Averagefellar, you said, “Could you provide a passage showing where somebody was regenerated and wasn't saved? Could you show where somebody became illuminated to the truth aside from the Spirit's help? It is true that mankind recognizes a spirituality, but taking a quick look around shows your example to be fraught with error.”

I was quoting James P. Boyce to show his elongated view of regeneration. Boyce said, “There is no reason why it should not be true of some heathen. The missionaries of the cross have been sought by men, who knew nothing of Christianity, but whose hearts, unsatisfied with the religion of their fathers, were restlessly seeking for what their soul was crying out.” I think you got his words confused with mine. This quote indicates that Boyce believed that a person could be regenerated before he became a Christian, before faith/repentance. I think a person is regenerated after faith/repentance. I think all spiritual illumination comes from the Holy Spirit.

You said, “Those given the right to believe are those regenerated.” That’s not what John 1:12 says. It says that those who received Him, who believed in Him, were given the right to become children of God.

Concerning my comments about 1 Kings 18 you said, “And your thinking is all you have brought forth as the passage, as you admitted past post, says nothing of equipoise, nor of any man choosing outside his nature.”

When I speak of equipoise, I am dealing with a number of issues. One is the fact that the person in equipoise has not made an ultimate, final commitment one way or the other. Thus, this passage is very relevant to a discussion of equipoise. The people truly did “hesitate between two opinions” (1 Kings 18:21).

You said, “I am also going to ask once more to leave out the fluff. I am actually getting complaints about your misrepresentations and your continuing desire to fluff your answers. I have purposely constructed my questions for easy answers and you haven't shown one scripture that speaks of equipoise without eisogesizing it.”

The difference between exegesis and eisegesis is important. I always try not to be guilty of eisegesis. I don’t think anything I have said has been “fluff.” That’s sort of subjective, isn’t it? You have not refuted anything I have said about the Scripture passages, except to say that you don’t see any equipoise there. I have gone into detail about the 1 Kings 18 passage. You have not. You only criticized my football analogy and my use of quotations. I suggest we leave off such caustic editorial comments about fluff and deal with the Scripture passages I have mentioned. Let’s maintain respect for each other and not criticize each other’s styles.