Email for archiving: regeneration, what is practical

[This email has a big point in it, and is worth reading fully.]

That's interesting. An interesting list of books as well.

On the human squabbling over doctrine (that I engage in alot) here is something I'm come to. You how I'm pretty good at getting at "what is practical"? What's practical here? I ask. On the doctrinal squabbling what is practical and meaninful in it, and that usually shames even the Protestant side at times (sometimes just because they don't know what they are defending and fighting for) is regeneration.

Regeneration, or being born again, is the 'point' where God gathers and the devil and his forces lose. And that is the point of contention in the spiritual battle that takes place in the doctrinal realm (and sometimes breaks out into actual warfare like during the Reformation).

The main things are: having the Word of God available. Because the Holy Spirit works with (though is not constrained to) the Word to effect regeneration in a person. Roman Catholics used to burn people alive who made efforts to bring the Bible to the masses. They actually put the Bible on their list of banned books. Now this is the Roman Catholic church as 'Beast' and anti-christ force and it's not to say everybody in that church in history or even today is a follower of the devil.

The Protestants of course made it a central effort to translate the Bible and get it to people.

And the Roman hierarchy kept the Spirit away from people by inserting man (and dead people) and dead ritual and so on in between the believer and Christ. This is all doctrinal matter too, because the Bible teaches plainly that there is one Mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ, and the Bible teaches that dead ritual is not the faith and etc.

Then on the actual (book) doctrine side of it all. Doctrine effects regeneration in different ways. Forms of church practice for one, but also just how people think of the Bible and doctrine found in the Bible. It is either God-centered or it is man-centered. When doctrine is man-centered it keeps people asleep. God-centered doctrine when taught and made available and preached and pushed into peoples consciousness creates a tension within and friction and leads to effectual calling and regeneration, potentially.

But my main point here is, regarding all the doctrinal fighting and arguing, what is practical in it all? And the answer to that question is: regeneration. Protecting the ability of the Holy Spirit and the Word to regenerate (not that they need our help, but it is a battle God's elect are supposed to be secondary causes in bringing about). Regeneration is effected, when it is, by the Word and the Spirit. Conversion then is effected by getting what the Bible calls 'sound doctrine.' God-centered doctrine not man-centered doctrine.

So the forces of darkness attempt to keep the Bible away from people, then, beyond that they attempt to teach doctrine that is man-centered so as to keep people asleep.

And it's all mostly done instinctively on the 'dark' side. People have the 'spirit of disobedience' coursing through them and they don't even know it. ("Most people wouldn't know the devil if he had them by the throat," as Goethe said.)

Some of them are consciously mischievous though. False teachers, leaders, etc.

When I debate people heatedly on doctrine and somebody inevitably comes in and says "what is the point?" I approach my answer to them based on regeneration. It's important for people to have the Bible, the real Bible, one; and two, it's important for real, sound biblical doctrine to exist in a pure form for people to find and hear because this too is part of 'hearing the Word of God' and creates tensions and friction within a person that the Spirit uses for regenerating individuals. Because that sound doctrine too is the actual Word of God. - C.



--- ******** wrote:

> I sense, without having seriously looked into it,
> that Celtic Christianity
> is powerful and effective at the emotional level. It
> precedes the catholic,
> but was fairly condemned at the Synod of Whitby.
> Celts took authority from
> St John, Catholics took authority from St Peter.
> That alone is an
> interesting matter. The existing Celtic tradition
> faired little better
> during the Reformation, too pagan. Personally I
> sense similarities with
> catholicism, in many aspects, particularly the
> importance of saints and the
> weak theology - maybe that is less important where
> the contact is real.
> Ideological differences, bickering and detail can
> drag anything down to
> human, all too human levels. A lot of UK churches
> tend to have a patron
> celtic saint and a dedicated small chapel. All in
> all it's a subject I may
> well explore more thoroughly but I pick up a whiff
> of new ageism. Yet
> anything can get muddied in todays spiritual market
> place and it doesn't
> necessarily mean it should be dismissed. I do have a
> greater interest than
> I'm letting on, but I just haven't read a great deal
> on the subject. Though
> I just googled this list:
>
> http://www.lamp.ac.uk/celtic/AlphaCata.htm
>
> and notice I own some of these works already and
> I've visited some important
> landmarks - Lindisfarne and St David's way down in
> the south of Wales being
> two.
>
>
>