Check recent posts of yours. Perhaps you said what you said in error.
Ok. Here's the quote in question, I'm pretty sure
JamesL said:
Are you saying that election should be discussed elsewhere? But as JonC noted, you insert it into almost every thread you start.
It sort of reminds me of when I used to want to talk about eternal security all the time.
I had been duped by Mac's perverted Lordship doctrine, that Jesus is either Lord of all, or He's not Lord at all.
But I knew in my most inward parts that I failed far too much to look at my works as evidence that I had been saved. My commitment was not perfect, my obedience faltered, and I doubted my conversion a lot
So I clung to the doctrine of eternal security. And every opportunity I got, I wanted to regurgitate the proof texts. In essence, I was trying to convince myself through tangential doctrine that I couldn't be lost. I sure didn't want to talk too much about my sins. It cut too deep, so failures were brushed off, and any mention of them were viewed as attacks
I think it's the same with you. You have become drunk with the Kool-Aid that Mac is serving about total commitment, but you see your failures. Whatcha gonna do? Cling to this notion of being selected, then it's easier to sleep at night.
Then you don't have to address your failures. You can keep pointing the finger at others, condemning them for their behavior, while sweeping your own under the rug.
I think that's why you like Calvinist teachings on election, and probably eternal security. but you obviously aren't fully on board, or else you wouldn't be teetering on the issue of free will
"Mac's perverted Lordship doctrine" doesn't mean he invented it, but that he teaches it. As I also mentioned later in that thread, his perverted Lordship doctrine is nothing but an honest outworking of Reformed doctrine found in the Westminster Confession and others.
You being drunk with the Kool-Aid Mac is serving means you've fallen headlong after his perverted works-based introspection doctrine.
Where did I say anything about him inventing it?
But, I would greatly appreciate if you'd stop dodging the thrust of that post. You really agree with the ins and outs of Arminian doctrine, but you hate the idea that they teach you can lose your salvation. You want a certain salvation
So you've tried to bend your mind to Calvinist doctrine because there is an emphatic promise that once you're saved it can't be lost.
But you still don't have any assurance that you're actually saved, because Mac has duped you into believing that your works are the proof of your faith. So, just like the Arminian who's in the mirror, you're looking at your works and you realize they just don't muster up.
So, instead of focusing on your works and becoming terrified, you cling to the idea of election. But you're not altogether convinced of it, or else you wouldn't be teetering on the issue of free will.
So you keep regurgitating your bit about elect and non-elect, hoping to one day convince yourself. Then you ask people how to fit this into free will so you can try to make the two ideas come together. Here's news, John. Those two doctrines are completely incompatible.
You aren't going to make them come together with scripture, because both of them are dead wrong.
Will you answer the substance of what I'm writing, instead of some small nuance you can deflect to?
I'm telling you as a friend, man. I care about you, and have been in your corner from the first day I came here.
