Wylie said:

> True saving faith is much more than the understanding of Calvinistic
> dogma; it is the casting of the soul on Christ for its all.


ON CHRIST FOR ITS ALL. Do you realize what you're saying? True saving faith rests in CHRIST ALONE for ALL of salvation. True saving faith will NEVER, no NEVER believe in salvation conditioned on the sinner. There is not a single Arminian with true saving faith.

> As dear old Vance Havner (a man much
> used of God, while not in the "Calvinist camp")


Here is a prime example of speaking peace when there is no peace.

> said, "When I was saved
> back yonder in the hills of North Carolina, as an 11-year-old boy, I
> didn't know much. But I knew that I had a NEW MASTER. He was my Lord,
> and I was to follow Him and Him alone." And that's pretty solid evidence
> of saving faith, I believe.


It is evidence of saving faith for someone to say that he didn't know much but knew that he had a new master and that he was to follow the Lord alone? Wylie, you have just opened up your fellowship to Roman Catholics, Moonies, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. They will all tell you about their conversion experiences. So that's how you judge someone saved -- by these little doctrine-less ditties? I am stunned at how blind you are.

What does NEW MASTER mean? Who is the new master, and what did he do?

What does it mean that this NEW MASTER is your Lord?

What does it mean to follow this NEW MASTER alone?

Are these just mystical, undefinable things that give you a little shiver down your back so that you "just know" that you're a Christian?

Did Vance Havner, when he "didn't know much," know about and believe the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel?

What does every regenerate person believe, Wylie? Can you pin it down, or is it different for everybody, based on their little experiences? Does one regenerate person believe that he came to Christ of his own free will, while another regenerate person believe that it was all God's work? Does one regenerate person base some part of his salvation on himself, while another regenerate person base all of his salvation on the work of Jesus Christ?

What distinguishes the true Christ from all counterfeits? How can someone know he has come to the true Christ rather than a counterfeit?

What distinguishes the true gospel from all counterfeits? How can someone know he believes the true gospel rather than a counterfeit?

Or do you believe that there are no counterfeit christs and counterfeit gospels in the world? Do you believe that as long as someone believes he has a new master that he needs to follow, not knowing anything about who the new master is or what he did, that this is sufficient evidence of regeneration?

What is this amorphous, mystical, undefinable deity you worship, anyway? Is it the same deity as the Muslims worship? As the Roman Catholics worship? If you say "no," what's the difference between the deity you worship and the deity they worship?

You obviously believe that the deity you worship and the deity that Arminians worship is the same deity. I do not doubt this.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter

http://www.outsidethecamp.org


Timothy Fellows Jr. said:

> (some Calvinists don't even think
> the Bible is any more).

> Many Arminians show better fruit than many "Calvinists," but they are
> confused as to the technicalities of the doctrine, while the Calvinists
> are disobedient to the practice and application of their doctrine. For
> an Arminian to properly apply true doctrine, he is doing better than a
> Calvinist who only has talk, but no walk.

> I know some professing Christians who say they are not Calvinists, but
> they talk like it, preach like it, sing like it, pray like it and die
> like it. You know what? They really are Calvinists at heart and either
> don't know it, or don't want to admit it.


Funny, I don't remember mentioning Calvin or Calvinism in the e-mail to which you are responding. Let me go check ... Nope, I made no mention of Calvin or Calvinism. Seems you are bringing these terms into the discussion. However, I did mention THE GOSPEL. But now that you brought up Calvinism, I want to set the record straight. Not only are all Arminians lost, but most of those who profess to be Calvinists are lost as well.

Wylie Fulton said:

> Be it
> known that TRUTH FOR TODAY has no affiliation with Marc Carpenter or any
> others who take his "Calvinist or Damned!" position.


Well I certainly wouldn't want to be affiliated with "Truth" for Today. Seems that the "truth" you are espousing is not the kind that sets sinners free; instead, it is some sort of "higher knowledge" that only those who are well-read or intellectually superior can attain, as opposed to those "less consistent" Arminians. Please let me know where I have espoused a "Calvinist or Damned" position. This is a serious accusation, and I expect you to back it up with proof. I believe that Arminians and most "Calvinists" are in the same boat -- unregenerate.

What I HAVE said is that those who do not believe THE GOSPEL are lost. Jesus Himself said this in Mark 16:16. In THE GOSPEL, the righteousness of God is revealed (Romans 1:17). Those who are ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in THE GOSPEL are lost (Romans 10:3). What is this righteousness of God that is revealed in the gospel? It is the very righteousness of Christ whereby God is just and justifier (Romans 3:24-26). The gospel is the good news of salvation conditioned solely on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ. Those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ -- who condition some part of salvation on the sinner -- are lost (2 John 9). Those who will speak peace to one who brings doctrine contrary to the doctrine of Christ are also lost (2 John 11).

Timothy Fellows, Jr. said:

> It is true that Brother Gene is not inspired, and it is also true that
> Marc Carpenter is not inspired either (some Calvinists don't even think
> the Bible is any more). For Mr. Carpenter to come across, as he did to
> me -- that if you don't preach, teach and fully comprehend election,
> predestination, limited atonement, etc... you are going to bust hell wide
> open is quite presumptuous and proud, Is it not? Does Mr. Carpenter
> fully understand all these things?
>
> It is true that we are saved by Grace alone, Christ alone, Faith alone,
> and by the Scriptures alone -- but no man on earth believes these things
> perfectly all the time, or he would never sin:


A believer may be in error on many things, such as in the areas of eschatology or ecclesiology; but EVERY BELIEVER believes the gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. One who believes in universal atonement automatically believes in salvation conditioned on the sinner. He believes that the work of Christ is NOT what makes the difference between heaven and hell; instead, he believes that what makes the difference between heaven and hell is something the sinner does or is enabled to do. Such a one is ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel; his god is neither just nor justifier.

All regenerate persons believe in the PERSON and WORK of Christ. The PERSON of Christ is God-Man Mediator; the WORK of Christ is His establishment of a righteousness that demands the salvation of all whom He represented, whereby God is just to justify the ungodly.

Would you say the same thing above about Roman Catholics who believe that Mary is co-redemptrix? After all, they just don't fully comprehend redemption; who are we to say they are lost? What about the Jehovah's Witnesses? After all, they just don't fully comprehend the person of Christ. What's a little false doctrine between friends?

Contrary to your position, the Bible says that salvation involves KNOWLEDGE. In Romans 10:2, Paul says that the lost Jews were missing some KNOWLEDGE. What knowledge was that? Verses 3-4 tell you -- it is that RIGHTEOUSNESS revealed in the gospel. Look at Isaiah 45: 20-25. Fill in the blank: "they have no _________ that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god [that] cannot save." What were these idolaters missing? KNOWLEDGE. And since they were missing knowledge, they were praying to a god who cannot save, just as Arminians are today. What is that knowledge they were missing? Look at verses 21-24 -- it was a knowledge of God as "a just God and a Saviour ... In the LORD have I righteousness and strength ... In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory."

Timothy Fellows, Jr. said:

> I don't believe any man can be a CONSISTENT, THOROUGH Arminian and be
> saved. However, many (some) Arminians are saved because, when it comes
> down to it, they really do trust and completely rely on the merits of
> Christ to save them.
> If you have any doubts, Mr. Carpenter, then listen
> to them pray. Have you ever heard an Arminian pray an Arminian prayer?
> If he did, then he certainly wouldn't be saved. The problem is that they
> are confused as to what they think Grace involves, or they have not been
> taught. In other words -- they are inconsistent.


Ah -- the tired old "inconsistency" argument. So a person who confesses belief in universal atonement REALLY believes that the merits of Christ alone save him, even though he also believes that Christ merited the same for him as for those in hell, as evidenced by his non-Arminian prayers??!!

Ah, yes -- "they are confused" or "they have not been taught." Which is different than you, obviously, who have obtained the "higher knowledge" of the doctrines of grace. You obviously think that the works-based gospel of Arminianism is merely a "less consistent" "more confused" version of the true gospel and that someone can "grow" from believing salvation conditioned on the sinner to believing salvation conditioned on Christ alone.

> Many Arminians show better fruit than many "Calvinists," but they are
> confused as to the technicalities of the doctrine, while the Calvinists
> are disobedient to the practice and application of their doctrine.


