What is Election?

[ivdavid]

But like Spurgeon says if one goes too far to the left or the right they can get into trouble. He preached against hyper-Calvinism you know and mentions it out right, by name, in at least one sermon.

Spurgeon, was very concerned about men thinking grace excused them from their responsibility.

Paul too deals with it in Rom 6:15.

Hyper-calvinism takes the doctrine of God's sovereignty too far - to then conclude that the preaching of the Gospel itself must be limited to whom they deemed part of the elect, through some evidences they themselves formulated. Spurgeon, in warrant of faith, rightly decrees the Gospel is to be preached to all, irrespective of any man-made evidential criteria/conditions. In Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility, Spurgeon balances the 2 seemingly conflicting truths of God being All-Sovereign AND man being held responsible for his disobedience of the Gospel.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Kindly elaborate on this. What do you mean by one has "to first know the Gospel is true" ?

By nature, man does not have the capacity to know that the gospel he can't see is true. If it weren't for the power of faith going out into the world through the testimony of the Holy Spirit, no one would know the gospel is true. We probably wouldn't even know about it to begin with if the Holy Spirit did not speak about it in the world. You have to know the truth before you can put your trust in the truth and be saved by that truth.

No preaching of the Gospel claims it is false - in fact, it is preached as the Word of God, therein claiming it is necessarily true.

But not all preaching is accompanied by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. It is the conviction of the Holy Spirit that makes mere words to be known as the truth, and therefore, believable.

If man still chooses to reject it, he cannot hide under the excuse that the Gospel didn't seem convincing enough to him - responsibility is necessarily laid upon him for failing to uphold his moral duty towards God in obeying His Gospel call.

You're missing the point of all this. The Holy Spirit is what does the convincing. Until that happens no one can be convinced the gospel they can not see is true. How can a person put their trust in something they do not know is true and therefore, trustworthy?

It's when a person can 'see', through the power of the Holy Spirit, that God really is telling the truth and that he is worthy of trust that they are then accountable for their knowledge about Jesus Christ and the offer of forgiveness.

Why then is God obligated to do any further "equipping" when all that is necessary for man to obey has already been provided from God's end - the only factor lacking being man's will to obey?

The equipping has been provided so a person can then believe (trust) in that which they have heard. Most do not utilize the equipping God provides to trust him and turn away from that which he equips them to trust in. Simply being equipped is not the same as using what you've been equipped with. This is the fundamental point I've been trying to make about faith. Faith (knowing something you can't see is true) is the equipping. 'Believing' is putting that equipping to work. Only faith that is put to work in believing can save.

If you equate one's "hearing the message" with their "knowing the truth", I am in agreement with that. If not, what is additionally required to the Gospel message to establish its already proclaimed truth?

It isn't established as undeniable truth until the Holy Spirit convicts a person that it is true. It's impossible to know the gospel is true if the Holy Spirit does not do the convicting. That's what the 1 John 5 passage I've been quoting is all about. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is the addition that is required to know the truth. But that alone hardly equates to being regenerated. You are regenerated when you believe in (trust in) the gospel that the Holy Spirit showed you is true.

I do not read regeneration here in Eph 1:13 at all. It quite clearly talks about the "sealing" of the believer with the Holy Spirit. How do you equate "sealing" with the new "birth" ?

As I showed you from Titus 3:5, being born-again is being renewed and cleansed by the Holy Spirit. Until that happens you are not born-again. But you seem to be suggesting that simply hearing the testimony of the Holy Spirit in your inner man is the cleansing and renewing of the Holy Spirit.

Simply being under the influence of the Holy Spirit does not equate to a born-again experience. This is probably the crux of your argument--that any activity of the Holy Spirit in a person is regenerative. I wish that was true, but it's not. A I said, that would mean everybody who hears the testimony of the Holy Spirit is regenerated/saved. It's obvious that is simply not true.

Look to the OT physical foreshadow of the NT spiritual things to come - the jew was born first and then on the 8th day...

The 8th day is a prophetic symbol of how the Jews will come to faith at the end of this age, and the beginning of the next (the 8th day, prophetically speaking). This is not to signify that a person receives the circumcision of the Holy Spirit after they are born-again. Receiving the Holy Spirit IS being born-again, just as you and I received our human spirits and were made 'alive'. You receive the spirit of life at birth, not before.

... (A Jew) received the sign of circumcision which is a "seal" of God's righteousness - similarly, the "seal" and the "surety/pledge" of the Holy Spirit does come after the new "birth", which however is not mentioned in v13 at all.

As I showed you in the Bible, the Holy Spirit IS the new birth. The Holy Spirit is not a symbol or representation of the new birth. It IS the new birth.

Circumcision--the laying aside of the flesh--is the sign that you are in covenant with God and that you will inherit God's promise and pledge of salvation, both, before and during the old covenant, and in this New Covenant. In the old covenant this laying aside of the flesh was symbolized by literal circumcision. In this New Covenant the actual laying aside of the flesh nature is what gets done, but still serves as the sign that you are in indeed in covenant with God, and are one of God's people and an inheritor of the Promise.

The Holy Spirit is not the circumcision itself. The absence of the flesh nature is the circumcision. That is what is circumcised. The Holy Spirit is the agent of circumcision:

29 ...circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code (the hands of men)." (Romans 2:29 NIV)
'Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands...' (Ephesians 2:11 NASB)

"...in Him (Christ) you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands." (Colossians 2:11 NASB)

And as I've shown, this circumcision does not happen until you believe, not when you become aware of the truth. If that were true, then it would be as I said, that everybody who hears the testimony of the Holy Spirit is saved, but we know that simply is not true. John talks about those who reject the testimony of the Holy Spirit. So we know it's false to think that simply 'having' the Holy Spirit in a revelation of the gospel truth and being convicted of the truth equates to being regenerated.

Working on my final exam today....

 

[ivdavid]

But not all preaching is accompanied by the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Where in the Bible do you find such instances of the Word of God being preached without man being held accountable?

It's impossible to know the gospel is true if the Holy Spirit does not do the convicting.

But wherever the Word of God is preached, isn't that sufficient of man knowing the truth enough to be held accountable?

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Why do you then make additional distinctions to the above verse? I'd say the Holy Spirit's work is implicit wherever the Word of God is preached - especially in the context of Rom 10 where Israel is held accountable for "knowing" and yet not "obeying"?

As I showed you from Titus 3:5, being born-again is being renewed and cleansed by the Holy Spirit. Until that happens you are not born-again.

I agree with your interpretation of Titus 3:5.

But you seem to be suggesting that simply hearing the testimony of the Holy Spirit in your inner man is the cleansing and renewing of the Holy Spirit.

No. Hearing the Gospel is not equivalent to being regenerated - I've already stated this clearly before. Believing in the Gospel is what is confirmation of being regenerated.

Simply being under the influence of the Holy Spirit does not equate to a born-again experience. This is probably the crux of your argument--that any activity of the Holy Spirit in a person is regenerative.

No - The testimony of the Spirit goes forth to all men in 1Cor 2. Not all are regenerate.

But the distinction is made between those who accept the testimony of the Holy Spirit and those who reject it - and that distinction is on the basis of whether they are still in their natural state or in their spiritual state. All those who are spiritual accept the testimony of the Spirit - and all who are natural reject it. The former I find to be regenerate - and the latter are still unregenerate. This distinction again is not indicative of one's "hearing" but of their "accepting/believing in" the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

This is not to signify that a person receives the circumcision of the Holy Spirit after they are born-again. Receiving the Holy Spirit IS being born-again, just as you and I received our human spirits and were made 'alive'. You receive the spirit of life at birth, not before.

I am only making a distinction between the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" and the "sealing of the Holy Spirit". The former, as you say, IS the new birth. The latter is a pledge/surety "sealed" by God.

How do you interpret Acts 19:2? Also, do you believe Jesus' disciples were unregenerate until Acts 2 Pentecost?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Okay, gonna squeeze in a few quick relies:

Where in the Bible do you find such instances of the Word of God being preached without man being held accountable?

I can't think of an example right off, but here is the concept that I'm talking about:

"41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains." (John 9:41 NASB)

But wherever the Word of God is preached, isn't that sufficient of man knowing the truth enough to be held accountable?

Not in regard to Jesus Christ...in regard to sin, 'yes'...but in regard to salvation in Jesus Christ, 'no'.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Why do you then make additional distinctions to the above verse? I'd say the Holy Spirit's work is implicit wherever the Word of God is preached - especially in the context of Rom 10 where Israel is held accountable for "knowing" and yet not "obeying"?

What makes you think God always and without exception inhabits the truths spoken about in the Bible? Have you never known anyone, including yourself, when the words of the Bible had no impact whatsoever? It isn't until God starts calling a person that his Word is accompanied by his Spirit. I would say that is the definition of being called--hearing the voice and testimony of God himself, not just hearing words about God.

No. Hearing the Gospel is not equivalent to being regenerated - I've already stated this clearly before.

I responded to your first post today without reading the next one after it. I see now that you are not saying hearing=regeneration. I will get to that post eventually.

Believing in the Gospel is what is confirmation of being regenerated.

It only makes sense that regeneration/salvation--that is, being included in Christ by the Holy Spirit--is evidence of having believed. How do you get included in the Body of Christ without the Holy Spirit being more than just the agent through which you hear the truth? Getting sealed with the Holy Spirit means being joined to Christ by that Holy Spirit. When you believe you get put into Christ by the Holy Spirit. IOW, as a result of believing, you get put into the body of Christ, not put into the body of Christ so you can believe.

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13 NASB)

See, you aren't in the body until you are put into the body by (meaning by virtue of) the Holy Spirit. You are not saved and do not belong to Jesus until you have the Holy Spirit joining you to Christ's body...what the Bible calls the indwelling, or seal of, or immersion in, the Holy Spirit.


I really have to get back to my exam.....

 

[ivdavid]

I can't think of an example right off, but here is the concept that I'm talking about:[John 9:41]

In Matt 13:14-15 - are the people, in whom Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled, blind or not?

What makes you think God always and without exception inhabits the truths spoken about in the Bible?

What makes you think there can be Biblical truth apart from Christ [John 14:6]? Cite any instances from the Bible on such occurrences of truth not proceeding from God, as and when you find them.

Have you never known anyone, including yourself, when the words of the Bible had no impact whatsoever?

This is such a dangerous premise to base all your important doctrines on. Are we to now differentiate between the "Word of God through the Bible" and simply "words of the Bible", based on what effect/impact it has on the reader? There are countless times when there would be no impact - but that's because of a hardened heart of stone not responding to the spiritual testimonies of God as it ought to respond - and in that too, it is held accountable - rather than excusing it on the basis of inaction. Man's will is so inured in sin, it actively chooses to ignore the holy things of God - neither does man's will choose to seek them. Why excuse such a will rather than hold it accountable for its indifference and rejection of the God of all Glory?

No doubt God can overcome this hardened heart and rebellious will - but while I say it is an act of mercy that He doesn't owe anybody, you make it out to be the duty of God to perform on everyone. Why is God necessarily obligated to overcome man's rebellious will when all that such a man justly deserves is condemnation for rejecting God's testimonies?

But wherever the Word of God is preached, isn't that sufficient of man knowing the truth enough to be held accountable?

Not in regard to Jesus Christ...in regard to sin, 'yes'...but in regard to salvation in Jesus Christ, 'no'.

I acknowledge this is your position. But where in the Bible do I find such a distinction made? I also quoted Rom 10:17 which holds the Word of God to be sufficient to hold all "hearers" accountable - where then is the necessity to add to what's already stated in Rom 10:17?

I responded to your first post today without reading the next one after it. I see now that you are not saying hearing=regeneration.

I see that you've missed it in my much earlier post#577 -

So as you can see,
A. I do NOT equate "hearing the testimony of the Spirit" with being regenerate...

 

[ivdavid]

IOW, as a result of believing, you get put into the body of Christ, not put into the body of Christ so you can believe.

I do not disagree with this. You've got to try imagining this as an entire process of say gift-wrapping an object.

First, the gift-wrapping paper is spread out. It is slid under the object. Then, fold-by-fold the wrapping paper is made to cover the object - until finally it encloses the entire object and is sealed with a ribbon-like-knot on top.

Similarly, the work of the Holy Spirit begins as the gift-wrapping paper spread out. The sliding under the object is the initial regenerative work of the Holy Spirit in a person. Then the first-fold is the Spirit convicting man of sin, leading him to repentance. The second-simultaneous-fold is the Holy Spirit showing Christ on the cross, leading man to begin believing in Christ. Then the third-fold is the Holy Spirit cleansing/purging the guilty conscience, through forgiveness. The fourth-simultaneous-fold is the Holy Spirit justifying man, through imputed righteousness. Then the fifth fold would be the Holy Spirit placing man in the Body of Christ, through adoption as children of God. The final knot would be the final "sealing" of the Holy Spirit in this man - leading on to preserving sanctification unto glorification.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I do not disagree with this. You've got to try imagining this as an entire process of say gift-wrapping an object.

First, the gift-wrapping paper is spread out. It is slid under the object. Then, fold-by-fold the wrapping paper is made to cover the object - until finally it encloses the entire object and is sealed with a ribbon-like-knot on top.

Similarly, the work of the Holy Spirit begins as the gift-wrapping paper spread out. The sliding under the object is the initial regenerative work of the Holy Spirit in a person. Then the first-fold is the Spirit convicting man of sin, leading him to repentance. The second-simultaneous-fold is the Holy Spirit showing Christ on the cross, leading man to begin believing in Christ. Then the third-fold is the Holy Spirit cleansing/purging the guilty conscience, through forgiveness. The fourth-simultaneous-fold is the Holy Spirit justifying man, through imputed righteousness. Then the fifth fold would be the Holy Spirit placing man in the Body of Christ, through adoption as children of God. The final knot would be the final "sealing" of the Holy Spirit in this man - leading on to preserving sanctification unto glorification.

You have salvation happening so early--in fact, the very first thing--which makes this, Biblically, indefensible.

Saying God simply picks out people by his own design, without giving them the choice (He gives them their choice to be saved or not, as you say happens) is completely and utterly contradictory to God's own word that he wants all men saved, and that he could even weep over those who refuse to choose salvation (after all, you say he gave them the will to be lost, when all he had to do was give them the will to be saved).

To me this doctrine is absurd, but I understand why the church can embrace it. I'm telling you it all goes back to the false thinking that if you yourself trust in God for the forgiveness of sins you are somehow guilty of trying to earn your own salvation.

What is it about trusting God that would make that a work of the law that can not justify? Nothing, but if you are taught that the problem with the works that Paul says can't justify is that man does them, you can't help but to then think that ANYTHING man does, even believing in Christ for forgiveness of sins, is then an evil work of the flesh.

I've been a Christian for almost 28 years, and as I've been learning over the years, I am amazed at how much of the truth of the Bible the church, generally speaking, has lost. It's scary. I mean that. It's unsettling to even my own personal faith. And it all seems to hinge on this misunderstanding of faith/works.

The main problem being that the church does not understand that works of the law can't justify because that is not how sin is atoned for. Works of the law can't justify just because man did them, but because sin is atoned for through forgiveness. A forgiveness Paul says is secured through trusting in God's promise of a Son whose blood provides that forgiveness. There's no reason to rip that 'work' out of the hands of men to preserve some doctrine of 'works' that is not even true in the first place.

 

[ivdavid]

Saying God simply picks out people by his own design, without giving them the choice....

Hold our earlier posts#592,593 for reference on this. What I've described in my last post is only Step 3 of my position(quoted again below). The consideration of human input(man's will/choice) happens in Step 1, before what I described begins. You seem too entrenched in what you think is the problem that you're not listening to what my position is at all - I've already made my position clear on all this, including how I don't hold the work of "believing" to be a work of the Law except for use in argument to point out contradictions.

I hold as true, all of your above quote - except perhaps my calling it man's will and not man's freewill.
1. So, we have God using His foreknowledge to know who will believe and who won't by their own will(choosing). This is what I hold to be God's consideration of human will concerning the truth of the Gospel.
2. I now proceed forth from this point - to say that God is entitled to uphold His judgement and condemnation of sin in every single man who chooses to reject the truth of the Gospel.
3. And after having found them worthy of condemnation, God is also entitled to show mercy upon whom He sovereignly wills - which is what happens through the reformed understanding of the election of grace.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hold our earlier posts#592,593 for reference on this. What I've described in my last post is only Step 3 of my position(quoted again below). The consideration of human input(man's will/choice) happens in Step 1, before what I described begins.

I'm pretty sure I understood in a post from yesterday that you believe God GIVES man the will to be saved, or not to be saved.

I'm pretty sure you're on record as opposing 'free' will, meaning whatever 'will' we have was given to us by God apart from any consideration of what we personally want.

You seem too entrenched in what you think is the problem that you're not listening to what my position is at all - I've already made my position clear on all this, including how I don't hold the work of "believing" to be a work of the Law except for use in argument to point out contradictions.

I'm confident you would not call 'believing' a literal work of the law. The point is, some in the church think if YOU did something in and of yourself toward your justification--anything--even believing, that equates to what the Israelites did in trying to earn a declaration of righteousness through doing righteous things.

I have to ask, how is believing in God's promise to forgive me somehow me trying to earn my own justification?

Can't you see that if you think that it is works (as Paul defines that), you are forced to have a doctrine that says we can't do that believing ourselves and must attribute it to God assigning us the inherent mechanism for choosing salvation, rather than that mechanism being a product of who we are as a spiritual person, in and of ourselves, capable of loving righteousness when given the chance, apart from the influences of the flesh? Think about what I'm saying.

 

[chessman]

The main problem being that the church does not understand ...

If your brain surgery docket allows , I have one (maybe two) quick question(s); When you say “the church…” what do you mean specifically by “the church”?

I’ve noticed that you make points/statements quite often saying “the church” being wrong, false, etc. about such and such (especially soteriology). And I’ve looked but cannot really find what “church” it is that you mean. Is there any specific “church” that you mean or is it literally all of them?

I suspect the search feature now on CFNet's migration (which seems to work much better than the last servers) now max’s out at 200 occurrences evidently. But I was just trying to figure out which “church” it is that makes all these wrong doctrinal statements and/or what you mean when you say "the church". Is it pretty much all of them? None even come close to the proper teaching about soteriology?

http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?search/20040/&q=%22the+church%22&o=date&c[node]=9&c[user][0]=2065

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If your brain surgery docket allows , I have one (maybe two) quick question(s); When you say “the church…” what do you mean specifically by “the church”?

I’ve noticed that you make points/statements quite often saying “the church” being wrong, false, etc. about such and such (especially soteriology). And I’ve looked but cannot really find what “church” it is that you mean. Is there any specific “church” that you mean or is it literally all of them?

I suspect the search feature now on CFNet's migration (which seems to work much better than the last servers) now max’s out at 200 occurrences evidently. But I was just trying to figure out which “church” it is that makes all these wrong doctrinal statements and/or what you mean when you say "the church". Is it pretty much all of them? None even come close to the proper teaching about soteriology?

http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?search/20040/&q=%22the+church%22&o=date&c[node]=9&c[user][0]=2065

I'm not talking about the official doctrine of any one particular church, although those are certainly directly represented at various times in these forums. I definitely learned it's wrong to try to pigeon-hole any one believer into a doctrinal struct (Chopper's 'four' point Calvinism, for example).

What I am talking about is the general prevailing belief among Christians that salvation is so utterly gracious it's impossible to somehow attribute any doing of man whatsoever to God's success in redeeming a people for himself, borne out of a misguided fear of assigning that doing as the damnable works that Paul says can not save.

I'm learning that this fundamental thinking is what gives strength to so many associated, and misguided, doctrines held to be true by individual Christians, whether by way of official doctrine, or just private thought.

I've always thought of the time when 'truth will be utterly cast down to the ground' that the Bible talks about as a future occurrence. I'm beginning to see we're probably a lot farther into that prophesied time than I realize. If the Bible had not spoke about this happening it would rattle my faith pretty deeply. What seemed so rock solid in the church about truth I'm finding out is not so rock solid.

 

[ivdavid]

I'm pretty sure you're on record as opposing 'free' will, meaning whatever 'will' we have was given to us by God apart from any consideration of what we personally want.

I am quite opposed to the concept of "free will" where it states one may choose arbitrarily independent of the inclinations of his nature - which is why I term it just "will", which is wholly dependent on the inclinations of his own nature - either the outer flesh-nature or the inner spirit-nature.

And I definitely do not hold what you've stated above - that in any act, God forces man to choose something he does not desire. Like I said, God does not make man's choices - God simply changes the nature of man, which his choices are dependent on. And with this new God-given nature, man now really wants what God wants and he readily and willingly chooses it without anyone else making that choice for him.

I'm pretty sure I understood in a post from yesterday that you believe God GIVES man the will to be saved, or not to be saved.

As explained above - God doesn't exactly 'make and give' the will itself to be saved - rather, God makes the new inner spirit-nature in man with which man himself wills to be saved. Similarly, God never 'makes and gives' the will itself Not to be saved - that is man himself in his natural flesh-nature willing Not to be saved.

I do believe God plays a 100% causative role in man's salvation to the exclusion of man's own causative contribution in any form - but that does not imply man is not involved at all.

You speak of say a 99.999...% causative role of God's grace and a minuscule infinitesimal 0.000..1% causative role of man's own will in effecting the final result of salvation of any man. I speak of a 100% to a 0% - but that does not mean man's will is excluded completely. It is still that man choosing to believe in Christ and be saved - but it carries no causative %weightage because this itself is wholly dependent on that man's new spirit-nature which was a 100% creative work of God alone.

As to the people who perish, your rat maze analogy works fine - God commands and judges based on what they themselves 100%causatively will/choose in their default flesh-natures - which should have been what we who are saved too deserve - but therein lies the grace and sovereign mercy of God.

I have to ask, how is believing in God's promise to forgive me somehow me trying to earn my own justification?

It isn't - as long as you don't hold a doctrine that implies this work was borne out of the outer flesh-nature.

Can't you see that if you think that it is works (as Paul defines that), you are forced to have a doctrine that says we can't do that believing ourselves and must attribute it to God assigning us the inherent mechanism for choosing salvation, rather than that mechanism being a product of who we are as a spiritual person, in and of ourselves, capable of loving righteousness when given the chance, apart from the influences of the flesh?

To be free from the default flesh-nature and hardened heart of stone, there must be a stronger sinless nature and a new heart that is operative in man - which isn't created until regeneration. Which is why I asked you earlier - do you believe that the unregenerate can be subject to God's Law(set of commands) in any act of theirs - and if so, what exactly does regeneration aim to change in man?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If your brain surgery docket allows ,

I'm home this morning finishing my final exam, lol.

I'm trying to increase my brain surgery success rate.

 

[chessman]

I'm trying to increase my brain surgery success rate.

. Let me know if you score at least a B+. I could use a tune-up.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

. Let me know if you score at least a B+. I could use a tune-up.

Well, the instructor is dropping the worst grade, and grading on the curve, so I'm sure that will be no problem getting a B+.

I'm specializing in frontal labotomies (don't worry, it isn't necessary to know how to spell it). I figure a lot of people need the emotions removed out of their doctrinal reasoning so they can rationally discern the truth. (Aw, just when we were having so much fun, you say.)

 

[chessman]

I'm specializing in frontal labotomies (don't worry, it isn't necessary to know how to spell it). I figure a lot of people need the emotions removed out of their doctrinal reasoning so they can rationally discern the truth. (Aw, just when we were having so much fun, you say.)

Isn't it spelled reproofotomy taught at the Med School of Paul?
If it's not a word, it should be.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

Or maybe he was the doctor that prescribed a little wine for what ails you. I forget.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Isn't it spelled reproofotomy taught at the Med School of Paul?
If it's not a word, it should be.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

Or maybe he was the doctor that prescribed a little wine for what ails you. I forget.

It's interesting to see how many popular doctrines contradict the scriptures.

It makes it very difficult to explain the things of God to seekers who don't know yet that the Bible often doesn't mean what it says.

 

[chessman]

[1]

It [?] makes it very difficult to explain the things of God to seekers who don't know yet that the Bible often doesn't mean what it says.

I modified your quote above asking: What do you mean by “It”?

I’m still a little unclear as to exactly what “church” within “the church” it is that you feel teaches what the Bible doesn’t mean to say. When I asked you what you meant by “the church” you said:

I'm not talking about the official doctrine of any one particular church,

So that didn’t really clear it up for me either. You answered with:

What I am talking about is the general prevailing belief among Christians …

First, I find there is no such thing as a “general prevailing belief among Christians” about pretty much any subject, especially “election”. Not even the deity of Christ and His eternal nature is in full agreement.

Mormons (who are growing in prevalence recently and evidently call themselves “Christians”) teach that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says, thus their need for further “revelation”.​

I recall an extreme (not generally prevailing, thank God) so called ‘Christian’ belief about salvation that to be saved everyone had to commit suicide and catch a ride on a planet hidden behind the comet Hale Bopp.​

And there’s growing “prevailing belief” that everyone is eventually saved (universalism).​

My point is, there's all kinds of ‘beliefs’ in-between these. None "prevail".​

So, frankly I have no idea what you mean by “the church” is “the general prevailing belief among Christians …”. What does that mean?

Yet that’s just a portion of what you said so it would not be appropriate to strip off the rest of your answer, out of its full context. You actually go on to clarify that the “general prevailing belief” you think is false =

“salvation is so utterly gracious it's impossible to somehow attribute any doing of man [toward their salvation]”

The problem is, I don’t really know any prevailing “church” belief that salvation is so utterly gracious it's impossible to somehow attribute any doing of man toward salvation. Can you name a denomination or a Theologian that believes this? I know people that like their "works" based path to salvation that say there are denominations like that and theologians like that. But the only one I know of that would teach no contribution of man would be a universalist. That's certainly not "the chruch" you speak against, is it?

In fact, if anything, the prevalence in “the church”, it seems to me, is to attribute more and more and more toward man’s work versus God’s work into salvation than the other way around.

Some “church” even going so far the other way as to teach monetary contributions of man can work towards one’s salvation (even dead people’s salvation).

But really simply, quickly and specifically; what is an example “church” (either denomination or well known/published theologian within it) you speak against so often with regard to their teaching on “election”?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I modified your quote above asking: What do you mean by “It”?

It = "Popular doctrines of the church that contradict scripture".

Doctrines embraced by the church that contradict the plain words of scripture make it hard to explain the things of God to seekers.

I’m still a little unclear as to exactly what “church” within “the church” it is that you feel teaches what the Bible doesn’t mean to say.

It is the collective body of people who call themselves Christian. The problem I'm speaking of cuts across all of Christianity. Evangelical, Protestant Christianity, anyway. I can't speak for Catholicism.

First, I find there is no such thing as a “general prevailing belief among Christians” about pretty much any subject....

I would have said the same thing even just five years ago. Not anymore.

The thing that seems to be in general agreement is this misunderstanding of 'grace' that prevails in the church, and which seems to ignore denominational lines.

... especially “election”.

But, as I've been trying to show, election has the underlying indoctrination of grace giving it energy in the church that other erroneous doctrines get energized by. The difference in fine points is not my issue. The issue is the church being afraid to assign the 'work' of believing to man for fear it somehow qualifies as a person trying to earn their own salvation and taking away the glory and grace of salvation from God. Hardly true....if you have a correct understanding of faith/works.

Mormons (who are growing in prevalence recently and evidently call themselves “Christians”) teach that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says, thus their need for further “revelation”.

Is believing that the Bible really doesn't mean what it says, without the addition of additional revelation, really that much better than the Mormons adding additional revelation to their belief that the Bible really doesn't mean what it says?

I recall an extreme (not generally prevailing, thank God) so called ‘Christian’ belief about salvation that to be saved everyone had to commit suicide and catch a ride on a planet hidden behind the comet Hale Bopp.

And there’s growing “prevailing belief” that everyone is eventually saved (universalism).

My point is, there's all kinds of ‘beliefs’ in-between these. None "prevail".

That just isn't true. The erroneous understanding of 'grace' is a prevailing belief in the Protestant church. I wouldn't have believed that it was erroneous five years ago, and would have even defended this erroneous fundamental belief of the (Protestant) church (can't speak for Catholics). I can't defend it anymore.

So, frankly I have no idea what you mean by “the church” is “the general prevailing belief among Christians …”. What does that mean?

Just think about how the church teaches grace. Then you'll get it.

Yet that’s just a portion of what you said so it would not be appropriate to strip off the rest of your answer, out of its full context. You actually go on to clarify that the “general prevailing belief” you think is false =

​

The problem is, I don’t really know any prevailing “church” belief that salvation is so utterly gracious it's impossible to somehow attribute any doing of man toward salvation. Can you name a denomination or a Theologian that believes this?

As an official doctrine, or creed? I'd have to find a list of them on line.

But of all the Christians I've met and talked to in 27 years as a Christian...I can't count them.

I know people that like their "works" based path to salvation that say there are denominations like that and theologians like that.

But what I've found is those that we 'correct' Christians think are teaching salvation by works are not teaching that at all. What I found was the indoctrination about grace is so strong in the church today that the church can't hear what they're saying.

But the only one I know of that would teach no contribution of man would be a universalist. That's certainly not "the chruch" you speak against, is it?

Universalists are the only ones!? You have been reading this thread, right?

Election is being taught right here in this forum as meaning salvation is utterly and completely accomplished because God either made you to be a saved person, or didn't make you to be a saved person. (But has decided to make most men not saved, contrary to his own Word that says he wants all men to come to the truth, and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.)

In fact, if anything, the prevalence in “the church”, it seems to me, is to attribute more and more and more toward man’s work versus God’s work into salvation than the other way around.

If you see that as a salvation based on the merit of doing righteous things, then yes, that's in the church, too. But as I'm saying, the perception is that is what they are teaching, not the reality. Take what I'm saying for example. I say believing is a work of man, but which does not 'earn' salvation. Most instantly can only hear 'works salvation' when I say that--for all that phrase has been programmed into the minds of the church to mean these days.

Some “church” even going so far the other way as to teach monetary contributions of man can work towards one’s salvation (even dead people’s salvation).

Probably a Catholic thing.

But really simply, quickly and specifically; what is an example “church” (either denomination or well known/published theologian within it) you speak against so often with regard to their teaching on “election”?

You do know the 'church' is the body of believers, don't you?

Virtually every Christian I have ever known in all my life as a Christian thinks grace is so utterly gracious and not of you that you have nothing to do with it whatsoever, therefore, it's predetermined by God and nothing, not even what you personally want now or in the future, can change that.

A simple google search will tell you the names of the denom's that hold this thinking as official, hard and fast, go to fist-a-cuffs doctrine. But as I'm saying, this erroneous understanding of grace has no denominational boundaries. You're asking me to provide evidence for something I'm not making a point about, but have actually been saying is NOT bound by denomination.

 

[Deborah13]

It = "Popular doctrines of the church that contradict scripture".

Doctrines embraced by the church that contradict the plain words of scripture make it hard to explain the things of God to seekers.



It is the collective body of people who call themselves Christian. The problem I'm speaking of cuts across all of Christianity. Evangelical, Protestant Christianity, anyway. I can't speak for Catholicism.



I would have said the same thing even just five years ago. Not anymore.

The thing that seems to be in general agreement is this misunderstanding of 'grace' that prevails in the church, and which seems to ignore denominational lines.



But, as I've been trying to show, election has the underlying indoctrination of grace giving it energy in the church that other erroneous doctrines get energized by. The difference in fine points is not my issue. The issue is the church being afraid to assign the 'work' of believing to man for fear it somehow qualifies as a person trying to earn their own salvation and taking away the glory and grace of salvation from God. Hardly true....if you have a correct understanding of faith/works.



Is believing that the Bible really doesn't mean what it says, without the addition of additional revelation, really that much better than the Mormons adding additional revelation to their belief that the Bible really doesn't mean what it says?



That just isn't true. The erroneous understanding of 'grace' is a prevailing belief in the Protestant church. I wouldn't have believed that it was erroneous five years ago, and would have even defended this erroneous fundamental belief of the (Protestant) church (can't speak for Catholics). I can't defend it anymore.



Just think about how the church teaches grace. Then you'll get it.



As an official doctrine, or creed? I'd have to find a list of them on line.

But of all the Christians I've met and talked to in 27 years as a Christian...I can't count them.



But what I've found is those that we 'correct' Christians think are teaching salvation by works are not teaching that at all. What I found was the indoctrination about grace is so strong in the church today that the church can't hear what they're saying.



Universalists are the only ones!? You have been reading this thread, right?

Election is being taught right here in this forum as meaning salvation is utterly and completely accomplished because God either made you to be a saved person, or didn't make you to be a saved person. (But has decided to make most men not saved, contrary to his own Word that says he wants all men to come to the truth, and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.)



If you see that as a salvation based on the merit of doing righteous things, then yes, that's in the church, too. But as I'm saying, the perception is that is what they are teaching, not the reality. Take what I'm saying for example. I say believing is a work of man, but which does not 'earn' salvation. Most instantly can only hear 'works salvation' when I say that--for all that phrase has been programmed into the minds of the church to mean these days.



Probably a Catholic thing.



You do know the 'church' is the body of believers, don't you?

Virtually every Christian I have ever known in all my life as a Christian thinks grace is so utterly gracious and not of you that you have nothing to do with it whatsoever, therefore, it's predetermined by God and nothing, not even what you personally want now or in the future, can change that.

A simple google search will tell you the names of the denom's that hold this thinking as official, hard and fast, go to fist-a-cuffs doctrine. But as I'm saying, this erroneous understanding of grace has no denominational boundaries. You're asking me to provide evidence for something I'm not making a point about, but have actually been saying is NOT bound by denomination.

I think what chessman was getting at and I had tried too, was to get you to give a couple of examples of people who are teaching grace the way you are talking about. If we don't know what you are talking about it is hard to understand you.
Please can you give two examples of pastors or evangelists, to defend your position that grace is not being taught improperly. You say it is being taught but give no evidence.