DEAR JAMES WHITE…
On your web site, you have a post entitled “Hyper Calvinism Revisited” (21 February) in which you misrepresent me (and, by extension, misrepresent those with whom I fellowship). If you are going to refute what I say, then at least refute what I say, rather than your misrepresentations of me. If you are a man of integrity, you will post my defense on your web site or at least tell your readers where you falsely accused me and publicly recant your false accusations. However, since I do not believe you are a man of integrity, I’m not holding my breath.
I will now respond to your post. Your words will be in blue, and mine will be in black.
<<Hyper Calvinism Revisited … I noted a while back the response of a hyper-Calvinist … One of the best known hyper-Calvinists is Marc D. Carpenter of outsidethecamp.org.>>
Right at the outset, you level the charge of Hyper-Calvinism against me. First of all, I’m not even a Calvinist! So how can I be a Hyper-Calvinist? I’ve been called a Hyper-Calvinist by many tolerant Calvinists, but when I ask them to give evidence for this, they mysteriously fall silent. An example of this is Thomas Roche, who wrote, “What do you all think about the distinctive teachings of ‘hypercalvinism’, such as that preached by Marc Carpenter of ‘Outside the Camp’ fame?” When asked what he meant by ‘hypercalvinism,’ Roche wrote: “Traditionally, ‘hypercalvinism’ is defined as 5pt supralapsarian calvinism plus a denial of the ‘free offer of the Gospel’, and corresponding denials of the duty all men have to repent and believe. IOW, hyperists believe that the non-elect, who cannot possibly believe, have therefore no duty to do so and the elect have no corresponding duty to evangelize the world at large. Related to this, hyperists essentially deny the possibility of any assurance of salvation, since only the elect can truly salvifically believe and we do not know who these are, etc Hyperists essentially overdo God’s sovereignty at the expense of man’s responsibility and fall back into a cold, rational, fatalistic faith more akin to stoicism or Islam than serious christianity. Marc Carpenter is a hyperist … who runs the notorious www.outsidethecamp.org website, a standard hard-core hyperist site today.”
Here, Roche says that I am a standard hard-core hyperist, as defined above. I agree that Roche‘s definition is the traditional definition of Hyper-Calvinism, with one addition: Hyper-Calvinists believe that there can be a time-lapse of days, months, or even years between regeneration and conversion; the gospel is not relevant in regeneration. The cornerstone of the Hyper-Calvinist belief is the denial that all men are responsible to repent and believe the gospel, with its logical conclusion that evangelizing the lost is to be avoided. But he (and you, Mr. White) forgot one little thing: I have never believed these things and have never said or written anything that would even hint at believing these things. I believe that all men everywhere are commanded to repent and believe the gospel and will be held responsible/accountable for their unbelief. I believe in preaching the gospel to the lost (you would know this if you read any of my evangelistic writings or listened to my sermons). I believe that if one does not believe the gospel, he is unregenerate. I do not deny the possibility of assurance of salvation; in fact, if you really read or listened to what I had to say on assurance, you would see that I actually believe the opposite of what you claim I believe. The only similarities are supralapsarianism and the belief that God does not desire the salvation of the reprobate, but even these things are distorted by the Hyper-Calvinists. I have written against the time-lapse heresy of Primitive Baptist Hyper-Calvinism at www.outsidethecamp.org/review52.htm . So, Mr. White, what do you have to say about your false accusation that I am a Hyper-Calvinist?
<<it is not enough for you to believe in the Five Points: unless you 1) confess you were not a Christian until you understood and believed all Five Points, and 2) are willing to condemn to the fires of hell itself every person who does not understand and believe all five points in totality, you are not a Christian either (evidently that makes seven points you must believe). … You can believe all Five Points, but, if you don’t believe their “Extra Two,” you are as lost as a Roman Catholic who affirms every element of Rome’s false teaching.>>
Absolutely untrue. First of all, I have never said that all Christians are able to articulate and systematize the so-called “Five Points.” Give evidence for your accusation or tell everyone that you have falsely accused me. What I have said is that all Christians believe the gospel, which is God’s promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. What I have said is that when God saves someone, He causes that person to believe that it is the work of Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation and causes that person to repent of his false religion. If he believed in universal atonement, then when God saves him, he will repent of his false religion. What I have said is that any Calvinist who says he remained a universal atonement advocate after God saved him has not truly repented — he has not counted his former religion as dung.
Secondly, I have never said that Christians must be willing to condemn these people to the fires of hell itself and if they don’t they’re not Christians. I myself don’t condemn them to the fires of hell! So if what you said were true, I’d have to say that I’m not a Christian! I have never condemned anyone to the fires of hell itself. Give evidence for your accusation or tell everyone that you have falsely accused me. Among the unregenerate, we do not know who is and who is not elect. It is not for us to know or to judge whether an unregenerate person is going to go to heaven or to hell. And among those who used to be heretics who have died, I don’t know if God saved them later on in their lives before they died. So I don’t know if they are in heaven or hell. I do not know if anyone in the “Heterodoxy Hall of Shame” is in hell right now. God could have saved them after they made the quotes I mentioned. What I do know is that they were unregenerate. And what I do know is that those people who are alive right now who believe in universal atonement are unregenerate. Christians do not judge whether or not unregenerate people are going to hell. They do not condemn anyone to hell. What they do do is judge a person who confesses a false gospel to be currently unregenerate. That’s a far cry from condemning them to hell. So will you tell everyone you have falsely accused me?
<<I have denounced Carpenter repeatedly in the past, and watched with sadness as he has spiraled over the years into an ever tighter circle of error.>>
Give evidence that I have changed my stance over the years. You won’t find it. When we find out things about people (such as Calvin), then we expose them. That does not mean we have changed our stance. Whenever we find out that a person confessed a false gospel (even a person whom we at one time thought was saved), we unreservedly disendorse them and say they were unregenerate when they confessed a false gospel.
<<It would be an honor to join Calvin, Berkhof, Boettner, Hodge, Spurgeon and others for refusing Carpenter’s “Perfection of Knowledge Required for Salvation” heresy.>>
Interestingly, he doesn’t name everyone in the Heterodoxy Hall of Shame. What about Billy Graham, Mr. White? What about Robert Schuller? Would it be an honor to join them?
And here it is again: the accusation that I believe in the “Perfection of Knowledge Required for Salvation” heresy. This is absolutely, totally FALSE. This is slander in the first degree. And you know it. You are knowingly slandering me, Mr. White. You even quoted something from my e-mail that SHOWS this is vicious slander. Now read this and read this carefully, you liar: KNOWLEDGE, whether PERFECT or IMPERFECT, is NOT a requirement for salvation. Do you understand that? Have I made myself clear? Do you have any questions? KNOWLEDGE (including “perfect knowledge”) is NOT a CONDITION or PREREQUISITE to salvation. NOTHING that the sinner does or is enabled to do, NOTHING that the sinner believes or is enabled to believe, NOTHING – NOTHING in the sinner is a requirement, prerequisite, condition for salvation. Salvation is conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ ALONE. If I believed that any kind of knowledge of any kind of doctrine were a condition of salvation, then I would be just as unregenerate as the Arminians, because I would be ADDING to CHRIST’S WORK ALONE as the condition of salvation. See “Doctrinal Regeneration” at www.outsidethecamp.org/doctregen.htm and “Letter to Credenda/Agenda” at www.outsidethecamp.org/credenda.htm .
And why is it, Mr. White, that because I believe that everyone who believes in universal atonement is unregenerate (because they do not believe the gospel), I am somehow requiring “perfection of knowledge”? Where did the “perfection” come in? If I said that everyone who believes that Jesus is not God is unregenerate, would you accuse me of requiring “perfection of knowledge” about the person of Christ? Do you believe that you have “perfection of knowledge”? If not, then what is this so-called “perfection of knowledge” that you’re talking about? It’s just a straw man. See “Some Kind of Perfectionism?” at www.outsidethecamp.org/letters72(2).htm .
Now let’s think about Christians for a minute. Do all Christians have some kind of knowledge? Is there any such thing as a Christian without knowledge? Of course not. There is no such monstrosity. Does that mean that salvation is conditioned on knowledge? Absolutely not. The truth is that when God saves someone, He causes that person to believe the gospel. Belief of the gospel is an immediate and necessary fruit or result of salvation (not a requirement or condition of salvation). And belief of the gospel includes knowledge of certain things. It includes a knowledge of the person and work of Jesus Christ. If you get the person of Jesus Christ wrong, you don’t believe the gospel. If you get the work of Jesus Christ wrong, you don’t believe the gospel. And we’re not talking about “advanced doctrine” that only seminarians can understand. We’re talking about basic gospel doctrine — the heart, the essentials, of the gospel that even a child can understand. All Christians believe that Jesus is the God-Man Mediator. All Christians believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. All Christians believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that demands and ensures the salvation of everyone He represented on the cross. This is BASIC.
<<It says I recognize the difference between 1) ignorance, 2) error based upon tradition and ignorance, 3) inconsistency, and 4) knowing rejection of the truth.>>
God through the Apostle Paul says that those who are IGNORANT of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel are GOING ABOUT TO ESTABLISH A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THEIR OWN and are NOT SUBMITTED TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD (Romans 10:1-3). If one is IGNORANT of the only righteousness that God accepts, then that person is automatically GOING ABOUT TO ESTABLISH A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF HIS OWN. And this kind of ignorance is DEADLY. This is talking about people who JUST DON’T KNOW about the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel AS WELL AS people who KNOWINGLY REJECT the truth. Someone who has never heard of Jesus Christ, who has never been confronted with the truth of Jesus Christ and has never been given an opportunity to reject the truth, is still UNREGENERATE! Or do you believe that your brothers Schuller and Graham are right when they say that those who have never heard the gospel are saved? Ignorance is no excuse! See “Deadly Ignorance” at www.outsidethecamp.org/deadignor.htm .
<<And unlike Carpenter, I happen to believe that God’s grace works in conforming us to the image of Christ over time. That is, I happen to believe what the Bible says: we are to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18). That means God leaves room for growth. He does not birth us as full grown, mature believers with all knowledge of all truth.>>
Straw man. False accusation. I have never said that all Christians have all knowledge of all truth. Go ahead – try to find where I said that. Back up your accusations. If you can’t you are a slanderer. Christians can be in error on many things. But ALL CHRISTIANS believe THE GOSPEL. What you believe is that a Christian can “grow” from believing a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner to believing the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Christ alone. And this is blasphemy.
<<but I had never heard of the phrase “limited atonement” when I placed my faith and trust in Jesus Christ for salvation, and would not, in fact, hear of it, or come to understand it, for another nearly two decades–yet, I was a Christian prior to hearing that phrase>>
A subtle accusation. A false accusation. I couldn’t care less if someone has never heard of the phrase “limited atonement.” That doesn’t matter to me one bit! I couldn’t care less if someone has never heard of “the five points of Calvinism.” That doesn’t matter to me one bit! I couldn’t care less if someone has never heard of the terms “Arminian” or “Arminianism.” That doesn’t matter to me one bit! What matters is this — DO YOU BELIEVE THE GOSPEL? That’s what matters! SO WHAT if someone has never heard of the words “limited atonement” or “five points” or “Calvinism” or “Arminianism”! SO WHAT! I do not judge a person lost because of this! Yet you would accuse me of this.
<<The result is a small, tiny, cut-off little group that is defined, en toto, by its view of 7 Point Perfectionism, nothing else.>>
First of all, our “small, tiny, cut-off little group” is all over the world. Yes, we’re quite small compared to the fashionable Calvinists. But is that your measure of success? So, I guess to you, since Billy Graham has preached to millions upon millions and that he isn’t cut off from anyone, that makes his ministry legitimate? And it makes the mega-church ministries legitimate?
And secondly, another slanderous accusation — “7 Point Perfectionism.” We don’t believe in perfectionism at all. And to say we do makes you a liar.
<<It is actually worse than that. I believe some folks who haven’t a clue what universal atonement means are saved!>>
Another subtle false accusation. I have never said that I would judge a person unregenerate just because he has never heard of the phrase “universal atonement” or doesn’t know what “universal atonement” means. You are very clever in your false accusations. If someone came up to me and told me he doesn’t know what “universal atonement” means, would I judge him lost based on this? NO!!!!! Did you get that, Mr. White? You are a slanderer in the first degree. Will you recant? Will we see something on your site saying you have totally misrepresented us?
<<I was a Christian before I ever knew of the debate. The vast majority of those Carpenter would identify as “Arminians” do not have the first clue as to what the debate is about.>>
Oh, you clever liar, you. I do not require people to know of the debate or to have any clue as to what the debate is about in order to judge a person to be my brother in Christ! Yet you would accuse me of this! You would accuse me of judging such people to be unregenerate. But what of those people (including those who have never heard of the debate and those who have heard of the debate) who believe that Jesus Christ’s blood atoned for everyone without exception? These people do not believe the gospel! These people deny the heart of the gospel — THE ATONEMENT! It is just as much a denial of the gospel as one who does not believe that Jesus is God! What if someone has never heard of the Jehovah’s Witness debate but who believes that Jesus is not God? Would you say that he still could be a Christian, but he is just “ignorant” or “inconsistent” or “immature” about some things? Does a Christian grow from denying the deity of Christ to embracing the deity of Christ?
<<And, of course, you cannot begin to substantiate the idea that Paul was going about adding “limited atonement” to the list of things that define the gospel proclamation, without which, there is no true faith.>>
Paul preached THE ATONEMENT as the central gospel doctrine. I don’t like the term “limited atonement.” Paul preached EFFICACIOUS ATONEMENT. Paul preached THE ATONEMENT THAT ACTUALLY ATONES. That is the very heart of the gospel. Without THE Atonement, there is no gospel. See “Gospel Atonement” at www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm .
<<Do I call believers to hold to a consistent theology on the doctrine of the atonement? You bet I do. Do I teach it in the fellowship where I serve as an elder? Sure do. Do I believe it important to the honoring of God to believe it? Yes indeed. Do I believe someone who is ignorant of it is lost? Of course not.>>
So you would not judge someone who is ignorant of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross as lost. That says it all.
<<But I also recognize that we normally jump to snap conclusions and God works on a much longer timetable than we do.>>
So do you recognize that Christians might not normally jump to snap conclusions about the deity of Christ? Do you recognize that it takes time for Christians to “come into” the doctrine of the deity of Christ?
<<In either case, it is not my job to attempt to look into their hearts.>>
<<But thankfully, inconsistency based upon ignorance is not a hindrance to God’s work of salvation: He will work in the hearts of His people in His own time, in His own way.>>
Another very subtle false accusation. No one’s inconsistency based on ignorance is a hindrance to God’s work of salvation. NOTHING is a hindrance to God’s work of salvation. But what you’re saying is that when God saves someone, He causes that person to continue believing in salvation conditioned on the sinner.
Yeah, that little inconsistency based upon ignorance of the deity of Christ — what do you think of that. Is that a hindrance to God’s work of salvation?
<<It is not Carpenter’s to become the judge, jury, and executioner of those who trust in Christ.>>
It is most certainly my job (and every Christian’s job) to judge based on the evidence. It is most certainly NOT my job (or any Christian’s job) to be the executioner, or even to judge who is going to be punished forever in hell. You falsely accuse me again. You’re really good at that. You must have a lot of practice.
<<Here Carpenter blows a logical gasket, and he doesn’t even cover over his error very well. Note that Carpenter equates “the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ” with “a perfect and consistent knowledge of particular redemption with all of its attendant issues, including substitution, penal satisfaction, election, predestination, union with Christ, and therefore, particularity.” Let’s take me again: I was very, very young when God’s grace converted me (I guess that’s not possible in Carpenter’s very, very small world of hyper Calvinism). I hadn’t a clue there was an argument about this issue. I only knew Christ took my punishment and I needed to repent of my sin and believe in Christ and Christ alone. Evidently, Carpenter does not believe that act of faith by a young child saved. Carpenter’s hyperism moves the heart of the gospel away from Christ and into the intellect of the hyper-Calvinist who has read enough books and listened to enough debates to articulate the “proper” words in the proper order to the satisfaction of Marc Carpenter. He can have his empty, cold hyperism. I want nothing of it.>>
This is so full of false accusations that it’s hard to know where to start. I believe that young children can be saved. But God makes no exception for young children — they are saved and receive the same essential gospel knowledge that older people receive. Young children who are saved believe THE SAME GOSPEL that older people believe. Younger children who are saved believe in GOD’S ONLY GOSPEL of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. They might not even be able to begin to articulate their belief. I do not believe that every Christian is able to articulate his belief!! Mr. White, you slander me when you say that I believe that a Christian must be able to articulate the proper words in the proper order to my satisfaction! What a LIE! And will you correct this? Will you say you were wrong in your accusation? Do you have integrity, Mr. White?
I don’t care if a person doesn’t have a clue as to the argument about the issue! I don’t care if he doesn’t know how to articulate it! You make me out to be some sort of cultic dictator, which I am not. A young child or a person with mental retardation may not know how to articulate his belief. But if God has regenerated him, HE BELIEVES THE GOSPEL!!! And this means that he will NEVER believe a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. He will NEVER believe the antithesis to the gospel, which is universal atonement! He will NEVER believe that Jesus died for everyone without exception! Why won’t he believe this? Is it because he needs to have perfect knowledge of all doctrines? No!! It is because HE BELIEVES THE GOSPEL! No one can believe the gospel and universal atonement at the same time! (Once again, I don’t care if a person has ever heard of the phrase “universal atonement.” I’m saying that a person who believes the gospel will NEVER believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception.)
<<Note again the refusal to recognize that not everyone who is not in his tiny little group has a clue what he’s so upset about. “Universal atonement” is not a false gospel—it is not a “gospel” at all. It is a theory regarding the extent of the atonement. Many would say they believe in it simply because they are ignorant of the ramifications of the concept of substitutionary atonement, but the same people would clearly affirm the perfection of the atonement, never having been challenged to recognize the inconsistency of their position. Carpenter would slam the door of heaven in their faces for their inconsistencies. My, I wonder if Carpenter has any? And if he does, is heaven denied him as well? And was Mr. Carpenter regenerated only on the day he managed to rid himself of his final inconsistency? What an odd thing for a Calvinist to believe: that an unregenerate person would plow their way through all that reading, all that material, all that theology, just to finally come to an understanding of particular redemption and thereby receive salvation!>>
Another paragraph packed full of false accusations. I have never said that Christians don’t have any inconsistencies. I have never said that a person receives salvation by understanding particular redemption. I am not a Calvinist. What I have said is that every true Christian believes THE GOSPEL (do I sound like a broken record?), which includes the doctrines of the PERSON and the WORK of Jesus Christ. Mr. White, would you “slam the door of heaven” to someone who inconsistently denies the deity of Christ? Is a denial of the deity of Christ a false gospel, or is it a “theory regarding the person of Christ”? If I said that all who deny the deity of Christ are lost, would you say, “Well, Marc, are you perfect and consistent in all your doctrines? If not, then how can you say that all who deny the deity of Christ are lost?”
<<It is so plain! So clear! So compelling! And so absurd!>>
I had to laugh about this one. You couldn’t refute the logic, so you just say it’s absurd. Good one! Try refuting the logic next time!
<<Carpenter damns them to hell.>>
A lie, as I have shown.
<<That is why I get to introduce so many to the doctrines of grace, and Marc Carpenter sits in his little enclave thinking God is saving two dozen folks in the entire world. It is simply sad.>>
Oh, how high and mighty you are, Lord White! Look down upon the poor, sad little enclave that thinks there are two dozen saved folks in the entire world! Well, Mr. White, I think you’d be quite surprised at the extent of our ministry. Not as big as yours, no doubt, because we don’t compromise. But our ministry has spread throughout the world, and so many people have been introduced to THE GOSPEL through our ministry. Unlike you, we don’t tell people to believe in efficacious atonement while saying that if they don’t, they’re still brothers in Christ. You spread your arrogant Calvinism, telling the Arminians that they’re just not as knowledgeable as you are, and efficacious atonement is not an essential gospel doctrine, but you’d sure be a smarter Christian if you believed it! And hey, maybe you’d even be able to go to an ivory-tower Calvinist seminary and learn how to debate like James White! Oh, if every Christian could be as consistent in their soteriology as James White! Those poor Arminians — they’re just ignorant of a little bit of doctrine, and their Christian lives would be so much better, and they’d be so much smarter if they just became Calvinists!
Contrary to your aspersions, we believe that there are true Christians spread throughout the world, most of whom we have not even met. And when we meet a true Christian, we rejoice in the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of our Lord Jesus Christ alone.
<<I have never once seen someone respond to being damned to hell by a hyper by looking more fully at these divine truths.>>
Again, I’ve never damned anyone to hell. And again, I think you’d be surprised at who responds to us. OF COURSE more people are going to respond positively to people who say “peace, peace” when there is no peace. If I approached Muslims as people who are saved, they would like me better, wouldn’t they? The JW’s sure would embrace me if I told them that everything was okay with their souls. But the truth is a repulsive thing to self-righteous religionists! Look at what Jesus Christ said to the Arminians of his day, the Pharisees! Would you say to Jesus Christ, “Oh, by the way, Jesus, if you would just approach them as believers, you’d get a better response from them”? Suppose a doctor knows that a patient has a deadly disease and knows the cure. Would it be loving for the doctor to tell the patient that everything is alright? No — that would be hatred! The loving thing to do would be to tell the patient he has a deadly disease and then give him the cure! By speaking peace to the universal atonement advocates, you are HATING them. You are promoting their eternal destruction. When I and my brothers and sisters in Christ tell universal atonement advocates that they are lost and their deeds are evil and proclaim the gospel to them, we are LOVING them. You have no idea what love is. You approach a universal atonement advocate as a brother in Christ and then try to convince him of the doctrines of grace. And when he “comes into” the doctrines of grace, all the while thinking that he was a regenerate person when he believed in universal atonement, you embrace him as a new Calvinist, making him just another lost Calvinist like yourself.
<<And thus, Marc Carpenter sets himself up not only as the Pope of the small, grim little band of hyper-Calvinists, but as the Holy Spirit as well, demanding perfection of understanding, no growth in grace or knowledge, and claiming the ability to look into the hearts of men and determine who is a God-hater, all based upon his narrow, inconsistent, idiosyncratic theology.>>
The brothers and sisters in Christ to whom I am e-mailing this are sure to get a kick out of the “small, grim little band” comment. I can imagine a group of scowling monk-like figures coming out of the mist … : – )
But seriously, you just keep on slandering and slandering and slandering. The lies are piling up more and more. I do not set myself up as the head, let alone the Pope, of those who agree with us! I’m just another one of them. I’m not any more holy, any more special, any closer to God than anyone else. I do not set up myself as the Holy Spirit, for that would be blasphemy. I do not demand perfection of understanding. I believe there is growth in grace and knowledge. So what are you going to do about all these lies?
As far as “claiming the ability to look into the hearts of men and determine who is a God-hater,” I most certainly cannot look into their hearts, but I (and all Christians, not just I) can know what is in their hearts by what they confess. And if they confess a false gospel, they are God-haters.
<<I suppose there is one thing that is good about exposing these people: their numbers do not grow. There is nothing attractive in hyper-Calvinism.>>
Okay, you just keep thinking that, Mr. White. Keep thinking that while we slowly grow. There are more and more people with whom I am fellowshipping! Surprised?
But it’s interesting the emphasis you put on growth. Do you judge how solid ministries are by their growth? Well, now, those mega-churches are quite attractive, aren’t they? They’re growing, growing, growing! Thousands at a time! They are so attractive — to the WORLD! And speaking “peace, peace” to unbelievers is so attractive! It tickles the ears! It gives them what they want to hear! So if that’s the way you want to go, you go ahead. Be attractive. Grow! Speak peace to unbelievers! That’s a great way to be attractive and to grow!
<<And thus it remains a side-show, a clear example of the fact that you can obtain intellectual knowledge that remains disconnected from your heart.>>
Ah, that old false distinction between intellect and heart that the tolerant Calvinists love to use! It sounds so, so … romantic! Yet if you knew your Bible, you’d see that it is the HEART that thinks, devises, imagines, believes. But that wouldn’t fit in with the heretical tolerant Calvinist philosophy. By making the “head-heart” distinction, they can say that the Arminians “don’t have it right in their head, but they have it right in their heart.” It’s just hogwash.
<<But I truly enjoy making a fool out of the few who have attempted to paint me as a hyper-Calvinist by blowing away every mark of the hyper-Calvinist through my missions work, evangelism, and preaching.>>
And if you saw our missions work, evangelism, and preaching, you, too, would see that we are not Hyper-Calvinists. But even if you knew it, I don’t expect you to discontinue using it, because it’s a very convenient label to marginalize us, and because you love to lie.
Let us now see what you will do when confronted with all of these instances in which you have lied about us.
To God alone be the glory,
Marc D. Carpenter
P.S. Below, I am pasting a post I recently made to the discussion portion of a Calvinist blog site. It addresses many of the things that the tolerant Calvinists like you love to say. It shows that you believe that the difference between the true gospel and Arminianism is one of degree, not of kind.
Hi, Tim -
I’m new to this site, but in my brief perusal of it, I found three instances in which you used the argument that “perfect doctrinal orthodoxy” or “understanding many of these things” is not a “prerequisite for salvation.”
Here are the quotes I saw:
==Now I do wish to clarify that while “Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else,” this does not mean that the other systems of theology have no truth in them whatsoever. Further, it does not mean that God can or will not save others despite their systems of theology. Thankfully God does not require perfect doctrinal orthodoxy as a prerequisite to salvation. I have no doubt that ardent Arminians can be saved despite the errors in their theology. Similarly, I believe that there is some truth in the Roman Catholic Church because the Bible is present and honored. The fact, though, is this: these systems of theology do not encapsulate the truth as revealed in Scripture as thoroughly as Calvinism.==
==Third, the opposite of Biblical Theology (in the way I used it) is not necessarily Unbiblical Theology. It is more likely to be less-Biblical theology. Arminianism represents a theology that is grounded in Scripture, but is less-Biblical than Calvinism because it does not have as full an understanding of God’s sovereignty and man’s depravity. As I indicated yesterday, “thankfully God does not require perfect doctrinal orthodoxy as a prerequisite to salvation.”==
==Fortunately understanding many of these things are not prerequisites for salvation.==
I find it very interesting that the majority of Calvinists I’ve encountered who know what Arminianism is and who say that at least some Arminians are saved (even “ardent Arminians,” as you put it) use the “knowledge of doctrine isn’t a prerequisite for salvation” argument (or some form of it). This implies that those of us who believe that all Arminians are unregenerate are saying that knowledge of doctrine IS a prerequisite for salvation. In fact, this has been a very common accusation of us. They say things like, “You’re adding requirements to salvation” or “You’re saying that someone must have a perfect knowledge of doctrine in order to be saved” or “You’re making salvation contingent on belief of certain doctrines,” ad nauseam. Some just come out and say we’re advocating a works salvation.
Why is this? Why is it that you and many other tolerant Calvinists believe that judging all Arminians to be unregenerate automatically means that knowledge of doctrines, doctrinal orthodoxy, etc., is a prerequisite for salvation?
Let’s first look at your logic: Some Arminians are saved because God does not require perfect doctrinal orthodoxy as a prerequisite to salvation. According to you, Arminians do not have perfect doctrinal orthodoxy, and since God does not require perfect doctrinal orthodoxy as a prerequisite to salvation, some Arminians are saved. Let’s apply this logic to other heretics. Take the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example. Let’s apply your logic to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have perfect doctrinal orthodoxy. Since God does not require perfect doctrinal orthodoxy as a prerequisite to salvation, some Jehovah’s Witnesses are saved. Does that makes sense? Of course it doesn’t. The logic doesn’t follow at all. It called a non sequitur. You could use this flawed logic for any heretical group. Among other things, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in a key part of the gospel, which is the deity of Christ. So if I say that all Jehovah’s Witnesses are unregenerate, does that mean I believe that perfect doctrinal orthodoxy is a prerequisite to salvation? Does it mean that I believe that a knowledge of the doctrine of the person of Christ is a prerequisite to salvation? Am I adding conditions to salvation when I say that no Jehovah’s Witness is saved? Of course not. But that’s the kind of logic that the tolerant Calvinists use.
And what is this thing about PERFECT doctrinal orthodoxy? This, too, is something I find frequently when I encounter tolerant Calvinists. They accuse us who of saying that we require PERFECTION of doctrine as a condition of salvation when we say that all Arminians are unregenerate. Where did this come from? Let’s look at your logic in this area: Calvinism is the gospel, but not all non-Calvinists are unsaved, because God doesn’t require perfection of doctrine. But wait a minute! Even you have said in many places that you do not believe your doctrine is perfect. Yet you equate Calvinism to perfect doctrine. This, again, does not make sense. For more on this, please see “Some Form of Perfectionism?” at www.outsidethecamp.org/letters72(2).htm .
Here is the truth about what salvation is conditioned on: Salvation is conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone. There are NO conditions or prerequisites that the sinner has to meet in order to be saved. Knowledge of doctrine isn’t a prerequisite. Knowledge of the doctrines of grace isn’t a prerequisite. Doctrinal orthodoxy (perfect or not) isn’t a prerequisite. NOTHING in the sinner is a prerequisite. If we believed that salvation were conditioned on knowledge of doctrinal orthodoxy, then we would be just as unregenerate as the Arminians, because they do not believe that salvation is conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone. For more on this, please see “Doctrinal Regeneration” at www.outsidethecamp.org/doctregen.htm .
Let’s now look at your statement, “Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else.” Do you really believe this? Did Charles Spurgeon, whom you quoted, really believe what he said when he said that Calvinism is a nickname for the gospel? Let us look into this further. The Bible is clear that those who do not believe the gospel are unregenerate (see Mark 16:16 for example). Let’s apply this to those who say that Calvinism is the gospel. If they are consistent with God’s Word, then they would have to say that those who do not believe Calvinism are unregenerate. It is very simple logic: (1) All who do not believe the gospel are unregenerate. (2) The gospel = Calvinism. (3) All who do not believe Calvinism are unregenerate. Now before anyone starts accusing me of saying that all non-Calvinists are unregenerate, I must reiterate that this is NOT my logic; this is the logic of those who say that Calvinism is the gospel, if they were consistent with God’s Word that all who do not believe the gospel are unregenerate. But do you really believe this, Tim? No, you don’t, based on your statement that some “ardent Arminians” are saved. So what must we conclude? We must conclude that you either do not really believe that Calvinism is the gospel, or you do not believe that all who do not believe the gospel are unregenerate (or possibly both).
What would be more in line with what you (and other tolerant Calvinists) believe is this: “Calvinism is the fullest, most mature, most consistent expression of the gospel.” That would make more sense in what you believe. Then you could say that “Arminianism is a less full, less mature, less consistent expression of the gospel.” You’d probably agree with these statements. Some tolerant Calvinists have stated their views in these terms. What do these statements show? They show that tolerant Calvinists believe that Calvinism and Arminianism differ in DEGREE rather than in KIND. They believe that Arminianism is still on the true gospel continuum or spectrum, but it’s just on the less consistent side of the continuum or spectrum than Calvinism is. Thus, they believe that belief in universal atonement is NOT belief in a false gospel, just belief in a “lesser version” of the true gospel.
What you and the tolerant Calvinists do not realize is that Arminianism is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GOSPEL than the true gospel. The difference between the gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone and the gospel of Arminianism is one of KIND, not of DEGREE. Arminianism is a different KIND of gospel. It is just as different from the true gospel as the Jehovah’s Witness gospel is different from the true gospel. In the case of Arminians, they do not believe in the atoning work of Christ. They do not believe that the work of Christ on the cross actually accomplished atonement, remission, redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation for all whom He represented on the cross. See the article “Gospel Atonement” at www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm . They do not believe that it is the work of Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. They do not believe that it is the work of Christ alone that demands and ensures the salvation of everyone for whom He died. They deny the very heart of the gospel, which is the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ. This is no mere matter of degrees of consistency – this is a matter of cutting out the very heart of the gospel. Those who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception (which includes all Arminians without exception) DO NOT believe the true gospel TO ANY DEGREE. They believe a TOTALLY FALSE gospel. They talk of “Jesus” and “atonement” just as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do, but their “Jesus” and their “atonement” is a different KIND of “Jesus” and “atonement.” It is not just a different DEGREE. The false gospel of universal atonement (and thus salvation conditioned on the sinner) is not just a “less consistent version” of the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Christ alone. Those who hold to this false gospel MUST believe that the work/effort of the sinner makes the ultimate difference between salvation and damnation. And thus, all who hold to this false gospel are unregenerate.
Does this mean that we are conditioning salvation on a perfect understanding of doctrine? Do we believe that God requires perfect doctrinal orthodoxy as a prerequisite to salvation? I hope I have already been sufficiently clear that this makes no sense. We believe that salvation is conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ ALONE, with no contribution from the sinner. Salvation is not conditioned on what the sinner believes or does IN ANY WAY TO ANY DEGREE. So how is it, then, that we believe that all who believe the false gospel of universal atonement are unregenerate? It is because we understand that when God saves someone, He causes that person to believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone. He causes that person to believe in the PERSON and the WORK of Jesus Christ. This belief is not a prerequisite or condition of salvation; it is an immediate, necessary, and essential FRUIT of salvation. Belief of the true gospel is not a PREREQUISITE; it is a RESULT of salvation. Thus, every true believer believes the TRUE GOSPEL of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone. Every true believer believes that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. He will never believe the false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. He will never believe in the damnable heresy of universal atonement, because it is a false gospel that cuts out the very heart of the true gospel. Please see “Letter to Credenda/Agenda” at www.outsidethecamp.org/credenda.htm .
This leads to your statement, ” Further, it does not mean that God can or will not save others despite their systems of theology.” Am I saying that all Arminians CANNOT EVER be saved and will surely go to hell? Am I saying that God CANNOT or WILL NOT save Arminians? By no means! God saves the ungodly! God saves the self-righteous! God saves those who believe a false gospel! We get accused of damning or condemning Arminians to hell, although we have NEVER said such a thing. We do not know who among the unregenerate are God’s elect. That is not for us to know. Certainly there are the elect among the God-hating Arminians. But what you and the tolerant Calvinists do not realize is that when God saves an Arminian, he CHANGES that person’s belief! That person goes from believing a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner to believing the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the work of Jesus Christ alone! That person goes from believing that it is one’s own effort that makes the ultimate difference between salvation and damnation to believing that it is the work of Christ that makes the ONLY difference between salvation and damnation! When God saves an Arminian, that person is NO LONGER an Arminian! That person NO LONGER believes the damnable false gospel of universal atonement! This is the same for any person in any false religion. When God saves a Jehovah’s Witness, does that person remain a Jehovah’s Witness? When God saves a Mormon, does that person remain a Mormon? When God saves a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, does that person remain a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist? OF COURSE NOT! That person becomes a CHRISTIAN – a believer in the TRUE GOSPEL! He REPENTS of his false gospel! He counts all of his former religion as DUNG! He believes he was LOST when he was a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist OR ARMINIAN!
I can hear someone say now, “But that doesn’t fit with my experience. I remained an Arminian for a period of time after God saved me. I only came into the doctrines of grace later in my life. Does that mean I wasn’t saved until I had a full understanding of the doctrines of grace?” My answer is this: No, you weren’t saved when you “came into” the doctrines of grace, because you are still not saved. You do not consider universal atonement to be a false gospel. You have not repented of your former religion. You do not believe that you were dead in your sins when you were a universal atonement advocate. You still speak peace to your former self. And, inevitably, you speak peace to those who are in the religion you used to be into. You call them brothers in Christ. This is only logical. For if you considered yourself lost when YOU were an Arminian, then you’d have to consider ALL Arminians to be lost. If you did not consider yourself lost when you were an Arminian, then you couldn’t consider all Arminians to be lost, since you were one of those saved Arminians before you “came into” the doctrines of grace. Please see the sermon “Gospel Repentance and Judgment” at www.outsidethecamp.org/gosprepjudg.htm .
I hope you’ve noticed one thing I left out when talking about the true gospel vs. Arminianism. But if you or any other readers haven’t, I will point it out. Please note that I am NOT talking about CALVINISM vs. Arminianism. Notice the paragraph that began, “What would be more in line with what you (and other tolerant Calvinists) believe is this: ‘Calvinism is the fullest, most mature, most consistent expression of the gospel.’” That is the last paragraph that mentioned Calvinism until this current paragraph. Back in that paragraph, I was talking about what you and tolerant Calvinists believe. But when I went into the true gospel vs. Arminianism, Calvinism was nowhere to be found. We have had people accuse us of believing that only Calvinists are saved. Well, that would be an impossible thing for us to believe, since WE ARE NOT CALVINISTS! So if we believed that only Calvinists are saved, we’d be saying that we’re not saved. That wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense, would it? We’re not Calvinists — we’re Christians. We don’t believe Calvinism — we believe the gospel. We couldn’t care less if someone has ever heard of Calvinism or Arminianism. We do not judge based on that. We judge based on this: DO YOU BELIEVE THE GOSPEL? Those who believe the gospel are saved; those who do not believe the gospel are lost. The “doctrines of grace” as they have come to be called are NOT Calvinism. Most who call themselves “Calvinists” or “Reformed” equate the two, but, in reality, they are not the same. The doctrines of grace are some (not all) of the essential gospel doctrines. Yet Calvin didn’t even believe in what has come to bear his name! He believed in universal atonement. See www.outsidethecamp.org/norefcal.htm . So we are definitely not Calvinists. We believe the true gospel.
Most who call themselves “Calvinists” believe their own version of salvation conditioned on the sinner. I’ve heard a Calvinist say that our everlasting habitations are based on our present stewardship. I’ve heard and read many Calvinists who say that salvation is conditioned on faith. I’ve read Calvinists who say that the covenant of grace has a condition or conditions that the sinner must meet. I’ve heard and read many Calvinists who say that our assurance is based on our works. Is it any wonder why these Calvinists speak peace to Arminians? It’s because they, too, believe a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner! As I have thought about why many Calvinists would say that we add conditions or prerequisites to salvation, I am understanding that, many times, it’s because they believe that faith is a condition! And they believe that we ADD MORE CONDITIONS to FAITH! I’m seeing the conditionalism of Calvinism more and more, not just in present conversations with Calvinists but being exposed to more writings of past Calvinists.
I want to reiterate what tolerant Calvinists believe. For the purpose of this consideration, let us call the tolerant Calvinist (a Calvinist who considers at least some Arminians to be his brothers and sisters in Christ) “TC.” Consider: (1) TC believes that some who believe universal atonement are saved. (2) TC believes that all saved people believe the gospel. Thus, (3) TC believes that some who believe universal atonement believe the gospel. What does this show about TC’s belief about the gospel? Since TC believes a person can believe the gospel and believe universal atonement at the same time, then he MUST believe that the gospel does NOT include the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ. TC has just DENIED the very heart of the gospel.
Also, consider the following logic: (1) All who believe a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner are unregenerate. (2) Universal atonement is a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. Thus, (3) all who believe universal atonement are unregenerate. TC and every person who would consider at least some universal atonement advocates to be regenerate MUST disagree with #3. And the only way people can disagree with #3 is if they disagree with at least one of the first two statements. Consider those who disagree with #1. These are people who believe that at least some who believe a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner are regenerate. Can a true Christian disagree with #1? Of course not. Consider those who disagree with #2. These are people who believe that universal atonement is not a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. Can a true Christian disagree with #2? Of course not. Thus, all who disagree with #3 (all who consider at least some universal atonement advocates to be saved) are unregenerate.
The following are some more articles (in addition to the ones I’ve mentioned thus far) to consider:
“Answering the God-haters” www.outsidethecamp.org/letters44.htm
“Are All Arminians Unsaved?” www.outsidethecamp.org/review81(1).htm
“Arminianism versus Christianity” www.outsidethecamp.org/armvschrist.htm
“The Damnable Heresy of Arminianism” www.outsidethecamp.org/heresyarmin.htm
“Deadly Ignorance” www.outsidethecamp.org/deadignor.htm
“Essential Gospel Doctrine” www.outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm
“Heterodoxy Hall of Shame – John Reisinger” www.outsidethecamp.org/heterodoxy42.htm
“Righteous Judgment” www.outsidethecamp.org/rightjudg.htm
“‘Shares in his evil works’: A study on 2 John 11″ www.outsidethecamp.org/2John11.htm
“Speaking Peace to God-haters” www.outsidethecamp.org/letters33.htm
“The Thief on the Cross” www.outsidethecamp.org/letters72(1).htm
“Three Reasons Why Arminians Are Not Saved” www.outsidethecamp.org/three.htm
The gospel is the good news of God’s promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. THE atonement whereby Jesus Christ, the God-man mediator, as a representative and substitute for His people, in His bloody death on the cross, accomplished full pardon, full redemption, full propitiation, and full reconciliation for everyone whom He represented, is the very essence, the very heart, the very core, the very foundation, the very cornerstone, the very crux of the gospel. One cannot deny the atonement by believing in universal atonement and still believe the true gospel. All who deny the atonement, including all who believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception, are not true Christians. One cannot deny that the atonement is an essential gospel doctrine by believing that some universal atonement advocates are saved and still believe the gospel. All who deny that the atonement is an essential gospel doctrine, including all who speak peace to universal atonement advocates, are not true Christians. The cross of Christ is what Christianity is all about. If there is no atonement, there is no Christianity.
To God alone be the glory,
Marc D. Carpenter
www.outsidethecamp.org
Recent Comments