Thread: which hills would you die on?

So which of these hills would you die on...?

I didn't see a poll, so I looked at your avatar and saw only a lake and not a hill. So I suppose I could die in the lake if I couldn't swim.

Theognome

What are the options?

Originally Posted by Jon 316

So which of these hills would you die on...?

You mean, "So on which of these hills would you die....?" Sorry, I couldn't resist since you had nothing else to say.

Ah- there's the poll. This is an easy one- none of them.

The only hill I'll defend to the last ounce of strength is Salvation through Grace in Christ alone.

Theognome

I mean...too easy...Those choices make it too easy...in my mind...Predestined, can define God's sovereignty in ALL things....so...that's it!

I'm not sure how some picked predestination and not perseverance.

I must qualify "once saved always saved" to mean Perseverance of the Saints.

Not the "easy believism" version of the doctrine.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

I'm not sure how some picked predestination and not perseverance.

Got to have the beginning before you can have the ending!

What are our options?

Originally Posted by Theognome

Ah- there's the poll. This is an easy one- none of them.

The only hill I'll defend to the last ounce of strength is Salvation through Grace in Christ alone.

Theognome

I would only die on the hill of something that is absolutely crucial to the Gospel. While several of those I hold dear, I don't consider any of them to be absolute essentials of the faith.

Originally Posted by sjonee

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

I'm not sure how some picked predestination and not perseverance.

Got to have the beginning before you can have the ending!

I'm just saying if you have predestination then you also have perseverance. On this poll you can choose both.

Without having voted, I will say I am hitherto more than slightly disappointed. For all the rhetoric and vitriol thrown around these forums on baptism, nobody wants to make their last stand upon that hill.

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Theognome

Ah- there's the poll. This is an easy one- none of them.

The only hill I'll defend to the last ounce of strength is Salvation through Grace in Christ alone.

Theognome

I would only die on the hill of something that is absolutely crucial to the Gospel. While several of those I hold dear, I don't consider any of them to be absolute essentials of the faith.

Essential as in: the wicked will perish but for the grace of God sovereignly electing to save them, and thus holding on to them until they reach glory? If so, I saw those three, which I think ARE the Gospel!

sorry, I didn't know you could pick two...but, predestined, includes, perseverance...in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Without having voted, I will say I am hitherto more than slightly disappointed. For all the rhetoric and vitriol thrown around these forums on baptism, nobody wants to make their last stand upon that hill.

I did! I almost didn't, because I was thinking, "Well, they can still grow up and be baptized, so maybe it isn't worth dying for," but I couldn't get past the fact that we are able to bring our infant children into God's covenant by baptizing them! So sure, someone could grow up and become baptized, but why deny him the benefits of being a part of the covenant from the very beginning of life onward?

The others I chose were:
predestination, for I think it is essential that we understand that our salvation comes from God as a gift that we cannot earn by making the right choice to accept him;

punishment of wicked, for I think it is essential that we determine exactly from what we are being saved;

and perseverance of the saints, because I think it is essential that we know that since the work is begun by God, He will finish it!

Non of the above !
I would kill the oponent if he did not hold mine

Originally Posted by Theognome

I didn't see a poll, so I looked at your avatar and saw only a lake and not a hill. So I suppose I could die in the lake if I couldn't swim.

Theognome

lol!

I'm curious about the ones who chose

Ecclesiology and church government

Which model of church and government do you think is so essential to the faith (I ask this because I think both of these are more essential than is ofetn realised.)

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Originally Posted by Theognome

Ah- there's the poll. This is an easy one- none of them.

The only hill I'll defend to the last ounce of strength is Salvation through Grace in Christ alone.

Theognome

I would only die on the hill of something that is absolutely crucial to the Gospel. While several of those I hold dear, I don't consider any of them to be absolute essentials of the faith.

I don't think I would die on any of those hills, and I even disagree with some of them However, there are some that I am quite convinced of and currently do not see how I could be convinced otherwise. If that's what you mean, then there would be quite a few.

What is meant by "Continuism (Charismatic Gifts)"? That Charismatic gifts (like speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.) continue?

Personally, for me, I would die on (at least I hope I would) any hill that Scripture is very clear on. I'm going to think about what that means, and then vote.

Originally Posted by Romans922

What is meant by "Continuism (Charismatic Gifts)"? That Charismatic gifts (like speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.) continue?

Personally, for me, I would die on (at least I hope I would) any hill that Scripture is very clear on. I'm going to think about what that means, and then vote.

yes, that is what that means.

So, would you really die for secondary issues?

I picked the same as Jessica. You go girl! I will die on the hill next ya.

Why must a certain doctrine be, in itself, "essential" to the gospel for it to be the place where we draw the line? For instance, it is no sign of disrespect to or a doubting the sound profession of my baptist brothers to say that I would go down upon that hill to preserve the purity of the church. I love them strongly, and believe just as strongly that such is an error and the church ought to be guarded against such error, though indeed the gospel itself can still stand.

Note what Vermigli said in his dedicatory preface affixed to his Dialogue on the Two Natures of Christ, dedicated to John Jewel. The following is with regards to the ubiquitarian controversy:

Accordingly, for the sake of that most holy devotion which burns so brightly with the greatest zeal for God's pure worship, do not allow these unsound teachings (I say nothing harsher), to spread or to wander about freely in your churches.
....
Every single one of us who worships Christ with a pure and sound faith should strive with hands and feet that the vineyard of the Lord should at last be purged of filth, thorns, thistles, and snakes so that it can produce rightful, sweet, and bountiful fruit for its owner...Hence it is necessary for you, along with the others who by God's choice command and steer the same ship of the church, to remain watchful lest Christ's inheritance be subverted by some new sort of error.

He surely did not consider the Lutheran ubiquitarian teachings to be essential to the gospel (he refused to call the teachings anything more than "unsound"); nor would he impugn the profession of Lutherans who held such a doctrine, but surely could love such as his brethren. But this did not mean that such was a teaching at which the line was not to be drawn: it was to be fought back boldly, lest by its thorn and thistle the pure fruit of God's church be squelched.

I mean, we're the PuritanBoard. I doubt anyone would argue that vestments are essential to the gospel, but they certainly staked it all on that hill; nor do I think they were foolish to do so.

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Originally Posted by Romans922

What is meant by "Continuism (Charismatic Gifts)"? That Charismatic gifts (like speaking in tongues, prophecy, healing, etc.) continue?

Personally, for me, I would die on (at least I hope I would) any hill that Scripture is very clear on. I'm going to think about what that means, and then vote.

yes, that is what that means.

So, would you really die for secondary issues?

If someone was asking me if I believed a secondary issue (any one you pick it) that is clearly scriptural, and if I answered wrongly they'd kill me or if they told me to answer wrongly and if I don't that they'd kill me. Then I would answer always rightly. I'd rather be honest than live this earthly life.

Is this not what you mean by, "what hill would you die on?" I'd die on anything Scripture says because it is God's Word.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

I'm not sure how some picked predestination and not perseverance.

For me the latter is assumed in the prior.

Predestination - Ephesians 1 (clear in Scripture throughout) I would die for this
Everlasting Punishment of the Wicked - Everlasting Punishment/destruction (Mt. 26, 1 Thess.) I would die for this and live eternally
Non-Continuism - Scripture has ceased, this is clear, I would die for this
Continuism - this cannot be true, Scripture has ceased
Confessionism (your creed) - A Confession is man-made, I would not die for this, although i would fight
Infant Baptism - Gen. 17, Acts 2 - clear to me I would die for this
Believers Baptism (only) - Seems children were baptized in Scripture and throughout church history, this cannot be true (no offense to baptists, I wouldn't hold this over their heads, but I would die for it)
Ecclesiology - (this is too broad, I don't know what is being said here)
Church Government - Church where head is Christ, ruled by elders, 1 Timothy, Titus, Acts 6 - I would die for this truth
Once saved always saved - This has to do with salvation, if God has saved you, He will never leave you nor forsake you.

Predestination - gets at the heart of the gospel... but I might reword it to something like "By Grace alone". The whole "Here I stand I can do no other" theme... Luther was willing to die for it.

Eternal Punishment - I voted for this... but I know strong "reformed" brothers who lean toward annihilationism... But this idea is pretty central to the idea of just punishment for sin...

Perseverence of the Saints - That's the power of God to save! I'll die here

so... who are you and what are you who will die for a form of church government and ecclesiology?

1 Corinthians 15:3

15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,..."

Would lose a job over predestination...I've seen too many non-productive discussions with the other issues....interesting poll, though! thanks

Originally Posted by Jon 316

so... who are you and what are you who will die for a form of church government and ecclesiology?

They seem like some cool cats, and I think I like them (whoever they are).

I selected predestination, eternal punishment of the wicked, and perseverance of the saints (if that's what you mean by OSAS).

I believe those things are much more essential to unity than the other options, and I quite frankly am not that concerned about orthodox infant baptizers, believer's baptizers, different forms of church government, continuationism vs. cessationism, etc. I believe what I believe, but if people have different perspectives that they truly believe are taught in Scripture (see the baptism debate), I truly support them! Same with charismatic gifts, etc. All I want is Christ glorified above all things; less critical issues should be debated and considered among His body, but I'm not too concerned about it. This is why I would be more than willing to attend a good Presby church even though I am Reformed Baptist. I support their infant baptism if they believe Scripture teaches it; however, in my own family, I would not let it be done.

I am pretty inclusive and geared toward unity if it's among true believers that want to honor our Lord.

ESV Onlyism, the only hill worth fighting for.

I am almost with you, Andrew, but it's got to be a VeggieTales edition. Until then, I cannot stomach fellowship with you!

VeggieTales are an abomination.

Originally Posted by Zenas

ESV Onlyism, the only hill worth fighting for.

Maybe it won’t be long for us to be called to that martyrdom,

to stand for the right to have the Bible and Preach the Bible!

Originally Posted by Zenas

VeggieTales are an abomination.

I just knew you were a heretic.

Originally Posted by Theognome

I didn't see a poll, so I looked at your avatar and saw only a lake and not a hill. So I suppose I could die in the lake if I couldn't swim.

Theognome

By grace alone
through faith alone
in Christ alone.

Thats my hill.

I'm conflicted. Are your options of "infant baptism" and "believers baptism" mutually exclusive of one another?

Originally Posted by Joshua

I'm conflicted. Are your options of "infant baptism" and "believers baptism" mutually exclusive of one another?

Yes, I would be assuming the traditional incompatibility and hostility of earlier days. you know the days before being outnumbered by common enemies caused baptists and presbyterian calvinists to walk to gether, the days when baptists would be drowned in lakes for their stance and when some baptists would take up swords...