Dear Arik,

You wrote:

> What I think Karel is saying is that it is **Christ** who saves us and
> not Calvinism, Lutheranism, Clarkism, Van Tilism, etc. or the person
> adhering to Calvinism, etc.

> Only the work Christ did on the cross, which was according to
> Scripture, paid the price and accomplished the victory. That is why
> adherence to a system does not save. But rather Christ's shed blood
> according to the Scriptures saves.


I totally agree. Did you really think I would disagree with this? Did you really think I believe that Calvinism, Lutheranism, Clarkism, Van Tilism, etc., saves a person? Did you really think I believe that adherence to a system saves a person? Please read "Doctrinal Regeneration" at www.outsidethecamp.org/doctregen.htm . Doctrines do not save. Christ alone saves. Salvation is conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ ALONE. It is not conditioned on doctrine or knowledge or anything the sinner does or is enabled to do.

> If a man is saved it is not due to
> his holding onto the system of Calvinism, Clarkism, Arminianism, etc.
> It is due to the fact that Christ paid for his sins and the debt has
> been paid and there is no more debt. Calvin and Clark have nothing to
> do with salvation. Christ alone saves.


I totally agree. The way you said this implies that you think I believe that salvation is due to a person holding onto a system. It is NOT. I want to make that very clear. Christ alone saves.

> You cannot die for my sins, nor can I for yours. My writing has no
> ability to pay the price for your sins, nor does yours have the ability
> to pay for my sins. And because neither of our writing has any ability
> to save, no matter how correct (or incorrect) we may be, our writing is
> thus "powerless" to save. Only Christ can save. I am pretty certain
> this is what Karel is saying.


And you thought I believed that something or someone other than Christ can save?

> When Christ said: "It Is Finished," it really was FINISHED, and every
> person he paid for would be saved (some early in life, some late in
> life, and so on) by what Christ did to save them and none would or
> could be snatched from his hand. That was what saved them and had the
> power to save and nothing else. To teach, yes, books can teach us and
> explain the Scriptures to us, but to have the power to actually save is
> Christ's alone. I completely agree with what Karel is saying unless it
> can be shown otherwise.


And you thought I believed something differently?
Just to make things clear here:

Salvation is all of Christ. It is 100% of Christ and 0% of man. Salvation is not conditioned on right doctrine; it is conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone. When Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose again, salvation was absolutely, totally guaranteed for all persons for whom He died, and no one and nothing can stop this salvation from happening. And when God regenerates a person for whom Christ died, He immediately gives that person a knowledge of the gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. The saved person immediately believes that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. His boast is in the cross of Christ alone.

I encourage you to read a letter and a response that appeared in the latest issue of OTC: www.outsidethecamp.org/letters72(1).htm . This man wrote that salvation is of the Lord, not of the theology (which sounds like what you are saying) and then goes on to use this to justify his position that some Arminians are saved.

Salvation is conditioned on the work of Christ alone. And an inevitable and immediate fruit of salvation is the belief that salvation is conditioned on the work of Christ alone.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Arik,

You wrote:

<<Are you going to answer my response to your comments below, or have you gone silent as well?>>

Whoah, Arik! I don't live on the computer! Please be patient. I have many other obligations, including working full-time, spending time with my wife and six children, preparing sermons, preparing articles, and answering e-mails. Weekends are usually the only times I can spend a little time on this kind of thing. And since I'm involved in a whole bunch of other things (including some other lists), I can't guarantee that I can keep this up, and since I've gone through this already on this list, I'm not inclined to spend a whole lot of time on it. My approach is to tell the truth and then if people don't believe it, then so be it. I really can't spend time answering everyone's objections (since the majority of people on this list and every other list do object to the truth). If people do believe it, I usually get contacted outside of the list, and we begin fellowshipping. Believe it or not, it has happened on the Clark List. There are people who have read my posts on the Clark List (even the ones people made fun of) who have agreed with the truth and have started corresponding with me outside the list. Posting to lists serves two main purposes: (1) Witnessing to the God-haters with the hope that God will use the proclamation of the truth to bring His people to Himself, and (2) searching for those who agree with us. I've seen both of these happen. For any who are interested in contacting me outside the list, my e-mail address is otc@outsidethecamp.org.

