Dear Mr. Beem,

Thank you for stopping by our web site.

You wrote:

> If I may just point out a flaw in your reasoning. One of your main
> arguments is that the Holy Spirit makes it impossible for a regenerate
> person to support anything that a non-Calvinist preaches.

You're starting off on the wrong foot. This is not one of my main arguments at all. In fact, I don't even hold to what you say. First of all, I myself am a non-Calvinist. So if I held to what you say, then I would believe that it is impossible for a regenerate person to support anything I preach. This is, of course, ridiculous. Secondly, your sweeping use of the word "anything" leaves many questions. Certainly an Arminian preacher can say things that are true. I've never said anything to the contrary.

> This means that
> (according to you) the Wesleys, Spurgeon, Moody, Graham, and
> countless other
> preachers are damned to Hell.

Wrong again. I really wonder how much you have read of our site. I never say that any particular person is damned to Hell. This is a false accusation. Try to find anywhere on the web site where I have said such a thing. You won't find it. Christians do not know who among the unregenerate will end up in hell; they do not judge who is and who is not reprobate. Christians DO judge people to be unregenerate who do not believe the gospel. But there is a world of difference between judging someone to be unregenerate and judging someone to be reprobate. I do not know if God regenerated any of these people later in life, even on their deathbeds. Please see .

In a post on a list, I recently wrote the following:

<<The distinction between reprobate (non-elect) and unregenerate (unsaved) is important here. There's no one I know or ever heard of who judges people to be reprobate (that their names are not written in the book of life). So really, to say that we are not to judge another man's eternal state is certainly true but doesn't really help, because nobody does that. (We have been accused of doing that, of "condemning people to hell," of "judging people to be reprobate," but that just comes from people ignorant of what we believe.) On the other hand, Christians are commanded to make judgments of a person's spiritual state. When a Christian judges a person to be unregenerate (unsaved, lost, wicked, God-hater, etc.), he is not saying that this person's name is not written in the book of life. There are many unregenerate people walking around right now whose names are written in the book of life. They are the unregenerate elect. And Christians are commanded to judge them to be unregenerate and to witness to them and to pray for them and to not be unequally yoked with them. When a Christian judges a person to be unregenerate, he doesn't know if that unregenerate person is one of the elect or one of the reprobate. It's not for him to know, and it's not for him to judge an unregenerate person to be reprobate. Now a Christian can say that if the person continues in his unregenerate state until death, he will show himself to be a reprobate and will go to hell. But who knows when God converts someone on his deathbed? Thus, I stay away from saying that dead people who were heretics or other evil men during their lives are definitely in hell. I don't know if God converted them on their deathbeds. John Wesley was an arch-heretic, but I don't know if God converted him on his deathbed. Charles Spurgeon was a compromising spiritual whore, but I don't know if God converted him on his deathbed. Hitler and Stalin were evil men, but I don't know if God converted them on their deathbeds. Maybe some of you on this list know more than I do about what people believed the moment they died, but I don't.

So Christians ARE to judge unregenerate people to be unregenerate, but they are NOT to judge unregenerate people to be reprobate.
"He put before them another parable, saying: The kingdom of Heaven is compared to a man sowing good seed in his fields. But while the men were sleeping, one hostile to him came and sowed darnel in the midst of the wheat, and went away. And when the blade sprouted and produced fruit, then the darnel also appeared. And coming near, the slaves of the housemaster said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Then from where does it have the darnel? And he said to them, A man, an enemy did this. And the slaves said to him, Do you desire, then, that going out we should gather them? But he said, No, lest gathering the darnel you should uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest. And in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, First gather the darnel, and bind them into bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my granary." (Mat 13:24-30 LITV)

Note that this parable cannot contradict 1 Corinthians 5, in which Paul commands the church to "put out the evil one from you" (v. 13) and "purge out the old leaven" (v. 7). Thus, when the housemaster told the slaves not to gather the darnel, he was NOT talking about purging the leaven from the church. And this parable cannot contradict the command to judge, not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, etc. In my opinion, this is talking about judging someone to be reprobate. Notice first that the slaves are different than the reapers. Now notice in verse 27, the slaves recognize that the tares are tares. They judge the tares to be tares. The slaves then ask the housemaster if they are to uproot those whom they have judged to be tares. (Note that this cannot be talking about excommunication.) The housemaster says that this is not their job, because by judging all these tares to be unregenerate and also judging them to be reprobate, they would
be in danger of uprooting some of the wheat with the tares. It is the job of the reapers at the end of the age to separate the wheat from the tares.>>

> However, your argument seems to
> erode when the
> full weight of this teaching is considered. Let me give an example.
> Supposing that in all of the multiple volumes he filled, Charles Spurgeon
> made a statement concerning the sovereignty of God, one that even someone
> the likes of you could consider true. But wait! Even a true rendering of
> Scripture by Spurgeon must be false, according to your logic, for an
> unregenerate man cannot correctly understand Scripture!
> Therefore, following
> the logical syllogism which you put forth by default, Scripture can be
> rendered ineffective when its truth is realized by a
> non-Calvinist.

Just plain false. If you're going to refute what I believe, please refute what I actually believe and not what you think I believe.

> My, what
> power your "god" and "his word" seem to have.

All this based on false premises.

> I do not write this to merely to be mocked by you in your response, which
> will undoubtedly render me as a "god-hater" and a "damnable
> heretic." It is
> just that I was so repulsed by your teachings and your tone. Paul
> told the
> church in Thessalonica,
> "But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother
> tenderly cares
> for her own children.
> Having so fond an affection for you, we were well-pleased to
> impart to you
> not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you
> had become
> very dear to us. (1 Thessalonians 2:7-8).
> I don't think that your impartation of the "gospel" is gentle by
> any means.

I follow the example of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. They reserved their harshest words for the self-righteous religious leaders of their day. Jesus Christ called them children of hell and children of the devil. Paul said he wished they would castrate themselves. John the Baptist called them a brood of vipers. Would you accuse them of not being gentle?

> The Gospel must be made available to people; God will make it
> beautiful to
> all His Elect.

I agree.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter

"Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive with them." (Proverbs 28:4)


E-mails, Forums, and Letters