Arik said:

> My point was also: That if you called a lost person your
> brother by your position you hold, Marc, you are therefore lost
> as well. I made it very clear in my posts that I did NOT consider
> you lost. I think your positions are in error and are ridiculous,
> and it is good that they are. If your position was correct, you
> would be considered lost for calling a lost person your brother.
> That is why I say it is good that you are in error. You may say
> "I have no idea who this person is," and you would be correct.
> You don't know who this person is, but you have called him your
> brother, and if your position holds, you are therefore lost for
> calling a lost person your brother according to the doctrine of
> Marc Carpenter. Whether you have investigated the person or not
> plays no part in the bargain.


Once again, Arik, you have misunderstood me. [This is quite a frequent thing, isn't it?] I never said that if someone calls someone else a brother out of ignorance of what that person really believes, then that person is surely lost. Let me give an example to possibly clear up the misunderstanding:

Mr. Z says he believes that the gospel is the message of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ. He says that those who are ignorant of God's righteousness revealed in the gospel are lost. He says that Arminianism is a false gospel and that all Arminians are lost. He says that those who speak peace to Arminians are lost. In other words, he says all the right things. Now suppose Mr. X judges Mr. Z to be his brother in Christ, based on what Mr. Z has said. Five years later, Mr. Z says that he was lying in what he said he believed just so he could become part of the church. Mr. Z then says that he really believes that he will get to heaven by his good works. Mr. X then judges Mr. Z to be lost.

Now, was Mr. X necessarily lost when he said that Mr. Z was his brother? No. Mr. X was making a judgment based on Mr. Z's confession of orthodoxy. When it was evident that Mr. Z believed in a false gospel, Mr. X rightly judged Mr. Z lost.

So when do we judge a person lost who calls an unregenerate man his brother? 2 John gives us the answer. A person who speaks peace to one who brings a false gospel is a participant in his evil deeds. Thus, when Mr. Jones explicitly confesses a false gospel, and Mr. Smith knows what Mr. Jones explicitly confesses, then if Mr. Smith calls Mr. Jones his brother in Christ, it shows that Mr. Smith is lost.

As this relates to the situation you brought up: If I call someone my brother based on what that person has told me, and yet this person has confessed a false gospel to someone else and I am unaware of this confession of a false gospel, I am not necessarily lost based on my calling this person a brother. Now if this confession of a false gospel comes to my attention, and if I am sure that this person has confessed a false gospel (meaning that I would want to go to the source and not just rely on Arik's accusation), and if I still call this person a brother, then I am necessarily lost.

If Arik had a true love for me, then he would not let me go along in my ignorance calling someone a brother who has confessed a false gospel to him. He would tell me and expose this other person as being lost, so I would not call this person a brother any more.

> If I were you I would give up this waste of time you are
> engaging in because you have alienated alot of people that
> respected you in the past. I of course am one of those that
> respected you in the past. I encourage you to state what an
> antinominian is.


An antinomian is one who is "against the law." In contrast to David, who loved God's law, an antinomian believes that God's law is something to be despised as accursed. A true Christian sees that God's law now demands his eternal life and cannot condemn him because Christ completely obeyed the law and Christ's perfect righteousness is imputed to him. An antinomian does not see this. A true Christian sees that his obedience to God's law forms no part of the ground of his salvation, and he obeys God's law out of love for God and from a full assurance of final glory based on the imputed righteousness of Christ. An antinomian does not see this.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters