Sean Gerety, who is affiliated with the Trinity Foundation (Trinity Review) wrote a blog article entitled "John Piper and his Heretical Friends."

Chris Duncan wrote the following comment on Gerety's blog site:

<<The following excerpt from Piper's book, "The Future of Justification" is a clear demonstration of Piper's, Owen's, and Edward's contempt for the truth. Piper cites two of your own prophets, whose "unwavering orthodoxy" you dare not blasphemously question. After reading the following in a careful manner, just consider the possibility that the aforementioned unholy trio believe(d) that passages such as Zephaniah 3:4, Galatians 1:8-9, Acts 20:29-30, and 1 John 4:1-3 are meaningless.

With one antichristian and irenic mind, these three men do not see a false gospel, but a "confusing" or "muddled" gospel. But even if they DID grudgingly (or even cheerfully) concede that the false gospel is an actual post-Apostolic reality, they could just emulate Sean Gerety by emitting billows of bombastic bluster that are bereft of backbone, since unlike the Apostle Paul's anathemas, these "anathemas" would not fall upon actual real-life persons, but person-less, systematic phantoms.

Piper:


==For these eight reasons, and more that will emerge along the way, I am not optimistic that the biblical doctrine of justification will flourish where N. T. Wright's portrayal holds sway. I do not see his vision as a compelling retelling of what Saint Paul really said. And I think, as it stands now, it will bring great confusion to the church at a point where she desperately needs clarity. I don't think this confusion is the necessary dust that must settle when great new discoveries have been made. Instead, if I read the situation correctly, the confusion is owing to the ambiguities in Wright's own expressions, and to the fact that, unlike his treatment of some subjects, his paradigm for justification does not fit well with the ordinary reading of many texts and leaves many ordinary folk not with the rewarding "ah-ha" experience of illumination, but with a paralyzing sense of perplexity.30 ==

And here is Piper's footnote [30]:

== [30] I do not infer Wright's defective view of justification to mean that he is not himself justified. Jonathan Edwards and John Owen give good counsel on this point even if the debates then were not identical to ours. Edwards wrote during one of his controversies:

"How far a wonderful and mysterious agency of God's Spirit may so influence some men's hearts, that their practice in this regard may be contrary to their own principles, so that they shall not trust in their own righteousness, though they profess that men are justified by their own righteousness--or how far they may believe the doctrine of justification by men's own righteousness in general, and yet not believe it in a particular application of it to themselves--or how far that error which they may have been led into by education, or cunning sophistry of others, may yet be indeed contrary to the prevailing disposition of their hearts, and contrary to their practice--or how far some may seem to maintain a doctrine contrary to this gospel-doctrine of justification, that really do not, but only express themselves differently from others; or seem to oppose it through their misunderstanding of our expressions, or we of theirs, when indeed our real sentiments are the same in the main--or may seem to differ more than they do, by using terms that are without a precisely fixed and determinate meaning--or to be wide in their sentiments from this doctrine, for want of a distinct understanding of it; whose hearts, at the same time, entirely agree with it, and if once it was clearly explained to their understandings, would immediately close with it, and embrace it: -- how far these things may be, I will not determine; but am fully persuaded that great allowances are to be made on these and such like accounts, in innumerable instances; though it is manifest, from what has been said, that the teaching and propagating [of] contrary doctrines and schemes, is of a pernicious and fatal tendency" (Jonathan Edwards, "Justification by Faith Alone," in Sermons and Discourses, 1734-1738, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 19 [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001], 242)==

Owen wrote:

=="Men may be really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which in opinion they deny to be imputed." But I would add: the clearer the knowledge of the truth and the more deep the denial, the less assurance one can have that the God of truth will save him. Owen's words are not meant to make us cavalier about the content of the gospel, but to hold out hope that men's hearts are often better than their heads. (John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, chapter VII, "Imputation, and the Nature of It," Banner of Truth, Works, Vol. 5, 163-164.) ==>>

Hugh McCann then responded with the following comment on Gerety's blog site:

<<Or we could emulate Pope Marc by damning ("Yer unregenerate!") all we find insufficiently erudite, accurate, and doctrinaire with bombastic bluster bolstered by butch blasts of our wee trumpets and, unlike the Apostle Paul's anathemas, have our curses fall upon dead saints.

No doubt Edwards and Owen were unregenerate when they wrote the above quotes. (:

Apparently, in Duncanland too, no one is allowed an error. Ever.

So glad the angel(s) went easy on John in Rev. 19:10 & 22:8f! And aren't Rom. 16:17, 1 Tim. 4:16, Jas 3:1 & such like given because we ARE prone to errors?!

Seriously though, many may have erred in their charity toward some illogical "Christians." (The long list is outside the camp.)

And, as seen in Chris' post, the more specific one gets, the more trouble one gets into. Piper's quote above is the most problematic, Edwards's the least.

By stating the case as he has, Piper has appeared indecisive and confused. He is certainly confusing. Owen nearly as much so. Edwards tries to carefully walk a tightrope and allow for lapses in our thinking, errors due to the fall, and inconsistencies in our systems. Perhaps he went too far.

Can we angelically help our brethren to their feet? If they're passed on to the other side, can we not read their works in total, taking all their teaching into consideration before consigning them to the dustbin of the "antichristian," "unholy," or those with "contempt for the truth"?

Yours,
Hugh>>

I then submitted the following comment to Gerety's blog site (which needed to be approved by Gerety):

<<Hugh, you have no substantive answer for Chris Duncan, so you just resort to slander. And the slander is in the form of attempted humor. Typical.

Regarding "Pope Marc": I have never claimed anything close to papal authority or infallibility or rule. Anyone who knows me knows how absurd this is.

Regarding "Damning all we find insufficiently erudite": First of all, we never damn anyone. We do not know if an unregenerate person is elect or reprobate. It is not up to us to judge that person's eternal destiny. Secondly, judging someone to be unregenerate has nothing to do with that person's erudition. I couldn't care less about how much book knowledge a person has. What I care about is this: Does that person believe the GOSPEL?

Regarding "Apparently, in Duncanland too, no one is allowed an error. Ever.": We have never advocated a position in which no one is ever allowed an error. The stupidity of this is so clear. If I judge all Mormons to be unregenerate, would you say, "Apparently, in Carpenterland, no one is allowed an error. Ever."? What an asinine argument. And you claim to have a grasp on basic logic. Since when does judging someone to be unregenerate based on the gospel equate to not ever allowing an error? It's the whole "nobody's perfect" nonsensical reasoning that goes like this: "Yes, he's a pedophile, but nobody's perfect." "What, you are condemning that pedophile? Do you think you're perfect or something?" Quite idiotic. Contrary to your imbecilic slander, we realize that Christians can be in error in many areas. But what about the GOSPEL -- the person and work of Christ? Can a Christian be in error on the deity of Christ? Is there such a thing as a Christian who does not believe that Jesus is God? If you say "no," then what if I came back and said, "Apparently, in McCannland, no one is allowed an error. Ever."? THAT'S how stupid your argument is.

Now if you were a man with an ounce of integrity, you would admit that you have slandered Chris Duncan and me (and, by extension, all who fellowship with us). Of course, I'm not holding my breath.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter>>

Sean Gerety then e-mailed me with the following comment:

<<In case you're wondering, I've decided not to allow you to post on my blog.>>

I wrote:

<<You would allow someone to post slander about me, but you would not allow me to defend myself. No big surprise. That's your m.o.>>

Gerety wrote:

<<And your m.o. is to slander others with your irrational irreligious hate filed bile.

Let's see if I remember how your argument progresses: Mormons are lost (major premise) > Clark/Calvin/Owen/Robbins/etc. wrote something your feeble mind disagrees with (minor premise) > Clark/Clavin/Owen/Robbis/ were LOST when they wrote something that your feeble mind disagrees with (conclusion). Then you have the nerve to whine like a woman about being "slandered." LOL. Frankly whining about you not being allowed to post is funny too. Even funnier is that you think you're glorifying God.

Pathetic.>>

I wrote:

<<No, how about this:

(P1) All who do not believe the gospel are lost.

(P2) Mormons do not believe the gospel.

(C1) Mormons are lost.

(P3) All who do not believe the gospel are lost.

(P4) Clark/Calvin/Owen/Robbins did not believe the gospel.

(C2) Clark/Calvin/Owen/Robbins were lost.

By the way, why do you spend so much time on things that don't matter? So what if the FV people like Wilson are "Not Reformed At All" -- that really doesn't matter in your scheme of things, does it? It's not a life-or-death matter, is it? It's not like you're calling them lost and telling them to repent and believe the true gospel. Is it just that you want to see your FV brothers "more sanctified" before they get to heaven?

