Hi again, Joe. You asked, “As far as 1 Kings 18 (1) where does it say that the issue was individual salvation?”
Well, it seems pretty obvious. Let’s try an illustration. Imagine that you are a non-Christian living in a theocracy founded on Christian principles. The president of your country is practicing Buddhism, and is putting pressure on others to do the same. You have not yet committed yourself to either religion. A Christian man who claims to be a prophet from God invites you to a contest between his God and Buddha. This contest is performed in front of the president. The Christian says that you cannot hesitate between two opinions. You must make a choice. If God is really the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator, then you must “follow Him” (1 Kings 18:21). If Buddha is really the spiritual force in the universe, then you must “follow him.” The Christian invites the Buddhist priests to go first in an attempt to show the power of Buddha. They fail. Then the Christian asks God to send fire from heaven. God does. You fall on your face and say, “The LORD, He is God; the LORD, He is God.” It seems apparent that you have made the choice that the Christian asked you to make. You have chosen to “follow Him” (1 Kings 18:21), and thus you have become a disciple (a follower). Then the Christian prophet commands you to seize the Buddhist priests, and he puts them to death. You obey the Christian. Thus, you have proven your commitment by your obedience. Obedience is the sign of faith. Remember what Jesus said: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Luke 9:23). I admit that this illustration is not a perfect analogy. Elijah did not proclaim the gospel in the same way we would today, but the key phrase is “follow Him” in 1 Kings 18:21.
You also asked, “Did anyone making a decision for God in 1 Kings 18 fall after their decision revealing they were not among the elect?”
I assume that no one fell.
You defined heresy: “As far as heresy: any who claims to be educated in the truth and who espouses false views and is willing to take Scripture from its original context on a continual basis IMHO is a heretic.”
That’s the first time I have seen that definition. Your definition seems to be totally subjective. You did not mention any essential doctrines such as the Trinity that non-heretics hold. With your definition you could accuse some five-point Calvinists of being heretics. If they disagree with you on a certain theological issue, and if you feel that they have espoused false views and are willing to take Scripture from its original context on a continual basis, then you could accuse them of being heretics.
You said, “Your doctrine is no better than that of the Mormons or JW as you have a man-made religion of which God has become a mere puppet in your salvation process.”
Ouch again! You have put me in the same category as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. I don’t agree that I have made God a puppet. I have clearly stated that I believe in unconditional election. If we elect ourselves, then election loses its meaning. I don’t think we elect ourselves. I don’t think God’s election of us depends on any foreseen faith in us. I do think that His election of us is in agreement with our foreseen faith.
Joe, I love you in spite of your calling me a heretic. It might be more edifying, however, for us to discuss Scripture passages rather than making charges of heresy.
