Heresy and Hogwash

In one of the threads on this board, I stated that “somebody once said that He became sin for all the elect”, not verbatim, but you all get the idea.
One poster jumped at that and called it “heresy” and questioned while others have allowed it to pass, why I have not been beaten down and black and blue, and still another called it “hogwash”.

The secular dictionaries define heresy thus:
1.opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

Hogwash, on the other hand, is defined by the secular dictionaries as:
1. refuse given to hogs; swill.
2. any worthless stuff.
3. meaningless or insincere talk, writing, etc.; nonsense; bunk.

Let me see, either way you cut it, the terms used were not very kind words to say to a brother-in-Christ.

Here we have one saying that his doctrines and systems of belief is the orthodox or accepted system of belief in the entire Christendom virtually shutting off those groups in church history who have always adhered to the belief that the atonement of Christ was for the benefit of the elect, or what is more popularly called Limited Atonement, the “L” of TULIP, that much hated acronym for the Doctrine of Grace, which the enemies of this doctrine would rather call “Calvinism”.

Groups like the Reformed Presbyterian churches, those who are of the Southern Baptist Churches, other orders of Baptists who quietly just go on about their businesses but adhere to the Doctrine of Grace, the Primitive Baptists some among the Missionary Baptists, and I do know of some Methodist and United Church of Christ congregations (at least in the Philippines) and Lutherans who at the time I was in my old country adhered to the Doctrine of Grace.
The entire TULIP, the whole nine yards of it.

This preacher, who this Sunday will be most likely preaching, just swept under the rug those Christians I mentioned, who like me, believed that Christ died for His people, and only for His people, under the rug of heretics. And I’m willing to wager (unchristian word as it is, forgive this heretic), that he has at the door of his church the words “Welcome”. Hopefully he won’t add “except if you’re a Calvinist”.

Are these his enemies ? Am I an enemy ? Do we preach a different Christ ?
Do we preach a different God ? Do we call on a different Name ?
And the other poster just called what those Bible –believing Christians who produced preachers that are more likely than not quoted by his own pastor, he just called their theology “swill”, “refuse to be given to hogs, worthless stuff”, and in the same train of thought that he was having at the time pronounced himself a faithful and true follower of Christ.

Yeah, right.
Whatever.

Going back to “heresy”. I think those who are on the opposite side of Calvinism (let me just call it that, although I am very definitely not a Calvinist) will find it hard to prove that their belief system is THE orthodox view, the popular one, the most widely held set of doctrines, for the simple reason that it is not so. Never was so. There has always been an opposing view, the view that Christ died for His people and only for His people.

The Angel of the Lord told Joseph: “You shall call His Name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sin”. (Matthew 1:20-21). Oh, I’ll bet (ooopppsss! There’s another unchristian, hogwash, heresy word) one Scripture doesn’t prove anything, they’ll say. One scripture, though, is a ton more in weight than a conclusion not hinted at by Scripture, especially if it comes from the lips of the Angel of the Lord.
Wonder who this angel of the Lord is ?

Maybe the angel of the Lord got his message mixed up somewhere. You know how it is. Musta flown a gazillion miles from heaven to earth and seen some wonderful sights to behold and forgotten exactly what the message was, and how it was worded.

Maybe God sent this angel to tell Joseph to name the baby Jesus because He shall save mankind from their sins. Grave mistake, that one, tsk, tsk, tsk. Maybe the angel of the Lord should have used the word mankind, and not “his people”.

Now look what the results are.

Here we have a bunch of people calling themselves by His Name and preaching what he told his disciples, you know, love one another for by this the world (hey, there it is again, the “they” and “us”, “we” and “them” thing) shall know that ye are my disciples, calling one and the other heretic and hogwash and jealously guarding one another’s doctrine all the while thumping their chests and boasting that they would rather believe Christ !

Yeah, right.
Whatever.

Well, okay, I’m a heretic. What I believe is hogwash.
After all, they called my Lord worse names.

Okay, there it is, a hogwash introduction by a heretic.
Now, I wonder if the name callers can go ahead and start to justify why I am a heretic and why my beliefs are hogwash.

Then maybe they can convert me and teach me to eat food fit for human beings.

 

I won't be of much help to you there, DHK.
I am not a "Reformed" Baptist.

What I do know is that the Reformed churches have forked into the old Covenant Theology and the New Covenant Theology.

Both however adhere strictly to the five solas.
Sola Cristo.
Sola Gratia.
Sola Scriptura.
Sola Deo Gloria, and
Sola Fide.

Their confession of faith is most closely tied to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Some will say they are structured under 3 covenants: that of redemption, works, and grace.
The New Covenant Theology, however, seems to fall under solely the Covenant of Grace.

My wife and I sometimes go to a church at Evans, New York, about 30 miles more or less away which is of the Reformed and New Covenant group, the pastor, Brother Joe Kryger is in fellowship with John Piper so I guess John Piper must be a New Covenant Reformed Theology teacher.

Sorry I'm not of much help.

 

Oh, hello there, sir.,
So, all through the Old Testament, His people were the Jewish nation.
Okay, please explain to me where the characters of Hebrews 11:1-5, 7, and 31 fit in ?
These were never God's people ?
You see, these are Gentiles.
What about Ruth ? She was a Gentile, right ?
Adam ? Gentile. Seth ? Gentile.
Abraham was a Gentile first before God called him to be a Jew.
Sara ?
Wait a minute.
Did they practice circumcision for women the way that today's Muslims do during their time ?
How is one known to be a Jew ?
Circumcision, right ?

So, Jehovah God never had people until Abraham came, became a Jew, and fathered Jews.
That is your thesis.
Actually, no, that is what Bible college (?) indoctrinated you into, or maybe your pastor, or those preachers you've been listening to, and never dared to question ?

As a matter of fact, do you maintain that until God created Israel, there were no souls saved, he put everyone into hell ?

If that is the case, then Revelations 7:9 speaks only of the Jews, right ?
All tongues, and nations, and kindreds of the Jewish people only ?

Please note: If you say yes, then you have just damned all Gentiles to hell. If you say no, then the Bible is using imprecise language because all is not all if it does not include the pre-Israel period. Make up your mind.

You err, not knowing the Scriptures. For this same Paul, who was so exasperated with the Jews' hardheadedness, told them he was taking the gospel to the Gentiles, also wrote Romans 11:1-5. Go read it, and then go figure. God always has His people in every age, in every tribe, in every nation, in every tongue. He chose them, they did not choose Him.

Again, you sound like a parrot, not one who studies the word of God in accordance with context and examine the word like the Bereans do.
You people accuse us of parroting Calvin, but listen to yourself. Straight out of the book. Drilled responses. Programmed reflexes.

Please note that the scoffer can only be one who has heard the word, knows the word, tasted of the Spirit, and yet remains unrepentant of his error, these Peter separated from those who remained faithful to the God who saved them.

Those others were part of the group, the church if you will. Christians in name and profession who grew weary of the promised return of the King of kings, and have gone on to walk the broad and wide road of error and sin.

It is they, not mankind, that the Lord gives space for repentance.

In case you don't have your Bible open, here are the verses.

2 Peter 3:1

1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The "they" of verse 3 are the scoffers who "walked out" if you will. They were with the church, and they walked out of the church, followed their own ways, embraced their own doctrines, and mocked the coming again of the King of kings.

The "they" were not the unbelieving Gentiles who were not part of the church.

You said it yourself, Peter was speaking to the saved, and his focus and context never left that audience, never referred to the unsaved world.

Not in this passage, maybe, but surely this is the same people he wrote the first letter to. You wish to refute that ?
And in the first epistle to this same people as inferred by the phrase "this second epistle" of 2 Peter 3:1, this same Peter writes:

"
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


Ooopppss!! Sorry, wrong again !

Whoever said the elect is godly at birth ? There is not one Calvinist on this board, or anywhere on earth that will tell you that.
Everyone, because they are descended from Adam, is born at enmity with God. That is in Scripture.
Everyone is shapen in iniquity.
Everyone is tainted with sin.
Everyone is dead in sins and trespasses, including the elect (Ephesians 2:8-9).

At the cross, all redemption planned in eternity past, were done.
All that were to be redeemed were redeemed, in fact, none lost, none missing, the work absolutely complete, therefore, the Savior entered heaven by His blood, and sat to rest beside the right hand of God, because all that He needed to do for His people are finished.

It is now fully the dispensation, the time of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, Christ's one and only representative on earth, and His task is to quicken all those that He has redeemed, from the cross, and after.
That is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, in His own time, in His own way, apart from any means.

 

Which one. The first one ?
No.
I don't think so.
That'll be a cold day you know where, for you to admit that your theology can not be proven to be the prevailing orthodoxy.
That judging from the way you've been discussing with others.

The statements following the second Yeah. Right. Whatever ?
Well, now, that one will be more in keeping with your attitude towards others.

But, you know what ?
Thanks for confirming to me that I'm in good, no, great company.
That second sentence also says, "They've called my Lord worse names".

 

Ever heard of sarcasm ?
Somebody so full of it in his heart don't know when it is directed at him.
A pig's body is so full of poison, a pit viper's venom takes a while to take effect, if at all.
Seen it myself.
Was a farm boy, you know.

You called what I believed hogwash in another thread.
Prove it.

You can't.

Because if you so much as try, you're liable to shoot yourself in the foot, like your attempt at trying to make 2 Peter 3 fit your theology.

 

**Insult removed**
I have no high horse I am sitting on.
I have gotten off it a long time ago, when I understood that everything I am, every hope I have, is all because of Christ.
Not because I accepted Him, but because He accepted me, in the beloved.
Not because I chose Him, but because He chose me.
Not because of any prayer I have said to Him, but because of prayers He has said for me, and all whom God chose in Christ from before the foundation of the world.
I hold Him higher than any god there is on this earth, and esteem myself lower than the lowest of all men.
Him choosing whom He wants does not make Him a respecter of persons, but rather a merciful God who is answerable to no one and who does not fail in what He sets out to do, as you would make Him appear in having Him die for all humanity and still have people perish that He supposedly shed His blood for.
You have not answered my reply to your thesis on 2 Peter and why you think it does not address the elect.
Whereas I have clearly shown to you why I see the letter as being addressed to believers and those who professed to be believers, and why God's patience is being extended to these professed believers, in particular, who have turned scoffers and not to mankind or humanity, in general, as you maintain.
You simply fall back on your own theology and interpretation and want me to believe what you say simply on the basis of because that is what you think the Bible says.
I challenge you to dissect Peter's letter chapter by chapter, on this thread, and prove that he digressed from his context and subjects, and that this second epistle has no connection whatsoever with his first.
The burden of proof rests on you since you are the first one who called my belief (which by the way I wasn't pushing on anyone on that thread) hogwash.