Fresh Criticism of OUTSIDETHECAMP.ORG theology

[7djengo7]

Hello, readers.

I particularly hope, here, to converse with people who may have grappled a little, in the depths of their souls, with some of the theological material presented by one Marc D. Carpenter, who promulgates his doctrine via his website, OUTSIDETHECAMP.ORG.

I intend to refer readers, and hopefully, Mr. Carpenter, himself, to many things which he hath asserted in his articles, and in his correspondence with others, and to try to help them to look into those things more sharply, and with more diligence of analysis, than (I believe) they have, hitherto, been looked into. I think that Mr. Carpenter's theology is a tissue of mutually conflicting ideas and propositions.

I suppose, for now, I will leave this introductory post quite short, and I shall not actually begin my criticisms in it, but shall hold off until the next post. Now, I am somewhat of a scatter-brain, and I cannot honestly propose that I have some grand, efficient organizational scheme planned out, according to which I shall conduct my discourse. I will rather, as I see it, be quite informal, and on-the-fly, and broach what I will, as my mind is prompted; I know no other way. Really, I have little interpersonal debate experience under my belt, in any format. I am far from naturalized into the world of internet debate, and I realize that, perhaps, many who chance to follow this thread may, unlike me, be quite seasoned and at home in such an environment. Hopefully, though, I will gain a little proficiency through this experience, however, and, perhaps, make some literary friends.

Well, I suppose I'll see you soon. And, thanks for reading!

[7djengo7]

In his transcript of his sermon on Romans 3:1-8 (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/romans15.htm) Mr. Carpenter wrote:

Now let's think of the context in which David wrote Psalm 51. It is after Nathan the prophet exposed David's sins of murder and adultery. David first confesses his sin against God, and then he says that God is justified in His speaking. I believe that this has two meanings. First, David is confessing that God is just in His temporal punishment of David and his house. Nathan said that the sword will not turn aside from David's house continually and that he will raise up evil against David in his own house and will give his wives to others.

Ok. What we have, here, is an admission, from Mr. Carpenter, that David suffered punishment for (at least some of) his own sin. But, not only that; Mr. Carpenter claims, also, that David's "house" suffered punishment for (at least some of) David's own sin. I take "house", here, to indicate that, according to Mr. Carpenter, at least one other human being suffered punishment for (at least some of) David's own sin.

In his article, The Damnable Heresy of Arminianism (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heresyarmin.htm), Mr. Carpenter wrote:

However, if God sends even one person to hell whose sins have been punished, then God is punishing twice for the same sins -- once when Jesus died, and now a second time when people are being punished in hell. So has God's wrath really been appeased? If God judges anyone to hell for whom Christ died, then this nullifies Christ as propitiation.

Was Christ punished, in His death, for those sins ("murder and adultery") which, according to Mr. Carpenter, David, himself was punished for? Were Christ and David both punished for David's sins ("murder and adultery")?
But, not only that; again, notice that Mr. Carpenter claims that not only David, himself, suffered punishment for David's sins, but, also, that at least one other person (David's "house") besides David (not to mention Jesus Christ) was punished for David's "sins of murder and adultery". This means that, according to what Mr. Carpenter has written in these quotations, at least three persons were punished for one man's (David's) "sins of murder and adultery". This is not a case of God punishing merely twice for David's "sins of murder and adultery", but, at the very least, thrice.

I have much more to say, but I have to light out for now. Please stay tuned! Thanks. See you later.

[Chaotic Void]

Moderated By: Chaotic Void

I'm moving this to a place more suited for discussion.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

By the way, welcome to Theologyweb.

[Bernie]

In his transcript of his sermon on Romans 3:1-8 (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/romans15.htm) Mr. Carpenter wrote:


Now let's think of the context in which David wrote Psalm 51. It is after Nathan the prophet exposed David's sins of murder and adultery. David first confesses his sin against God, and then he says that God is justified in His speaking. I believe that this has two meanings. First, David is confessing that God is just in His temporal punishment of David and his house. Nathan said that the sword will not turn aside from David's house continually and that he will raise up evil against David in his own house and will give his wives to others.
Ok. What we have, here, is an admission, from Mr. Carpenter, that David suffered punishment for (at least some of) his own sin. But, not only that; Mr. Carpenter claims, also, that David's "house" suffered punishment for (at least some of) David's own sin. I take "house", here, to indicate that, according to Mr. Carpenter, at least one other human being suffered punishment for (at least some of) David's own sin.

Salvation, like all else God has designed, exists in a dualism, temporal and eternal, as I see it. You already correctly noted that David's punishment played out in time. In eternity, all for whom Christ died (literally all humans, as Scripture attests to) are already perfect in God's eyes. In fact, it's because we're perfect in this view that God's wrath is deflected from the defective individual to that stain in essence (or spirit) which is the defect and the cause of sin.

I think God does not punish others of David's house, but being omniscient is telling David what wrath his own sin will bring as a causative effect upon his own house as he continues his walk through time and space.

In his article, The Damnable Heresy of Arminianism (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heresyarmin.htm), Mr. Carpenter wrote:


However, if God sends even one person to hell whose sins have been punished, then God is punishing twice for the same sins -- once when Jesus died, and now a second time when people are being punished in hell. So has God's wrath really been appeased? If God judges anyone to hell for whom Christ died, then this nullifies Christ as propitiation.
Was Christ punished, in His death, for those sins ("murder and adultery") which, according to Mr. Carpenter, David, himself was punished for? Were Christ and David both punished for David's sins ("murder and adultery")?
But, not only that; again, notice that Mr. Carpenter claims that not only David, himself, suffered punishment for David's sins, but, also, that at least one other person (David's "house") besides David (not to mention Jesus Christ) was punished for David's "sins of murder and adultery". This means that, according to what Mr. Carpenter has written in these quotations, at least three persons were punished for one man's (David's) "sins of murder and adultery". This is not a case of God punishing merely twice for David's "sins of murder and adultery", but, at the very least, thrice.

Fortunately, as spokesman for the Society of Rational Esotericists, I am authorized to give the rationally esoteric response to this seeming dilemma. The answer lies in clearing up a misunderstanding the organized church has about what, exactly, the atonement of our Lord accomplished (and accomplishes).

If we maintain that the purpose of Christ's atonement was to pay for one's sins such that one gets off without personal culpability, we'll remain forever confused.

The confusion evaporates when it's held that Jesus' atonement is such that when one dies for his own sin, this death (which is primarily spiritual, and secondarily material) is regenerated back to life (thus raised from the dead). Jesus allows us to die fragmentally for our own sins, because to the precise extent we die, He brings us fragmentally back to a new life ("Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." Jn 12:24) which never perishes (1Cor 9:25, 15:50-54 1Pet 1:23, etc.). We call this "sanctification". It's actually fragmental regeneration.

Thus, hell (regeneration) is itself the very love of God. We can participate with Christ in the hell of sanctification in life ("For everyone will be salted with fire." Mark 9:49) or choose rebelliousness to the point of physical death and "pay" afterward (as re parable of Lazarus and rich man in Luke 16), but each "payment" is itself rewarded with new life.

Hence, even the most hardened against Christ's love will nonetheless be rewarded with precisely that same love, to exactly the depth and extent of that hatred, and so with all humans: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." (1Cor 15:22)

The Calvinist affixes his attention principally on the eternal aspect of God's great plan of salvation. The eternal represents immutability, where everything is starkly black and white. It's not surprising that, when one sees most clearly this absolute, unchanging nature where God's power is sovereign and complete, one sees rigidly performed wrath and blessing, as Calvinist doctrine bears testimony to. The Calvinist is correct that wrath and blessing are sovereignly and starkly imposed by God; he is merely mistaken in assigning this imposition on individuals when it is actually directed to the individual's constituent components.

The Arminian observes mainly the temporal aspect of this plan, where there's some breathing room, change and potential are the mainstays of the day, and the human will has some latitude. The Arminian is correct that one chooses participation in salvation with Christ, but fails to recognize that in God's sovereignty, man's continued rebelliousness will not stand in the way of God's love.

Put the two together and you have the solution: God's eternal will (all will be saved) is accomplished, regardless of how man chooses. All we choose is the hard way (rebelliousness) or the easy way (compliance, conformity). In the former, one dies harshly, in the lake of fire, in the loving, fiery embrace of God's purity. In the latter, one dies fragmentally and relatively painlessly (Isa 42:25)in time in sanctification, such that faith is established to protect from the burning lake as Daniel's friends were protected in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace.

[Kelp]

Here's a welcome thread for you, 7djengo7

[RBerman]

So...the purpose of this thread is to write a series of mini-essays criticizing an obscure website that you don't like, the author of which website is unlikely to ever see your criticism. Does that sum up your purpose in joining TWeb?

[Bernie]

So...the purpose of this thread is to write a series of mini-essays criticizing an obscure website that you don't like, the author of which website is unlikely to ever see your criticism. Does that sum up your purpose in joining TWeb?

On the other hand, the content of the website is so radical that I would imagine even most Calvinists would want to distance themselves from what this guy is writing. All Arminians are going to hell? There's the spirit of Christ for you.

Also, is there anything in the forum rules which forbids someone joining for the sole purpose of discussing a particular topic, subject or point of view? If so, I missed it. Perhaps you'll point this up so everyone will be edified?

[RBerman]

On the other hand, the content of the website is so radical that I would imagine even most Calvinists would want to distance themselves from what this guy is writing. All Arminians are going to hell? There's the spirit of Christ for you.

Also, is there anything in the forum rules which forbids someone joining for the sole purpose of discussing a particular topic, subject or point of view? If so, I missed it. Perhaps you'll point this up so everyone will be edified?

No rules broken, as you say. It just strikes me as odd that someone joined the forum for the purpose of telling us not to listen to a website that most of us would not have heard of, had it not been brought up by the poster. I found that website years ago and knew it was worthless, but time would fail me to debate all the worthless websites out there, especially to debate them in absentia. So I'm curious what motivates our new poster.

[7djengo7]

So...the purpose of this thread is to write a series of mini-essays criticizing an obscure website that you don't like, the author of which website is unlikely to ever see your criticism. Does that sum up your purpose in joining TWeb?

What do you mean by "obscure"? Because you, RBerman, have not spent time digesting the material on OUTSIDETHECAMP.ORG, said website is to be called "obscure"? But, what is that to me if you wish to think it obscure?

Did you miss my sentence, at the top of my thread-starter?

I particularly hope, here, to converse with people who may have grappled a little, in the depths of their souls, with some of the theological material presented by one Marc D. Carpenter, who promulgates his doctrine via his website, OUTSIDETHECAMP.ORG.

How could I have made it more clear that, indeed, I have an ideal target readership? And, of course, that is not to say that I wish to avoid discussion with various others . . . even folks, who, like yourself, I imagine, may, quite appropriately, be described as "flamers".

Have you spent any time with OUTSIDETHECAMP.ORG, RBerman? It would be interesting for you to admit that you have, out of the one side of your mouth, while, out of the other, you have referred to it as "an obscure website"; are you, perhaps, trying to confess that you are an obscurantist?

But, in case you have not spent any time with OUTSIDETHECAMP.ORG, and, in case the propositions asserted therein are of no interest to you, why is it that you bothered looking at, and, moreover, posting to, this thread that I started? What is it to you whether or not I wrote what I wrote? Who are you?

Oh, and I do intend for Mr. Carpenter to see my criticism. I am emailing him, directing him to this very thread, and I am going to do what I can to invite several persons to read my stuff, persons with whom Mr. Carpenter has corresponded. So, contrary to what you wrote, it is likely that "the author of which website" will not only see my criticism, but will find himself in a position where he will need to try to defend the crooked planks of his theological platform. The criticisms, and the method, wherewith I intend to criticize Mr. Carpenter's theological bag, are ironclad, and he will not be able to satisfy any astute reader with his attempts at a defence. And, what better way for me to endeavour to drag Mr. Carpenter into a position of needing to defend his doctrines than by (to quote you, RBerman) "joining TWeb"? In case I can get a small community of persons thinking about Mr. Carpenter's theology, willing to question Mr. Carpenter about many specific things which he hath written (which things may have even troubled their minds a little or a lot (as I, 5 years ago, was quite troubled by them for a spell)) then, so far as Mr. Carpenter is interested in maintaining whatever influence he believes he has in his platform, what is more exigent to him than trying to answer my criticisms, point by point?

If you have any grievance with my attempt to thus engage Mr. Carpenter, I do not know what I could do to console you.

Now, are you, RBerman, concerned about Mr. Carpenter's theology, especially those points that I have already adressed in the previous post? If not, then, of course, it will seem quite strange should you choose to hang around this particular thread that I have started.

One thing you said, though, RBerman-- that I have a purpose "to write a series of mini-essays"-- is quite good. That's what I intend to do. And, I'll try to deliver. Forgive me (and I say this to all interested in interacting with me in this thread) if, due to limited time, I am not as prompt to respond as would satisfy you. Know, though, that I am eager to do so.

I will try not to be so pompous-sounding, and, as readers might think, "wordy". I'll try to be more concise. Partly it comes to me from being in the habit of reading lots of old stuff, especially from past English centuries, and partly, from a constant spark I have to strive, in any way I may, against the stupidity culture brought to us by tv, radio, etc.

I gotta split, for now, but I'll be back as soon as I am able. And, as this response to RBerman's comment was, as I feel, not necessary, and scarcely germaine to my thread (as was RBerman's comment, itself (I responded to it just for the fun of it)), I will, next installment, get back to my stated region of critical discussion. And, I will, if only in private messages, try to respond to others who have written thoughtfully to me, such as Bernie, as I really am interested in corresponding with such!

[RBerman]

Djengo, as I said in my post above, I ran across that website years ago and came to the conclusion that it promulgates a false version of Calvinism which I would not encourage others to waste any time reading. But you have answered my question: You desire to post your position here on this website and then invite Mr. Carpenter to come here and read it on a site he does not control. Thank you for explaining your purpose.

[7djengo7]

The Damnable Circularity of Carpenterism

In this post, I shall start by giving a few quotes from Mr. Carpenter:

Now check out how the Holy Spirit through Paul has logically ordered things in verses 17 and 18. First, you were slaves to sin. Second, you believed the gospel. Third, you were set free from sin and enslaved to righteousness. Let's focus on the second and third things in this logical order. The first thing that needs to be said is that it is a LOGICAL order, not a TEMPORAL order. Believing the gospel and being set free from sin and being enslaved to righteousness happen AT THE SAME TIME.

(Sermon on ROMANS 6:17-18, http://outsidethecamp.org/romans37.htm )

Faith is the instrument through which a believer receives the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and is justified.

(Christian Confession of Faith, Section V., http://outsidethecamp.org/ccfv.htm)

[God] does not show grace or love to anyone who has anything less than perfect righteousness.

(Common Grace?, http://www.outsidethecamp.org/commongrace.htm)

Should you believe, be sure of this: your faith is a gift that God has given you and is a miracle that comes from the power of the wonderful message of His gospel.

(Everlasting Life, http://www.outsidethecamp.org/life.htm)

Now, consider these three events:

__ God's initial showing grace and love to a person

__ God's giving to a person the gift of faith

__ God's imputing to a person the righteousness of Jesus Christ through the instrument, faith

I understand, Mr. Carpenter, that you will say that, as far as "TEMPORAL order" goes, these three events occur exactly simultaneously. Let's, then, talk about what you would call the "LOGICAL order" of them. What is the "LOGICAL order" of these three events, here, Mr. Carpenter?

According to Mr. Carpenter,

-You need God's grace to receive faith.

Should you believe, be sure of this: your faith is a gift that God has given you . . .

-You need faith to receive perfect righteousness.

Faith is the instrument through which a believer receives the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and is justified.

-You need perfect righteousness to receive God's grace.

[God] does not show grace or love to anyone who has anything less than perfect righteousness.

So,

1. On what condition will God give you faith? Only on the condition that God is already gracious to you.

2. On what condition will God be gracious to you? Only on the condition that God has already imputed perfect righteousness to you.

3. On what condition will God give you perfect righteousness? Only on the condition that God has already given you faith.

4. On what condition will God give you faith? See Step 1.

What you have handed your readers, then, Mr. Carpenter, is that, in "LOGICAL order", God must, first, show grace to a person so that He can, second, give faith to that person, so that He can, third, impute Christ's righteousness to that person, so that He can, fourth, show grace to that person!

Let us see what Mr. Carpenter says concerning what it is for a thing to be conditioned on a thing:

What does it mean to CONDITION something on something else? "Condition" as a noun means "an essential requirement of." So if A is CONDITIONED on B, then A cannot happen until the requirement of B is met.

(Essential Gospel Doctrine, from Outside the Camp Vol. 5, No. 3, http://outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm)

Let's take these three items:

A. God's giving to a person faith.
B. God's imputing to a person perfect righteousness.
C. God's showing to a person grace.

According to Mr. Carpenter, C is conditioned on B:

[God] does not show grace or love to anyone who has anything less than perfect righteousness.

So, the showing of grace to a person, by God, "cannot happen until the requirement of" God's having imputed perfect righteousness to that person "is met".

According to Mr. Carpenter, B is conditioned on A:

Faith is the instrument through which a believer receives the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and is justified.

So, the imputation of perfect righteousness to a person, by God, "cannot happen until the requirement of" God's having given faith to that person "is met".

According to Mr. Carpenter, A is conditioned on C:

Should you believe, be sure of this: your faith is a gift that God has given you . . .

So, the giving of faith to a person, by God, "cannot happen until the requirement of" God's having commenced showing grace to that person "is met".

So, what Mr. Carpenter has handed us is this:

C is CONDITIONED on B,
B is CONDITIONED on A,
A is CONDITIONED on C,


And, all this is reducible to this:

C is CONDITIONED on A.

Further, it is reducible to this:

C is CONDITIONED on C.

Unfortunately, Mr. Carpenter, in his little discussion on what it means for a thing to be conditioned on a thing only asks, and answers, the question:

What does it mean to CONDITION something on something else?

But he does not ask:

What does it mean to CONDITION something on itself?

Is that even a possibility, for C to be CONDITIONED on C? Yet, that is how it is in Mr. Carpenter's theology!

I would ask Mr. Carpenter:

Can A have TEMPORAL priority over C while C has TEMPORAL priority over A? Of course not!

Can A have LOGICAL, or CAUSAL priority over C while C has CAUSAL priority over A? Again, of course not!

Yet, in Mr. Carpenter's scheme, A (God's giving faith to a person) is supposed to have CAUSAL priority over C (God's showing grace to that person) while C is also supposed to have CAUSAL priority over A! And further, (in as much as his scheme reduces, as I showed, to C being CONDITIONED on C (or, to A being CONDITIONED on A, or B on B, for that matter)), in Mr. Carpenter's scheme, C has CAUSAL priority over C-- that is, over itself! In Mr. Carpenter's scheme, C is the cause of itself, and C is the effect of itself.

[OneSizeFit]

That web design is horrid.

[7djengo7]

That web design is horrid.

I'm lost, sir. I have no idea who you are addressing, I have no idea what you mean by the term "web design", and I have no idea what "web design" you are referring to. And, since a design must have a designer, I wonder whose feelings you're trying to hurt.

Insofar as I started this thread, and tried to delineate what I wish to talk about in it, I imagine you would not think it too strange in case I were to ask you just how what you have posted to it is relevant to it. (I am not saying that what you posted is not relevant, and I'm not saying that it is, but simply that it is a mystery to me just how it is relevant.)

Perhaps I shall never know. Oh well.

[OneSizeFit]

Oh my.