Hi Fred. I enjoyed looking at your web site. I noticed that you are a graduate of the Master’s Seminary. I visited the campus before it was Master’s Seminary. At that time it was L.A. Baptist College. I was the youth minister at a church in Tucson, Arizona, from 1983 to 1986, and I took a group of high school seniors to visit various Christian colleges on the west coast including Biola and L.A. Baptist. Anyway, I am a big fan of John MacArthur, and I noticed from your web site that you also are a MacArthur fan. He spoke at my home church (Bellevue Baptist in Memphis) a few years back during a Bible conference. He preached on Romans 1 and did a great job.

You asked, “Just out of curiousity, why is a state of ‘moral’ or ‘spiritual Equipoise’ even necessary?”

We’ve already discussed Adam on this thread and the “I have returned” thread. As I said earlier, Pink, Calvin, and Augustine believed that Adam was in equipoise before he committed his first sin. Equipoise for Adam and Satan was necessary to preserve their responsibility for sin and to prevent God from being the author of sin. If both of them had been inclined toward good, there would have been nothing in their natures that would cause them to sin.

You said, “I can only assume it is important to you, KH, for few reasons.”

It’s really very simple. I studied my Bible and reached the conclusion that forming a bias from equipoise, making a true freewill decision, is very important in the conversion process.

You said, “It just seems to me that you are saddling the Bible with philosophical assumptions about mankind that are not genuinely supported by any text. I know you think they are, but does solid exegesis bear this out?”

I think solid exegesis does bear this out. Solid exegesis done by two people, however, does not always mean that the two people will agree in their interpretation of a passage. Of course, there is only one correct interpretation, so the one person’s correct exegesis will be more solid than other person’s incorrect exegesis. Let’s use MacArthur’s conclusions about Hebrews 6 as an example and contrast his views with yours.

On the “I have returned” thread you said, “Moreover, Hebrews 6 really doesn't have anything to do with a person's individual salvation. The comments are primarily aimed at the finality of the New Covenant now being the only means by which anyone can approach God. Thus, if those Hebrews who wish to return to the Old Covenant as means to come to God leave the New Covenant, they will find there is no more sacrifice for sin, because the OC is no longer enforce. However, if the typical Christian interpretation is correct, that this is a passage addressing those rejecting God's grace, it still does not prove this notion of a temporary ability you are advocating.”

In contrast, notice MacArthur’s comments on Hebrews 6:

“Eternal life comes from eating, not simply tasting, God’s gift of salvation in Christ. One of the presalvation ministries of the Holy Spirit is that of giving the unsaved a taste of the blessings of salvation. This is part of His ministry of drawing men to Christ. But tasting is not eating. The Holy Spirit will give us a taste, but He will not make us eat.”
(John F. MacArthur, Jr., “Hebrews,” The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Chicago: Moody Press, 1983, page 144)

“But Christians are not being addressed, and it is the opportunity for receiving salvation, not salvation itself, that can be lost.”
(Ibid., page 146)

“When one rejects Christ at the peak experience of knowledge and conviction, he will not accept at a lesser level. So salvation becomes impossible.”
(Ibid., page 148)

I assume that both you and John MacArthur did solid exegesis on Hebrews 6:4-6, but the two of you obviously reached different conclusions about the passage.