Ah -- "technicalities of the doctrine." Who needs technicalities? After all, you say, the doctrinal minutia about the person and work of Christ is just some non-essential higher theological knowledge. Yes, those Roman Catholics are just confused about the technicalities of the doctrine of the mediatorial work of Christ. Yes, those Jehovah's Witnesses are just confused about the technicalities of the doctrine of the person of Christ. No need to say that such people are lost, eh? They just need to be taught a little more. After all, many Roman Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses show better fruit than many "Calvinists," eh? And what "fruit" would that be. Oh, yeah -- you go into some "fruit" later on.

It is DOCTRINE that distinguishes the true Christ from all false christs and the true gospel from all false gospels. If one does not believe the DOCTRINE of Christ, then he believes in a counterfeit christ and trusts in a false refuge.

Timothy Fellows, Jr. said:

> I know some professing Christians who say they are not Calvinists, but
> they talk like it, preach like it, sing like it, pray like it and die
> like it. You know what? They really are Calvinists at heart and either
> don't know it, or don't want to admit it.


I couldn't care less if someone says he is not a Calvinist. That doesn't prove he is lost. The key is -- DOES HE BELIEVE THE GOSPEL? If this person who says he is not a Calvinist confesses universal atonement, then he obviously does not believe the true gospel.

Timothy Fellows, Jr. said:

> Now, back to Brother Gene -- A couple years ago, my dad and I attended a
> grace meeting at Brother Gene's church. We did not have proper motel
> reservations, or something like that, and Brother Gene had an extra room
> available which he had already paid for. He gave my dad and me that room
> for two nights. Here we were at his church, where he already had many
> expenses, but he acted like a loving and gracious brother and put up my
> dad and myself at his own expense. He didn't have to do that. He
> behaved very kindly, compassionately and hospitably -- just like the
> Bible says the elect will behave.


Ah -- so here's the fruit. So I guess the Roman Catholics and the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons and the Moonies and the Hindus and the Muslims and the atheists who put up people at their own expense, who behave very kindly, compassionately, and hospitably show that they are the elect? So I guess it doesn't matter what you believe, it's how you live?

Timothy, I have read your paper in which you spoke peace to a flaming, God-hating Arminian. I know where you're coming from. You are lost, and your deeds are evil. You think that a person who believes in works-salvation still believes the gospel, thus showing that you yourself do not believe the gospel. Repent and believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone.

Those who believe the true gospel will realize that all their former religion was but dung and will not speak peace to others based on what they now consider dung.

Wylie Fulton said:

> Regardless of all Carpenter's claims to the contrary, many who don't
> fully understand all the "doctrines of grace" in the letter HAVE MORE OF
> GOD ABOUT THEM THAN A CERTAIN REBELLIOUS BOY IN VERMONT!


What do you mean by "don't fully understand all the 'doctrines of grace'"? Do you mean someone who believes the antithesis to any of these doctrines? Someone who believes in universal atonement, perhaps? And do you mean that those who condition salvation on the sinner have "more of God about them"? Could it be that you are judging based on outward appearance and morality rather than God's doctrine?

Wylie Fulton said:

> Marc is the FINAL
> AUTHORITY on all matters of faith and practice, but he knows very little
> of the Word of God.


I certainly have much more to learn of the Word of God. But this one thing I know -- CHRIST and HIM CRUCIFIED. The Holy Spirit has convinced me of sin and of righteousness and of judgment, so that I believe the true gospel and thus will not speak peace when there is no peace. I certainly do not claim to be without error, and I desire to be taught by those who believe the true gospel. But I DO NOT desire to be taught by the Gene Breeds, Timothy Fellowses, and Wylie Fultons of the world, because I believe Psalm 1:1.

----------------------------------------

To all on this list:

Remember:

Arminians deny the essence of Christianity. It is not just a matter of a little take-it-or-leave-it doctrine. It is a life-and-death matter. In the mind of most professing Calvinists who speak peace to Arminians, "love" and "balance" include speaking peace when there is no peace, saying that one who is ignorant of righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is a brother in Christ, and saying that those who believe in salvation conditioned on the sinner are saved. This shows that these professing Calvinists do not know what the true gospel is. What they call "love" and "balance" God calls Satanic. Those who defend or excuse God-haters show themselves to be God-haters. True love will tell the unregenerate that they are lost and their deeds are evil, in hopes that they will seek the remedy. To promote a lost religionist in his false refuge is actually HATRED and is promoting his eternal destruction.

The following are some articles on Arminians/Arminianism:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heresyarmin.htm

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/three.htm

The following are some articles on those who profess to believe the doctrines of grace but who speak peace to Arminians or who say that they remained Arminians for a time after they were regenerated:

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/2John11.htm

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/letters31.htm

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/letters21.htm

It is my desire to see sinners, including Arminians and lost "Calvinists," come to faith in the true Christ. I do not tell you lost "Calvinists" that you are lost to be mean or unloving; I am showing you your disease so that you might seek the remedy. God commands you to repent of your dead works and idolatry and to believe the true, exclusive gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. I would rejoice to see you lost "Calvinists" come to faith and repentance. I have met some former lost "Calvinists" who used to speak peace to Arminians and/or base their everlasting habitations on their present stewardship, and they have powerful testimonies of God's grace; they realize that their efforts at religion and morality while speaking peace to Arminians and believing in salvation conditioned on the sinner were open idolatry, dead works, and fruit unto death, and they have turned from their idols to serve the true and living God. Praise God who glorifies Himself in the hearts of His people by giving them a knowledge of the glory of God revealed in the face of Jesus Christ!

To God ALONE be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Wylie Fulton responded to Bill S:

> As to your letter: Typical of the new approach to DOCTRINE AS SALVATION
> that has come to the fore under Marc Carpenter ---- and never known in
> church history before! God help you fellows to get some knowledge of the
> LOVE of Christ ere it is too late!


Doctrine does not save; God saves. But God NEVER saves apart from doctrine.

Wylie -- do you believe that the GOSPEL is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Romans 1:16)? Or is salvation some mystical experience by which the regenerate person just all of a sudden "loves Jesus" without knowing about the person of Jesus Christ and the work of Jesus Christ? What is this GOSPEL that is the power of God unto salvation? And what is it that every one believes? Do you believe that all who do not believe the GOSPEL are lost (Mark 16:16)? Or is the gospel something that some believers believe and other believers don't?

Wylie-- do you believe that whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the DOCTRINE of Christ hath not God (2 John 9)? Or is doctrine just an "options package" for believers to take or leave? Do you believe that believers used to be the servants of sin, but they have obeyed from the heart that form of DOCTRINE which was delivered them, being then made free from sin they became the servants of righteousness (Romans 6:17-18)? What is this DOCTRINE without which a person does not have God and that all believers have obeyed from the heart? Is it "I love Jesus and Jesus loves me"? Or is it specific doctrine about the person and work of Jesus Christ?

When God regenerates his people, he gives them knowledge of the gospel. He gives them doctrine. He does not leave them ignorant in this specific area -- for to be ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel is to be going about to establish a righteousness of one's own (Romans 10:3).

Martin Murphy said:

> I can't think of any theologian in the history of the
> church advocating the infallibility of the human mind.
> Only Christ possessed that quality.


I am certainly not advocating the view that the human mind is infallible. What I am saying is that God causes His people to believe the true gospel upon regeneration and conversion and to reject all counterfeit gospels and counterfeit christs.

If the doctrine of Christ's person and the doctrine of Christ's work is just some "higher theology" to you to which only mature Christians can attain and which is not the heart of the gospel, then you are anathema. As for me and my house, we will believe and proclaim Christ and Him crucified.

He that hath an ear, let him hear.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter


Wylie Fulton said:

> Some aver that you must hold Calvinistic doctrine in order to be saved.

I aver that all regenerate people believe THE GOSPEL. THE GOSPEL is the good news of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. YOU believe that a regenerate person can believe salvation conditioned on the sinner. Thus, we do not worship the same God.

> All who stumble over the doctrines of election and predestination, to
> them, are simply UNSAVED and UNREGENERATE.


"Stumble over"? Do you mean that they are OFFENDED by these truths? And, pray tell, why would they be offended? Is it because these truths are so contrary to the natural, lost mind? Is it because by nature all are going about to establish a righteousness of their own and HATE salvation by God's grace alone?

> It's all-important to get the
> DOCTRINAL WORDS right! But I submit that what a person SAYS is not the
> only criteria to judge his religion by.

Okay, Wylie. Tell me what criteria you use to judge someone. In previous posts, you have given us an idea. You would count an Arminian saved because he lives a good, moral life. Thus, to you, a person can confess belief in salvation conditioned on the sinner (which is what universal atonement is), but as long as he's a moral person and is doing the best he can to serve "God," then he's saved. Correct?

> Brother, you can teach a PARROT to say any of the following:
>
> "Christ died ONLY for the elect."
>
> "I believe in predestination."
>
> "Arminians are hell-bound."
>
> "Free willers are LOST!"
>
> "Saved by grace."
>
> "I love the elect, hate the reprobate."
>
> "Calvinistic to the core."
>
> "Arminian, be damned!"
>
> "T. U. L. I. P."
>
> "Effectual calling."
>
> "Perseverance and security."
>
> "Saved if I do, damned if I don't."
>
> "Election is sweet."
>
> "Believe like I do, or BURN!"


I agree that a person could parrot these words and be unregenerate. MOST people who call themselves Calvinists are good at parroting pious-sounding phrases, but inwardly, they are full of dead men's bones. Any who would speak peace to apart from the only ground of peace -- the righteousness of Christ -- is just a false professor.

I hope you are not insinuating that I say all of the above phrases, because I don't.

> ..... This list could go on indefinitely. Do you see that when you reduce
> the Gospel down to a few "catch phrases" and consign to the pits of the
> damned those who don't concur, then you have over-simplified the message
> and totally ignored the life and power of godliness, and have moved away
> from Christ Himself?


First, I do not consign anyone to hell. That is not my job. Christians ARE to judge those who confess a false gospel to be lost; but we do not know if God will eventually save them, so we cannot say that they are going to hell.

Now about those who "don't concur" -- do you mean those who do not believe the truth that salvation is conditioned SOLELY on the work of Christ? All those who "don't concur" with this are most certainly lost. Jesus said that all who do not believe the gospel are lost (Mark 16:16). The Holy Spirit through Paul said that all who are ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel are lost (Romans 10:3).

> Our Lord says concerning Himself, "I am the Way,
> the Truth and the Life" (John 14:6). Oh, that you could see this! And
> while I would never underestimate the importance of the doctrines of
> grace, for they surely exalt our Lord when spiritually believed, yet you
> cannot use these things as a sole criteria as to "who is 'saved' and who
> is 'not saved."


Yes -- Jesus says that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus said he is the Way. Do Arminians believe that this Jesus is the Way? This Jesus whose blood and righteousness demand the salvation of all whom He represented? Jesus said he is the Truth. Do Arminians believe the Truth about Jesus? Jesus said He is the Life. Do Arminians believe that eternal life is based SOLELY on what Christ did?

> Our Lord receives those who know very little of doctrine, when they come
> to Him and love Him and seek to obey Him.


A baby Christian might not be able to systematize and articulate the doctrines of grace. But because he believes the gospel (as EVERY believer does), he will not believe anything contrary to these doctrines.

What is "coming to Him"? Is it coming to the true God, a just God and a Saviour, or is it coming to a counterfeit, one who died to make all men savable? And how does one know that he is coming to the TRUE God and not an idol?

What is "loving Him"? Is it a love for the One who loved me first and did everything to ensure my salvation, or is it some kind of mystical gushy chill-up-my-spine kind of love that makes me "just feel good all over"? And how does one know that he is loving the TRUE God and not an idol?

What is "seek to obey Him"? Is it seeking to obey the true God out of love, motivated by the certainty of final glory based on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone, or is it seeking to obey in order to keep my salvation or recommend myself unto God or in order to be more fit or qualified for heaven?

> And apart from this personal
> relationship with Him, abstract truth has little or no meaning regardless
> of how "sound in the letter" it might be.


What is a "personal relationship with Him," Wylie? And how does one know that this "personal relationship" is with the true God and not a counterfeit?

> Oh, my friends notice how our
> Lord deals with "children;" they need not know all about the intricacies
> of soteriology in order to be "saved." ---


"In order to be saved": There are NO prerequisites to salvation. But when God saves someone, He causes them to believe the gospel.

Ah, yes -- "Intricacies of soteriology." That's a good one. You think that gospel doctrines are some sort of "higher knowledge" that only the brightest and most well-read and spiritually mature can understand. You sure do think a lot of yourself.

The truth is that God gives knowledge of the gospel to everyone He regenerates. Look up "knowledge" in your concordance some time, read all the verses, and then see if you conclude that a person who is saved does not have knowledge.

I guess Wylie could say that the Roman Catholics who believe that Mary is co-redemptrix could be regenerate; after all, "they need not know all about the intricacies of soteriology in order to be 'saved.'" And what about Mormons? JW's? Moonies? Muslims? Buddhists? These guys are just missing a little doctrine here and there. They don't know the "intricacies" of the gospel. Who's to say they're lost? Just because they don't believe in Christ and Him crucified? Hey, what's a little doctrinal error between friends?

> Mark 10:13-15: " And they brought young children to him, that he should
> touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
> But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer
> the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is
> the kingdom of God.
> Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
> a little child, he shall not enter therein."


Yes. Those who try to add other things to their acceptance before God are not receiving the kingdom of God as a little child. Those who receive the kingdom of God as a little child rest on Christ alone for all their salvation. They plead NOTHING of their own works for salvation or final glory.

> It's more than knowing the FACTS, my friends. It's much more than SAYING
> THE RIGHT WORDS. It has nothing to do with subscription to a CREED.
> Salvation is coming to the SAVIOUR! Whom do you know?
> Matthew 22:42: "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?"


Again, I agree that people can say all the right words and be lost. They can even know the historical facts and still be lost. They can fully subscribe to a creed and still be lost. No argument there. You are a good example of someone who's been a professing Calvinist for many years, and you have said many right things, and yet you do not believe the gospel.

I have said this before, and I will say it again: I do not say these things to be mean or unloving. I am saying these things hoping that God will use the truth of the gospel to save your soul. There have been many lost "Calvinists" who spoke peace to Arminians, and then God saved them! Perhaps this will be your case as well. TODAY, Wylie -- repent of your dead works and idolatry and believe in the true and living God, who sent His Son to answer the demands of His law and justice for all His people and who glorifies Himself in the hearts of His people by causing them to give Him all the glory! It would rejoice my soul to see you come to the true Christ!

To God ALONE be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter

http://www.outsidethecamp.org


Okay -- now to Timothy Fellows's accusation of being a cult. Quite laughable.

> I've heard of people like you before. One group was destroyed at Waco
> and is still under investigation. The one thing characteristic of all
> cults is that they must have a cult leader who defines for them what they
> are to believe, holds them in some sort of ignorance and slavery and
> becomes a sort of priest necessary for them. Landmark Baptists have also
> claimed they have some sort of special authority. Again, all Landmarkers
> trace their lineage back to Graves and Pendleton -- the cult leaders.


Okay, Timothy -- could you tell me who my "followers" are? Two people who posted to this list in defense of the gospel are not part of our group here in Vermont; I've never met them except via e-mail. Chris Adams is part of our group. Would anybody else who is not part of our group here in Vermont who believes the true gospel like to respond to this? Are you guys mindless brainwashed followers of the "cult leader" Marc Carpenter? I sure hope not! By relegating these people's beliefs to some sort of cultic following of a cult leader who holds them in ignorance and slavery, you are obviously denying that their convictions are their own and have been wrought by the Holy Spirit.

The truth is, all of us who believe the true gospel and will not speak peace when there is no peace are part of what some people have called "the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5).

"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers" (Acts 24:14).

> Jesus said, "I will build my church." But there are so many who think
> to take his place -- that's more like the devil, Mr. Carpenter, than it
> is like the Gospel. In pride, Satan thought he would be like unto the
> most high, but his pride took him down to the pits of hell.


Jesus most certainly will build His church. And His church is built upon the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief Cornerstone. Those who believe the gospel are part of His church. Those who do not believe the gospel are not. You are obviously not part of the Church of Jesus Christ.

> You yourself said that it was by the imputed righteousness of Christ that
> earns us the right to enter heaven -- Then you appealed to the
> stewardship of people who couldn't or didn't or wouldn't communicate
> Grace as well as you could, would and did. Talk about hypocrisy and
> pride!


I have NEVER said that all people who cannot communicate grace as well as I can are lost. Here is just another typical false accusation. I have said and I will say again that PEOPLE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE ***THE GOSPEL*** ARE LOST. Can you get that into your head?

You talk of pride. It is the height of spiritual pride to say that you have a "higher form" of Christianity that only the "theologically enlightened" and "well-read" attain. You think that this issue of the gospel of salvation based on Christ alone and the "gospel" of salvation based on the sinner is just a matter of "smart vs. dumb" or "consistent vs. inconsistent." You consider Arminians to believe the same gospel you do, but they just aren't as smart or as consistent as you are. This is nothing but pride.

> Unless you have faith as a little child, Mr. Carpenter, and humble
> yourself as a little child, all your seeming intelligence in doctrinal
> matters is not enough to get you past those pearly gates, nor all your
> charm able to persuade God why He should give you entrance into that
> place where just men are finally made perfect.


Those who humble themselves as little children are those who realize that they can do NOTHING to gain or maintain their salvation or recommend themselves to God. They humbly lean on Christ for all their hope. Those who are full of pride think that something they do forms at least some part of the ground of their salvation. They proudly think that their works give them the right to enter heaven.

I will not be pleading my faith or my appearance or charm or reputation on judgment day. I will be pleading the perfect righteousness of Christ alone. And all true Christians, no matter how intelligent or well-read they are, will be pleading Christ's righteousness on that day as well. Believing the true gospel of salvation conditioned on Christ and believing the "gospel" of salvation conditioned on the sinner is not a matter of intelligent vs. dumb or consistent vs. inconsistent -- it is a matter of having sight vs. being blind. It is a matter of being alive vs. being dead. It is a matter of being regenerate vs. being unregenerate. God has not given you eyes to see this. Repent of your self-love and religious pride, and believe the gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc


Wylie shows his true colors.

> And, in that day, even as
> Bro. Gene Breed has pointed out, it won't be a question of whether one
> believed the doctrines of particular redemption, efficacious grace, or
> anything else -- it will be a question of HIS WALK in this lowland of sin
> and sorrow.


Here it is, right out in the open. Wylie Fulton believes that on judgment day, it will be a question of HIS WALK. Not the atoning blood of Christ, not the wedding garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, but HIS WALK. Wylie Fulton thinks that HIS WALK meets up to the standard by which God will judge people to be worthy to enter into heaven. Incredible. Wylie Fulton is just another one of the multitudes of lost self-righteous religionists who are going about to establish a righteousness of their own, thinking that it is THEIR WALK that recommends them to God. This should not be surprising -- Wylie Fulton has already said that he considers Arminians to be saved. Thus, the Arminian self-righteous "gospel" is the starting point of his own "gospel."

> And I repeat my agreement with Bro. Tim Fellows that many
> evangelical Arminians have shown a more Christ-like walk than some of
> those who are so STRICT on THEIR OWN PET DOCTRINES.


Jesus was strict on his own pet doctrines -- THE GOSPEL.

Paul was strict on his own pet doctrines -- THE GOSPEL.

Wylie Fulton considers THE GOSPEL to be a matter of preference. God says that those who do not believe THE GOSPEL shall be damned.

> Doctrine, dogma, teaching -- these are NOT our Saviour. Christ the Lord
> IS,


It is true that doctrine, dogma, and teaching are not our Savior. But Christ without doctrine is no Christ. It is DOCTRINE that distinguishes the true Christ from all counterfeits. A doctrine-less Christ is nothing. Who is Christ, and what did He do? As soon as you start answering these questions, you get into DOCTRINE. If anyone thinks someone can be saved without knowing who Christ is and what He did, then that person does not know the true Christ.

> and He saves all who come to Him and live up to the light they have.

So -- living up to the light they have is a condition for salvation? Are you telling me that YOU live up to the light you have? Are you saying that your WORKS are good enough for you to stand before the judgment throne and plead them?

It may be such for Wylie Fulton and Gene Breed, but may it never be for the followers of Christ. The followers of Christ KNOW that they can never live up to the standards of God's law and justice. They cannot even live up to the "light they have." They rest fully on the righteousness of Christ and will plead HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS ALONE at judgment day. The followers of Christ know that even their best efforts fall way short of the glory of God revealed in the face of Jesus Christ. The followers of Christ will strive hard to be conformed to the image of Christ, but they will NEVER plead their striving and their working as forming any part of the ground of their salvation or final glory.

Wylie -- you may think that you are living up to the light you have, and you may think that it will be a question of YOUR WALK at judgment day, but if you continue to believe this to your dying breath, you will be in for a rude awakening when Jesus Christ tells you to depart, and that all of YOUR WALK and all of your living up to the light you have IS EVIL IN THE SIGHT OF GOD. Wylie -- I am pleading with you -- repent of your self-righteousness and believe in the gospel of salvation (which includes everything from regeneration to final glory) based on CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS ALONE! Put away your filthy rags of YOUR WALK and of living up to the light you have! They are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to plead at judgment day!!! Your soul is in danger, Wylie!!! Repent and believe the gospel!!!

> Oh, my dear friends, regeneration of an
> elect soul cometh not via hearing and believing sound teachings or even
> hearing and believing "THE GOSPEL," for the regeneration of the
> spiritually dead must come BEFORE their ability to hear or conceive or
> believe or discern ANYTHING OF THE SPIRIT. I Cor. 2:14.


Regeneration comes before faith -- but faith is an IMMEDIATE result of regeneration.

> I'm sure that all of us are in for a grand surprise
> whenever the Lord comes back.


If you continue in unbelief, you are in for the grandest of surprises at judgment day.

> I am tired of wrangling with you fellas, and so we will leave it to the
> Last Great Day when the Judge Himself ariseth to shake mightily the
> earth.


Interesting -- when it gets down to the hard questions of what you believe, you all of a sudden become "tired" of communicating.

> Then those things which cannot be shaken will remain, and all else
> must perish -- Heb. 12:26-27. I am sure of this. I have been in the way
> of grace a long time, ever since the Lord arrested me as a 16-year-old
> boy. Now age 60. I have held to strong Calvinistic doctrine all of that
> time, even coming to be convinced of the "Five Points" before the Lord
> saved me. You see, I believed the right doctrine but was yet an
> unbeliever in Christ the Lord. And my salvation came about when the Lord
> Jesus Himself became mine, not when I assimilated "the doctrines of
> grace."


And how did "Jesus become yours"? Through osmosis?

I agree that someone can profess to believe the doctrines of grace and still be unsaved. You are right that you were yet an unbeliever in Christ the Lord -- and you are STILL an unbeliever in Christ the Lord, even though you claim to believe the doctrines of grace! The Holy Spirit has not convinced you of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. You are still making your judgments based on outward appearance and reputation rather than on God's gospel. I notice that you haven't talked about what you think the GOSPEL is. The GOSPEL is a take-it-or-leave-it issue to you. It is not a life-and-death issue to you. It means so little to you. What do you really value? Well, we've seen it here. You do not really value the BLOOD and RIGHTEOUSNESS of CHRIST -- you value YOUR WALK. I tremble for you.

> Do you see what you boys are doing, setting yourselves up as judges? In
> reality, all professed servants of God will stand or fall before the Lord
> their own Maker, and the Lord their own Judge.


I do not judge anyone to hell. But I am commanded to judge all those who confess a false gospel to be lost. Saying someone is lost is NOT saying that this person is going to hell; it means that he is, at this time, unregenerate. Perhaps they are one of God's elect whom He has not yet saved. Perhaps you are one of God's elect. I know that you are lost, but I do not know if God will regenerate you before you die. I will pray for you.

ALL God's people are commanded to judge. Here is an article that appeared in a recent edition of Outside the Camp: www.outsidethecamp.org/rightjudg.htm .

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter


Wylie gave us a quote from a sermon by C.H. Spurgeon who said:

> > I am
> > sick of those cries of "the truth," "the truth," "the truth;"
> > from men of
> > rotten lives and unholy tempers.

A common accusation -- even Christ and Paul were accused of laxity in personal holiness. Christ was a winebibber and Paul was an antinomian, they said. Lost people cannot understand how anyone can be motivated to personal holiness by the absolute surety of final glory based not on personal holiness but on the righteousness of Christ.

Obviously, here is a veiled accusation from Wylie Fulton about the personal lives of those who hold to the primacy of doctrine. I challenge Wylie to prove his case. Anyone who knows me knows that I place a strong emphasis on the pursuit of holiness. In fact, I have been accused of being too strict when it comes to conduct, talk, and dress. Yet I maintain that NONE of these things recommends me unto God or makes me more qualified or fit for heaven. My pursuit of holiness is a response of love and gratitude to God for conditioning all of my salvation on the righteousness of His Son.

As far as Spurgeon goes, he certainly may have been outwardly moral (just as many Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims are outwardly moral), but he certainly did not believe the truth, the truth, the truth. One can be the most outwardly moral person on the face of the earth, but if he does not believe GOSPEL DOCTRINE -- the truth, the truth, the truth -- he is as lost as the most immoral pervert on the face of the earth.

What is more wicked:

(1) Two homosexuals in a gay bar singing homosexual songs

or

(2) A married Arminian couple (man and wife) who have always been faithful
to each other sitting in an Arminian church singing hymns?

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

Homosexuality, abortion, and pornography are most certainly wicked, but what did Jesus say about the moral self-righteous religionists in relation to the wicked immoral sodomites?

"BUT I SAY TO YOU, IT WILL BE MORE TOLERABLE FOR THE LAND OF SODOM IN JUDGMENT DAY THAN FOR YOU." (Matthew 11:24)

While all these self-righteous religionists who believe in salvation conditioned on the sinner are condemning sodomy, they do not realize that it will be more tolerable for the sodomites in the day of judgment than for them.

Lost religionist Charles H. Spurgeon did not believe that the actions of the second couple (the married Arminian couple) were an abomination in the sight of God. Consider the following quotes that show that Spurgeon did not believe the truth, the truth, the truth:

"The controversy which has been carried on between the Calvinist and the Arminian is extremely important, but it does not involve the vital point of personal godliness as to make eternal life depend on our holding either system of theology. ... But, I think we are all free to admit, that while John Wesley, for instance, in modern times zealously defended Arminianism, and on the other hand, George Whitefield with equal fervor fought for Calvinism, we should not be prepared either of us, on either side of the question, to deny the vital godliness of either the one or the other. ... We are willing to admit, in fact, we dare not do otherwise, that opinion upon this controversy does not determine the future or even the present state of any man; but still, we think it to be so important, that in maintaining our views, we advance with all courage and fervency of spirit, believing that we are doing God's work and upholding most important truth." (Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace)

"A man may be evidently of God's chosen family, and yet though elected, may not believe in the doctrine of election. I hold that there are many savingly called, who do not believe in effectual calling, and that there are a great many who persevere to the end, who do not believe in the doctrine of perseverance. We hope that the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads. We do not set their fallacies down to any wilful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus, but simply to an error in their judgments, which we pray God to correct. We hope that if they think us mistaken too, they will reciprocate the same Christian courtesy; and when we meet around the cross, we hope that we shall ever feel that we are one in Christ Jesus." (New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 6)

"It has been the Editor's great joy to take part on two occasions in Mr. Moody's work in Croydon. On Friday, May 16, all the students went over to Croydon, and formed part of the enormous multitude who gathered to hear a sermon from their President. We are more and more impressed with a sense of the remarkable power which rests upon the beloved Moody. His words are plain and fresh from the heart, and a special influence from on high goes therewith both to saint and sinner. It is a happy thing for London that such a shower of blessing is falling on it." (Sword and Trowel, June 1884)

"It has given us much pleasure to assist our brethren Messrs. Moody and Sankey at Camberwell Hall, and we would have done far more, only our own enterprises demand our constant attention: our heart is very warm towards them for their work's sake. The fuss made about their preaching at Eton is a sad sign of the condition of Episcopalians. Among no other sect of Christians would respectable persons have been found to oppose the useful labors of our American friends; all other Protestants would have welcomed them." (Sword and Trowel, July 1875)

"I want you now to hear me a moment while I say that the brother who is now about to speak, Mr. Moody, is one whom we all love. He is not only one whom we all love, but he is evidently one whom God loves. We feel devoutly grateful to Almighty God for raising him up, and for sending him to England to preach the gospel to such great numbers with such plainness and power. We shall continue to pray for him when he has gone home. Among the things we shall pray for will be that he may come back again." (Mr. Spurgeon's Jubilee, June 18, 1884)

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

"In Brussels, I heard a good sermon in a Romish church. The place was crowded with people, many of them standing, though they might have had a seat for a halfpenny or a farthing; and I stood, too; and the good priest -- for I believe he is a good man, -- preached the Lord Jesus with all his might. He spoke of the love of Christ, so that I, a very poor hand at the French language, could fully understand him, and my heart kept beating within me as he told of the beauties of Christ, and the preciousness of His blood, and of His power to save the chief of sinners. He did not say, 'justification by faith,' but he did say, 'efficacy of the blood,' which comes to very much the same thing. He did not tell us we were saved by grace, and not by our works; but he did say that all the works of men were less than nothing when brought into competition with the blood of Christ, and that the blood of Jesus alone could save. True, there were objectionable sentences, as naturally there must be in a discourse delivered under such circumstances; but I could have gone to the preacher, and have said to him, 'Brother, you have spoken the truth;' and if I had been handling his text, I must have treated it in the same way that he did, if I could have done it as well. I was pleased to find my own opinion verified, in his case, that there are, even in the apostate church, some who cleave unto the Lord, -- some sparks of Heavenly fire that flicker amidst the rubbish of old superstition, some lights that are not blown out, even by the strong wind of Popery, but still cast a feeble gleam across the waters sufficient to guide the soul to the rock Christ Jesus. I saw, in that church, a box for contributions for the Pope; he will never grow rich with what I put into it." (Geese in their Hoods: Select Writings on Roman Catholicism)


And speaking of Roman Catholicism, if you would read "Why I Signed It" by J.I. Packer (on why he signed the Catholic-Evangelical Accord), his reasonings as to why Roman Catholics are his brothers in Christ are the same reasonings that Wylie Fulton gives as to why Arminians are his brothers in Christ. There is no difference. In embracing Arminians, Wylie embraces Rome, just as Charles Spurgeon embraced Rome. Both Wylie and Spurgeon would say that Roman Catholicism is a false church, just as they would say that Arminianism is a false doctrine -- yet they would not judge those who hold to a false gospel lost. Instead, they judge by outward appearance and reputation rather than on God's testimony -- God's DOCTRINE -- God's GOSPEL. And when anyone does judge by the TRUTH, they are accused of having "rotten lives and unholy tempers." There is nothing new under the sun.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter
http://www.outsidethecamp.org


Wylie Fulton said:

> Bro. Greg, You might have known that Marc would twist this to suit his
> purpose. There's no use reasoning with him. I've given him the Word of
> God but all to no avail. I've reminded him of the precious words of our
> Lord Jesus, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me and forbid them
> not." No requirement that they "know the doctrines of grace," just that
> they come to HIM, trusting HIM for all they know Him to be and all that
> He will graciously reveal of Himself.


AGAIN -- what is it to come to HIM and trust HIM? Can one savingly trust in a "christ" who is not fully God and fully man? Can one savingly trust in a "christ" who shares the mediatorial office with Mary? Can one savingly trust in a "christ" who did all he can to save everybody and now asks man to do his part?

Or do you think that anyone who says, "I have come to Christ and trust Christ" is saved?

AGAIN -- I am not saying that every regenerate person is able to articulate and systematize the doctrines of grace. I am saying that every regenerate person believes THE GOSPEL -- the good news of salvation conditioned solely on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ, I am saying the every regenerate person has repented of dead works and former idolatry, realizing that everything he did (including all his efforts at religion and morality) before believing THIS GOSPEL was evil deeds and fruit unto death. Would you like to disagree with this? This Word of God that you've given me -- does it disagree with this? Show me.

> Marc and Company utterly IGNORE
> that precious Word of King Jesus, "If any man will do his will, he shall
> know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself"
> (John 7:17). That's the beginning of the Christian life; one does not
> come into Christ as an advanced theologian but as a simple and
> honest-hearted TEACHABLE disciple.


AGAIN -- you continue to bring false accusations. I DO NOT say that one "comes into Christ as an advanced theologian." One comes to Christ BELIEVING THE GOSPEL and REPENTING OF DEAD WORKS AND FORMER IDOLATRY. This is not advanced theology, Wylie! Salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone is not advanced theology! It is the BASICS! It is what every Christian STARTS OUT believing!

Tell me, Wylie: What does every Christian believe as soon as he is regenerated?

> True wisdom, such as is conveyed to a
> believing heart, is "easy to be entreated" (James 3:17) or instructed.
> Such a regenerate soul comes to the dear Saviour to be taught of Him, but
> the object of mercy does not KNOW IT ALL at the outset.


AGAIN -- you accuse me of promoting the view that a new-born believer knows it all. I have NEVER said that. But, like I asked Greg (who can't answer these simple questions): What is that KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING that all believers possess? What of those Scriptures that I put forth about KNOWLEDGE vs. IGNORANCE? What is the IGNORANCE that is talked about in Romans 10:3? What is the KNOWLEDGE that is talked about in Romans 10:2? Why are you and Greg afraid to touch this?

> He simply
> realizes himself a wretch undone apart from God's mercy and he casts
> himself at the feet of the One who delivers poor sinners.


Okay. So he believes:

(1) that he is a wretch. What does this mean? Does he just tell himself, "I'm a wretch," or does he realize that, in his character and conduct, he does not have a righteousness that answers the demands of God's law and justice?

(2) that he is undone apart from God's mercy and casts himself at God's feet. What is God's mercy? Or does he just tell himself, "I don't know who God is or what mercy is, but I throw myself on God's mercy"?

Do words have meanings? Or can a person just throw around the terms "God" and "wretch" and "mercy" and "sinner" without knowing what they mean and still have true faith?

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc


Wylie Fulton said:

> Seldom have I EVER agreed with John Reisinger on anything, but I do agree
> with the first portion of his statement. As to Noel Smith, it's had to
> believe that one living and dying in such ACTIVE opposition to the truth
> would have been saved. But the issue rests in GOD'S HANDS, nor ours, my
> dear friends.
>
> May it please God to bring to your remembrance that all knowledge of
> truth is as sovereignly bestowed as salvation itself. Leave it there.
> God knoweth them that are His (2 Tim.2:19). Quit all this ungodly JUDGING
> of people's souls. Such statements as "John Reisinger is unregenerate"
> or "Spurgeon was an unregenerate Calvinist" are coming from a
> bitter-spirited soul. I feel sorry for you folks who take such narrow
> views. May God break you down at His feet.

I guess Wylie Fulton has no use for the command to "try the spirits whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1). I guess he has no use for the command, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" (2 Corinthians 6:14), since he does not judge the state of people's souls. I guess he has no use for the warning, "Beware of false prophets" (Matthew 7:15), because he does not judge anyone to be a false prophet. I guess Wylie doesn't believe Jesus's words, "You shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16).

Hey Wylie -- do you judge Jehovah's Witnesses to be lost? After all, they just have the little doctrine of Christ's deity incorrect. Do you judge those who believe that Mary is co-redemptrix to be lost? After all, they just have the little doctrine of Christ's mediatorial work incorrect. Who are we to judge these ignorant souls lost? After all, it's not about correct doctrine, is it?

And what about a professing "Calvinist" who believes that there are some Hindus who are saved? Is this professing "Calvinist" lost?

A person who professes to believe the doctrines of grace and yet calls Arminians his brothers in Christ is NO DIFFERENT than a person who professes to believe the doctrines of grace and yet calls Hindus his brothers in Christ. Both are LOST, and all their efforts at religion and morality are nothing more than dead works, evil deeds, fruit unto death. This is the state you are in, Wylie. Repent of your dead works and open idolatry and believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter
http://www.outsidethecamp.org


Wylie Fulton said:

> Marc, I have already repented by the grace of God and believed that true
> Gospel -- probably before you were even born. My soul's salvation rests
> in Christ and Christ alone, and so does the salvation of every man.


No, you do not believe the true gospel. There are two things that evidence this:

(1) You speak peace to Arminians.
(2) You agree with Gene Breed that our everlasting habitations are based on our present stewardship.

Would you like me to give you some of your quotes for evidence of this?

> I
> repeat: What kind of mean spirit causes you to be so judgmental? You're
> the soul who needs to do some repenting and believing on CHRIST HIMSELF
> as a Precious Lord, instead of your belief of the technicalities of
> doctrine.


Ah -- there it is! "Technicalities of doctrine"! Ah yes, Wylie -- those little technicalities such as the atoning work of Christ. Who needs 'em? The Holy Spirit through Paul said that those who are ignorant of the righteousness of God are lost. The Holy Spirit through John said that those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ are lost. Paul and John are being SO mean-spirited and judgmental, eh, Wylie?

Hey, Wylie -- why don't you give all of us an example of what you mean by "technicalities of doctrine"? Could it have anything to do with the PERSON and WORK of Christ, perhaps?

> You and
> your followers are "Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge
> of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7) that you are totally lost sinners yourselves!


Ooooh, Wylie! Do you realize what you just did? You JUDGED! Well, well ... the non-judgmental Wylie Fulton who just today said that we shouldn't be judging people like John Reisinger and Charles Spurgeon lost all of a sudden changes his tune when it comes to the likes of the crusty, mean, judgmental types! Oh, don't judge anyone lost who speaks peace to God-haters; just judge someone lost who is so narrow-minded as to believe that all who believe salvation conditioned on the sinner are lost! It's interesting -- people like Wylie talk about love and non-judgmentalism when it comes to the spiritual state of Arminians and tolerant "Calvinists" -- but then an intolerant Christian comes along, and ZIP! there goes the non-judgmentalism that they so highly esteem. To Wylie, the belief of Arminians isn't indicative of lostness; the believe of tolerant "Calvinists" isn't indicative of lostness; but the belief of intolerant Christians is indicative of lostness. Wylie thinks the doctrinal error of Arminians, who make salvation conditioned on the sinner, is not damnable error; he is tolerant of his Arminian brethren who just haven't come to all the technicalities of doctrine that he has. Yet the doctrinal error of those who consider Arminians and tolerant "Calvinists" lost -- well, this error is much worse than Arminianism to Wylie Fulton! In fact, it's damnable! No toleration here -- no, sir! Arminians are his brethren, but not these hard shell types! Guess Wylie has a double standard: no one is to judge anyone who professes belief in Christ to be lost -- EXCEPT when he judges a judgmental person who professes belief in Christ to be lost. Wylie allows himself to be judgmental when he judges judgmental people to be lost. Okaaay ...

Interesting that Wylie would use 2 Timothy 3:7, since he doesn't even believe that the knowledge of the truth is essential fruit of salvation.

> Your little bit of Calvinistic sophistry cannot conceal the utter absence
> of the Spirit of Christ in all you write and teach.


So -- you have judged me based on what I write and teach! Well, well, Wylie -- how incredibly judgmental of you! By my fruits you shall know me, right? But you wouldn't want to go so far as to say that by Vance Havner's writings and teachings, you shall know him to be lost, would you? Why, of course not! He was just an Arminian brother who was trying his best to serve the Lord! Certainly not lost like those Calvinistic sophists! Arminianism isn't a damnable heresy, but Calvinistic sophism is, eh?

> PS. You can drag my name in the mire, call me a reprobate all you wish,

I've never called you a reprobate. By saying this, you are falsely accusing me. But this is not a big surprise, since you've been doing this on a regular basis over the past month or so. Perhaps you are one of God's elect; I don't know. What I do know right now is that you are unregenerate. I hope and pray that God will save you from your self-righteousness.

>Where will
> you fellas be when our Lord rises to take many on His "Right Hand" whom
> you have abominated as unregenerate wretches?


If someone dies an Arminian or a tolerant "Calvinist," then they will most certainly be on the left. I tell you where I'll be -- I'll be pleading the righteousness of Christ alone as the only ground of my salvation. Meanwhile, people like you and Gene Breed, if God does not save you before you die, will be pleading your works along with the Arminians and Roman Catholics, and God will say, "Depart from Me, I never knew you."

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter

http://www.outsidethecamp.org


Marc Carpenter wrote:

<<Now I want all of you on this cc list to be sure why I consider Timothy Fellows, Jr., to be an unregenerate man. I consider him to be unregenerate because he considers the enemies of God to be his brothers in Christ. One prime example is his spiritual whoredom with David Cloud. David Cloud is a fundamentalist who hates the doctrines of grace. He has written against the doctrines of grace, is distributing audio and video tapes against the doctrines of grace, and has preached at conferences where the theme is anti-doctrines of grace. He is one of the strongest, most prolific opponents of the doctrines of grace. Yet Mr. Fellows considers him to be a brother in Christ. Tell me, Mr. Fellows, by what standard do you judge David Cloud to be your brother in Christ? What is the "gospel" that David Cloud believes that you and he have in common? Obviously, you must believe that you and David Cloud believe the same gospel. So when David Cloud denies and adamantly opposes the accomplished work of Christ, you must believe that the accomplished work of Christ is not part of the gospel. You must believe that the accomplished work of Christ is a nonessential doctrine. You must believe that there are people of God in this world who deny the accomplished work of Christ. Can everyone see how Mr. Fellows obviously does not believe the gospel? So on what does Mr. Fellows base his judgment that David Cloud is saved? Is it morality? Is it that David Cloud is a KJV-Only advocate? Is it religious sincerity and zeal? Contrary to Mr. Fellows, GOD SAYS that those who do not believe in the righteousness of God -- those who do not believe that God is just and justifier based on the efficacious work of Christ (Romans 3:21-26) -- are unregenerate. Let us see if Mr. Fellows will defend his spiritual homosexuality with Mr. Cloud. Homosexuals are disgusting perverts, no doubt. But Jesus Christ said that it will be more tolerable for the sodomites in the day of judgment than for the self-righteous religionists who have seen the truth and have rejected it. David Cloud has seen the truth and rejected it. Timothy Fellows, Jr. has seen the truth and rejected it. If God does not save them, it will be more tolerable in the Day of Judgment for the disgusting homosexual perverts than for them.>>

Timothy Fellows, Jr., replied:

> I have read much of David Cloud's material and seen his testimony of
> minding his own business when God reached down and saved him, even when
> he wasn't looking for Him.
>
> His testimony is such a beautiful picture of all five points of Grace
> that I complimented him for it. Perhaps the Grace he is confused about
> or rejecting is your brand.
>
> David Cloud is pretty much a five point Calvinist, but won't admit it,
> and has been blurred as to what it involves.
>
> He preaches more of the Gospel than Marc Carpenter does -- a Gospel
> encompassing all the teachings of Scripture, not just the atonement.
>
> In case you missed it, I do hold to limited atonement and have already
> stated previously that I believe Arminians who are saved are inconsistent
> and confused or not taught clearly.


Marc Carpenter responds:

So, according to Mr. Fellows, "God reached down and saved him [David Cloud]." And how does Mr. Fellows know that God saved Mr. Cloud? From Mr. Cloud's "testimony." And what does Mr. Cloud's "testimony" say? What evidence does Mr. Cloud give of his salvation? The Bible says that God gives a person a certain KNOWLEDGE when he regenerates a person:

"And this is life eternal, that they might KNOW thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (Jn. 17:3). What KNOWLEDGE is involved in KNOWING God and Christ, which is eternal life?

"And ye shall KNOW the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). What is the TRUTH that God's people KNOW that sets them free?

"... they have no KNOWLEDGE that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray to a god that cannot save" (Is. 45:20b). What is this KNOWLEDGE that these idolaters are missing?

"For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to KNOWLEDGE" (Rm. 10:2). What is this KNOWLEDGE that these lost religionists are missing?

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. ... For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the KNOWLEDGE of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:3-6). What is this LIGHT that the lost people BLINDED to? What is the light of the KNOWLEDGE of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ that has shined in believer's hearts?

"But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of DOCTRINE which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness" (Romans 6:17-18). What is that DOCTRINE that believers believed when they were made free from sin?

So did Mr. Cloud evidence any of this KNOWLEDGE? Did cause him to believe the GOSPEL of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone?

Obviously, God did NOT cause Mr. Cloud to believe the gospel, because Mr. Cloud believes that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception. One cannot believe the gospel and universal atonement at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. The gospel puts forth the truth that the work of Christ makes the only difference between salvation and damnation and secured the salvation of all whom Christ represented. Does Mr. Cloud believe this? Of course not. He believes that Christ did the same thing for those in heaven as those in hell. Far from being the gospel, this is a mockery of the blood of Christ. And Mr. Fellows does not recognize this. Mr. Fellows does not know what the gospel is either.

Mr. Fellows wrote: "He preaches more of the Gospel than Marc Carpenter does -- a Gospel encompassing all the teachings of Scripture, not just the atonement." It's interesting that Mr. Fellows would say what I preach when he obviously have no idea what I preach. If he would like to know what I preach about the gospel, he can go to www.outsidethecamp.org/sermons.htm . He would then see that I do NOT believe that the gospel is just the atonement. Of course, he's not interested in putting forth the truth about what I believe; he's just interested in slander.

So, Mr. Fellows believes that the gospel is "all the teachings of Scripture." Oh? So when Christ says in Mark 16:16 that those who do not believe the gospel shall be damned, then all who are ignorant of any single part of Scripture shall be damned? Of course, Mr. Fellows wouldn't say that. It's just a ploy to be able to speak peace when there is no peace. In this series on the gospel that I mentioned above, I preached sermons entitled "The Gospel - What It Is" (www.outsidethecamp.org/gospelis.htm ) and "The Gospel - What It's Not" (www.outsidethecamp.org/gospelisnt.htm ). I would like to paste a passage from the latter sermon to expose Mr. Fellows:

<<First, the gospel is NOT the entire Word of God. It's a very popular notion among those who profess to believe the doctrines of grace to define the gospel as everything that is contained in the Bible. Now what difference does this definition make? Isn't it true that the entire Bible records the very words of God? Yes. Isn't it true that God's Word must be believed? Yes. Isn't it true that the gospel is contained in God's Word? Yes. Isn't it true that the gospel is throughout God's Word? Yes. So why is defining the gospel as the entire Word of God such a horrible error? Well, let's think about it for a little while. If the gospel is the entire Word of God, then how is the gospel preached? Does the preacher have to read or preach the entire Bible in order to preach the gospel? Well, the advocates of this definition have a little out that they will always mention eventually. They will say, "No! A preacher doesn't need to read or preach the entire Bible; instead, a preacher can read or preach ANYTHING in the Bible and still preach the gospel." So they believe that the power of God unto salvation is ANYTHING in the Bible. Now notice what this means about BELIEVING the gospel. Mark 16:16 says that those who do not believe the gospel will be damned. If they were consistent, they would have to say that those who do not believe EVEN ONE PART of the Bible are lost. And, as I mentioned in last week's sermon, you can't believe what you don't know. So, if they were consistent, they would have to say that someone who doesn't know that "Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah," which is from Numbers 26:33, they are lost. But no - they do not say that someone who doesn't know about a particular truth in the Bible is lost. Instead, they say that WHEN THIS PASSAGE IS PREACHED, they will believe it. And UNTIL IT IS PREACHED, a believer can be ignorant of it. Now this is all well and good, when it comes to the daughters of Zelophehad. But what about when it comes to the work of Christ that demands and ensures the salvation of all whom He represented? Here we get to the bottom of it all, and the real reason why some would want to define the gospel in this way. They use the SAME REASONING for the daughters of Zelophehad as for the atoning work of Christ. After all, since it's ALL the gospel, one passage of Scripture is no different than any other passage of Scripture when it comes to salvation.

So here's what they say: They say that a regenerate person can be ignorant of what Christ's work accomplished, but when they are confronted with what Christ's work accomplished, they will believe it. This is their way of speaking peace to those who are ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel, including speaking peace to Arminians. They will say that a regenerate person may believe for a period of time that Christ died for everyone, but when they are shown their error from the Bible, they will repent of their error and believe the truth of the Bible. But what they are really doing is speaking peace to those who believe that Christ died for everyone. They do not judge as lost those who are ignorant of what the atonement accomplished. In speaking peace to them, they are participants in their evil deeds.>>

In the case of Mr. Fellows, he doesn't even believe that a Christian who is a universal atonement advocate will believe the truth of effecatious atonement when confronted with it! Mr. Cloud has been confronted many times with the truth of the accomplished, efficacious work of Christ, and he openly, unashamedly rejects it. Mr. Fellows STILL thinks that Mr. Cloud believes the gospel. This is indescribably vile.

Mr. Fellows tells us that he believes limited atonement. Okay. But he also says that someone who rejects the doctrine of the accomplished work of Christ is merely "inconsistent and confused or not taught clearly." Here we go deeper into the self-righteous blather of tolerant Calvinists. Their own words betray them. Let's put forth some scenarios.

Suppose there is someone who does not believe that Jesus is God. If Mr. Fellows were consistent, he would have to say that this person could be a Christian who is merely "inconsistent and confused or not taught clearly" on the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Suppose there is someone who believes that Mary is co-redemptrix. If Mr. Fellows were consistent, he would have to say that this person could be a Christian who is merely "inconsistent and confused or not taught clearly" on the doctrine of Christ as sole redeemer. In fact, if he were consistent, he'd have to welcome Mormons, Moonies, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all the rest into his fellowship. After all, they just weren't taught right.

Mr. Fellows does not believe that every Christian believes that Christ's work actually accomplished REDEMPTION, actually accomplished PROPITIATION, actually accomplished ATONEMENT for ANYONE!! He does not believe that REDEMPTION, PROPITIATION, and ATONEMENT are essential gospel doctrines!! He believes that a person can be IGNORANT OF and even HOSTILE TO the doctrines of redemption, propitiation, and atonement and still be a regenerate person!! Now tell me -- is this any less heinous than believing a person can be ignorant of the deity of Christ and still be a regenerate person? Is this any less heinous than believing that the doctrine of the deity of Christ is not an essential gospel doctrine? Of course it isn't. It is just as heinous, just as blasphemous, just as vile and perverted. Now if Mr. Fellows tells us that universal atonement advocates DO believe in redemption, propitiation, and atonement, this will show that Mr. Fellows HAS NO IDEA what redemption, propitiation, and atonement are all about. Sure, the universal atonement God-haters will TALK about redemption, but what they call redemption is not redemption at all! What they call propitiation and atonement are not propitiation and atonement at all! What they call GRACE is not grace at all -- instead, it is a system of WORKS! Mr. Fellows calls an enemy of God his brother in Christ. All Christians who see what Mr. Fellows believes will reject Mr. Fellows as a hater of the true and living God.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Fellows wrote:

> Actually, Cloud's ministry speaks for itself, with your approval or not.

I agree that Cloud's ministry speaks for itself. It is damnable heresy from the pit of hell.

> Carpenter wrote,
> "As I said before, the LITV is based on exactly the same manuscripts as
> the
> KJV. Sorta blows that argument right out of the water, doesn't it?"
>
> If it was based on the same thing, it would say the same thing. The fact
>
> that there are changes evidences a difference.


Man, how stupid can you get? Do you have even a modicum of sense, Mr. Fellows? What idiocy. Let me give you an example from what I wrote earlier, which is the KJV's "God forbid," which not only is a colloquialism based on the wicked "dynamic equivalence" method of translation but takes God's name in vain. In the original Greek (the same used by the LITV and the KJV), the first Greek word is "me," and the second Greek word is "ginomai" (my e-mail program won't do Greek letters). "Me" means none, never, not, nor, neither. "Ginomai" means to be, to be caused to be, to come to pass, to happen, to be performed. So the LITV, from the same Greek manuscript as the KJV, translates this phrase, "Let it not be." Now the KJV, from the same Greek manuscript as the KJV, translates this phrase, "God forbid." Here are two different translations from the same Greek manuscript. Now, according to Mr. Fellows's idiotic illogic, the fact that the KJV and the LITV say different things at this point mean that they must be based on different manuscripts. Now those of us with even half a brain can see the absurdity and even laughability of Mr. Fellows's case. But let's pursue Mr. Fellows's folly. Okay, Mr. Fellows: Since the LITV is based on "me ginomai," and since you believe that the LITV translation of this phrase is based on different Greek than the KJV, please tell me: what is the Greek behind the KJV phrase "God forbid"? Come on, now. Let us all see the difference, since you believe there is one. And while you're at it, since the phrase in the KJV has the name of God in it, please tell me what Greek word is translated "God" in this phrase? Let's see it. Where is the Greek word for God in the manuscript upon which the KJV is based? Let's see it. After all, the KJV did not italicize the word "God," so either the Greek word for God must be there, or the KJV translators were being deceptive when translating this phrase. Which one? (This should be fun.)

Let's do one more example between the LITV and the KJV, this time in the Hebrew. Psalm 73:1:

KJV:
<<Truly God [is] good to Israel, [even] to such as are of a clean heart.>>

LITV:
<<Truly God [is] good to Israel, to those who are of a pure heart.>>

The KJV says "clean" and the LITV says "pure."

Now, since, according to Mr. Fellows, "If it was based on the same thing, it would say the same thing," then Mr. Fellows must conclude that the KJV and LITV are based on different manuscripts that contain different Hebrew words, one word for "clean," and another word for "pure." Okay, Mr. Fellows, prove your point. Show us the Hebrew word that is behind the KJV's "clean," and show us the DIFFERENT Hebrew word that is behind the LITV's "pure." Go for it. Show us that you're not a complete idiot.

And hey, while we're having some fun here, let's give Mr. Fellows another homework assignment. According to Mr. Fellows, the reason that there are different English words is because there is different Greek behind them. Let's turn to Acts 16:1. The KJV says this:

<<Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:>>

Now let's turn over to 2 Corinthians 1:1. The KJV says this:

<<Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:>>

The first verse contains the word "Timotheus," while the second verse contains the word "Timothy." According to Mr. Fellows's rules of translation, since these two words are different, then the Greek behind them must be different. So, Mr. Fellows, please let us know what the Greek word for "Timotheus" is and the Greek word for "Timothy" is. This should be a good one. (It is also interesting to note that the KJV-Only crowd correctly slams the modern versions for being inconsistent in translation, but they allow the KJV's inconsistencies to pass, thus again showing their hypocrisy. Just think if a modern version came out and translated the Greek word "Ioannes" into "John" half the time and "Juan" half the time. My, what an uproar there would be!)

Finally, let's go to two more passages. The first is Luke 22:1, which says this in the KJV:

<<Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.>>

Now to Acts 12:4, which says this in the KJV:

<<And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.>>

The first verse contains the word "Passover," while the second verse contains the word "Easter." According to Mr. Fellows's rules of translation, since these two words are different, then the Greek behind them must be different. So, Mr. Fellows, please let us know what the Greek word for "Passover" is and the Greek word for "Easter" is. They must be different, eh, Mr. Fellows? If the Greek behind them were the same, then they would either both say "Passover" or both say "Easter," wouldn't you say? So go ahead and try to defend the KJV's insertion of the pagan festival of Easter into the Bible.

And Mr. Fellows, I would like to remind you that you say you have a Bible that cannot be improved upon. Thus, you think that the phrase "God forbid" must not be changed because it reflects the perfect Word of God, even though there is absolutely no mention of God in the original Greek. And you think the word "Easter" must not be changed because it reflects the perfect Word of God, even though every other place in the KJV it is translated "Passover."

Of course Mr. Fellows will not address these inconsistencies in the KJV, because he can't.

> Carpenter wrote,
> "I never said that every Christian can explain atonement,
> justification, or redemption. I said that every Christian believes
> atonement, justification, and redemption."
>
> That's funny, because that's exactly what I believe. Some do get
> confused explaining it, but in truth, if they are saved, do believe it.


We do NOT believe the same thing. If one CONFESSES belief in a false gospel, then it shows that he BELIEVES a false gospel. See www.outsidethecamp.org/rightjudg.htm . The mouth speaks what comes from the heart. So, while there are some Christians who are not able to explain/articulate these doctrines (e.g., they are not at an age where they can articulate them or they are deaf/dumb, etc.), there is NO ONE who CONFESSES a false gospel who believes the true gospel. For example: If a man confesses the belief that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception (as David Cloud has done many times), then he DOES NOT BELIEVE in atonement, justification, and redemption. It's not that he's just "confused explaining it"; his confession shows that he is an UNBELIEVER. If you take the "confused explaining it" route, you would again be able to welcome the Roman Catholics and the Mormons and the Moonies into your fellowship. You could say that they really believe the truth, but they just get confused explaining it. What hogwash. All Christians BELIEVE the doctrines of the atonement, justification, and redemption, and NO CHRISTIAN will CONFESS belief in any doctrine that DENIES the doctrines of the atonement, justification, and redemption. Universal atonement advocates -- every single one of them -- DENY the work of Christ. They are unregenerate.

> The problem is that the vast majority of people everywhere today
> are unconverted -- in and out of Grace circles.


Very true. And the most heinous of them all are ones who are WITHIN "Grace" circles who speak peace to those who hold to salvation conditioned on the sinner. It's not just the vast majority of those kinds of people who are lost; ALL of them are lost, for they treat the doctrine of the work of Christ as a take-it-or-leave-it thing.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter
www.outsidethecamp.org


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters