A man named Billy Birch wrote to me out of the blue. The following is the entirety of our initial correspondence (his e-mails in red, my e-mails in black).


To Whom It May Concern,

This site (and to whatever Church you may belong to) has all the earmarks of a Cult rather than true, orthodox Christianity.

Your reasons why Arminians are not saved are not only false, arrogant, and grievous to the Spirit, but they are most unkind towards genuine believers whom, from your point of view, God has elected and Christ has died for.

My prayer for you will be, first, God's utmost mercy upon you; and second, that He will open your eyes to the truth that He has saved to the fullest those who disagree with your alleged "doctrines of grace." And hopefully, He will humble you with gentleness.

May the Lord bless you and keep you . . may He shine His face upon you and give you peace.

Sincerely,

Billy Birch


Billy,

Please see www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm .

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Marc,

And, of course, you realize that if you are wrong, you will spend eternity in hell.

Sincerely,

Billy Birch


Now aren't you being "unkind toward genuine believers"? Aren't you being "arrogant" for saying that? Where's that "gentleness" that you talked about?

I can already see the hypocrisy bubbling out.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Marc,

"Gentle"? That's the pot calling the kettle black, eh? There is nothing gentle whatsoever on your site. So I don't think I need a lecture from YOU on gentleness.

Now, all I was saying, was that logically, if your view is wrong, then it is you who are unregenerate and on your way to hell. There's no "gentle" way of telling the truth. But you would have to concede that, right?

For the glory of God's Truth,

Billy


I guess you didn't get the sarcasm. Of course there is no "gentle" way of telling the truth. So to accuse me of being "unkind toward genuine believers" and "arrogant" is just hypocritical, because you do the same thing. Get it? Or do you have a brain?

Those who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception are wicked God-haters who spit on Jesus Christ and trample His blood underfoot. They are just as disgusting as the most vile child-molesting homosexual perverts, and it will be more tolerable for the sodomites than for them on the Day of Judgment. Is that "gentle" enough for you?

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Marc,

So then, you accuse the Bible of lying when it suggests that Christ died to take away the sin of the world so that whoever would trust in Him could have eternal life (John 1.29; 3.16; 1 John 2.2). You won't make the Word of God a liar, YOU ARE THE LIAR! You, and your Cult "church."

Calvinists are right to condemn you; but then again, they don't need to--your own words condemn you. What a shame. I hope that you are saved, but you clearly demonstrate, by your own intolerance of any other theology than your own (and yes, I do have tolerance for Calvinism, but not of your Cultish strand), that you, in fact, are not regenerated whatsoever, but are still held captive by the Enemy of mens' souls.

You, sir, have made yourself one enemy (among many, I'm sure) from me and those in my company, because you oppose the very gospel of Jesus Christ. I will certainly be calling your Cult and Cult teachings out on my blog.

Hopefully, in God's mercy and providence, He will deliver you and those you've deceived from the snare of the Devil before you do more damage to His kingdom and send more souls toward the Devil's path.

To God alone be the glory,

Billy Birch


You believe that "world" means "every person without exception." Okay. So you believe that Christ died to take away the sin of everyone without exception. Did Christ ACCOMPLISH what He set out to do? Did Christ TAKE AWAY the sin of everyone without exception? Did Christ TAKE AWAY the sin of those who are burning in hell right now? If not, then your christ is a weakling or a liar -- a weakling if your christ wanted to take away the sin of everyone without exception but could not; a liar if your christ said he will take away the sin of everyone without exception but will not. Which one is it? A weakling or a liar? Does your christ say, "I've done all I can do, now it's up to you," conditioning salvation on man? Does the work of your christ make the entire difference between salvation and damnation? As for me, my Christ, the Christ of the Bible, the God-Man Mediator, made COMPLETE ATONEMENT, COMPLETE PARDON, COMPLETE PROPITIATION, COMPLETE RECONCILIATION, COMPLETE REDEMPTION for EVERYONE whom He represented. It is JESUS CHRIST'S WORK ALONE that makes the difference between salvation and damnation; the sinner's works, efforts, faith, perseverance TOTALLY EXCLUDED.

This is GOSPEL ATONEMENT. This is the ONLY ATONEMENT. www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm .

To God ALONE be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


And your "god" is a liar for telling people that he loved them enough to provide Jesus' atoning work and resurrection if they would but trust him.

No, sir, YOU are the liar.

To God alone be the glory,

Billy


I then found out that Billy Birch had posted the following blog on the "Classical Arminianism" blog:


THE CULT OF HYPER-CALVINISM

God's Glorious Church will always prevail. Jesus Himself said that "the gates of Hades shall not overpower it" (Matt. 16.18 NASB). Christ Himself loves the Church (Eph. 5.25) and gave Himself up for her. To God be the glory in the Church (Eph. 3.21).

This Church, however, is not as all-inclusive as some (such as professing Christian Barak Obama) erroneously believe. This Church, for example, does not include the likes of Jehovah's Witnesses, Universalists, Arians, the Metropolitan Church, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals or other anti-Trinitarian sects and Unitarians, or any other unorthodox group of people. Though such diverse groups claim to "believe in Jesus," none of these groups listed here (among many others I did not mention) hold basic, biblical, orthodox Christian beliefs.

I have had only two personal exchanges with heretics in my life. One such exchange was with a Oneness Pentecostal about six years ago. The other incident happened just days ago. I had sent an e-mail to the owner of the cult website Outside the Camp, a hyper-Calvinistic website who condemns everyone who disagrees with his (unorthodox) doctrines (of demons). He left me a link to one of the teachings on the site concerning Christ's atonement. Now, if any individual does not agree with his view of the atonement, then he or she is not saved, so says this heretic.

I responded via e-mail, that, he would have to conclude, then, that if he is wrong about his view on the atonement, then he is not saved: he has believed a false gospel and thus will spend eternity in hell. He did not like that, and the response was quite astounding. However, I should not have been surprised by his following remark. Most cult leaders and members lash out at those who disagree with them. They feel threatened by any challenge to their doctrines.

He responded, "Those who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception are wicked God-haters who spit on Jesus Christ and trample His blood underfoot. They are just as disgusting as the most vile, child-molesting, homosexual perverts, and it will be more tolerable for the sodomites than for them on the Day of Judgment. Is that 'gentle' enough for you?" His name is Marc D. Carpenter and his movement is called Carpenterism (which is refuted and exposed at that link).

Calvinist James R. White has had his share of exchanges with this heretic and has posted them on his website Alpha & Omega Ministries (follow White's link). This man and his movement is not just the bane of the Arminians' existence, orthodox Calvinists also expose his heresies and refute them at every turn.

The heretic Carpenter, noted on White's website, asks, "What is more wicked: (1) Two homosexuals in a gay bar singing homosexual songs, or (2) A married Arminian couple (man and wife) who have always been faithful to each other sitting in an Arminian church singing hymns?

"Lost religionists have no idea that BOTH of these are an abomination in the sight of God. They do not realize that ALL who are going about to establish a righteousness of their own (which includes ALL Arminians) are lost. They do not believe the gospel of salvation conditioned SOLELY on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ. They are ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel (Romans 10:3). They are haters of God. They are just as filthy and wicked as those who are engaged in open, gross immorality."

The heretic is blithely unaware of what Arminians teach. Of course Arminians are relying on God's righteousness, which is given to those whose faith is in Christ (Rom. 3.21-26); we do not rely on our own righteousness, for we have no righteousness (Isa. 64.6). Of course Arminians believe that the gospel of salvation is conditioned SOLELY on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ, for without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness (Heb. 9.22). We are lovers of God because of His grace and love towards us (Rom. 5.1; 8.1).

And what does the heretic say to those Calvinists (such as James White and others) who are sympathetic towards Arminians (though I have never found White to be sympathetic towards Arminians!)? He writes, "In the mind of most professing Calvinists who speak peace to Arminians, 'love' and 'balance' include [sic] speaking peace when there is no peace, saying that one who is ignorant of [the] righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is a brother in Christ, and saying that those who believe in salvation conditioned on the sinner are saved.

"This shows that these professing Calvinists do not know what the true gospel is. What they call 'love' and 'balance,' God calls Satanic. Those who defend or excuse God-haters show themselves to be God-haters. True love will tell the unregenerate that they are lost and their deeds are evil, in hopes [sic] that they will seek the remedy [which is a clear contradiction in Calvinistic theology -- I suppose he forgot -- the dead, unregenerate cannot seek the remedy; the remedy must seek the unregenerate!].

"To promote a lost religionist in his false refuge is actually HATRED and is promoting his eternal destruction. I am not saying this to be mean or unloving [ha!]; I say this hoping that both [emphasis mine] Arminians and tolerant 'Calvinists' will believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone and repent of dead works and idolatry, including repenting of speaking peace to those who worship a god who cannot save."

So, he implicates "tolerant" Calvinists as unsaved as well as all Arminians. And by "sympathetic towards Arminians," he means those Calvinists who will not condemn Arminians as unregenerate, lost pagans. I wonder, then, Who is actually saved? It seems to me that only hyper-Calvinists are saved! Perhaps only those people in his church, Sovereign Redeemer Assembly, are saved. …

It would certainly appear that way, since, they have condemned the likes of Louis Berkhof, Loraine Boettner, John Calvin, Thomas Chalmers, Gordon Clark, A. A. Hodge, Herman Hoeksema, J. Gresham Machen, Jonathan Edwards, Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), Trinity Foundation, Richard Mouw, John Murray, J. I. Packer, A.W. Pink, John Reisinger, Charles H. Spurgeon and others as heretics; all who are men of God whom Arminians believe to be orthodox! Oh! the irony. His (seemingly) main contention with non-hyper-Calvinistic theology (though I am not convinced that he should be called a Calvinist of any form) centers around this idea that we (Arminians) have put our faith in Jesus Christ without any grace of God whatsoever, and have ignored the atonement. Even Arminians condemn that teaching as heretical. But he takes his teaching a bit farther. The key word in his theology, much like the Calvinist, is sovereign. For him (and Calvinists), if God does not (in a deterministic fashion) cause people to believe (and thus regeneration must precede faith), then God is not sovereign, and the sinner cannot be saved. For Carpenter, especially, the sinner must be entirely passive. God must justify and impute His righteousness into the sinner and then the sinner responds with faith in Christ. But, one thing he is sure of, God is sovereign, and this is the gospel. Therefore, those who disagree with this simple, basic tenet of the true gospel must be trusting in a different god. However, the Bible teaches that a sinner can only be justified by faith in Christ. So, you tell me, Which comes first? It could not be clearer, then, that faith precedes justification. Even Calvinists agree with that notion! But Carpenter wants to maintain a very passive salvation/justification, and one which seemingly by-passes faith and repentance. I am not too convinced yet that hyper-Calvinism is all that "hyper" from some of Calvinism's claims (though it is quite possible to remain Calvinistic without entering into the heretical fields of hyper-Calvinism). Hyper-Calvinism's logical deductions come directly from the presuppositions of Calvinism (especially the doctrine of eternal justification). It seems to me that hyper-Calvinism's teachings are simply the drawn out conclusions from basic Calvinism. Let me put it this way. If there were no such thing as the Calvinist's view of a predetermined election and reprobation, I may never have had that exchange with heretic Marc D. Carpenter.


I then wrote the following e-mail to Billy Birch regarding his blog:


Billy,

I saw your 7/2/08 post regarding our correspondence that you posted on classicalarminian.blogspot.com. You are hilarious! I'm sure you didn't mean to be, but your intellectual and spiritual stupidity is utterly laughable. You try to come off like some sort of intellectual, but your stupidity really comes through. I'm really glad you posted this! It really helps us. It's like a white supremacist ranting against an anti-racist site -- it actually increases the credibility of the anti-racist site. For a God-hating Arminian to rant against our site and to call us a cult and to call me a heretic is is great! Please keep it up! Only fools will agree with you; the believers will easily be able to see through your lies and actually have a way to find our site! Excellent!

Your use of the word sic is also hilarious. It is, of course, meant to imply that I have used incorrect grammar. Anyone familiar with grammar will see that your use of sic shows your ignorance of basic grammar. It's hilarious that you would try to call attention to my alleged grammatical errors, since I have been a professional proofreader and have actually taught grammar.

I'm happy to go through your post and make comments.

==THE CULT OF HYPER-CALVINISM

God's Glorious Church will always prevail. Jesus Himself said that "the gates of Hades shall not overpower it" (Matt. 16.18 NASB). Christ Himself loves the Church (Eph. 5.25) and gave Himself up for her. To God be the glory in the Church (Eph. 3.21). Yes, Christ loves the Church and only the Church. Christ gave Himself up for the Church and only to Church. You believe that Christ loves and gave Himself up for those in the Whore Church who end up in hell. This shows how much you think of Christ's "love" and of His "giving Himself up."

This Church, however, is not as all-inclusive as some (such as professing Christian Barak Obama) erroneously believe. This Church, for example, does not include the likes of Jehovah's Witnesses, Universalists, Arians, the Metropolitan Church, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals or other anti-Trinitarian sects and Unitarians, or any other unorthodox group of people. Though such diverse groups claim to "believe in Jesus," none of these groups listed here (among many others I did not mention) hold basic, biblical, orthodox Christian beliefs.==

Hey, wait a minute. Since the Church does not include JWs or Universalists or Arians or the Metropolitan Church or Mormons or Oneness Pentecostals or anti-Trinitarian sects or Unitarians or any unorthodox group, then are you saying that Christ does not love them and did not give Himself up for them, since they are not part of the true Church? Of course you wouldn't say that. Thus, your whole introduction is a sham.

Oh, should I put a "[sic]" beside the word "Barak"? You misspelled his name.