> You said:
>
> > Just to make things clear here:
> >
> > Salvation is all of Christ. It is 100% of Christ and 0% of man.
> > Salvation
> > is not conditioned on right doctrine; it is conditioned on the work of
> > Jesus
> > Christ alone.

>
> Regarding what you said directly above; then what is it, Marc, that you
> believe? Why do you carry on the way you do to others? Seriously, if
> you believe what you say you do above, then why carry on with the stuff
> that you post and write?

First, see the two reasons I post to the lists.

Second, I quote from the Christian Confession of Faith (www.outsidethecamp.org/ccf.htm) under "Judging":

1. God requires of His people that they love and fellowship with each other. Love of the brothers in Jesus Christ is an inevitable fruit of salvation. [Psa 101:6; 133:1; Joh 13:34-35; 17:20-21; Gal 6:10; Phi 1:27; 2:2-4; 3:16; 1Jo 1:7; 2:9-11; 3:11,14-16,23; 4:7,11,20-21; 5:1]

2. One of the main proofs that believers love their brothers in Jesus Christ is that they do not speak peace to their brothers' enemies. They obey God's command to separate themselves from the world and false Christians. [Exo 34:15-16; Deu 13:1-3; Psa 1:1; 26:4-5; 101:3-8; Pro 4:14-15; 9:6; Joh 15:19; Rom 16:17-18; 1Co 5:11; 10:21; 2Co 6:14-18; Eph 5:7-12; 1Ti 6:3-5; 2Ti 3:5; 1Jo 2:15-16; 2Jo 10-11; Rev 18:4]

3. For these reasons, as well as to witness the gospel to the lost, it is necessary for believers to make judgments concerning who is unregenerate (including who are false Christians) and who is regenerate. The standard by which believers are to make these judgments is whether or not the person being considered believes the gospel. [Isa 8:20; 45:20; Mat 7:15-20; Mar 16:16; Luk 6:43-45; Joh 7:24; Rom 10:1-3; 1Co 5:11-12; Ga1 1:8-9; 1Jo 4:1,6; 2Jo 9]

4. Some people may show by their lawless way of life that they do not believe the gospel, but no one can demonstrate by his law-keeping that he believes the gospel; for there are many whose lives appear to conform to the law of God who are yet unregenerate. Therefore, let no man be judged by his reputation, good works, sufferings, appearance, or any other standard but the gospel. [1Sa 16:7; Mat 7:21-23; 23:25-28; Mar 16:16; Luk 18:11-12; Rom 1:21-2:2; 10:1-3; 1Co 6:9-10; 2Co 11:13-15; Gal 1:8-9; 6:14-16; 2Th 2:12]

5. Those who refuse to judge by this standard alone, preferring instead to judge by reputation, appearance, religious zeal and dedication, or a false gospel, show that they place no value on the gospel and thus show themselves to be unregenerate. All who consider at least some believers in a false gospel (e.g., believers in universal atonement) to be their brothers in Jesus Christ are unregenerate. [Deu 29:19; Pro 17:15; Isa 5:20; Jer 8:10-12; 1Co 13:6; 1Th 5:3; 2Jo 11]

> > And when God
> > regenerates a person for whom Christ died, He immediately gives that
> > person
> > a knowledge of the gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning
> > blood and
> > imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. The saved person
> > immediately
> > believes that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the
> > difference
> > between salvation and damnation. His boast is in the cross of Christ
> > alone.
>
> I see this as the jumping off point where you leave others. In other
> words, as I tried to say to Neil; is that every Arminian I have ever
> met (to the best of my recollection) would say that they believe in
> Christ alone for salvation. I have never known one to say: "I believe
> in Christ and also my next door neighbor's dog for salvation." So how
> do you argue against this?

This sounds as if you believe that everyone who says they believe in Christ alone for salvation is saved.

Every Roman Catholic I have ever met (to the best of my recollection) would say that they believe in Christ alone for salvation. I have never known one to say, "I believe in Christ and also my next door neighbor's dog for salvation." Should this lead me to believe that Roman Catholics are saved?

Satan is a counterfeiter. His followers say they believe in "grace," but it is not the grace of the gospel. They say they believe in "Christ," but it is not the Christ of the gospel. They say they believe in "salvation," but it is not the salvation of the gospel. If someone tells me he believes in Christ alone for salvation, this is a good start, but a whole lot of other questions need to be answered before I would judge him to be regenerate.

> What I see is that this becomes a jumping off point for you in that you
> then go from:
>
> 1. Mr. X believes in Christ alone for salvation.
>
> And then, you add the following, which is where I believe your jumping
> off point is:
>
> 2. If Mr. X says that he has free will (or any other false doctrine,
> take your pick) then he doesn't know who Christ is, and thinks he is
> saved but in reality is not saved. It doesn't matter if Mr. X was
> taught error by his Arminianist teachers or not. If he accepts free
> will (again, or any other false doctrine) he is not saved whether he
> believes Christ is the only Messiah or not.

The "or any other false doctrine, take your pick" is not accurate. Christians can believe false doctrine. But what Christians CANNOT believe is a false GOSPEL. The gospel contains some essential doctrines. If one is wrong in an essential gospel doctrine, then that one does not believe the gospel. So let's revise your scenario:

1. Mr. X says he believes in Christ alone for salvation.

2. If Mr. X says he believes that Christ died for everyone without exception, then he does not believe in Christ alone for salvation, since he does not believe that it is the work of Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation.

> Regarding what you think I am saying: have you read Karel's post on the
> issue? Neil seems to not understand what Karel is saying, and I don't
> think he understood what I said when I tried to explain it to him. Have
> you read Karel's post? Do you understand it? I am not asking if you
> agree with it, I am asking if you understand what it is he is actually
> saying?

I understand it (at least I think I do!).

Here's one part of it:

> That is why also GHC can categorically say that Arminianism is *not*
> preaching the Gospel. However, the Word of God, the Water of Life, the
> Bible, which is the Life, is nevertheless in this sense still to be
> found in Arminianism or Romanism or Lutheranism or even Calvinism at
> differing levels of clarity.


Yet GHC said that ALL true Arminians MUST be saved. Would he have that ALL true Roman Catholics MUST be saved? Hmmmm ...

And how about those who have the "Word of God" with "less clarity," such as JW's, Mormons, etc., etc.?

Marc


Dear Arik,

We know that, according to you, people on this list opposing your position have been infected with "Carpenterism" and that Carpenterism has been thoroughly refuted on this list as illogical. Okay. Fine. Let's grant, for the sake of argument, that the views I hold are absolutely illogical, unbiblical, heretical, etc., etc. Now let's focus on Arik. What does Arik believe? I have some questions that, if answered, might begin to answer the question of what you believe (and what others who agree with you believe). Now these questions aren't hard. They aren't meant to trick. So please, don't try to deflect attention from what you believe by talking about "Carpenterism" ad nauseum or saying that the questions are just "Carpenteristic" questions. Also, please don't answer with "I believe what so-and-so believes." Let's hear in your own words what you believe in response to the questions I have. Many of the questions are "yes" or "no" questions. Before you explain your answers, please answer these types of questions with a "yes" or a "no" (or an "I don't know"). Thanks!

(1) Do all regenerate people believe the true gospel?

(2) You said you agreed with Karel that some Arminians are saved. What is the true gospel that these saved Arminians believe? (This would also answer the question: What is the true gospel that both you and these saved Arminians believe?)

(3) Have you ever judged a person to be unregenerate? If so, what criteria did you use?

(4) Have you ever obeyed the command not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers? If so, how did you know who the unbelievers were?

(5) What does "from their fruits you shall know them" mean in Matthew 7:16,20?

(6) What does "test the spirits" mean in 1 John 4:1?

(7) Are all who confess that Jesus did not come in the flesh unregenerate?

(8) Are all who confess that Jesus is not God unregenerate?



(9) Below is a list of names of living people. The questions for each are: (a) Is this person regenerate? (b) What evidence led you to this conclusion?

i. The Pope

ii. Louis Farrakhan

iii. Billy Graham

iv. Robert Schuller

v. Bill Clinton

vi. Hugh Heffner

vii. Mohammar Khaddafi

viii. Ariel Sharon

ix. D. James Kennedy

(10) Below is a list of names of dead people. The questions for each are: (a) Was this person regenerate when he/she wrote or did the things that defined what he/she believed? (b) What evidence led you to this conclusion?

i. Nero

ii. Marcion

iii. Origen

iv. Arius

v. Pelagius

vi. Arminius

vii. John Wesley

viii. Charles Finney

ix. Dwight Moody

x. Mary Baker Eddy

xi. Joseph Smith

xii. Brigham Young

(11) You wrote:

<<Here is an example:



Proposition 1: I believe Jesus Christ, by suffering and dying on the cross, has fully paid the penalty for my personal sins, past, present and future.

Proposition 2: Jesus died for the sins of everyone and wants everyone to be saved.

As I understand what Nikolai is saying (Nikolai, correct me if I am misunderstanding you) is that for the Carpenteristic theory to hold, it has to be proven that a person cannot hold two contradictory propositions in their head and believe both.>>

Can a regenerate person believe the following two propositions at the same time:

(a) Jesus is God.

(b) Jesus is not God.

Can a regenerate person believe the following two propositions at the same time:

(c) Jesus is God.

(d) Vishnu is God.

Can a regenerate person believe the following two propositions at the same time:

(e) Jesus is mediator and redeemer.

(f) Mary is co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix.

Can a regenerate person believe the following two propositions at the same time:

(g) Justification is by grace alone through faith alone.

(h) My works help make me acceptable before God.

Can a regenerate person believe the following two propositions at the same time:

(i) The Bible is the Word of God.

(j) The Book of Mormon is the Word of God.

Thanks in advance, Arik, for giving us insight into what you believe by answering these questions.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc


Arik wrote:

<<I will not answer any of your questions.>>

Ah, now I get it. It's fair game to criticize, castigate, disparage, reproach, attack, denigrate, ridicule, marginalize, malign, denounce, decry others' belief, but when someone tries to bring your own belief under the microscope, then a different standard applies. Ah, yes, the double standard. Par for the course.

<<If your theory has been disproved, then the thing to do would be to repent, apologize, and stop promoting the ideas you promote. Since you have not done that, then I have no reason to believe you have given up your errors.>>

But we're not talking about my errors here; my questions were about your belief, totally apart from consideration of "Carpenterism." Even if "my theory" has been totally disproved in your mind, that has no bearing about the questions regarding *your* belief.

<<I need to clarify something. A week or so ago I was willing to discuss things with you. But I have decided otherwise.>>

Yeah, as soon as you're questioned, as soon as someone tries to pin down exactly what you believe, you decide otherwise. Good one. You're not the first, and, sadly, you probably won't be the last.

My views are out in the open for everyone to see. They've been called illogical and heretical and unbiblical and laughable and dangerous and unloving and a lot of other stuff. They've been called "Carpenterism" as if they originated with me and as if people who believe what I believe have been directly influenced/brainwashed by the Great Cult Leader. But ask Arik about what he believes about the gospel and about judging, ask him to have his views out in the open for everyone to see and critique, and See Arik Run.

So ... is anyone else who believes that Arminians are saved up for taking a crack at these questions? Karel? Sean? John Robbins?

Enough of what I believe. Everyone knows what I believe. Let's see what others believe.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters