Wonder of wonders! Brandan Kraft has finally judged an actual human being! He has actually said that an actual person is unregenerate! What a novelty!

And who is this person whom Brandan has judged to be unregenerate?

Is it John Reisinger, who speaks peace to a person who said that "hell is a ghastly monument to the failure of God to save the multitudes that are there"? No, Brandan doesn't judge John Reisinger to be unregenerate for saying that such a man is saved.

Is it Gordon Clark, who said, "An Arminian may be a truly regenerate Christian; in fact, if he is truly an Arminian and not a Pelagian who happens to belong to an Arminian church, he must be a saved man"? No, Brandan doesn't judge Gordon Clark to have been an unregenerate man when he said that all true Arminians must be saved.

Is it John Robbins, who said, "No, all those individuals who believe in universal atonement are not necessarily unregenerate"? No, Brandan doesn't judge John Robbins to be unregenerate for speaking peace to universal atonement advocates. In fact, from his last post, he counts Robbins to be among the "Gospel Stawarts (sic. - he means 'Stalwarts') today." This supposed "Gospel Stalwart" is saying he believes the SAME GOSPEL as some who believe in universal atonement. And Brandan is saying he believes the SAME GOSPEL as John Robbins.

Is it Charles Spurgeon, who said, "Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one 'of whom the world was not worthy.' I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see the truths, or at least, cannot see them in the way in which we see them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven"? No, Brandan doesn't judge Spurgeon to have been an unregenerate man when he made this statement (or any of the other multitudes of statements that I sent).

Is it C.C. Morris, who said, "We rejoice in the fact that God's elect in Athens worshiped the living and true God before Paul ever preached to them! They worshiped him in ignorance for a while, it is true"? No, Brandan doesn't judge C.C. Morris of The Remnant to be unregenerate; after all, Morris just believes that there are regenerate people who do not believe the gospel.

Is it George Ella, who said, "I, too, was an Arminian for some three years after conversion"? No, Brandan doesn't judge George Ella to be unregenerate for that, even though Brandan earlier agreed in the abstract that such people believe in salvation conditioned on the sinner. But start naming names, and boom - Brandan can't seem to find it in himself to judge these people unregenerate.

Is it Don Fortner, who said, "Anyone who assumes that he knows who is and who is not saved, among those who profess the faith of the gospel, assumes the impossible. ... Such an assumption betrays a horrible self-righteousness and terrible self-adulation"? This is another whom Brandan considers to be one of the "Gospel Stawarts (sic.) today." Hey, wait a minute! Look at what Fortner is saying! He's saying that when Brandan just judged someone who professed faith of the gospel to be unregenerate, it shows that Brandan is guilty of self-righteousness and self-adulation!! So, this "Gospel Stalwart" has just condemned Brandan himself! Thus, if Brandan is not a hypocrite, he would have to say that he himself is guilty of self-righteousness and self-adulation! After all, a "Gospel Stalwart" said so! Let's see if Brandan is a hypocrite or not.

Well, then, who is it? Is it A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, George Whitefield, J. Gresham Machen, Loraine Boettner, J.I. Packer? All of these spoke/speak peace to conditionalists (which is a symptom of their own belief in conditionalism). No, it's none of these?

Then who is it whom Brandan Kraft has judged to be unregenerate? Brandan must believe that this person said things a whole lot worse than what I've quoted above. This guy must be quite a heretic, since Brandan won't judge any of the above people to be unregenerate who have said things that show they don't believe the gospel. Who is it?

It's Marc Carpenter.

Really? Brandan refuses to judge the above people unregenerate, but he judges Marc Carpenter to be unregenerate? How so? Does Marc speak peace to conditionalists? One look at www.outsidethecamp.org would show you he doesn't. Does he believe in the "free offer" or in "common grace"? No - see www.outsidethecamp.org/freeoffer.htm and www.outsidethecamp.org/commongrace.htm .

Brandan said this about Marc Carpenter: "I thought you were a brother in the Lord, but you curse the Gospel which I believe." So Brandan is saying that he believes a DIFFERENT GOSPEL than what Marc believes. What gospel does Marc believe? Well, you can read the series of sermons at www.outsidethecamp.org/sermons.htm and the article www.outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm . Marc believes the gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. He believes that salvation is IN NO WAY conditioned on what the sinner does or is enabled to do. He believes that it is the work of Jesus Christ ALONE that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. And he believes that any "gospel" that conditions salvation on the sinner IN ANY PART TO ANY DEGREE is a false gospel, and all who believe it are unregenerate and all who speak peace to those who bring a false gospel are unregenerate. Brandan believes that this is a DIFFERENT gospel than he believes. Okay.

Perhaps it was Marc's exposition of God's love for and justification of the elect considered from the eternal standpoint and considered from the temporal standpoint. Perhaps it was Marc's refutation of the anti-duty-faith position. But if Brandan would call someone unregenerate based on these things, then, if he is not a hypocrite, he must call EVERYONE who believes these things to be unregenerate. Do you think Brandan will do this? Of course not. He would have to say that the majority of the people that he recommends on his web site links page are unregenerate. So Brandan is in quite a pickle.

By the way, Andrew e-mailed me that my definition of duty-faith and Brandan's definition of duty-faith are not the same. He then pasted the following quote from Brandan's site:

<<In the calvinistic world since the introduction of the "modern question" known as "duty-faith", those that affirm the doctrine have usually labeled those who have opposed it as hyper-calvinists. So what exactly is duty-faith? Duty-Faith is the doctrine that often is tied to common grace and the free offer of the gospel; and it asserts that every human being has a duty to savingly believe the Gospel. While those of us who deny this doctrine do believe that every person who hears the Gospel has a duty as God's creation to bow before Christ and give Him the glory that He rightly deserves as their Creator, we do not believe it is their duty to have the precious gift of saving faith. How in the world is a reprobate individual duty-bound to believe something is true for him when it is not? Their only duty is to lay down their arms in rebellion and submit to His authority. Moreover, an individual cannot be required to believe that Christ died for him when Christ did not and in fact has already predestined him to damnation before the foundation of the world? I do not believe faith is a work of duty as the neonomians teach; but instead it is a gift that is experienced by God's people in time. Those that do not have faith will not be held accountable for not believing the Gospel is true for them, but they will be held accountable for disobeying the Gospel call to lay down their arms and submit to Christ as Lord. Often the charge of denying human responsibility is thrown at hyper-calvinists, but we simply believe that God is responsible for all of salvation including the gift of faith. The notion of human responsibility is foreign to our thinking concerning salvation and cannot find mention of it in Scripture.>>

Here, Brandan connects duty-faith to common grace, the free offer, and preaching to every person without exception Christ died for him. I believe none of these, and neither does the PRC, whom Brandan calls "pro duty-faith." So he makes a false connection. Here is what Engelsma (from the PRC) says in the book Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel:

<<"But hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God in the preaching of the gospel calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is a denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher's addressing the call of the gospel, "repent and believe on Christ crucified," only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration and, thereby, of election, namely, some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation. ... Since many New Testament passages plainly teach that Christ and the apostles did in fact command everyone in their audience to repent and believe, the reprobate as well as the elect, these men resorted to a distinction between legal and evangelical repentance and between common and saving faith. "Legal repentance" and "common faith", according to this distinction, are virtually synonymous with the demand of the law, which God makes of everyone; "evangelical repentance" and "saving faith", then, make up the real gospel call, which God gives only to the regenerated elect. This artificial and impossible distinction only serves to make plain that these men denied that God calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent of his sins and to believe on the Christ presented in the gospel and that it is the duty of every man who comes under the preaching to repent and believe.>>

Engelsma then goes on to quote from the Articles of Faith of the Gospel Standard Aid and Poor Relief Societies:

<<XXVI. We deny duty faith and duty repentance -- these terms signifying that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Matt. 15:19; Jer. 17:9; John 6:44,65). We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatsoever. So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God (John 12:39,40; Eph. 2:8; Rom. 8:7,8; I Cor. 4:7).>>

We see here that the reason that duty-faith and duty-repentance are rejected is that this implies (to them) that unregenerate people are able to repent and believe. Thus, to them, the command to repent and believe implies the ability to repent and believe. This is based on the SAME ERROR as Arminianism!! Both Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists believe that when a universal gospel call is made to repent and believe, then this implies that the unregenerate in the audience have the ability to repent and believe! The command implies the ability to obey the command! Yet the truth is that a command IN NO WAY implies the ability to obey the command. Even the universal atonement advocate Martin Luther could see this: "... by the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning, as though the moment a thing is commanded it is done, or can be done? The passages of Scripture which you cite are imperative; and they prove and establish nothing about the ability of man, but only lay down what is and is not to be done" (The Bondage of the Will). Sounds like Luther could be talking to the Gospel Standard Baptists rather than Erasmus!

When the Israelites were commanded to keep all the words of the Law, did that imply that they had the ability to keep all the words of the Law? Of course not! It actually showed them that they COULD NOT keep all the words of the Law! (Galatians 3:10-12). When Ezekiel was sent by God to preach repentance to apostate Israel, did that imply that they had the ability to repent and believe? Of course not! "But the house of Israel is not willing to listen to you, for they are not willing to listen to Me, for all the house of Israel [are] strong of forehead and hard of heart" (Ezekiel 3:7). Did Ezekiel then say that he would not preach to apostate Israel, since that would imply they had the ability to repent and believe? No. He was to preach to them "whether they will hear or whether they will forbear" (Ezekiel 2:5,7).

What does the Hyper-Calvinist position also imply? Now think carefully about this one. The Hyper-Calvinists believe that you should only command what the audience is able to do. Thus, they believe that the command for "legal repentance" and "common faith" is something that the unregenerate are able to obey! And is this "legal repentance" something with which God is pleased? Is this "common faith" something with which God is pleased? NO!! He HATES all legal repentance and false faith! Thus, the Hyper-Calvinists are saying that preachers should command the unregenerate to do something that GOD HATES!!! Now let's look at Brandan's definition of "duty-faith" again. He says that the unregenerate are to be commanded "to bow before Christ and give Him the glory that He rightly deserves as their Creator" and "to lay down their arms and submit to Christ as Lord." Now, according to the anti-duty-faith people, preachers should only command what is within the ability of the unregenerate to obey. Thus, Brandan is saying that unregenerate people have the NATURAL ABILITY to bow before Christ, to give Him the glory that He rightly deserves as their Creator, and to lay down their arms and submit to Christ as Lord!!!!! Do you see this? What HERESY!!! Now if Brandan then says, "I don't believe that the unregenerate are able to do this," then he would have to admit that he has DEPARTED from the Gospel Standard and Primitive Baptists, because this is what their anti-duty-faith is founded upon! He would have to SHUN the heresy of the Gospel Standard and Primitive Baptists! Do you think he will do this? A hypocrite by any other name is a hypocrite.

May God use His Truth to glorify Himself, to edify His regenerate elect, to bring His unregenerate elect to Himself, and to harden the reprobate for destruction.

Marc D. Carpenter

www.outsidethecamp.org


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters