March 25, 2012
Peter Pike vs. the Gospel, pt. 6
Back in 2002 I had an e-mail exchange with Peter Pike, known as “CalvinDude”. He posted the first exchange on his site, thecalvinist.com, which is now defunct; but the exchange has been reposted.
This is the sixth round of letters between Mr. Pike and I.
Note that this part of the exchange doesn’t appear at the link given above.
=========================================
—– Original Message —–
From: <debate@calvinist.com>
To: <Christopher Adams>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Child of Satan?
Oh, I’m a liar now….
You wrote:
<<< Nice try, but the distinction is *knowledge*. >>>
BUT you *ALSO* wrote:
<<< I have NEVER said that salvation was dependent on knowledge. >>>
[CA] Finally!! Very good, Mr Pike!! You finally provided something that looks like PROOF for your accusations!! After at least 5 letters to me, you finally provide a QUOTE that seems relevant to your argument!
Congratulations are in order!
Of course you neglected to mention that the first quote you selected was from an entirely different context than the second quote. Here’s the context of the first quote:
[CA 11/27/02] <<Nice try, but the distinction is *knowledge*. If there is someone I speak peace to, who speaks peace to the unregenerate, then I don’t *know* about it. If someone is telling me they don’t speak peace when they really do, I’m not responsible for judging that.>>
Now here’s the context of the second quote:
[CA 11/23/02] <<I have NEVER said that salvation was dependent on knowledge. Nowhere is this idea to be found on the OTC website. You have made this accusation several times, several times I have asked for proof, yet you continue to simply make accusations. I have already pointed out an article that answers this accusation: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/doctregen.htm>>
So the context of the first quote was *judgement*, while the context of the second was the *grounds* of salvation, specifically whether it was dependent on doctrinal regeneration (see the article I linked to).
[PP] But I digress.
—–
<<< [CA] Fine, you can take all the offense you want. But you are still not responding to what I said. I said you are speaking peace to lost people. ***THAT*** is why I say you are lost, and therefore unregenerate. >>>
And *THAT* makes my salvation dependent upon an action I do, not on the grace of God.
[CA] Not at all. It is the *evidence* that you are lost.
[PP] <<< [CA] Nice try, but the distinction is *knowledge*. If there is someone I speak peace to, who speaks peace to the unregenerate, then I don’t *know* about it. If someone is telling me they don’t speak peace when they really do, I’m not responsible for judging that. >>>
But why should it affect your salvation either way?
<<< YOU on the other hand, KNOWINGLY speak peace to a group of people who strip God of his rightful glory in the Gospel. You realize they do this, yet you continue to speak peace to them. >>>
No, I knowingly speak peace to a group of people who RIGHTLY UNDERSTAND that the only way they can be saved is because of the grace of God.
[CA] Yet your website says this:
[PP] <<Arminianism itself is a man-based theology that strips God of His right to be “God” and elevates man above what man should be.>>
[CA] THIS is a “right understanding” that “the only way they can be saved is because of the grace of God.” ?!?!
[PP] That they are not *RATIONAL* in why they accept the basic truths of God–that those truths, in fact, CONTRADICT their beliefs *IF* they actually logically carried them out–
[CA] This is precisely why I asked this in my first post to you (11/12/02):
<<5. Where does the Bible teach a difference between a man and his theology? How do you interpret Prov 23:7?>> I notice you still haven’t answered that one.
[PP] does not contradict the fact that they *DO* hold to the sufficient truth.
[CA] Believing that the atoning sacrifice was intended for everyone who is now in Hell is sufficient truth??
[PP] Answer this: Why would an Arminian *EVER* say, “Christ took my sins on the cross, AND THAT SAVED ME”? Yet when you look at the average Arminian, they *DO* believe that it was the imputation of our sins onto Christ that saved them.
[CA] Then what, to them, is the reason some people go to Hell?
[PP] There is no reason for them to hold this view, and when I point out that there is a contradiction, they do *NOT* abandon Christ as the atonining sacrifice.
[CA] Really? Do they also STOP believing that Christ died for everyone who goes to Hell? If not then they have NOT believed that salvation is “of the Lord.” They STILL believe that salvation is dependent on MAN.
[PP] If you study human psychology, you will know that the best way to decieve someone is to offer something that SEEMS like the truth. This is, undoubtedly, what Arminianism proper does–that is, Pelagianism. The average Arminian, however, realizes that he CANNOT accept the full ramifications of his Arminianism. Why do you think that Norm Geisler writes against Clark Pinnock when, from a strictly logical point of view he should *AGREE* with everything Pinnock says? Why do you think Charles Wesley could write, “And Can It Be”? How could Keith Green, an obvious Arminian in his songs, also write, “You [God] Put This Love In My Heart”? None of this makes any sense outside of the realization that they implicitly knew/know the truth of God and they will not abandon it. And the truth of God comes *ONLY* by the Spirit of God.
[CA] I don’t know enough about Geisler. But consider this quote from Wesley:
<<Though there are some expressions in my brother’s Hymns which I do not use …; yet I am fully satisfied, that …. there is no jot of Calvinism therein; that not one hymn, not one verse of an hymn, maintains either unconditional election, or infallible perseverance.>(Works, v.10, p.426, Remarks On Mr. Hill’s ‘Farrago Double Distilled’; Mar. 14, 1773)
[CA] One of Wesley’s hymns contained the following lines:
“From all eternity with love
Unchangeable thou hast me view’d.”
When this passage was pointed out to him, Wesley commented <<I believe this is true on the supposition of faith foreseen, not otherwise.>(Works, v.10, p.383, Remarks On Mr. Hills Review; Sept. 9, 1772)
Would you still say that he “knew … the truth of God and [would] not abandon it.” ?
[PP] Why do I say Arminians are saved? Because they believe the Gospel. They believe other things that are not the Gospel, but they *DO* believe the Gospel.
This is where we differ, Mr. Adams. You believe saving faith must be in all the intricate outworkings of the Gospel, whereas I believe saving faith is a faith in *JUST* the Gospel.
[CA] This is a false dichotomy. Suppose someone believes that Jesus is not God, but still believes in imputation, predestination, etc. Can we overlook his denial of the deity of Christ with the excuse that he “doesn’t have to believe in all the intricate outworkings of the Gospel”? Of course not. The Gospel DEMANDS that Christ be God as well as man. The person who denies the deity of Jesus Christ has denied a doctrine ESSENTIAL to the Gospel. It is my duty to JUDGE HIM LOST.
