I ask Greg Fields for something substantive, and he gives me Lloyd-Jones mush. Well, Greg, at least I know what your "calvinism" is.

> The grace of God saves us in spite of ourselves. That is
> Calvinist! If you
> say, as a Calvinist, that a man is saved by his understanding of
> doctrine you
> are denying Calvinism. He is not.

Have you ever met anyone who believes that he is saved by his understanding of doctrine? Or is this just the common blather of pseudo-Christians who do not believe that all regenerate persons believe the doctrines of the person and work of Christ?

> We are all saved in spite of
> what we are in
> every respect. Thus it comes to pass that men who can be so
> muddled, because
> they bring in their own human reason, are saved men and
> Christians, as all
> of us are, because it is 'all of the grace of God' and in spite of us.

Oh, okay, Mr. Lloyd-Jones (and Mr. Fields) -- so when God saves someone, that person can believe in just about anything regarding God and Christ and religion in general. Hey, that Roman Catholic who believes that Mary is co-redemptrix is saved in spite of what he believes. He's just so muddled about the doctrine of redemption, and you know, a man isn't saved by his understanding of redemption. Hey, that Jehovah's Witness who denies Christ's deity is saved in spite of what he believes. He's just muddled about the doctrine of Christology. Hey, that Arminian who believes that Christ died for everyone and thus believes that salvation is conditioned on the sinner is saved in spite of what he believes. He's just so muddled about the doctrines of salvation and imputation and justification and grace and the atonement. Yeah, the grace of God has saved them in spite of themselves. They can go on just believing whatever, dishonoring every attribute of God's redemptive character, ignorant of and not submitted to the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel, spitting in God's face, blaspheming His name, believing and promoting the lie of the Devil, and still be saved.

What wickedness. Lloyd-Jones spoke peace to Arminians, and this is the kind of reasoning he used to justify his filth. I guess you want to be in the sty right along with him, Greg.

> Lastly, Calvinism without Methodism tends to produce a joyless,
> hard, not to
> say a harsh and cold type of religion. I am saying that this is a
> tendency.
> All this results from intellectualism of course; and the more the
> intellect
> dominates the less joy there will be, and a hardness, and a
> coldness, and a
> harshness, and a bigotry tend to come in.

Ooooh -- the "intellectualism" boogey-man! The more the intellect dominates, the less joy there will be! So let's all be as ignorant as we can be about doctrine -- we certainly wouldn't want to be joyless! And while we're at it, let's go down and meet with those people whom Lloyd-Jones considered full of Christian joy -- the Charismatics. Greg, ya wanna see how joyful all the idiots swinging from the chandeliers are? Hey, they don't know doctrine, but the less they know, the more joyful they are! Oh they have a joy, but not according to knowledge. But you and Lloyd-Jones would say that a Christian doesn't need knowledge of the person and work of Christ. He just needs that intellect-less JOY. Wheeeeee!!!

> Calvinism of necessity leads to an
> emphasis upon the action and the activity of God the Holy Spirit.

WRONG. True Christianity leads to an emphasis upon the action and activity of God the SON, who established a righteousness that demands the salvation of all whom He represented. The Holy Spirit does not testify of Himself; the Holy Spirit testifies of CHRIST. Here are Lloyd-Jones's charismatic sympathies cropping up again.

> So Calvinism of
> necessity leads to experiences, and to great emphasis upon
> experience;

Yeah, you guys would elevate experiences above God's Testimony. You would speak peace to an Arminian who says, "Well, I KNOW I'm saved, because I was under such a great conviction of my sins and I sweated all night and felt a heavy load upon my soul, and by morning, my burden was lifted as I felt Christ take my sin away." You would say that someone who is currently a "Calvinist" but who says that he remained an Arminian for a time after he was regenerated is a true Christian because of some experience he had. Ah, throw that knowledge of doctrine all away. What use is it anyway? EXPERIENCE, now that's the ticket. Someone can be saved who is ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel as long as he has EXPERIENCED "Christ." What hogwash.

> Then, in turn, as I have been trying to say, true Calvinism is bound to
> emphasize the element of revival, the 'givenness' of the activity
> of God, the
> visitations of God. It is only since the decline of Calvinism
> that revivals
> have become less and less frequent. The more powerful Calvinism
> is the more
> likely you are to have a spiritual revival and re-awakening.

Yeah, EXPERIENCES and REVIVALS. "Revivals" have flourished where true gospel doctrine has either been absent or seriously compromised.

> it is
> also the very essence of Calvinistic Methodism.

Calvinistic Methodism produced such "giants of the faith" as George Whitefield, an unregenerate man who spoke peace to Wesley and asked sinners to open the door of their hearts to the knocking Jesus. So this is your "calvinism," eh, Greg?

In another post, you quoted an article that included the following statement:

<<Arminians who have a gracious, humble spirit should not be treated as unbelievers.>>

So this is what you believe, Greg? Those who do not believe in the atoning blood of Christ should not be treated as unbelievers? Those who believe that their salvation is conditioned on themselves should not be treated as unbelievers? Those who spit in the face of my Lord Jesus Christ, trampling Him underfoot, treating His blood as if it were nothing but a general amnesty for all if sinners would do just their part? These should not be treated as unbelievers? Those who call God a liar, who think that God punishes sinners whose sins have already been punished? Those who say that Christ's blood was shed for those burning in hell? Those who say that the difference between heaven and hell is NOT the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone but IS the work of the sinner? THESE PEOPLE should not be treated as unbelievers? Those who do not believe that God is a just God and a Savior? Those who have no idea how God is just to justify the ungodly? Those who worship a god who cannot save? Those who abide not in the doctrine of Christ? Those who have a form of godliness but deny its power? Those who make a mockery of God's redemptive glory? THESE WICKED BLASPHEMERS should not be treated as unbelievers? These LOVERS OF SELF, these SELF-RIGHTEOUS RELIGIONISTS whose best efforts at religion and morality ("who have a gracious, humble spirit") are nothing more than DEAD WORKS, FRUIT UNTO DEATH, OPEN IDOLATRY? THESE PEOPLE, Greg? These people who BELIEVE NOT THE GOSPEL OF SALVATION CONDITIONED ON THE ATONING BLOOD AND IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST ALONE?

Your "calvinism," indeed. God save us from such "calvinism."

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter



You said:

> THe heart of
> the gospel is Justification by faith alone.Cognitive
> perfectionism it isn't &
> jesuitical causistry is not the way to delineate this.

Again you accuse me of "cognitive perfectionism." Again you give no proof; you give no quotes from any of my letters, writings, or e-mails to back up your accusation. If you were truly concerned for my soul, you would show me specifically what my error is so I could see it and repent of it. General accusations are cowardly and ungodly.

What I AM saying is that EVERY Christian has the KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING that the Bible says they have. Do you deny this?

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

The Holy Spirit through Paul says, "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, Greg?

Jesus says, "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, Greg?

Jesus says, "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, Greg?

Soli Deo Gloria,


Greg Fields ("fervent calvinist") said:

> Cultists are afraid of intelligence or
> objectivity.

What a laugh! It is YOUR anti-intellectualism that makes you afraid to answer questions on UNDERSTANDING and KNOWLEDGE! In your mind, to "know" Christ doesn't have to do with the DOCTRINE of Christ's person and work; it has to do with ... with ... with WHAT? Some mysterious, mystical, undefinable gushy feeling someone has inside?

> Truly knowing the living
> God is the
> real issue.(Jn17:3)

Okay. So, Greg, what does it mean to know the living God? What distinguishes the true and living God from all false gods? What distinguishes the true gospel from all counterfeit gospels? What distinguishes the true Christ from all false christs? Enlighten me, Greg! Of course, you won't answer these questions. You CAN'T.

> We must not play their jesuit games by
> allowing them to
> erect these de-contexualized criteria as inviolable gospel tenets.

De-contextualized? Show me where these inviolable gospel tenets are taken out of context. Just show me ONE PLACE. Of course you won't. You CAN'T.

> You set up strawmen Your set of questions(?) are not even
> germane.

Indulge me, Greg. Even if you think the questions are not germane, be so kind and loving as to answer them, oh loving one.

> You have no
> straigtforward answers only ambiguous questions & your followers are all
> pretty well programmed by their cult leader.

Could you make a list of my supposed "followers"? This should give me a good laugh.

> Consigning godly men to hell?

This one little 5-word sentence shows me that you have no business refuting what I believe, because you haven't even read what I have written on the subject, and instead you make up what you think I believe and then attempt to tear it apart. Go back and read my "from the editor" column in the last issue of OTC. Actually, to make it easier for you (and so you will have no excuse), I will paste an excerpt of it right here:

<<I will use what I said about Spurgeon and Whitefield in the last issue of Outside the Camp as an example. I said that both were lost, as evidenced by the fact that they spoke peace to Arminians. I want to make it very clear that I have never said and never meant to imply that they are surely in hell.

Now you might ask, "Don't all lost people go to hell?" They surely do if they remain lost until they die. And if Spurgeon and Whitefield remained in the same spiritual state as they were when they spoke peace to Arminians, then they are in hell. But I do not know what they believed upon their dying breath; I do not know if God saw fit to save them after they spoke peace to Arminians. Thus, I cannot and will not say that people such as Spurgeon or Whitefield, or even people who were known as rank Arminians or satanists or homosexuals or whatever, are now in hell. God could have saved them later in their lives. One thing we know for sure is that if God saved them, they would no longer have been Arminians or satanists or homosexuals. And if He saved Spurgeon or Whitefield, then they would no longer have spoken peace to Arminians.

A distinction needs to be made between "lost" and "reprobate." One who is lost is unregenerate. One who is reprobate has been predestined for hell. All who are reprobate are lost, but not all who are lost are reprobate. The elect - those who have been predestined for heaven - all go through a period of time of being lost. There are lost elect people, and there are saved elect people. Thus, when we come upon a lost person, we do not know if he is an elect lost person or a reprobate lost person. Only God knows to what end this lost person has been predestined.

Not knowing who is elect and who is reprobate does not keep us from judging a person lost. In fact, God's people are commanded to judge all those who do not believe the gospel and have not repented of dead works and idolatry to be lost (see the article "
Righteous Judgment" in the February 1999 issue of Outside the Camp). These lost people include all who know what Arminianism is and yet say that regenerate persons can confess belief in the false gospel of Arminianism, say that at least some Arminians are saved, or say that they remained an Arminian for a period of time after they were regenerated.

Does this mean that we are saying that they will surely go to hell? No. It is saying that they are currently in an unregenerate state. If these lost people continue in their unregenerate state (i.e., if God does not regenerate them), then they will go to hell. But there have been many who have been lost Arminians or lost tolerant "Calvinists" whom God has saved, showing that they were not reprobate.

Were Spurgeon and Whitefield unregenerate when they spoke peace to Arminians? Most definitely. And I must judge them lost by God's testimony. But I do not know if God saved them later in their lives; thus, I do not know whether or not they are in hell (i.e., whether or not they were reprobate).

God's people are not commanded to judge whether or not a person is reprobate. We are not the final judges; only God is. We do not condemn anyone to hell. What God's people are commanded to do is to judge all those who confess a false gospel lost - whether or not these lost people are elect or reprobate.>>

Got it, Greg? Will this stop you from making false accusations? I doubt it. Greg still accuses me of holding to cognitive perfectionism, which is a blatant lie. But liars will continue to lie; the leopard can't change his spots.

Soli Deo Gloria,



E-mails, Forums, and Letters