Dear Tommy,

I am in receipt of your letter of April 2001. I would like to respond to some of it.

There is a major and serious flaw in your reasoning of which you must be made aware. The reasoning is the same reasoning that tolerant Calvinists use to accuse us of conditional salvation. On page 4, you write:

"When it comes to Calvinists, OTC abandons doctrine and bases salvation conditioned upon whether one speaks peace or not."

You then go on to reiterate this several times on the next page.

You are quite confused, Tommy. A condition for salvation is a necessary prerequisite. It is a basis. You confuse this with necessary fruit of salvation, which are evidences that spring from salvation. You think that since we believe that those who knowingly speak peace to Arminians are lost, we are conditioning salvation on whether or not someone speaks peace to Arminians. This is a case of a non sequitur; in other words, you make an inference that does not follow from the premise. I would like to give an example to make this clear:

I say that all who do not believe the gospel are lost. Using your reasoning, you would have to say that I believe that salvation is conditioned on believing the gospel.

The truth is that belief of the gospel is a necessary fruit of salvation, but it is not a condition for salvation. There is no regenerate person who does not believe the gospel, but belief of the gospel is not something that needs to happen before one can be regenerated.

Now let us apply this to your accusation. You say that I believe that not knowingly speaking peace to Arminians is a condition for salvation. I do not believe this at all. I do not believe that not knowingly speaking peace to Arminians must occur before one can be regenerated. I believe that not knowingly speaking peace to Arminians is a necessary fruit of salvation.

There is a huge difference between the two. The fact that you cannot discern this difference is a telling sign of ignorance in vital matters.

You show yourself to be inconsistent in your judgment and to have a double standard when it comes to judging saved and lost. I would like to give you some examples.

Example 1: On page 1, you write,

"yes, a professor who believes in and adheres to Arminian theology is unregenerated (LOST) as well as all those under the influences of hypo-Calvinism (Amyraldianism, etc.)"

Using your logic in your accusation against us, you would have to say that you are conditioning salvation on not believing in Arminianism or Amyraldianism!

Example 2: On page 1, you write,

"People who believe the above statements (one or more) are in bondage to dead works and idolatry."

Using your logic in your accusation against us, you would have to say that you are conditioning salvation on not believing one or more of the above statements!

Example 3: On page 4, you write,

"I realize that there are professing Calvinists promoting full blown ecumenicalism while seeking to destroy true doctrine. These people have never been truly justified."

Using your logic in your accusation against us, you would have to say that you are conditioning salvation on not promoting full blown ecumenicalism and not seeking to destroy true doctrine!

I hope you can see from these examples the utter absurdity of your logic. When one judges based on a fruit, he is not making that fruit a condition. You rightly judge that those who believe in universal atonement are lost. But are you then promoting salvation conditioned on not believing in universal atonement? Of course not. Thus, when I judge that those who knowingly speak peace to Arminians are lost, I am not promoting salvation conditioned on not knowingly speaking peace to Arminians. There is a world of difference between what we use to judge and what we believe is a condition of salvation.

On page 5, you write,

"Obviously, when Outside the Camp abandons the doctrinal realm, it creates a legalistic standard for determining one's salvation. When OTC claims that a tolerant Calvinist is unregenerated (LOST) because he or she spoke peace, OTC is no longer judging doctrine, but is basing justification on human behavior - not doctrine. This is legalism in a deadly disguise."

On the contrary - judging those who knowingly speak peace to Arminians to be lost is judging based on doctrine. If someone claims to believe the doctrines of grace yet claims that Arminians are his brothers in Christ, that professing Christian believes that Arminians believe the same gospel he believes and worship the same god he worships. He believes that the Arminian gospel is just a less consistent form of the true gospel, but it is the true gospel nonetheless. We judge this professing Christian to be unregenerate because he does not know what the true gospel is.

I will state our position clearly on this issue: Salvation is conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. There are no conditions a person has to meet in order to be saved. Once that person is regenerated, he will manifest necessary fruit of regeneration, including faith, repentance, and righteous judgment.

I noticed that you sent a copy of your letter to Bill Parker. Do you realize that he believes that those who knowingly speak peace to Arminians are unregenerate? Now, if you are consistent and are not a hypocrite, you would have to say that Parker believes in salvation conditioned on not speaking peace and that he is a promoter of deadly legalism. Will you say this, or will you be a hypocrite?

On your cover sheet, you write,

"This refutation will clearly show that a contradiction has manifested between OTC's claims and the biblical lives and religious compromise of these chosen saints. Only one can be truthful - either Outside the Camp of God's Word."

And on page 2, you write,

"So was the Apostle Peter unregenerated (LOST) when he denied the Messiah (Matthew 26:69-75) to the Roman world? Did his actions give a compromising impression? So, did Peter consciously deny Christ? Matthew 26:33 indicates that he was definitely aware of a forthcoming denial. Peter was not the only one to deny the Messiah (Matthew 26:31,56, Mark 14:49-50, Zechariah 13:7). They all denied the Lord - giving in to a political system that exalted emperor worship, as well as the Jews and their Pharisaical doctrine. So, did the Apostles in their denial, in some form or another compromise with a false religious political system?"

Now comes a real test to see whether or not you have different standards for me than for others. Bill Parker believes that Peter and the rest of the disciples were unregenerate (LOST) before the resurrection. Now, if you are not a hypocrite, you would have to say, "A contradiction has been manifested between Bill Parker's claims and the biblical lives and religious compromise of the disciples. Only one can be truthful - either Bill Parker or God's Word." Will you say that? Will you tell him that there is a contradiction between Bill Parker's claims and God's Word? Will you say that "judging professors of Sovereign Grace on their own human behavior goes beyond doctrinal discernment - obviously a standard created by Bill Parker. When it comes to the Calvinists, Bill Parker abandons doctrine and bases salvation conditioned upon whether one speaks peace or not"? Your answer will show whether or not you are a hypocrite.

You noted that any who are under the influence of hypo-Calvinism (Amyraldianism) are unregenerate. I would like to give you some quotes from a booklet I received:

"God's gospel addresses all lost sinners without exception as being guilty, defiled, ungodly sinners who are alienated from God, enemies of God, spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, without anything either to qualify or recommend them unto God! To such sinners, God's Gospel is His absolute and unconditional promise to freely give them and entitle them to all of salvation including all the work of the Holy Spirit in them, BEFORE they ever begin serving the Lord, all based on the imputed righteousness of Christ!"

"Notice that God's Gospel, His promise, is real and sincere to all lost sinners who hear it."

"We do not have to guard God's promise by restricting it to the elect."

"It may not be the intention of any to remove man's responsibility, but in their zeal for God's sovereignty this is exactly what many are doing when they deny that God's promise is real and sincere to all who hear it."

"Without knowing it, those who insist on telling their hearers that God's promise, God's Gospel is real and sincere to the elect only ..."

"They are not really interested in the Gospel of promise because the preacher has already told them the promise is sure and sincere only to the elect. God forbid!"

"God commands His preachers to tell all without exception that His promise of eternal salvation is real and sincere to all who hear it!"

This person obviously believes the Amyraldian notion that God promises salvation based on the righteousness of Christ to every lost sinner without exception who hears the gospel and that this promise is real, sincere, and sure, including to the reprobate.

Will you judge such a person to be lost based on this doctrine? Well, let me tell you who wrote these statements: Bobby Bullington, elder at Eager Avenue Grace Church (where Bill Parker is pastor) and author of many Reign of Grace Ministries articles. Will you judge him lost, or are you a hypocrite?

I also noticed that you sent a copy of your letter to Bob Ross of Pilgrim Publications, who publishes and promotes Spurgeon's writings. Bob Ross openly applauds Spurgeon for allowing Dwight Moody into his pulpit; he believes that Dwight Moody was saved.

You got onto the Outside the Camp Directory by telling me that you agreed with the six statements. Obviously, you lied; you got onto the directory by deception and were given the Directory, which included names and addresses. The Directory itself is obsolete, since some have joined and others have left. But I, too, will mail this (e-mail or snail-mail) to all who are in the old Directory. And I would like those who still agree with us to know that Tommy Kirkland has clearly shown that he does NOT agree with the six statements and that I am happy to answer any questions you might have about what Tommy has said and my response to him.

Tommy, contrary to your belief (and to your claim that we are against God's Word), we hold to God's Word that says: "Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. The [one] abiding in the doctrine of Christ, this one has the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bear this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and do not speak a greeting to him. For the [one] speaking a greeting {an ACTION based on a DOCTRINE} shares in his evil works" (2 John 9-11).

Let God be true, but every man a liar.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters