Now let's look at what Neil (follower of John Pedersen) believes with some excerpts from the Meta-Gospel List.

________

<<Neil: When you believe that God loves everyone and Jesus Christ died for everyone, coming to the realization that God loves you and Jesus Christ died for you is no big deal. God's love and Christ's work is seen as something common and ultimately insignificant where salvation is concerned. If you believe Jesus died for you, but others for whom he died are eternally damned, then what was his death good for? No Christian will hold such a contemptuous view of the love of God in Christ or speak peace to those who do hold to such a view.>>

Marc: Do you think that a person who speaks peace to those who do hold to such a view can also believe the true gospel at the same time?

<<Neil: I do not believe a person can unrepentantly speak peace to those who hold to such a view and also believe the true gospel at the same time. I do believe a person can repentantly speak peace to those who hold to such a view and also believe the true gospel at the same time.>>

<<David: So it is possible that TC is truly a Christian who is errantly speaking peace yet has not been fully persuaded in "the way" (like Apollos) but if TC is instructed about the impossibility of Arminians believing the gospel and he repents, he was probably saved all along. I think this is what you are saying, correct?>>

<<Neil: TC is sinfully speaking peace where there is no peace. Just like with any sin, when the sin is exposed, TC must be called to repentance. If repentance is not forthcoming, TC is to be regarded as an unbeliever. If TC repents, it is possible that he was saved all along. It is possible for a Christian to repentantly commit idolatry just as it is possible for a Christian to repentantly commit adultery, murder, theft, homosexuality, etc. It is impossible for a Christian to be involved in unrepentant sin. The god of Arminianism is an idol>>

Marc: So -- do you believe that a Christian can sin the sin of believing universal atonement for a time and then repent of it? Is it possible that he was saved all along? After all, according to you, "it is possible for a Christian to repentantly commit idolatry," and the god of Arminianism is an idol, so a Christian can repentantly believe in the god of Arminianism, right? And now let's get more extreme. Do you believe that a Christian can sin the sin of believing Islam for a time and then repent of it? Is it possible that he was saved all along? After all, according to you, "it is possible for a Christian to repentantly commit idolatry," and belief in Islam is certainly idolatry.

<<Neil: Tme is not the issue here. Repentance is the issue here. Be careful when you begin to suggest that Christians can sin unrepentantly. This would imply that God doesn't grant repentance to all Christians. The answer to the first question you asked is all of the above. However, the person who does this all the way to death would go to Hell. I think the only gospel issues are faith and repentance. All those who unrepentantly speak peace to Arminians, Jews, Muslims, Satanists, etc. are unsaved.>>

Marc: So you're saying that those who REPENTANTLY speak peace to Arminians, Jews, Muslims, Satanists, etc., are possibly saved? Let's take one example: Muslims. Suppose Mr. X professes to believe the gospel and knows what Muslims believe and yet says that at least some Muslims are regenerate. He believes this for a period of time and is then confronted with his error and repents. Are you saying that it is possible that this man was saved all along? You say time is not the issue here. So, suppose Mr. X believes that at least some Muslims are regenerate for 40 years, and on his deathbed, he is confronted with his error and repents. Are you saying that it is possible that this man was saved for those 40 years that he believed that at least some Muslims are regenerate? And how about the number of times one is confronted? Do you judge someone lost after he refuses to repent after one confrontation? Two? Thirteen? A thousand? And do you think that unrepentant sin in ANY area is indicative of lostness? What about error in eschatology? Would you judge a person lost if he refused to repent of errant eschatology? Errant eschatology is, after all, sin. And if one continues in unrepentant errant eschatology, he is continuing in unrepentant sin. You say that "the only gospel issues are faith and repentance." So, are you saying that one who repentantly speaks peace to an Arminian had repented of dead works and former idolatry at conversion? How about a person who is a professing Calvinist who believes that he remained an Arminian for a time after regeneration? Is it possible that such a person had already repented of dead works and former idolatry at conversion? What do you believe is the repentance that happens at conversion, anyway? Finally -- do you believe that there are any sins that are impossible for a believer to commit? Is it impossible for a believer to believe a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner? Is it impossible for a believer to believe that Jesus is not God?

<<Neil (to David): Do you think murder is a gospel issue? If not, do you think unrepentant murderers can be Christians? The same question could be asked about thieves, adulterers, idolators, liars, drunkards, etc. But you can't say that it is impossible for a Christian to sin certain sins. This view would ultimately turn out to be legalistic. You said that the elect never die without gospel repenting. Do you think the elect can die without non-gospel repenting?>>

Marc: Neil, are you saying that when a Christian dies, he does not have any unrepentant sin whatsoever? Are you saying that if someone dies in any sin that he has not repented of, he is not going to heaven?

<<Neil: But you can't say that it is impossible for a Christian to sin certain sins.>>

Marc: Oh -- so a Christian can sin the sin of believing that Jesus was not God? A Christian can sin the sin of believing in Islam? A Christian can sin the sin of believing that Jesus Christ died for everyone? A Christian can sin the sin of believing that Satan is the supreme controller of the universe?

I would like you to answer yes or no to each of these questions. If you believe that it is possible for a Christian to sin any sin, then you can judge NO person lost. You cannot even judge a Satanist to be lost. This is utterly repulsive. You are not only speaking peace to Arminians, you are speaking peace to atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons, JWs, Hindus, Satanists, and every other person who believes the false gospel. This sounds just like John Pedersen. The Bible clearly shows that it is impossible for a Christian to sin certain sins, because there are certain sins that expose a person's lostness.

Examples:

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of saying there is no God (Psalm 14:1).

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of praying to a god that cannot save (Isaiah 45:20).

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of bringing forth corrupt fruit (Matthew 7:18).

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of denying Christ before men (Matthew 10:33).

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of following a stranger (John 10:5).

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of being ignorant of God's righteousness (Romans 10:3).

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of being unsubmitted to the righteousness of God (Romans 10:3).

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of preaching a false gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of saying they have no sin (1 John 1:8)

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of saying they have not sinned (1 John 1:10)

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of denying that Jesus is the Christ (1John 2:22)

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of denying the Son (1 John 2:23)

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of abiding not in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9)

Regenerate persons cannot sin the sin of speaking peace to one who brings a false gospel (2 John 11).

Marc: Neil, are you saying that when a Christian dies, he does not have any unrepentant sin whatsoever?

<<Neil: Yes. The blood of Christ has washed all the Christian's sins away.>>

Marc: Are you saying that if someone dies in any sin that he has not repented of, he is not going to heaven?

<<Neil: Yes. All the elect are granted repentance. All the reprobate are not granted repentance.>>

<<Neil: My position is that it is possible for people to say and do things which are opposed to what they believe. Therefore, it is possible for a Christian to repentantly speak peace to an Arminian. It is also possible for a Christian to repentantly speak as an Arminian would speak. But it is not possible for a Christian to believe Arminianism, because believing Arminianism indicates an absence of repentance. Marc also believes that errant doctrines which are not concerned with the gospel, such as sacramentology, eschatology, or ecclesiology, are sinful. I do not believe a person is in sin if he holds an errant view of these doctrines unless their view is somehow blasphemous, anti- gospel, or otherwise opposed to the righteousness of Christ. I think most folks would agree with me about this. Please consider what I've said. I will probably speak further about these things in the future.>>

Marc: First, Neil says that there are NO sins that Christians cannot commit. Then he says that Christians cannot commit the sin of believing a false gospel. Then, when I address doctrinal error, he says that non-gospel doctrinal error is NOT sin!! He even goes so far as to say that "I think most folks would agree with me about this." Okay -- to all who are on this list -- how many of you think that non-gospel doctrinal error is not sin? It's incredible, if you think about it. He's saying that if someone believes something contrary to the Bible, as long as it is not blasphemous, anti-gospel, or opposed to the righteousness of Christ, then this belief that is contrary to the Bible is not sin!! WOW!! And then there's the issue of repentance. Neil believes that NO ONE who dies in unrepentant sin will go to heaven. This means (by logical inference) that Neil believes that there has been, is now, or will be a time in which he is TOTALLY FREE of unrepentant sin. This is incredible!! Is this not a form of perfectionism? Is this not the height of religious pride?

I have some more questions for you, Neil.

You wrote: "It is also possible for a Christian to repentantly speak as an Arminian would speak."

So, when that Christian is speaking as an Arminian would speak, does this include speaking things like, "Jesus died for everyone without exception?"

You wrote: "Time is not the issue here. Repentance is the issue here. Be careful when you begin to suggest that Christians can sin unrepentantly. This would imply that God doesn't grant repentance to all Christians. The answer to the first question you asked is all of the above. However, the person who does this all the way to death would go to Hell. I think the only gospel issues are faith and repentance. All those who unrepentantly speak peace to Arminians, Jews, Muslims, Satanists, etc. are unsaved."

So, are you saying that those who REPENTANTLY speak peace to Arminians, Jews, Muslims, Satanists, etc., are possibly saved?

Let's take one example: Muslims. Suppose Mr. X professes to believe the gospel and knows what Muslims believe and yet says that at least some Muslims are regenerate. He believes this for a period of time and is then confronted with his error and repents. Are you saying that it is possible that this man was saved all along?

You say time is not the issue here. So, suppose Mr. X believes that at least some Muslims are regenerate for 40 years, and on his deathbed, he is confronted with his error and repents. Are you saying that it is possible that this man was saved for those 40 years that he believed that at least some Muslims are regenerate?

And how about the number of times one is confronted? Do you judge someone lost after he refuses to repent after one confrontation? Two? Thirteen? A thousand?

I'd appreciate answers to each of these questions.

<<Neil: Romans 14 does not say that unessential doctrinal error is sin. Those who hold to unessential doctrinal error are to be received and not called to repentance.>>

<<Neil: All Christians sin regularly their entire lives. All Christians have, however, been given repentance. This means that they, by God's power in them, recognize their sin, assign it to its rightful place, which is death, for that is what it received in Christ, and turn from it in hatred. When God gives a person repentance, he doesn't give repentance of all the big sins and forget about the little ones. He gives repentance of all sin, of all that proceeds from and originates in the Chrtistian himself. You see, repentance isn't something we do by our own strength. It is a gift from God. It would be humble to say that Christians can die in unrepentant sin if repenting was something we did by our own ability. But it isn't humble to say this. It's prideful. Saying that Christians can die, or even live, in unrepentant sin implies that repenting is something I do, by my own power, and that "God simply can't expect me to get around to every last itty-bitty sin, now can he?" No Christian is free from sin. Christians are indeed sinful, just like everyone else. But all Christians are totally free from unrepentant sin. If you have unrepentant sin, you are not a Christian. 1 John 3:4-6 says, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him." These verses say that whoever abides in Christ does not sin unrepentantly, and whoever sins unrepentantly has neither seen Christ nor known Christ. If you have any "pet sins" that you like to keep around for the weekends, when your wife isn't home, or when your college buddies are around, you have not truly repented. We must repent of all wickedness and hate that which is of the flesh, by God's power. Perfectionism is when we start saying things like "I haven't committed this particular sin or that particular sin in three and a half years. And you know what, I will never commit this particular sin or that particular sin again." When we say things like this, we show ourselves to be total ignoramuses where repentance and our own sin is concerned. By the way, I have already answered your questions in post 1009.>>

Marc: Does a Christian who is in unrepentant sin have any true assurance that he is saved?

<<Neil: No Christian is in unrepentant sin.>>

--------------------

Here you see Pedersenism right out in the open. Discussion, anyone?

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Neil wrote:

> I am under the impression that Marc believes some or all Christians are
> in unrepentant sin. I'd like to know from Marc, which sins in
> particular do you believe Christians can commit unrepentantly?


Taking time to list all the sins would be a poor use of time. But I can give you some examples: grumbling/complaining, error in non-essential doctrine, envy, covetousness, unjustfied anger, etc., etc.

You believe that when a Christian takes his last breath, he has ABSOLUTELY NO unrepentant sins -- that he has repented of EVERY SINGLE SIN that he has EVER committed. And you believe that if a person, upon his last breath, has EVEN A SINGLE unrepentant sin and dies in unrepentant sin, he will go to hell. Thus, you believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Christian to die while he is grumbling/complaining, while he is coveting, while he is unjustifiably angry, and on and on. (And Pedersen was accusing ME of perfectionism?!)

The truth is that there is not a single perfectly repentant believer. There are sins that believers commit in ignorance, and they might not know that what they did/believed was sin during their entire lifetimes.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter
www.outsidethecamp.org


> Marc: Or how about the other end -- suppose someone formally
> confesses belief in Wesleyanism? Isn't it possible for a Christian
> to confess that Wesleyanism is the true gospel?
>
> Neil: It's possible for them to do this sinfully, not probable. It's
> possible for a Christian to sinfully speak peace to those who hold
> the views of those on TBN, not probable.


Let all see that Neil has written that a Christian can confess that Wesleyanism is the true gospel. For some of what Wesleyanism teaches, see www.outsidethecamp.org/wesley.htm .

Now let's keep on going down this road to see where it leads us. I will do this with a bunch of follow-up questions (the kind that Pedersen hates):

1. Can a Christian confess that Roman Catholicism is the true gospel?

2. Can a Christian confess that Mormonism is the true gospel?

3. Can a Christian confess that Russellism (JW-ism) is the true gospel?

4. Can a Christian confess that Buddhism is the true gospel?

5. Can a Christian confess that Hinduism is the true gospel?

6. Can a Christian confess that Islam is the true gospel?

7. Can a Christian confess that Satanism is the true gospel?

7. Can a Christian confess that atheism is the true gospel?
> Marc wrote: Why? Isn't it possible for a Christian to associate with
> and speak peace to heretics, even the most blatant of heretics?
>
> Neil: Yes, it's possible.

Let all see that Neil has written that a Christian can speak peace to (consider a brother in Christ) even the most blatant of heretics. This means that Neil believes that a Christian can consider the following to be his brothers in Christ:

Roman Catholics
Mormons
Russellites
Buddhists
Hindus
Muslims
Satanists
Atheists

For example, Neil believes that a Christian can consider the Pope to be his brother in Christ. He believes that a Christian can consider Osama bin Laden to be his brother in Christ. He believes that a Christian can consider the Dalai Lama to be his brother in Christ. He believes that a Christian can consider Anton LaVey (Church of Satan) to be his brother in Christ. He believes that a Christian can consider blatant heretics of the past to be his brothers in Christ, such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Mohammed, the past Popes, Buddha, Madelyn Murray O'Hare, Mary Baker Eddy, L. Ron Hubbard, Arius, Pelagius, Marcion, Ghandi, etc., etc.

Now if you say, "Wait a minute! You're going too far!", I would like to remind you of what Neil said.

I asked Neil: "Isn't it possible for a Christian to associate with a speak peace to heretics, even the most blatant of heretics?"

And what did Neil answer? Was his answer, "No, it's not possible"? Was his answer, "It's possible in some cases and not in others"? No. Neil answered,

"Yes, it's possible."

Get ahold of that statement. Neil believes that it is possible for a CHRISTIAN (one who believes the true gospel) to SPEAK PEACE TO (consider a brother in Christ) the MOST BLATANT OF HERETICS (those who blatantly promote a false gospel). And not only that, but Neil also believes that it is possible for a CHRISTIAN (one who believes the true gospel) to CONFESS (verbally state his conviction) that WESLEYANISM (justification by works, among other things) is the TRUE GOSPEL (the good news of salvation that is put forth in the Bible).

