Doug Pruett wrote:

<<Read the book. I agree with what is written. Please respond accordingly, if you can. We anxiously anticipate your forthcoming "rebuttal.">>

I'd like to read and review the book. Would you or E.D. like to send it to me?

Doug Pruett wrote:

<<You can review the first chapter by going to the link below. At the bottom you can review before you BUY!>>

Of course I won't buy the book! Why would I want to do that?

(Our ministry never sells any materials. We do not peddle the gospel.)

And hey ... guess what I just got in the mail today ...

The book! For free! From Manard himself! ROFLOL!

Too bad for you, Doug -- I didn't BUY as you wished.

I've briefly looked through the book. Man, Manard has thrown me a softball! I really overestimated him. I thought I was going to have to deal with subtleties! He's right out there in the open with his heresies! There isn't a Christian on earth who will be fooled by this! He believes that there are terms of the gospel promise that man has to meet! He believes that God really and sincerely desires the salvation of the reprobate! He believes that Christ's definite atonement is not part of the gospel! He believes that God shows grace to the reprobate who hears the gospel! He believes that Christ's expiation was ample for the reprobate! This is laughable! And this is what you believe? You poor soul.


E.D.,

You wrote:

<<Oh, I see. So may I safely expect no forthcoming response from you then?>>

No, you may not. I'm still planning to review the book. I have a lot of other things on my plate, so don't expect the review soon, but I'd like to do it when I have time. The book reads like a primer on fashionable mainstream Calvinism! I'd be happy to refute it. I've already smashed your "common grace" argument to pieces in the latest Outside the Camp (www.outsidethecamp.org/commongrace.htm), but I'd be happy to do it again in a review. Of course, I'm risking publicizing the book even more by doing this (which is exactly what you want, I know), but that's okay. Only the fashionable mainstream Calvinists will want it, and even fewer will shell out the dough to buy an overpriced book, so that's fine.

Also, since "No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or by any information storage retrieval system, without the written permission of the publisher," I am requesting your permission to reproduce material from your book, possibly large sections. If I don't have your permission, I won't be able to do the review.

<<That would be awfully convenient, now wouldn't it? Marc Carpenter, the one who everybody knows has been first in line for years to reply to nearly every quarter in defending off perceived slanders and heresies against what he calls "gospel" and his ministry of judgment, now says that Manard's book, Gospel and doctrine is utterly sooooo heretical that it's not worth replying against because, Carpenter's presupposition states, no true Christian had been fooled by it anyway!>>

Hmmm ... very interesting. I said nothing of the sort. Kind of hypocritical that you would "twist my words" when you accuse me of the same thing, eh? I never said anything about not replying against it. But, of course, you are good at attributing things to me that I don't say, so I shouldn't expect anything less.

<<If what I'm teaching in the book is so obviously heresy, then you ought to have a pretty easy time exegetically refuting from Scripture what I've said, no? God's truth cannot be overthrown, right? You think you have truth on your side, don't you? You believe your definition of the Gospel is the true and proper one, correct? Then, why not get on with it and go beyond mere complaining and innuendo? Are you afraid?>>

Come on, get real. You've tried this tactic before. You and your friend Doug are really into macho chest-pounding, I know. It makes you feel good. It makes you feel big and strong. Fine. Yes, it will be easy to refute. In fact, I think I'll use it as part of a series of lessons in our assembly on refuting the fashionable Calvinists. It should be a good study. Even my children will easily see the heresy.

<<Third, I don't know why you'd be rolling on the floor and laughing at the fact that I sent you a free copy?>>

I was laughing at Doug, who told me I needed to BUY (yes, in all caps).

<<The bottom line issue is that we have opposing definitions of what the Gospel is.>>

Exactly. You're right on there. I agree with you 100%.

By the way, Moreno Dal Bello considers you, Bobby Bullington, and anyone who agrees with you about the gospel unregenerate.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc


Marc,

You say, "I am requesting your permission to reproduce material from your book, possibly large sections. If I don't have your permission, I won't be able to do the review." Permission denied. You're a coward, since all you want to do is write a "review" instead of a full-length book response. It'd be alot easier for you, I know, to be granted the luxury of laziness by having to write only a few pages to twist my statements out of context, putting them in the worst light, and not dealing with each issue I brought out head to head thoroughly. I won't let you off the hook so easy. Yes, go ahead and read my book before your "assembly," which is what now, a half a dozen disciples? What a deep, deep fear that instills into my gut. Let's follow out your logic that you employed against Pedersen: You won't respond at book length because you can't. Does that work for you too?

You say, "The book reads like a primer on fashionable mainstream Calvinism!" and "Only the fashionable mainstream Calvinists will want it, and even fewer will shell out the dough to buy an overpriced book, so that's fine." Really? That's funny, seeing the book is a total rebuke to mere Calvinism, and exposes most Calvinists as lost, and the fact that I disclaimed being a Calvinist a while back. The Calvinists that have read excerpts thus far have strongly disagreed with me! I take that as a compliment from them. As for pricing, that's your opinion.

You say, "But, of course, you are good at attributing things to me that I don't say, so I shouldn't expect anything less." You are the master of lies and slander. You're the pot calling the kettle black, my man. Please. You know, when you so ascend the steps of the moral highground like this, we all get elevation sickness because of your self-righteousness. You clearly implied that my book was so heretical that it wasn't worth refuting. Not a Christian on earth would be deceived by it? That's funny, for I know several Christians who have quite enjoyed it.

You say, "Even my children will easily see the heresy." Poor kids. Yes, by your indoctrination of their fragile minds full of mush you'll turn them into spiritual bastards and twice the sons of hell as yourself.

You say, "By the way, Moreno Dal Bello considers you, Bobby Bullington, and anyone who agrees with you about the gospel unregenerate." Am I supposed to be shocked by this? Am I supposed to all of a sudden say, "Oh no, I must recant because Moreno has called me lost for what I'm teaching!" I will not. I knowingly, willingly, and dogmatically believe and teach what I do, without the least regret or apology. I don't serve your god, nor your christ, and would sooner be an atheist than to serve what you call god and christ. That Moreno does so regard me says more about him and his state and what he calls "gospel" than me or mine. This just sadly exposes him as another lost doctrinal Calvinist who cannot receive the truth of God when he hears it...like someone else I know. I've consulted Moreno about this, and so he does. He has regarded me, Bobby, Doug, and Cynthia Breen lost. Does that put him in your camp and in bed with you? I suspected he might be offended by my book since he seems to give doctrinal Calvinism the preeminence in his writings, so I've discovered the more I've read and heard from him.

Unless you're going to write book length response to my book, there's no point in communicating any further. By the way, you might want to think twice before you send me another article slandering and misrepresenting the doctrines of Bullington. I won't think twice about writing another book and going public. Not "chest-pounding," just a warning. I don't need to chest-pound, for you're the gutless coward who has refused to write an extended, head to head, issue for issue response to my book exposing you as a slanderer and false gospeler. I notice you have not refuted how I proved that you lied about Bullington. If and when you change your mind, let me know and I'll think about granting you permission to reproduce material from my book.

Good day.

Prosperous Regards,

Erick D. Manard
Visit: http://www.gospeloffreegrace.com


"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark
on the things you have long taken for granted."

Bertrand Russell
1872-1970, Author and Mathematician


E.D. -

What is "book length"?

Marc


Marc,

You just can't let the fact that I've exposed you as the slandering heretic drop, can you? Why do I need to keep babysitting you?You don't know what "book length" generally means? Am I your teacher, dishing the schoolboy out an assignment? Well, let's see, my book runs over 110k words. So I would say book length for you is something fairly comparable to that. But what difference does it make? You can't refute my book anyway. Too much on your plate, remember? Nor have you been inclined to do anything heretofore but a measly "review." Therefore, quit playing semantic games with me in attempts to have the last word or keep communications going, and just let it drop. You've been exposed as a heretic and liar. I've got the power over who uses my material in their reviews and who shall not. I've exercised that power over you. You as the equivalent of a theological bullying rapist who tries to beat and force opponents into submission of speaking as you would have them speak and thinking as you would have them think, and your ministry that takes perverse pleasure in pronouncing everybody God-haters and "unregenerate" with utter abandon, and your dog of a "sovereign," compassionless "god" who "fattens the reprobate for the kill" that you promote have been defeated.

Prosperous Regards,

Erick D. Manard
Visit: http://www.gospeloffreegrace.com

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark
on the things you have long taken for granted."

Bertrand Russell
1872-1970, Author and Mathematician


E.D. -

You're so hilarious! You first dare me to review your book, and when it gets a little too close for comfort, you don't give me permission to review it! You come across as all big huff and puff but end up being a tiny little coward. So be it. The Lord willing, when people ask me if I plan to review the book (and to those who have already asked), I'll let them know the truth -- that you won't even let me review it unless the review is around 100,000 words! I'm well-trained in writing. I hate fluff. I get to the point. It would not take even close to 100,000 words to review your book. I will not add fluff in order to comply with your demand. I have better things to do with my time. Of course, we all know what your demand really is: it's a way to get out of having someone do a serious critique of your book. It's quite obvious.

Marc


Marc,

Well, again, you're found to be the liar and an unethical misrepresenter of what a man truly says. Nice going! You just can't help it, can you? Thank you so much for this additional opportunity to prove it but one more time. (Don't sweat it, reader, this one's free of charge--on me.) Too, I'm so glad you provided me all these emails on your list so that I can joyfully hit "reply to all" and expose your lying in your piteous attempts to cover up your cowardice by trying to audaciously turn the tables. Let's get it on.

You untruly say, "You first dare me to review your book, and when it gets a little too close for comfort, you don't give me permission to review it! You come across as all big huff and puff but end up being a tiny little coward." Ooh, ahh. Wishful thinking? Wrong! This is what's known in psychology as "projection." A person projects, or imputes, onto others what he himself is, in order to try and divert attention off of his own weaknesses, ineptitudes, or faults. You ought to know this one, Marc. In short, projection is an attempt of desperation, and reveals underlying issues buried under the surface. So, Marc, in so projecting, is really telling us that he is "all big huff and puff," but is really inside "a tiny little coward." Shoot, I already knew that. Like I showed on you in the book, you apparently don't listen very well. You talk of hilarity? No, what's really "hilarious" (really sad) is to see you so crying like a baby, and grappling for 'damage control' and some shred of dignity by being forced to twist my words into something I never said, to make you look like the poor, pitiful victim and me like the idiot! I know your game. Well, let's make this sorry attempt backfire, shall we?

First, go back through all my emails regarding this discussion (since we all know that you, as do I, keep on file every significant email), and you'll locate nowhere that I ever "dared" you to merely "review" the book, but from the start I've always been talking in terms of challenging you to write a "rebuttal," not a "review," and that being "preferably in book form," not a few pages to be constrained by your newsletter or web page. Find it, Marc. Let's get and keep accurate what I've said and maintained. Observe my former email to you, dated April 26, in which I repeated five times over this specific challenge:

What then? You complain, "He believes that there are terms of the gospel promise that man has to meet!"

Then, why merely repeat what you think I believe as if your mere repetition of it ought to be so shocking to the regenerate mind's senses that your "nay" ought to be immediately perceived sufficient rebuttal for the cause? Rather, I openly challenge you get on with it and prove from Scripture, logical argument, and God-sanctified reason, preferably in book form, how exactly I'm in error and warrant the aspersion of "heretic." I defy you to do so according to what I actually said and made clear what I intended to say in the book, and using accurate context and citations.

What then? You complain, "He believes that God really and sincerely desires the salvation of the reprobate!"

Then, why merely repeat what you think I believe as if your repetition ought to be so shocking to the regenerate mind's senses that your "nay" ought to be immediately perceived sufficient rebuttal for the cause? Rather, I openly challenge you get on with it and prove from Scripture, logical argument, and God-sanctified reason, preferably in book form, how exactly I'm in error and warrant the aspersion of "heretic." I defy you to do so according to what I actually said and made clear what I intended to say in the book, and using accurate context and citations.

What then? You complain, "He believes that Christ's definite atonement is not part of the gospel!"

Then, why merely repeat what you think I believe as if your repetition ought to be so shocking to the regenerate mind's senses that your "nay" ought to be immediately perceived sufficient rebuttal for the cause? Rather, I openly challenge you get on with it and prove from Scripture, logical argument, and God-sanctified reason, preferably in book form, how exactly I'm in error and warrant the aspersion of "heretic." I defy you to do so according to what I actually said and made clear what I intended to say in the book, and using accurate context and citations.

What then? You complain, "He believes that God shows grace to the reprobate who hears the gospel!

Then, why merely repeat what you think I believe as if your repetition ought to be so shocking to the regenerate mind's senses that your "nay" ought to be immediately perceived sufficient rebuttal for the cause? Rather, I openly challenge you get on with it and prove from Scripture, logical argument, and God-sanctified reason, preferably in book form, how exactly I'm in error and warrant the aspersion of "heretic." I defy you to do so according to what I actually said and made clear what I intended to say in the book, and using accurate context and citations.

What then? You complain, "He believes that Christ's expiation was ample for the reprobate!"

Then, why merely repeat what you think I believe as if your repetition ought to be so shocking to the regenerate mind's senses that your "nay" ought to be immediately perceived sufficient rebuttal for the cause? Rather, I openly challenge you get on with it and prove from Scripture, logical argument, and God-sanctified reason, preferably in book form, how exactly I'm in error and warrant the aspersion of "heretic." I defy you to do so according to what I actually said and made clear what I intended to say in the book, and using accurate context and citations.

How many times does it take for you to get straight that I've always challenged you to write a book in rebuttal. More than the five times above? By the word "preferably," it doesn't follow that I had accepted anything less than a book response. Is that where you read "review"? It must have been, because I surely never "dared" you to write a "review." I mean a book through a publisher, like I did with mine, so that it might be public and available to all and achieve the widest distribution possible. Do some work.

Now that your first lie has been so easily smoked out, let's now see how what you say you'll be telling people will be untrue because your conclusion does not follow from your initial faulty premise (i.e., that I have ever "dared" you to write merely a "review"), thus logically smoking out your next lie: "The Lord willing, when people ask me if I plan to review the book (and to those who have already asked), I'll let them know the truth -- that you won't even let me review it unless the review is around 100,000 words!" You'll let them know "the truth," you say? Yes, and when you're telling them that you can know that you'll be telling but another lie and deceiving them. Now who's the father of lies? Like father, like son, aye?

No, let me let them know "the truth" for you, I'll be glad to. they can't get it from you. Now, clearly, since the premise is false, it can't be true that I said that I would not let you "review" the book "unless the review is around 100,000 words." Go back and locate that place in any of my emails concerning this discussion and tell us where I ever said, "I will not let you review my book unless it is around 100,000 words." Find it, Marc. Let's "review" what I said, and which you even include in this email to your list (an embarrassing oversight?). On May 22, you asked me "What is 'book length'?" So you even acknowledged I was talking about a BOOK and not a review. Any author knows the difference between a "book" in reply to a book and a "review" of a book. Now, remember, folks, we're talking about book length, which was Marc's specific question, not what should be the length of his "review." To which I replied thus on May 23:

Well, let's see, my book [so we're talking about a "book," not "review"] runs over 110k words. So I would say book length [again talking about a "book," not "review"] for you is something fairly comparable to that. But what difference does it make? You can't refute my book anyway. Too much on your plate, remember? Nor have you been inclined to do anything heretofore but a measly "review."

So, we see your second lie smoked out appropriately. No, I never said that I will not permit your reviewing the book "unless the review is around 100,000 words," but what I said was, in response to your asking how long BOOK LENGTH was, "I would say book length [again talking about a 'book', not 'review'] for you is something fairly comparable to [100k words]."

Clearly, then, you don't want to write book length response to my book, just like I stated before, and had rather just settled for a forum more in your comfort zone of a few pages of review. I won't have it, for reasons I've already stated. I refuse to make it so easy for you, but if you're going to try and refute me publicly I'm going to force you to not be lazy, do the work, and deal head to head with each issue I brought out in the book. You are the one who has refused to do this. You have said that you don't have the time. That's fine, as that's your prerogative. But then it's also my prerogative to not allow you to do anything else but what I've always insisted upon and challenged you to do all along: i.e., to write rebuttal, preferably in book form (book through a publisher). I had thought that you had jumped at the chance to so publicly expose me as the God-hating, unregenerate agent of Satan that you have said that I am, by writing a full-length book rebutting my numerous errors page after page after page! You plainly don't want to. So what I've said is the truth, and what you've said that I've said is found to be a blatant misrepresentation of that truth. I just proved it.

So then, in order to escape this reasonable demand, because you don't want to write a book-length rebuttal, you try to reverse the liability by charging me with wanting you to "add fluff to comply with [my] demand." Then you assert, "Of course, we all know what your demand really is: it's a way to get out of having someone do a serious critique of your book. It's quite obvious." Really? First, (rhetorical questions following) who's "we." You say "we all know." How do "we" "know" this, based upon what evidence heretofore? You say it's "quite obvious." Really? "Obvious" to whom? To whomever this "it" of yours would be so "obvious," I'm not really concerned with anyway. So no loss here. That's precisely the point: You will not provide a "serious critique" of the book, but will do what you have always done, lie, slander, misrepresent a man's words, and turn them into such a way as to justify yourself before men at the expense of the truth and thus falsely accuse your opponent--just like I showed that you've done here! I know that. So I won't have it. Thanks, again, for so beautifully helping to prove my point.

Therefore, the Lord willing, when people ask me if Marc Carpenter plans to write a meaningful rebuttal in book form to my book as requested and challenged of him (and to those who have already asked), I'll let them know the truth -- that he won't respond by anything more than few page review (citing that he has too much on his plate, nor the time), and that I won't let him write a mere review so as to afford him the chance to deal unfairly like he provably has in the past with former writers and preachers (e.g., Bobby Bullington), but have insisted that he write a fuller response as to thoroughly deal head to head with each issue I brought out and prove me in error and vindicate himself from having so lied and slandered Bobby Bullington's person (calling him "unregenerate") and doctrine (calling it the "damnable free offer of Calvinism"). Specifically, as was requested and challenged of him, to prove his previous assertions and my errors correspondingly:

What then? You complain, "He believes that there are terms of the gospel promise that man has to meet!"

Then, why merely repeat what you think I believe as if your mere repetition of it ought to be so shocking to the regenerate mind's senses that your "nay" ought to be immediately perceived sufficient rebuttal for the cause? Rather, I openly challenge you get on with it and prove from Scripture, logical argument, and God-sanctified reason, preferably in book form, how exactly I'm in error and warrant the aspersion of "heretic." I defy you to do so according to what I actually said and made clear what I intended to say in the book, and using accurate context and citations.

What then? You complain, "He believes that God really and sincerely desires the salvation of the reprobate!"

Then, why merely repeat what you think I believe as if your repetition ought to be so shocking to the regenerate mind's senses that your "nay" ought to be immediately perceived sufficient rebuttal for the cause? Rather, I openly challenge you get on with it and prove from Scripture, logical argument, and God-sanctified reason, preferably in book form, how exactly I'm in error and warrant the aspersion of "heretic." I defy you to do so according to what I actually said and made clear what I intended to say in the book, and using accurate context and citations.

What then? You complain, "He believes that Christ's definite atonement is not part of the gospel!"

Then, why merely repeat what you think I believe as if your repetition ought to be so shocking to the regenerate mind's senses that your "nay" ought to be immediately perceived sufficient rebuttal for the cause? Rather, I openly challenge you get on with it and prove from Scripture, logical argument, and God-sanctified reason, preferably in book form, how exactly I'm in error and warrant the aspersion of "heretic." I defy you to do so according to what I actually said and made clear what I intended to say in the book, and using accurate context and citations.

What then? You complain, "He believes that God shows grace to the reprobate who hears the gospel!

Then, why merely repeat what you think I believe as if your repetition ought to be so shocking to the regenerate mind's senses that your "nay" ought to be immediately perceived sufficient rebuttal for the cause? Rather, I openly challenge you get on with it and prove from Scripture, logical argument, and God-sanctified reason, preferably in book form, how exactly I'm in error and warrant the aspersion of "heretic." I defy you to do so according to what I actually said and made clear what I intended to say in the book, and using accurate context and citations.

What then? You complain, "He believes that Christ's expiation was ample for the reprobate!"

Then, why merely repeat what you think I believe as if your repetition ought to be so shocking to the regenerate mind's senses that your "nay" ought to be immediately perceived sufficient rebuttal for the cause? Rather, I openly challenge you get on with it and prove from Scripture, logical argument, and God-sanctified reason, preferably in book form, how exactly I'm in error and warrant the aspersion of "heretic." I defy you to do so according to what I actually said and made clear what I intended to say in the book, and using accurate context and citations.

Now, you people on this list know how quick our cowboy Marc here is at diligently "informing" us of truth, being as he is a kind of crusader on a mission, and how he so meticulously stashes every significant email that might be used later to vindicate him against his opponents' alleged "lies and slanders" of him or OTC and to "expose" them as the God-hating fools and self-contradicting idiots. So, observe, you people on this list, how when he does not get back to us and locate that place in any of my emails where I said what he says that I said, you can thereby know that he found no such place because no such place was to be found. So, what does that make our cowboy Marc? A liar, plain and simple. Will you people on this list, at least those who follow him, continue to trust him? Why would you? Ah, perhaps, then, there might be some credence after all to what some of his past adversaries have charged him with doing: lying, slandering, misrepresenting them! You might want to investigate further. If he demonstrably lied in this case, why should you suppose he has not done so before?

The truth prevails again, Prov. 26:27.

Prosperous Regards,

Erick D. Manard
Visit: http://www.gospeloffreegrace.com


"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark
on the things you have long taken for granted."

Bertrand Russell
1872-1970, Author and Mathematician


Wow, E.D., you're getting all bent out of shape because I used the word "review" instead of "rebuttal" or "book"? Okay. What you wanted me to do was to write a book-length review -- a review the length of a book. Call it a "book-length rebuttal" if you don't like the word "review." You then said you preferred that it actually be a published book. The truth is that you initially challenged me to write a rebuttal and have now placed conditions on it that make such a review (er, rebuttal) impossible. First of all, in order for me to write a rebuttal of around 100,000 words, I would have to include fluff, which I won't do. Secondly, I don't have the time to write such a lengthy article (er, book). Thirdly, if you want my review (er, rebuttal) to be a published book, I don't have the money nor the desire to publish a book rebutting your book. You may be rich enough to be able to get your books published (which anyone with money can do through iUniverse - just look at their web site at www.iuniverse.com), but I'm not. So you've just effectively silenced rebuttal. That's your prerogative, but please be honest. I'm willing to review your book, but you are not willing to have me review (er, rebut) your book unless certain conditions are met that I cannot meet. Your "book-length review" vs. "book-length rebuttal" issue is a red herring. The real issue is that you don't want a concise, succinct, to-the-point, non-fluff, non-book-length review of your book. The only kind of review (er, rebuttal) that you'd accept would be one that is as wordy, grandiloquent, bombastic, prolix, verbose, and effusive as yourself, with as much time and money spent on it as you spent on your own book. That is tantamount to an out-and-out prohibition to publicly critique your book. So be it. I have other more important things to do.

By the way, I find it very interesting that you would quote Bertrand Russell, well-known atheist, as part of your signature.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter

www.outsidethecamp.org

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


E.D.,

I see on your web site that if you put your mouse over the picture of your book, a message pops up that says this: "The book Marc Carpenter has refused to answer!" This is, of course, just a flat-out lie. But I would expect nothing less from a habitual liar.

I also found one of the articles on your site to be of particular interest:

http://www.gospeloffreegrace.com/brb-re-electionandgospel.htm

In it, Bobby Bullington said:

"I said all that to say this: I made a statement to Bill, David, and two of the Deacons, not to the whole church or to be made public, in which statement I used a poor choice of words, and did not properly explain. Since I was discussing this issue with brethren whom I thought loved me, I was not as careful as I should have been. I never dreamed that Bill, and David would use it against me to accuse me of introducing heresy into the church. As I said it was a poor choice of words, and I did not fully explain what I meant.

I said that Election is no part of the Gospel. What I meant to say and should have said is that a person can preach God's Gospel without preaching Election, and a person can preach the facts of Election, as many do without preaching the Gospel; of course we cannot preach Election aright without preaching the Gospel. The Gospel itself and Election are two distinct truths that make up part of the whole! Election is true but Election did not die on the cross. The whole of God's truth should be preached and nothing held back or watered down, but the Gospel itself is very specific! God's Gospel itself concerns the constitution of Christ's Person, and reveals both the Righteousness that Christ established, and the non-imputation of the guilt and defilement of sin. The Gospel itself concerns both the Person and Work of Christ."

Very interesting! Bobby said that election is no part of the gospel, was accused of introducing heresy in the church, and then said that this was "a poor choice of words" and "What I meant to say and should have said is ..."

Yet you, E.D. Manard, believe that election is no part of the gospel and aren't ashamed to say so! So why would Bobby backtrack and say that it was a poor choice of words and say, "What I meant to say and should have said is ..."? Why didn't he just boldly stand up and proclaim what you proclaim -- that ELECTION IS NO PART OF THE GOSPEL? Why would he be ashamed of saying that? You certainly are not. And Bobby, in his explanation of what he "should have said" basically says the same thing that he says he shouldn't have said -- that election is no part of the gospel! Why the "but .. but .. but ... what I really meant to say ..."?

Very, very interesting. It gets more interesting all the time.

When the angel spoke to Joseph, saying, "And she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save HIS PEOPLE from their sins," I guess, according to you and Bobby, the angel wasn't preaching THE GOSPEL to Joseph, because he talked of salvation of HIS PEOPLE rather than salvation of sinners in general, eh? Oh, I could go on ... [As a side note, I also found it amusing that you decided to "borrow" some of the graphics from the OTC web site and put them on your own.]

Well, well, well ... the story continues ...

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention: I really got a kick out of your "projection" explanation. I have both a Bachelor's degree and a Master's degree in psychology, so yeah, I know what "projection" is. It's what Freud called a "defense mechanism." So you hold to Freudian theory, eh, E.D.? What other Freudian folly do you believe? Do you believe that you were sexually attracted to your mother when you were a child? So, let's see ... Bertrand Russell, Sigmund Freud, and ... Bobby Bullington. What a combo. So if I'm "projecting" what I myself am, I guess that would apply to you as well, when you talk about me. So, according to your Freudian "projection" theory, what you said about me is really a description of you. Let's play the Freudian projection game, shall we? Let's see ... here's some of what you have said about me: "You know, I say you have big mouth, a wide trap that overrides common decency and demonstrates you a glittering gem of monumental ignorance. If you had said all that eyeball to eyeball, a few years ago I had not even said a word but immediately jacked your jaw shut for you. ... You're real brave when you can hide behind your computer screen a few hundred miles away, and put on an aggressive posture in the name of sanctimoniousness and show apologetic enterprise, are you? It appears that you have an overinflated sense of self-importance to think that you may require anything of me, and an even more obese sense of self-flattery to suppose I ought be bound to comply. Perhaps you would like to come on down here to Tulsa and say all that to this Okie boy's face, Marc. Somehow, I sense that such a gut in you is conveniently missing, and that claim of a sudden case of unexpected castration would be found your lot were you to have the realistic opportunity to get close enough to let me smell your breath."

Here's where I roll on the floor laughing out loud. See what you've just "projected" yourself to be? A big-mouthed, glittering gem of monumental ignorance with an overinflated sense of self-importance who hides behind his computer because he doesn't have the manliness to confront someone face to face? Hey, is all your macho chest-pounding compensating for an actual lack of manly qualities? You know, the Napoleon complex? Oh, the pain in my side from laughing! But wait a minute ... you wouldn't apply the "projection" theory to yourself, would you? It's only me who's projecting, not you. Oh, I see. Different standard. Yeah, that's it. Someone says something about you, it's projection; you say something about someone else, it's not projection. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E? It may make you mad, but I've just gotta laugh. You're hilarious! There's certainly no lack of entertainment in reading your posts. What a hoot! Well, adios, you big huge intimidating manly man. You can jack my jaw shut, but you can't jack the truth shut! The truth will prevail. Praise God!

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter

P.S. I just heard from someone on this cc list that you have articles by Samuel Rutherford on your site that purposely reject the idea that the Covenant of Grace is unconditional and claim that it is conditioned on faith. Not surprising for a conditionalist!

P.P.S. Another link on Manard's site is to John Bunyan's "Reprobation Asserted." Attached is something I wrote a while back on this. What Bunyan believed is obviously what Manard believes.


Bobby Bullington's logic:

1. Election did not die on the cross.

2. Thus, Election is not a part of the gospel.

Let's think about this. Bobby is saying that whatever did not die on the cross is not a part of the gospel. Did any doctrine die on the cross? Of course not. Thus, according to Bobby's logic, no doctrine is part of the gospel, since no doctrine died on the cross.

How foolish is that?

Marc


<<Marc,

Have you read E.D. Manard's book Why Election is Not My Gospel?>>

Yes. He sent it to me.

<<If so, what does E.D. Manard state about you?>>

Where do you want me to start? : - )

The whole book is supposed to be a refutation of what I teach. I'm mentioned throughout the book. Appendix A is entitled "Of Marc Carpenter's 'Gospel' Versus God's Gospel." He says things like, "Carpenter preaches a gospel of god that says, in effect, 'Come, but you can't come!' Or, so in effect, 'The Lord commands you to believe and repent, but He might not really desire that you be saved upon believing and repenting.'"

<<Also, does he now believe in the "two contradictory wills" of "god" and that salvation is conditioned on the "faith" of the sinner?>>

Yes he does. Quotes:

"The implication of such a question, in the similar stream as the objections made by Carpenter, is clear: God cannot desire anything but that He infallibly intends to be done. Where did God teach this about Himself in His Book, pray? What then? If He desires that all men should be saved, then He must purpose that all men shall be saved, and so either all men are saved, fulfilling His intention, or all men are not saved, thwarting His intention? This is fallacious reasoning. ... This kind of foul logic doesn't even play out in human experience. Consider: One may have a sincere desire that others should not perish, and yet it may be that, in entire consistency with that, they will perish. A parent has a sincere wish that his children should not be punished if they should do wrong, and yet the parent himself may be under a moral necessity to punish them according to his purpose to do right. A lawgiver may have a sincere wish that no one should ever break the laws of the land, or be punished for so doing, and yet himself may build a prison, and construct a gallows, and cause the law to be executed in a most rigorous manner. A judge on the bench may have a sincere desire that no man should be put to death, and that every one arraigned before him should be found to be innocent, and yet even he, in entire accordance with that wish, and with a most benevolent heart, even with tears in his eyes, may pronounce the sentence of the law, that the lawbreaker must die as he deserves. If all this may be true with human experience, why may it not be so with God's? Is God less than His creatures? ... Do all men believe the gospel? No, yet contrary to the desire in God that they should. It follows that if God desires that all men should obey the Gospel, He also desires that all should be saved by the Gospel, since obedience to the Gospel always results in salvation by the Gospel. ... Maintaining the distinction between God's desirable will and God's intentional will, we think it interesting to note how Calvin himself understood the following passages, yet without fear of contradicting his held doctrine of 'limited atonement.' He interpreted the following as connoting all mankind without exception under the sound of the Gospel: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any ["ungodly men," cf. v. 7] should perish [by seeking salvation based on their own righteousness], but that all ["ungodly men," cf. v. 7] should come to repentance [or, that all ought to seek salvation based on the righteousness of Christ] (2 Pe. 3:9).' Now the justified elect are never under threat that they will ever perish, nor will any pre-regenerate elect person fail to come to repentance. If this is true, then to intend the 'any' and the 'all' to be 'the elect' had seemed to render this passage somewhat redundant. ... In other words, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself instructs us, and tells us plainly not only that He invites, because He desires, more than the elect to come and partake of His supper (be saved), but also that not all whom He invites and desires to be saved will finally come and be saved; for many, against His desire and at the frustration of His revealed will by way of commandment, will perish everlastingly. Clearly, since Jesus' will thus is frustrated, and Jesus is God, so God's desire is thwarted in the matter, yet not the intention of either the Father or the Son."

"God may be real and sincere to offer salvation to all, according to the Gospel, because God really and sincerely desires the salvation of all, according to the terms revealed in and set forth by THE Gospel. If any reprobate, whoever he may be, would seek, or had sought, salvation by this way, had this not been most desirable, approved of, acceptable to, or delighted in by God, wherein 'mercy rejoices against judgment'? Yes. In this sense, we must admit that it can be truly said that God, according to His revealed command, which excludes no one under the gospel, desires that all without exception, even 'reprobates' (ungodly sinners), come to the salvation proposed of by the Gospel, wherein God's righteousness is revealed."

"The Gospel itself, by virtue of its commands inherently obligating all who hear it to believe it, repent in light of it, and thus by implication persevere thenceforward in the way of it, imposes those duties requisite to salvation, or responsibilities necessary to attain righteousness and final glory in heaven, upon the sinner to perform, not God to perform for him; however, this absolutely does not imply salvation conditioned on the sinner to any degree at any time, because the Gospel also vitally expresses how righteousness alone entitles the believing sinner not only to all spiritual blessings, but also the very ability to perform those duties acceptable and well-pleasing to God, if any sinner justified by His grace will be saved from beginning to end, all of which God Himself has appointed should be done, to the praise of His glorious grace. ... Now, while perhaps Carpenter's promise is just to the elect, yet the biblical promise of THE Gospel, as we've defined it from God's Testimony in previous chapters and till now, is not 'just to the elect,' but to all sinners who hear it, all and every one of them, according to those terms which include faith to believe it ... Hence, we just proved that Carpenter is a self-defeating liar. We don't like to say such things, but we must conclude nothing else. Yet, Carpenter, in his treatment of Bullington's doctrine, omitted this rather valuable piece of information, or so we had thought, above concerning faith. ... One reason Carpenter misconstrues that Bullington is saying simply that 'God will save every lost sinner without exception who hears the gospel,' as if the promise is absolute (or, not to be tendered upon reasonable terms), and leaves it at that, despite his so clear statement to the contrary made on several occasions, is because Carpenter has a low regard for Christ's righteousness, and does not really esteem it as sufficient remedy for all ungodly sinners who hear -- indeed for a thousand worlds of sinners! ... Carpenter is ignorant of what the promise consists of. We have already defined it precisely, and it is not simply that "God promises to save every lost sinner without exception who hears the gospel." What then? Does Carpenter think that the promise consists in no terms whatsoever to which the sinner is bound to comply, if he will be saved God's way? If he does, Scripture contradicts him. The promise, in its application and according to its own stated terms necessitating belief of the truth, repentance of false religion, and submission to God's righteousness, may be rendered ineffective 'for him,' due to unbelief; but not its expressed terms of salvation rendered ineffective, but rather enforced by unbelief. ... The fact that the Gospel is a promise in no way logically prohibits that the promise should contain terms to which sinners are required to submit, among those being to believe the promise and submit to that righteousness. Carpenter's following statement is fallacious and ill placed: 'This god is dependent upon the sinner to make his promise come to pass. It's like the man who promises everyone in his audience that he will give them a cookie but then later says, "Only if you say 'Please.'" It turns out that the promise is not a promise at all; instead, receipt of a cookie is conditioned on what each person in the audience says. Now if this man had said, "I promise to give everyone who says 'Please' a cookie," then he would be more honest. But note - Bullington does not believe that God promises salvation JUST TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE.' Besides being logically fallacious, this is an asinine illustration. A promise is still a promise even if it contains terms imposed upon the would-be recipient. God promised the Israelites prosperity in the land, not absolutely or without stipulations, but upon certain conditions ... What kind of vulgar logic is this? Who invented this unbiblical idea that unless God promises absolutely, or without any necessary requirements in order to attain the thing promised, it can't possibly be a real promise of absolute and unconditional free grace? Chapter and verse, Carpenter, please? What then? Is God 'fake' to promise salvation upon belief and repentance, because He imposes belief and repentance as the means of attainment? ... Yes, Bullington does believe and preach 'that God promises salvation to EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION, including the reprobate," yet not simply or absolutely; but insofar as this promise if founded upon, and qualified by, reasonable terms: 'Whoever believes the Gospel shall be saved.' ... Furthermore, Bullington never said simply that 'God promises to save EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION, including the reprobate,' as an absolute promise devoid of any reasonable terms that might call for human action and creature responsibility ... Jesus' implicit promise to save the lost Jews if they repented ... God, as far as the external sound of the Gospel, promises to save even the reprobates, if they too would believe the promise. ... There is a differentiation between those upon whom God has purposed to bestow faith (the elect), because they were chosen to be saved, and those whom God commands to believe and desires to enter into agreement with Him upon certain terms (both elect and reprobate), if any will be saved; for, the two groups are not necessarily coextensive, yet so without any duplicity in God. ... God promises to save all who believe the promise, yet tenders the terms of that promise to all who hear without exception. ... Listen carefully: Faith is the condition of attainment of righteousness. There is no salvation but by this attainment. ... God does put forward terms, and man must submit to those terms, if any will be saved. God is sovereign, AND man is responsible. The one is compatible with the other. Just as God damns not based on or because of, but through means of human free agency, neither against or without it, and based on unrighteousness (sin imputed), so God saves not based on or because of, but through means of human free agency, neither against nor without it, and based on righteousness (sin not imputed). ... Rather, by 'offer' we mean that God seriously presents to all upon what terms alone He is willing to save an unlimited number of sinners, promising to save all those who will come by God's way prescribed. God desires that all should be saved God's way ... There is no salvation to be had without the sinner's voluntarily, humbly, and lovingly attaining what was worked out for him. ... According to Scripture, the fact that God annexes the promise of salvation with obedience to the command to repent better enforces the command, so heightening the condemnation of those who willfully disobey the command, since in rejection of the command, as the means, so they reject the hope offered in the promise, as the end. Those who willingly comply with the command, according to their revealed duty to do, and which duty is regulated not by God's purpose but His revealed will, shall be saved, based on the same ground, and according to the one and same promise expressed to all."

"The promise of the Gospel, when preached to lost sinners, maintains an unrestrained generality, inviting all who hear to be saved. Yet the promise assures salvation to none but those who believe the promise as the Gospel tenders it. The Gospel reveals both that God seriously invites all to be saved according to His terms, because He sincerely desires that all be saved thus, and that none but those who believe the promise as tendered on these terms shall be saved."

<<Does E.D. Manard believe he was unregenerate when he stated,

"Anyone who denies and teaches contrary to this doctrine of the Gospel (Unconditioned Election and Particular Redemption), and/or denies the impossibility that another as a Christian can neither deny nor teach contrary to it, and/or denies that another is not possibly Christian whoever denies the impossiblility that another as a Christian can neither deny nor teach contrary to it, ad infinitum, is unregenerate and believes in and teaches another gospel, which is not another; and therefore, according to the divine commandment of the apostle, "Let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8-9).">>

I have no idea.

<<If E.D. Manard's "god" really and sincerely desires the salvation of the reprobate then why doesn't his "god" regenerate the reprobate and cause the reprobate to repent and believe the gospel and be saved.>>

Good question. If we use his examples of the parent, the lawgiver, and the judge, we'd have to conclude that Manard's god really wishes that everyone would be saved, but there is an overriding moral necessity to do what is right -- even contrary to this god's sincere wishes. So this god damns people with tears in his eyes, wishing he didn't have to do it, but doing it anyway because it's the right thing to do. Manard asked, "If all this may be true with human experience, why may it not be so with God's? Is God less than His creatures?" This shows that he brings God down to the level of the creature. My response is this: God is MORE than His creatures. He DOESN'T act like them. That's why He's GOD.

Marc


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters