John Robbins said:

> Well,
>
> Crapenter has found a disciple in Australia. But I bet neither
> Crapenter nor
> his disciple have looked at each other hard enough. After all,
> it is their
> view that a person can say all the right things, but he is to be judged
> (because his heart is revealed) by the wrong thing he says. Look harder,
> gentlemen. John R.


Sorry, John -- no conspiracy theory here. I've never met this person. Sounds as if you'd like to just pass us off as "followers of Carpenter" (those who have been sucked into "Carpenterism"); however, I am finding little pockets of people around the world who believe the truth who are not followers of me. Oh, well ... bursting your bubble is such sweet sorrow ...

For being such a "noncontradictory" kind of guy, I noticed a (gulp!) big contradiction in your little post. You said it is our view that a person can say all the right things but be judged by the wrong things he says. Hmmm ... if a person says all the right things .. then how can he say the wrong things ... umm ... well, you know me, I'm just a little nobody in a fanatical cult, so how dare I find a contradiction in the all-wise John Robbins ...

By the way, just so all the people on the Clark List know ... Robbins not only believes that a person who says the wrong things about the gospel could be regenerate (just those little wrong things such as universal atonement), he also believes that a person who BELIEVES wrong things about the gospel could be regenerate. Check out this quote from Robbins:

"No, all those individuals who BELIEVE in universal atonement are not necessarily unregenerate" (emphasis mine).

Oh, okay John -- so there are some regenerate persons who BELIEVE that salvation is conditioned NOT on Christ's work ALONE but is conditioned on something the sinner does? Hmmm ... well, quite a concept. That means that your whole edifice of anti-Roman Catholicism (anti works-religion) you have built is merely a sham, and you are a hypocrite.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter


John Robbins said:

> Of course, there is no contradiction in what I wrote in my
> earlier post; in
> your pride, and zeal to argue, you overlooked the possibility
> that folks may
> say both right and wrong things--in fact, Mark, they may believe
> both right
> and wrong things.


Yeah, and you think that regenerate persons may believe both universal atonement (salvation conditioned on the sinner) and the true gospel. This obviously shows that you do not believe the true gospel yourself.

> All your arguments are worthless because you cannot or
> will not understand that. Yours is a form of intellectual perfectionism,
> which has some similarity to the moral perfectionism of other
> cults. John R.


Like all believers before me, I believe that all true Christians believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ ALONE. You obviously do not believe this. You obviously believe that a regenerate person can believe justification by works, in spite of all your hypocritical rhetoric against Roman Catholicism.

----------

Christian: All who believe that Mary is co-redemptrix are lost.

Tolerant "Calvinist": How proud of you to say that! You have overlooked the fact that folks may believe both right and wrong things.

Christian: You obviously do not believe the gospel, for the gospel states that the work of Jesus Christ is the only ground of salvation.

Tolerant "Calvinist": Don't you know that a person can believe the true gospel but just doesn't see that his belief in Mary as co-redemptrix is contradictory to that gospel? As Gordon Clark said, people are sometimes wonderfully confused, and they are saved in spite of that confusion.

Christian: No. Christians can be confused about many things, but they are not confused about the gospel. No Christian would ever believe that Mary is co-redemptrix.

Tolerant "Calvinist": You are advocating a form of intellectual perfectionism in which people have to get the doctrine of redemption exactly right in order for you to judge them saved. Do you believe that your faith is infallible? You are cultic. Get away from me.

Christian: And you are lost. Repent and believe the gospel.

----------

Okay, Robbins -- I am challenging you to a debate. Right on this forum, right now. Since you're one of the most erudite men around, you should be able to smash my arguments to pieces with both hands tied behind your back. Since my view is cultic and foolish, it should take you very little time to show all those on this List how wacko I really am. So let's go at it. Let's talk about the spiritual state of Arminians. Let's talk about the spiritual state of those who speak peace to Arminians. Let's talk about Gordon Clark's belief that every true Arminian must be saved. Let's talk about the gospel. Or are you afraid that you might be exposed for the hypocrite you really are?

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter


In response to my challenging John Robbins to a debate, John said the following:

> Carpenter,
>
> I do not need to show anyone you are a wacko. You have done that
> already.
> Haven't you been reading your own writings? Robbins


A very convenient cop-out! But I have come to expect this from John. The invitation remains open; whenever you're ready to expose my wacko writings and discuss things of substance rather than make flippant little cop-out remarks, I'm ready. If my own writings are so wacked, you should be able to easily take me to the cleaners. So let's see you do it.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc

John Robbins wrote:

> The February 2004 issue of Tabletalk, a monthly magazine
> published by Ligonier Ministries, contains a lethal
> misrepresentation of the Covenant of Grace.


A "lethal" misrepresentation?

According to my dictionary, "lethal" means "of, relating to, or causing death."

Is Robbins saying that those who have misrepresented the Covenant of Grace in Tabletalk are DEAD in their sins?

Or is this just more of the same doublespeak in which Robbins (and Gordon Clark) say that certain things are deadly, lethal, etc., but do not judge those who HOLD to these deadly, lethal doctrines to be dead in their sins?

Example: Robbins says that the heresy universal atonement is deadly. Yet he believes that some who believe the deadly doctrine of universal atonement are actually spiritually ALIVE!

> What Tabletalk is teaching is false doctrine. Tabletalk's
> covenant is the basis of the Antichristian Neolegalism that is
> sweeping through Reformed churches. This false covenant does not
> recognize the role of Christ as Mediator. Instead, it requires
> believers to fulfil unspecified conditions of the covenant in
> order to keep their salvation.


Okay. So since Neolegalism is Antichristian, since it does not recognize the role of Christ as Mediator, since it is a form of salvation conditioned on the sinner, then are ALL Neolegalists unregenerate?

> In this false covenant, there is no room for Christ as the
> Substitute for and Representative of his people, who alone met
> the conditions the holiness of God requires for salvation: perfection.


So does that mean that all who believe in this false covenant in which there is no room for Christ as the Substitute and Representative of his people, who alone met the conditions the holiness of God requires for salvation, are unregenerate?

> In this false covenant there is no room for Christ as Savior.

So does that mean that all who believe in this false covenant in which there is no room for Christ as Savior are unregenerate?

> In this false covenant, the doctrine of the imputation of
> Christ's righteousness as the necessary and sufficient ground for
> salvation of sinners is denied.


So does that mean that all who believe in this false covenant, those who deny Christ's imputed righteousness as the necessary and sufficient ground of salvation, are unregenerate?

> In this false covenant, sinners are told that they themselves
> must meet the conditions of salvation, the "oblgations of the
> covenant," and by their own "covenant faithfulness" obtain the
> blessings of the covenant.


So does that mean that all who believe in this false covenant of salvation conditioned on the sinner are unregenerate?

> If they love the brethren and the truth, the writers, editors,
> and publishers of Tabletalk must issue an immediate apology to
> their readers, and a correction and retraction for these false
> statements. Their failure to do so will justifiably cause many
> more to doubt the doctrinal soundness of Tabletalk.


Wait a minute? An apology? A correction? A retraction? That's it?

And if they do apologize and correct and retract, it shows they were saved all along?

Is this error damnable error, or is it just something that true Christians can "slip up" on? Can a true Christian be mistaken regarding the only ground of salvation?

> For three years Tabletalk gave Douglas Wilson, a proponent of
> Neolegalism, a platform for his views;


Is Douglas Wilson unregenerate?

> now the magazine is giving
> George Grant, a featured speaker at the Auburn Avenue
> Presbyterian Church (which is the primary source of Neolegalism
> in the PCA), a platform for his views.


Is George Grant unregenerate?

Is Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church a synagogue of Satan?

Is the PCA a false denomination for tolerating and even endorsing such heresy and for not throwing Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (and other false churches such as D. James Kennedy's church) out of the PCA?

(For a blurb on the PCA's membership in the National Association of Evangelicals, see www.outsidethecamp.org/dyk34.htm . This in and of itself is enough to show that the PCA is of Satan.)

> The question we must ask is, Will Tabletalk repudiate
> Neolegalism and its proponents, or will it continue to teach it
> and to give the proponents of Neolegalism a platform?


So what if it does? Is Robbins going to suddenly grow a backbone and judge all who believe, promote, and tolerate Neolegalism to be unregenerate? I won't hold my breath.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter

Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters