April 29, 2012
bergref vs. the Gospel
Several years ago, I posted the article “Gospel Atonement” on a discussion board called “theChan”; the site has since been redesigned, and the following discussion was removed. The first section is a reply from someone with the handle “bergref”, followed by my response:
================================
Hello fellow followers of Christ
Let us assume that every verse in the Bible has some truth, some value. Then we can agree that the verses quoted are true.
I believe they are, but are they complete? Is the doctrine painted complete? Think about the souls that accept this doctrine as complete. Where does “If you do not believe as I a human does, then eternal damnation to you ” come from?
Arminius believed that mans free will was directed by God.
Calvin believed that justification was obtained through faith.
To understand that in the end, atonement will be for his remnent, and then pervert that to take away the universal invitation, and to confuse the two is a clear doctrine of man and ignores the invitation given to all .
My estimation is there are at least a 80 percent more verses directly implying a universal invitation then there are implying being chosen.
I am not implying universal atonement , just the obvious invitation to accept what was done by the blood. Should humans place any credit to themself when God regenerates them to a corect belief ? Your doctrine is amiss in its understanding that God desires a covenant so strong in belief that we forsake all to follow Him.
Now suppose that you had the chance to ask your congregation to stand if their children at a young age commited their life to the Lord. Then ask each parent to sit down if in their heart of hearts believed that every one of their children were living out their calling. Note how many still stand. Those standing gave their best for their children yet The promise they hold on to not yet acomplished. Their children have fallen to our culture, in your doctrine there is not one drop of hope, not even one. there is no incentive to try, denying all the Gospel promises.
I can and will not allow myself to be the Judge of attonement but lay my case to those who can read to have strength that God somehow does call some and not all, and that our commision is to explain the invitation to all and be a kind of person that there is a testimony in their walk, not a finger pointer to all those who do not believe as they do.
In Christian love. John
================================
Hello again. I have been offline lately, due to a move, but I’m back online now. I would like to respond to some things written by bergref:
1. bergref wrote: <>
[CA] From your imagination. This is not about believing what Chris Adams says or believes, it is about believing the Gospel. The gospel is the good news of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. [Psa 22:1-18; 32:1; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24-26; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:28; Act 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; 5:6-11; 1Co 1:30; 5:7; 6:20; 15:3; 2Co 5:21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:5; Eph 1:7; 2:13-17; Col 1:14,20-22; 2:13-14; 1Th 5:10; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 2:9-10,17; 9:12-14,26-28; 10:10-18; 13:12; 1Pe 1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18; 1Jo 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Rev 1:5; 5:9]. As part of believing the gospel, all regenerate persons have repented of dead works and former idolatry. They have repented of ever thinking that salvation was conditioned on themselves. They have repented of ever thinking that anything they did would gain favor with God. They realize that before hearing and believing the true gospel, all their works were evil in the sight of God. [Deu 4:34-35; Isa 45:6,20-25; Mat 13:23; Mar 16:16; Joh 6:40; 8:32; 16:8-11; 17:3; Act 16:14-15; Rom 1:16-17; 3:26; 6:17,21; 7:6; 1Co 2:10-12; 2Co 4:2-6; Eph 1:13; Phi 3:7-8; 2Th 2:13-14; Heb 9:14; 1Jo 5:20]
Furthermore, I’m not making judgements about where someone will spend eternity. I can’t and don’t send people to “eternal damnation”. But I DO make judgements about a person’s current spiritual state, whether regenerate or unregenerate [Isa 8:20; 45:20; Mat 7:15-20; Mar 16:16; Luk 6:43-45; Joh 7:24; Rom 10:1-3; 1Co 5:11-12; Ga1 1:8-9; 1Jo 4:1,6; 2Jo 9]
2. bergref also wrote: <>
[CA] bergref, would you be so kind as to provide a *quote* from the article (or anywhere on the website, for that matter) that “take[s] away the universal invitation”? Thanks.
The command to repent and believe the Gospel is preached to all without exception. But that is not because there is some desire on the part of God for the salvation of all without exception. It is because God has not revealed to us who is elect, and who is not, and therefore he commands us to preach the Gospel to all without exception, trusting that the Gospel will be a savor of life to life for the people of God, and a savor of death to death for those who are not (2Co 2:16) “For many are called, but few chosen”(Mat 22:14).
3.bergref also wrote: <>
[CA] The doctrine put forth in the “Gospel Atonement” article is the ONLY ground of hope. It is the good news that Jesus Christ has accomplished EVERYTHING necessary for the salvation of his people [Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24-26; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:28; 27:35-50; Mar 15:24-37; Luk 23:33-46; 24:46; Joh 11:49-52; 19:16-30; Act 17:3; 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; 5:6-11; 1Co 1:30; 5:7; 6:20; 15:3; 2Co 5:21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:5; Eph 1:7; 2:13-17; Col 1:14,20-22; 2:13-14; 1Th 5:10; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 2:9-10,17; 9:12-14,26-28; 10:10-18; 13:12; 1Pe 1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18; 1Jo 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Rev 1:5; 5:9]. It is not hope as the world thinks of hope, but a hope based exclusively on the finished work of Jesus Christ, with nothing left over for the sinner to accomplish towards his salvation. This is a hope which can never be disappointed.
4. Last, bergref wrote:
<to be the Judge of attonement but lay my case to those who can read to have strength that God somehow does call some and not all, and that our commision is to explain the invitation to all and be a kind of person that there is a testimony in their walk, not a finger pointer to all those who do not believe as they do.
In Christian love. John>>
[CA] I’m not setting myself up as “the Judge of attonement”. But I AM setting forth the biblical doctrine of the Atonement, and what it accomplishes on behalf of all for whom it is intended.
As far as pointing fingers, yes I am most certainly pointing fingers. The true Gospel is best understood in contrast with the false gospels. Jesus, Paul, and John all pointed fingers (Mat. 16:12; 23:13; 2Ti. 2:17; 3Jo. 1:9; Rev. 2:15, 20).
bergref, you wrote that you were “not implying universal atonement”. Do you believe that any for whom Christ died are in Hell, or will go to Hell? If so, that is not “Christian love” but “Satanic hatred”. It is proclaiming that the work of Jesus Christ accomplished NOTHING of itself, but only becomes effectual when the sinner does his part.
Chris Adams.
================================
bergref replied with to this post with a single line. Here it is with my response:
================================
bergref wrote:
<<Why not just say you believe it is heresy, and let everyone decide themselves?….John>>
[CA] I would be willing to call Universal Atonement merely a heresy if it only had reference to, say, Eschatology. But it doesn’t. Universal Atonement rips the heart out of THE GOSPEL. If the blood of Jesus Christ doesn’t atone for ALL for whom it is intended, then you are left with a salvation which is dependent on MAN, and that is no salvation.
Would you make the same objection if I had said that all who deny the deity of Jesus Christ are lost? Would you say: “Why not just say you believe [denying the deity of Christ] is heresy, and let everyone decide themselves?” All who deny the deity of Jesus Christ rip the heart out of the Gospel, also. The doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ is just as fundamental to the Gospel as is the doctrine of his work.
If you “decide for yourself” that you just don’t agree with the doctrine of Jesus’ deity, then you are denying the Gospel. In that case it would not be love, but HATRED, to tell you that everything is well with your soul. The exact same thing is true of those who deny the effectual WORK of Christ.
Christopher Adams. (4/11/06)
================================
For more information please see:
April 22, 2012
Mark DeYoung vs. the Gospel, pt. 4
Recently, I had an email discussion with a man named Mark DeYoung, in response to some things I had written to Ken Lokken. This is DeYoung’s final response to me. Note that he outright refused to discuss any biblical issues unless I first spoke peace to him. Note that he also accused me of being “unwilling” to discuss any biblical issues! Talk about hypocrisy.
================================
From: Mark DeYoung
To: Chris Adams, Ken Lokken, Vic Sciavone, etc.
January 27, 2012
Re: Emailing: There is One Elohim
Ken and Vic,
Jesus warned us of people like Christopher…
Because he will not listen, Jesus said there comes a time we must shake the dust off of our feet, take the peace with us that is given by our God and His son Jesus.
There is never a time that such angry belligerence is considered acceptable, especially in the discussion of the Bible, our faith and the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
Here is Jesus words of instruction and also word of warning!
Matthew 10:13-20 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. (14) If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. (15) Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. (16) ”See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. (17) Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; (18) and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles. (19) When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you at that time; (20) for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Christopher, I have spent the last few days since your last email that I was aware of being sent out, as to my response.
Your refusal to “Come and let us reason together” concerning the Word of God, and your constantly foul spirited lambasting of anyone that refuses to accept your definition of God and the plan of salvation, has caused me to realize that this is the best time to say, “Good Day to you sir.”
Mark D.
================================
At this point, Chris Duncan (who runs the outstanding blog Agrammatos) jumped in, nicely summarizing the debate to that point:
================================
From: Chris Duncan
To: Mark DeYoung, Chris Adams, etc.
January 28, 2012
Re: Emailing: There is One Elohim
It looks to me like Mark DeYoung is exhibiting angry belligerence toward my brother in Christ, Christopher Adams. Initially, DeYoung was willing to count a Trinitarian as his brother in the Lord since, evidently, he believes the true identity of Jesus Christ to be a non-essential doctrine over which true Christians may disagree. What kind of sense does it make to solemnly warn a person over a non-essential or secondary doctrine?
Does Vic Schiavone think the true identity of Jesus Christ is a non-essential doctrine, over which true Christians may disagree? It seems so, since he just wished nothing but blessing upon him, in his last e-mail. DeYoung is belligerently warning Christopher, and Schiavone is “lovingly” blessing Christopher. DeYoung and Schiavone cannot get on the same page regarding someone who stubbornly refuses to relinquish his belief in a doctrine they believe to be non-essential.
In John 8:24, Jesus connects disbelief in His true identity with a person dying in their sins — evidently, a very small hint of mean-spirited and unChrist-like belligerence is being exhibited here.
More angry, impatient belligerence:
“Who is the liar, except the one denying, saying that Jesus is not the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one denying the Father and the Son. Everyone denying the Son does not have the Father. The one confessing the Son also has the Father” (1 John 2:22-23; emphasis mine).
Is a Son who merely came into existence at the time of Bethlehem being described here by John? Does it look like John thinks the true identity of the Son is something over which true Christians may disagree? Not unless, you believe John is calling true Christians antichrists, liars, and those who do not have the Father. So, unlike some of the non-Trinitarians on this list, the apostle John does not believe this is a secondary issue.
Do the non-Trinitarians believe that Trinitarians such as Christopher Adams and myself are denying the Son? How about you, Mr. Buzzard? I’ve seen your debate with James White and Michael Brown (both damnable heretics, by the way), where they voiced “concern” for you and your debate partner — but they lacked the spiritual spine to actually go as far the apostle John went (James White even referenced the apostle John’s words). Mr. Buzzard, in the debate, you had seemingly echoed their “concern” as well:
Sir Anthony: “… same as we. I’ve been told I don’t believe in God because I believe there’s a devil. I’ve been told I don’t speak in tongues enough so I couldn’t be saved. I’ve heard this from every single denomination. This is nothing new….”
Same as we? What does that mean? Are you saying that you, likewise, are “concerned” over the souls of tolerant Calvinist heretic James White and Arminian heretic, Michael Brown? What’s with the lack of certitude on your, James White’s, and Michael Brown’s parts? Why not come right out and say it like the apostle John did? Can’t bring yourselves to be that mean and belligerent?
Chris Duncan
================================
April 15, 2012
Mark DeYoung vs. the Gospel, pt. 3
Recently, I had an email discussion with a man named Mark DeYoung, in response to some things I had written to Ken Lokken. This is DeYoung’s response to my first email.
================================
From: Mark DeYoung
To: Chris Adams
January 23, 2012
Re: Fw: Demon possesion; a few thoughts
Christopher,
Your boldness is commendable in the beginning of this email, the belligerence by the end is unnecessary. The line “And I must warn you that you are going on in your simplicity, unaware of the danger to your soul. You do not believe in the deity of Christ, and therefore, you do not believe the Gospel. You are lost, and your deeds are evil. Again, the Gospel is:” That is totally uncalled for, and shows a lack of God’s love and desire for all men to come torepentance.
Jesus when preparing the disciples for his departure said this,
John 13:34-35 (NRSV) I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. (35) By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
If you truly thought that I am a lost sinner undone in my sins headed straight for a Devil’s hell to be tormented for all eternity for my lack of faith, and you spoke to me that way; then my blood would be on your hand’s when you stand before God to give an account for actions.
Now I am willing to continue, if you are willing to discuss this not only as Christians, but as disciples of Jesus Christ, which means we will correspond with compassion, gentleness and meekness. If these are acceptable terms then we will continue.
We can start with any one of the things that you listed in this last email. But we aren’t going to refer to your web pages, spell everything out in the email including the passages of Scripture you wish to refer to.
But let’s discuss one thing at a time, I’m a full time pastor of a church and my time is limited when it comes to email correspondence.
=======================================
From: Chris Adams
To: Mark DeYoung
January 23, 2012
Re: Fw: Demon possesion; a few thoughts
Mark –
You wrote:
“Your boldness is commendable in the beginning of this email, the belligerence by the end is unnecessary. The line “And I must warn you that you are going on in your simplicity, unaware of the danger to your soul. You do not believe in the deity of Christ, and therefore, you do not believe the Gospel. You are lost, and your deeds are evil. Again, the Gospel is:” That is totally uncalled for, and shows a lack of God’s love and desire for all men to come to repentance.”
What I was trying to show you is that the “simpleton … go[ing] blindly on” referred to in your own signature, is in fact you. I was hoping to shake you out of your simplicity, and show you the true nature of the danger you face.
As for my “lack of God’s love”; in the first place, God does not want all men without exception to come to repentance (Rom 9:17), but all men without distinction (Col 3:11, 1Ti 2:1-4).
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might show forth My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth.”
Col 3:11 where there is no Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, slave or freeman, but Christ is all things and in all.
1Ti 2: (1) First of all then, I exhort that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men, (2) for kings and all the ones being in high position, that we may lead a tranquil and quiet existence in all godliness and dignity. (3) For this is good and acceptable before God our deliverer, (4) who desires all men to be delivered and to come to a full knowledge of truth.
Of course, you’re not complaining about God’s lack of love, but about mine. The problem is that you apparently equate love with me telling you that everything is right with your soul, and everything is right between you and God. But it isn’t, and I won’t lie, and tell you it is.
If a man was sleeping in a burning house would it be more loving to let him enjoy his restful slumber, or would it be more loving to shout and annoy him?
Was Christ being loving towards the Pharisees in Matthew ch. 23, when he called them a brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs? Was Ezekiel being unloving towards the Jews when he described their apostasy in repulsively sexual terms? Was Paul being unloving when he said he wished that the Judaizers would emasculate themselves?
Mat 23: (14) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour the houses of widows, and pray at length as a pretext. Because of this you will receive more abundant judgment. (15) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you go about the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte; and when he has become so, you make him twofold more a son of Hell than yourselves. (16) Woe to you, blind guides, who say, Whoever swears by the Holy Place, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the Holy Place is a debtor. (17) Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold, or the Holy Place that sanctifies the gold?
Eze 16:25 At the head of every highway you have built your high place, and have made your beauty despised. And you have parted your feet to all who passed by, and have multiplied your fornications.
Gal 5:12 I would that the ones causing you to doubt will cut themselves off.
Mark, I do hope that you will come to repentance, but that means that you need to repent; that is, you need to be saved. How else should I tell you to come to repentance, except by telling you that you are lost? If I told you that you were saved, there wouldn’t be any need for repentance.
But there’s more. In previous correspondence, Ken Lokken told me this: “I dare say if you continue in your beliefs now that you are informed..you certainly will not be part of the kingdom and that means you are LOST!” So, Mark, are you going to rebuke Ken, tell him that this was uncalled for, and shows a lack of God’s love, and desire for all men to come to repentance? If so, I want to be on the cc list.
You wrote:
“Jesus when preparing the disciples for his departure said this,
John 13:34-35 (NRSV) I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. (35) By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.””
Mark, you don’t believe the Gospel. Therefore, you are not my brother in Christ. Your father is the devil, and you are an enemy of the true God, the true Christ, and the true Gospel.
You also wrote: “If you truly thought that I am a lost sinner undone in my sins headed straight for a Devil’s hell to be tormented for all eternity for my lack of faith, and you spoke to me that way; then my blood would be on your hand’s when you stand before God to give an account for actions.”
This is the opposite of the truth. See Eze 3:18-19. I have delivered my soul, and the responsibility to repent is now yours.
Eze 3: (18) In My saying to the wicked, Surely you shall die; and you do not warn him, and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, he, the wicked, shall die in his iniquity. But I will require his blood at your hand. (19) And you, because you have warned the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his way, he, the wicked, shall die in his iniquity. But you have delivered your soul.
You also wrote:
“Now I am willing to continue, if you are willing to discuss this not only as Christians, but as disciples of Jesus Christ, which means we will correspond with compassion, gentleness and meekness. ”
Again, was Christ using compassion, gentleness, and meekness towards the Pharisees in Matthew ch. 23, when he called them a brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs? Was Ezekiel using compassion, gentleness, and meekness towards the Jews when he described their apostasy in repulsively sexual terms? Was Paul using compassion, gentleness, and meekness when he said he wished that the Judaizers would emasculate themselves?
The answer to all three questions is: Yes, they were. And if you disagree, then you need to adjust your concept of compassion, gentleness, and meekness, or else admit that God inspired these men to say and write sinful things (which would be blasphemy).
You also wrote:
“We can start with any one of the things that you listed in this last email. But we aren’t going to refer to your web pages, spell everything out in the email including the passages of Scripture you wish to refer to.”
It seems like not too long ago somebody said this to me: “Christopher I hope you don’t mind the copy and paste, but why should the wheel be reinvented? ” Well, good question. Why should I reinvent the wheel? For this post, I have pasted in the passages I referred to, but I have also already written a good deal of stuff that is relevant to this argument, including the Christian Confession of Faith, a couple of articles, and a dozen pages of correspondence with Ken Lokken. Do you really want me copy and paste all of that here? If you’re willing to read all of that, it’s just as easy to click a link.
Furthermore, you’re not the only person that that post was sent to. There are quite a few names on that cc list, and if any of them were interested in the previous material, they deserved to have the link.
If you want to continue this exchange, fine, but this is not a friendly discussion between brothers in Christ. Nor is it a discussion about trivial matters. It is a discussion about the fundamentals of the Gospel, and that has eternal consequences. If you believe in a false Gospel to your dying breath, you will spend eternity in hell.
Mar 16:16 The one believing and being baptized will be saved. And the one not believing will be condemned.
Rom 10: (1) Brothers, truly my heart’s pleasure and supplication to God on behalf of Israel is for it to be saved. (2) For I testify to them that they have zeal to God, but not according to knowledge. (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.
Christopher Adams.
=======================================
See also:
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
