Neil, a member of John Pedersen's Sovereign Grace Church, responded to a part of my sermon on Romans 7:1-3 (found at www.outsidethecamp.org/romans39.htm ). The verse in question is Romans 7:3: "So then, [if] the husband [is] living, she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's. But if the husband dies, she is free from the Law, [so as for] her not to be an adulteress [by] becoming another man's." I concluded from this passage that if a woman remarries while her husband is still living, she is an adulteress.

Neil writes:

"Do you think this judgment by Carp is warranted by the text? I can't say that I do. After all, the text does not say that she will BE an adulteress or that she IS an adulteress, but that she will be CALLED an adulteress? Just because someone is called an adulteress doesn't mean they necessarily are one. So it can not be proven from this verse that a woman who remarries while her husband is still alive is necessarily an adulteress."

Oh, the lengths to which the Pedersenites will go! "Oh, she's not really an adulteress; she's just CALLED one." And who, pray tell, will CALL this woman an adulteress? According to Davis, whoever CALLS this woman an adulteress is falsely accusing this woman! So, according to Davis, the first part of Romans 7:3 means, "So, then, if the husband is living, she will be called an adulteress (even though she really isn't) if she becomes another man's." Or, put another way, "So, then, if the husband is living, she will be falsely accused of being an adulteress if she becomes another man's." Notice the "So, then," at the beginning of the verse. This connects it with the previous verse, which is: "For the married woman was bound by Law to the living husband; but if the husband dies, she is set free from the Law of the husband." So, according to Davis, the woman is bound by Law to the living husband, so if she remarries while her husband is still alive, she'll be falsely accused of being an adulteress. Hmmmm ... So the woman's being bound by Law makes her not to be an actual adulteress if she breaks the Law but makes her to be falsely accused of being an adulteress. Wow. The twisting and contortioning is so obvious that it's laughable. And who's going to call this woman an adulteress when she's not one? God? Well, that would make God a false accuser. The church? Well, that would make the church a false accuser. Who is it? The world? So if a woman breaks the Law of marriage to which she is bound by marrying another while her husband is still alive, the world will call her an adulteress when she's really not? Or God will call her an adulteress when she's really not? Or the church will call her an adulteress when she's really not? Huh?? Oh, how ridiculous it all gets when you are blind to the truth.

This is from the same guy who said that if any person dies in unrepentant sin, he will go to hell, as it shows that he was never saved to begin with. He believes that there is NO Christian who is in unrepentant sin.


From something I posted on 9/19/01:

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?


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters