Justin Peters

Scripture is verbally and plenarily inspired, inerrant in the original autographs, and sufficient on its own for the whole of Christian life — for the individual believer and the gathered church alike. Sufficiency is load-bearing within the document rather than decorative: the Spiritual Gifts section reaches its cessationist conclusion by way of it, arguing the Apostolic gifts are unnecessary because Scripture is already complete for knowing and obeying God's will.

The Bible is infallible and inerrant in the original autographs, God-breathed, and wholly sufficient for every aspect of life for both the individual believer and corporate body of Christ.Statement of Faith, The Holy Scriptures

The Protestant sixty-six. Stated as the opening clause of the statement rather than argued for — the number is given as a premise, and the Apocrypha is not mentioned anywhere in the document.

WORTH CORRECTINGThe count is asserted, not defended. Nothing here says why sixty-six rather than a wider canon, so this records what he holds and not the reasoning behind it.

The 66 books of the Bible constitute God's written revelation of Himself to mankind, whose inspiration is verbal and plenary (equally inspired in all parts).Statement of Faith, The Holy Scriptures

No position located in this corpus. The statement's Creation section is about the age of the earth and evolution rather than about what creation reveals, and its one claim in the neighbourhood — that true science never contradicts the biblical narrative — settles the relation between science and Scripture, not the question this locus asks. Romans 1:18 is cited, but for human sinfulness, not for revelation suppressed.

WORTH CORRECTINGThe Romans 1 citation is the kind of detail that invites a reading it will not bear. He quotes it inside a list of proof texts for universal sinfulness; treating that as an implied clear-suppressed position would be reading the reference rather than the man.

One God in three co-eternal, co-equal Persons of one essence, with the Son consubstantial with the Father. The Spirit gets the longest of the section's four paragraphs, and an unusual share of it argues for His personhood — intellect, emotion, volition, and the fact that He can be lied to, blasphemed, resisted and insulted. The denial it turns on is explicit in the text: He is not an "it" nor a "force."

Each Member of the Triune God is co-eternal in being, co-identical in nature, co-equal in power and glory and equally deserving of worship and obedience.Statement of Faith, God

No position located in this corpus, though not for want of Christological content. The statement affirms the Son's full deity — coequal, consubstantial, eternally begotten, possessing all the divine attributes — and insists the resurrection was bodily, not merely spiritual or metaphorical. What it never does is say how deity and humanity stand to one another in the one Person, which is the question this locus asks. There is no incarnation statement at all: no virgin birth, no assumption of human nature, and the one phrase in the neighbourhood is a conclusion drawn from the resurrection rather than a claim about how He came.

WORTH CORRECTINGOften misread as settled by the phrase "God in human flesh". It is not: that formula is common ground between the two-natures definition and the word-flesh Christology the corpus lists beside it, and nothing here affirms a complete human soul or mind. Assigning two-natures would be reading his tradition rather than his text.

No position located in this corpus. The statement's God section is occupied with the Trinity and the personhood of the Spirit, and never touches the divine council, the elohim of Psalm 82, or what the Old Testament's plural language denotes. The question is not raised in any form.

Total depravity in the full sense: Adam's fallen state is transmitted to all, and fallen man has no inherent ability either to save himself or to seek God. Depravity is stated as the reason salvation must be monergistic, so it is load-bearing rather than decorative — the inability comes first and grace alone follows from it.

Sinners are totally depraved, meaning that, left to his own fallen nature, man has no inherent ability to save himself or even to seek after God.Statement of Faith, Salvation

God chooses to redeem some of mankind for Himself and as a gift to the Son, and that sovereign choice does not cancel human accountability. He argues the doctrine is commonly misread as God keeping people out of heaven, and reframes it: all are willingly running to hell and God mercifully plucks some from a justly deserved end. What makes the choice unconditional rather than conditional is not that definition, which an Arminian could sign, but three things around it — he affirms the Doctrines of Grace by name, he holds that fallen man cannot even seek God, and nowhere does he ground election in foreseen faith.

WORTH CORRECTINGOften misread through the label, in both directions. He does not simply reject "Calvinist" — he refuses it undefined, asking what the questioner means and observing that few understand the term, then denies one specific sense of it: he is not a disciple of John Calvin, though he admires much of his work. He also argues the doctrine should fuel evangelism rather than dampen it, naming five adherents who preached hard — Whitefield, Spurgeon, Foxe, Luther and Carey. Calling him a Calvinist gets the position right and his own self-description wrong.

if you were to ask me if I believe in the Doctrines of Grace or election, I would confidently reply "Yes" because it is clearly and unmistakably taught in Scripture.Statement of Faith, Election

No position located in this corpus. The statement has a great deal to say about where faith comes from — God grants both genuine faith and genuine repentance, through the instrumentality of the Word read and preached — and nothing about what faith is made of. The notitia / assensus / fiducia analysis this locus turns on appears nowhere in the document.

WORTH CORRECTINGHis published testimony distinguishes a child-like faith that acknowledges helplessness from a childish faith he compares to believing in Santa Claus, and says genuine conversion involves trusting Christ's Person and sufficient atonement rather than merely believing He exists. That is close to the assensus-versus-fiducia distinction in substance, but it is autobiography rather than doctrinal statement, and it was not read for this pass beyond the excerpt on his About page.

Strictly forensic and explicitly imputational. God judicially declares the elect righteous; their sins are imputed to Christ and His righteousness to them. The statement names the alternative it is rejecting — infusion as taught by Rome — and dismisses righteousness gained by repeatable penance or communion as no righteousness at all.

The righteousness of God is imputed, not infused as taught by the Roman Catholic church.Statement of Faith, Justification

No position located in this corpus. The statement describes the atonement's nature at length — substitutionary, propitiatory, redemptive, with propitiation glossed in a footnote as the satisfaction of God's just demands and righteous wrath — and never once states for whom it was made.

WORTH CORRECTINGOften misread from the election section, which says God chooses to redeem some. That is a claim about whom God elects, not about whom Christ died for, and the two are exactly what this locus distinguishes. A figure can hold unconditional election and any of the listed extents; nothing in this document closes that gap, so this stays blank rather than being filled in from the shape of the rest.

Eternal security, positional and relational, resting on the giver rather than the believer: salvation is God's gift and will never be revoked. He meets the easy-believism objection head on — those who profess and later walk away showing no evidence of conversion were never genuinely saved, and are false converts rather than lost Christians.

Once a person is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit, he is eternally secure. Salvation is a gift given by God and will never be revoked.Statement of Faith, Eternal Security

Spirit baptism happens at conversion and is identical with being placed into the Body of Christ at regeneration. He presses the point that it is positional rather than experiential — a fact, not a feeling — and notes that Scripture never commands anyone to be baptised in the Spirit, only to be filled. Filling he then reads as the Spirit as agent rather than content, with the content being the word of Christ.

WORTH CORRECTINGThe denial is the point of the section, and it is aimed: Spirit baptism is not a post-conversion Second Blessing available to elite Christians and evidenced by tongues. Read as a bare timing claim it loses the argument it was written to make.

One receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit at conversion. When the Holy Spirit regenerates the lost person, He baptizes him into the Body of Christ.Statement of Faith, Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Believers' baptism, named as one of two ordinances a church should practise alongside the Lord's Supper and church discipline. He makes the three a test of ecclesial validity rather than a matter of preference — a church lacking them is not a true biblical church.

A church should practice the two ordinances of believers' baptism and the Lord's Supper (Acts 2:38-42) as well as church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20). Any church that does not have these three disciplines is not a true biblical church.Statement of Faith, The Church

No position located in this corpus, and the near-miss is worth naming. The statement mentions the Supper twice — as one of the two ordinances marking a true church, and in the justification section, where righteousness supposedly gained by repeated penance or communion is dismissed as no righteousness at all. That rules out a view on which the Supper conveys justifying righteousness. It does not say what he thinks the Supper is.

WORTH CORRECTINGRuling out transubstantiation is not the same as choosing among the three remaining stances, and Baptist practice is not evidence of a Baptist memorialism — real-bodily, spiritual and memorial views all survive what this document says.

Cessationist on the miraculous gifts and only those. He divides the gifts in two: the Apostolic gifts — tongues, interpretation, divine revelation, physical healing — have ceased, while the ministering gifts of prophecy, service, teaching, leading, exhortation, giving, mercy and helps continue. The argument for cessation runs through sufficiency: the Apostolic gifts' function is already fulfilled and they are therefore unnecessary, because Scripture is complete for knowing and obeying God's will.

WORTH CORRECTINGOften flattened into "the gifts have ceased". He says the opposite of that about half of them, and keeps prophecy as a continuing gift by redefining it as forth-telling rather than foretelling — so a reader expecting a charismatic-versus-cessationist binary will misplace him. He also rests the case partly on church history, not on Scripture alone.

The Apostolic gifts are no longer in operation today, as evidenced by both the Bible (1 Corinthians 13:8, 12; Galatians 4:13; 1 Timothy 5:23) and the vast majority of the testimony of church history.Statement of Faith, Spiritual Gifts

Eternal conscious torment, stated in those terms. Satan and all who follow him are cast into the lake of fire and consciously suffer God's active judgment for ever. The active is deliberate — this is not absence from God but God's own sustained judgment.

Satan and all those who follow him will be destroyed and cast into the lake of fire, specifically Hell, and will consciously suffer God's active judgment for all of eternity.Statement of Faith, Eschatology

Premillennial and explicitly pretribulational: Christ returns bodily to remove believers before a seven-year tribulation, returns again in glory at its end, and then reigns a literal thousand years on earth, which the statement reads as the fulfilment of God's land promise to Israel. The millennium ends with Satan released, deceiving the nations, and destroyed.

WORTH CORRECTINGThe eschatology is dispensational in the full sense, not merely premillennial: the church is held distinct from Israel, and the thousand years restores to Israel the land it forfeited through disobedience. That is why this figure carries the same compound tradition as MacArthur rather than a bare Reformed Baptist label — the soteriology and the eschatology come from different systems, and the field says so.

He will then establish His literal messianic kingdom to reign for a literal thousand years on the earth … which will be the fulfillment of God's promise to Israel … to restore them to the land which they forfeited through their disobedience.Statement of Faith, Eschatology