Hey, speaking of the Mormon-Arminian connection, below is something I sent out to a bunch of people regarding what James White just said about me on his show. You'll be able to make up another false syllogism and LOL about my whining. Always happy to give people a good laugh!>>

Gerety wrote:

<<Again, more proof that you are a complete bag o' nuts. Frankly, if I didn't have some history with you already, I would be convinced from the below so-called argument that you are insane. Not only are your premises P4 obvously false, the imagined parity between the two arguments proves you are a total whack job. I know, you'll prattle on about being reviled for the sake of the gospel, but below is more proof that it is you that doesn't believe the gospel. You have no idea what it is. Consequently, it is you who has once again demonstrated that you don't believe the gospel and is lost. "But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes."

Oh, and I know your comeback already, "I don't hate my brother. I have no brothers except Chris Duncan and my three dogs and I'm pretty sure one of those are a liar." The great thing is that your backwoods little cult is it is self-destructive and anyone stupid enough to follow you is soon to be found out to be a liar and judged "LOSSSST." LOL!!!! Why, even that poor sick soul, Andrew Bain -- a man mentally disturbed enough to at one time count himself as one of your "brethren" -- has been purged from your self-eliminating cult.

Praise God no man pays any attention to you.>>

I wrote:

<<Could it be? Could it be?? Could it be that the magnanimous Sean Gerety is actually judging me to be lost? Oh, please tell me that it is so. PLEASE! Please judge me to be lost, Sean! Come out and say it in an unambiguous way! Say this: "Marc Carpenter, you are unregenerate." Please do it! That would make my day! That would mean that you believe that a professing Christian can be in error on many things, including the heart of the gospel (the atonement), and you would judge him to be saved, but if a professing Christian is in error on judging other Christians to be lost, even if that professing Christian confesses belief in the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Christ alone, then you would judge him to be lost! That would mean that you believe that there is an error in doctrine that a true Christian cannot commit -- namely, a true Christian cannot commit the error of judging true Christians (such as Clark/Calvin/Owen/Robbins) to be unregenerate! That would mean that the error of the FV crowd is not nearly as bad as the error of judging true Christians to be unregenerate! That would mean that the error of the FV crowd is not damnable, but the error of judging true Christians to be unregenerate is damnable! Oh, please, please! Then I could say that Mormons have a legitimate reason to call you lost, because you hate your Mormon brothers by calling them lost! Oh, you could say that calling Mormons lost is not hating your brothers, because Mormons are not your brothers. But what kind of argument would that be? I could say the same thing about my judging Clark/Calvin/Owen/Robbins to be lost. Whether or not it is true hatred of brothers depends on if they are really brothers, doesn't it? And if I disagree with you about who a true brother is, that's reason enough to say that I hate the brothers? And then judge me lost for it? Oh, that would just take the cake! Sean, I hope to hear from you soon so you can let me know, with no equivocation or hesitation, that I am a lost, unregenerate God-hater. Please, Sean! This is finally your opportunity to grow a spine! Do you have a backbone, Sean? Or is it all bombastic bluster like you've done with everyone else? Judge me, a person who confesses salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, to be lost! Do it please! I wait with bated breath for your response!>>

Gerety wrote:

<<You're hatred of Christians is legendary. What would you conclude?

Also, since you prattle on about Clark/Robbins didn't know the gospel, which on it's face is idiotic, perhaps you can explain for me what exactly IS the gospel since everyone from Calvin to even a pew-on like me are judged "LOST" by you. FWIW in all these years, and even on your bile filled website, I have never seen where you explain what the gospel according to Marc is so that I might compare it to what these "LOST" men taught and believed.

Indulge me.>>

I wrote:

<<What? Where's the definitive judgment of my spiritual state, O Spineless One? Isn't it as simple as the following syllogism:

P1: All who hate the brothers are lost.

P2: Marc Carpenter hates the brothers.

C1: Marc Carpenter is lost.

Why can't you make such a simple conclusion? Can't bring yourself to be that "hateful"?

Would you say with your brother, J. Gresham Machen, that liberalism (including a denial of plenary inspiration) is not Christianity, but it is a "delicate personal matter" as to whether any individual liberal (including a person who denies plenary inspiration) is a Christian or not (see www.calvinism.us/machen.htm)? Now there's "love" for you. That's your kind of "love." And if I would be so "bile-filled" as to say that all who deny plenary inspiration are lost, you would accuse me of "hating the brothers." And if I would be so "bile-filled" as to say that Machen had no idea what the gospel was when he said that Billy Sunday "is preaching the gospel" (www.outsidethecamp.org/dyk31.htm) and thus showed himself to be unregenerate, you would accuse me of "hating the brothers."

I just read Doug Wilson's reviews of "Not Reformed At All." In one of them, Wilson said this: "And this is why I am taking the time to answer John Robbins. However much he has discredited himself in the responsible Reformed world (consigning C.S. Lewis to Hell, attacking the Apostles' Creed, and much, much more), he still has a hearing in certain quarters." Wilson's opinion of Robbins (and the Trinity Foundation) is common among the Reformed world. Many so-called "Christians" would say that Robbins's (and the Trinity Foundation's) hatred of Christians is legendary and that the Trinity Foundation website is filled with bile. What's the difference between OTC and TF? Why can't Wilson accuse Robbins of hating the brothers when he was "consigning C.S. Lewis to Hell"? Do you agree that C.S. Lewis was unregenerate? Why can't professing Christians also accuse you of hating the brothers and thus judging you to be lost?

So you say you've read our website and still don't have a definition of the gospel from it. Really? What about the entire series of sermons on the gospel at www.outsidethecamp.org/sermons.htm? How about "Gospel Atonement" at www.outsidethecamp.gospatone.htm? How about "Gospel Resurrection" at www.outsidethecamp.gospres.htm? How about "Gospel Repentance" at www.outsidethecamp.org/gosprep.htm? Try those for starters.

And if you want to know about true and false love of the brothers, see www.outsidethecamp.org/truefalse8.htm and www.outsidethecamp.org/truefalse9.htm. And if you want to know about true Christian unity, see www.outsidethecamp.org/unity.htm. For you to refuse to fellowship with people whom you consider to be your brothers in Christ is schismatic.

P.S. While you're at it, why don't you learn some grammar? "You're" is a contraction for "you are." It is not the possessive "your." "It's" is a contraction for "it is." It is not the possessive "its.">>

Gerety wrote:

<<So, you're not going to simply tell me the gospel? I figured as much.

Don't you know it? Do you really think I want to wade through some bilge on your creepy website? I would have thought you could simply tell me in a paragraph. Frankly, any other Christian I've ever met could easily explain the good news, why can't you? Oh, I get it, none of them are Christians. You're Christ's only true follower. Pope Marc is right.

You really are a pathetic hate filled little man, and I'm using the word "man" sparingly.

As for my grammar, how about this, you're an ass.>>

I wrote:

<<Now that is hilarious! When you say things like that, I just have to laugh. You can't even come up with a coherent response. Hey, why don't you say, "You're lost" or "You're unregenerate"? Can't bring yourself to say it? Why not? No spine, perhaps?

In response to your "I have never seen where you explain what the gospel is," I gave you links to where I clearly define the gospel. I was talking to people from our assembly today about this (yes, we do have an assembly, and we actually have 4 households - gasp!), and a common response was, "It's all over the website! You can't go far on the website before you see the gospel defined!" I define the gospel over and over on the website. I talk about the gospel in sermon after sermon. And you can't even bring yourself to read what I have to say about the gospel? Sounds to me like your supposed "interest" in knowing what I believe the gospel is really isn't a genuine interest at all. Surprise, surprise.

By the way, I had a brief correspondence with Hugh McCann after he posted his slander on your blog. I'll post some of it below:

Marc: If I judge all Mormons to be unregenerate, would you say, "Apparently, in Carpenterland, no one is allowed an error. Ever."? What an asinine argument.

Hugh: If by "Mormons" you mean those believing in the teachings of that system, then we'd agree that they're unregenerate. However, I allow that there may be some in Mormonism who do not believe all of their cult's teachings, and actually believe the gospel of 1 Cor. 15:3f, and have not yet left.

To judge all in Mormon, Watchtower, and Catholic "churches" to be unregenerate is asinine, as asinine as it is to assume that everyone in these groups believe all their lies. Of course, to believe the lie is to be unregenerate, and we must evangelize the cultist as if they do believe their organization's lies.

Marc: But what about the GOSPEL -- the person and work of Christ? Can a Christian be in error on the deity of Christ? Is there such a thing as a Christian who does not believe that Jesus is God?

Hugh: Of course they can ... We disagree that a regenerate person could possibly -- at any time post-conversion -- not believe that Jesus is God.

