How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Clete]

Catholicism gets it right.

Laughably idiotic claim! You believe nearly everything Calvinism affirmatively teaches! Reformed theology is just reformed Augustinianism. It took out stupidly obvious errors that Roman Catholicism teaches (indulgences and the like) but kept everything that Augustine imported from Plato fully intact! You not only accept all of that but add the goofy notion that Christ's death wasn't quite enough to pay for sin and so everyone has to spend some time in purgatory to make up the difference. Not to mention to totally superstitious nonsense of transubstantiation, as well as infant baptism and Lord only knows what all other goofy things you people believe that seems to be just made up out of whole clothe.

He sounds like a Calvinist Acts 9er Dispensationalist, we had a user here Hilston who was that.

Hiltson was a presuppositionalist (i.e. of the Cornelius Van Til school of thought) and a strident Calvinist in EVERY aspect, including Covenant Theology, so far as I can remember. I had a very great deal of interaction with him. It's been years and years, but I do not recall him being Mid-Acts. That seems totally contradictory to everything he ever said while he was here. Do you have any evidence that he was Mid-Acts? If so, I'd like to read it.

 

[Idolater]

Laughably idiotic claim! You believe nearly everything Calvinism affirmatively teaches! Reformed theology is just reformed Augustinianism. It took out stupidly obvious errors that Roman Catholicism teaches (indulgences and the like) but kept everything that Augustine imported from Plato fully intact! You not only accept all of that but add the goofy notion that Christ's death wasn't quite enough to pay for sin and so everyone has to spend some time in purgatory to make up the difference. Not to mention to totally superstitious nonsense of transubstantiation, as well as infant baptism and Lord only knows what all other goofy things you people believe that seems to be just made up out of whole clothe.

I went back and edited the post to make it clearer that ▼this statement▼ is the one I was answering:

“ ... [Feldick] even got it right about there being no requirement to be water baptized, which almost no one gets right these days. ”

Hiltson was a presuppositionalist (i.e. of the Cornelius Van Til school of thought) and a strident Calvinist in EVERY aspect, including Covenant Theology, so far as I can remember. I had a very great deal of interaction with him. It's been years and years, but I do not recall him being Mid-Acts. That seems totally contradictory to everything he ever said while he was here. Do you have any evidence that he was Mid-Acts? If so, I'd like to read it.

If only @Lon were here, he would confirm. As far as any of his content I only could search the username just like you or anybody. idk if any of his posts made it through the mass deletions that have happened over the years.

@Hilston is the username.

 

[Idolater]

Oh wait look

One on One: Hilston and Tetelestai - Questions the Mid-Acts View Cannot Answer?

Issues that TOL MADists have been unable to answer. Tetelestai has challenged me to address some issues that certain Mid-Acts dispensationalists on TOL have not been able to answer. In the interest of full disclosure, I should state upfront that the Mid-Acts view I espouse is vastly different...

theologyonline.com

 

[JudgeRightly]

Catholicism gets it right.

 

[Clete]

Oh wait look

One on One: Hilston and Tetelestai - Questions the Mid-Acts View Cannot Answer?

Issues that TOL MADists have been unable to answer. Tetelestai has challenged me to address some issues that certain Mid-Acts dispensationalists on TOL have not been able to answer. In the interest of full disclosure, I should state upfront that the Mid-Acts view I espouse is vastly different...

theologyonline.com

I'm very surprised. Practically his first claim is that his view is rationally consistent, completely glossing over the fact that it cannot possibly be because Covenant Theology is the entirely consistent logically necessary conclusion that follows from the doctrine of immutability.

But then, his appeal to logical consistency was always more about posturing than it was about a true allegiance to rigorously consistent thought based on foundational premises which are rooted in the plain reading of scripture. Not that he didn't (doesn't) believe that he's being logically consistent, but like every other Calvinist, everything that needed to be a figure of speech was instantly turned into one. Any word that needed redefined, was so. Any concept that needed to be turned inside out, was flipped without question into it's opposite.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

I think that you have not been exposed to much. There are many good teachers out there, including many that are better than Les (not putting down Les, he was very good).

We tend to discuss Bible doctrine (and the Bible itself) and not Bible teachers.

Name somebody that walks You Through the Bible that is better than Les feldick. I think it depends on your theological background and beliefs. I find it very hard to believe that you have any Bible teacher that is more biblical than Les feldick who would disagree with him about much. I listen to every single episode of Les Feldick two times. There are a few things I disagree with him on but he is biblically solid in most areas.

 

[Right Divider]

Name somebody that walks You Through the Bible that is better than Les feldick.

Justin Johnson for one (grace ambassadors).
Bob Enyart for a second (he is deceased, Denver Bible Church).

I think it depends on your theological background and beliefs.

@Clete already explained many of the problems with Les' teachings.

I find it very hard to believe that you have any Bible teacher that is more biblical than Les feldick who would disagree with him about much.

Again, did you not read @Clete's post? https://theologyonline.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.60548/post-1919706

I listen to every single episode of Les Feldick two times.

Yes, you seem quite hung up on him.

There are a few things I disagree with him on but he is biblically solid in most areas.

Again, you need to read @Clete's post... https://theologyonline.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.60548/post-1919706