Romans 8:8

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Actually what anyone can see is that he is espousing Calvinist doctrine then saying that anyone who does not hold to it is a heretic. A heretic is anyone who is not saved. If he wants to avoid direct questions like mine then he should avoid such lambastic and unnecessary wording such as heretic. Just because he avoids calling it what it is does not remove him from the responsibility of his words. And defending him means you are willing to say the exact same thing.


Huh, in fact the very fact that you are accusing me of entrapment goes to show exactly what he is doing. And this is not the first time he has made such implications. If he is not speaking of Calvinism then maybe he can answer the question for himself and show how what he said is widely accepted by cals and non cals alike. If he cannot show that what he said is accepted by both cals and non cals then we have the answer to my question.

And that kind of posting needs to stop.

Nice spin......doesn't wash though. It is getting entertaining though. Next.

 

[Revmitchell]

Nice spin......doesn't wash though. It is getting entertaining though. Next.

That's it? That is all you got. Well we will see his reasoned explanation I'm sure.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That's it? That is all you got. Well we will see his reasoned explanation I'm sure.

Ahhhh..........idle threats now.....is that all you got?? Bring it on.

 

[Revmitchell]

There have been no threats. Just another example of why people are leaving and I get pms over this garbage.

 

[The Biblicist]

Right back to your nasty habit of calling those who disagree with you liars, or heretics, or some other name.

The very tactics that got you banned just a few days ago. How soon one forgets.

And I have never called myself a teacher or "doctor" or any other name, I have no desire for vain glory.

Where did I call anyone a "heretic" or accused anyone of teaching "heresy"?????? I simply defined my view of heresy and a heretic and applied it to anyone who repudiates that spiritual life/quickening/regeneration is the only way God saves sinners.

 

[The Biblicist]

Are you suggesting that anyone who does not hold to the Calvinist view is not saved?

No sir! Not at all! I simply defined my view of heresy and a heretic and applied it "heresy" to any doctrine that repudiates new birth/regeneration/quickening/spiritual life to be the ONLY way God saves sinners.

I defined "heresy" as the repudiation of any Biblical teaching that the scriptures explicitly and clearly teach is a "must" or absolute necessity for salvation.

 

[Revmitchell]

No sir! Not at all! I simply defined my view of heresy and a heretic and applied it "heresy" to any doctrine that repudiates new birth/regeneration/quickening/spiritual life to be the ONLY way God saves sinners.

I defined "heresy" as the repudiation of any Biblical teaching that the scriptures explicitly and clearly teach is a "must" or absolute necessity for salvation.

OK that is clear as mud so let me ask another question based on that same post. In your view can one deny the Calvinist view of "effectual call" and be born again?

 

[Revmitchell]

Where did I call anyone a "heretic" or accused anyone of teaching "heresy"?????? I simply defined my view of heresy and a heretic and applied it to anyone who repudiates that spiritual life/quickening/regeneration is the only way God saves sinners.

Why did you do that? How was it relevant?

 

[The Biblicist]

OK that is clear as mud so let me ask another question based on that same post. In your view can one deny the Calvinist view of "effectual call" and be born again?

The phrase "effectual call" is not an expression found in the scriptures. However, quickened/regeneration/born from above/born of God/eternal life/called are all Biblical expressions that are used interchangably as you can only find "called" in Romans 8:30 rather than its other synonyms of the new birth.

I would never infer or call anyone a heretic that refused to acknowledge that the word "called" is used as a synonym for regeneration. However, I would call a person a heretic that repudiated the new birth and that was the point of my post.

The reason I chose to define heresy and heretic in that particular post and apply it to those who repudiate the new birth prior to the cross was due to the fact that Winman, although not saying it clearly, was near to inferring the new birth was only a Post-cross reality. However, as you can plainly see I did not accuse him of embracing that idea but made it plain if that was his intent or inference then I would treat it as absolute heresy rather than a mere difference of opinion or interpretation.

There is sufficient room for difference of opinion on many things but not in regard to the essentials of the faith. Those essentials are made quite clear in the Scriptures because the scriptures use language that explicitly demand they are essential and the new birth is such a teaching.

There can be no salvation for any sinner at any time apart from regeneration. That is not to say there are not other essentials as well (justification, sanctification, glorification; etc.) but repudiation of the new birth is heresy.

 

[Revmitchell]

. However, I would call a person a heretic that repudiated the new birth and that was the point of my post.

The reason I chose to define heresy and heretic in that particular post and apply it to those who repudiate the new birth prior to the cross was due to the fact that Winman, although not saying it clearly, was near to inferring the new birth was only a Post-cross reality. However, as you can plainly see I did not accuse him of embracing that idea but made it plain if that was his intent or inference then I would treat it as absolute heresy rather than a mere difference of opinion or interpretation.

Ok well this was much clearer and better communicated here than before thanks for the clarification.

There can be no salvation for any sinner at any time apart from regeneration.

Do you hold that those who do not believe that regeneration is prior to salvation are heretics?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

OK that is clear as mud so let me ask another question based on that same post. In your view can one deny the Calvinist view of "effectual call" and be born again?

I dont see why he should have to answer that. His views are his own & he entitled to hold them ....IE, no matter what he or I or anyone on here believes, as long as they dont publicly express them in a questioning of salvation manner there is no breaking of board rules.

 

[Revmitchell]

I dont see why he should have to answer that. His views are his own & he entitled to hold them ....IE, no matter what he or I or anyone on here believes, as long as they dont publicly express them in a questioning of salvation manner there is no breaking of board rules.

If that is the case he should just say he cannot express his views on this board. But he brought up the idea that winman "might" be a heretic by his own admission. I am just trying to pin point why he beleives that winman "might" be a heretic as he confirmed in post 49.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok well this was much clearer and better communicated here than before thanks for the clarification.





Do you hold that those who do not believe that regeneration is prior to salvation are heretics?

I reserve the word "heresy" and "heretic" for those who repudiate Biblical teachings that the scriptues clearly express to be essential.

At one time I embraced that Arminian view and I was just as saved then as now. I believe my former view was error and those who embrace it are in error but I would not call them heretics.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

f that is the case he should just say he cannot express his views on this board.

Then why did you ask the question in the first place? Is it some much needed personal information that you require from Bib, or is it something more? Please explain why the question was even presented?

 

[Revmitchell]

Then why did you ask the question in the first place? Is it some much needed personal information that you require from Bib, or is it something more? Please explain why the question was even presented?

Because he implied winman "might" be a heretic. Maybe he should avoid making such references. He seems to have trouble debating without bringing it up. The implication of "might" be a heretic is no different than the other.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I reserve the word "heresy" and "heretic" for those who repudiate Biblical teachings that the scriptues clearly express to be essential.

At one time I embraced that Arminian view and I was just as saved then as now. I believe my former view was error and those who embrace it are in error but I would not call them heretics.

Well put:thumbs: you've answered honestly & candidly so I hope that resolves the issue. Thanks

 

[Revmitchell]

I reserve the word "heresy" and "heretic" for those who repudiate Biblical teachings that the scriptues clearly express to be essential.

At one time I embraced that Arminian view and I was just as saved then as now. I believe my former view was error and those who embrace it are in error but I would not call them heretics.

So did you discover that winman is a heretic?

 

[The Biblicist]

Because he implied winman "might" be a heretic. Maybe he should avoid making such references. He seems to have trouble debating without bringing it up. The implication of "might" be a heretic is no different than the other.

The scripture draws lines and we need to draw lines between what is merely a difference of opinion or interpretation about RELATIVELY non-essential matters versus ABSOLUTE essential matters. I drew that line because the content of discussion called for such a line to be drawn. On the other hand, if you drawn no line between relatively essentials versus absolute essentials that is your choosing. I believe I have a right to manifest where I draw that line.

 

[Revmitchell]

The scripture draws lines and we need to draw lines between what is merely a difference of opinion or interpretation about RELATIVELY non-essential matters versus ABSOLUTE essential matters. I drew that line because the content of discussion called for such a line to be drawn. On the other hand, if you drawn no line between relatively essentials versus absolute essentials that is your choosing. I believe I have a right to manifest where I draw that line.

Ok well if in drawing such a line you make a clear implication that someone on this board is a heretic then you have crossed a line. So do you believe winman is a heretic based on what he has posted in this thread?

 

[The Biblicist]

The scripture draws lines and we need to draw lines between what is merely a difference of opinion or interpretation about RELATIVELY non-essential matters versus ABSOLUTE essential matters. I drew that line because the content of discussion called for such a line to be drawn. On the other hand, if you drawn no line between relatively essentials versus absolute essentials that is your choosing. I believe I have a right to manifest where I draw that line.

Let me clarify that line a bit further. I believe that absolute essentials are identified in scripture by:

1. Clear explicit absolute prohibitions or negatives: "exept ye repent ye shall all likewise perish" e.g.

2. Clear explicit absolute positives - "ye MUST be born again" e.g.

3. Clear explicit and necessary inferences; the doctrine of the Trinity for example.

4. Clear explicit and necessary essentials that distguish Biblical Christianity from all other world religions and predicted apostasy. (e.g. 1 Tim. 3:16-4:1-5; etc.).