==I have had only two personal exchanges with heretics in my life. One such exchange was with a Oneness Pentecostal about six years ago. The other incident happened just days ago. I had sent an e-mail to the owner of the cult website Outside the Camp, a hyper-Calvinistic website who condemns everyone who disagrees with his (unorthodox) doctrines (of demons). He left me a link to one of the teachings on the site concerning Christ's atonement. Now, if any individual does not agree with his view of the atonement, then he or she is not saved, so says this heretic.==

Alright, so since I'm part of a heretical unorthodox group, then please - tell me that Christ does not love me and that did not give Himself up for me. Come on. Tell me that Christ did not die for me. Please.

You call our site "a hyper-Calvinistic website." Well, let me let you in on something: we're not even Calvinists. Gasp! You'd have realized that had you really read our website.

As for condemning everyone who disagrees with my doctrines, this is quite broad. There are certain doctrines over which true Christians can disagree, and there are certain doctrines over which true Christians cannot disagree. You even admitted as much in your introduction, which shows your hypocrisy. There are certain doctrines that are essential to the gospel. One doctrine that is at the very heart of the gospel is the doctrine of Christ's work. If one does not get the doctrine of Christ's work right, one does not believe the gospel. I left you a link to the article "Gospel Atonement." Certainly, if someone does not believe the atonement as put forth in the gospel, that person is not saved. I notice that you didn't refute the article. Why not? Go ahead and refute it. Be my guest. You believe that Christ died for (gave Himself up for) everyone without exception, including the heretics who are part of the false churches who will go to hell. So what's the big deal about Christ giving Himself up for the true Church? Since Christ did the same thing for the true Church as He did for those in hell, what makes the difference between salvation and damnation? Is it the work of Christ alone? Of course not.

Oh, should I put a "[sic]" beside the word "who"? What does "a hyper-Calvinistic website who ..." mean? Or perhaps you left out a comma between the words "website" and "who." Oh, what a grammar king you are!

==I responded via e-mail, that, he would have to conclude, then, that if he is wrong about his view on the atonement, then he is not saved: he has believed a false gospel and thus will spend eternity in hell. He did not like that, and the response was quite astounding. However, I should not have been surprised by his following remark. Most cult leaders and members lash out at those who disagree with them. They feel threatened by any challenge to their doctrines.==

What's with the "He did not like that"? You totally misinterpreted my response. I wasn't offended at all at what you said. I was amused! In fact, you totally left out my initial response. Could it be that you didn't want others to find out that you are a dimwit? Well, I'll go ahead and put it in here.

You wrote: "And, of course, you realize that if you are wrong, you will spend eternity in hell."

I responded: "Now aren't you being 'unkind toward genuine believers'? Aren't you being 'arrogant' for saying that? Where's that 'gentleness' that you talked about? I can already see the hypocrisy bubbling out."

In my response, I exposed your hypocrisy. For in your very first e-mail to me, here's what you said: "Your reasons why Arminians are not saved are not only false, arrogant, and grievous to the Spirit, but they are most unkind towards genuine believers whom, from your point of view, God has elected and Christ has died for. My prayer for you will be, first, God's utmost mercy upon you; and second, that He will open your eyes to the truth that He has saved to the fullest those who disagree with your alleged "doctrines of grace." And hopefully, He will humble you with gentleness." So, as anyone with half a brain can see, I was using your own words against you. You said that I was being "arrogant" and "unkind toward genuine believers" and that I lacked "gentleness." So I just used your own words to expose your hypocrisy. Do you even get it? Well, obviously not, because here's how you responded: "'Gentle'? That's the pot calling the kettle black, eh? There is nothing gentle whatsoever on your site. So I don't think I need a lecture from YOU on gentleness. Now, all I was saying, was that logically, if your view is wrong, then it is you who are unregenerate and on your way to hell. There's no 'gentle' way of telling the truth. But you would have to concede that, right?"

Duh! You didn't even get the sarcasm! You didn't even get that I was using your own words against you! You didn't even get that I was exposing your hypocrisy! Man, what a thick-headed half-wit you are! Here, let me spell it out for you again: You initially said that I was being "arrogant" and "unkind toward genuine believers" and that I lacked "gentleness." Then you said that if I am wrong, I will spend eternity in hell. I then exposed your hypocrisy by sarcastically asking you if you were being "unkind" and "arrogant" and lacking "gentleness" when you said that, which is just what you accused me of being. Do you get it? Or do you have a brain?

Oh, should I put a "[sic]" beside your second "then," since you do not put two "thens" in a sentence when they are referring to the same thing? What is this: "then, that if he is wrong about his view on the atonement, then he is not saved"? There are one too many "thens."

==He responded, "Those who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception are wicked God-haters who spit on Jesus Christ and trample His blood underfoot. They are just as disgusting as the most vile, child-molesting, homosexual perverts, and it will be more tolerable for the sodomites than for them on the Day of Judgment. Is that 'gentle' enough for you?" His name is Marc D. Carpenter and his movement is called Carpenterism (which is refuted and exposed at that link).==

Ah, you did not include my full response. I wonder why. When I responded, I started with this: "I guess you didn't get the sarcasm. Of course there is no 'gentle' way of telling the truth. So to accuse me of being 'unkind toward genuine believers' and 'arrogant' is just hypocritical, because you do the same thing. Get it? Or do you have a brain?"

In your post, you did not even mention that part of my response. You didn't want people to know that you didn't even get simple logic, did you?

Now it makes sense why I said, "Is that 'gentle' enough for you?" I was showing you that there is no gentle way of telling a harsh truth. The harsh truth is that those who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception are just as disgusting as the most vile, child-molesting, homosexual perverts, and it will be more tolerable for the sodomites than for them on the Day of Judgment. Jesus said that it would be more tolerable for the pagan sodomites than the ones who are confronted with the truth of the gospel and then reject it. Or is that verse not in your Bible?

Oh, by the way, there should be a comma between "Carpenter" and "and" because you are connecting two independent clauses. Perhaps I should put a "[sic]" there.

==Calvinist James R. White has had his share of exchanges with this heretic and has posted them on his website Alpha & Omega Ministries (follow White's link). This man and his movement is not just the bane of the Arminians' existence, orthodox Calvinists also expose his heresies and refute them at every turn. The heretic Carpenter, noted on White's website, asks, "What is more wicked: (1) Two homosexuals in a gay bar singing homosexual songs, or (2) A married Arminian couple (man and wife) who have always been faithful to each other sitting in an Arminian church singing hymns? "Lost religionists have no idea that BOTH of these are an abomination in the sight of God. They do not realize that ALL who are going about to establish a righteousness of their own (which includes ALL Arminians) are lost. They do not believe the gospel of salvation conditioned SOLELY on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ. They are ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel (Romans 10:3). They are haters of God. They are just as filthy and wicked as those who are engaged in open, gross immorality."==

Amen! To see my responses to James White, go to www.outsidethecamp.org/jameswhite.htm and www.outsidethecamp.org/efl203.htm.

Oh, should I put a "[sic]" beside the word "is"? It is incorrect to say "This man and his movement is ..." Even young children are taught in basic grammar that the subject and verb need to agree. When there is a compound subject joined by an "and," this makes the subject plural, so the verb must also be plural. This is really basic. You need an "are" instead of an "is."

==The heretic is blithely unaware of what Arminians teach. Of course Arminians are relying on God's righteousness, which is given to those whose faith is in Christ (Rom. 3.21-26); we do not rely on our own righteousness, for we have no righteousness (Isa. 64.6). Of course Arminians believe that the gospel of salvation is conditioned SOLELY on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ, for without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness (Heb. 9.22). We are lovers of God because of His grace and love towards us (Rom. 5.1; 8.1).==

Hey, since I'm just "blithely unaware of what Arminians teach," why be so arrogant and unkind to me? Wait, wait -- before you respond, I want to tell you that this is a sarcastic rhetorical question that exposes your hypocrisy. Get it? I doubt it.

I am fully aware of what Arminians teach. I own and have read all of the Works of Arminius. Arminians do not believe that salvation is conditioned SOLELY on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ. If Arminians believed that salvation is conditioned SOLELY on the work of Christ, then EVERYONE for whom Christ did His work would be saved. Arminians believe that Christ died for everyone without exception. Thus, Christ's work is not what makes the sole difference between salvation and damnation; instead, it is the work of the sinner that makes the difference. They quote Hebrews 9:22 and say they agree that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness; but they also say that with the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness for a great number of people for whom Christ shed His blood. The shed blood does not ensure and demand the salvation of all for whom Christ died on the cross; instead, there are those in hell for whom Christ shed His blood. Thus, Christ's blood is made of no effect by the work of the sinner. Arminians say they rely on Christ's righteousness, but they make the reception of Christ's righteousness conditioned on faith. This is actually where Arminians and Calvinists agree: justification is conditioned on faith.

==And what does the heretic say to those Calvinists (such as James White and others) who are sympathetic towards Arminians (though I have never found White to be sympathetic towards Arminians!)? He writes, "In the mind of most professing Calvinists who speak peace to Arminians, 'love' and 'balance' include [sic] speaking peace when there is no peace, saying that one who is ignorant of [the] righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is a brother in Christ, and saying that those who believe in salvation conditioned on the sinner are saved.==

Ah, here's the first "[sic]." And what is it for? It is for CORRECT grammar! Of course, you don't know this, because you wrote "This man and his movement is ..." The same rule applies here. "Love AND balance INCLUDE. " Here again is a compound subject joined by an "and." The verb must match the compound subject, which means that it must be plural. It's totally hilarious that you wrongly put in a "[sic]" because of your grammatical cluelessness! This cracks me up.

"This shows that these professing Calvinists do not know what the true gospel is. What they call 'love' and 'balance,' God calls Satanic. ==Those who defend or excuse God-haters show themselves to be God-haters. True love will tell the unregenerate that they are lost and their deeds are evil, in hopes [sic] that they will seek the remedy [which is a clear contradiction in Calvinistic theology -- I suppose he forgot -- the dead, unregenerate cannot seek the remedy; the remedy must seek the unregenerate!].==

And here's the second "[sic]." Have you ever heard of participial prepositions and the verbal or prepositional phrases that may often be substituted for these terms (such as as concerns for concerning; in consideration of for considering; as regards, in or with regard to for regarding; as respects, in or with respect to for respecting)? Obviously not. If you're going to play with the big boys, you'd better know what you're talking about, or else you just look stupid. Do your homework. "In hopes" is correct.

Hoping that the unregenerate will seek the remedy is not a contradiction at all in true Christian theology. Of course, the dead, unregenerate cannot seek the remedy. Perhaps Romans 3:11 isn't in your Bible. But when God calls a person from darkness to light, He causes that person to seek the remedy, and He causes that person to find the remedy.

=="To promote a lost religionist in his false refuge is actually HATRED and is promoting his eternal destruction. I am not saying this to be mean or unloving [ha!]; I say this hoping that both [emphasis mine] Arminians and tolerant 'Calvinists' will believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone and repent of dead works and idolatry, including repenting of speaking peace to those who worship a god who cannot save."

So, he implicates "tolerant" Calvinists as unsaved as well as all Arminians. And by "sympathetic towards Arminians," he means those Calvinists who will not condemn Arminians as unregenerate, lost pagans. I wonder, then, Who is actually saved? It seems to me that only hyper-Calvinists are saved! Perhaps only those people in his church, Sovereign Redeemer Assembly, are saved.==

Here's the tired old accusation that we believe that only those of us in our assembly are saved. See www.outsidethecamp.org/efl144.htm . Believe it or not, Billy, there are more than just Calvinists, Arminians, and Hyper-Calvinists who profess to hold to orthodox Christianity! And this might come as a shock to you, but the truth is that NO Hyper-Calvinist is saved! Hyper-Calvinists believe that there are regenerate people who do not believe the gospel.

==It would certainly appear that way, since, they have condemned the likes of Louis Berkhof, Loraine Boettner, John Calvin, Thomas Chalmers, Gordon Clark, A. A. Hodge, Herman Hoeksema, J. Gresham Machen, Jonathan Edwards, Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), Trinity Foundation, Richard Mouw, John Murray, J. I. Packer, A.W. Pink, John Reisinger, Charles H. Spurgeon and others as heretics; all who are men of God whom Arminians believe to be orthodox! Oh! the irony.==

Really? ALL these people are "men of God whom Arminians believe to be orthodox"? And what standard do you and your Arminian brothers use to determine that these are orthodox men of God?

I see that you included Gordon Clark, Herman Hoeksema, and the Trinity Foundation.

Check out the following from Gordon Clark:

http://godwardthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/12/gordon-clark-on-limited-atonement.html

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=54

Check out the following from Herman Hoeksema:

http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/index.html

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_50.html

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_53.html

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_54.html

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_76.html

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=220

Check out the following from the Trinity Foundation:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=28

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=91

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=118

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=159

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=186

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193

==His (seemingly) main contention with non-hyper-Calvinistic theology (though I am not convinced that he should be called a Calvinist of any form) centers around this idea that we (Arminians) have put our faith in Jesus Christ without any grace of God whatsoever, and have ignored the atonement. Even Arminians condemn that teaching as heretical.==

More hilarity: "though I am not convinced that he should be called a Calvinist of any form." DUH! If you really knew what we believed, you would see that we are NOT Calvinists of any form, and we DO NOT WANT to be called Calvinists of any form.

As for the supposed "main contention": The Arminians' "grace" is not the TRUE grace of the Bible. The Arminians' "atonement" is not the TRUE atonement of the Bible. True Christians and Arminians use many of the same terms, but they mean radically different things. To the Arminian, the "grace" of God helps the sinner along, but that "grace" is ultimately resistible by the sinner's free will. To the Christian, the grace of God causes the sinner to be saved. To the Arminian, the "atonement" of Jesus Christ paid the penalty for the sins of those who are paying the penalty of their own sins in hell. To the Christian, the atonement actually accomplished full pardon, full redemption, full propitiation, and full reconciliation for everyone for whom Christ died. The Arminian "grace" is no grace at all. The Arminian "atonement" is no atonement at all. They can stand up and shout "grace" and "atonement" all day until they're blue in the face, but they do not believe in the true grace and atonement of the gospel. They are yet dead in their sins, bringing forth dead works and fruit unto death. They are God-hating idolaters.

==But he takes his teaching a bit farther. The key word in his theology, much like the Calvinist, is sovereign. For him (and Calvinists), if God does not (in a deterministic fashion) cause people to believe (and thus regeneration must precede faith), then God is not sovereign, and the sinner cannot be saved. For Carpenter, especially, the sinner must be entirely passive. God must justify and impute His righteousness into the sinner and then the sinner responds with faith in Christ. But, one thing he is sure of, God is sovereign, and this is the gospel. Therefore, those who disagree with this simple, basic tenet of the true gospel must be trusting in a different god.==

God's sovereignty is NOT the gospel. The sovereignty of God is an essential gospel doctrine, but the gospel encompasses much more than God's sovereignty. If God sovereignly condemned everyone to hell, would this be good news? Of course not. God the Father sovereignly chose to save a people from before the foundation of the world based on the work of Jesus Christ alone. Jesus Christ sovereignly paid the penalty in full for these people. And in time, the Holy Spirit sovereignly causes these people to be regenerated and believe the gospel.

==However, the Bible teaches that a sinner can only be justified by faith in Christ. So, you tell me, Which comes first? It could not be clearer, then, that faith precedes justification. Even Calvinists agree with that notion! But Carpenter wants to maintain a very passive salvation/justification, and one which seemingly by-passes faith and repentance.==

Yes, Calvinists believe that faith is a condition of justification. I do not believe this. How then can I be any kind of Calvinist? I cannot. Unjustified, unregenerate people are not able to have faith.

"The truth of total depravity does not mean that all men are as outwardly immoral as they possibly could be. It means that every faculty of the soul of every natural (that is, unregenerate) descendant of Adam is completely polluted with hatred of the true and living God, and all of the natural man's thoughts, words, and deeds (even his kindness, morality, and religion) are dead works, evil deeds, and fruit unto death. It means that every natural descendent of Adam owes a debt to God's law and justice that he cannot pay. It means that every natural descendent of Adam is spiritually dead, having no spiritual understanding, a lover of darkness rather than light, a slave of sin, unable and unwilling to obey God and come to Jesus Christ for salvation. This truth is contrary to the damnable poison known as 'free will,' which seeks to make the creature independent of the Creator and seeks to make the Potter depend on the clay, according to the devil's lie, 'You shall be as God.' [Gen 3:5; Psa 14:2-3; Pro 12:10; 15:8; Isa 45:20; 64:6; Jer 13:23; 17:9; Mat 7:18; Joh 3:19-20; 6:44-45; Rom 1:20-23; 3:9-12,20; 5:12; 6:16-23; 7:5; 8:5-8; 10:2-3; 1Co 2:14; 2Co 4:3-4; Eph 2:5; 4:18; Col 1:21; 2:13; Heb 9:14; 11:6]" (Christian Confession of Faith, III.B.3. See www.outsidethecamp.org/ccf.htm .)

Does this mean that faith and repentance are not necessary? May it never be.

Regeneration (also known as the new birth) is that grace in which the Holy Spirit brings a sinner from spiritual death to spiritual life, takes away his old heart and old spirit, implants within him a new heart and a new spirit, and indwells him. He is made a new creation, dead to sin and alive to God in Jesus Christ, so that he is no longer totally depraved and no longer serves sin. God's grace in regeneration is irresistible; that is, no man is able to resist the motions of the Holy Spirit to regenerate him. Regeneration is never preceded by any condition the sinner meets, can meet, or is enabled to meet. [Deu 30:6; Jer 24:7; Eze 11:19-20; 36:25-27; Zec 4:6; Joh 1:13; 3:3-8; 6:37,44,63; 10:3-5,27; 17:2; Rom 5:5; 6:1-22; 7:6; 8:2,5-16,30; 1Co 15:45; Eph 2:5; 4:22-24; Col 2:11-13; Tit 3:5; Heb 9:13-15; 1Pe 1:23]

At the same time a sinner is regenerated, he is adopted into God's family and set apart from the world. He is counted to be as holy and acceptable before God as Jesus Christ Himself, is made to be at peace with God, and enters into fellowship with God based on the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. [Job 29:14; Psa 85:8; Isa 26:3; 32:17; 61:10; Joh 1:12; 17:21-23; Rom 3:22; 4:6-8; 5:1-2,19; 8:14-17,33-39; 1Co 1:30; 6:11; 2Co 5:21; Gal 3:26; 4:5-7; Eph 1:4-5; 2:14-19; 3:11-12; 5:25-27; Col 1:20-22; 2Th 2:13; Tit 3:7; Heb 2:10-11; 1Jo 1:3; 3:1; Rev 21:7]

Conversion is that grace in which the Holy Spirit causes the sinner to repent and believe the gospel. The regenerate person is given a knowledge and understanding of the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone and the realization that he was unregenerate when he believed a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. He counts all of his former life and deeds, whether religious or irreligious, as dead works, evil deeds, and fruit unto death. Conversion is the immediate and inevitable fruit of regeneration; therefore, a person may not be regenerated without being converted. There has never existed and will never exist a regenerate person who is ignorant of the gospel. Scripture rejects the lie that an unregenerate person can be under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit only leads people to Jesus Christ and His righteousness as the only ground of salvation. [Deu 4:34-35; Isa 45:6,20-25; Mat 13:23; Mar 16:16; Joh 6:40; 8:32; 16:8-11; 17:3; Act 16:14-15; Rom 1:16-17; 3:26; 6:17,21; 7:6; 1Co 2:10-12; 2Co 4:2-6; Eph 1:13; Phi 3:7-8; 2Th 2:13-14; Heb 9:14; 1Jo 5:20]

Faith is not a condition of or prerequisite to salvation; instead, faith believes that Jesus Christ alone met all the conditions for salvation. Faith is the instrument through which a believer receives the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and is justified. No man is justified before God by works. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone is diametrically opposed to salvation by works. Scripture rejects the lie that man is able to keep the law of God or even a mere summary of the law as a means of gaining God's favor, let alone that he is able to obey the law beyond what God requires. [Isa 45:24-25; 51:5; Luk 17:10; Joh 1:12-13; 5:24; 6:29; Act 13:39; Rom 3:20-28; 4:1-5,14-25; 5:1; 9:16,30-33; 11:6; Gal 2:16; 3:6-12; 5:2-6; Eph 2:8-9; Phi 3:9; Heb 11:4,7]" (Christian Confession of Faith, V.C.1-4. See www.outsidethecamp.org/ccf.htm .)

==I am not too convinced yet that hyper-Calvinism is all that "hyper" from some of Calvinism's claims (though it is quite possible to remain Calvinistic without entering into the heretical fields of hyper-Calvinism). Hyper-Calvinism's logical deductions come directly from the presuppositions of Calvinism (especially the doctrine of eternal justification). It seems to me that hyper-Calvinism's teachings are simply the drawn out conclusions from basic Calvinism. Let me put it this way. If there were no such thing as the Calvinist's view of a predetermined election and reprobation, I may never have had that exchange with heretic Marc D. Carpenter.==

We reject the heresy of eternal justification. There is no such monstrosity as a justified unregenerate person. There is no such monstrosity as a justified person who does not have faith. Faith is the instrument through which a believer receives the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and is justified. Some think that since we say that faith is the instrument, then the instrument must occur before the reception occurs. This is a fatal error. Take this picture: Faith is like a pot, and justification/imputed righteousness is like water. Faith is the instrument that holds (receives) the water. However -- and this is very important -- most who call themselves Calvinists would say that faith comes first ("instrumentally" at the very least), meaning that God gives us the pot, but the pot is empty. This empty pot then "receives" justification/imputed righteousness that is poured into the pot. Thus, both instrumentally and logically, faith is a precondition. Contrary to this, we believe that we are given a FULL POT. There is no empty pot EVER, and there is no pouring EVER. While faith is the instrument through which we receive righteousness imputed and justification, righteousness imputed and justification COME TOGETHER WITH faith.

So, Billy Birch, you have been shown to be a fool, not only intellectually, but spiritually. You are a proud, arrogant, God-hating fool. It's so easy to see. Yet you want to come across as someone with intellectual and spiritual prowess, but all you end up doing is making a mockery of yourself. Repent of your putrid false religion and believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned SOLELY on the work of Jesus Christ.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter

P.S. You toss around the word "cult" like you know what it means. One of the main characteristics of cults is that the cult leadership actively seeks to recruit and retain as many people as possible -- or at least emotionally or psychologically vulnerable people. This in and of itself would disqualify us as a cult. We DO NOT recruit AT ALL. And if someone says he disagrees with us in essential doctrine, that person is not only FREE to go, but that person MUST go. So much for recruiting and retaining. We NEVER use deception techniques to "bring people in" or to "keep people." We're TOTALLY out front. And we NEVER EVER ask for money, we NEVER EVER tell people they need to move here to join our "group," and we NEVER EVER say that we're the only group that has the truth. So I guess calling us a "cult" is just another manifestation of your stupidity.


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters