To Mark McCulley:

I see that you are attempting to distance yourself from John Pedersen. Yet you continue to be linked to him because you believe:

(1) that there are no sins that are repented of at conversion that are never repented of again.

(2) that Christians must repent of the repenting and believing that they did upon conversion.

(3) that a regenerate person can confess a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner.

(4) that anyone who says a regenerate person cannot confess a false gospel is a perfectionist.

(5) that you constantly follow the voice of strangers (while you constantly follow Christ at the same time).

(6) that there may be cases where both the true gospel and the false gospel are believed/confessed at the same time.

(7) that those who confess an Arminian gospel are possibly saved.

(8) that if I continue in unrepentance of calling Pedersen lost (what you call "slandering Pedersen") then I show myself to be lost, without the fear of God.

(9) that you judge tolerant Calvinists to be lost, not because they said something one time, but because they keep saying it after instruction and exhortation to repent.

(10) that it is possible that a person who says that those who believe in universal atonement are saved is regenerate.

(11) that you do not judge people lost before you talk to them.

(12) that Christians need to continually repent of their refusal to submit to Christ's righteousness.

(13) that he has a tolerant friendship with the doctrine of human sovereignty.

(14) that the only sin against the gospel that a Christian cannot sin is the sin of final apostasy.

(15) that a true Christian can still speak peace to people who are conditioning their salvation on things the true Christian has repented of.

(16) that Christians can perform dead works.

Just #1 is enough to show you to be lost. No true Christian believes this. No true Christian is confused about repentance in this area. The fact that you would even say such a thing is evidence that you have not been given the gift of true evangelical repentance. You even said that repenting of a false gospel is not something that is just done at conversion but is done throughout a Christian's life. The true Christian, upon conversion, repents of ever thinking that salvation was conditioned on himself and never repents of this again. He has undergone a great change. The true Christian, upon conversion, repents of speaking peace to those who bring a false gospel and never repents of this again. He has undergone a great change. The true Christian, upon conversion, repents of believing in a god who cannot save and never repents of this again. He has undergone a great change. The true Christian, upon conversion, repents of worshipping and serving an idol, and never repents of this again. He has undergone a great change. The true Christian, upon conversion, repents of refusing to submit to the righteousness of Christ and never repents of this again. He has undergone a great change. The true Christian, upon conversion, repents of dead works and fruit unto death, and never repents of this again. He has undergone a great change. Mark, you have NEVER undergone that great change. You have not had a change of mind concerning who God is, concerning the only ground of salvation, concerning what the gospel is, concerning the imputed righteousness of Christ. You're still repenting of all these things, showing that you never have put belief in a false gospel and judging based on Satan's lie away for good.

You and Pedersen do have some differences. But you are in the same boat with him. If Pedersen is shown to be lost, you are shown to be lost, and vice versa. You are inextricably linked to him, by your own choosing, in the above areas. You'll sink or swim together. And, without realizing it, you have both sunk.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc


Mark McCulley, I am amazed. You out-and-out deny things that you have written. I made those sixteen statements based on DIRECT QUOTES from you! Just like Pedersen, you are a slippery character. I say something based directly on something you said, and then you say, "No, I don't believe that.." Mark McCulley can't be pinned down. Try to pin him down, and he slithers over to another spot. And on the things he admits he said, he says he's changed his mind. This change of mind is NOT a going from lost to saved, mind you. He's just "grown" from the false gospel to the true gospel in certain areas. And when he listens to something by Bill Parker, he can tell himself that he agrees with it, even though it is diametrically opposed to his beliefs. It's no wonder he thinks that he confesses a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner and the true gospel of salvation conditioned on Christ at the same time. He is a "yea and nay" spiritual schizophrenic. Always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. What a sad state. Mark, below are YOUR OWN statements. Now you can claim to have "repented" of some of these, but you are continuing to speak peace to yourself when you said them.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc

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

I agree with Pedersen that all sin is a following of a stranger.

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

Like all perfectionists, you will have to redefine sins of confessions so that it is not sin or not confession.

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

But the gospel leads us to the law, not as that from which we earn blessing, but as a standard so that we can confess that we do not confess perfectly, and that we must repent even of our repenting and of our believing.

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

Why is it "blasphemy" to say that I constantly follow the voice of strangers if I also constantly follow Christ?

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

But are you denying that we must constantly repent of our repenting?

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

I don't judge an unrepentent person to be saved.

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

Marc: What is a false gospel? It is a gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. Pedersen and McCulley are saying that a person in whose heart God has been glorified can confess the belief that his salvation was/is conditioned on himself. This is incredible blasphemy and is indicative of Pedersen's and McCully's lostness.

Mark: i am glad to be in the crowd with Pedersen. I agree with you about what the false gospel is. I agree that Christians can confess it. I don't agree that my agreement is blasphemy.

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

But there may be cases where both the true gospel and the false gospel is believed/confessed at the same time

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

Marc: This is subtle, damnable heresy. Pedersen and McCulley claim to believe that all Arminians are lost. Yet they also believe that a regenerate person can confess belief in an Arminian gospel.

Mark: logically, this translates to: not everyone who says something Arminian is an Arminian. I think that is true.

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

Marc: Thus, by saying that not all who confess belief in the Arminian gospel are Arminians, they subtlely redefine Arminianism so they can "withhold judgment" of those who confess belief in an Arminian gospel. What dung.

Mark: without repentence, we cannot say that they are saved. But without exposing their sin against the gospel (a possible category in my mind) then we cannot say that they are in rebellion against the truth they do confess.

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

But your perverse use of the distinction between conduct and confession makes me more wary of that then ever.

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

Yes, if you are now a Christan, you certainly need to repent of your confession of a perfect confession. If you are saved now while slandering Pedersen, if you repent, then your repetnecne will be "evengelical". If, on the otehr hand, you continue in unrepentence, then you show yourself to be lost, without the fear of God.

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

But I agree with Luther that even our repentence needs to be repented of

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

Christians do not graduate to a diffrent gospel, in which there is no need for repentence about their confession.

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

But maybe a regenerate person can with his mouth confess the belief that those who believe in universal salvation are nevertheless saved.

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

Confessing that false belief does call into question a person's confession of particular atonement, so much so that Hodge and Luther and Reisinger I judge lost, but not because they one time said this about idolaters but because they keep saying it after instruction and exhortation to repent.

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

What is happening when a man (who really thinks that he believes in particualr atonement) says that another man who professes universal redemption is still saved? I don't know for sure. Until I talk to him. Until he keeps on confessing that. Is he really insisting on his own standard of saved and lost? I don't know, but in trying to tell him the gospel again, I must not end up insisting on my own standard of saved and lost, so that I require perfect confession.

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

Marc: But you go on to say that is it possible for a regenerate person to confess with this mouth the belief that those who believe in universal atonement are saved. So here is Mr. X, who claims to believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on Christ alone. Yet Mr. X also says that those who believe in universal atonement are saved. And you (Mark McCulley) are saying that it is possible that Mr. X believes the true gospel.

Mark: yes.

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

I know other people who I still THINK believe in particular atonement who won't say that Arminians are lost, who MAYBE ARE SAVED. ... They claimed to have been converted by hearing the true gospel, but they do not say YET that this is the only way people are saved.

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

Marc: And you (Mark McCulley) say that Mr. X could be believing the true gospel while at the same time confessing that those who believe in salvation conditioned on the sinner are saved. You are saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that Mr. X really believes that salvation conditioned on the sinner is a false gospel, yet he confesses that salvation conditioned on the sinner is the true gospel.

Mark: yes, could be. Notice, along with confession of the true gospel at the same time. He is contradicting himself, but I think people maybe do that. He is not only confessing salvation contioned on sinner, but at the same time confessing salvation contioned on Christ alone. You look at the half empty cup. I cannot IMMEDIATELY DISMISS his confession of salvation condtioned on Christ alone.

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

But my hope is that when a good tree says some bad fruit in something he says about the gospel, that this bad fruit is not counted against him, so in that sense- the Christian did not bring forth the bad fruit.

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

dont judge people lost before you talk to them, even if you have heard them make mistakes, even if you know they are deceived.

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

Marc: When I tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, am I telling you something that has any error in it? When I tell you that salvation is conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone, am I telling you something that has any error in it?

Mark: when I tell you that 2 plus 2 is four and also that people who say that 2 plus 3 is four are still right, I am saying something that has error in it. So your approach would be to say, since he is wrong about those people who say 2 plus 3, then he's wrong about 2 plus 2 being four also. You have no room to consider the good fruit which says 2 plus 2 is four. I want to say: how can these things be? How can you say boththings? and then listen.

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

Marc: If I told you that those who confess that Christ died for everyone without exception are saved, is this just true faith mixed with error, or is this all error that springs from a false faith?

Mark: I don't know yet. It's all error. And error does not spring from the truth. The confession is not true faith. But people with true faith make errors. One who confesses true faith can also confess errors which do not come from that true faith.

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

But if you believe the gospel, you confess: Lord, I do follow the stranger, but also Lord, I judge that following to be sin, and my only hope is that you died for that sin and that your righteousness is imputed to me so that it can truly be said: I do not follow the stranger.

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

Marc: what would you say about a person who says that Christians continually need to repent of their refusal to submit to Christ's righteousness?

Mark: I am such a person who says that. In my flesh there is nothing which wants to submit to Christ and His righteosuness.

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

How can Chrsitians still speak peace to nonChristians? Because we are not under the dominionn of that sin, so that if we do speak peace to nonChristians, we are still not condmened for speaking peace to nonChrisians.

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

Marc: And even if he goes so far as to say that universal atonement is a false gospel but still says that those who believe universal atonement are saved, how can a person believe the true gospel and yet also believe that such a person (universal atonement advocate) believes the true gospel? Does this not AUTOMATICALLY reflect on what he (the tolerant Calvinist) believes is the gospel?

Mark: reflect on? Sure. Everything is connected to the gospel. Your unwillingness to consider the possibibility that Chirst forgives Christians for illogical peace-speaking "reflects on" how you present the gospel. The peace-speaking is not only illogical but appeals to their flesh (which Christians still struggle with). And your own unwillingness to consider this a sin a Chrsitian can commit is not only a failure to think more carefully, but springs from your desire to think of your Christian confession more highly than you should.

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

True Christians continually repent of their lack of submission to the gospel.

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

Because along with a life characterised by judging by the gospel and repenting by the gospel, my life is also characterised by not jduging by the gospel and by not repenting. Both at the same time.

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

Marc: Are there things that are repented of at conversion and are never repented of again?

Mark: nope: we repent even of our repentence

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

But there are those who accept personal redemption (individual particular atonement) but who at the same time suspend the jsutification of the elect on the work of the Spirit in them. While I am convinced that this is a denial of the gospel, I am not sure that an untaught Christian cannot say this.

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

Marc: Do you agree with the following statements: "We need to be greatly ashamed of ourselves for our tolerant friendship with the doctrine of human sovereignty which lies at the rotten core of evangelicalism, and which, on account of it, of our sleepy indifference to is a testimony to our own cowardice."

Mark: I agree with Pedersen about this

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

I hear you saying that you are only ashamed of your confession before you were justified

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

The only sin against the gospel that a Christian cannot sin is the sinof final apostasy.

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

Marc: Not only this, but Mark McCulley believes that a believer can confess a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner, that he is constantly following a stranger (a false christ) and the true Christ at the same time, that there are no sins that are repented of at conversion and never repented of again,

Mark: I think this is accurate

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

A true Chrsitian can still be ashamed of the gospel, and even still speak peace to people who are condtioning their salvation on things the treu Christian has repented of. How can that be? How can he speak peace based on what he now says is the false gospel? It makes no sense. sin makes no sense.

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

The cross is why some are converted, and when they are converted they repent of the false gospel (but not once for all time as Carpenter would have it).

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

Marc: Further down, you said the following regarding Bill Parker's view that there are certain things that are repented of at conversion that are never repented of again, like dead works and FORMER idolatry:

Mark: here i still disagree with Carpenter. Chrsitian can still be legalists. And when they still have that kind of motives, then their works are still dead works. Chrsitians still have the "flesh". "Flesh" does not mean only immorality. "Flesh" means also condtioning stuff on yourself. And Christians can and do this: when they do, still dead works, and needs repented of.

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

Marc: You, since you think that there is NO SIN that believers only repent of at conversion and never again, obviously have not been given this repentance.

Mark: the way you squint at things, there is a repentance(about the gospel) subjective in the converted sinner which needs no further repentance.

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

Marc: You say you were lost when you were a tolerant Calvinist and repented of tolerant Calvinism; however, since you do not believe that this was a one-time repentance and need to repent of these things during your "Christian" life,

Mark: Give me some texts for this "one-time repentance" of yours please.

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

Are you claiming that there is no more "consciouness of sin", no more "cleasing from sin", no more "purging from dead works" that we need after we are justified? Are you saying that the "flesh" which reamins with you is only the "immoral in conduct" kind of flesh but never ever the"condition some blessing or some assurance on me" kind of flesh? Yes, there is a difference between godly and legal repentance, but you seem to be claiming that there is only a "one time repentance" for legalism. Where do you find that in Scripture? Despite the decisive refusal of past dung in Phil 3, Paul also is still pressing, striving to attain to what he has attained. There is no boast in Phil 3 that he will never ever need to worry about repenting of looking for righteouness in the law.

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


Here McCulley goes again, trying to slither out of a damnable heresy.

First, McCulley says that there is NOTHING that a believer repents of as a one-time repentance. This, in and of itself, is indicative of lostness.

Now McCulley is trying to tone it down to be more acceptable to Bill, since he KNOWS that Bill would consider McCulley's first belief as indicative of lostness.

Well, let me tell you something. It doesn't work that way. Let me show you why.

McCulley has made it VERY clear that Christians DO NOT repent of ANYTHING just once. He even said, "The cross is why some are converted, and when they are converted they repent of the false gospel (but not once for all time as Carpenter would have it)." McCulley said that repentance from a false gospel is NOT -- IS NOT -- a one-time repentance at conversion! And when I asked him, "Are there things that are repented of at conversion and are never repented of again?", McCulley replied: "nope: we repent even of our repentence." Notice that I left the question WIDE OPEN for ANYTHING that is repented of at conversion that is never repented of again. McCulley clearly said that there is NO SUCH THING.

These things show WITHOUT A DOUBT that McCulley is not a believer.

Now if McCulley repents of saying any of these things, then the question we need to ask is: Does he consider himself SAVED when he said these things? If he still thinks he was saved when he said these things, he is speaking peace to himself apart from the only ground of peace. He is STILL LOST.

However, if he repents of saying these things and considers that he has undergone REGENERATION since saying these things, then we can talk. UNTIL THEN, we MUST consider Mark McCulley to be lost.

Don't be fooled by McCulley's excuse of "using the wrong terminology" (e.g., considering "evangelical repentance" to be that ongoing repentance). Notice in the above quotes from McCulley, the term "evangelical repentance" was NOT USED. All I asked him was if there are things that are repented of at conversion and are never repented of again. McCulley said that there are NOT. The distinction between "gospel repentance" and "evangelical repentance" is just a diversion from the real issue. The REAL issue is that McCulley has said that there is NO SIN that is repented of once upon conversion. This is DAMNABLE. And going from believing this damnable heresy to believing that there is a one-time repentance is just like going from Arminianism to Calvinism; if there was no REGENERATION in between, then there is NO LIFE, even if he now says that there is a one-time repentance.

I am quite impressed with McCulley's slipperiness. He starts leaning toward the orthodox when he realizes that he has been exposed. DON'T BE FOOLED. MARK MCCULLEY IS OF THE DEVIL.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc


To Mark McCulley:

In your response to the damnable heresy of the Primitive Baptists, you make some good points. But then you come to the end of your letter to C.C. Morris and say the following things:

<<As much as I disagree with you about the timelag between what you call "regeneration" and conversion to the gospel, I don't think this is a gospel issue although it most proably is an issue which would make fellowship in the same local church difficult.>>

So you do not believe that the issue that a regenerate person can go for years before "converting" to the gospel is a gospel issue; instead, it is merely an issue that might impede fellowship in the same local church.

In addition to this, you agree with John Pedersen that a regenerate person can confess belief in a false gospel (e.g., the trash, "He doesn't believe Arminianism but he speaks as an Arminian would speak").

I remind you that C.C. Morris said that he was regenerate when he "labored in Egyptian darkness, struggling futilely against my depravity, trying to overcome it with all the will-worship and Arminian effort a young man could muster." I guess you can think that it is possible that you "can disagree but not doubt that we believe the same gospel" even after Morris said this, because Morris could merely be a "regenerate person who is speaking as an unregenerate person would speak."

In addition to this, even though you claim to believe that righteousness demands everlasting life, you deny that sin demands everlasting death, contrary to the plain words of Scripture. In denying that sin demands everlasting death, you also deny that Christ paid the penalty of everlasting death for all whom He represented. In denying everlasting punishment, you deny the infinite sinfulness of sin, and thus you really deny the infinite holiness of God, who MUST punish sinners ETERNALLY in hell, for they can NEVER pay the debt they owe to God's law and justice.

Thus, even though you say some really good things in your posts, I have no choice but to judge you to be lost. It is my hope and prayer that God will lead you to the truth about Himself, His holiness, and His law and justice.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


The heresies from Mark McCulley keep on coming. This time, on the "meta-gospel" list, he talks about the article in the v. 5 n. 2 Outside the Camp reviewing C.C. Morris's heresy that a person can be ignorant of the true gospel for a period of time between regeneration and conversion. McCulley says that Morris is lost, not because he advocates a time-lag, but because he believes that a regenerate person can hold to Arminianism. He says that holding to a time-lag between regeneration and conversion is not necessarily indicative of lostness. Just another in a growing list of damnable heresies from Mark McCulley. I guess Bill Parker would say that this is something that new believers can be ignorant of until they are taught the truth.

Now for a post from McCulley from the "meta-gospel" list in its entirety (so I cannot be accused of taking him out of context). "daa" is David Alvord, who doesn't think the time-lag thing is such a big deal. I will add my comments in brackets in black.

Marc

<<daa] Mark issues a warning about Morris. But I don't see the problem. Not that I say that there has to be a long period of time between
regeneration and gospel conversion. I personally don't think that it is necessary for God to prepare a soul (via regeneration) with a long
struggle before the gospel can be accepted. I still think that God gives regeneration first so that people can believe, and therefore he
doesn't regenerate UNLESS the person has intellectually comprehended the gospel first. But I can't say that it is a "gospel" issue or damnable
heresy to think otherwise. This isn't an excuse to speak peace to all Arminians for certainly in Morris's view there are unregenerate
Arminians that struggle with their self-righteous failure as well as truly regenerated Arminians who really grieve over sin (I don't know how he was able to distinguish them).
>>

<<Mark: That's a good question: only after the fact, I think, would he claim to distinguish them. I certainly am not dogmatic about a difference about a time lag between quickening and conversion vs "gospel quickening". [Oh no? Why not? What does this say about McCulley's view of "quickening" vs. "gospel quickening"? You can see where this is going.] We could have different opinions about that and still believe the same gospel. [Different opinions about a time lag between quickening and conversion and STILL believe the same gospel? This is so blatant, yet if I showed this to Bill Parker, it wouldn't mean a hill of beans to him.] Even if we conceded a time-lag, there would be no warrant for dogmatism about when the unconverted was "regenerate". [No warrant for dogmatism about when the unconverted was regenerate, given a time lag? See what McCulley is saying here?] My fundamental difference with Morris is not about the time-gap [Note this!! The time-gap that Morris puts forth is a time-gap that could last weeks or months or years in which the "regenerate person" does not believe the gospel! Mark McCulley has admitted that he has no fundamental difference with Morris on this issue!!] but about "what is the gospel" and related to that "what is sin".

There are those who define conviction of sin as "I know I was bad because I caused my little brother to get on fire". But one does not have to be regenerate to have this natural notion of sin. But one needs to know WHAT THE GOSPEL IS to know that it is a sin to try to establish one's own righteouesness. One needs to know THE RIGHTEOUSNESS revealed in the gospel to know that the gospel is not first of all about "regeneration", so that one knows that life and faith (including knowledge of the gospel and of sin) are RESULTS OF IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. [So what of those who have different opinions about a time lag between quickening and conversion who hold to the same gospel as McCulley does?]

The false gospel of CC Morris knows nothing of repentence for the sin of a false gospel. Having a false gospel is excused, so much so that it is claimed that one knows oneself to have been regenerate EVEN WHILE ONE WAS LABORING UNDER THE LAW TO TRY TO BUILD ONE'S OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS. [Yet if there is a time-lag between regeneration and conversion, then for that period of time between regeneration and conversion, that person is IGNORANT of the righteousness of God and is going about to establish his own righteousness.]

The false gospel of CC Morris does not identify the elect by their faith in the true gospel, since that false gospel tries to talk about election and regeneration but without talking about "to those who believe" or what these people believe.

CC Morris's gospel has much in common with Billy's gospel. Not the gospel but the sinner gets to say what sin is. And the gospel is not about Christ's absolute complete satisfation of the law, but only about death and life apart any knowledge of imputed righteousness.
[Yet McCulley says that one can have a different opinion of the time-lag and still believe the same gospel!]>>

<<daa: But as long as Morris says that all regenerated people must eventually believe the true gospel, the timing of conversion isn't the issue. The issue is what Gospel does Morris say they believe (finally) at their conversion.>>

<<mark: exactly right. [Do you see what he is saying "exactly right" to? He is saying "exactly right" to David Alvord's view that the timing of conversion isn't the issue!] All issues are related. We may posit a time-lag simply because of our exegesis of I Peter. But others may posit a time-lag because they have a false gospel. [Again look carefully at what McCulley is saying. He puts forth two "time-lag" positions. The first is a position based on an exegesis of 1 Peter. This is the "time-lag" position that he believes could be held by believers. He contrasts this with the position of people who have a false gospel, like C.C. Morris. He shows that there is a "time-lag" position that believers can hold to and there is a "time-lag" position that unbelievers can hold to. So, belief in a time-lag between regeneration and conversion is not necessarily damnable. I am sending this to Bill Parker; what do you think he'll do with it?]>>


Here is an exact, unedited quote from Mark McCulley, posted to the meta-gospel discussion list on November 7, 2001:

"btw, I myself don't think a person is regenerate before they become a Christian. I do think that every Christian believes the gospel. I do allow that a true Christian might think that a person is regenerate before they become a Christian. If a true Chrsitian thought that, they would be wrong. But true Christians can be wrong."

What will you do about this, Bill?

Marc


The McCulley heresies just keep on coming out. Just yesterday, I found out that McCulley believes that Jesus Christ CEASED TO EXIST when He died!! He said,

"To the extent that Wildy wants to say that Jesus Christ did not cease to exist, then he is put in the position of saying that Jesus Christ the God-man did not really die. And that goes in opposition to the biblical language which says that Christ's death is the gospel."

So McCulley is saying here that in order for Christ to have really died, and IN ORDER TO HAVE THE TRUE GOSPEL, he had to have ceased to exist!! Thus, there was no Trinity for a period of time!! This comes directly from his annihilationist views: If the just penalty for sin is annihilation, then if Christ suffered the just penalty for sin, He had to have been annihilated. So, according to McCulley, Jesus Christ must have lied to the thief on the cross when He said, "Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).

And what will Bill Parker do with this? Nothing, of course. He will say that whether or not Jesus Christ ceased to exist for a period of time is an argument akin to whether or not the streets of gold are literal or figurative. We're only talking about Christology and the ever-existing Trinity, that's all. So what if Mark McCulley believes this; nobody's perfect in their view of what actually happened to Christ when He died. A young Christian can be in error on these things and need to be taught, you know. How could we be so unloving as to judge him lost because of this?

At this point, I don't think there's anything Mark McCulley could say that would cause Bill Parker to break fellowship with him. They are in happy whoredom together, and why would they want to end such fornication when it feels so good? As long as Bill Parker thinks that the nature of the wages of sin is nonessential, as long as he believes that denial of eternal punishment does not impugn God's glory or justice, anything goes.

Marc


Here goes Mark McCulley again, while Bill Parker and his friends gladly fellowship with him and defend him. Last time, McCulley said that Jesus Christ, when He died on the cross, ceased to exist. This time, McCulley is saying that Jesus Christ's HUMANITY ceased to exist, but His DEITY did not cease to exist. This is just as much a heresy as Jesus Christ ceasing to exist. Mark McCulley believes that Christ's soul, in addition to His body, ceased to exist when He died. This means that the humanity of Christ was separated from the deity of Christ; i.e., Christ was not man but only God. This means that Jesus Christ ceased to be the God-man mediator.

Somebody said to a thief on a cross, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise." Who said that? It was Jesus Christ, of course. To whom does the "Me" refer? Jesus Christ, of course. And who is Jesus Christ? The GOD-MAN MEDIATOR. The GOD-MAN MEDIATOR told the thief that he would be with HIM, the GOD-MAN MEDIATOR, in Paradise. Or was it just the GOD part of Jesus Christ who said that? Or maybe Jesus Christ meant to say, "Today you will be with the God part of Me in Paradise"? Just who is Jesus Christ, anyway? And what of the resurrection? Did Jesus get a new soul when God raised Him from the dead? Was His human soul re-created after it was annihilated, like it was created in the womb the first time around?

McCulley stated that he is "not convinced of that 'going to the Father' meant consciouness with the Father those three days." McCulley is saying that Jesus was NOT CONSCIOUS WITH THE FATHER for a time after He died! (And if not conscious with the Father, then not conscious with the thief whom Jesus Christ said he would be with in Paradise that same day.)

When Jesus took sinless humanity into union with His deity, He became the God-man from that point on. Jesus Christ has had, from the moment of conception, two unconfused, unchangeable, indivisible, and inseparable natures. Had there been any point after the incarnation where there was a separation of natures and Jesus Christ ceased to be human or ceased to be God, He would have ceased to have been Jesus Christ. Mark McCulley believes in this cessation. He believes that Jesus Christ ceased to be the God-man mediator in that very event in which the mediatorship of Christ is most fully manifested. If you want to see a doctrine of demons, look no further. (Just a miniscule, insignificant error, eh, Bill Parker and friends?)

Folks, this is just like the heresies that infiltrated early Christendom. This is a heresy about the person of Christ. Now if you think this is nonessential hair-splitting (as Bill Parker thinks about the annihilationism issue and no doubt thinks about this issue) and you still consider McCulley to be a Christian, then you yourself are just as evil as McCulley is. This is a denial of Jesus the Christ.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God" (2 John 9). That's Mark McCulley.

"For the one speaking a greeting shares in his evil works" (2 John 11). That's Bill Parker and all who know of McCulley's Christ-denying doctrine who speak peace to McCulley.

Mark McCulley's christ, as well as the christ of Bill Parker and all others who know what McCulley believes and speak peace to him, profit them nothing.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter

www.outsidethecamp.org


Excerpts from article by Mark McCulley:

<<It is possible even for true Christians to be seduced by false teaching. Therefore we should not congratulate ourselves that our knowing the truth will always keep us from error. If people who were taught the gospel by the apostle Paul can be led astray, so can we!

How do we get led astray from the truth? The same way as Adam and Eve did: by not regarding what God says as very important. We try to be as gods, setting our own standards for who's saved and lost, and for who will die or not die. Why do we do this? Because we are respecters of persons. We are "partial" to ourselves, and "partial" to our "sincere" Arminian or Judaising relatives and friends. We judge by outward appearance and not by the TRUTH.