Do you see what we have here? Neil is no less wicked than Billy Graham and Robert Schuller, who believe that there are some who do not believe in Jesus who are saved (see www.outsidethecamp.org/heterodoxy52.htm ). THIS is the kind of person who is attracted to the heresy of John Pedersen (which Neil is). THIS is the kind of person who would defend Bill Parker's speaking peace to an annihilationist (which Neil does).

Discerning hearts will see this. Hearts that are fat with self-righteousness will not.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Neil, you God-hating fool, who told you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore, bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.

> Marc: There is nowhere in Scripture where Christians are characterized as
> adulterers or drunkards; in fact, whenever adulterers or drunkards are
> mentioned, it is talking about unbelievers.
>
> Neil: What about James 4:4?

[For the benefit of others on this list, Neil is discussing adulterers/drunkards not just for the purpose of its face value; he wants to demonstrate, as John Pedersen and his followers believe, that believers continue to be totally depraved after regeneration and thus not only can be adulterers and drunkards but also can confess false gospels.]

Boy, you and John Pedersen must have thought for a long, long time about this one. My original statement was made on 1/18/02, before you slithered away. It took you 4 months to come up with James 4:4? And that's all you could come up with? I guess this means that you take James 4:4 to be a proof that some Christians are adulterers.

Again, for the benefit of the others on this list, let us look at the passage:

James 4:4 "Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship of the world is hostility [toward] God? Whoever, then, purposes to be a friend of the world is put down [as] hostile [to] God." (LITV)

Compare to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or do you not know that unjust ones will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not be led astray, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous ones, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor plunderers shall inherit [the] kingdom of God. And some of you were these things, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God." (LITV)

So we see in these two passages that James calls a certain people adulterers and adulteresses, and Paul says that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Let's get into a little bit of elementary logic here, something of which Neil is devoid. If you have no logic, you have no exegesis.

(A) = adulterer

(I) = inheritor of the kingdom of God

(R) = regenerate

Paul puts forth the following truth:

If (A), then not (I)

or
No (A) is (I).

or

If (A) = true, then (I) = not true.

When this is put in sentence form and words are substituted for variables, it looks like this:

If someone is an adulterer, then he is not an inheritor of the kingdom of God.

or

No adulterer is an inheritor the kingdom of God.

Now, from other Scriptures, we know this truth:

If (R), then (I).

or

All (R) is (I).

or

If (R) = true, then (I) = true.

Sentence form:

If someone is regenerate, then he is an inheritor of the kingdom of God.

or

All who are regenerate are inheritors of the kingdom of God.

We can also state the converse:

If not (R) then not (I).

or

No not (R) is (I).

or

If (R) = not true, then (I) = not true.

Sentence form:
If someone is not regenerate, then he is not an inheritor of the kingdom of God.

or

All who are not regenerate are not inheritors of the kingdom of God.

And since R and I always go together, we can reverse the sentences to say:

If someone is not an inheritor of the kingdom of God, then he is not regenerate.

or

All who are not inheritors of the kingdom of God are not regenerate.

Got is thus far?

Now let us substitute (R) for (I) in the original truth Paul put forth. It would look like this:

If (A), then not (R)

or

No (A) is (R).

or

If (A) = true, then (R) = not true.

Sentence form:

If someone is an adulterer, then he is not regenerate.

or

No adulterer is regenerate.

Now Neil, if you have an objection to this logic, then please show where this logic is flawed. If you cannot show where this logic is flawed, then please shut up.

Now let's go on to how this relates to James 4:4. I, as a Christian, believe that there are no contradictions in the Bible, since the Bible is inspired by the non-contradictory God. If you do not believe this, then my argument will be meaningless to you. It will be meaningless to Neil, because Neil is full of contradictions. For example, Neil has ridiculed people who say that there are two kinds of idolatry (one that all can commit and one that only unbelievers can commit). He says that there is only one kind of idolatry and that Christians can sin all the same sins of idolatry that non-Christians can sin. Yet Neil has also said that no Christian can believe a false gospel. I have taken Neil to task. Belief of a false gospel is a kind of idolatry. Yet in one of Neil's beliefs, Christians cannot believe a false gospel. This puts Neil in a real sticky situation. If he holds just to the first belief (that there are not two kinds of idolatry), then he would have to admit that Christians CAN commit the idolatry of believing a false gospel, which he knows would put him in the same camp as the rest of the God-haters who think that Christians CAN commit the idolatry of believing in Arminianism, Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Buddhism, etc. If he holds just to the second belief (that Christians CANNOT commit the idolatry of believing a false gospel), then his whole assertion (and John Pedersen's whole assertion) that we are making distinctions that do not exist comes crumbling down. Neil has never addressed this contradiction, because he knows that it will get him into big trouble.

But for those of us who are Christians, we believe that there are no contradictions in the Bible. I have shown from the logic above that in 1 Corinthians, Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that no adulterer is regenerate. Thus, James 4:4 cannot contradict this. So we are already approaching James 4 with the belief that no adulterer is regenerate. So when James calls certain people "adulterers and adultresses," what are we to conclude? Again, simple logic:

Since all (A) are not (I), and since all not (I) are not (R), then if James calls certain people (A), then he is calling these people not (I), which means that he is calling them not (R). Simple. If James is calling certain people adulterers, then he is calling these people not regenerate. Again, Neil, if you have an objection to this logic, then please show where this logic is flawed. If you cannot show where this logic is flawed, then please shut up.

Based on this logical exegesis, we MUST conclude that James is talking about unregenerate people here. And the Scripture plainly bears this out. The KJV translation of this verse says:

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." Pretty clear, wouldn't you say? Anyone who is a friend of the world is an ENEMY of God. Now, do I have to go back through the logic process to show that all ENEMIES of God are UNREGENERATE, or is that self-evident? BEFORE God's people were saved, they were ENEMIES of God; but now they have been RECONCILED to God and are at PEACE with God through the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. There is NO REGENERATE PERSON who is an ENEMY of God.

Verse 5 talks about the evil spirit that is in unregenerate man. Verse 6 says that God gives grace to the humble ones but SETS HIMSELF AGAINST the proud (the adulterers and adulteresses, the enemies of God). Verses 7 through 9 is a call to repent and believe. Notice he is talking to people whose hands have not been cleansed, whose hearts have not been purified, who are double-minded. These are UNREGENERATE people to whom he is talking. Do you think I'm the only one who has come to this conclusion? Well, John Gill says this:

<<Ver. 4. "Ye adulterers and adulteresses," Not who were literally such, but in a figurative and metaphorical sense: as he is an adulterer that removes his affections from his own wife, and sets them upon another woman; and she is an adulteress that loves not her husband, but places her love upon another man; so such men and women are adulterers and adulteresses, who, instead of loving God, whom they ought to love with all their hearts and souls, set their affections upon the world, and the things of it: ... these the apostle addresses in the following manner;"know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?" that an immoderate love for the good things of the world, and a prevailing desire after the evil things of it, and a delight in the company and conversation of the men of the world, and a conformity to, and compliance with, the sinful manners and customs of the world, are so many declarations of war with God, and acts of hostility upon him; and show the enmity of the mind against him, and must be highly displeasing to him, and resented by him: whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God; whoever is in league with the one must be an enemy to the other; God and mammon cannot be loved and served by the same persons, at the same time; the one will be loved, and the other hated; the one will be attended to, and the other neglected: this may be known both from reason and from Scripture, particularly from Matthew 6:24.

Ver. 5. "Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain?" etc. ... "the spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" that is, the depraved spirit of man, the spirit of an unregenerate man; that as it is prone to every lust, and prompts to every sin, the imagination of the thought of man's heart being evil, and that continually, so it instigates to envy the happiness of others; (Genesis 6:5 8:21) ...

"God resisteth the proud": or scorns the scorners; he rejects them that trust in themselves that they are righteous, and despise others; that say, Stand by thyself, I am holier than thou; that are proud of themselves, their enjoyments, their gifts, their external righteousness, and holiness, and are full, and rich, and increased with goods, and stand in need of nothing; these he opposes, he sets himself against, he thrusts them away from him, he sends them away empty, and scatters them in the imagination of their own hearts; and in the things in which they deal proudly, he is above them; he sits in the heavens and laughs at them, and frustrates all their schemes: ...

"cleanse [your] hands, ye sinners, and purify [your] hearts, ye double minded"; the persons addressed are not the profane men of the world, but sinners in Zion, formal professors, hypocritical persons; who speak with a double tongue to men, and who draw nigh to God with their mouths, but not with their hearts; who halt between two opinions, and are unstable in all their ways: cleansing of their hands and hearts denotes the purity of outward conversation, and of the inward affections; and supposes impurity both of flesh and spirit, that the body and all its members, the soul and all its powers and faculties, are unclean; and yet not that men have a power to cleanse themselves, either from the filth of an external conversation, or from inward pollution of the heart; though a man attempts the one, he fails in it; and who can say he has done the other? ...

Ver. 9. "Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep", etc. Not in a bare external way; not by afflicting the body with fastings and scourgings, by renting of garments, and clothing with sackcloth, and putting ashes on the head, and other such outward methods of humiliation; but afflicting the soul is meant, an inward mourning and weeping over the plague of the heart, the impurity of nature, and the various sins of life; after a godly sort, and because contrary to a God of infinite love and grace; in an evangelical way, looking to Jesus, and being affected with the pardoning grace and love of God in Christ. Let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness; meaning their carnal joy, on account of their friendship with the world, and their enjoyment of the things of it, since they consumed them on their lusts, and which betrayed enmity to God.>>


So, Neil, go slither back under the rock with John Pedersen and spend some more time trying to refute the truth. But when you come back out, the light will expose your wickedness.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter
Hi, Neil -

> All of these questions Marc is asking are being used to maneuver me
> into a position where he can judge me to be unregenerate.


Nope. I have no need to maneuver you in this way in order to make a judgment. But I want to show others on this list who have some logical sense the utter absurdity and heresy of the Pedersenite position. I think many of you are beginning to see it. First, Neil says that there are NO sins that Christians cannot commit. Then he says that Christians cannot commit the sin of believing a false gospel. Then, when I address doctrinal error, he says that non-gospel doctrinal error is NOT sin!! He even goes so far as to say that "I think most folks would agree with me about this." Okay -- to all who are on this list -- how many of you think that non-gospel doctrinal error is not sin? It's incredible, if you think about it. He's saying that if someone believes something contrary to the Bible, as long as it is not blasphemous, anti-gospel, or opposed to the righteousness of Christ, then this belief that is contrary to the Bible is not sin!! WOW!!

And then there's the issue of repentance. Neil believes that NO ONE who dies in unrepentant sin will go to heaven. This means (by logical inference) that Neil believes that there has been, is now, or will be a time in which he is TOTALLY FREE of unrepentant sin. This is incredible!! Is this not a form of perfectionism? Is this not the height of religious pride?

I have some more questions for you, Neil.
You wrote:
"It is also possible for a Christian to repentantly speak as an Arminian would speak."

So, when that Christian is speaking as an Arminian would speak, does this include speaking things like, "Jesus died for everyone without exception?"

You wrote:
"Time is not the issue here. Repentance is the issue here. Be careful when you begin to suggest that Christians can sin unrepentantly. This would imply that God doesn't grant repentance to all Christians. The answer to the first question you asked is all of the above. However, the person who does this all the way to death would go to Hell. I think the only gospel issues are faith and repentance. All those who unrepentantly speak peace to Arminians, Jews, Muslims, Satanists, etc. are unsaved."

So, are you saying that those who REPENTANTLY speak peace to Arminians, Jews, Muslims, Satanists, etc., are possibly saved?

Let's take one example: Muslims. Suppose Mr. X professes to believe the gospel and knows what Muslims believe and yet says that at least some Muslims are regenerate. He believes this for a period of time and is then confronted with his error and repents. Are you saying that it is possible that this man was saved all along?

You say time is not the issue here. So, suppose Mr. X believes that at least some Muslims are regenerate for 40 years, and on his deathbed, he is confronted with his error and repents. Are you saying that it is possible that this man was saved for those 40 years that he believed that at least some Muslims are regenerate?

And how about the number of times one is confronted? Do you judge someone lost after he refuses to repent after one confrontation? Two? Thirteen? A thousand?

I'd appreciate answers to each of these questions.

Thanks,

Marc


Another question for Neil:

Does a Christian who is in unrepentant sin have any true assurance that he is saved?

Marc


Mike F, in his story about his encounter with a Wesleyan Holiness Group, describes one of their beliefs as "If you die with an unrepented sin you go to hell." Interestingly, on the meta-gospel list, there was a Pedersenite named Neil D who was advocating the same thing. Of course, being "Reformed," his twist on it was that if you die in unrepentant sin, you show you were never saved to begin with. As in the Pedersenite circles, repentance trumps everything else. They believe that there are no sins that a Christian cannot commit other than blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and the way to tell that one is a Christian is if he repents of his sin whenever he is confronted, whatever the sin may be. I asked him if a Christian could repentantly speak peace to Arminians, Jews, Muslims, and Satanists, and he said that this was possible. But the most bizarre thing is that he was saying that Christians never sin unrepentantly -- every sin that a Christian ever commits is repented of as soon as he is confronted with this sin. I asked him if non-essential doctrinal error is sin, and he said NO!! So, just like Wesley, he says that some sins are non-sins in order to "reduce the list," if you will, to known sins. With this philosophy, one must believe that every Christian is made aware of every sin in ignorance before they die so they can repent of it. Or one must believe that sins in ignorance are not sins at all. I wonder (and we didn't get this far) how the Pedersenites do their repenting. Is it a blanket, "Forgive me of all the sins I've committed today (or this hour)," or is it a specific confession of each sin and a repentance of it? Just think of the man on his deathbed who believes this heresy. He has to repent of all the sins he's committed that he forgot to repent of, so he can be sure he'll get to heaven. This is just another form of the false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. Pedersenites can have no assurance. I've written to Pedersen on the matter of assurance, and he said no one who is in an unrepentant sin, no matter what that sin is, should have assurance. He does not distinguish between "gospel sins" (such as preaching a false gospel or not believing in the deity of Christ), which are always indicative of lostness, and "non-gospel sins" (such as lying or covetousness), which Christians can and do commit. So, for example, if someone grumbles about something and is called to repentance for it and doesn't repent, the Pedersenites, if they were consistent, would have to count that person lost. And if someone on his deathbed is in the midst of a less-than-holy attitude toward his situation and then suddently dies before having repented of his attitude, it shows that he was never saved to begin with. I've really never seen a heresy like it. It has elements of Wesleyan Perfectionism, but it does not contain the belief that a regenerate person can lose his salvation. The truth of the gospel is that salvation is conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. Christians are certainly a repenting people, but they do not have to worry that if they have not repented of every sin, they will go to hell. Christians realize that they constantly fall short of the righteousness that God requires and look to CHRIST ALONE for their assurance, not their repentance. Perhaps Neil would like to come onto this list and continue discussing this gospel issue.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters