The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Spiritual Equipoise

Pilgrim, this is your board, and you can delete anything you want to delete. I'm wondering why you deleted this post. Was it too long? I don't see how it could be offensive. I was opening the discussion of Hebrews 6 and 10 by giving 6 common interpretations of the two passages. Why did you delete the post?

Hi again, Joe. You said, “Though MANY may have followed God unto salvation where is your Scriptural evidence that ALL did? You failed to see the national-covenantal structure of what was happening here. A general reading of the rest of the O.T. reveals what? I would suggest reading the rest of the O.T. to see if in fact ANYONE did fall. Your definitive statement: ‘I assume that no one fell’ is contrary to Scripture.”

The Bible does not identify who was in the group or how many were in the group. It is speaking in general terms. The people were challenged by Elijah, and the people responded. How is my statement (“I assume that no one fell”) contrary to Scripture? Scripture does not definitively say what individuals in this group did after 1 Kings 18.

You said, “By your philosophy they ALL entered into Spiritual Equipoise and then SOME denied Christ.”

I never said that anybody in that group in 1 Kings 18 denied Christ. If all the people in the group ultimately, finally committed themselves to God, then all of them were saved.

You said, “Thus you deny the doctrines of Irrisistible Grace, Salvation by Grace alone, etc.”

I do deny the doctrine of irresistible grace, but I do not deny salvation by grace alone. I fully agree with Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.”

You said, “This is the first time that I have seen an embracement of orthodoxy that did not accept salvation as an essential doctrine!”

I do accept salvation as an essential doctrine.

You said, “One who asserts and teaches salvation by works embraces false doctrine!”

I agree, but I do not assert and teach salvation by works.

Joe, the heresy and false teaching issue were discussed on the Founders Baptist discussion board recently. Propadeutic, who has posted on the Highway board in the past, is a very intelligent and tactful five-point Calvinist student at The Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville. You might find the following comments by Propadeutic helpful:

“Arminian views are false in the same sense that belief in a pretrib rapture is false, or that an exact 4004 B.C. date for creation is false, or that the pronunciation of YHWH as Jehovah is false. Arminianism is not true. However, we usually reserve the term ‘false doctrine’ for teaching that directly opposes the clear teaching of the Bible on matters of essential importance to the integrity of Christianity. The term ‘false teacher’ also implies that they are teaching it out of disrespect for the Bible, lack of love for God, and/or malicious intent toward their followers.

I find it helpful to break issues down into several categories:

Essentials - what no Christian with any understanding of the Bible will deny. [basic orthodoxy]
First-level issues - what churches need to agree on to cooperate in an association/denomination (‘like faith and practice’) [well-ordered churches]
Second-level issues - what a congregation should be agreed within a local church [important non-essentials]
Third-level issues - issues that should not be a barrier to cooperation on any level.

For example, I consider the deity of Christ an essential, believer's baptism a first-level issue, the plurality of elders a second-level issue, and the date of creation a third-level issue. Since Calvinism and Arminianism are entire systems, different stances within each system (and in the middle ground) may fall at different levels.

Also, within the SBC we see very few 5-point Arminians. (The only such pastors I've ever met are now CBF.) People who believe we can lose our salvation are not in accord with the BFM and can therefore not be missionaries or teach in our seminaries. If they slip through by dishonesty, they could do so just as easily in any denomination.

Do 1, 2, 3, and 4-pointers necessarily consciously deny the truthfulness of the Bible, the unique and infinite knowledge, power, and authority of one immutable, self-sufficient, transcendent, triune God, His moral righteousness, God as Father of His people alone and Creator of the universe, human moral responsibility, salvation by grace rather than by works, Jesus' deity, incarnation, atonement, and resurrection, or the promise of His physical return?

No. Not at all. As Calvinists, we argue that our answers to the 5 points are more consistent with the power of God, salvation by grace, and the biblical presentation of the atonement. I know from experience that misunderstandings of certain verses can blind people to the inconsistency in the Arminian positions. But to accuse SBC leaders, including those whose hearts I've gotten to know, and myself a few years ago, of teaching a different gospel or being false teachers by not being 5-pointers is extremely uncharitable and unbiblically divisive.”
http://p207.ezboard.com/fdiscussingrefor...t=1&stop=20

Propadeutic quoted Dr. Nettles, a five-point Calvinist professor at Southern (and my favorite professor when I was at Southwestern Seminary in the early 80s):

“Alas, too few theologians of any system have taken the care to prioritize doctrines. They deal with which doctrines are true, but they fail to say which doctrines are essential, which are important non-essentials, and which are of more nuanced consequence.

The only one that comes to mind is Tom Nettles of SBTS (also prominent in the Founders Conference). From my class in Baptist History, in response to a question of whether Arminian Baptists were heretics:

Nettles: I think we need to raise the bar for ‘heresy,’ reserve the word for essential matters like the doctrine of God or what a man must do to be saved. Otherwise you have people who are at the same time heretics and faithful preachers of the gospel, which is a contradiction. Smyth and Helwys were in error. Wesley was even more seriously in error. Arminianism is untrue; probably the best word to use is ‘aberrant.’ But I don't think its nature warrants calling it heresy, or calling Arminians false teachers. That hurts our credibility. It also deprives us of very useful words to identify anti-Christian teaching within the church.

Student: What about apostasy?

Nettles: Well, I...the Arminian teaching on apostasy may bring us pretty close to the line. But I do want to make clear that most of the more Arminian Baptists in our Convention don't believe in apostasy.”
http://p207.ezboard.com/fdiscussingrefor...t=1&stop=20

Averagefellar, I find your criticism of my usage of quotations ironic since you tried to paraphrase me in the first post on this thread, and you unintentionally misrepresented my position. Quotations are much more accurate than paraphrases. It is required in research papers and dissertations to use direct quotations even when you disagree with the person you are quoting. You are permitted to quote a person to make a point, even if the person you are quoting may not agree with the point. If a quote is lifted out of context, that is a different matter. I have not intentionally lifted any quotes out of context. I actually agree with five-point Calvinists on some points. Some of my closest friends have been five-point Calvinists. It's fine for you to disagree with my theology, but your constant criticism of my style of expression is sort of strange. I love you anyway.

To me, your methods are offensive. You message is offensive to the Gospel. The post was entirely too long, especially after repeated requests to stop fluffing your responses. We have been over your views and not one passage is ever going to support them, because they are a false gospel. It comes to a point where we have to decide how long to keep letting you oppose the truth on this board. Since you have been shown your error by no less than seven different people, you are nearly rambling in circles, and I personally suspect nothing new to come from you on this subject. Further posting of book-sized posts will be met with the same action, I assume. Given your decision to uphold a wesleyan view, I would also imagine that this thread might be closed rather soon, as I feel, and others as well, that we cannot allow heretical views to be consistently posted here. As I have suggested before, perhaps a new topic would be beneficial.


God bless,

william

If you want to publish a book of your heretical views, that's your business. But this Board is not going to be a substitute publisher for you. You might consider procuring your own webspace and put your musings online and then provide a link to them. Further, your prolific messages simply aren't worthy to be archived on my database. The message was deleted as will all such messages because they are contrary to the stated Forum Guidelines.

You have been given ample opportunity to express your views, which according to all the major Confessions of the denominations which came out of the Protestant Reformation, are heretical; e.g., Westminster Confession, Savoy Declaration, Belgic Confession, 39 Articles, London Confession, Canons of Dordt, et al., and the theological foundation of this Board, they are in opposition to biblical teaching. Perhaps you should consider another topic for discussion as I do believe that you have shown yourself to be unteachable as to the doctrine of soteriology.

In His Grace,

All that meant little to the topic, if anything. I am not concerned with the SBC definition of heresy. I quote Saint Paul the Apostle.......


The arminian gospel is heretical and the faculty at SBC seminary do not decide on that. You and arminians are guilty as charged. Here is the standard decided upon by the churches of the Reformation; Canons of Dordt. For a better understanding, perhaps this might help as well; Calvinism and Arminianism compared

You may also be interested in reading the Statement of Faith for this board. I definitely recommend you read the Forum Guidelines, especially paying attention to numbers 4 and 10. The Council of Orange also decided this entire matter, over a century ago. I quote Jesus Christ as my support.......



God bless,

william

While you do not deny the necessity of being regenerated, you maintain that the first steps towards the Christian life are ordinarily taken by the human will and that man cooperates with God. Ofcourse then the work of grace called regeneration which the Holy Spirit performs in the new birth follows only later. This view is called Semi-Pelagianism. While it is clear that Semi-Pelagianism has a different view of grace than Calvinists do one major difference is the characteristic called synergism. This view teaches that natural man has the capacity to believe in God, to respond to God, and work with God to turn away from their sin with genuine repentance before regeneration.

Reformed Theology by contrast teaches that the natural men may have common grace, common illuminations, and common affections that are from the Spirit of God. Natural men have sometimes the influences of the Spirit of God in His common operations and gifts, and therefore God's Spirit is said to be striving with them, and they are said to resist the Spirit, (Acts 7:51;) to grieve and vex God's Holy Spirit, (Eph. 4:30; Isaiah 63:10;) While indeed fallen men resist grace every day when the gospel is presented to them, for that is their nature and desire. But it is important to note that God can and does make His grace effectual or irresistible at a time of His sovereign merciful choosing (John 6:37, 39, 44, 63-65; John 3:8; Matt 11:27; 1 Corinthians 1:9; Paul's conversion in Acts 2:39, Acts 9; Rom 8:30 ROM 9:11-24; 1 Cor. 1:9-26; Gal. 1:6-15; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 1 Thess. 2:12; 5:24; 2 Thess. 2:14; Eph. 1:18; 4:1-4, 5; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:3-10). If this kind of effectual grace can be resisted, then faith is understood as a natural preparation for saving grace, as the fulfillment of a condition for receiving supernatural grace by the performance of something that is within man's natural capacity/desire to do. Man, in this scheme, cooperates with God's prevenient grace according to his native ability. But the Scripture teaches that salvation is not a faith-contribution or a principle standing ultimately independent of God's action of grace. Rather, it does not owe exclusively to man's natural endowment with a free will and does not arise out of an inherent capacity of the natural man. Rather, God acts unilaterally and exclusively, taking the sole initiative in a free act of sovereign grace—grace that is altogether prior to, and productive of, justifying faith.

There are two views of regeneration. You'll note your view which depends on man's free will is contrasted to the view which depends on God's grace alone. I think you'll be able to see where your view leads in contrast to where the monergistic view leads. The response of faith from the sinner is penultimate as it stands next to the ultimate sovereign grace of God in monergism. As the first act of a newborn baby is to breathe, so the act of faith is the first act of the regenerated sinner, in his/her new birth in Christ.


Wes

Well, if my posts are going to be deleted, then I guess there's no point in my continuing to post, so this will be the last one. I love all of you, and I wish you well. We have had some stimulating discussions, and I feel like I have learned some things from them. Thanks for your input.

Now, that's par for the course! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> I said messages which are extremely long and which promote heresy and/or violate the stated Guidelines of the Board, which you were required that you agree to when you registered and to which you had to put a checkmark indicating that you have indeed read them, will be deleted. If, in your estimation, that means everything you intend to post here, then I guess you are right that there is no point in your continuing to post messages here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In all sincerity, it is my prayer that the God of the Bible will give you eyes to see, a mind to comprehend and a heart to embrace the truth of the Gospel of grace.

In His Grace,

KoreanHog,

If you will read the N.T. you will note that there are 4 types of ground the seeds of truth are planted in (Matt 13). Not ALL were saved. Ask yourself, ‘Does this not apply to Israel in 1 Kings?’ Does this apply to KoreanHog?

Please look at the text of 1 Kings 18: Vs. 17 says, ‘Art thou he that troubleth Israel.’ Vs 18 says ‘have not troubled Israel.’ Vs. 20 says, ‘Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel.’ The noted Arminian John Wesley says, ‘All Israel — By their heads, or representatives, that they may be witnesses of all our transactions.’ The scope of ALL PEOPLE encompases ALL ISRAEL as represented by their heads, etc.

You assert that ALL the people (all Israel, as represented by their heads, etc.) had Spiritual Equipoise and assume that NONE fell. Thus, the O.T. should NOT mention another fallen Israelite in the O.T., as ALL should be saved..... As I asked you in the previous post look at the O.T and see if ANY Israelite falls after 1 Kings 18. If ONLY one falls your Spiritual Equipoise is revealed to be a sham, as it teaches the possibility of ‘regeneration’ without ‘salvation’—denying the very power of God in salvation.

If grace (God’s will, election, etc.) is resistible then man is not saved by grace alone, but solely by his own decision (plus, a little help = semi-plagianism), thus making man the author of his own salvation! Thus, your false philosophical concepts continues to be shown to be invalid, false, and heretical. May God give you a proper understanding of the Scriptures.