<<But do you not see something wrong with declaring another who confesses faith in Jesus Christ, as being unregenerate and "lost", simply because he does not have the same exposure or grasp of the Scriptures that you have acquired?>>
What does it mean to "confess faith in Jesus Christ"? Does it mean merely to say, "I believe in Jesus Christ?" If someone professes to believe in Jesus Christ but does not believe the gospel, he is unregenerate. It all boils down to belief in the gospel. Which relates to what Goldrush wrote next:
<<We believe that the "Gospel" is the entire Word of God. How can the regenerated soul immediately understand the entire Bible and all the soteriological doctrines contained therein immediately upon conversion?>>
The gospel is not the entire Word of God. Please see the sermon "The Gospel - What It's Not" at www.outsidethecamp.org/gospelisnt.htm . The gospel is a specific message that is contained in the Word of God. I am not claiming that a regenerated soul can immediately understand the entire Bible upon conversion. Yet, if you are consistent, since you believe that the gospel is the entire Word of God, you would have to conclude, based on Mark 16:16, that all who do not believe the entire word of God are unregenerate. One cannot believe what he doesn't know and understand. But, of course, you wouldn't conclude that, because you do not believe that every regenerate person believes the gospel. Here's a quote from the aforementioned sermon:
<<First, the gospel is NOT the entire Word of God. It's a very popular notion among those who profess to believe the doctrines of grace to define the gospel as everything that is contained in the Bible. Now what difference does this definition make? Isn't it true that the entire Bible records the very words of God? Yes. Isn't it true that God's Word must be believed? Yes. Isn't it true that the gospel is contained in God's Word? Yes. Isn't it true that the gospel is throughout God's Word? Yes. So why is defining the gospel as the entire Word of God such a horrible error? Well, let's think about it for a little while. If the gospel is the entire Word of God, then how is the gospel preached? Does the preacher have to read or preach the entire Bible in order to preach the gospel? Well, the advocates of this definition have a little out that they will always mention eventually. They will say, "No! A preacher doesn't need to read or preach the entire Bible; instead, a preacher can read or preach ANYTHING in the Bible and still preach the gospel." So they believe that the power of God unto salvation is ANYTHING in the Bible. Now notice what this means about BELIEVING the gospel. Mark 16:16 says that those who do not believe the gospel will be damned. If they were consistent, they would have to say that those who do not believe EVEN ONE PART of the Bible are lost. And, as I mentioned in last week's sermon, you can't believe what you don't know. So, if they were consistent, they would have to say that someone who doesn't know that "Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah," which is from Numbers 26:33, they are lost. But no - they do not say that someone who doesn't know about a particular truth in the Bible is lost. Instead, they say that WHEN THIS MESSAGE IS PREACHED, they will believe it. And UNTIL IT IS PREACHED, a believer can be ignorant of it. Now this is all well and good, when it comes to the daughters of Zelophehad. But what about when it comes to the work of Christ that demands and ensures the salvation of all whom He represented? Here we get to the bottom of it all, and the real reason why some would want to define the gospel in this way. They use the SAME REASONING for the daughters of Zelophehad as for the atoning work of Christ. After all, since it's ALL the gospel, one passage of Scripture is no different than any other passage of Scripture when it comes to salvation.
So here's what they say: They say that a regenerate person can be ignorant of what Christ's work accomplished, but when they are confronted with what Christ's work accomplished, they will believe it. This is their way of speaking peace to those who are ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel, including speaking peace to Arminians. They will say that a regenerate person may believe for a period of time that Christ died for everyone, but when they are shown their error from the Bible, they will repent of their error and believe the truth of the Bible. But what they are really doing is speaking peace to those who believe that Christ died for everyone. They do not judge as lost those who are ignorant of what the atonement accomplished. In speaking peace to them, they are participants in their evil deeds.>>
<<You are saying that we were not Christians until we repented of the false teaching, and placed ourselves under more correct teaching. Was that our works, or were we led from error to truth by the Spirit of God?>>
Since you believe that you continued to believe in a false gospel for a time after you were regenerated, it shows that you have not truly repented of your former religion. Thus, I am saying that you are still not Christians. I am saying that you were led from one false gospel to another false gospel, and no, it was not by the Spirit of God. Please see the article "Gospel Repentance" at www.outsidethecamp.org/gosprep.htm and the sermon "Gospel Repentance and Judgment" at www.outsidethecamp.org/gosprepjudg.htm . See also the letters and responses at www.outsidethecamp.org/letters44.htm . One of the letters was as follows:
<<I became a Calvinist in 1995. I believe I came to faith in '91. Becoming a Calvinist was a process. I must confess that I did not fight it kicking and screaming, I pursued it gradually --- or it pursued me. However, I would have to consider myself an Arminian or semi-Pelagian up until I became a five point C. After all, muddled thought is not Calvinistic when it comes to TULIP. Would you assert that I was not regenerate with saving faith from '91 until I embraced limited atonement?>>
My reply was as follows:
<<I would assert (because the Bible asserts) that you are still not regenerate. Your Arminianism was an abomination to God, and your Calvinism is an abomination to God. When one truly repents of believing a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner, then he counts his former religion as loss and dung (Philippians 3:7-8). Even though you "became" a "Calvinist" in 1995, you still do not consider your former religion as dung. You do not believe that while you were in this religion, you were a God-hater, bringing forth dead works and fruit unto death.>>
<<Why make demands upon their intellect, when their salvation is a heart matter?>>
You make a false distinction between intellect and heart. The heart includes the intellect. The heart is what thinks, understands, believes. There is no such thing as someone who "believes with his head but doesn't believe with his heart" or "understands with his heart but doesn't understand with his head" as many false religionists claim. The whole head-heart dichotomy comes from romanticism, not Scripture.
<<Remember writing this?
"Micah makes a fundamental error that is common to those who oppose believers in the true gospel"
"The reason Micah does not see this is that he does not believe the true gospel."
Take that with:
"...those who do not believe the gospel are unregenerate"
Therefore: you are saying: Micah is unregenerate.
In the first post in this thread you write "they are unregenerate" 5 times. For someone who "NEVER judged ANY PERSON to be reprobate" you're doing a smash-up job.>>
Micah, you just don't understand. Judging someone to be unregenerate is different than judging someone to be reprobate. Judging someone to be unregenerate is talking about the current state of their souls. It is saying that they are right now in a lost condition. Judging someone to be reprobate is talking about the eternal state of their souls. It is saying that they are not among the elect and will most definitely end up in hell. I am not judging you or anyone else to be reprobate. I am judging you to be unregenerate. See the difference? I hope you are one of the elect! But I can say right now that you are currently unregenerate (not necessarily reprobate). Got it?
Micah also wrote:
<<One is not saved by faith in nothing, they are saved by grace through faith in Christ. Faith is not in and of itself saving unless it is based on Christ. We are not saved by the amount we know, or the completeness thereof, but by faith in Him.>>
I agree that one is not saved by faith in nothing and that they are saved by grace through faith in Christ. But what does "faith in Christ" mean? You try to separate Christ from knowledge of Christ. You try to separate Christ from the doctrine of Christ. So I challenge you: describe Christ to me without using doctrine. Describe what faith in Christ is without using knowledge. Of course, you can't. There is no such monstrosity as a doctrine-less Christ. To believe in Christ is to believe in the DOCTRINE of the PERSON of Christ and the WORK of Christ. You cannot separate Christ from doctrine. You cannot separate faith from knowledge. Everyone who has faith in Christ has a KNOWLEDGE of the DOCTRINE of Christ.
To God alone be the glory,