which hills would you die on?

[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]

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]

VeggieTales are an abomination.

I just knew you were a heretic.

 

[Rangerus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.