Arminians teach that the blood of Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of all
the people who are in Hell. They DENY that his blood is what makes the difference between their going to heaven and going to Hell. The efficacy of Christ’s blood is JUST AS ESSENTIAL to the Gospel as his deity.
[PP] As way of analogy–I have faith that turning my key in the ignition will start my car. You say that “real” faith is when I know that the engine runs because gasoline is pumped into a chamber where the spark plug ignites it, etc. But I simply turn my wrist and my car runs.
[CA] Your analogy is incomplete, since the car is not capable of changing your thinking. The car has not expressly declared that it wants you to understand how it works. God HAS declared that he wills to be glorified by his people. Why doesn’t he do this in the case of Arminians if (as you say) they are regenerate?
[PP] How simple is the Gospel? Why, it is EXTREMELY simple! So simple in fact that the Old Testament believers, who had no comprehension of Jesus, and only a dim understanding of the Messiah’s work, understood it. Read Hebrews 11–it is by *FAITH* that Abel offered a better sacrifice than Cain. Read Genesis 15–it is by *FAITH* that Abraham believed, and God imputed it to him as righteousness.
I simply ask–are these individuals saved? They certainly are. I further ask–by what means were they saved? By the same means *WE* are. Salvation has *ALWAYS* been by grace through faith. Faith in what? Well, the faith Abraham had was sufficient. The faith Cain had was sufficient. The faith that Rahab had was sufficient. Why would we be required to have a zillion tons more information the *MUST* be believed in order to be saved?
What you are missing is the simple fact that while the mystery of salvation has been explained to us, salvation does not require the explanation in order to actually save.
[CA]
Isaiah 45: (24) He shall say, Only in Jehovah do I have righteousness and strength; to Him he comes; and they are ashamed, all who are angry with Him.
This is what Abraham believed. This is what I believe. Is this what ARMINIANS believe? NO. They believe that their “decision for Christ” is what entitles them to God’s favor.
[PP] <<< A few premises:
A. All saved people believe the Gospel (Mk 16:16, Rom 1:16).
B. All who do not believe the Gospel are lost (Isa 45:20, Rom 10:3).
C. The Gospel gives all the glory to God. (Isa 45:24, Rom 3:21-26)
Combining A and C, we get: D. All saved people (give all the glory to
God).
Combining B and C, we get: E. All who do not (give all the glory to God) are lost. >>>
You *OBVIOUSLY* do not know what the Gospel is then. You are equating the Gospel with “giving all the glory to God.” But you are *WRONG*. While that is what the Gospel *DOES*, that is not what the Gospel *IS*.
[CA] What??
I said “The Gospel gives all the glory to God”
You say: “that is what the Gospel *DOES*, that is not what the Gospel *IS*.”
Are you agreeing with me?
[PP] In fact, I would do this:
A. All saved people believed the Gospel.
B. Abraham was saved.
:. Abraham believed the Gospel.
C. The Gospel was not fully revealed to Abraham
D. Abraham was still saved.
:. A full understanding of all the Gospel is not necessary for salvation.
<<< Two more premises:
F. Arminians do not give all the glory to God (note: you stated this on
your website) >>>
Yes, and I further state that *YOU* do not give all the glory to God. You admitted as much when you admitted you sin.
[CA] I give ALL the glory to God for my JUSTIFICATION. Who does the Arminian give glory to? HIMSELF — BASED ON HIS OWN DECISIONS. These two views are POLAR OPPOSITES.
[PP] <<< G. All who speak peace to those who are lost, are themselves lost (Jer 8:11, 2 Jn 11) >>>
Even if they give all the glory to God? Suppose I give God all the glory, and yet say that He has also saved Arminians–does this destroy the fact that I give God all the glory for my salvation? Not at all. They are two separate issues!
[CA] Then what does Jer 8:11, and 2 Jn 11 mean?
[PP] <<< Combining E and F, we get: E. All who do not (give all the glory to God) are lost. >>>
So you admit you are lost. It spares me the trouble of pointing it out.
<<< F. Arminians do not give all the glory to God. >>>
Neither does Christopher Adams. Nor any human being on the planet for that matter.
<<< H. Therefore, Arminians are lost. >>>
And therefore, so is Christopher Adams.
<<< Combining H and G, we get: I. All who speak peace to (Arminians) are themselves lost. >>>
And also, all those who speak peace to *ANYONE* who does not give all the glory to God is also lost.
<<< Now, noting that Peter Pike speaks peace to Arminians we declare him lost, unregenerate, a child of Satan, based on (I.) above. >>>
And noting that Christopher Adams speaks peace to others who sin, such as the folks at Sovereign Redeemer Assembly.
<<< I am *not* talking about any old sin. I *AM* talking about the sin of not believing the GOSPEL. This is the sin Arminians commit, and I DON’T. >>>
But inconsistent Arminians *DO* believe the Gospel. They believe it, and they believe things that *SHOULD* contradict it–but they do not abandon the Gospel. WHY? Because they *DO* believe it!
[CA] A “man-based theology that strips God of His right to be “God” and elevates man above what man should be”, is not inconsistency, it is HATRED of God and his glory.
[PP] <<< But wait a minute. Do you really mean to say that God sent Pharaoh to Hell, just because Pharaoh’s theology wasn’t 100% accurate? Just because he didn’t give all the glory to God? Just because he tried to reserve some glory for himself? Do you really mean a person’s knowledge of God has to be perfect in order for him to go to heaven? I thought you said salvation was dependent on what Christ did for that person, not on what they believe? What are you trying to say here, Mr. Pike? >>>
First, that you are rude. Secondly, you are obfuscating the issue because I disproved your point! God’s glorification has *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* to do with what ANYONE believes!
[CA] This is astounding. Have you any familiarity with Scripture at all? Sorry, Mr Pike, but I can’t just take your word for it. Give me the word of God:
Psalms 50: (15) And call on Me in the day of distress, and I will save you; and you shall glorify *Me*.
Isaiah 43: (21) The people that I formed for Myself shall recount *My* praise.
Isaiah 48: (11) For My sake, for My sake, I will act; for how is it defiled? And I will not give *My glory* to another.
Ezekiel 36: (38) Like a holy flock, like the flock of Jerusalem in her appointed feasts, so the wasted cities shall be filled with flocks of men. And they shall *know* that I am Jehovah.
Matthew 13: (11) And answering, He said to them, Because it has been given to you to *know* the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but it has not been given to those.
John 8: (32) And you will *know the truth*, and the truth will set you free.
Romans 6: (17) But thanks be to God that you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from the heart the form of *doctrine* to which you were delivered.
Romans 9: (23) and that He make *known* the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which He before prepared for glory,
1 John 5: (20) And we know that the Son of God has come, and He has given to us an *understanding* that we may know the true One, and we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the life everlasting.
Furthermore, look at what God says is MISSING from those who don’t believe the Gospel:
Isaiah 45: (20) Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, escaped ones of the nations; the ones who set up the wood of their carved image, and the ones who pray to a god who cannot save; they *know* nothing.
Matthew 13: (11) And answering, He said to them, Because it has been given to you to *know* the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but *it has not been given to those*.
Romans 10: (3) For being *ignorant of the righteousness of God*, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God.
In each case, the person opposed to God’s glory was missing some KNOWLEDGE.
[PP] Pharaoh hated and despised God. Arminians do not. Pharaoh was consistent in his false beliefs. Arminians are not. Pharaoh couldn’t care less what God wanted. Arminians do.
God does not give equally to all people, even believers. To him who has been given much, much will be demanded; but from him who has been given little, only a little will be asked.
<<< SO WHAT??? No matter what you profess to believe, you also believe a person can be saved believing the OPPOSITE of the Gospel. This shows that you place NO SAVING VALUE on the Gospel. >>>
*NO I DON’T*. They are saved because they believe the *GOSPEL*. They also have other beliefs that sometimes *ARE* opposite of the Gospel, but the fact remains that they believe the GOSPEL regardless! It is *THAT* that saves them, not their false beliefs.
<<< If you changed from believing Calvinism, to believing Arminianism, you would still consider yourself saved. Correct? If so, then it shows that you do not believe that it is necessary to believe the Gospel in order to be saved. >>>
1) This shows that you equate Calvinism with the Gospel, which is what I said all along even though you whined and complained [CA- And then you call ME rude.] and said:
—
And now, I’m asking you again, for proof of your accusations:
“Your statements make an understanding of Reformed Doctrine a prerequisite for salvation. That is, unless one understands total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints EXACTLY as YOU understand these points, that person is damned.”
—
Well, what more do you need for proof?
[CA] Alright, I will rephrase the question:
If you went from a theology that claims to give God his rightful due, to a theology that “is a man-based theology that strips God of His right to be “God” and elevates man above what man should be”, would you still consider yourself saved?
[PP] 2) Would I be saved as an Arminian? Well, I started out that way. My salvation has always been dependent on Christ, not on me.
[CA] And if you believed that Christ tried, but *failed*, to atone for everyone in the world, and what really made the difference was your *decision*, would you still say that your “salvation has always been dependent on Christ, not on me.”?
PWP
http://www.thecalvinist.com
Christopher Adams.
====================================================
For more information, please see:
March 18, 2012
Peter Pike vs. the Gospel, pt. 5
Back in 2002 I had an e-mail exchange with Peter Pike, known as “CalvinDude”. He posted the first exchange on his site, thecalvinist.com, which is now defunct; but the exchange has been reposted.
This is the fourth round of letters between Mr. Pike and I.
Note that this part of the exchange doesn’t appear at the link given above.
=========================================
—– Original Message —–
From: “Christopher Adams”
To: <debate@thecalvinist.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Child of Satan?
—– Original Message —–
From: <debate@thecalvinist.com>
To: <chris_a@shoreham.net>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Child of Satan?
[PP] I would love to answer your questions about the Arminian.
[CA] Liar.
[PP] However, I still don’t think the Arminian is relevant at this point in time and therefore it makes no difference what the Arminian believes. Remember, you said *I* was unregenerate. ME PERSONALLY. Let me state the problem I have with what you said.
First of all, you say that I am “unregenerate” and “a child of Satan.”
You are saying that my faith is invalid. You can say all you want about how this is *NOT* really “damning” me, but I see no practical difference. Therefore, I am NOT slandering you by saying you said I was damned; but I OUGHT to take great offense at your slander of my faith.
[CA] Fine, you can take all the offense you want. But you are still not responding to what I said. I said you are speaking peace to lost people. ***THAT*** is why I say you are lost, and therefore unregenerate.
If you see no practical difference between “now unregenerate” and “predestined for Hell” then I don’t know what else to tell you. I think your blindness on that issue is intentional, so you won’t have to deal with what I really believe.
Here’s a quote from the article I pointed out, which you obviously didn’t read:
“Does this mean that we are saying that they will surely go to hell? No. It is saying that they are currently in an unregenerate state. If these lost people continue in their unregenerate state (i.e., if God does not regenerate them), then they will go to hell. But there have been many who have been lost Arminians or lost tolerant “Calvinists” whom God has saved, showing that they were not reprobate.”
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/fte34.htm
[PP] In any case, let me try to generate more light and less heat here. I can deal with false accusations about my faith. They don’t bother me because *I* know whom I believe.
You have several problems with your theology. First of all, I noticed on your site that there are many people you no longer support whom you once did. For example, A.W. Pink and John Calvin. The article on Pink was entitled: “Why we no longer endorse Arthur W. Pink.” This *CLEARLY* shows you once did endorse him. Further, the opening line says, “Here we are again with a disendorsement of someone whom we previously endorsed.” It further states about Calvin: “In the historical realm, we had to disendorse John Calvin.” Again, clearly demonstrating that you once endorsed these people.
But you wrote to me: “I made the accusation that you are unregenerate because you speak peace to unregenerate people.” You endorsed Calvin and Pink, speaking peace to unregenerate men. Am I justified in saying that you were unregenerate during the time you endorsed Calvin and Pink? After all, did you not write to me (about Arminians): “But if they are unregenerate, then you, as well as they, are lost”? Is it not the case that if Calvin is unregenerate, then at the time you endorsed him you, as well as he, was lost? But why stop there? Maybe one of the people you currently endorse you will later be forced to disendorse, meaning that you are CURRENTLY speaking peace to those an unregenerate, so you are not regenerate yourself!
[CA] Nice try, but the distinction is *knowledge*. If there is someone I speak peace to, who speaks peace to the unregenerate, then I don’t *know* about it. If someone is telling me they don’t speak peace when they really do, I’m not responsible for judging that.
YOU on the other hand, KNOWINGLY speak peace to a group of people who strip God of his rightful glory in the Gospel. You realize they do this, yet you continue to speak peace to them.
[PP] I would imagine that you think you *WERE* regenerate at that time and *ARE* now. The premise “You are unregenerate because you speak peace to unregenerate people” is therefore invalid, for you did this very thing, and MAY BE DOING IT RIGHT NOW, and yet you believe you are regenerate at thattime and in the present.
As you should plainly see, your premise is absurd! It makes yoursalvation dependent, not upon Christ or even on what you believe, but upon what OTHER PEOPLE BELIEVE and whether or not THEY are right. This is not only anti-Biblical, but irrational.
[CA] Let’s see:
A few premises:
A. All saved people believe the Gospel (Mk 16:16, Rom 1:16).
B. All who do not believe the Gospel are lost (Isa 45:20, Rom 10:3).
C. The Gospel gives all the glory to God. (Isa 45:24, Rom 3:21-26)
Combining A and C, we get: D. All saved people (give all the glory to
God).
Combining B and C, we get: E. All who do not (give all the glory to God) are lost.
Two more premises:
F. Arminians do not give all the glory to God (note: you stated this on your website)
G. All who speak peace to those who are lost, are themselves lost (Jer 8:11, 2 Jn 11)
Combining E and F, we get:
E. All who do not (give all the glory to God) are lost.
F. Arminians do not give all the glory to God.
H. Therefore, Arminians are lost.
Combining H and G, we get: I. All who speak peace to (Arminians) are themselves lost.
Now, noting that Peter Pike speaks peace to Arminians we declare him lost, unregenerate, a child of Satan, based on (I.) above.
[PP] I therefore *DEMAND* that you recant your allocation that I am unregenerate because you based it on a faulty premise that I have proven to be false.
[CA] Not until you can show me the problem with the above reasoning.
[PP] And what about “blasphemous” theology? Have you read Galatians 2, specifically verses 14-21? Peter denied Justification by Faith Alone by withdrawing from fellowship with the Gentiles. Paul rightly pointed out his hypocrisy, for Peter denied the very BASIS of the Gospel. But the question *YOU* have to ask yourself is: Was Peter unregenerate at that point? I ask you to read Acts 2 and ask yourself if Peter was saved when he made that speech, and then realize that it came *LONG* before Saul of Tarsus became the Apostle Paul, so it was WELL before Peter denied the Gospel to be rebuked by Paul! So either Peter’s denial of salvation by faith alone was done DESPITE the fact that Peter was regenerate (and therefore regenerate people *CAN* teach blasphemous thelogy) or else Peter was unregenerate when he gave the speech in Acts 2 (in which case unregenerate people can give divine instruction about how to be saved). Which is it to be?
[CA] At the risk of having you ignore this one too, I’ll point you to an article that already dealt with your accusation: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/galatians.htm
[PP] You ask: <<< Why in the world would God regenerate a person, and then cause that person to believe that the Christ did *not* die specifically for the elect, that it is *not* all settled, that he did *not* have the elect in mind, etc. etc.? In short, why would God regenerate a person WITHOUT glorifying himself in that person’s heart? >>>
Well, why in the world would God regenerate the Apostle Peter and allow him to deny Sola Fide and earn the condemnation of Paul?
The error you are falling into is assuming that there is only ONE WAY for God to glorify Himself in a person’s heart, and that way is by illuminating them to the knowledge of the doctrines of grace. The fact is, God glorifies Himself even through errors in a person’s theology.
[CA] Please explain to me how God glorifies himself in a person’s heart by having that person give glory to Man. This I’ve got to hear. (Please include Scripture references. Thanks.)
[PP]Your question here ultimatley makes no sense. If God is most glorifiedwhen we understand salvation fully, then why doesn’t God grant everyone 100% understanding of Him when they are saved? Is it not the case that you yourself need sanctification? Using your argumentation, every time you sin God is shown to *NOT* be glorified fully in your life, and therefore you are damned. Yet you know this is not the case, because you know that God will be glorified *THROUGH* your repentance. Why is it that you deny God can be glorified through the Arminian?
[CA] I am *not* talking about any old sin. I *AM* talking about the sin of not believing the GOSPEL. This is the sin Arminians commit, and I DON’T.
[PP] You cannot make an issue of glorification equivalent with salvation in the first place. Did not God glorify Himself through Pharaoh? And yet
Pharaoh was *DAMNED*. Is it not the case that the just punishment of the wicked glorifies God? How can you use God’s glory to determine if someone is saved? God is glorified *EITHER* way!
[CA] Interesting analogy. What did Pharoah BELIEVE? He believed he could make a decision whether to obey God INDEPENDENTLY from what God wanted. Sound familiar? God was not glorified in what Pharaoh believed, was he? Therefore, God was glorified by Pharaoh in his DESTRUCTION.
But wait a minute. Do you really mean to say that God sent Pharaoh to Hell, just because Pharaoh’s theology wasn’t 100% accurate? Just because he didn’t give all the glory to God? Just because he tried to reserve some glory for himself? Do you really mean a person’s knowledge of God has to be perfect in order for him to go to heaven? I thought you said salvation was dependent on what Christ did for that person, not on what they believe? What are you trying to say here, Mr. Pike?
[CA] <<< Mr. Pike, noone is saved BECAUSE of what they believe, but God ***ALWAYS*** glorifies himself in the hearts of his regenerate people, by causing them to believe the GOSPEL, a Gospel which glorifies him as a just God and a Savior. >>>
[PP] I agree. No one is saved because of what they believe but because of what Christ did. We are saved by *GRACE* applied through faith (also given by God). Furthermore, I agree that God *DOES* glorify Himself in the hearts of His Elect by regenerating them and giving them faith in the Gospel—a Gospel that *DOES* glorify God as a just God and Savior.
[CA] SO WHAT??? No matter what you profess to believe, you also believe a person can be saved believing the OPPOSITE of the Gospel. This shows that you place NO SAVING VALUE on the Gospel.
Let me put it to you this like this:
If you changed from believing Calvinism, to believing Arminianism, you would still consider yourself saved. Correct? If so, then it shows that you do not believe that it is necessary to believe the Gospel in order to be saved.
[PP] But you have *NOT* demonstrated where *MY* faith in God does not do this, even if the Arminian is damned. Why do you think *I MYSELF* cannot glorify God in my heart even though I believe a theological error (according to you, anyway)?
[CA] I have answered this so many times, it’s getting redundant. As I said above, No matter what you profess to believe, you also believe a person can be saved believing the OPPOSITE of the Gospel. This shows that you place NO SAVING VALUE on the Gospel.
Christopher Adams.
=========================================
For more information, please see:
Three Reasons Why Arminians Are Not Saved
March 11, 2012
Peter Pike vs. the Gospel, pt. 4
Back in 2002 I had an e-mail exchange with Peter Pike, known as “CalvinDude”. He posted the first exchange on his site, thecalvinist.com, which is now defunct; but the exchange has been reposted.
This is the fourth round of letters between Mr. Pike and I.
Note that this part of the exchange doesn’t appear at the link given above.
=========================================
From: <debate@thecalvinist.com>
To: <Christopher Adams>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: Child of Satan?
Actually, Mr. Adams, I am being very *DELIBERATE* in my actions here. I have a reason for what I am doing. You accused *ME* of being a child of Satan. It does not matter what the Arminian believes. It matters what *I* believe, because your comments were directed *AT ME*.
You wrote:
<<< As written, I agree with your post on 11/14/02. The problem is that you don’t think a person has to believe it to be considered regenerate. >>>
Remember what is going on here, Mr. Adams. You called me a child of Satan. You have as much as said that I am damned and unregenerate. All this DESPITE the fact that you agree with everything I said in my post. I just gave you the mechanics of what God does to save a person, and it is *IDENTICAL* to your beliefs (or so you claim)–and yet I am damned? And for what? Simply because I said that a person does not have to agree with Reformed Soteriology to be saved.
Let’s examine why I say this using my previous post from 11/14/02.
I wrote:
<<< God the Father, in eternity past, did foreordain all things that come to pass. He chose a certain people, not on the basis of anything found in them, but solely on His good pleasure. Christ was slain (before the foundation of the earth) for their sins, meaning both Christ’s death and all whom God intended to save were in mind before the earth was even created. Christ came to accomplish that purpose. He lived a perfect life so His righteousness would be imputed to the Elect. He died to take the penalty of sin in place of the Elect. >>>
Note–there is absolutely *NOTHING* here that is conditional upon the Elect. All of this is done through God. Christ had *ALL* the Elect in mind when He died on the cross. *ALL* their sins were placed on Him, and His righteousness was imputed to them *AT THE CROSS*. Therefore, it is all settled and when Christ said, “It is finished” He meant it.
Now when Christ died on the cross, were His Elect saved *AT THAT POINT*? Look at it from the aspect of the atonement. The Elect’s sins have been *PUNISHED* in Christ. The Elect have been imputed the righteousness of Christ. Christ’s death *CANNOT* be ineffective, and therefore *IF* it is the atonement that saves, all the Elect are saved at that point.
But if that were true, then you see that the Elect are saved *NO MATTER WHAT THEY BELIEVE* because salvation does not depend on belief at all, but on whether or not Christ died *FOR* them. Therefore, it would not MATTER what anyone believed because if Christ atoned for thier sins when He died on the cross, then they are saved no matter what. So if you accept this notion, then you have already proven me right in saying that salvation is *NOT* dependent upon knowledge.
I do not accept that notion of the atonement, however, so let me continue:
<<< Since God ordains the means as well as the end, He ordains that the Elect shall be justifed by faith (alone) in the Gospel (justification being the actual judicial declaration by which God declares a sinner just). >>>
Justification, Mr. Adams, is the point when God *LEGALLY* declares that a sinner is just. That is, while Christ died on the cross and His death served as an atonement for the sins of the Elect, the Elect person himself is not *ACTUALLY* declared just in the sight of God until he is justified. Therefore, before justification, the Elect is a sinner and is viewed as such–*even though Christ already died for him!* This is why salvation is by grace *THROUGH* faith, and this is why it is *FAITH* that justifies the sinner, *NOT* the atonement.
We continue:
<<<He then appoints preachers, etc, to proclaim the Gospel and brings them to the Elect. When the Elect hear the Gospel, the Spirit regenerates them because, like all men, the Elect are born depraved. >>>
Because the Elect are born depraved, they *NEED* to be regenerated. Therefore, Christ’s death on the cross has not yet saved them. They are NOT regenerate, they are NOT justified, they are NOT saved–EVEN THOUGH CHRIST DIED FOR THEM. Though they *WILL* be saved, the atonement itself does not save them or they would *ALREADY* be saved!
<<< The regenerated man responds in faith to the Gospel, whereby the Father justifies him. The act of Justification does *NOT* subjectively change the person–it is a purely legal action. Thus, there is no condemnation for those who are justified even though there is no subjective change in the person at this point! The Spirit then works in the life of a justified person to sanctify that person and conform him to Christ. >>>
I must add something I forgot in the first time I posted this. “The regenerated man responds in faith, that faith *ALSO* being a gift of God, to the Gospel.”
Now what is key about this? The Elect is dead in sins. The Spirit regenerates him. He is “born again” at that point. He *RESPONDS* in faith to the Gospel, because God has enabled him to do so. God has given him faith. When faith is present, God declares the sinner “justified.”
But the key is this: “The act of Justification does *NOT* subjectively change the person–it is a purely legal action.” Why is this important? Because justification occurs apart from works and is not dependent upon them. It occurs apart from anything that man does. Look at the chain:
The Elect are *RAISED* to spiritual life by the Spirit. God gives them faith. God declares them justified by the basis of their faith. THEN: Man does good works.
At what point does man enter the equation? *AFTER* he is already justified! And because justification does not subjectively change a person, that means (as Luther illustrated in his snow-covered dung heap analogy) that the sinner is *STILL* intrinsically a sinner, but he has been covered with a blanket of righteousness so that God does not *SEE* his sin, but instead sees Christ’s righteousness.
Thankfully, the Spirit doesn’t leave us in this condition, but then moves to change us from a pile of dung into a pile of gold through the work of Sanctification. But at the point of conversion, the Elect is simply a person who is *SUBJECTIVELY* a sinner, yet *LEGALLY* righteous.
What does all this mean? It’s really quite simple. When Christ died on the cross, He died *SPECIFICALLY* for the Elect, and God makes sure that *ALL* His Elect are saved. They are *NOT* saved by the atonement itself, but they are saved when, by a faith given to them by the Father, they are justified. Until that time, they are *NOT* saved, even though the end conclusion is unavoidable.
Now one more point. You wrote:
<<< On 11/15/02, you asked: “Is a person saved the moment he is justified?” If by “saved” you mean “regenerated”, I would say yes. >>>
If regeneration is the same as salvation, then you here have regeneration occuring *AFTER* justification (after all, salvation entails God’s declaration that a sinner is just), which means that regeneration occurs *AFTER* faith because justification is *BY FAITH*. In other words, what you said above makes faith a work man does *BEFORE* he is regenerated. And that, as we all know, is impossible if faith is a gift from God!
Now, look over everything I have written and ask yourself: *WHERE* in this process does it become necessary for the Elect to understand the entire process of salvation in order to *BE* saved? And in regards to calling *ME* a child of Satan, consider the following:
If it is true that I am Elect and Christ died *FOR ME* on the cross, then what gives *YOU* the right to say I am damned? If you believe I *CAN* be saved in the future, then you are saying yourself that Christ’s atoning work on the cross *DOES NOT SAVE*. Rather, something else must happen too (ie: justification). So, unless you are going to say that every Elect individual is saved *FROM BIRTH* then you do not believe in an atonement that saves and by your own standards you are damned! But if you say that the Elect are saved from birth and yet they STILL live their life (before justification) as if they were sinners, then salvation is *NOT* dependant upon whether or not a person believes the atonement because the Elect are saved from birth DESPITE the fact that they do not believe the atonement. In either case, Iam proven right and you are proven wrong.
PWP
http://www.thecalvinist.com
=========================================
From: “Christopher Adams”
To: “<debate@thecalvinist.com>”
Subject: Child of Satan?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 02:44:50 -0500
Mr. Pike:
Let me make a few things clear.
1. I have NEVER said that salvation was dependent on knowledge. Nowhere is this idea to be found on the OTC website. You have made this accusation several times, several times I have asked for proof, yet you continue to simply make accusations. I have already pointed out an article that answers this accusation: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/doctregen.htm
2. I have NEVER said you were damned. I DID say that you are a son of Satan, ie. unregenerate. This does not mean you are predestined for Hell, only that you are not now regenerate. Please see this article: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/fte34.htm
3. I made the accusation that you are unregenerate because you speak peace to unregenerate people.
“I firmly believe (unlike the hypercalvinists, such as those folks at www.outsidethecamp.org) that Arminians are saved, so long as they are actually Arminians and not Pelagians. “
http://www.thecalvinist.com/theology/ 9/20/02
4. Therefore, what Arminians believe really does make a difference, because you speak peace to them. If they are regenerate, then I have sinned grievously. But if they are unregenerate, then you, as well as they, are lost (Jer 8:11, 2Jn 10-11). This is why I have asked you several times what the Arminians believe about the Atonement. Oddly enough you STILL haven’t answered those questions.
You speak peace to Arminians knowing how blasphemous their theology is. Your website says:
“Arminianism itself is a man-based theology that strips God of His right to be “God” and elevates man above what man should be.” 10/22/02
Moving from a “man-based theology” to a “God-based theology” is NOT a matter of “growing in grace”, or becoming more Christ-like. It is a matter of BELIEVING THE GOSPEL (Isa 45:20, Rom 1:16 & 10:3). Arminians not only “elevate [themselves] above what man should be”, they also spit in the face of Jesus Christ, and count his blood and his cross as POWERLESS to save. They are ENEMIES of God. And yet you count them as your friends. They are children of the devil, and you count them as your brothers. Is it starting to become clear why I called you a child of Satan?
Now for some things you wrote in your latest post (11/20/02):
“Look at it from the aspect of the atonement. The Elect’s sins have been *PUNISHED* in Christ. The Elect have been imputed the righteousness of Christ. Christ’s death *CANNOT* be ineffective, and therefore *IF* it is the atonement that saves, all the Elect are saved at that point.”
and
“Note–there is absolutely *NOTHING* here that is conditional upon the Elect. All of this is done through God. Christ had *ALL* the Elect in mind when He died on the cross. *ALL* their sins were placed on Him, and His righteousness was imputed to them *AT THE CROSS*. Therefore, it is all settled and when Christ said, “It is finished” He meant it.”
and
“When Christ died on the cross, He died *SPECIFICALLY* for the Elect, and God makes sure that *ALL* His Elect are saved. They are *NOT* saved by the atonement itself, but they are saved when, by a faith given to them by the Father, they are justified. “
Yes, I agree. But you make all these points INVALID because you think a person (the Arminian) can be judged saved when they believe the exact OPPOSITE. Why in the world would God regenerate a person, and then cause that person to believe that the Christ did *not* die specifically for the elect, that it is *not* all settled, that he did *not* have the elect in mind, etc. etc.? In short, why would God regenerate a person WITHOUT glorifying himself in that person’s heart?
Again, you wrote: “But if that were true, then you see that the Elect are saved *NO MATTER WHAT THEY BELIEVE* because salvation does not depend on belief at all, but on whether or not Christ died *FOR* them. Therefore, it would not MATTER what anyone believed because if Christ atoned for thier sins when He died on the cross, then they are saved no matter what.”
If this were true, then not only would we have to reserve judgement concerning Arminians, but also Pelagians, Muslims, atheists, Satanists, and child-molesters. Mr. Pike, noone is saved BECAUSE of what they believe, but God ***ALWAYS*** glorifies himself in the hearts of his regenerate people, by causing them to believe the GOSPEL, a Gospel which glorifies him as a just God and a Savior. The Arminian ‘gospel’ does the exact OPPOSITE, as you yourself have testified. This is why I judge Arminians lost (and consequently you, since you embrace them as brothers).
Again you wrote: “Now, look over everything I have written and ask yourself: *WHERE* in this process does it become necessary for the Elect to understand the entire process of salvation in order to *BE* saved?”
Mr. Pike, my answer is: NOWHERE. I have never said this, or even implied it. Now, kindly answer one of my questions: Why would God regenerate a person *without* glorifying himself in that person’s heart?
Again, you wrote: “If it is true that I am Elect and Christ died *FOR ME* on the cross, then what gives *YOU* the right to say I am damned? “
Mr. Pike, as I stated above, this is SLANDER. Either repent of this sin, or produce some proof.
I have never said you are damned, but that you are unregenerate. *IF* you are one of the elect, God has *not yet* regenerated you. Perhaps he will use me to do it, perhaps not. But until he does, you have *NO* reason to think that Christ did in fact die for you.
Christopher Adams.
========================================
For more information please see:
March 4, 2012
Peter Pike vs. the Gospel, pt. 3
Back in 2002 I had an e-mail exchange with Peter Pike, known as “CalvinDude”. He posted the first exchange on his site, thecalvinist.com, which is now defunct; but the exchange has been reposted.
This is the second letter Mr. Pike sent to me, along with the third and fourth letters I sent to him. The first letter, with his response is posted here, and the second letter is here. Note that this part of the exchange doesn’t appear at the link given above.
=========================================
From: <debate@thecalvinist.com>
To: <Christopher Adams>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Child of Satan?
YOU WROTE:
<<<I notice first off, that you have answered only two of my questions.>>>
That’s because my response wasn’t in response to your questions, but a response to your entire post. It wasn’t meant to be a line-by-line answer.
Let me give you my basic postion:
God the Father, in eternity past, did foreordain all things that come to pass. He chose a certain people, not on the basis of anything found in them, but solely on His good pleasure. Christ was slain (before the foundation of the earth) for their sins, meaning both Christ’s death and all whom God intended to save were in mind before the earth was even created.
Christ came to accomplish that purpose. He lived a perfect life so His righteousness would be imputed to the Elect. He died to take the penalty of sin in place of the Elect.
Since God ordains the means as well as the end, He ordains that the Elect shall be justifed by faith (alone) in the Gospel (justification being the actual judicial declaration by which God declares a sinner just) . He then appoints preachers, etc, to proclaim the Gospel and brings them to the Elect. When the Elect hear the Gospel, the Spirit regenerates them because, like all men, the Elect are born depraved. The regenerated man responds in faith to the Gospel, whereby the Father justifies him. The act of Justification does *NOT* subjectively change the person–it is a purely legal action. Thus, there is no condemnation for those who are justified even though there is no subjective change in the person at this point! The Spirit then works in the life of a justified person to sanctify that person and conform him to Christ.
Now, where am I wrong?
PWP
http://www.thecalvinist.com
=========================================
From: “Christopher Adams”
To: <debate@thecalvinist.com>
Subject: Re: Child of Satan?
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:49:37 -0500
Mr. Pike:
Well, this is at least a partial answer to my 2nd question:
<<2. What did the Atonement actually accomplish? What does the BIBLE say the Atonement accomplished? (Acts 20:28, Rom 5:9, Gal 1:4, Tit 3:5, Heb 10:10, Rev 5:9) Is this what Arminians believe the Atonement accomplished? Is this what YOU believe the Atonement accommplished?>>
In response you wrote: “He lived a perfect life so His righteousness would be imputed to the Elect. He died to take the penalty of sin in place of the Elect. “
Now would you kindly answer the rest of that question, as well as this:
<<1. Do Arminians believe in the atonement? Do they believe in the same KIND of Atonement that the Bible teaches (ie. one that takes away the sin of all for whom it is intended — Isa 45:25, Rom 3:22-26, Rom 8:1, 2Cor 5:21)? Do YOU believe in this kind of Atonement?>>
And now, I’m asking you again, for proof of your accusations: “Your statements make an understanding of Reformed Doctrine a prerequisite for salvation. That is, unless one understands total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints EXACTLY as YOU understand these points, that person is damned.” (11/12/02)
Thanks.
Christopher Adams.
=========================================
From: “Christopher Adams”
To: <debate@thecalvinist.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: Child of Satan?
Mr. Pike:
I wrote on 11/15/02:
<<I’m asking you again, for proof of your accusations: “Your statements make an understanding of Reformed Doctrine a prerequisite for salvation. That is, unless one understands total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints EXACTLY as YOU understand these points, that person is damned.” (11/12/02)>>
Your post is STILL lacking such proof. While you are digging around for something vaguely resembling your accusations, be sure to check out the article which Marc Carpenter already wrote on this issue: www.outsidethecamp.org/doctregen.htm
You wrote: “Since you did not state anything in disagreement with my soteriology, I have to assume that you agree with everything I wrote.” As written, I agree with your post on 11/14/02. The problem is that you don’t think a person has to believe it to be considered regenerate. This makes the entire post irrelevant in terms of whether Arminians are saved. On 11/14/02, you wrote: “He [Christ] died to take the penalty of sin in place of the Elect.” Do ARMINIANS believe this?
On 11/15/02, you asked: “Is a person saved the moment he is justified?” If by “saved” you mean “regenerated”, I would say yes.
Christopher Adams.
=========================================
For more information, please see:
February 26, 2012
Peter Pike vs. the Gospel, pt. 2
Back in 2002 I had an e-mail exchange with Peter Pike, known as “CalvinDude”. He posted the first exchange on his site, thecalvinist.com, which is now defunct; but the exchange has been reposted.
This is the second letter I sent to Mr. Pike. The first letter, with his response is posted here.
=======================================================================
From: “Christopher Adams” <chris_a@*******.net>
To: <debate@thecalvinist.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Child of Satan?
Mr. Pike:
I notice first off, that you have answered only two of my questions. Since you have promised to post this letter and your reply on your website, I will ask you to answer the first two questions before anything else. For your reference, here is what I asked:
<<1. Do Arminians believe in the atonement? Do they believe in the same KIND of Atonement that the Bible teaches (ie. one that takes away the sin of all for whom it is intended — Isa 45:25, Rom 3:22-26, Rom 8:1, 2Cor 5:21)? Do YOU believe in this kind of Atonement?
2. What did the Atonement actually accomplish? What does the BIBLE say the Atonement accomplished? (Acts 20:28, Rom 5:9, Gal 1:4, Tit 3:5, Heb 10:10,Rev 5:9) Is this what Arminians believe the Atonement accomplished? Is this what YOU believe the Atonement accommplished?>>
The rest of my questions are posted below. Please answer them this time.
Also I will expect you to furnish PROOF for your accusations of us. Even one quote would be nice. Thanks.
Now for your response. You wrote: “You have called me a child of Satan. I was unaware that Christ had appointed you as the judge of my soul.”
Then I guess you must have missed Matthew 7:15-20 and John 7:24. I’ll include them here for your convenience:
Matthew 7: (15) But beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inside they are plundering wolves. (16) From their fruits you shall know them. Do they gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? (17) So every good tree produces good fruits, but the corrupt tree produces evil fruits. (18) A good tree cannot produce evil fruits, nor a corrupt tree produce good fruits. (19) Every tree not producing good fruit is cut down and is thrown into fire. (20) Then surely from their fruits you shall know them.
John 7: (24) Do not judge according to sight, but judge righteous judgment.
Perhaps you missed what Paul (the author of 1 Cor 13) and John (the so-called “Apostle of Love”) said about judging: see Romans 16:17, 1 Corinthians 5:12, Galatians 1:8, 1 John 4:1, 2 John 1:10, Revelation 18:4.
All these verses are *in addition* to the exhortations to love and be joined with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I simply cannot obey both sets of commands (ie. join with the brothers, and separate from false Christians) without JUDGING.
I notice also that you have not hesitated to JUDGE the souls of Arminians: you have judged them to be SAVED.
You also wrote: “Because you think I am mistaken, you have said that I am a child of Satan. This has serious ramifications. Mistaken theology automatically makes one a child of Satan? “
Nice try, but that’s a non-sequitur. A Christian can certainly be mistaken about theology: ecclesiology or eschatology, for example. But a Christian CANNOT be mistaken about the GOSPEL (Isa 45:20, Mk 16:16, Rom 10:3). And I never said you were mistaken about eschatology. I said: “On the other hand YOUR gospel claims to be the power of God; YOUR gospel claims to glorify God as a just God and a Savior; but your god is STILL powerless to move the almighty human will into believing things that glorify his grace. YOUR god is STILL unable to glorify himself in the hearts of his people.”
Next, you wrote: “Your statements make an understanding of Reformed Doctrine a prerequisite for salvation. That is, unless one understands total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints EXACTLY as YOU understand these points, that person is damned.”
Please provide ONE (1) statement where I put forth this idea. Altenatively, you could provide me with a quote from the web site, newsletter, or Marc Carpenter’s sermon tapes. We have been accused of this MANY times before, but somehow, noone ever provides QUOTES. Very strange.
Then you wrote: “You obviously misunderstand Irresistible Grace by stating: “[H]ow is God able to cause a man to believe the Gospel, but (as you think) UNABLE to prevent him from believing ‘a man-based theology that strips God of His right to be “God” and elevates man above what man should be’?” Irresistible Grace refers only to Regeneration, not Sanctification. “
Irresistible Grace refers only to Regeneration, not Sanctification? Let’s look at some Scripture:
Ezekiel 36: (27) And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My judgments and do them.
John 8: (31) Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in Him, If you continue in My Word, you are truly My disciples. (32) And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
John 10: (4) And when he puts forth his own sheep, he goes in front of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. (5) But they will not follow a stranger, never! But they will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of the strangers.
Irresistible Grace refers to God’s ability to turn the human will from hating the Gospel, to loving the Gospel. God’s purpose in doing so is not simply to demonstrate his theoretical power to accomplish it, but to glorify himself in the hearts of his elect.
Next, you wrote: “The question you asked, however, gives us great insight into your beliefs. The question you asked demonstrates that you have not thought out your own theology very well. How is it that God is able to cause you to believe the Gospel and yet not fully sanctify you such that you will never sin again? Do you sin, Christopher Adams? If so, why? Does not God have the power?”
Yes I sin. I sin because it is God’s purpose to glorify Jesus Christ in my heart for forgiving the sins I commit even now, and to make me long for heaven, where I will be perfected. That is the way he has ordained it.
Very well, if you prefer the question that way, let me restate it: If God is capable of glorifying himself in the hearts of Arminians (whom you believe to be already regenerate, provided they are not really Pelagians) why DOESN’T he do so? Especially when he has clearly stated that he DOES will to be glorified in the hearts of his regenerate people.
Next, you wrote: “The above point demonstrates that Sanctification is a seperate process from Justification. The Arminian, though justified, is not fully sanctified (nor is the Reformed believer), and as such will not hold to 100% accurate theology. This does not damn the Arminian, for he has been justified. The process of Sanctification will lead him to the truth.”
On the contrary. Sanctification is about becoming more and more like Christ, but Regeneration is about believing the GOSPEL. And the Gospel is PURE doctrine (Isa 45:20, Mk 16:16, Rom 10:3). Please try to explain to me a gospel that doesn’t involve doctrine.
Next, you wrote: “In your zeal, you have corrupted the Gospel from the Good News about how men are saved by Christ.Rather than salvation by faith, you preach a salvation by full understanding of all the intricate workings of God. Rather than having justification as the determining factor in a person’s salvation, you require advanced sanctification. Rather than Christianity, you promote Gnosticism, whereby a secret knowledge is possessed only by you and everyone who disagrees is damned.”
Really? Would you care to explain what that good news is and precisely HOW “men are saved by Christ.” ? How is it that God desires to be glorified in the hearts of his people but somehow (according to you) he FAILS to do this with some of his people? Again, would you care to provide some PROOF for your accusations? Or will you just stick to slinging mud when all else fails?
Lastly, you wrote: “I am not only going to post your letter and my response on my site, but I will also challenge you to debate these issues and post the debate on your site. I will certainly post it on mine.”
Great. I’m going to hold you to that promise. While you are at it, here are the other questions you failed to answer:
<<5. Where does the Bible teach a difference between a man and his theology? How do you interpret Prov 23:7?
6. In your opinion, what is the difference between Arminianism and Pelagianism? What makes Pelagians lost but Arminians saved (in your opinion)?
7. If Calvinism “is the only system of theology that accurately describes the Gospel”, how is it that Arminians can be saved believing things directly CONTRARY to the Gospel?
8. Did you know that hypercalvinists believe that Arminians are saved? The distinguishing mark of a hypercalvinist is the belief that God regenerates people without the means of the Gospel. They then go on to argue that the Arminian could be regenerate, he just hasn’t heard the Gospel yet. Marc Carpenter has written extensively on this blasphemy: “The Irrelevant Gospel“, Outside The Camp, Vol. 5, No. 2, http://www.outsidethecamp.org/review52.htm Nov 10, 2002.>>
Also please don’t forget to provide proof for your accusations of us.
Christopher Adams.
==========================================================================
For more information, please see:
The Damnable Heresy of Arminianism
