# which hills would you die on?



## Jon 316

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


----------



## 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


----------



## ManleyBeasley

What are the options?


----------



## OPC'n

Jon 316 said:


> 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.


----------



## 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


----------



## tdowns

*Seems to easy....*

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!


----------



## ManleyBeasley

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


----------



## MrMerlin777

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

Not the "easy believism" version of the doctrine.


----------



## OPC'n

ManleyBeasley said:


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



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


----------



## he beholds

What are our options?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Theognome said:


> 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.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

sjonee said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how some picked predestination and not perseverance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got to have the beginning before you can have the ending!
Click to expand...


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


----------



## 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.


----------



## he beholds

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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!


----------



## tdowns

*I didn't look close enough....*

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


----------



## he beholds

Prufrock said:


> 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!


----------



## PresbyDane

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


----------



## Jon 316

Theognome said:


> 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.)


----------



## tellville

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




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.


----------



## 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.


----------



## Jon 316

Romans922 said:


> 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?


----------



## Augusta

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


----------



## Prufrock

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.


----------



## Romans922

Jon 316 said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Whitefield

ManleyBeasley said:


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



For me the latter is assumed in the prior.


----------



## Romans922

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.


----------



## rgray

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... 

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


----------



## Jon 316

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


----------



## Jim-Bob

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


----------



## Prufrock

Jon 316 said:


> 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).


----------



## AThornquist

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 Presbyterian 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._


----------



## Zenas

ESV Onlyism, the only hill worth fighting for.


----------



## AThornquist

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


----------



## Zenas

VeggieTales are an abomination.


----------



## discipulo

Zenas said:


> 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!


----------



## AThornquist

Zenas said:


> VeggieTales are an abomination.



I just _knew_ you were a heretic.


----------



## Rangerus

Theognome said:


> 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


----------



## Rich Koster

By grace alone
through faith alone
in Christ alone.

Thats my hill.


----------



## Jon 316

Joshua said:


> 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...


----------



## Jon 316

fair point... in that case they would not be mutualy exclusive... it obviously doesnt work for us...


----------



## Jon 316

baptists...


----------



## Jon 316

Joshua said:


> Dude, you lost me. But that's okay. I'm easily lost.



Its an open poll, you can tick them all if you want.... 

My initial thinking, the little that went in to it, was 

Infant baptism (children are in the covenant and can be baptised

Believers baptism (over and against infant baptism) 

Obviously both believe in believers baptism... I just assumed the positions would be understood...


----------



## DMcFadden

Being an old fundy, with 50 years in the mainline ABCUSA before our region withdrew, who got his education in broad evangelical ("on the one hand, but on the other hand") schools, it is difficult to relate to your question without going into some kind of epistemological meltdown or hermeneutical anaphylactic shock.

If forced at the point of a gun (or shamed into it by a PB poll) . . .
the solas of the Reformation, neatly summarized, albeit somewhat reductionistically, by brother Rich as . . .
_*By grace alone
through faith alone
in Christ alone.*_

Plus _possibly_ including sola "In-N-Out" Burgers

Unfortunately, in this day of sola "it seems to me," these would be 
Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
Sola fide ("by faith alone")
Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
Solus Christus ("Christ alone")
Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")


----------



## steven-nemes

Predestination/perserverence.


----------



## KMK

I have no idea what it means to die on a hill...

Does that mean you wouldn't fellowship with people who disagreed with you? If that is the case I don't think I would die on any of those hills.

I would die on the hills of fornication, covetousness, idolatry, railing, drunkenness, and extortion. (1 Cor 5)


----------



## christiana

Predestination covers all the bases! For that belief I would die; His sovereignty!!


----------



## moral necessity

Just the Gospel......I hope.


----------



## Jon 316

moral necessity said:


> Just the Gospel......I hope.



alas, it begs it the question, what is the gospel? 

What gospel would you die for? There are many. Would the evarlasting punishment of the wicked be an essential element of this gospel you would die for? If not which place does penal substitution have in your gospel? Is predestination a part of your gospel? If not is salvation God's response to mans faith? Does your gospel secure salvation or only offer the potential of salvation? 

What gospel brother?, and what what does it compose of?


----------



## he beholds

For those who chose church gov't, from Calvin:


> For we know that every Church has liberty to frame for itself a form of government that is suitable and profitable for it, because the Lord has not prescribed anything definite.


From commentary on 1 Cor 11
I'm reading his commentary for the head covering thread and saw that and was reminded that some here might be interested.


----------



## moral necessity

Jon 316 said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the Gospel......I hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alas, it begs it the question, what is the gospel?
> 
> What gospel would you die for? There are many. Would the evarlasting punishment of the wicked be an essential element of this gospel you would die for? If not which place does penal substitution have in your gospel? Is predestination a part of your gospel? If not is salvation God's response to mans faith? Does your gospel secure salvation or only offer the potential of salvation?
> 
> What gospel brother?, and what what does it compose of?
Click to expand...


My short answer is......the true one......that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. Yes, there are particular things that encompass that doctrine, and therefore are part of the same hill to die on. Such as: the problem of sin, the inability of man to deliver himself from it, the need for substitutionary atonement, the need for imputed righteousness, and so on...

Basically, if the same question were proposed to Moses regarding the time when the Israelites were bitten by the snakes, and had to look to the pole for the cure, in my mind, the same hill to die on would evidence itself. They wouldn't need to know what species of snake it was; they wouldn't need to know whether or not God was causing them to look, or if they were looking out of their own free will; they wouldn't need to know what kind of death they were to die if they didn't look. The main issue would be: their problem, the cure, and faith to turn from other solutions to the one placed in front of them by God. That tends to be how I view it for now.


----------



## discipulo

The more, by God’s Grace, I understand the Gospel, the more I see that Predestination is the most humbling and the most gracious of all doctrines, it makes us fear and it makes us rejoice and worship.


----------



## HokieAirman

I haven't crossed the bridge where I've yet determined beyond the shadow of my doubt the right interperetion of every one of those scriptures. That said, secondary issues in Scripture are worth dying for.

The apostles died for preaching the word. Some weren't killed for their views on salvation...they were killed because the preached it. Preaching the word to others is not essential to Salvation, yet they died for it.

The Scottish Covenanters died for their church government when the Stuarts wanted to govern the church of the time. Church government is not essential to Salvation, otherwise, our Baptist brothers would be in trouble...(just seeing if you're paying attention...and kidding too). 

Not sure my faith is strong enough to follow their example, but it should be.


----------

