# A Final Response to Matt



## pastorway (Apr 17, 2006)

I have amended my critique and added a final response from my point of view to the debate at hand.

You can read it here, after the initial post:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16642&page=1#pid230908

Phillip


----------



## turmeric (Apr 17, 2006)

> > Elect Neophytes are under God´s sovereign grace of regeneration. After they are regenerate, they will grow in faith according to the Word. They certainly will not grow under contemporary theology today. Contemporary "œarminian" theology is a mess. Its good for nothing. But neophytes will grow, being nurtured by the Holy Spirit as they read the Word and believe the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now I'm no theologian but in my most uneducated opinion, it looks like the worst thing Matt could possibly be saying is that if you don't believe in TULIP you're some kind of carnal immature Christian.


----------



## Tirian (Apr 17, 2006)

Brothers & Sisters,

Just a thought: I wonder about the value of seeing either of these learned & godly men's positions debated by others in public. In some respects, I wonder if it would be more edifying if a position of understanding (not necessarily agreement) could be reached between the men in a closed forum and then ultimately a final summary provided to the open forum given the original challenge was made openly.

(Meg, I see you have responded already - this was not directed at you because of your post.)

Forgive me if I'm stepping on toes.

Your brother in Christ,

Matt


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 18, 2006)

Very briefly, and finally:

After reading my article, "The god of Arminianism is not Worshippable" Phillip wrote a critique (see above) in which I have already commented on its bias and unfair nature. He selectively quoted 5 articles on my site and then accused me of denying the Gospel. My response is here: http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonComingToFaith.htm

He asked me if I would recant of denying the Gospel. His words quoted: "œMatt, do you recant of your denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ?"

Denying the Gospel is a grave charge, for all who deny the Gospel will be thrown into the lake of fire, "œwhere there is weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 22:13). These are those whom the Lord says, "œI never knew you" (Matthew 7:32). The charge is the gravest charge anyone may muster. It is so grave, that even calling your brother "œa fool" will endanger you to hell fire (Matthew 5:22). For those who know Reformed History, Martin Luther was asked by the Roman Catholic Church to recant of his works, and to recant of the Gospel. "œRecanting" cannot be taken lightly in any setting. 

Because of the gravity of this, I agreed to write a response to this accusation and post it.

In the meantime, Phillip called the moderator of my denomination, the RPCGA, and accused me of the same denial of the Gospel. He appealed to the moderator to look into this - the moderator of my Presbytery (though Phillip is not Presbyterian). He never called me first, which is the biblical mandate.

Not only did he accuse me of "œdenial of the gospel of Jesus Christ", but also proceeded to unload all of his disagreements about me for the past 5 years. This included "œWhat it means to be Reformed," "œOrdination", and "œecclesiology." It seems Phillip´s critique of my papers extends far beyond simply that one paper, and used that one paper as an excuse to unload all of these things. At no time did Phillip ever personally confront me, though Christ commands it. Matthew 18:15, "œMoreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother."

The Presbytery was concerned about one of their ministers being accused of denying the Gospel. I had just gone through ordination not but 6 months ago, and they ordained me based on my ordination vows to "œuphold the Reformed faith and the Gospel" and were concerned that someone was bringing this charge (not formally) but seriously.

They asked to read my response. 

I sent them my response.

Two theologians were assigned to read it "“ Dr. Gary Crampton (an Edwardsian scholar and Reformed Theologian) and Dr. Kenneth Talbot (a Reformed Theologian and President of Whitefield Theological Seminary).

They said, "œ"œWe both read the paper and"¦everything seems in order from a Reformed Presbyterian perspective." 

After they read it I posted it at A Puritan´s Mind.

Phillip refused to read the paper simply because he said it was too long.

I even emailed Phillip explaining that we need to be reconciled.

The response he posted above was his response to me.

This is unbecoming not only a minister of the Gospel, but also a Christian. It is exceedingly saddening.

The representatives of the RPCGA instructed me to move on from this if no reconciliation was possible, and Phillip refused to read the response. I will follow their instructions, though it is disheartening.


----------

