-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
H
to djames1958 sorry to say, the only defense you have is to smear, by using deception and lies and half trues. You quote Eph..2:8-9 with out v10, (that is deception,half truth.) . Have you read all my posts and all the scriptures I used? You admit,"I disagree with the way MacArthur incorporates discipleship into salvation issues." This for sure!, You "easy beleivists" hate "Lordship" preachers like MacArthur and me. I have been condemned by you men all my life. I am very "teachable" to any man who will give me the whole truth. My best defense is an good offense, "preach the word." Heb. 5:9 "And having been made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." Grace Faith, Works saves. You know all the verses, SO, why don't you believe them!
M
Again, the present view of dispensationalism is usually different from the original view of dispensationalism. You believe that dispensationalism is simply categorizing time periods. The original dispensationalism went so far as to categorize "requirements for salvation" into time periods. These days much of modern "dispensationalism" has a bit of Calvinism thrown in. Dispensationalists don't usually have the balls to outright say God failed. They gloss it over by skirting the fact that dispensationalism requires God to have changed His methods to suit man's behaviors. This is partly why I began this thread with discussions of free-will salvation. If one is to say God had to change "requirements for salvation" by including man's "acceptance" of salvation (a perspective common in Baptist churchest), one has to be agreeing that God fails to be sovereign. Free-will salvation is common in modern-day churches... and I believe it was stated above that dispensationalism is common in modern-day churches... they coexist because they can. When one overworks God's actions by interpreting some of them differently than what they were meant to be seen as (lessons in obedience and God's omnipotence) one puts more of the balance of control in man's court.
E
Actually you are decieving now. Eph 2" 10 supports out gospel.
We are saved by faith not works, lest we boast of earning our salvation. Those of us who are saved by faith are created new creatures, who WILL do the works God created us to do.l
Which is what James agrees with.
if we say we have faith (the faith of eph 2: 8-9) but do not have works (the works of eph 2: 20) our faith is dead (non existant) this we were never saved to begin with.
Those saved WILL do the works of 2: 10
We are saved by faith not works, lest we boast of earning our salvation. Those of us who are saved by faith are created new creatures, who WILL do the works God created us to do.l
Which is what James agrees with.
if we say we have faith (the faith of eph 2: 8-9) but do not have works (the works of eph 2: 20) our faith is dead (non existant) this we were never saved to begin with.
Those saved WILL do the works of 2: 10
D
You wrote: "Though there are no distinct proofs against this idea there are likewise no proofs either."
Response: I would disagree with that view. If there weren't strong biblical evidence the majority of conservative evangelicals wouldn't hold to this view because they do take the Bible literally. The number of people holding a view doesn't make it right - but since conservatives hold it, it does mean that they believe there is proof in the Scriptures.
You wrote: "The convenience of believing in pre-trib rapture is that Christians currently existing will not have to suffer the punishments God brings on the earth. HOWEVER, the Bible clearly states that there will be Christians present during the tribulation (1/3 of them will die from the tribulation)... and unbelievers will be present during the Millenium. I personally don't believe that being a Christian gives me a "get out of jail free" card in any event..."
Response: Using the word "convenience" is a very common perjorative against the pre-trib position, which implies that we only hold that view because it is "convenient." This is also suggested by the "get out of jail free" comment. Both are very unfortunate and rather cynical caricatures. We don't hold this view because we want a "get out of jail free card" - we hold it because we believe it is the biblical view. Neither do we hold it because we don't think we deserve persecution (as is also frequently suggested) - and in fact we understand that many Christians are persecuted, even unto death, every year and have been for 2000 years.
However, the persecution and trials during the Tribulation are distinctly different than these trials and persecutions of the last 2000 years precisely because they are not just the persecutions at the hands of men or Satan, but rather this is a time of God's wrath against the earth. This is the weakness of the Post-Trib view. When Paul was comforting the believers in Thessalonica who thought they had missed the Rapture, Paul assured them that God had not appointed them to wrath - so they could have confidence they were not in the Tribulation. Therefore, the Tribulation is not merely a continuation of things that have happened throughout history.
So, it is not simply a convenient view, it is a biblical one for very specific theological reasons related to the body of Christ not being subjected to the wrath of God. Romans 8:1 says there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ.
Concerning Armageddon and the blood flowing up to a horse's bridle - that is during the Tribulation, not after Satan's release at the end of the Millennium. There will be no prolonged battle then, as Satan and those whom he has deceived will be defeated instantly and he will be cast into the Lake of Fire.
Response: I would disagree with that view. If there weren't strong biblical evidence the majority of conservative evangelicals wouldn't hold to this view because they do take the Bible literally. The number of people holding a view doesn't make it right - but since conservatives hold it, it does mean that they believe there is proof in the Scriptures.
You wrote: "The convenience of believing in pre-trib rapture is that Christians currently existing will not have to suffer the punishments God brings on the earth. HOWEVER, the Bible clearly states that there will be Christians present during the tribulation (1/3 of them will die from the tribulation)... and unbelievers will be present during the Millenium. I personally don't believe that being a Christian gives me a "get out of jail free" card in any event..."
Response: Using the word "convenience" is a very common perjorative against the pre-trib position, which implies that we only hold that view because it is "convenient." This is also suggested by the "get out of jail free" comment. Both are very unfortunate and rather cynical caricatures. We don't hold this view because we want a "get out of jail free card" - we hold it because we believe it is the biblical view. Neither do we hold it because we don't think we deserve persecution (as is also frequently suggested) - and in fact we understand that many Christians are persecuted, even unto death, every year and have been for 2000 years.
However, the persecution and trials during the Tribulation are distinctly different than these trials and persecutions of the last 2000 years precisely because they are not just the persecutions at the hands of men or Satan, but rather this is a time of God's wrath against the earth. This is the weakness of the Post-Trib view. When Paul was comforting the believers in Thessalonica who thought they had missed the Rapture, Paul assured them that God had not appointed them to wrath - so they could have confidence they were not in the Tribulation. Therefore, the Tribulation is not merely a continuation of things that have happened throughout history.
So, it is not simply a convenient view, it is a biblical one for very specific theological reasons related to the body of Christ not being subjected to the wrath of God. Romans 8:1 says there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ.
Concerning Armageddon and the blood flowing up to a horse's bridle - that is during the Tribulation, not after Satan's release at the end of the Millennium. There will be no prolonged battle then, as Satan and those whom he has deceived will be defeated instantly and he will be cast into the Lake of Fire.
E
whether the origionations of so called things like you say are true or not. It does not mean we should discount what people believe today.
Don't you think it is kind of rude to discount people who believe this way only because the so called origins may have been in error?
again, I will have to study scofield further to see what he wrote.. I am just assuming he wrote and believed different gospels. But as james said here, He did not.. so I need to go back. we all should (and not on the internet, but in his own words)
M
I'm not disagreeing with you... but might I add that another proof that no works are required for salvation is the fact that EVERYTHING that happens in this world works for God's plan... and obvious testimony of His power. God hardened the heart of Pharaoh just as easily as he used the greedy hearts of every nation that conquered or captured the Israelites. Even in their ignorance they performed His will. Sure, Pharaoh wanted to keep his prisoners. Sure, the various nations wanted to take the Israelites captive for their own personal gain... but the idea was put into their heads as surely as it was prophecied. THAT is predestination... an irrefutable support of election and the exact opposite of "free-will" theology. Either we are in bondage to our flesh or we are in "bondage" to God.
E
Scofield notes on atonement.
atonement
Heb. kaphar, "to cover." The English word "atonement" (at-one-ment) is not a translation of the Heb. kaphar, but a translator's interpretation. According to Scripture the legal sacrifice "covered" the offerer's sin and secured the divine forgiveness; according to the translators it made God and the sinner at- one. But the O.T. sacrifices did not at-one the sinner and God. "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." Hebrews 10:4 . The Israelite's offering implied confession of sin and of its due desert, death; and God "covered" (passed over," Romans 3:25 his sin, in anticipation of Christ's sacrifice, which did, finally, "put away" the sins "done aforetime in the forbearance of God." ; Romans 3:25 ; Hebrews 9:15 . (See Scofield "Romans 3:25") .
So where this belief that scofield taught dual covenant comes from I have no clue.
'
We should not believe everything we see. It is obvious scofiled did not believe in dual covenant period.
atonement
Heb. kaphar, "to cover." The English word "atonement" (at-one-ment) is not a translation of the Heb. kaphar, but a translator's interpretation. According to Scripture the legal sacrifice "covered" the offerer's sin and secured the divine forgiveness; according to the translators it made God and the sinner at- one. But the O.T. sacrifices did not at-one the sinner and God. "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." Hebrews 10:4 . The Israelite's offering implied confession of sin and of its due desert, death; and God "covered" (passed over," Romans 3:25 his sin, in anticipation of Christ's sacrifice, which did, finally, "put away" the sins "done aforetime in the forbearance of God." ; Romans 3:25 ; Hebrews 9:15 . (See Scofield "Romans 3:25") .
So where this belief that scofield taught dual covenant comes from I have no clue.
'
We should not believe everything we see. It is obvious scofiled did not believe in dual covenant period.
E
God hardens people harts by strengthinging what their true belief is (the actual meaning of the word to harden)
He did not force pharoah to go against his will. He strengthened his free will to do what he wanted to do in the first place.
He does this by continually putting truth in front of them, the more we reject truth, the easier it is.
He did not force pharoah to go against his will. He strengthened his free will to do what he wanted to do in the first place.
He does this by continually putting truth in front of them, the more we reject truth, the easier it is.
E
What do you mean by discount? 
Might I suggest anyone who posts come up with one encouraging statement about something we all have in common. Perhaps a view of God, of salvation (whatever the view on it), of patriotism, of family, etc. before playing Whack-a-mole with theology.
Might I suggest anyone who posts come up with one encouraging statement about something we all have in common. Perhaps a view of God, of salvation (whatever the view on it), of patriotism, of family, etc. before playing Whack-a-mole with theology.
lol. You have not been here long.. Read some old threads on this topic.. It gets nasty!!
H
Enjoying my 2nd cup of coffee for the morning.You, must be gettin tired,,sun. night for you, Mon. morning for me. I will soon turn on SONGTIME USA FOR TOMMY NELSON, JIMMY DEYOUNG AND THE LATE HOWARD HENDRICKS , great preachers , two from Dallas. Tommy is is a pretty straight shooter. I listen to them and MacArthur every week, almost daily. It keep me sane married to a Philippine lady, who has trouble forming eng. sentences. LOL. I love it here. great ministry, in our poor village in Davao City. Good night to some of you, and God bless you all. Hoffco In Christ because of His eternal electing, unconditional love.
M
So the majority is always right? There are a majority of instances where the popular view is the most unbiblical, not only in the church but in the world.
I use the word convenience because it IS convenient. Convenient means less troubling and more palatable. Oxford terms it the "ability to proceed with little effort or difficulty." If you mean you don't find it easier to believe God would spare us, it seems to me you deny your humanity. Man's greatest love in the flesh is himself. (though we as Christians are not supposed to have troubles with this we invariably fall to self-love at some point) My get out of jail referrence was cynical... hence why I used it in the context I did... that of my own personal opinion. (infer what you will)
Thank you for the correction about the depth of blood. ;-) Been a while since I reviewed that.
The tribulation would not exist in the Bible were it not a warning of God's wrath in days to come. I agree that it is God's wrath... but to state that in history national disasters were strictly satan/demon induced is false. What about the flood... one of the most defining occurrences in history? That was a past example of God's judgement on all of humanity. I'm sure that Noah and his family were not the only Christians on earth... yet he and his family were the only ones saved. I stated that the Tribulation was like a final culmination of all disasters in a very short period of time as God's punishment for the world... a world including Christians.
I use the word convenience because it IS convenient. Convenient means less troubling and more palatable. Oxford terms it the "ability to proceed with little effort or difficulty." If you mean you don't find it easier to believe God would spare us, it seems to me you deny your humanity. Man's greatest love in the flesh is himself. (though we as Christians are not supposed to have troubles with this we invariably fall to self-love at some point) My get out of jail referrence was cynical... hence why I used it in the context I did... that of my own personal opinion. (infer what you will)
Thank you for the correction about the depth of blood. ;-) Been a while since I reviewed that.
The tribulation would not exist in the Bible were it not a warning of God's wrath in days to come. I agree that it is God's wrath... but to state that in history national disasters were strictly satan/demon induced is false. What about the flood... one of the most defining occurrences in history? That was a past example of God's judgement on all of humanity. I'm sure that Noah and his family were not the only Christians on earth... yet he and his family were the only ones saved. I stated that the Tribulation was like a final culmination of all disasters in a very short period of time as God's punishment for the world... a world including Christians.
D
You wrote: "Again, the present view of dispensationalism is usually different from the original view of dispensationalism. You believe that dispensationalism is simply categorizing time periods. The original dispensationalism went so far as to categorize "requirements for salvation" into time periods."
Response: The original view is over 100 years old, the "modern dispensationalism" that I'm talking about is at least 70 years old - hardly modern. There were some inconsistent statements made early on, but even Scofield made it clear at certain points that salvation was always by grace through faith, even though certain things he said seemed to suggests a different way of salvation under the Law. However, this has not been a view of the majority of dispensationalism for decades.
You wrote: "Dispensationalists don't usually have the balls to outright say God failed."
Response: Really? You're serious? Surely you don't think this is conducive to a respectful discussion of the issues. Beyond that, it is simply a seriously distorted caricature. No dispensationalist thinks God has failed in any way - that is outright heresy. So, please, if you're going to represent a position in order to respond to it, it might be better to avoid straw man argumentation. You have said a number of things characterizing dispensationalism that no dispensationalist believes at all.
Dispensationalists all believe that God is absolutely sovereign over all things. We might understand the mechanics of how this works out in somewhat different ways, for example in relation to salvation. Whereas Calvinism places regeneration prior to faith, this is actually a greater attack on God's sovereignty than the idea that God convicts and draws the sinner in the context of the preaching of the gospel and the sinner responds in faith.
As finite beings, for us to guarantee that we get our way, we have to be willing to force someone to do something. To say that God must regenerate first is to say that he must force the situation or he might not get his way. That is the paradox of 5pt Calvinism because in the attempt to defend God's sovereignty, it actually undermines it.
On the other hand, a non-5pt Calvinist (not Arminian, either) believes that God's sovereignty is so absolute, that he can perfectly accomplish his will (without ever failing), and do so while incorporating a free-will response to the gospel. We believe that God initiates salvation, he convicts the sinner, he draws the sinner to Christ, but there is a response of faith required. When the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas what he needed to do to be saved, they replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." If he could not genuinely respond in faith in order to be saved, this answer is nonsensical.
Response: The original view is over 100 years old, the "modern dispensationalism" that I'm talking about is at least 70 years old - hardly modern. There were some inconsistent statements made early on, but even Scofield made it clear at certain points that salvation was always by grace through faith, even though certain things he said seemed to suggests a different way of salvation under the Law. However, this has not been a view of the majority of dispensationalism for decades.
You wrote: "Dispensationalists don't usually have the balls to outright say God failed."
Response: Really? You're serious? Surely you don't think this is conducive to a respectful discussion of the issues. Beyond that, it is simply a seriously distorted caricature. No dispensationalist thinks God has failed in any way - that is outright heresy. So, please, if you're going to represent a position in order to respond to it, it might be better to avoid straw man argumentation. You have said a number of things characterizing dispensationalism that no dispensationalist believes at all.
Dispensationalists all believe that God is absolutely sovereign over all things. We might understand the mechanics of how this works out in somewhat different ways, for example in relation to salvation. Whereas Calvinism places regeneration prior to faith, this is actually a greater attack on God's sovereignty than the idea that God convicts and draws the sinner in the context of the preaching of the gospel and the sinner responds in faith.
As finite beings, for us to guarantee that we get our way, we have to be willing to force someone to do something. To say that God must regenerate first is to say that he must force the situation or he might not get his way. That is the paradox of 5pt Calvinism because in the attempt to defend God's sovereignty, it actually undermines it.
On the other hand, a non-5pt Calvinist (not Arminian, either) believes that God's sovereignty is so absolute, that he can perfectly accomplish his will (without ever failing), and do so while incorporating a free-will response to the gospel. We believe that God initiates salvation, he convicts the sinner, he draws the sinner to Christ, but there is a response of faith required. When the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas what he needed to do to be saved, they replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." If he could not genuinely respond in faith in order to be saved, this answer is nonsensical.
M
Will have to pump your brain concerning the Philippines sometime. Doesn't the Philippines consider itself a christian nation? I have a friend who recently moved here from the Philippines to be married and she told me the Philippines was a christian nation. I haven't had a chance to get her rendition of the Philippino definition of "christian" yet. Yet another frequently mis-used term that opens the door to great opportunities for witnessing... especially to Muslims. Now THERE is a challenge.
D
I specifically said that the majority believing something does not mean they are right.
Concerning the Flood - Noah and his family were the only believers (and they weren't Christians - as there have only been Christians since the day of Pentecost in Acts 2). So, the Flood confirms my point. (see Genesis 6:9-10 - where it explicitly states that all flesh except Noah and his family were corrupt).
I never suggested that all national disasters are satan / demon induced. Paul says that the whole creation groans as a result of the Fall.
And it is true that believers have been affected by God's judgment as can be seen in the Babylonian invasion - but again, the Tribulation is distinctly different. It is true that there will be those who become believers during the Tribulation, but they are not members of the Body of Christ. (I understand that you don't accept this, but there are biblical reasons for saying this.)
And no, I don't find it easier to believe that God would spare us because we absolutely don't deserve it. So, it is not convenient in any sense - and I don't know anyone who would put it that way. We believe it for no other reason than because we believe it is the most biblical view. To suggest otherwise really is a cynical view of other sincere believers.
Concerning the Flood - Noah and his family were the only believers (and they weren't Christians - as there have only been Christians since the day of Pentecost in Acts 2). So, the Flood confirms my point. (see Genesis 6:9-10 - where it explicitly states that all flesh except Noah and his family were corrupt).
I never suggested that all national disasters are satan / demon induced. Paul says that the whole creation groans as a result of the Fall.
And it is true that believers have been affected by God's judgment as can be seen in the Babylonian invasion - but again, the Tribulation is distinctly different. It is true that there will be those who become believers during the Tribulation, but they are not members of the Body of Christ. (I understand that you don't accept this, but there are biblical reasons for saying this.)
And no, I don't find it easier to believe that God would spare us because we absolutely don't deserve it. So, it is not convenient in any sense - and I don't know anyone who would put it that way. We believe it for no other reason than because we believe it is the most biblical view. To suggest otherwise really is a cynical view of other sincere believers.
E
People have to realise that Jesus calls this tribulation period a time like never has been seen before or after.
up to this point in human history. At no time have the horrors and tribulations of war or anything been anywhere close to WW2.
This great tribulation will make ww2 look like a picnic in the park. People who come to Christ in this time period will die right along with the unbeliever during these horrific events. The events will affect everyone. The only one promised to be protected is the woman. And only if she heeds Gods warning and flees. to the place God said he would protect her.
'
up to this point in human history. At no time have the horrors and tribulations of war or anything been anywhere close to WW2.
This great tribulation will make ww2 look like a picnic in the park. People who come to Christ in this time period will die right along with the unbeliever during these horrific events. The events will affect everyone. The only one promised to be protected is the woman. And only if she heeds Gods warning and flees. to the place God said he would protect her.
'
D
Just for the record - if I am the horribly deceptive false teacher that you suggest - Jimmy DeYoung and I are colleagues. He is a co-founder of the ministry I currently direct (The Alliance for Biblical Integrity) and I also direct his graduate program in advanced eschatological studies. We regularly teach together and I regularly do interviews with him - as I did yesterday. We agree 99.9% of the time on every theological question. We have worked together for 20 years as he was a guest teacher in the Bible institute I directed in Hungary for 16 years (until Feb 2009).
And, Howard Hendricks was my first teacher at DTS in Bible Study Methods.
Just a point of interest to break the unfortunate tension: I teach in the Philippines at least once a year at the Word of Life Camp about an hour south of Manila in Laguna province. Between January 2012 and February of this year, I was in the Philippines 3 times in 13 months - and am returning in January to do a pastors conference - on the gospel.
And, Howard Hendricks was my first teacher at DTS in Bible Study Methods.
Just a point of interest to break the unfortunate tension: I teach in the Philippines at least once a year at the Word of Life Camp about an hour south of Manila in Laguna province. Between January 2012 and February of this year, I was in the Philippines 3 times in 13 months - and am returning in January to do a pastors conference - on the gospel.
M
Yes, the comment about dispensationalists not having the balls to say God failed IS highly inflamatory, and I meant to direct disrespect (though it would seem objection was unavoidable). My statement was based on the belief that OT sacrifice and the keeping of Mosaic law was part of salvation in the Old Testament. The very fact that dispensationalists no longer believe this is a time to keep the Mosaic law supports the fact that they believe God changed His terms.
Perhaps I should share a bit of my background...
I was born into a Bible-believing home (hardly a perfect or peaceful one) and was raised mostly in Baptist churches. To say living in my family was easy because we were Christians is laughable. We changed churches many times because at some point either the church we were attending backslid or a pastor would begin to insist that my parents be members of the church before they could teach, minister, or even sing in the choir. (that is a story for a later day) Predominately the churches we attended were Baptist... and, after Sunday after Sunday of listening to the same sermon as my parents and discussing the possible views included, I concluded as a teenager that churches were full of nothing but hypocrites and usually unloving people who were only there to play their version of Christian Bingo: to systematically fill in the numbers called and eventually score the big prize. Cynical... waaaaaaaaaay too much. Inaccurate... not completely, though blown out of proportion. Pastor after pastor would preach the same type of message: man has to CHOOSE to obey God; man has to SURRENDER to God... with little to no mention of relying on God's timing, love, and sanctifying power.
These were my experiences which led me at that time to believe that most churches today preach that man as to do most of the work and that our focus should be on what we are doing everyday be it right or wrong. Total man-centered theology. Then came my understanding of free-will salvation. Though most would not say baptism was required for salvation, they put way too much emphasis of methodism and were borderline legalistic. The phrase "accept God into your heart" was used over and over and over again. Sure I'd made a childhood confession of faith... but mostly as fire insurance to get out of hell and the judgementalism of the church folk.
I will skip most of my past life as a legal adult, but I will say that while living in great sin I still listened to and understood every word of every sermon... to the conclusion that life was a rat race, and if even my parents who required SO MUCH of their youngest daughter couldn't even keep from calling each other names, making threats, and using their kids as vindictive means for revenge, I would be no worse off just living my life for myself. I was kicked out of college; moved out of my parent's home; was kicked out of the church I was a member of (the same one my parents had been attending); and promptly began a physically immoral life that eventually led to pregnancy and marriage. (another long story for a later time) Through it all, though, my head was always clear and my hide was always spared by a very merciful and provident God. If free-will salvation were true in my case, I could not possibly be saved.
It really didn't take much to bring me back to Himself. To this day I still deal with the same sexual desires and temptations; still attend church with trepidation and scepticism (only so far as to make me dissect every word said and rightly divide the Word of Truth); and still have an understanding that it all is going somewhere and will end somewhere.
I'm a firm believer in making no excuses; keeping no secrets; showing no hatred; taking no judgementalism; hiding no opinions; and having no regrets. To this day I do not regret any decision I made in the past because it made me the person I am today (some might consider that a pity) with the knowledge and understanding that I carry equipping me to be a debater (faulty one at times), counselor, mother, and wife. Sure, I'm still human with past hurts from my family that are hard to erase at times... but God had a plan for everything from the beginning. Perhaps it was to land me here. Undoubtedly it was to begin the family that is begun (a God-given desire). Miracles do indeed happen.
Perhaps I should share a bit of my background...
I was born into a Bible-believing home (hardly a perfect or peaceful one) and was raised mostly in Baptist churches. To say living in my family was easy because we were Christians is laughable. We changed churches many times because at some point either the church we were attending backslid or a pastor would begin to insist that my parents be members of the church before they could teach, minister, or even sing in the choir. (that is a story for a later day) Predominately the churches we attended were Baptist... and, after Sunday after Sunday of listening to the same sermon as my parents and discussing the possible views included, I concluded as a teenager that churches were full of nothing but hypocrites and usually unloving people who were only there to play their version of Christian Bingo: to systematically fill in the numbers called and eventually score the big prize. Cynical... waaaaaaaaaay too much. Inaccurate... not completely, though blown out of proportion. Pastor after pastor would preach the same type of message: man has to CHOOSE to obey God; man has to SURRENDER to God... with little to no mention of relying on God's timing, love, and sanctifying power.
These were my experiences which led me at that time to believe that most churches today preach that man as to do most of the work and that our focus should be on what we are doing everyday be it right or wrong. Total man-centered theology. Then came my understanding of free-will salvation. Though most would not say baptism was required for salvation, they put way too much emphasis of methodism and were borderline legalistic. The phrase "accept God into your heart" was used over and over and over again. Sure I'd made a childhood confession of faith... but mostly as fire insurance to get out of hell and the judgementalism of the church folk.
I will skip most of my past life as a legal adult, but I will say that while living in great sin I still listened to and understood every word of every sermon... to the conclusion that life was a rat race, and if even my parents who required SO MUCH of their youngest daughter couldn't even keep from calling each other names, making threats, and using their kids as vindictive means for revenge, I would be no worse off just living my life for myself. I was kicked out of college; moved out of my parent's home; was kicked out of the church I was a member of (the same one my parents had been attending); and promptly began a physically immoral life that eventually led to pregnancy and marriage. (another long story for a later time) Through it all, though, my head was always clear and my hide was always spared by a very merciful and provident God. If free-will salvation were true in my case, I could not possibly be saved.
It really didn't take much to bring me back to Himself. To this day I still deal with the same sexual desires and temptations; still attend church with trepidation and scepticism (only so far as to make me dissect every word said and rightly divide the Word of Truth); and still have an understanding that it all is going somewhere and will end somewhere.
I'm a firm believer in making no excuses; keeping no secrets; showing no hatred; taking no judgementalism; hiding no opinions; and having no regrets. To this day I do not regret any decision I made in the past because it made me the person I am today (some might consider that a pity) with the knowledge and understanding that I carry equipping me to be a debater (faulty one at times), counselor, mother, and wife. Sure, I'm still human with past hurts from my family that are hard to erase at times... but God had a plan for everything from the beginning. Perhaps it was to land me here. Undoubtedly it was to begin the family that is begun (a God-given desire). Miracles do indeed happen.