...

Some of us require as a minimum Arminian faith. Jesus died for everybody, we say that Christians say, and that death is the righteousness, BUT the faith which God gave us is the condition of salvation.

...

For those of us who are convinced that we do believe the true gospel, why do we fellowship with and hear the preaching of those who do not know the gospel? Why do we think we will grow by listening to a false gospel? Why do we think that we can learn something from a false gospel about how to raise our children and love our wives? Is it because we have confidence in ourselves that WE would never be bewitched, that now we are too smart for the devil to trick? do we worry about the influence on our children, but have no concern for the influence of Arminian evangelicalism (salvation by faith, not by righteousness) on ourselves?

...

Why do we cry peace to the Arminians and to others who lie about God and sin? Because we want them to be partial to us! if we want their respect, we will have to respect them.

...

Any time people can preach grace as that which changes you to enable you to produce the righteousness that God requires then they are ashamed of the gospel of imputation in which the CROSS ONLY IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE. Instead of glorying in the cross (gal 6:14), they are ashamed to say that Christ died only for the elect. Instead, they talk in code language (died for those who would believe) so they can stay at peace with Arminians who buy books and pay salaries. But this not only encourages self-righteousness but is self-righteous, because it fails to come against our own flesh and temptations to be some of the sufficiency and to contribute something and to do something. Not reckoning ourselves to be dead yet, we produce fruit, but it's dead fruit, unpleasing to God. Our works stink. I speak of true Christians now. If we work to make ourselves holy or sanctified or to get any other blessing, we do not look to Christ's work as the source of all our blessings. I Cor 3: such works will not be accepted even from people who are justified.>>

This is from 2001!

Marc


Now for Mark McCulley.

I said: "And you (Mark McCulley) say that Mr. X could be believing the true gospel while at the same time confessing that those who believe in salvation conditioned on the sinner are saved. You are saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that Mr. X really believes that salvation conditioned on the sinner is a false gospel, yet he confesses that salvation conditioned on the sinner is the true gospel."

Mark replied:

"yes, could be. Notice, along with confession of the true gospel at the same time. He is contradicting himself, but I think people maybe do that. He is not only confessing salvation contioned on sinner, but at the same time confessing salvation contioned on Christ alone. You look at the half empty cup. I cannot IMMEDIATELY DISMISS his confession of salvation condtioned on Christ alone."

I asked: "what would you say about a person who says that Christians continually need to repent of their refusal to submit to Christ's righteousness?"

Mark answered:

"I am such a person who says that. In my flesh there is nothing which wants to submit to Christ and His righteosuness. I am regenerate and so there is life in me, and struggle against this flesh. And so continual repenting."

I said: "What is a false gospel? It is a gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. Pedersen and McCulley are saying that a person in whose heart God has been glorified can confess the belief that his salvation was/is conditioned on himself."

Mark replied:

" i am glad to be in the crowd with Pedersen. I agree with you about what the false gospel is. I agree that Christians can confess it."

I said: "Thus, by saying that not all who confess belief in the Arminian gospel are Arminians, they subtlely redefine Arminianism so they can "withhold judgment" of those who confess belief in an Arminian gospel."

Mark replied:

"without repentence, we cannot say that they are saved. But without exposing their sin against the gospel (a possible category in my mind) then we cannot say that they are in rebellion against the truth they do confess."

Mark also said this:

"Why is it 'blasphemy' to say that I constantly follow the voice of strangers if I also constantly follow Christ?"

and

"But there may be cases where both the true gospel and the false gospel is believed/confessed at the same time" [notice - he's not talking just about *confession* here - he's also talking about belief]

and

"some people say something Arminian but also say something which is gospel and which contradicts Arminianism. Which is the reason to talk to them, to expect their repentance, not to conclude from their imperfect confession that they are lost."

and

"That being said, I know other people who I still THINK believe in particular atonement who won't say that Arminians are lost, who MAYBE ARE SAVED."


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters