted to comment on this further to say: I'm assuming you are using the OTC definition of this term, which is any Calvinist who rejects the idea that all Arminians without exception are unsaved. If that's the definition you are using, it is not necessarily the case that all "tolerant calvinists" refuse to stand for the gospel.  As I mentioned before, using myself as an example, I get criticized all the time as "arrogant" "harsh" or whatever because I say anyone who believes in works-salvation to any degree can be saved.  But I'm still a "tolerant calvinist" by Marc Carpenter's definition because I won't go so far as to say that everyone who ignorantly thinks Christ died for everybody without thinking through the implications of that belief, or everyone who believes that they had a choice, is also necessarily unregenerate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

On another forum, someone just PMed me this quote from Calvin:




> " . . Georgius imagines himself to argue very cleverly when he says, 'Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Therefore, those who would exclude the reprobate from a participation in the benefits of Christ, must, of necessity, place them somewhere out of the world' . . Now we will not permit the common solution of this question to avail on the present occasion, which would have it that Christ suffered sufficiently for all men, but effectually for His elect alone. *This great absurdity, by which our monk has procured for himself so much applause amongst his own fraternity, has no weight whatever with me.John does indeed extend the benefits of the atonement of Christ, which was completed by His death, to all the elect of God throughout what climes of the world soever they may be scattered. But though the case be so, it by no means alters the fact that the reprobate are mingled with the elect in the world. It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins ” of the whole world.” But the solution of all difficulty is immediately at hand, in the truth and fact, that it is “whosoever believeth in Him” that ” shall not perish, but shall have eternal life.” For our present question is, not what the power or virtue of Christ is, nor what efficacy it has in itself, but who those are to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed. Now if the possession of Christ stands in faith, and if faith flows from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that he alone is numbered of God among His children who is designed of God to be a partaker of Christ. Indeed, the evangelist John sets forth the office of Christ to be none other than that of “gathering together all the children of God ” in one by His death. From all which we conclude that although reconciliation* is offered unto all men through Him, yet, that the great benefit belongs peculiarly to the elect, that they might be “gathered together ” and be made “together ” partakers of eternal life. . ." from Calvin's Calvinism
> *


This seems very clearly anti-unlimited atonement to me.

----------


## agrammatos

> @agrammatos- OK, so what does a man have to believe in order to be saved?  What propositions are essential and which ones aren't?  How can you possibly know for sure?


A thread on "What do all Christians believe?"? Perhaps something along these lines?




> What do all Christians without exception believe? I'm talking EVERY SINGLE SAVED (REGENERATE) PERSON WITHOUT EXCEPTION. What are the doctrines, that, if a person does not believe them, we can say that they are not saved?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> A thread on "What do all Christians believe?"? Perhaps something along these lines?


I don't understand this post.  What are you trying to say here?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> A thread on "What do all Christians believe?"? Perhaps something along these lines?


Yes.  Please begin one of those threads.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Sola, do you have any comments on the Calvin quote?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, do you have any comments on the Calvin quote?





> From all which we conclude that although reconciliation* is offered unto all men through Him, yet, that the great benefit belongs peculiarly to the elect, that they might be “gathered together ” and be made “together ” partakers of eternal life


"Free offer of the gospel to all men" sounds like common grace or something like that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> "Free offer of the gospel to all men" sounds like common grace or something like that.


I'm not sure if it matters, but I don't see the word "free" in front of "offer."  

My more important point, however, is that Calvin is clearly teaching limited atonement in this passage, even calling the idea that Christ suffered sufficiently for the non-elect "Great absurdity."  This is a direct refutation of your belief that Calvin held to unlimited atonement.

That said, we disagree on common grace, but I guess the question here is, do you view that as a gospel issue?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not sure if it matters, but I don't see the word "free" in front of "offer."  
> 
> My more important point, however, is that Calvin is clearly teaching limited atonement in this passage, even calling the idea that Christ suffered sufficiently for the non-elect "Great absurdity."  This is a direct refutation of your belief that Calvin held to unlimited atonement.
> 
> That said, we disagree on common grace, but I guess the question here is, do you view that as a gospel issue?


From what I've read, Calvin held to contradictory positions on the atonement.   As far as common grace, it is a gospel issue because it pertains to the intention of the atonement and the rationality of God.  Common grace presents a schizophrenic god.

----------


## agrammatos

> Only a Carpenterite could read that passage as having anything to do with Arminians. Do you have any idea about the historical context of when Ezekial and Jeremiah were written? God was saying Babylon would overcome Israel because of its sin, and the false prophets were telling them that they could continue to live in peace, contrary to the word of God that Babylon would attack and overcome them. Plus, that specific passage is referring to "false visions and divinations." If any of us are claiming to have visions and divinations, particularly those which contradict scripture, you'd have a case. And you know full well that you yourself are lying when you make these accusations. Should I therefore judge you lost?


"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies ... " (2 Peter 2:1). The false prophets in the Old Testament spoke _"peace, peace"_ apart from the only ground of peace to idolatrous and rebellious Israel. The false teachers in the New Testament do the same. People like James White and yourself  are telling obvious God-haters that they will _"continue to live in peace"_ contrary to the Word of God in Galatians 1:8-9. Apparently, you wish to confine clear analogous Scriptures to the cobwebs of the theological museum basement. Ezekiel and Jeremiah paint clear analogous pictures of what happens to those who profess belief in the true standard, but who make their judgments by a false standard.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> From what I've read, Calvin held to contradictory positions on the atonement.


That may be true.  The man was human, after all.




> As far as common grace, it is a gospel issue because it pertains to the intention of the atonement and the rationality of God.  Common grace presents a schizophrenic god.


Personally, I believe that the atonement was only for the elect but that common grace exists in the temporal sense.  I'm not really sure how those issues are related.

As for the rationality issue, if someone believes something that is irrational, does this definitively prove they are unregenerate?

You have said here before that you used to believe in common grace and that God had a certain degree of love for the reprobate.  Were you unregenerate when you believed that?

While we're on the subject, were you ever at any point a tolerant calvinist?  Or did you go straight from Arminianism to the position that Arminianism is a false gospel?




> "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies ... " (2 Peter 2:1). The false prophets in the Old Testament spoke _"peace, peace"_ apart from the only ground of peace to idolatrous and rebellious Israel. The false teachers in the New Testament do the same.


What does "speaking peace" mean?  And how does it relate to Old Testament Israel?



> People like James White and yourself  are telling obvious God-haters that they will _"continue to live in peace"_


I think this is an unsubstantiated claim.  



> contrary to the Word of God in Galatians 1:8-9. Apparently, you wish to confine clear analogous Scriptures to the cobwebs of the theological museum basement. Ezekiel and Jeremiah paint clear analogous pictures of what happens to those who profess belief in the true standard, but who make their judgments by a false standard.


Galatians 1:8-9 pretty clearly condemns works salvationists.  I'm not sure that Arminians who believe in salvation by faith alone fall in that same category.  Even if they do, the Old Testament passages you describe have NOTHING to do with peace speaking the way you describe it.  You're building your entire theology on a handful of verses that aren't even addressing salvation.

----------


## agrammatos

> agrammatos:  
> "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies ... " (2 Peter 2:1). The false prophets in the Old Testament spoke "peace, peace" apart from the only ground of peace to idolatrous and rebellious Israel. The false teachers in the New Testament do the same.






> freedomfanatic: What does "speaking peace" mean? And how does it relate to Old Testament Israel?



Speaking peace means telling a person that there is peace between them and God, that they are not under God's wrath. The relation to OT Israel is that they told themselves and others that they were safe from God's wrath, but their protection was nothing but a refuge of lies: 





> "So hear the Word of Jehovah, scornful men, rulers of this people in Jerusalem. Because you have said, We have cut a covenant with death; and, We have made a vision with Sheol, when the overwhelming rod passes through it will not come to us for we have made the lie our refuge, and we have hidden in falsehood. So, the Lord Jehovah says this: Behold, I place in Zion a Stone for a foundation, a tried Stone, a precious Cornerstone, a sure Foundation; he who believes shall not hasten. And I will lay justice for a line, and righteousness for a plummet; and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of the lie; and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be covered; and your vision with Sheol shall not rise up. When the overwhelming whip passes through, then you shall be for a trampling to it" (Isaiah 28:14-18). 
> 
> 
> "For when they say, Peace and safety! Then suddenly destruction comes upon them, like the travail to the [one having babe] in womb, and not at all shall they escape" (1 Thessalonians 5:3).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Speaking peace means telling a person that there is peace between them and God, that they are not under God's wrath. The relation to OT Israel is that they told themselves and others that they were safe from God's wrath, but their protection was nothing but a refuge of lies:


OK, this definition is very different than the one that appears on "Outside the Camp."  I've read enough of Marc's email correspondences to know that he regularly asks people if EVERY Arminian is unsaved.  If they don't say yes, Marc judges them unregenerate.  If they say yes, Marc them asks if every tolerant calvinist is unregenerate, and if they don't say yes, Marc judges them unregenerate.

So, if you take a broad group of people (ie. Arminians, or Tolerant Calvinists) and don't declare EVERY person in that group to be unregenerate, Marc counts this as "speaking peace."  Do you agree with him?

By contrast, what you're saying is assuring someone who believes a false gospel (Arminianism or whatever) that they are definitely saved.  Which is a very different thing entirely.

If you limited your anathemas to people who actually assured people with false gospels that they were saved, rather than people who do not absolutely declare people who hold to a certain false gospel to be lost, your theology might be a little bit more sane.

I still think you expect too much understanding from new believers, but that would be a starting point.  Of course, Outside the Camp makes no such distinctions, and of course they won't, because they wouldn't be hated by nearly as many people if they did

----------


## eduardo89

> I've read enough of Marc's email correspondences to know that he regularly asks people if EVERY Arminian is unsaved.


What is with the fetish Calvinists have for Arminians? It seriously puzzles me why one tiny sect has such an obsession with another tiny sect.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What is with the fetish Calvinists have for Arminians? It seriously puzzles me why one tiny sect has such an obsession with another tiny sect.


Wide is the path that leads to destruction Eduardo. You're on it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What is with the fetish Calvinists have for Arminians? It seriously puzzles me why one tiny sect has such an obsession with another tiny sect.


Well, Marc Carpenter and Chris Duncan don't call themselves Calvinists.  SF doesn't either.




> Wide is the path that leads to destruction Eduardo. You're on it.


Are you sure Marc Carpenter isn't too?

----------


## Brett85

> Wide is the path that leads to destruction Eduardo. You're on it.


Those kind of comments are why I have you on ignore and why everyone else should too.  All you do on these threads is persecute fellow believers.  That's the last one of your posts I'm ever going to comment on or respond to.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Those kind of comments are why I have you on ignore and why everyone else should too.  All you do on these threads is persecute fellow believers.  That's the last one of your posts I'm ever going to comment on or respond to.


Just out of curiosity, why do you not ignore me?  Not only do I agree with Sola, but I'm pretty sure I've said the same thing multiple times.

Also, if this bugs you, PLEASE do not try reading Agrammatos' responses, for your own sanity.  Forget Catholics, if you tolerate someone who tolerates a Catholic, you're lost too

----------


## RJB

> Forget Catholics,


Too bad you can't.  As I said before if you spent half your time in meditation on the Lord and his Word Vs gossiping about Catholics, Arminians, tolerant Calvinists, etc. you would be on your way.




> if you tolerate someone who tolerates a Catholic, you're lost too


 FF, you believe you are lost if you tolerate TC?  

What if some one is a Hyper hyper Calvinist who tolerates and pets a dog who plays with and tolerates another dog who is owned by a strict Calvinist who tolerates his Mother who is a tolerant Calvinist who tolerates her other son, an Arminist who tolerates and golfs with the Pope?

----------


## Brett85

> Just out of curiosity, why do you not ignore me?  Not only do I agree with Sola, but I'm pretty sure I've said the same thing multiple times.


I guess because we've at least gotten along pretty well, so I've made an exception and given you a pass.  I also don't think you're quite as bad as Sola Fide.  And yeah, I put Agrammatos on ignore as well.  I don't think it's good for my spiritual walk to constantly read comments from Sola Fide and Agrammatos about how I'm not a Christian.

----------


## Terry1

> Just out of curiosity, why do you not ignore me?  Not only do I agree with Sola, but I'm pretty sure I've said the same thing multiple times.
> 
> Also, if this bugs you, PLEASE do not try reading Agrammatos' responses, for your own sanity.  Forget Catholics, if you tolerate someone who tolerates a Catholic, you're lost too


You give Calvinists a wide path to walk with regard to their acceptability being within the grace of God and true believers, but you won't give the Catholics that same wide path.  I find your reasoning hypocritical and simply wrong biblically.  The Catholics have as much diversity amongst their belief system as many other Christian denominations do, yet you single them out and broad brush and entire assembly of believers because you don't agree with a portion that some Catholics themselves may not even subscribe to.

Here's my opinion for what it's worth regarding Calvinism and Catholicism.  

While Catholicism may have their baggage like any other Christian denomination, their core beliefs are that Jesus Christ is Lord, that we're saved by grace through faith and that Jesus rose from the grave on the third day and was resurrected.  So, I don't care what they practice or do or subscribe to outside of that core belief, it's all just excess baggage to me that doesn't mean a thing.  They're believers in the Lord Jesus Christ--just like you and me.  Many people add to the word of God and do things that are unnecessary, but it doesn't mean that they're not true believers, it means they see through the glass as darkly as any other, but they're still children of God.

Now Calvinism is another story, I've never said that Calvinists weren't believers, but Calvinists to me, are the polar opposite of Catholics.  While many Catholics may add unnecessary practices and beliefs to their faith, the Calvinist don't believe in doing anything outside of belief alone, not even actions done in faith to reveal the fruits of their Spirit, which to me is more deadly to the soul than adding an unnecessary work.  Still, I will never make the call that Calvinists are not Christians or that they're not believers--That's God's call--not mine despite my own opinions.

This is where you fall flat on your face in your youth, physically and spiritually.  Babes like you can cause a lot of problems within the body of Christ.  You're over zealous, self-righteous trouble-makers within the body of believers that do more harm than good before you're mature enough in the word of God to understand where you err with regard to your judgments upon the brethren.   People like you are like bulls in china shops.  You're like the fools who rush in being traitors to your own cause without even realizing it.  You're destroying the very thing you think you're building in your own minds. 

Some of these dime store preachers, pastors, teachers and evangelist who want to claim their titles as leaders are nothing more than dumb sheep wannabe's that unfortunately some will listen to and follow unknowingly because they're searching themselves.  Give them a Bible, a big loud mouth and a stage and just watch them perform, dancing across that stage like some idiot who thinks they've got the spirit of the Lord in them when it's quite the opposite.

Let's hope by the time you figure this all out, (if ever) and God reveals to you just how ignorant you've been, hopefully, you will fall on your face begging forgiveness and pray that those you've offended in Christ will forgive you as well.

End of rant.

----------


## RJB

> the Calvinist don't believe in doing anything outside of belief Calvinist doctrine alone,


FIFY. Some (1 to 3 posters on RPF), not all, ignore all the passages (Jesus' actual quotations) in the bible where it states who will or won't inherit the kingdom of God and instead replace salvation with their biblically questionable doctrines of imputed righteousness, hypothetical arguments on free will, whether a rape victim is married to her rapist, Faith Alone etc. with no room to question these man made interpretations.

With their focus off of God they then focus their entire salvation on damning others.  Indeed you are damned if you are not quick enough to damn("tolerate") other Christians.

----------


## Brett85

> With their focus off of God they then focus their entire salvation on damning others.  Indeed you are damned if you are not quick enough to damn("tolerate") other Christians.


Yeah, it's just the exact opposite attitude that Jesus had when he was here on earth.  These people spend all their time tearing other people down, rather than building them up.

----------


## agrammatos

> OK, this definition is very different than the one that appears on "Outside the Camp."


That is an interesting observation considering where that definition came from: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/speakpeace.htm. 




> I've read enough of Marc's email correspondences to know...


I recall some sage advice given to me about reasoning with you:




> "There is no reasoning with a person like this.  Chris, you can make your own decision as to whether or not you want to continue, but if it were me, I would value my time more than corresponding with this idiot" (Marc Carpenter).


Yep. Evidently you have _"read enough"_ but understood little. You said certain people objected that you were "too logical" or "too rational." Yeah, right. What have they been huffing?

----------


## RJB

> Just out of curiosity, why do you not ignore me?  Not only do I agree with Sola, but I'm pretty sure I've said the same thing multiple times.


I know you didn't ask me but I'll tell you why.  Unlike the other who is lost and resorts to falsehoods to get a point across, you are fighting a battle with yourself on the internet that most people keep hidden until reconciled. 

I cringe when you are kind to me because I know a guilt conscious will arise in you and within  few hours you'll post something off the wall like this:  


> Roman Catholicism is no more "Christian" than Islam.  At least Muslims don't daily commit fraud by claiming to be Christians.


Calling me a fraud is off the wall because I treasure my honesty more than anything tangible that I own.  The only thing I value more than that is my faith in God.

In real life face to face, there is no way you could ever look me in the eyes and tell me that I'm as Christian as a Muslim and that I'm a fraud.  I'm not saying that because I think I'm a tough guy but rather I think you are a nice guy.  You've refered to your Christian Group as Christians despite having only 1 or 2 reform types.  You're very conflicted, which isn't necessarily bad at your age or any age.  However, it is wise to be aware of the conflict.

----------


## Terry1

> FIFY. Some (1 to 3 posters on RPF), not all, ignore all the passages (Jesus' actual quotations) in the bible where it states who will or won't inherit the kingdom of God and instead replace salvation with their biblically questionable doctrines of imputed righteousness, hypothetical arguments on free will, whether a rape victim is married to her rapist, Faith Alone etc. with no room to question these man made interpretations.
> 
> With their focus off of God they then focus their entire salvation on damning others.  Indeed you are damned if you are not quick enough to damn("tolerate") other Christians.



Well RJB, the irony of some of these people who claim one church has phallic and pagan practices in it aren't even well educated or knowledgeable enough to understand that all of the churches of four walls in this world are guilty of doing the very same thing as they accuse the other of doing and practicing.  

The reason there are divisions amongst the body of believers today is not because of God, but because of mankind's own ignorance willingness to believe the lies of satan.  satan is the accuser, he's the author of confusion and lies.  God allows this, but He didn't cause it for His own reasons people are free to believe what they want and worship at whatever church they choose.  While all of them make the claim that "theirs is right" and the "others are wrong" is exactly what Jesus said would happen.  He said He came not to bring peace, but a sword that would divide people and families, shake down and separate the wheat from the chaff.  Only those who overcome and rise as pure gold will endure to the end and become what God has called them to be.

Those who overcome and rise above the fray of discourse and discontent understanding who the author of it is and witness the true Gospel of Christ to the lost, the poor in Spirit and body while loving their neighbor as themselves the same as they love God are the only ones who will be called the sons and daughters of God.

Our lives have a meaning and purpose during the course and journey in this life.  We are all called, but many won't answer or come and some branches will be cut off from the true Vine and burned because they bore no fruit as John 15:1-5 says.  We don't know who they are.  We don't know who will endure to the end and who won't, only God knows.  This is why the Lord told us that our job is to sow seeds of faith, hope, love, mercy and forgiveness and the rest is up to Him with regard to whom He chooses in the end and after we are perfected in Christ.  

Until that day, there won't be any peace, Jesus told us this in fact He said when they say "peace peace" is right when all hell will literally break loose like never before in the history of this world.  Because where mankind attempts to achieve peace, they've abandoned God in their efforts to do this by themselves and without realizing that there is only one Prince of Peace who was ever able to accomplish such a task.

----------


## agrammatos

> What is with the fetish Calvinists have for Arminians? It seriously puzzles me why one tiny sect has such an obsession with another tiny sect.


Many use the term "Arminians" as a form of shorthand for "universal atonement advocate." A "universal atonement advocate" is someone who believes that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception. The "universal atonement advocates" encompass all sorts of God-hating religionists. This is NOT a "tiny sect" but the most prevalent form of false religion that masquerades as true Christianity -- they treat the true cross of Christ as NOTHING.

By the way, eduardo89 -- what's with your fetish of those who have fetishes? Perhaps you ought to stop obsessing over those who are obsessing (cf. Proverbs 26:5).

----------


## Sola_Fide

Eduardo,

Unbunch your panties and engage yourself in a discussion with Agrammatos.^^^

----------


## agrammatos

> What if some one is a Hyper hyper Calvinist who tolerates and pets a dog who plays with and tolerates another dog who is owned by a strict Calvinist who tolerates his Mother who is a tolerant Calvinist who tolerates her other son, an Arminist who tolerates and golfs with the Pope?


Yet another extremely astute individual attempting to immure simple and basic Biblical doctrines in incoherence:




> 1. Christian believes in the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone. He encounters someone who says, "I don't believe that Jesus Christ is God. I'm a Muslim. I believe in the Allah of Islam. I believe that to worship Jesus Christ is idolatry." Does Christian recognize that this person does not believe the gospel? Of course he does. How so? Because he knows what the gospel is, and that one essential gospel doctrine is the deity of Christ. He sees that this person does not believe in the deity of Christ and thus does not believe the gospel.
> 
>  2. Suppose Christian encounters someone who says, "I believe in the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone. I believe that Jesus Christ is God. But I have a brother in Christ who does not believe in the God of Christianity. He's a Muslim. He believes in the Allah of Islam. He believes that to worship Jesus Christ is idolatry. I consider him to be saved, even though I think he is wrong about the deity of Christ." Does Christian recognize that this person does not believe the gospel? Of course he does. How so? Because he knows what the gospel is, and that one essential gospel doctrine is the deity of Christ. He sees that this person does not believe that the deity of Christ is an essential gospel doctrine and thus does not believe the gospel.
> 
> 
> 3. Now suppose Christian encounters someone who says, "I believe in the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone. I believe that Jesus Christ is God. I believe that all who deny the deity of Christ (including Muslims) are lost. But I have a brother in Christ who does not believe that all who deny the deity of Christ (including Muslims) are lost. I consider him to be saved, even though I know he is in error about the deity of Christ being optional." Does Christian recognize that this person does not believe the gospel? Of course he does. How so? Because he knows what the gospel is, and that one essential gospel doctrine is the deity of Christ. He sees that this person does not believe that the deity of Christ is an essential gospel doctrine and thus does not believe the gospel.


Not quite as silly or confusing as RJB gleefully imagines judging by the true gospel to be. Nice try. Let us have another.

----------


## Brett85

> What if some one is a Hyper hyper Calvinist who tolerates and pets a dog who plays with and tolerates another dog who is owned by a strict Calvinist who tolerates his Mother who is a tolerant Calvinist who tolerates her other son, an Arminist who tolerates and golfs with the Pope?


Lol!

----------


## RJB

> Yet another extremely astute individual attempting to immure simple and basic Biblical doctrines in incoherence:


That's better   Although your conclusion is pretty applicable to yourself as well as me.




> Not quite as silly or confusing as RJB gleefully imagines judging by the true gospel to be. Nice try. Let us have another.


You look as if you believe that your point 1 = point 2 = point 3 and that simply isn't true but.   Each of your points includes a fact and a lot of opinion and some of it isn't necessarily fact.


So it goes back to, is the hyper hyper Calvinist saved?

----------


## moostraks

> That's better   Although your conclusion is pretty applicable to yourself as well as me.
> 
> 
> 
> You look as if you believe that your point 1 = point 2 = point 3 and that simply isn't true but.   Each of your points includes a fact and a lot of opinion and some of it isn't necessarily fact.
> 
> 
> So it goes back to, is the hyper hyper Calvinist saved?


Hmm...shall we judge them by their fruits? I am wondering why Galatians 5 never got the ax. They seem to spend an inordinate time heaping coals on their enemies in direct contrast to what they were told to do.

----------


## agrammatos

> Hmm...shall we judge them by their fruits? I am wondering why Galatians 5 never got the ax. They seem to spend an inordinate time heaping coals on their enemies in direct contrast to what they were told to do.


Would that the author of Galatians 5:12-14 had taken your course in loving conversational etiquette and niceness.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Would that the author of Galatians 5:12-14 had taken your course in loving conversational etiquette and niceness.


I've explained to her several times that in the very chapter she is quoting from, Paul said the Judiazers were cut off from grace.  It's in one ear and out the other.

----------


## RJB

> Would that the author of Galatians 5:12-14 had taken your course in loving conversational etiquette and niceness.


That is a good quotation.




> 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
> 
> 
> 
> 13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b]

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF, you believe you are lost if you tolerate TC?


Not sure if TC is shorthand for "tolerant calvinist" here or "traditional conservative" but either way it doesn't matter.  I was mocking OTC with that post.  I wasn't being serious.  In reality no I do not think someone is necessarily unsaved because of who else they think might be saved.  I DO think a person is unsaved if they preach a false gospel.




> I guess because we've at least gotten along pretty well, so I've made an exception and given you a pass.  I also don't think you're quite as bad as Sola Fide.  And yeah, I put Agrammatos on ignore as well.  I don't think it's good for my spiritual walk to constantly read comments from Sola Fide and Agrammatos about how I'm not a Christian.


Assuming that you are saved, I don't see how that could be helpful. But then, for some reason or another, I'm still doing it.



> That is an interesting observation considering where that definition came from: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/speakpeace.htm.


Alright, maybe I don't know as much as I thought I did.  Let me just ask: If you met someone who said "I know what Arminians believe, and I'm not sure whether or not any of them are saved" would you judge this person to be unregenerate?



> I recall some sage advice given to me about reasoning with you:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Evidently you have _"read enough"_ but understood little. You said certain people objected that you were "too logical" or "too rational." Yeah, right. What have they been huffing?


Let me ask you a question, for what reason are you making this kind of personal attack?  I know that you think I'm lost.  It doesn't offend me that you think that.  But these kinds of personal attacks aren't helpful.



> I know you didn't ask me but I'll tell you why.  Unlike the other who is lost and resorts to falsehoods to get a point across, you are fighting a battle with yourself on the internet that most people keep hidden until reconciled. 
> 
> I cringe when you are kind to me because I know a guilt conscious will arise in you and within  few hours you'll post something off the wall like this:  
> Calling me a fraud is off the wall because I treasure my honesty more than anything tangible that I own.  The only thing I value more than that is my faith in God.
> 
> In real life face to face, there is no way you could ever look me in the eyes and tell me that I'm as Christian as a Muslim and that I'm a fraud.  I'm not saying that because I think I'm a tough guy but rather I think you are a nice guy.  You've refered to your Christian Group as Christians despite having only 1 or 2 reform types.  You're very conflicted, which isn't necessarily bad at your age or any age.  However, it is wise to be aware of the conflict.


Alright, to clarify some things.

First of all, I have no doubt that you believe you are a Christian.  I have no doubt that you believe your teachings are true.  However, I do not believe you are a Christian, as per Galatians 1:8-9, because, as a Catholic who adheres to Catholic doctrine, you necessarily add works, including baptism and the sacraments, to Christ's finished work on the cross.  And yes, I would tell you that to your face.  Not to be mean, but because I want to see you get saved.  

I'm not sure Arminians fall in that same category, and I tend to think they don't, because Arminians still believe that only through faith alone in Christ can they be saved.  So its not really a 'conflict' so much as simply that I disagree with Sola_Fide.

As for kindness v "meanness" no I don't feel guilty in the slightest, and that's not really even the issue.  I don't feel the need to tell you that you are lost in every single conversation or correspondance.  You know how I feel and why.  But when the subject comes up, I will discuss it because I think its important.  




> Eduardo,
> 
> Unbunch your panties and engage yourself in a discussion with Agrammatos.^^^


I'm honestly not sure who to root for in this debate




> Yet another extremely astute individual attempting to immure simple and basic Biblical doctrines in incoherence:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite as silly or confusing as RJB gleefully imagines judging by the true gospel to be. Nice try. Let us have another.


Do you guys even have a sense of humor?



> Would that the author of Galatians 5:12-14 had taken your course in loving conversational etiquette and niceness.


I don't know.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you and Marc deliberately use over the top rhetoric in order to cause most people to hate you and call you names so you can say you are being "persecuted."  I don't get that feeling with Paul.  And Paul wasn't that "harsh" all of the time.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's better   Although your conclusion is pretty applicable to yourself as well as me.
> 
> 
> 
> You look as if you believe that your point 1 = point 2 = point 3 and that simply isn't true but.   Each of your points includes a fact and a lot of opinion and some of it isn't necessarily fact.
> 
> 
> So it goes back to, is the hyper hyper Calvinist saved?


Look up Marc Carpenter's article "Generational Peace Speaking", that should give you their answer to that question (Short answer: if the hyper hyper calvinist knows that tolerant calvinism and arminianism are in his line of peace speaking, Chris Duncan and Marc Carpenter would consider this hyper hyper calvinist to be unregenerate.

----------


## eduardo89

> Look up Marc Carpenter's article "Generational Peace Speaking", that should give you their answer to that question (Short answer: if the hyper hyper calvinist knows that tolerant calvinism and arminianism are in his line of peace speaking, Chris Duncan and Marc Carpenter would consider this hyper hyper calvinist to be unregenerate.


What if the hyper-hyper-Calvinist is a telemarketer and the person who answers is an Arminian. Is he allowed to speak or must he hang up?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What if the hyper-hyper-Calvinist is a telemarketer and the person who answers is an Arminian. Is he allowed to speak or must he hang up?


I don't necessarily have a problem with poking fun at them, but if you're trying to be serious, I'm pretty sure "speaking peace" means telling someone they are saved, not just talking to them

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't necessarily have a problem with poking fun at them, but if you're trying to be serious, I'm pretty sure "speaking peace" means telling someone they are saved, not just talking to them


Wouldn't just talking to them be dangerous enough? If you're so sure that the other person is a "God-hating evil" Arminian, why even risk it?

----------


## Brett85

> I don't necessarily have a problem with poking fun at them, but if you're trying to be serious, I'm pretty sure "speaking peace" means telling someone they are saved, not just talking to them


The Bible says that Christians shouldn't associate with unbelievers, so just by being here on this forum and associating with "unbelievers" means that the hyper hyper Calvinists are disobeying the Bible and are thus unsaved.  Anyone who associates with any Arminian or unsaved person is unsaved themselves.

2 Corinthians 6:14-15

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wouldn't just talking to them be dangerous enough? If you're so sure that the other person is a "God-hating evil" Arminian, why even risk it?


I don't know, I'm not a Carpenterite. 




> The Bible says that Christians shouldn't associate with unbelievers, so just by being here on this forum and associating with "unbelievers" means that the hyper hyper Calvinists are disobeying the Bible and are thus unsaved.  Anyone who associates with any Arminian or unsaved person is unsaved themselves.
> 
> 2 Corinthians 6:14-15
> 
> Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?



Did Marc Carpenter hack your account ,or is this just parody?

----------


## Brett85

> Did Marc Carpenter hack your account ,or is this just parody?


Just an illustration of how absurd their views are.

----------


## RJB

> Wouldn't just talking to them be dangerous enough? If you're so sure that the other person is a "God-hating evil" Arminian, why even risk it?


Trolling Arminians seems to be a God given command.  Maybe telemarketting is similar.

----------


## eduardo89

> Trolling Arminians seems to be a God given command.  Maybe telemarketting is similar.


If there was a Commandment that said "Thou shalt not troll" I think we'd all be going to hell

----------


## RJB

> If there was a Commandment that said "Thou shalt not troll" I think we'd all be going to hell


Hahahahahaha!  I think trolling arminians are ok.  


Seriously, until a few months ago, I had never heard of them.

----------


## eduardo89

> Hahahahahaha!  I think trolling arminians are ok.  Seriously, until a few months ago, I had never heard of them.


I only learned about them thanks to this sub-forum.

----------


## Brett85

> Hahahahahaha!  I think trolling arminians are ok.  
> 
> 
> Seriously, until a few months ago, I had never heard of them.


I don't think there are actually any "Arminians" on this board.  But apparently an Arminian is anyone who isn't a hyper Calvinist.

----------


## RJB

> I only learned about them thanks to this sub-forum.


Is there a way to ignore this sub forum or have a Holy Wars sub-forum VS spiritual life subforum?

----------


## RJB

> I don't think there are actually any "Arminians" on this board.


To a casual observer of this board they would be like gremlins if they read Sola's threads.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think there are actually any "Arminians" on this board.  But apparently an Arminian is anyone who isn't a hyper Calvinist.


Personally, I consider anyone who rejects unconditional election to be an Arminian, but I don't really mean that as an insult, just a convenient title to describe a set of views.  For that matter, I don't even really mean "Carpenterite" as an insult, its just a convenient term to describe a particular set of theological views, much like I use "Calvinist" to describe myself despite the fact that I don't follow Calvin.

----------


## Christian Liberty

TC... do you actually know what hyper calvinism is?  Do you think I'm a hyper  calvinist?

----------


## Brett85

> TC... do you actually know what hyper calvinism is?  Do you think I'm a hyper  calvinist?


I don't know.  How would you define that term?

----------


## Brett85

After reading through the Bible more and studying it more, I can understand where Calvinists get their views, particularly when Paul so often talks about the saved being chosen by God since the beginning of time.  Still, there are just too many verses that go against it for me to believe it.  I just can't bring myself to argue that "world doesn't mean world," "all doesn't mean all," etc.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I just can't bring myself to argue that "world doesn't mean world," "all doesn't mean all," etc.


?  You _seriously_ could read through my thread on this subject and still think that all means every one without exception?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know.  How would you define that term?


I'm not really sure.  Phil Johnson has a good article on it here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm .  But I'm not sure I'm satisfied with it, because if you're going to go with that, you'd have to use the same term to describe someone like A.W. Pink and someone like William Huntington, and I kind of have a problem with that.  Personally, I'd only use the term "hyper-calvinism" to describe someone who holds to #1 or #2 on Johnson's list, and I'd like to find something else to describe those holding to #3, #4, or #5, but such a term doesn't really exist, hence the difficulty.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@SF- in the light of everything that's discussed so far, do you have any responses to the OTC position on peace-speaking?  I'm sure you'd rather just discuss monergism vs synergism, but this thread kind of takes monergism for granted (Both James White and Marc Carpenter are monergists) and I'm curious if you have any new thoughts on the OP and the responses to it.

----------


## agrammatos

> I was mocking OTC with that post.





> Let me ask you a question, for what reason are you making this kind of personal attack?


I was mocking your abysmal reasoning and reading comprehension skills with that post.




> I know that you think I'm lost.  It doesn't offend me that you think that.  But these kinds of personal attacks aren't helpful.


Your hypocritical lack of self-awareness isn't helpful.

----------


## moostraks

> I don't know.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you and Marc deliberately use over the top rhetoric in order to cause most people to hate you and call you names so you can say you are being "persecuted."  I don't get that feeling with Paul.  And Paul wasn't that "harsh" all of the time.


Too many times Paul is used as a scapegoat for our own failings as humans to allow the Creator to heap the coals for us. I try to avoid conversations with people who use this tactic of hateful theology reinforced with a persecution complex as it seems to be used by them to feed their narcissism. It is also detrimental to one's own walk imo as it stirs up passions of the flesh. There is a fine line between addressing the wrong spirited positions and knowing when to shake the dust from one's sandals. I say this as a reminder to myself constantly.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was mocking your abysmal reasoning and reading comprehension skills with that post.


I'm not even sure how to reply to this, as there's really nothing to reply to.

Just out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you ignored Carpenter's advise about me, despite the fact that you quoted it?





> Your hypocritical lack of self-awareness isn't helpful.


Expound on this, please.

----------


## agrammatos

> I'm not even sure how to reply to this, as there's really nothing to reply to.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you ignored Carpenter's advise about me, despite the fact that you quoted it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Expound on this, please.


You mock OTC, but have a problem when someone from OTC mocks you. That's hypocrisy that you are unaware of apparently. Understand?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You mock OTC, but have a problem when someone from OTC mocks you. That's hypocrisy that you are unaware of apparently. Understand?


Yes, I understand.  Apologies.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't know.  How would you define that term?


A hyper calvinist is a person who doesn't obey the prescriptive will of God in preaching the gospel.  They believe God will just save His sheep without preaching.  

This is not Biblical, and I hope no one here would ever accuse me of that.   I am one of the most evangelical people here.

----------


## eduardo89

> I am one of the most evangelical people here.


You do a pretty terrible job at it.

----------


## moostraks

> You do a pretty terrible job at it.


 I looked up the definition out of curiosity and he fits the aspect of zealous in advocating something. However, what he claims is one must do something then tells them they cannot do it so the reader is left scratching their head and much the worse for wear for having contemplated it. He is an advocate who gives wings to atheist claims that it is of no worry what one does as they will act or not act as is necessary because a puppet master pulls the strings.

----------


## Brett85

> You do a pretty terrible job at it.


I'm sure that he's turned far more people away from Christ than he's converted.

----------


## Nang

> I'm sure that he's turned far more people away from Christ than he's converted.



It is not Sola_Fides responsibility to convert people.  Only God can do that.

I am new here, but so far I see an excellent witness to the grace of God in Sola_Fide's posts,
so I do not agree with the judgments expressed against this man.

FWIW . . .

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It is not Sola_Fides responsibility to convert people.  Only God can do that.
> 
> I am new here, but so far I see an excellent witness to the grace of God in Sola_Fide's posts,
> so I do not agree with the judgments expressed against this man.
> 
> FWIW . . .


Yes, I agree with you.  Incidentally, this is the poster who first drew my attention to OTC, but he's not as radical as them.

----------


## agrammatos

In 1991 James White’s _God’s Sovereign Grace_ was published. Chapter four is entitled, "The Grace of God in Salvation." After citing 2 Timothy 1:8-12, James White writes:





> “In encouraging Timothy, Paul speaks of the God who saved us, and who called us to a holy life. Why did God do this? Certainly not for anything we did! Instead, the basis of God’s saving work is ‘his own purpose and grace.’ No election based upon our actions to be found here! Paul speaks of God’s grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus _before the very beginning of time itself!_ Before creation, God set His love and mercy upon us in Christ Jesus. Before we had done anything — before creation even came into existence — God chose us, and granted to us grace in His Son Jesus Christ. And we must not miss the importance of what Paul says in verse 11, for having just presented the sovereign grace of God in eternity past, he says, ‘And of _this gospel_ I was appointed a herald….’ The truth of God’s grace *is* the gospel, the gospel for which Paul was willing to suffer! This is not some side-issue that can be dismissed as a ‘non-essential’! It involves the very definition of the gospel message itself” (James White, _God’s Sovereign Grace_, pp. 55-56; emphasis is White’s).



Of course, for James White (and all tolerant Calvinists) the gospel of the sovereign grace of God IS a side-issue, a non-essential doctrine over which they can disagree with their Arminian brothers in Satan.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In 1991 James White’s _God’s Sovereign Grace_ was published. Chapter four is entitled, "The Grace of God in Salvation." After citing 2 Timothy 1:8-12, James White writes:
> 
> Of course, for James White (and all tolerant Calvinists) the gospel of the sovereign grace of God IS a side-issue, a non-essential doctrine over which they can disagree with their Arminian brothers in Satan.


I agree that is woefully inconsistent.

----------


## agrammatos

James White mentioned Marc Carpenter in his July 2, 2009 “Dividing Line” podcast. One caller had inquired about the spiritual state of those who hold to the absolute healing and prosperity gospel heresies. Here’s a transcript of part of it (with Marc’s comments afterwards):




> Caller: If they were truly of the elect, wouldn’t God at some point bring them to a clearer understanding of Scripture?
> 
> James White (JW): Well, uh, you have to be really careful.
> 
> 
> Caller: …I’m not accusing anybody…
> 
> 
> JW: I know, I know…
> ...



Marc’s response:





> Here’s James White again slandering me by calling me a hypercalvinist after saying that hypercalvinists “primarily…don’t believe in the propriety or necessity of the proclamation of the gospel.” I have confronted White several times about this slander (e.g., see http://www.outsidethecamp.org/jameswhite.htm), and yet he continues to spew it. As all of you who are familiar with Outside the Camp know, we forcefully and emphatically believe in the propriety and necessity of the proclamation of the gospel. And not only that, we believe that everyone without exception is commanded to repent and believe the gospel. We have even written against hypercalvinists (e.g., see “The Irrelevant Gospel” at: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/review52.htm).
> 
> The way White answered the caller shows his damnable inconsistency. Regarding whether or not those who hold to the absolute healing and prosperity gospel heresies, White would have the caller “leave that kind of thing up to the Lord at that point,” yet he then hypocritically makes the judgment that “the vast majority of these leaders…are clearly not Christians.” What? Why are we not to “leave that kind of thing up to the Lord at that point” regarding the spiritual state of the “vast majority of these leaders”? Who is James White to say that they “are clearly not Christians”? Isn’t that on “the road that leads directly to hypercalvinism”? Isn’t that promoting a “perfection of knowledge” error? Is James White saying that the “vast majority of these leaders” need to have a “perfect knowledge of the gospel” in order for him to judge them to be Christians? This is similar to the hypocrisy I exposed in http://www.outsidethecamp.org/jameswhite.htm regarding what White says about Mormons. Why does James White not leave the spiritual state of Mormons up to the Lord? In saying that all Mormons are unregenerate, isn’t he advocating a “perfection of knowledge theory”? White even said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## agrammatos

> I agree that is woefully inconsistent.


Correct. White's comments in this book conflict with his statements objecting to Carpenter. It is quite instructive which gospel men will defend when pressure is applied.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree that is woefully inconsistent.


Yet, you don't necessarily consider James White lost because he says this.  This makes you lost in Chris Duncan's book.  Were you ever going to actually admit to this, or do you have some particular reason for not doing so?




> Correct. White's comments in this book conflict with his statements objecting to Carpenter. It is quite instructive which gospel men will defend when pressure is applied.


I don't know.  I agree that the word "hyper-calvinist" is used way too often for everything, but beyond that, I'm not sure if White is inconsistent.  White thinks that Arminianism is a less accurate form of the true gospel, not a false gospel.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> White thinks that Arminianism is a less accurate form of the true gospel, not a false gospel.


That is just disgusting.   And I would question anyone who held this view.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That is just disgusting.   And I would question anyone who held this view.


Regardless of your opinion of it, were you unaware that White thought this?

What do you mean by "question" in this instance?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That is just disgusting.   And I would question anyone who held this view.


Why would you question them?

Syllogism:

1. All who believe the gospel, conditioned on Christ alone, are regenerate.

2. James White believes the gospel, conditioned on Christ alone

3. James White is regenerate





Or, how about this one:

1. All who add conditions to salvation are lost

2. Marc Carpenter and Chris Duncan make not speaking peace to heretics a condition of salvation.

3. Marc Carpenter and Chris Duncan are lost.

----------


## agrammatos

> Why would you question them?
> 
> Syllogism:
> 
> 1. All who believe the gospel, conditioned on Christ alone, are regenerate.
> 
> 2. James White believes the gospel, conditioned on Christ alone
> 
> 3. James White is regenerate
> ...


Yet another _non sequitur_ put forth by Freedom Fanatic. Surprise, surprise.

To deny the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ is to deny the very heart of the gospel. Yet Freedom Fanatic (David Cooke) considers some who hold to this damnable heresy as his brothers in Christ. What does this say about his belief in the gospel? Consider: 




> (1) David Cooke believes that some who believe universal atonement are saved. (2) (Presumably) David Cooke believes that all saved people believe the gospel. Thus, (3) David Cooke believes that some who believe universal atonement believe the gospel. What does this show about David Cooke's belief about the gospel? Since David Cooke believes a person can believe the gospel and believe universal atonement at the same time, then he must believe that the gospel does not include the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ. David Cooke has just denied the very heart of the gospel.


Also consider: 




> (1) All who believe a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner are unregenerate. (2) Universal atonement is a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. Thus, (3) all who believe universal atonement are unregenerate. David Cooke and every person who would consider at least some universal atonement advocates to be regenerate MUST disagree with #3. And the only way people can disagree with #3 is if they disagree with at least one of the first two statements. Consider those who disagree with #1. These are people who believe that at least some who believe a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner are regenerate. Can a true Christian disagree with #1? Of course not. Consider those who disagree with #2. These are people who believe that universal atonement is not a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. Can a true Christian disagree with #2? Of course not. Thus, all who disagree with #3 (all who consider at least some universal atonement advocates to be saved) are unregenerate.



It is no wonder that God says that anyone who speaks peace to a person who brings a false gospel is unregenerate (2 John 11). Those who say that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception deny that the death of Christ actually pardoned, redeemed, propitiated, and reconciled. They deny that Christ's blood actually atoned. They deny that it is the work of Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. They deny the very heart of the gospel. They boast and glory in themselves. They are God-haters. And those who speak peace to these God-haters, who call them brothers and sisters in Christ, who say that the universal atonement advocates believe the same gospel they do, show that they, too, deny the true gospel. They deny that the atoning, pardoning, redeeming, propitiating, reconciling blood of Christ is an essential part of the gospel. They, too, do not believe the gospel. They, too, are boasters who glory in the sinner. They, too, are God-haters.

DAVID'S illogical goose has been....COOKED.

----------


## moostraks

> Yet another _non sequitur_ put forth by Freedom Fanatic. Surprise, surprise.
> 
> To deny the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ is to deny the very heart of the gospel. Yet Freedom Fanatic (David Cooke) considers some who hold to this damnable heresy as his brothers in Christ. What does this say about his belief in the gospel? Consider: 
> 
> 
> 
> Also consider: 
> 
> 
> ...


Is there a particular reason you felt it necessary to reveal the identity of the person you are posting to as if you are unveiling some necessary information to further your position? It comes across as petty and you seem to exude a nastiness and arrogance within your posts which has me visualizing you sneering as you talk.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is there a particular reason you felt it necessary to reveal the identity of the person you are posting to as if you are unveiling some necessary information to further your position? It comes across as petty and you seem to exude a nastiness and arrogance within your posts which has me visualizing you sneering as you talk.


He did it I think because FF revealed his identity as well (Chris Duncan).  I don't think any malice was involved.

----------


## moostraks

> He did it I think because FF revealed his identity as well (Chris Duncan).  I don't think any malice was involved.


IIRC FF asked when he started posting and the guy could have chosen to neither confirm or deny but he chose to acknowledge whom he was and that was his choice. It is a different kettle of fish when you go in and put forth as he has and there is no need for it. It is tacky and a means to unnerve the opponent when posting in a forum. There was no need for this disclosure here.

----------


## agrammatos

> IIRC FF asked when he started posting and the guy could have chosen to neither confirm or deny but he chose to acknowledge whom he was and that was his choice. It is a different kettle of fish when you go in and put forth as he has and there is no need for it. It is tacky and a means to unnerve the opponent when posting in a forum. There was no need for this disclosure here.


MANY posts ago I asked Freedom Fanatic (FF) who he was. He could have chosen to neither confirm or deny but he chose to acknowledge who he was and that was his choice. You're a bit late to the party there, moosey. FF already disclosed quite a while ago.

----------


## agrammatos

In my opinion this is the most trenchant treatment (with the use of exposés & parallels) of tolerant Calvinism as represented by one of the most popular tolerant Calvinists of the present-day:





> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/jameswhite.htm



It seems that NO MATTER what the false religion being tolerated, the arguments for defending it are the same. Interestingly enough, when James White and Paul Owen went at it, James White argued like an "Outside the Camper" while Paul Owen argued like James White.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He did it I think because FF revealed his identity as well (Chris Duncan).  I don't think any malice was involved.


Well yes, sort of.  I don't think my name has any actual relevance on the net though, so I'm not sure why he keeps repeating it.  It doesn't even unnerve me, I just find it bizarre.  By contrast, agrammatos is the author of the marriage article that we had been discussing awhile back.  I had wanted to know who he was because I had wanted Chris to answer some questions on that subject anyway (Some of which have now been answered.)

BTW: Sola, do you have any thoughts on the topic that's been discussed here?  I know you say James White is inconsistent, does this mean that he is lost in your view?  For that matter, since you've tolerated people like him in the past, are you sure you're saved?  Of course, I personally view this as the DANGER in this kind of thinking, what do you think?




> MANY posts ago I asked Freedom Fanatic (FF) who he was. He could have chosen to neither confirm or deny but he chose to acknowledge who he was and that was his choice. You're a bit late to the party there, moosey. FF already disclosed quite a while ago.


OK.  But you've repeated my name multiple times in ways that you wouldn't in a natural conversation.  I'm not sure what your intention is there, but normally you wouldn't repeatedly refer to a person by name in the same paragraph like you've done here.




> In my opinion this is the most trenchant treatment (with the use of exposés & parallels) of tolerant Calvinism as represented by one of the most popular tolerant Calvinists of the present-day:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that NO MATTER what the false religion being tolerated, the arguments for defending it are the same. Interestingly enough, when James White and Paul Owen went at it, James White argued like an "Outside the Camper" while Paul Owen argued like James White.


I'm actually curious how James White would answer this.  I'd assume the best... that he actually does have a logical answer, until proven otherwise.  I'm not necessarily convinced that Arminians are regenerate at this point, that's a subject I'm still working through logically.  

But, to go at this from another angle, mode of baptism is something that you guys believe true Christians can disagree on, correct?  Now, imagine a church that argued that credobaptism was an essential gospel issue and that all paedobaptists were going to Hell.  Imagine that this church put up a website titled "Xchurch.org."  Now, you'd likely argue with them that they are judging based on a non-gospel issue.  This church could then see your arguments against James White and say "Wow, Marc calls us out for believing in perfection of knowledge, yet here he argues just like us where he argues against Arminians."  I think you get the point here.  The bottom  line here, its not per say inconsistent to argue that Mormonism is a damnable heresy, and Arminianism is not.  Maybe he's wrong, but he's not inherently inconsistent.

Also, I don't think James White has ever claimed that everyone who thinks a Mormon might be saved is themselves unsaved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yet another _non sequitur_ put forth by Freedom Fanatic. Surprise, surprise.
> 
> To deny the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ is to deny the very heart of the gospel. Yet Freedom Fanatic (David Cooke) considers some who hold to this damnable heresy as his brothers in Christ. What does this say about his belief in the gospel? Consider: 
> 
> 
> 
> Also consider: 
> 
> 
> ...


2 John 11 does not mention Arminianism, either in name or conceptually.  Saying it does opens the door for anyone to insert any heresy they please and declare that anyone who "speaks peace to" that heresy is themselves lost leads to chaos.  I could just as easily find some point on which Carpenter is wrong and claim that anyone who speaks peace to him isn't saved either.  Also, the passage nowhere says that the "peace-speakers" are not saved.  Its simply a warning against fellowshipping with heretics, it is not saying doing so definitively makes one lost.

On top of this, you haven't actually proved that a Christian cannot disagree with #1 or #2.  You simply stated it and expected everyone to agree.  This isn't "logic."

----------


## Sola_Fide

FF in all honesty, I am not sure yet how I feel about tolerant Calvinists....but OCT has really made me think about this issue like I never had before.  Before I would just get a little unnerved about it, although I couldn't put a theological finger on that feeling.  Now there are some real arguments behind it I have to consider.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF in all honesty, I am not sure yet how I feel about tolerant Calvinists....but OCT has really made me think about this issue like I never had before.  Before I would just get a little unnerved about it, although I couldn't put a theological finger on that feeling.  Now there are some real arguments behind it I have to consider.


BTW: For everyone's information, this is the reason I asked Nang to post here.

So, if you don't know whether the OTC position is correct or not, how do you know you're saved?  Because, if the OTC position is correct, you are not saved.  And, you've stated before that if you don't know for certain you are saved, you aren't saved (I disagree with this, BTW, but its irrelevant, based on your own belief.)  So, according to your own beliefs (which I don't agree with) you are unregenerate.  Am I missing anything here?

Or, do you definitely think that once it gets to the level of "people who tolerate tolerant calvinists" that its ridiculous and no longer worthy of consideration.

----------


## Christian Liberty

One of the dumbest quotes I've seen from Marc Carpenter, and one that should be extremely easy for me to discredit, from his "History of Hypo-Calvinism" article, is here (for some reason I can't get the dark off the copy-pasted quote, but if you highlight it you should be able to see it.)

In chapter 7, more than halfway through the book, MacArthur gets to “The Love of God for His Elect.” But after reading that God loves everyone, who can stomach the inevitable “oh, but God loves us even more than he loves everybody else” line? Does this not profane the sanctity of _Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”? For what if a husband said to his wife, “I love all the other women in the world and really desire that they be married to me, but I love you more than I love them because my love for you is a special love”? What if Christ said, “I love the great harlot and wish the whore church would come to me and be married to me, but I love the church with a special kind of love”? Is this not vile? Is this not repulsive blasphemy? So, too, are we who know the love of Christ (and the love between husband and wife) nauseated at the lame attempts to put God’s love for the elect a little bit higher than God’s love for humanity in general. - See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/jou....wF3FZ57E.dpuf_

This is just blatant stupidity on Marc's part, and based on his own strict standards (Again, I reject these standards) I would judge him to be unregenerate for saying such a thing.  Marc is married.  So, if he looks at any woman other than his wife, does he look on them with seething hatred?  Does he wish for them to be cooked alive in everlasting, hellish torment?  Does he completely ignore Matthew 5:43-47?  Is it "disgusting" that Marc would love any woman he sees just like he should love anyone else?  Is not this love different than that for which he shows his own wife?

Now, I understand you could argue Biblically that God operates differently than a husband should operate, that God only truly loves his own bride, and that he hates everyone else.  I can't reconcile this view with Matthew 5:43-47, but I get it.  However, to call the alternative "disgusting" logically leads  to a viewpoint under which one must hate every woman that one sees other than one's own wife, and thus, must ignore the commandment to "love your enemies" and "love your neighbor as yourself."

Frankly, this alone makes me dismiss Marc as an idiot.  Fortunately for him, I don't think God condemns people to Hell for absurd logical consistencies the way Marc seems to think about everyone else.

----------


## Nang

> BTW: For everyone's information, this is the reason I asked Nang to post here.


Yep . . .




> So, if you don't know whether the OTC position is correct or not, how do you know you're saved?  Because, if the OTC position is correct, you are not saved.  And, you've stated before that if you don't know for certain you are saved, you aren't saved (I disagree with this, BTW, but its irrelevant, based on your own belief.)  So, according to your own beliefs (which I don't agree with) you are unregenerate.  Am I missing anything here?
> 
> Or, do you definitely think that once it gets to the level of "people who tolerate tolerant calvinists" that its ridiculous and no longer worthy of consideration.


Yep . . .

The OTC witnesses to the true doctrines according to sovereign grace.  

But the OTC has overreached their commission, and harmed the Reformed Christian witness for several years, by their* judgmental tactics.*

And Christian "patience" with those still under the influence of false gospels, is supposedly, according to OTC, grounds for suffering hellfire.

It is a divine judgment they are not authorized to impose, before the* fullness of iniquity is accomplished,* that is controlled only by Jesus Christ Himself.

Why?

Because we have no idea who will be declared elect and in Christ, on Judgment Day.  Mortals just do not know, and therefore must hope and pray for God to show mercy to who He will.   Which He will.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I really hope Sola listens to you here, Nang.  He may be more inclined to listen to you than to me because doctrinally you're pretty much in the same boat he is, or at least close.  I'm young and I think he views me as a "Hypo-Calvinist" more likely than not.  But, I agree with him on a lot and have learned a lot from his posts, and I really hope he doesn't go down the road of insanity.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Syllogism again:

1. All who believe in salvation conditioned on Christ alone are regenerate.

2. Tolerant Calvinists believe in salvation conditioned on Christ alone.

3. Tolerant Calvinists are regenerate.

If this is wrong, which of the premises is wrong?  Is it the first one, or the second one?  And, why?

----------


## Nang

> Syllogism again:
> 
> 1. All who believe in salvation conditioned on Christ alone are regenerate.
> 
> 2. Tolerant Calvinists believe in salvation conditioned on Christ alone.
> 
> 3. Tolerant Calvinists are regenerate.
> 
> If this is wrong, which of the premises is wrong?  Is it the first one, or the second one?  And, why?


Premise #2 does not accord with premise #1.

It is a manipulated and forced argument.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Premise #2 does not accord with premise #1.
> 
> It is a manipulated and forced argument.


Can you explain why?

Do you actually disagree with the conclusion (ie.  do you agree with the Outside the Camp people that Calvinists who think Arminians are saved are themselves unsaved) or just the logic used to derive the conclusion?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> One of the dumbest quotes I've seen from Marc Carpenter, and one that should be extremely easy for me to discredit, from his "History of Hypo-Calvinism" article, is here (for some reason I can't get the dark off the copy-pasted quote, but if you highlight it you should be able to see it.)
> 
> In chapter 7, more than halfway through the book, MacArthur gets to “The Love of God for His Elect.” But after reading that God loves everyone, who can stomach the inevitable “oh, but God loves us even more than he loves everybody else” line? Does this not profane the sanctity of _Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”? For what if a husband said to his wife, “I love all the other women in the world and really desire that they be married to me, but I love you more than I love them because my love for you is a special love”? What if Christ said, “I love the great harlot and wish the whore church would come to me and be married to me, but I love the church with a special kind of love”? Is this not vile? Is this not repulsive blasphemy? So, too, are we who know the love of Christ (and the love between husband and wife) nauseated at the lame attempts to put God’s love for the elect a little bit higher than God’s love for humanity in general. - See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/jou....wF3FZ57E.dpuf_
> 
> This is just blatant stupidity on Marc's part, and based on his own strict standards (Again, I reject these standards) I would judge him to be unregenerate for saying such a thing.  Marc is married.  So, if he looks at any woman other than his wife, does he look on them with seething hatred?  Does he wish for them to be cooked alive in everlasting, hellish torment?  Does he completely ignore Matthew 5:43-47?  Is it "disgusting" that Marc would love any woman he sees just like he should love anyone else?  Is not this love different than that for which he shows his own wife?
> 
> Now, I understand you could argue Biblically that God operates differently than a husband should operate, that God only truly loves his own bride, and that he hates everyone else.  I can't reconcile this view with Matthew 5:43-47, but I get it.  However, to call the alternative "disgusting" logically leads  to a viewpoint under which one must hate every woman that one sees other than one's own wife, and thus, must ignore the commandment to "love your enemies" and "love your neighbor as yourself."
> 
> Frankly, this alone makes me dismiss Marc as an idiot.  Fortunately for him, I don't think God condemns people to Hell for absurd logical consistencies the way Marc seems to think about everyone else.


It's not analogous because the other women that Marc sees are not morally accountable condemned sinners against him. Marc is not the sovereign judge to whom every individual must give account for their sin.  God is that judge.   And God's disposition toward the sin of man is not love, it is wrath (Romans 1).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's not analogous because the other women that Marc sees are not morally accountable condemned sinners against him. Marc is not the sovereign judge to whom every individual must give account for their sin.  God is that judge.   And God's disposition toward the sin of man is not love, it is wrath (Romans 1).


However true this may be, that's not the argument Marc used.  Marc didn't say that God hates hsinners because of Romans 1.  Marc said that God has to hate the reprobate because otherwise it would be "disgusting" just like a man who said he loves all the women in the world but he loves his wife with a special kind of love.  I want to know if Marc actively hates every woman he sees because it would be "disgusting" of him to love them with a different love than he loves his wife.  If not, he's a hypocritical idiot that is just as unregenerate as the other people he calls hypocritical idiots.

I don't even really care if his conclusion is correct or not.  His conclusion is derived from absolutely moronic premises. 

Let's say I said this:

1. Albany is the capital of New York.

2. the pope is currently referred to as "Pope Francis."

3. All Mormons without exception are unregenerate.

Guess what?  My conclusion is accurate.  But you'd still call me an idiot for making such a ridiculous argument.  And Marc is an idiot for using ridiculous reasoning based on the marital relationship that doesn't actually hold up in the analogy he's using, even if his conclusion is correct.

----------


## Nang

- - -

----------


## Nang

> Can you explain why?


There is no sense to force syllogisms to come to your presupposed conclusions.  There are better ways to present God's truths.  Like exegeting Scripture.




> Do you actually disagree with the conclusion (ie.  do you agree with the Outside the Camp people that Calvinists who think Arminians are saved are themselves unsaved) or just the logic used to derive the conclusion?


I have said to the OTC people before and recently to you, that I believe the OTC expounds scriptural doctrines just fine, but they err when they consign others to hell, who do not presently know all that they know.   Such harsh judgmental tactics are very discouraging to new Christians just being enlightened with the doctrines of grace.  Regeneration does not necessarily provide an immediate and full knowledge of theology.

Arminians believe a false gospel and deserve to go to hell for putting their trust in themselves and idolizing their supposed "free" will powers to save themselves, and they must be corrected by faithful saints who have been anointed by God to comprehend salvation by the sovereign grace of God alone . . . but to consign them to hell, is not our place.

For Arminians live and breathe and have not died in their sins . . . yet!!!

God might choose to save them, and give them rest in the true gospel of grace, tomorrow.

That was my prayer for my father on his death bed . . . Even though he had spent a life-time ignorant and defiant of the true gospel, since I had undeservedly been enlightened with the gospel of grace and saved later in life by grace . . . until he stopped breathing and under morphine, I prayed that God would spare him by His grace as He saved me by His grace.  My father did not deserve grace, and was totally incapable of choosing to believe in his demise, but God alone could save Him, despite all.

Of course, I will not know if my prayers were answered until Judgment Day, but I never thought to condemn my father to hell, for his unbelief was no different than my own, before God showed me mercy and saved my soul, despite my sins.

Nang

----------


## moostraks

> MANY posts ago I asked Freedom Fanatic (FF) who he was. He could have chosen to neither confirm or deny but he chose to acknowledge who he was and that was his choice. You're a bit late to the party there, moosey. FF already disclosed quite a while ago.


Don't play cute with me. I think you are a condescending viper who bears no resemblance to the Love of one who walks in the Spirit. I stand corrected that he had previously acknowledged you. So what is the reason you feel the need to constantly address him by his name rather than his forum name as if this is somehow telling? Forgive me for not following your posts with bated breath. Having been here for 7 years I should have taken the time to review your many posts of 43 which were easy enough to see my error in this matter. Even your diligent student S_F seems to have missed that previous disclosure as I am sure he would have set me straight earlier when he came to your defense.

----------


## moostraks

> Well yes, sort of.  I don't think my name has any actual relevance on the net though, so I'm not sure why he keeps repeating it.  It doesn't even unnerve me, I just find it bizarre.  By contrast, agrammatos is the author of the marriage article that we had been discussing awhile back.  I had wanted to know who he was because I had wanted Chris to answer some questions on that subject anyway (Some of which have now been answered.)


I understood your reasoning for asking him when he showed up as a new poster because you had made the comment regarding the fact you were seeking specific answers in regards to some issues from said author. I recalled agrammatos referring to your name but had not followed closely enough to see you acknowledge it. Having brought it up again in some weird sort of sneer as if it somehow maligns your responses or discredits your positions is how his constant reiteration appears to me, the outsider, watching his theatrics. Which is why I asked, again, why he feels the need to address you as such because it is poor form to do such on anonymous forums.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Don't play cute with me. I think you are a condescending viper who bears no resemblance to the Love of one who walks in the Spirit. I stand corrected that he had previously acknowledged you. So what is the reason you feel the need to constantly address him by his name rather than his forum name as if this is somehow telling? Forgive me for not following your posts with bated breath. Having been here for 7 years I should have taken the time to review your many posts of 43 which were easy enough to see my error in this matter. Even your diligent student S_F seems to have missed that previous disclosure as I am sure he would have set me straight earlier when he came to your defense.


  Just to point this out again so it sinks in, S_F is not agrammatos "student."  According to agrammatos' theology SF isn't even saved because he potentially speaks peace to "tolerant Calvinists".  See here: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl268.htm  Without mentioning SF by name, I asked Marc Carpenter about him directly, and he said that SF was unregenerate because he knowingly "speaks peace" to James White or John Robbins.  Presumably, anyone who thinks SF is saved knowing he speaks peace to these people would be declared unsaved as well.  Its precisely this kind of absurdity that prevents me from thinking through the Arminian issue as much as I should, and I think OTC does a disservice to any decent people that would declare Arminianism a false gospel and those who profess it to be unregenerate.




> I understood your reasoning for asking him when he showed up as a new poster because you had made the comment regarding the fact you were seeking specific answers in regards to some issues from said author. I recalled agrammatos referring to your name but had not followed closely enough to see you acknowledge it. Having brought it up again in some weird sort of sneer as if it somehow maligns your responses or discredits your positions is how his constant reiteration appears to me, the outsider, watching his theatrics. Which is why I asked, again, why he feels the need to address you as such because it is poor form to do such on anonymous forums.


Yes, it appears that way to me as well.  But, I'm used to this kind of thing from them.  I can come off as a jerk sometimes but the way they do is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable.  I'd ask them who they think they're representing, but I expect I already know the answer.

----------


## moostraks

> There is no sense to force syllogisms to come to your presupposed conclusions.  There are better ways to present God's truths.  Like exegeting Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> I have said to the OTC people before and recently to you, that I believe the OTC expounds scriptural doctrines just fine, but they err when they consign others to hell, who do not presently know all that they know.   Such harsh judgmental tactics are very discouraging to new Christians just being enlightened with the doctrines of grace.  Regeneration does not necessarily provide an immediate and full knowledge of theology.
> 
> Arminians believe a false gospel and deserve to go to hell for putting their trust in themselves and idolizing their supposed "free" will powers to save themselves, and they must be corrected by faithful saints who have been anointed by God to comprehend salvation by the sovereign grace of God alone . . . but to consign them to hell, is not our place.
> 
> For Arminians live and breathe and have not died in their sins . . . yet!!!
> ...





> The sixth Ecumenical Council repudiated monotheletism, the heresy that Jesus Christ had only a divine will, and affirmed that Christ possessed both a divine and a human will.  While many Protestants may not have heard of the heresy of monotheletism, the issue is crucial to having a healthy orthodox Christology.  It is not an obscure minor theological issue but one of tremendous implications for proper Christology and one that required action by an ecumenical (universal) council.  Protestantisms historical amnesia has often made it vulnerable to erroneous doctrines.  I urge my Reformed friends to take seriously what I have to say about Reformed monergism and the heresy of monotheletism.
> 
> The Reformed insistence on the priority of the divine will over human will (monergism) parallels the heresy of monotheletism  the teaching that Christ did not have two wills, only a divine will.  In repudiating monotheletism the Sixth Ecumenical Council affirmed that Christs humanity possessed a free will that worked in harmony with the will of the divine Logos.  This was not an arbitrary ruling but an outworking of the Chalcedonian Formulas teaching that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.  Thus, to be human means having a body, a mind, a soul, and a will.  To deny any of these leads to a defective and heretical Christology.  This understanding of Christs human nature having a fully human will like Adams and ours leads to the affirmation that humans have a free will as well, albeit one injured by the Fall and in need of healing.  By assuming the totality of human nature, Christ was able to bring about our salvation.  Gregory of Nazianzen wrote:
> 
> For that which He [Christ] has not assumed He has not healed;  but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved.  If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole (Ep. CI, To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius; NPNF Series 2 Vol. VII p. 440).
> 
> This is quite different from the Reformed understanding that the Fall result in our wills being totally depraved, neither able nor willing to return to God according to the Canons of Dort.
> 
> The Cappadocians assigning priority to the hypostases shaped not just Orthodoxys understanding of the Trinity but also Maximus the Confessors understanding of the Incarnation as instrumental for our salvation.  [Note: Readers who want to better understand the issues involved in the monothetism controversy are advised to get Maximus the Confessor (1996) edited by Andrew Louth.]
> ...


http://orthodoxbridge.com/plucking-t...redestination/

A perspective for those who have ears and are researching the issue and want some historical context from the perspective from those who treasure free will.

If it is savage and illegal for man to force others to comply and we would claim the person is evil for forcing himself upon another such as Ariel Castro did, then who are we to consider ourselves to have a higher moral ground then one who creates us? The potter verse is not sufficient to explain where our sense of moral disgust comes from to be intolerant to such behavior in our fellow man. Only when one exercises their free will of choice does one have true love.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://orthodoxbridge.com/plucking-t...redestination/
> 
> A perspective for those who have ears and are researching the issue and want some historical context from the perspective from those who treasure free will.
> 
> If it is savage and illegal for man to force others to comply and we would claim the person is evil for forcing himself upon another such as Ariel Castro did, then who are we to consider ourselves to have a higher moral ground then one who creates us? The potter verse is not sufficient to explain where our sense of moral disgust comes from to be intolerant to such behavior in our fellow man. Only when one exercises their free will of choice does one have true love.


Bah!  I don't value "free will" either

----------


## moostraks

> Just to point this out again so it sinks in, S_F is not agrammatos "student."  According to agrammatos' theology SF isn't even saved because he potentially speaks peace to "tolerant Calvinists".  See here: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl268.htm  Without mentioning SF by name, I asked Marc Carpenter about him directly, and he said that SF was unregenerate because he knowingly "speaks peace" to James White or John Robbins.  Presumably, anyone who thinks SF is saved knowing he speaks peace to these people would be declared unsaved as well.  Its precisely this kind of absurdity that prevents me from thinking through the Arminian issue as much as I should, and I think OTC does a disservice to any decent people that would declare Arminianism a false gospel and those who profess it to be unregenerate.
> 
> 
> Yes, it appears that way to me as well.  But, I'm used to this kind of thing from them.  I can come off as a jerk sometimes but the way they do is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable.  I'd ask them who they think they're representing, but I expect I already know the answer.


I find your support to your friend admirable. Just because S_F isn't there yet, he is being progressively drawn in and you can see within his posts he is expanding his support over time. The student is one who is training or learning from another. This is why I referred to him as a student. We shall see where he takes things in the future. S_F has been a strong supporter of James White for some time and so he is not going to burn him to the ground immediately but you can see him leaning further over the ledge to the OTC valley. I believe S_F likes the absoluteness of their positions but just my guess from watching him over time in his arguments.

As for being a jerk, you are young and fervent. It is when we are older and wiser that we should know better for sure. Realizing you are sometimes unkind will go a long way to healing your approach and strengthen your witness. It is my own battle as well to check my ego when dealing with those who I disagree with so hope you know I am speaking as a fellow traveler not as one who has won the battle.

----------


## moostraks

> Bah!  I don't value "free will" either


I know.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I find your support to your friend admirable. Just because S_F isn't there yet, he is being progressively drawn in and you can see within his posts he is expanding his support over time. The student is one who is training or learning from another. This is why I referred to him as a student. We shall see where he takes things in the future. S_F has been a strong supporter of James White for some time and so he is not going to burn him to the ground immediately but you can see him leaning further over the ledge to the OTC valley. I believe S_F likes the absoluteness of their positions but just my guess from watching him over time in his arguments.


  I like SF in general, but I don't defend him for that reason.  I've called him out before.  And yes, its possible that he could go in that direction.  I don't think I have any chance of convincing agrammatos of anything.  He literally thinks he'd be lost if he even questioned the "essential gospel doctrines" of OTC, so I don't expect to get anywhere with him.  I do hope I can convince SF not to "go there" as it were.  That's really my primary goal in this discussion.  But, just because Sola learns certain things from OTC doesn't make him their "student."  Heck, I think they get certain things right.
I too respect consistent positions, so I can understand that.  But, I don't really think OTC is consistent.  For example, they judge anyone who believes the "days" of Genesis 1 to be symbolic of longer periods of time to be lost.  Yet, Marc Carpenter is an amillennialist.  This is hypocritical.  



> As for being a jerk, you are young and fervent. It is when we are older and wiser that we should know better for sure. Realizing you are sometimes unkind will go a long way to healing your approach and strengthen your witness. It is my own battle as well to check my ego when dealing with those who I disagree with so hope you know I am speaking as a fellow traveler not as one who has won the battle.


Fair enough.  There's a fine line though.  Telling someone they aren't a Christian seems mean on the surface.  But it actually isn't necessarily mean.  By contrast, there's an arrogant way to say things and I try to avoid that, fail though I often do.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I know.


Romans 9:19-22  Romans 8:28-35  John 6:37-44 John 10:15-27 Ephesians 1:3-5, 1 Corinthians 1:28-31  are all irrefutable proofs that "free will", at the very least in the area of salvation, are a myth of the human mind.  Isaiah 10:5-19 makes me question whether "free will" truly exists in any situation.

----------


## moostraks

> Romans 9:19-22  Romans 8:28-35  John 6:37-44 John 10:15-27 Ephesians 1:3-5, 1 Corinthians 1:28-31  are all irrefutable proofs that "free will", at the very least in the area of salvation, are a myth of the human mind.  Isaiah 10:5-19 makes me question whether "free will" truly exists in any situation.


Irrefutable to you based upon your personal beliefs. I posted a historic context and a situational context for considering one's position to those who might be researching the issue. As much fun as proof texting the day away seems, I'd rather not. Each one of these verses comes in context to a whole book which is within the context of a church which is in context of a community. Well, pretty sure you see the picture. The lack of free will is something that never set well with my brain when I was within a community where this was the teaching. My conscience led me to walk away and let it rest until I was able to come at the issue with an open mind. I offer my experience of where I was lead to others and they can use it or discard it as they see fit. 

I think many who have been burned by being in an environment where their free will was abused such as incest or rape can grasp the necessity of free will in spirituality much easier than those who have been sheltered from such horrors.

----------


## Nang

> I like SF in general, but I don't defend him for that reason.  I've called him out before.  And yes, its possible that he could go in that direction.  I don't think I have any chance of convincing agrammatos of anything.  He literally thinks he'd be lost if he even questioned the "essential gospel doctrines" of OTC, so I don't expect to get anywhere with him.  I do hope I can convince SF not to "go there" as it were.  That's really my primary goal in this discussion.  But, just because Sola learns certain things from OTC doesn't make him their "student."  Heck, I think they get certain things right.
> I too respect consistent positions, so I can understand that.  But, I don't really think OTC is consistent.  For example, they judge anyone who believes the "days" of Genesis 1 to be symbolic of longer periods of time to be lost.  Yet, Marc Carpenter is an amillennialist.  This is hypocritical.  
> 
> Fair enough.  There's a fine line though.  Telling someone they aren't a Christian seems mean on the surface.  But it actually isn't necessarily mean.  By contrast, there's an arrogant way to say things and I try to avoid that, fail though I often do.


Marc Carpenter and I see almost eye to eye regarding Calvinist doctrines, but when he found out my husband and I attended an Arminian church for a while when first saved, and we remain friends with some of them to this day, and have not damned them to hell, he condemned us and put my husband and I on his "List."  

We stumbled into this Arminian church without knowing anything about Reformed vs Arminian.  The Lord saved us in an extraordinary way, through the reading of Holy Scriptures at home, and this church was simply a neighborhood convenience.  It took 7 years for the Holy Spirit to finally lead us out into orthodox Reformed teaching, but meanwhile we made good friends.  We found we could not WORSHIP with them under their false gospel, but we still love and pray God's grace for them even 33+ years later.

Because of this we have been damned by the OTC.

The least little flaw in one's thinking will bring their wrath, for *they have no patience to pray for years for other souls.*  It is easier for them to self-righteously judge, and when we are all on our knees before the True and Only Judge, will we find out the ramifications of such behavior on their part.

My sense is, they only hurt themselves, for they cannot really condemn those the Lord loves and has died for.

But they sure can cause trouble.  They can be like a fox in a hen house, when they appear and interrupt web site discussions.

Nang

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Marc Carpenter and I see almost eye to eye regarding Calvinist doctrines, but when he found out my husband and I attended an Arminian church for a while when first saved, and we remain friends with some of them to this day, and have not damned them to hell, he condemned us and put my husband and I on his "List."


I'm curious how "agrammatos" is going to answer this, since I know OTC's official stance is that they can only judge regenerate and unregenerate, not elect and reprobate.  On the other hand, OTC defines a "tolerant calvinist" as anyone who believes any Arminians are regenerate.  So, they would say that if you think any of your friends at that Arminian church are saved, or that you were saved despite believing in the Arminian teaching for a short time after being regenerated, that proves that you were never saved to begin with.  I find this downright ludicrous.

I'm not certain when I was saved.  Maybe it wasn't until the atonement "clicked" for me.  Maybe it was before that despite my ignorance.  I don't know.  All I know is that I will preach salvation conditioned on Christ alone, and pray for the salvation of all.

We stumbled into this Arminian church without knowing anything about Reformed vs Arminian.  The Lord saved us in an extraordinary way, through the reading of Holy Scriptures at home, and this church was simply a neighborhood convenience.  It took 7 years for the Holy Spirit to finally lead us out into orthodox Reformed teaching, but meanwhile we made good friends.  We found we could not WORSHIP with them under their false gospel, but we still love and pray God's grace for them even 33+ years later.

Because of this we have been damned by the OTC.

The least little flaw in one's thinking will bring their wrath, for *they have no patience to pray for years for other souls.*  It is easier for them to self-righteously judge, and when we are all on our knees before the True and Only Judge, will we find out the ramifications of such behavior on their part.

My sense is, they only hurt themselves, for they cannot really condemn those the Lord loves and has died for.

But they sure can cause trouble.  They can be like a fox in a hen house, when they appear and interrupt web site discussions.

Nang[/QUOTE]

----------


## Nang

> I'm curious how "agrammatos" is going to answer this, since I know OTC's official stance is that they can only judge regenerate and unregenerate, not elect and reprobate.  On the other hand, OTC defines a "tolerant calvinist" as anyone who believes any Arminians are regenerate.  So, they would say that if you think any of your friends at that Arminian church are saved, or that you were saved despite believing in the Arminian teaching for a short time after being regenerated, that proves that you were never saved to begin with.  I find this downright ludicrous.
> 
> I'm not certain when I was saved.  Maybe it wasn't until the atonement "clicked" for me.  Maybe it was before that despite my ignorance.  I don't know.  All I know is that I will preach salvation conditioned on Christ alone, and pray for the salvation of all.


There you go . . . what else can we do?

We can only be faithful to the absolute truths of God, as He reveals them to us, and pray for friends and loved ones who have not (yet) been so blessed.

Nowhere are we commanded to judge the eternal fates of others.  We are not given knowledge of the eternal fates of others.

We must simply study to keep our own noses clean, before His face. . .  I Peter 1:15-16

----------


## Christian Liberty

Nang, I'm out of rep at the moment, but that's an excellent post.

----------


## Christian Liberty

SF hasn't been around much today.  I hope he's really thinking through the questions I've asked him.

----------


## agrammatos

> Don't play cute with me. I think you are a condescending viper who bears no resemblance to the Love of one who walks in the Spirit. I stand corrected that he had previously acknowledged you. So what is the reason you feel the need to constantly address him by his name rather than his forum name as if this is somehow telling? Forgive me for not following your posts with bated breath. Having been here for 7 years I should have taken the time to review your many posts of 43 which were easy enough to see my error in this matter. Even your diligent student S_F seems to have missed that previous disclosure as I am sure he would have set me straight earlier when he came to your defense.


Viper? Come on, where's the love in that? Anyway, observe how many times Freedom Fanatic called me by my name rather than my forum name. I have no problem with Freedom Fanatic doing this, but I am (yet again) compelled to point out the hypocritical buffoonery on this forum:

Freedom Fanatic (FF) wrote: 


> Just for curiosity, are you Chris Duncan? (I assume you are based on your blog name.)



Then I responded: 


> Yep. This is Chris Duncan (And if your last name is Cooke, then I'm really not sure how profitable this thread will be).



Then FF replies here:


> Yeah, that would be me.



Then Freedom Fanatic again:





> For what its worth, I said the exact same thing about the Ezekiel and Jeremiah passages when I was having an email discussion with Chris Duncan ("agrammatos") and he never addressed it there either, instead simply saying that he didn't feel like the conversation was going anywhere. I hope he'll at least try to address it here. I'm not holding my breath, though.



Oh look. Freedom Fanatic said: Chris Duncan ("agrammatos"). Very telling huh, moosey?

More from FF:




> Personally I'm not sure I see a point in an Arminian being involved in this discussion. I know Chris Duncan is going to disagree with me, and you might as well, but there's really no place for Arminianism in a debate between "tolerant" Calvinism and "intolerant" Calvinism. Its kind of like someone who's on the Atkins diet getting into a debate over what flavor of pizza tastes the best, or something like that.


And more:




> Well, Marc Carpenter and Chris Duncan don't call themselves Calvinists. SF doesn't either.


And still more:




> Look up Marc Carpenter's article "Generational Peace Speaking", that should give you their answer to that question (Short answer: if the hyper hyper calvinist knows that tolerant calvinism and arminianism are in his line of peace speaking, Chris Duncan and Marc Carpenter would consider this hyper hyper calvinist to be unregenerate.


Whoah:




> Yet, you don't necessarily consider James White lost because he says this. This makes you lost in Chris Duncan's book.


Double-whoah:




> Or, how about this one:
> 
> 
> 1. All who add conditions to salvation are lost
> 
> 
> 2. Marc Carpenter and Chris Duncan make not speaking peace to heretics a condition of salvation.
> 
> 
> 3. Marc Carpenter and Chris Duncan are lost.



In brief, Freedom Fanatic (and some others) are intellectually dense hypocrites.

----------


## moostraks

> Viper? Come on, where's the love in that? Anyway, observe how many times Freedom Fanatic called me by my name rather than my forum name. I have no problem with Freedom Fanatic doing this, but I am (yet again) compelled to point out the hypocritical buffoonery on this forum:
> 
> Freedom Fanatic (FF) wrote: 
> 
> 
> Then I responded: 
> 
> 
> Then FF replies here:
> ...


So your position is that you are doing it to him because he did it to you? Hate to burst your bubble but I don't follow your posts and rarely follow ff as he and I have different beliefs. I walked in at the tail end and admitted I could have checked your posts (all 43 of them ) and would have seen my error. So you are how old then? As I know FF is young and a rash in judgement. If you are attempting to tutor someone do you think you should take the high road or does spitting another persons name in a condescending fashion how you religious people show us heathens the love of your god?

Yes, I think you are a viper. I think you have a condescending tone and  the doctrine you espouse is unloving. This is my opinion based upon the handful of things you have posted that I have witnessed and the ideals you chose to esteem. Time will tell whether you are not as I believe you to be but I think you have shown your cards with your attempts at cuteness and your narcississtic tendencies in your explanations.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Viper? Come on, where's the love in that?


I guess you're just as hypocritical as he is



> Anyway, observe how many times Freedom Fanatic called me by my name rather than my forum name. I have no problem with Freedom Fanatic doing this, but I am (yet again) compelled to point out the hypocritical buffoonery on this forum:


You think everyone's hypocritical.  But since you're supposedly regenerate, and we're supposedly not, don't you think its fair to hold you to a higher standard?



> Freedom Fanatic (FF) wrote: 
> 
> 
> Then I responded: 
> 
> 
> Then FF replies here:
> 
> 
> ...


Just out of curiosity, did I make any presumptions about your beliefs that were untrue (statements about "speaking peace to James White" assume a knowledge of who "James White" is, of course) 


> More from FF:
> 
> 
> 
> And more:
> 
> 
> 
> And still more:
> ...


Is calling people "intellectually dense" helpful... ever?

I'm honestly curious, is the name-calling thing normally something you reserve for the internet?  (I'll admit my own guilt here WRT this.)  If not, has every "non-Christian" you know refused to associate with you at all?  Because, I come off as cocky as anyone and I don't usually care if I'm called straight out, but even I'd get ticked off if I were to be called names in every conversation ever.



> So your position is that you are doing it to him because he did it to you? Hate to burst your bubble but I don't follow your posts and rarely follow ff as he and I have different beliefs. I walked in at the tail end and admitted I could have checked your posts (all 43 of them ) and would have seen my error. So you are how old then? As I know FF is young and a rash in judgement. If you are attempting to tutor someone do you think you should take the high road or does spitting another persons name in a condescending fashion how you religious people show us heathens the love of your god?


You think he's trying to tutor anyone here?  You're obviously right that you need to check his posts, not to mention the things I've said about him.  He views all of us as being just as unsaved as a Buddhist, Muslim, or Roman Catholic (whoops, did I say that last one out loud?)

----------


## Christian Liberty

I still wants to know how Sola could know he's saved (because, as per his previous posts, you're only saved if you know you're saved) in the light of the fact that he "doesn't know" if he agrees with the OTC position on this issue or not.

I'd like to see some kind of an answer to this...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF in all honesty, I am not sure yet how I feel about tolerant Calvinists....but OCT has really made me think about this issue like I never had before.  Before I would just get a little unnerved about it, although I couldn't put a theological finger on that feeling.  Now there are some real arguments behind it I have to consider.





> I still wants to know how Sola could know he's saved *(because, as per his previous posts, you're only saved if you know you're saved)* in the light of the fact that he "doesn't know" if he agrees with the OTC position on this issue or not.
> 
> I'd like to see some kind of an answer to this...


Sola, do you remember making the statement I identify in parenthesis?  Or do I have to dig for it.  I can if I need to.

Does this bother you at all?  

I'm going to keep bumping this until you give me a straight answer to this.  If you aren't even sure of yourself, I'm not sure how you could suppose to preach the gospel to other people.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, do you remember making the statement I identify in parenthesis?  Or do I have to dig for it.  I can if I need to.
> 
> Does this bother you at all?  
> 
> I'm going to keep bumping this until you give me a straight answer to this.  If you aren't even sure of yourself, I'm not sure how you could suppose to preach the gospel to other people.


I don't know FF.  You might have hit upon something that deserves some deep reflection on my part.  I have to be open to where the Scriptures and logic takes me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know FF.  You might have hit upon something that deserves some deep reflection on my part.  I have to be open to where the Scriptures and logic takes me.


Personally, I view this thread as proof that doubts do not NECESSARILY mean denying the sufficiency of the atonement.  You are (I suspect, even if you won't admit to it publicly) doubting your salvation based on a doctrinal idea, not because you don't believe Christ's sacrifice was enough.  

Logically, I feel like the OTC position was manufactured to be logically consistent.  But I'm trying to imagine this from the perspective of having never heard this doctrine, I don't see how anyone could read 2 John 9-11 and be like "Oh, this is obviously saying that if you think Arminians aren't saved, you aren't saved either.  Duh!"  Its a presumption that you could only come up with if someone told you to think it.  The OT justifications are even worse.  The Old Testament passages about "speaking peace' had nothing to do with salvation.  OTC reads an entire theology on "peace-speaking" into passages that were originally written to convey the idea that false prophets who denied that Babylon was going to attack Israel.

With that said, there are two MASSIVE assumptions being forced onto 2 John 9-11 by the OTC crowd:

1. These passages are definitively teaching that the "peace-speakers" are unregenerate.  By contrast, it does not actually say that in the text.  OTC interprets "shares in his evil works" that way, and I understand that, but I don't think the passage is definitively teaching that.  I do think the passage is teaching that if you "speak peace" to a heretic that you are sinning gravely and contributing to the problem, but I don't think that necessarily proves you lost.

2. It assumes that ANY damnable heresy under the sun is in view.  This really just leads to chaos.  Marc Carpenter himself is an example.  He's an amillennialist, he takes the "Thousand years" in Revelation 20 as metaphorical, and he will speak peace to people regardless of whether they agree with him on that secondary issue or not.  Yet, with Genesis 1, he says the days are DEFINITELY 24 hours long, and if you think they were longer, you're unregenerate.  Now, who says his standard is right?  I could argue that neither issue matters for salvation (Which is my actual position) or I could take it the other way and say that he's a damnable heretic for denying that the thousand years are literally 1,000 years, and I could say he's implicitly denying scripture the same way that he accuses old earthers of doing so.  And where does that get us?  A world with absolutely NO assurance because, in order to be regenerate, you must not only have all the right doctrines on the issues that happen to be gospel issues, but also be able to discern which issues are gospel issues and which one's aren't with 100% certainty.  This isn't really possible in reality, everyone draws the line in a different place.  Maybe Chris Duncan and Marc Carpenter don't, maybe they've deliberately planned it so they agree on all of these issues and exactly where the line is drawn, but that's the only realistic possible way.  Nobody is going to read the Bible on their own and come up with the exact same list of essentials and non-essentials that "Outside the Camp" does.  

The passage refers to a specific heresy.  I'm uncomfortable saying we can read any heresy we want into this.

Now, I suppose philosophically you could argue that "speaking peace" to someone who doesn't bring the true gospel shows that one necessarily doesn't believe it themselves.  As I said, people will draw the line in different places, its just what it is.  Personally, I think baptismal regeneration clearly falls under the damnable provision of Galatians 1:8.  The VAST majority of Christians I know disagree with me.  Do they believe baptismal regeneration?  Of course not. But they won't definitively say that the people who believe that are lost.  Does this mean that they're lost?  You can make a scriptural case for that, but I don't think its a very good one, based on the points I describe above.  

On top of that, OTC ignores the fact that most people have double standards when it comes to judging who is or is not saved, and there are answers other than "definitely" or "definitely not."  Right now, I don't even know if its possible to be an Arminian and be regenerate or not.  So, currently, I won't tell them they are lost, but I won't give them assurance either.  My dad went even further with the baptismal regenerationists, saying they are "probably not" saved, but he wouldn't say definitively.  I feel this is a flawed unwillingness to judge, but it doesn't show a lack of knowledge about the gospel.

----------


## moostraks

> Don't play cute with me. I think you are a condescending viper who bears no resemblance to the Love of one who walks in the Spirit.





> Yes, I think you are a viper. I think you have a condescending tone and  the doctrine you espouse is unloving. This is my opinion based upon the handful of things you have posted that I have witnessed and the ideals you chose to esteem. Time will tell whether you are not as I believe you to be but I think you have shown your cards with your attempts at cuteness and your narcississtic tendencies in your explanations.





> I guess you're just as hypocritical as he is


It appears there needs to be some education on language here.

vi·per noun \ˈvī-pər\
: a type of poisonous snake

Full Definition of VIPER

1
a :  a common Eurasian venomous snake (Vipera berus) that attains a length of about two feet (0.6 meter), varies in color from red, brown, or gray with dark markings to black, and is usually not fatal to humans; broadly :  any of a family (Viperidae) of venomous snakes that includes Old World snakes (subfamily Viperinae) and the pit vipers
b :  a venomous or reputedly venomous snake
2
:  a vicious or treacherous person
 See viper defined for English-language learners »
See viper defined for kids »

So unlike the term idiot that some of you who do disagree with the two greatest commandments seem to use so often the term I used was very specific and I gave reason for why I chose the term that I have to describe the individual in question. I do not throw words like these around lightly or in jest. I find the beliefs being espoused by this individual to be extremely dangerous and toxic. My experience has been that people who grasp on to this type of belief system are using it for cover to be nasty to others often in secret and disturbing ways.

I am one of those people who believes that spirituality is between the Creator and the individual but when you start pushing an agenda like rapists and pedophiles are now marriage partners to the abused you better be sure I am going to be very clear what type of mindset I think these evolves from those that espouses it. Talk about victimizing the victim. It is disgusting and the individual in question has shown other indications of narcissistic tendencies much like those I have dealt with who harbor a reason to push the sick philosophy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It appears there needs to be some education on language here.
> 
> vi·per noun \ˈvī-pər\
> : a type of poisonous snake
> 
> Full Definition of VIPER
> 
> 1
> a :  a common Eurasian venomous snake (Vipera berus) that attains a length of about two feet (0.6 meter), varies in color from red, brown, or gray with dark markings to black, and is usually not fatal to humans; broadly :  any of a family (Viperidae) of venomous snakes that includes Old World snakes (subfamily Viperinae) and the pit vipers
> ...


Just to clarify, I don't subscribe to the sex = marriage doctrine.

----------


## moostraks

> Just to clarify, I don't subscribe to the sex = marriage doctrine.


I know you don't. Lest anyone mistake me, it is agrammatos who I was referring to regarding this despicable belief.

----------


## agrammatos

> I know you don't. Lest anyone mistake me, it is agrammatos who I was referring to regarding this despicable belief.





> Just to clarify, I don't subscribe to the sex = marriage doctrine.



To reiterate:




> But what are the implications if it is NOT true that sexual intercourse equals marriage? It undermines all God's laws of sex, marriage, divorce, adultery, and remarriage. People who say they believe that remarriage after divorce while the original spouse is still living is adultery can "get around" God's law by having a "non-committed sexual relationship" (which they do not consider marriage), and then they can break up with this person (whom they do not consider to be their spouse), and they can marry another person and still say that their current marriage is not adultery, since they didn't count their previous relationship as a marriage! It is a convenient way to excuse their current wickedness (adultery) by renaming their original relationship as a non-marriage! A couple can be in a "non-committed sexual relationship" for 20 years, then split up, and they can marry other people without violating (in their own minds) the remarriage after divorce equals adultery law! If sexual intercourse does not equal marriage, then a person can have one or a hundred "non-committed sexual relationships" and yet still be able to marry someone else without committing adultery. How repulsive.


moostraks and freedom fanatic are REPULSIVE.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> To reiterate:
> 
> 
> 
> moostraks and freedom fanatic are REPULSIVE.


By contrast, your strawmen are repulsive.

When has anyone ever argued that it was OK to have a "non-committed sexual relationship" for 20 years and then just get remarried. Seriously, when has this ever been argued by anyone who disagrees with you?  Have you ever really encountered this argument (By someone who wasn't an obvious liberal) or is it just a stupid strawman from a stupid Carpenterist?

As far as I'm concerned, divorce is illegitimate, except possibly in the case of marital unfaithfulness.  That's a far cry from what you're suggesting.  A "non-committed sexual relationship" would be fornication.

This is just ridiculous.  As per Malachi 2:14, if you have a wife BY COVENANT and you divorce her any marry someone else, that would not be acceptable.  The passage says "By covenant" not "By intercourse."

----------


## moostraks

> To reiterate:
> 
> 
> 
> moostraks and freedom fanatic are REPULSIVE.



1 Corinthians 13:1-13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

Romans 12:9
Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.

Proverbs 6:12 A worthless person, a wicked man,
    goes about with crooked speech,
13 winks with his eyes, signals[c] with his feet,
    points with his finger,
14 with perverted heart devises evil,
    continually sowing discord;
15 therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly;
    in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.
16 There are six things that the Lord hates,
    seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans,
    feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies,
    and one who sows discord among brothers.

Your doctrine is vile and loveless. I am sure you would find me repulsive because I understand whom He came for and you have an ivory tower from which you have made a judgement seat for yourself.

----------


## agrammatos

> Your doctrine is vile and loveless. I am sure you would find me repulsive because I understand whom He came for and you have an ivory tower from which you have made a judgement seat for yourself.


I judge righteous judgment according to the Biblical truth you hate. You judge according to your wicked self-adulation.

----------


## moostraks

> I judge righteous judgment according to the Biblical truth you hate. You judge according to your wicked self-adulation.


by Henrietta F. Valle

Ah! wherefore weeps yon melancholy flower,
In beauty not the least of nature’s train?
Does it revert to that delightful hour,
When, sauntering on Boeotia’s once lov’d plain,
He viewed reflected in the glassy stream,
His own fair image on its surface play,
And fancied ’twas the Idol of his dream,
That oft in youth had led his thoughts astray?
Ah! pensive Beauty! thou whose pallid mien,
Array’d in silken leaves, portrays remorse;
Think what a different fate thine might have been,
Had vanity not early stayed thy course;
The golden cup that lovely breast enfolds,
Filled with thy tears, had not been treasured there;
Or the dark picture which thine emblem holds,
Had never dared infest a spot so fair;
‘Tis thus self-love through friendship’s circle darts,
And blights the balm that sweetens life’s decline;
And ever, thus are the unsocial hearts,
Left in the shade of solitude to pine.

----------


## agrammatos

> by Henrietta F. Valle
> 
> Ah! wherefore weeps yon melancholy flower,
> In beauty not the least of nature’s train?
> Does it revert to that delightful hour,
> When, sauntering on Boeotia’s once lov’d plain,
> He viewed reflected in the glassy stream,
> His own fair image on its surface play,
> And fancied ’twas the Idol of his dream,
> ...


True as the object to the glass.
With Him yon wake your fire.
Frown when He frowns, hate what He hates.
And what He loves, desire. -anonymous

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I judge righteous judgment according to the Biblical truth you hate. You judge according to your wicked self-adulation.


I seriously doubt that the Apostle Paul would fellowship with you and Carpenter.

You don't actually get your "Biblical standard" from anywhere.  You come up with a list of "essential doctrines" which is somewhat arbitrary, and could not be independently derived from reading the Biblical text, then you impose these ideas on the text of 2 John 7-11.

Honestly, I think your particular peace speaking doctrine is more philosophical than it is Biblical.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Carpenter seems like a big old cry baby to me. A bit of an attention whore, even.

I was just reading this... 




> This issue is dedicated to exposing James White, founder of Alpha and Omega Ministries...


James White: Slanderer, Spiritual Harlot, Hypocrite 

It reminds me of the phenomenon that we often see when people go on the attack against others just to bring attention to themselves and then, often, we don't like the attention we get and so we see whining and crying.

----------


## moostraks

> Carpenter seems like a big old cry baby to me. A bit of an attention whore, even.


After the complaint to Bryan I am thinking so. Seems his agents are called Carpenter ants among other nicknames because of their viciousness and disruption on forums. The doctrine is extremely dangerous imo, especially to those who are abuse survivors.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> After the complaint to Bryan I am thinking so. Seems his agents are called Carpenter ants among other nicknames because of their viciousness and disruption on forums. The doctrine is extremely dangerous imo, especially to those who are abuse survivors.


Well, the beauty of the www is that when people make themselves public figures they must accept that they open themselves up for debate on what they publicly throw out there. If they cannot do that then perhaps they'd do well to stay out of the championship kitchen. It's hot in there, you know. It's not always making brownies and cupcakes as we'd like to think.

Cripes, even  the political representatives that we support here get hammered just as much by supporters as they do the opposition. This is a healthy thing. It is necessary. Even if it sometimes stings a bit.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> After the complaint to Bryan I am thinking so. Seems his agents are called Carpenter ants among other nicknames because of their viciousness and disruption on forums. The doctrine is extremely dangerous imo, especially to those who are abuse survivors.


Wait, did agrammatos complain to Bryan, or did someone else complain about him?  If the latter, I for one would like to say that as much as I find him annoying, I also value his contributions here.  One of the good things about this forum, any forum, is that we don't all see eye to eye.  I wish he'd cut down on the insults, "unregenerate" is OK but continually using "idiot" or other insults of intelligence isn't really cool.  I fall into that all the time too, though.

One thing I find odd about these people (OTC)... they're so focused on "tolerant calvinists" (translation for "people who probably actually agree with 90+% of OTC's doctrine but don't necessarily think everyone who doesn't is unregenerate) that I can't even imagine how they'd even have the time to take the gospel to atheists, buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Muslims, and the like.  Quite frankly, I pretty much agree with Marc exactly on how he defines the gospel.  I just don't think everyone who has a less precise definition, or speaks peace to someone who has a wrong definition, is necessarily lost.

----------


## agrammatos

> Wait, did agrammatos complain to Bryan, or did someone else complain about him?  If the latter, I for one would like to say that as much as I find him annoying, I also value his contributions here.  One of the good things about this forum, any forum, is that we don't all see eye to eye.  I wish he'd cut down on the insults, "unregenerate" is OK but continually using "idiot" or other insults of intelligence isn't really cool.  I fall into that all the time too, though.


What's funny is that Marc Carpenter and I don't complain to moderators about others. What usually happens is whiners complain hypocritically about us.

----------


## agrammatos

> “Tell me, those desiring to be under Law, do you not hear the Law? For it has been written, Abraham had two sons, one out of the slave woman and one out of the free woman. But, indeed, he of the slave woman has been born according to flesh, and he out of the free woman through the promise, which things are being allegorized, for these are two covenants, one, indeed, from Mount Sinai bringing forth to slavery (which is Hagar, for Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, and she slaves with her children), but the Jerusalem from above is free, who is the mother of us all; for it has been written, Be glad, barren one not bearing; break forth and shout, the one not travailing; for more are the children of the desolate rather than she having the husband. But, brothers, we are children of promise according to Isaac. But then, even as he born according to flesh persecuted the one according to Spirit, so it is also now. But what says the Scripture? Cast out the slave woman and her son, for in no way shall the son of the slave woman inherit with the son of the free woman. Then, brothers, we are not children of a slave woman but of the free woman” (Galatians 4:21-31).


Tolerant Calvinists profess to believe the true gospel and claim that the Jerusalem from above is their Mother. This profession is spuriously made since said Calvinists further confess to being regenerated under a “felicitously inconsistent gospel” (i.e., a false gospel antithetical to the gospel the Lord’s apostles preached; cf. Galatians 1:8-9). Even as he born according to flesh persecuted the one according to Spirit, so it is also now:



> “Most…I would assume came to understand the doctrines of grace through a process: a breaking, difficult process, one that has, for many of us, cost us dearly. But it was not that PROCESS that saved us. It seems that some would have us to believe that God births no children, but only mature adults, in the kingdom, in the sense that unless you have a full-orbed, perfect understanding of the relationship of all parts of the gospel to each other that you do not, in fact, know Christ. I am so thankful that is transparently false” (James White;  see:*http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl203.htm* And:*http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.ph...inism-vintage/)*


Those born according to flesh toil and travail their way to an empty profession of the true gospel (cf. Romans 10:1-4). They falsely accuse those born according to the Spirit as teaching _“that God births no children, but only mature adults.”_ Clearly God the Holy Spirit births spiritual infants. These tolerant travailers hate the truth that when God births infants He gives them knowledge of His redemptive glory in the face of Jesus Christ as an immediate and inevitable fruit of His regenerating work (2 Corinthians 4:6). The glorious gospel set forth in 2 Corinthians 4:6 is maligned as _“a full-orbed, perfect understanding of the relationship of all parts of the gospel.”

_
This particularly influential spiritual son of Hagar further misrepresents and diverts attention from the essence of the gospel of Christ:



> “And, of course, you cannot begin to substantiate the idea that Paul was going about adding ‘limited atonement’ to the list of things that define the gospel proclamation, without which, there is no true faith” (James White).


The focus is placed incorrectly on the _EXTENT_, when it should be placed on the _EFFICACY_ of the atonement. White's diversionary tactic aside, it is quite clear to him that a simple concept like the propitiating efficacy of Christ’s atonement (Romans 3:25) does NOT define or constitute the heart of Paul’s gospel proclamation (see the article, *“Gospel Atonement”*).


The spiritual sons of slavery vehemently affirm their adherence to gospel atonement — but not without querulous qualification:



> “Do I call believers to hold to a consistent theology on the doctrine of the atonement? You bet I do. Do I teach it in the fellowship where I serve as an elder? Sure do. Do I believe it important to the honoring of God to believe it? Yes indeed. Do I believe someone who is ignorant of it is lost? Of course not” (James White).


Then came Marc’s response to White's disgusting promiscuity:





> “So you would not judge someone who is ignorant of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross as lost. That says it all” (Marc Carpenter;*http://www.outsidethecamp.org/jameswhite.htm*).

----------


## Nang

> Then came Marc’s response to White's disgusting promiscuity:
> 
> “So you would not judge someone who is ignorant of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross as lost. That says it all” (Marc Carpenter;*http://www.outsidethecamp.org/jameswhite.htm*).


Does Marc Carpenter here speak of being *eternally lost* and damned by God (reprobate), or being *temporarily lost;* wandering around in darkness, but for all any of us know, still could be found (unregenerate)?

----------


## agrammatos

> Does Marc Carpenter here speak of being *eternally lost* and damned by God (reprobate), or being *temporarily lost;* wandering around in darkness, but for all any of us know, still could be found (unregenerate)?


Unregenerate; not necessarily reprobate.

----------


## agrammatos

> I seriously doubt that the Apostle Paul would fellowship with you and Carpenter.
> 
> You don't actually get your "Biblical standard" from anywhere.  You come up with a list of "essential doctrines" which is somewhat arbitrary, and could not be independently derived from reading the Biblical text, then you impose these ideas on the text of 2 John 7-11.
> 
> Honestly, I think your particular peace speaking doctrine is more philosophical than it is Biblical.


I think you need to go and learn what this means:




> "And I heard another voice out of Heaven saying, My people, come out of her, that you may not share in her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues" (Revelation 18:4).


Or is this yet another text doomed to irrelevancy?

----------


## agrammatos

> _Mr. Finesse-Heretical-Background_: But - what about the newly born again person. NO ONE when saved suddenly knows everything - all truth. This comes about slowly, over sometime a fairly long period of time. Some learn quicker than others. But I do agree, if a person after years of professing to be a Christian and still vehemently rejects the truth of Salvation by God's/Jesus work for them instead of their own, election, eternal security and the doctrines of grace then I would certainly treat them as unsaved and would not fellowship with them at any time during that period.


_Christian_: The gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone is not _"all truth."_ You, Mr. Finesse,  erect a customary tolerant Calvinist straw-man; you drag an oft-used red herring across the path. Evidently it takes years of being a professing Christian to finally see the glory of the true God in the face of the true Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). Of course the Christian does not immediately upon regeneration, _"suddenly [know] everything--all truth."_ But what a newly regenerate Christian does know immediately when saved is that salvation is conditioned on the work of Christ alone.

When Christians are regenerated they BEGIN with the TRUTH concerning the Person and Work of Christ. They do NOT START with the false jesus of 2 Corinthians 11:4 and then "grow into" the true Jesus of 2 Corinthians 11:3. To allegedly begin regeneration with a false christ and then to later "come into" the knowledge of the true Christ is NOT to "grow in faith and knowledge," but rather to be a deceitful worker, transforming oneself into an apostle of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). "Deceitful" because these false workers who began their "Christian walk" with a self-righteous foundation built upon a false christ are trying to be regarded as true Christians.





> _Mr. Finesse-Heretical-Background:_ Man by nature is Arminian. The natural man in every religion believes that HE must do the work that merits him getting to heaven.  That false belief must be overcome and it is not overcome overnight in most people, as I said before it may take some time after he is saved - God only knows.  In the first place God must bring him in to confront these doctrines either by his own study or hearing it by another preacher - then the Holy spirit God puts in a person will start opening tht persons eyes to the truth.


_Christian_: Man by nature is an unregenerate God-hater who is always going about to establish some kind of righteousness of his own, whether he be a religious zealot, or one who is irreligious and unconcerned about religious matters (cf. Romans 10:1-4). Mr. Finesse, I find it interesting that you do not judge all Arminians lost, despite your regurgitation of Spurgeon's _"man by nature is an Arminian"_ statement. Evidently belief in a false gospel is NOT powerfully overcome immediately upon regeneration by God the Holy Spirit. According to your Satanic scheme of things, a newly regenerate Christian does NOT become a new creature in Christ, but rather grows over many years until one day the "fruits" of the new creature finally manifest themselves.


You hypocritcally say _"God only knows."_ And yet you claim to know since you just gave me a description of the alleged process Christians go through -- from the spiritual infant to the spiritually mature. For you the false Arminian gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and then later on one may have _"their eyes opened"_ to the greater "truth" of the false Calvinistic gospel. 

Of course there may also be instances where a person _"comes into"_ the truth of the true gospel while believing they were saved while believing the false conditionalist Calvinist gospel, and so they too would believe that some version of the false gospel conditioned on the sinner is the power of God unto salvation. There is a popular phrase that I heard Calvinist James White say many times: _"What you win them WITH is what you win them TO."_ I can see the various ways how a statement like this works out in the lives of many a false peace-speaker.





> _Mr. Finesse-Heretical-Background:_ Don't be so cantankerous and unloving, you noxious viper. I refuse to say emphatically a person with Arminian beliefs are not saved. They may be but  they still may be at an early stage of their salvation and have not learned the "solid meat" of doctrine yet. Only God can teach the person and only God knows when it happens. We see the fruit in a change of doctrinal belief eventually.



_Christian_: I wonder what you would say about those more seasoned Arminians like John Wesely? In John Wesley's final days when he was spewing his false docrine, was he yet to learn of the "solid meat" of doctrine? Was Wesley, after all these many years, still in the early stages of salvation? What about someone like Spurgeon? Is Spurgy still on Gerber baby food after all his years of preaching?

----------


## Icon O'Clast

Nang's slander:

"but the err when they consign others to hell, who do not presently know all that they know."

"but consign them to hell"

"but when he found out my husband and I attended an Arminian church for a while when first saved, and we remain friends with some o them to this day, and have not damned them to hell, he condemned us"

"Because of this we have been damned by the OTC."

"The least little flaw in one's thinking will bring their wrath, for *they have no patience to pray for years for other souls.*"

"Nowhere are we commanded to judge the eternal fates of others.  We are not given knowledge of the eternal fates of others."

These are all blatant lies about what Marc and OTC believe.  Nang purports to know what they believe, but this shows abysmal ignorance of what they believe.

See www.outsidethecamp.org/efl204.htm .

----------


## Nang

> Nang's slander:
> 
> "but the err when they consign others to hell, who do not presently know all that they know."
> 
> "but consign them to hell"
> 
> "but when he found out my husband and I attended an Arminian church for a while when first saved, and we remain friends with some o them to this day, and have not damned them to hell, he condemned us"
> 
> "Because of this we have been damned by the OTC."
> ...


Your permanent listing of souls dead and gone on your "Heterodoxy Hall of Shame"  . . calling them unregenerate, with no way for them to evidence repentance to YOU . . leaves them unregenerate and shamed as children of hell in their graves, which is the definition of reprobation.

Semantics cannot cover up your judging their eternal souls . . .

----------


## moostraks

> Your permanent listing of souls dead and gone on your "Heterodoxy Hall of Shame"  . . calling them unregenerate, with no way for them to evidence repentance to YOU . . leaves them unregenerate and shamed as children of hell in their graves, which is the definition of reprobation.
> 
> Semantics cannot cover up your judging their eternal souls . . .


What is the difference between their position and your attitude towards people here who disagree with your particular views born from a belief in individual enlightenment (opinion) on Scripture? If it wasn't such a pathetic sight to see this feud amongst people who claim Faith, it would be comical. Seems y'all ( you and FF) are offended that someone you mostly agree with should find fault in your imagined perfected state and they don't have any problem turning the spigots of hate loose on you. If it's good for the goose, then....

----------


## agrammatos

> Your permanent listing of souls dead and gone on your "Heterodoxy Hall of Shame"  . . calling them unregenerate, with no way for them to evidence repentance to YOU . . leaves them unregenerate and shamed as children of hell in their graves, which is the definition of reprobation.
> 
> Semantics cannot cover up your judging their eternal souls . . .


Please learn some logic. This is an obvious _non sequitur_. We are only judging them to be unregenerate at the time of writing what they wrote (or teaching what they taught). IF God caused any of them to repent and believe the gospel, THEN that is exactly what they did. And IF that is exactly what they did, THEN they are not left "unregenerate and shamed as children of hell in their graves." There's a lot of THICK people out there.

----------


## agrammatos

James White said:




> I am reminded by this kind of rhetoric that even God's truth can be professed without love and without balance.


Marc Carpenter said:




> In the mind of most professing Calvinists who speak peace to Arminians, "love" and "balance" include speaking peace when there is no peace, saying that one who is ignorant of righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is a brother in Christ, and saying that those who believe in salvation conditioned on the sinner are saved. This shows that these professing Calvinists do not know what the true gospel is. What they call "love" and "balance" God calls Satanic. Those who defend or excuse God-haters show themselves to be God-haters.


James White says:




> Let's consider well what is being said here. If you do not make perfection of understanding an addition to the gospel, you are "speaking peace" to an Arminian.


Let us see ....




> "Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, escaped ones of the nations; the ones who set up the wood of their carved image, and the ones who pray to a god who cannot save; they know nothing. Declare and bring near; yea, let them consult together. Who has revealed this of old; who has told it from then? Is it not I, Jehovah? And there is no God other than Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, the Word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. He shall say, Only in Jehovah do I have righteousness and strength; to Him he comes; and they are ashamed, all who are angry with Him. In Jehovah all of the seed of Israel shall be justified, and shall glory" (Isaiah 45:20-25).


Evidently Isaiah is some type of hyper-Calvinist *epignostic* who makes "perfection of understanding" an ADDITION to the gospel. Apparently those who pray to a god who CANNOT save merely have an "imperfect" understanding or knowledge of the true and living God who CAN save. Hmmm. "CAN save" vs "CANNOT save." Eh, just a matter of "imperfect understanding" versus "perfect understanding" right, James?

James White says:




> I have no idea how recognizing the simple truth that one does not have to have perfection of understanding to have eternal life is to be confused with "speaking peace" to a belief that, from looking at the list, most everyone reading this exchange would admit is in significant error on many points. I do no [_sic_] speak peace to Arminianism.


How does one speak peace to an abstract ISM (cf. Jeremiah 6:14-15; Ezekiel 13:10-16; 2 John 9-11)? Supposedly men like James White are "uncompromising" and "hard-hitting" against the ISMS. But abstract ISMS are not concrete persons. ISMS can feel no pain. ISMS cannot be judged unregenerate and presently abiding under the anathema of the true and living God (Galatians 1:8-9; 1 John 4:1).

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Nang- C-Dunc is technically correct WRT the issue you were debating.  Of course, I think his standard for judging is insane, but the intro to the Heterodoxy Hall of Shame says they are only judging saved and lost at the times specific statements were made, it is not judging absolutely that God didn't save them later/on their deathbed.

Which leads me to a question for agrammatos, what if God regenerated Spurgeon later, and he is now in heaven?  If you die and find this out, how will you feel about having mocked one who was ultimately accepted before God on the basis of Christ's death on the cross?

Also, WRT Revelation 18:4, I'm no expert on Revelation, but the passage clearly implies that its POSSIBLE for the believer to not "come out of her", whatever that means, since the command is addressed to those who are already God's people.  So, this verse doesn't support your argument.  It also doesn't define the extent of the Babylonian harlot.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> _Christian_: The gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone is not _"all truth."_ You, Mr. Finesse,  erect a customary tolerant Calvinist straw-man; you drag an oft-used red herring across the path. Evidently it takes years of being a professing Christian to finally see the glory of the true God in the face of the true Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). Of course the Christian does not immediately upon regeneration, _"suddenly [know] everything--all truth."_ But what a newly regenerate Christian does know immediately when saved is that salvation is conditioned on the work of Christ alone.
> 
> When Christians are regenerated they BEGIN with the TRUTH concerning the Person and Work of Christ. They do NOT START with the false jesus of 2 Corinthians 11:4 and then "grow into" the true Jesus of 2 Corinthians 11:3. To allegedly begin regeneration with a false christ and then to later "come into" the knowledge of the true Christ is NOT to "grow in faith and knowledge," but rather to be a deceitful worker, transforming oneself into an apostle of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). "Deceitful" because these false workers who began their "Christian walk" with a self-righteous foundation built upon a false christ are trying to be regarded as true Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Christian_: Man by nature is an unregenerate God-hater who is always going about to establish some kind of righteousness of his own, whether he be a religious zealot, or one who is irreligious and unconcerned about religious matters (cf. Romans 10:1-4). Mr. Finesse, I find it interesting that you do not judge all Arminians lost, despite your regurgitation of Spurgeon's _"man by nature is an Arminian"_ statement. Evidently belief in a false gospel is NOT powerfully overcome immediately upon regeneration by God the Holy Spirit. According to your Satanic scheme of things, a newly regenerate Christian does NOT become a new creature in Christ, but rather grows over many years until one day the "fruits" of the new creature finally manifest themselves.
> 
> ...


I agree that its technically not "perfection of understanding" but its more than just this one issue.  You also anathemize those who don't believe in absolute predestination, those who don't believe God is the author of sin, annihilationists, anyone who tolerates an annihilationist, old earth creationists, dispensationalists (could be wrong here, please clarify), and those who actually agree with everything you teach, except your judging of tolerant calvinists as being lost...

----------


## Nang

> Please learn some logic. This is an obvious _non sequitur_. We are only judging them to be unregenerate at the time of writing what they wrote (or teaching what they taught). IF God caused any of them to repent and believe the gospel, THEN that is exactly what they did. And IF that is exactly what they did, THEN they are not left "unregenerate and shamed as children of hell in their graves." There's a lot of THICK people out there.


The question is:  Why do you persist in shaming men, who might prove regenerate in heaven?

Do you ever remove names from that list?  Do you ever admit having been wrong?  Have you ever extended love and forgiveness to someone you have judged in error?  

And why is it so important for your people to try to make a list of unregenerate persons?    It would be impossible for you to list all, or even dent the number of heterodox false teachers that have lived just since the time of Christ, let alone all that have existed on this planet throughout history.   What's the point?  What do you prove?

IMO, your tactics only distract from the gospel you defend.

----------


## Nang

> @Nang- C-Dunc is technically correct WRT the issue you were debating.  Of course, I think his standard for judging is insane, but the intro to the Heterodoxy Hall of Shame says they are only judging saved and lost at the times specific statements were made, it is not judging absolutely that God didn't save them later/on their deathbed.


They are hiding behind language, FF.  

To leave Godly but deceased men on this shame list, is to permanently bring shame upon their names, without having divine knowledge if they died unregenerate or not.

They go beyond their bounds, and usurp the Lord's role as Judge.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The question is:  Why do you persist in shaming men, who might prove regenerate in heaven?
> 
> Do you ever remove names from that list?  Do you ever admit having been wrong?  Have you ever extended love and forgiveness to someone you have judged in error?  
> 
> And why is it so important for your people to try to make a list of unregenerate persons?    It would be impossible for you to list all, or even dent the number of heterodox false teachers that have lived just since the time of Christ, let alone all that have existed on this planet throughout history.   What's the point?  What do you prove?
> 
> IMO, your tactics only distract from the gospel you defend.


The thing I find bizarre is they're so busy attacking men like A.W. Pink and Herman Hoeksema, who they probably agree with 99% of the time anyways, that they have little time for real heretics like Joel Osteen or Pope Francis.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> They are hiding behind language, FF.  
> 
> To leave Godly but deceased men on this shame list, is to permanently bring shame upon their names, without having divine knowledge if they died unregenerate or not.
> 
> They go beyond their bounds, and usurp the Lord's role as Judge.


I'm not a big fan of having such a list to begin with, and if I were going to make such a list, my standard for judgment would be far less strict than theirs.  But... they still aren't technically saying these guys are in Hell.  Its almost certain that they would be if OTC was correct, but they aren't absolutely saying such.  I mean, I guess they could be lying but as far as I understand they acknowledge that any of those people may have repented and believed the gospel as they understand it in their final moments and been saved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What is the difference between their position and your attitude towards people here who disagree with your particular views born from a belief in individual enlightenment (opinion) on Scripture? If it wasn't such a pathetic sight to see this feud amongst people who claim Faith, it would be comical. Seems y'all ( you and FF) are offended that someone you mostly agree with should find fault in your imagined perfected state and they don't have any problem turning the spigots of hate loose on you. If it's good for the goose, then....


I don't know... if you think Muslims are unsaved, why do you get mad at me for telling you you're unsaved, after all, you did it to someone else?  Come on, this isn't a very good argument...  Nobody disagrees that certain people are so heretical that they should be judged unsaved, we're debating where we draw the line and why.

BTW: I don't think I "mostly agree" with agrammatos and OTC.  I agree with them on certain points and I don't deny that they have some valid things to say, but I do not in any sense "Mostly agree" with them.  My soteriology is probably closer to them than an Arminian's soteriology is to mine, but not by a whole lot.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Here's a hypothetical for Chris, in the light of  his comments about "tolerant calvinists speaking peace to themselves why they believed a false gospel."

Say one of Marc's kids hears the gospel straight from Marc and believes it.  They formerly believed in nothing and convert from believing in nothing to believing in the true gospel, conditioned on Christ alone.  There is no point at which they believed in universal atonement or any other false gospel doctrine, and so certainly no time where they believe they were saved while believing those things.  They then meet an Amyraldian, and they think that this person may not be unsaved even after hearing that they deny limited atonement.  Well, Marc's kid is a "tolerant calvinist" (in this hypothetical) isn't he?  But, does he speak peace to himself in his former conditionalism?  Nope.

Or, imagine a Christian who is raised in a liberal Christian home.  He believes in salvation conditioned on faith, but he is never really serious about his faith.  He wanders into a Reformed church one day, and after hearing the preacher, he realizes that he was trusting in himself for his salvation, rather than Christ.  He repents of his former self-righteousness, trusts in Christ alone for his salvation, and rejects all Arminian doctrine.  Yet, when he meets one of his Arminian friends, he does not immediately judge this Arminian lost.  So, he's a "tolerant calvinist" but he doesn't believe he was saved under the false gospel.  What then?

----------


## moostraks

> I don't know... if you think Muslims are unsaved, why do you get mad at me for telling you you're unsaved, after all, you did it to someone else?  Come on, this isn't a very good argument...  Nobody disagrees that certain people are so heretical that they should be judged unsaved, we're debating where we draw the line and why.
> 
> BTW: I don't think I "mostly agree" with agrammatos and OTC.  I agree with them on certain points and I don't deny that they have some valid things to say, but I do not in any sense "Mostly agree" with them.  My soteriology is probably closer to them than an Arminian's soteriology is to mine, but not by a whole lot.


I have never said anything re:Muslims as I recall because it ain't my battle and that just isn't something I would say.That is between them and the Creator. I worry more about keeping my own nose clean. You are the one who was making the point how close your beliefs were in order to point out my stupidity on the issues. Going by your own prior claims that you feel close on the big issues and nang's discussion with you about how they are picking at people close in theology and not spending their time wisely preaching at the unwashed masses like oh someone like me who you are sure everyone knows is damned is what makes it so comical if it wasn't so pathetic. To an outsider like me it is so hypocritical for you guys to complain when the hate gets turned back on you from one that you think should consider you part of their camp. Y'all are your own worst enemy it seems.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I have never said anything re:Muslims as I recall because it ain't my battle and that just isn't something I would say.That is between them and the Creator. I worry more about keeping my own nose clean. You are the one who was making the point how close your beliefs were in order to point out my stupidity on the issues. Going by your own prior claims that you feel close on the big issues and nang's discussion with you about how they are picking at people close in theology and not spending their time wisely preaching at the unwashed masses like oh someone like me who you are sure everyone knows is damned is what makes it so comical if it wasn't so pathetic. To an outsider like me it is so hypocritical for you guys to complain when the hate gets turned back on you from one that you think should consider you part of their camp. Y'all are your own worst enemy it seems.


A few points here:

1. You don't believe Muslims are unsaved (you "leave it up to God").  I leave it to God too, and God clearly says Muslims are unsaved (John 3:18, John 14:6.)  I can see some of the issues we debate here being taken different ways, even in some instances where I judge those who disagree with me as being lost.  But this is as "clear cut" as it comes in the Bible, this is pretty much equivalent to saying that you'll "leave it up to God" whether Christ was bodily raised from the dead or not.   Come on.


2. I don't "hate" any of you, I can be harsh sometimes, but I love you guys and I want you to believe the gospel.  I'll take Marc's word if he says the same, despite the fact that I don't think his actions show it.

3. Marc Carpenter is a nutjob, and that's really my issue with him.  I don't care that he thinks I'm unsaved.  And I don't necessarily view a judgment of me as lost is the same thing as "hating" me.

4. Close compared to what?  Consider Rand Paul and Larken Rose, they seem pretty close when compared to John McCain and Lindsey Graham but they still have very significant differences.

----------


## moostraks

> A few points here:
> 
> 1. You don't believe Muslims are unsaved (you "leave it up to God").  I leave it to God too, and God clearly says Muslims are unsaved (John 3:18, John 14:6.)  I can see some of the issues we debate here being taken different ways, even in some instances where I judge those who disagree with me as being lost.  But this is as "clear cut" as it comes in the Bible, this is pretty much equivalent to saying that you'll "leave it up to God" whether Christ was bodily raised from the dead or not.   Come on.
> 
> 
> 2. I don't "hate" any of you, I can be harsh sometimes, but I love you guys and I want you to believe the gospel.  I'll take Marc's word if he says the same, despite the fact that I don't think his actions show it.
> 
> 3. Marc Carpenter is a nutjob, and that's really my issue with him.  I don't care that he thinks I'm unsaved.  And I don't necessarily view a judgment of me as lost is the same thing as "hating" me.
> 
> 4. Close compared to what?  Consider Rand Paul and Larken Rose, they seem pretty close when compared to John McCain and Lindsey Graham but they still have very significant differences.


1-My version of leaving it means that I don't strive to harden people's hearts towards Christianity by calling them names or ridiculing their experiences or discussing their IQ. If I discuss something I try to show the historical position for my beliefs and define what literature _I_ use and why. I do not think that religion can define the un-definable but is man's way of describing them elephant with his limited senses according to his experiences. So much interreligion discussion amounts to describing a rainbow to a blind person. You have to respect the capacity of the other person and leave it to someone way more powerful than yourself for the wisdom of the conversation. Since I do not hold the same regard for written text as you do, then I am not looking at others in the manner you do. I also do not think your position of ridiculing others is supported by the Word, and as my interpretation is as valid as yours on the subject there is a problem with you expecting me to accept your position that you can berate others. So I will not just "come on"...

2-You need to take a step back and look at what you say to others, constantly. Telling people they are stupid and damned (we differ on this as you feel entitled to judge people's hearts and publicly ridicule them and this isn't your church and that isn't your right IMO) and saying they are blathering if they respond in contrary to your beliefs then say they need to be shut out of the forum are not indicative of a loving spirit. It is contempt and disgust. Everyone has a moment but when all your belief structure does is whitewash the issue there is a problem (IMO) and that is where you and nang seem to come to blows with Carpenter's folks because they have the audacity to make laws of issues you disagree to be saving and seem surprised they would disagree with you. After all they get so much more right then the other believers who are certainly damned were they to die in conflict with that which is your golden calf and you and he people agree to be the Gospel according to Reformed believers.

3-Between you folks but I'd get a room (ie private message) as the conflict is not helping you Reformed folks from an outsider like me watching the soap opera.

4-Your words to me,"As annoying as they are, OTC gets a heck of a lot more Biblical doctrine correct than you do." and I meant it just as you did regarding close. My beliefs do not match up to yours. It's okay, I don't think any church wants me since I am damaged goods. I have dealt with plenty of people like you and S_F to know your are not the exception but the rule in most religious communities and I do not need to subject myself or my family to that nonsense while they tell me how to experience my faith.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Question for Chris Duncan (Agrammatos) 

I just saw this article on OTC: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl170.htm

I was previously aware that you guys claimed that you support other churches besides Sovereign Redeemer Assembly (Carpenter's church, for any here who may not be aware.)  Yet, I cannot find any churches that are endorsed by OTC on their website.  I can find a lot of churches and organizations that you all used to endorse (Trinity Foundation, Protestant Reformed Churches, Bill Parker's church and some others) but I cannot find a single church that you guys continue to endorse.  

Are there any churches that you or Marc are aware of that you continue to endorse?  Are you aware of any churches besides Sovereign Redeemer Assembly that you would consider Christian?  If so, which ones?  And if not, how do you know that there actually are any?

Also, if you don't mind me asking, who shared the true gospel with you?  And if the answer is "Marc Carpenter", where did he hear it from?  Are you certain that he actually heard it from someone else, rather than developing it himself?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know FF.  You might have hit upon something that deserves some deep reflection on my part.  I have to be open to where the Scriptures and logic takes me.


Bump...

in two weeks you've never addressed this at all, yet you've had plenty of time to tell other people you need the gospel.  I think its important to get this straightened out mentally first.  What exactly do you believe?  What exactly are the essentials?  And don't cop out by saying "effecacious atonement" because we already know you believe that.  Does someone have to believe that effecacious atonement is essential?  Does someone have to believe that all who deny that effecacious atonement is essential are lost?  And if you "don't know" whether you agree with OTC on this issue, aren't you unregenerate by your own standards?  Or are you somehow able to work through this doctrine without ever questioning your own salvation?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Bump...
> 
> in two weeks you've never addressed this at all, yet you've had plenty of time to tell other people you need the gospel.  I think its important to get this straightened out mentally first.  What exactly do you believe?  What exactly are the essentials?  And don't cop out by saying "effecacious atonement" because we already know you believe that.  Does someone have to believe that effecacious atonement is essential?  Does someone have to believe that all who deny that effecacious atonement is essential are lost?  And if you "don't know" whether you agree with OTC on this issue, aren't you unregenerate by your own standards?  Or are you somehow able to work through this doctrine without ever questioning your own salvation?


I know Sola kind of off handedly answered this in another thread by saying he didn't agree with what OTC says about Tolerant Calvinists.  But, I'm curious what he thoughts on assurance.  Is someone who doubts their salvation for any reason necessarily unsaved?  Did you doubt your salvation at all while you were working through this?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know FF.  You might have hit upon something that deserves some deep reflection on my part.  I have to be open to where the Scriptures and logic takes me.





> Sola, do you remember making the statement I identify in parenthesis?  Or do I have to dig for it.  I can if I need to.
> 
> Does this bother you at all?  
> 
> I'm going to keep bumping this until you give me a straight answer to this.  If you aren't even sure of yourself, I'm not sure how you could suppose to preach the gospel to other people.





> I still wants to know how Sola could know he's saved (because, as per his previous posts, you're only saved if you know you're saved) in the light of the fact that he "doesn't know" if he agrees with the OTC position on this issue or not.
> 
> I'd like to see some kind of an answer to this...


At the risk of ticking off a bunch of other people... I am curious if you've thought through your position on this at all... were you saved 2-3 years back when we were having this discussion?  What happened with this Sola?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> At the risk of ticking off a bunch of other people... I am curious if you've thought through your position on this at all... were you saved 2-3 years back when we were having this discussion?  What happened with this Sola?


So, what's the question?   Do I believe tolerant Calvinists are saved?  Here's my answer:  I don't know.  Frankly, I do believe that the gospel is so important that to intentionally bend on its truth could be an evidence of a person's lostness.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So, what's the question?   Do I believe tolerant Calvinists are saved?


Correct.



> Here's my answer:  I don't know.  Frankly, I do believe that the gospel is so important that to intentionally bend on its truth could be an evidence of a person's lostness.


For sure... if anyone was intentionally doing that I'd be questioning as well.

Honestly I've gotten a lot less tolerant of anything that isn't monergism.  I do give a bit more latitude for inconsistency than you do, but I've become convinced that Arminian churches are not true visible churches and that if someone really believes in synergism that they believe a false gospel.  Interestingly, it was a Reformed Anglican friend who made a comparison to Roman Catholicism (he was trying to argue that Roman Catholicism is a form of Christianity albeit a flawed one, which I don't agree with... though that is a common thing for Anglicans to believe) that really got me thinking about this again.

----------