Well, there you go, Sean. One of your defenders allows that some people (whom he calls "cultists") in Mormon, Watchtower, and Catholic "churches" actually believe the gospel. One of your defenders believes that not all Christians believe that Jesus is God. Excellent! That's the kind of people you attract. And it is actually the logical conclusion to your own belief. If you are consistent, then you, too, must believe that there are some Christians who actually do not believe in the deity of Christ. That's what Machen believed. That's no different than Gordon Clark and John Robbins saying that there are some Christians who actually do not believe in the atonement. Machen, Clark, and Robbins were lost, and you and Hugh are lost. I have no problem saying it -- in fact, since I am a Christian who knows what all of you believe, I must make that judgment that all of you are lost. Now go ahead and respond by saying I'm a nut job or whatever else you'd like to call me. What would truly worry me is if someone like you did NOT think I was a nut job! So thanks for the confirmation that I'm on the right track!>>

Gerety wrote:

<<That's it Marc, I have no spine.

BTW, I still see you are unable to explain the Gospel. Why is that? For being an Uber-Christian, the only saved man with the exception of your one kool-aid drinking follower, Chris, along with your dogs that must make up the "families" in your "assembly." LOL. I would have thought this would have been easy since you're a "pastor" and all. ROLOL!!! I see it was too much to ask, perhaps because answering this simple question would only further expose what a pathtic impotent little weasle and fraud you really are.

Finally, why would you think that I care what you wrote to Hugh? Besides, since you can't explain the gospel in a couple of sentences I would prefer if you would stop writing me now. I find you exceedingly boring.>>

I wrote:

<<Hey Sean,

Just so you can't say that I didn't tell you what the gospel is (well, at least you can't say it without lying), I'll indulge your laziness and give you a definition of the gospel that I have used over and over again in articles and sermons:

The gospel is the good news of God's promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.

Now you can say you and Clark and Robbins and whoever else believe this gospel. But I will show you below how this is impossible. Below is a quote from the article entitled "Gospel Atonement" (which you can find at www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm):

Now let us logically consider those who claim to believe in the efficacious atonement of Christ, who would say they agree that Christ only died for those who will be saved, yet who also believe that at least some universal atonement advocates are saved. This includes the "Calvinists" or "Sovereign Gracers" who believe that at least some Arminians are regenerate.

For the purpose of this consideration, let us call the "Calvinist" who considers at least some Arminians to be his brothers and sisters in Christ "TC" (for "Tolerant Calvinist").

Let us assume that TC believes that all regenerate people believe the gospel. There are certainly some TC's who do not believe this (such as the Primitive Baptists who believe that a regenerate person can go for a period of time being completely ignorant of the gospel and even believing a false gospel and worshiping a false god before they are "converted"), showing that they are unregenerate (see the review "The Irrelevant Gospel" in the May 2001 issue of Outside the Camp). But what of TC who believes that all saved people believe the gospel?

Consider: (1) TC believes that some who believe universal atonement are saved. (2) TC believes that all saved people believe the gospel. Thus, (3) TC believes that some who believe universal atonement believe the gospel.

What does this show about TC's belief about the gospel? Since TC believes a person can believe the gospel and believe universal atonement at the same time, then he must believe that the gospel does not include the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ. TC has just denied the very heart of the gospel.

If that were not clear enough, let us go further. Suppose now that TC would agree with us that universal atonement means that Christ's death did not actually accomplish pardon, redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation. This is not an unreasonable supposition; many, if not most, TC's would agree that this is what universal atonement means (just read Gordon Clark's The Atonement). In fact, some TC's would even go so far as to say that universal atonement is a false gospel, yet they say in the same breath that some who hold to universal atonement are regenerate (just talk to the pastors in the Protestant Reformed Churches).

Now consider: (1) TC believes that some who believe universal atonement believe the gospel. (2) TC believes that universal atonement means that Christ's death did not actually accomplish pardon, redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation. Thus, (3) TC believes that some who believe that Christ's death did not actually accomplish pardon, redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation believe the gospel.

What does this now say about what TC thinks about the gospel? TC believes that the gospel is made up of certain doctrines. TC also believes that some who believe that Christ's death did not actually accomplish pardon, redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation believe the gospel. Thus, TC does NOT believe that the gospel includes the doctrine that Christ's death actually accomplished pardon, redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation. TC does NOT believe that the gospel includes the doctrine that Christ's blood actually atoned. TC denies that The Atonement is part of the gospel. And in doing so, TC denies the very gospel itself. TC shows that he has no idea what the gospel is. He shows that he is just as unregenerate as the universal atonement advocate is.

Finally, consider the following logic: (1) All who believe a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner are unregenerate. (2) Universal atonement is a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. Thus, (3) all who believe universal atonement are unregenerate. TC and every person who would consider at least some universal atonement advocates to be regenerate MUST disagree with #3. And the only way people can disagree with #3 is if they disagree with at least one of the first two statements. Consider those who disagree with #1. These are people who believe that at least some who believe a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner are regenerate. Can a true Christian disagree with #1? Of course not. Consider those who disagree with #2. These are people who believe that universal atonement is not a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. Can a true Christian disagree with #2? Of course not. Thus, all who disagree with #3 (all who consider at least some universal atonement advocates to be saved) are unregenerate.

It is no wonder that God says that anyone who speaks peace to a person who brings a false gospel is unregenerate (2 John 11). Those who say that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception deny that the death of Christ actually pardoned, redeemed, propitiated, and reconciled. They deny that Christ's blood actually atoned. They deny that it is the work of Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. They deny the very heart of the gospel. They boast and glory in themselves. They are God-haters. And those who speak peace to these God-haters, who call them brothers and sisters in Christ, who say that the universal atonement advocates believe the same gospel they do, show that they, too, deny the true gospel. They deny that the atoning, pardoning, redeeming, propitiating, reconciling blood of Christ is an essential part of the gospel. They, too, do not believe the gospel. They, too, are boasters who glory in the sinner. They, too, are God-haters.

THE Atonement whereby Jesus Christ, the God-man mediator, as a representative and substitute for His people, in His bloody death on the cross, accomplished full pardon, full redemption, full propitiation, and full reconciliation for everyone whom He represented, is the very essence, the very heart, the very core, the very foundation, the very cornerstone, the very crux of the gospel. One cannot deny The Atonement by believing in universal atonement and still believe the true gospel. All who deny The Atonement, including all who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception, are not true Christians. One cannot deny that The Atonement is an essential gospel doctrine by believing that some universal atonement advocates are saved and still believe the gospel. All who deny that The Atonement is an essential gospel doctrine, including all who speak peace to universal atonement advocates, are not true Christians. The cross of Christ is what Christianity is all about. If there is no Atonement, there is no Christianity.>>

Gerety wrote:

<<You got me Marc. I confess your gospel is not the gospel believed and taught by any of those people you mentioned. They taught and believed that Christ righteousness is imputed to those for whom Christ died by belief alone in the finished cross work of Christ alone. They taught, along with the Westminster Confession, that faith is the alone instrument of justification. They taught that belief is the alone instrument by which a sinner receives and applies Christ and his righteousness

Your "gospel," if you want to call it that, while in a couple of points superficially the same, is not the same.

So, I really don't need to read your long winded and borderline psychotic explanation why it is impossible that the men you deride and anathematize believed your gospel, because I agree they did not. You really don't need to go into all your self-righteous blather and irrational grandstanding about "tolerant" this or that because it is irrelevant.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your "gospel" to a lazy person like me. It was helpful.>>

I wrote:

<<Excellent! So you are saying that I have articulated a wrong definition of the gospel. You are saying that my definition of the gospel is in error. Okay. Now take the next step. JUDGE ME LOST. Do it. That would mean that you believe that a professing Christian can be in error on many things, but if a professing Christian is in error on his definition of the gospel, then you would judge him to be lost. That would mean that you believe that there is an error in doctrine that a true Christian cannot commit -- namely, a true Christian cannot commit the error of defining the gospel incorrectly. That would mean that the error of the FV crowd is not nearly as bad as the error of defining the gospel incorrectly. That would mean that the error of the FV crowd is not damnable, but the error of defining the gospel incorrectly is damnable. Hmmm ... I guess you'd have to say that your Arminian and FV brothers actually do define the gospel correctly.

It's a simple syllogism, isn't it Sean? It goes like this:

P1: All who define the gospel incorrectly are lost.

P2: Marc Carpenter defines the gospel incorrectly.

C1: Marc Carpenter is lost.

There you go. Now is your opportunity to put all the accusations that you're a spineless wimp to rest. Tell me that I am a lost, unregenerate God-hater based on the fact that I have defined the gospel incorrectly. Tell me that I am not saved because I have articulated a wrong definition of the gospel. Go ahead. Make my day!>>

Gerety never wrote back.


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters