How can unregenerate people worship God?

[stan1953]

I think it's all about the Giver. I'm God-centered that way.

another example of equivocation. Are you a politician?

 

[OzSpen]

Please, either get with subject or don't.

I'm with the subject alright. Forcing and Coercion do not equate to receiving. They equate to imposition and sometimes sledging or bullying.

You're the one out of step with reality.

Oz

 

[stan1953]

The definition I gave was for "receive", not "gift".

Yes I got that, my statement still holds true.

 

[stan1953]

I agree. I didn't being up rape and get you guys all worked up. I was just showing that receive doesn't need to mean willfully and happily accepting, which is the definition you all seem stuck on. And you've yet to prove that with scripture concerning gifts.

Well when you start down the road of ridiculous, expect to reap what you sow, and as you NEVER supplied scripture to support your assertion of receiving ANY gift from God without an act of our free will to receive it, then why would you expect to get any in return?

 

[Hammster]

and yet, you just said you were NOT equating the two.

I need a sarcasm font, I guess.

 

[Hammster]

Because WE are trying to stay WITHIN the context of the BIBLE but you keep equivocating about words, NOT what the Bible teaches.

BTW, I am completely familiar with what 'equivocating' means.

I was discussing what scripture teaches. You were disagreeing with me, for some reason.

 

[Hammster]

Mark 5:9

Denial does NOT make it baseless.

I didn't write Mark 5:9.

 

[Hammster]

another example of equivocation. Are you a politician?

It's not equivocating. He gave a definition that had nothing to do with the giver of the gift, as if it was irrelevant. The equivocation was on the other foot, so to speak.

 

[Hammster]

I'm with the subject alright. Forcing and Coercion do not equate to receiving. They equate to imposition and sometimes sledging or bullying.

You're the one out of step with reality.

Oz

I never said they were equal. That's a false accusation.

 

[Hammster]

Well when you start down the road of ridiculous, expect to reap what you sow, and as you NEVER supplied scripture to support your assertion of receiving ANY gift from God without an act of our free will to receive it, then why would you expect to get any in return?

Well, you have assumed a definition of "gift" and what it means to receive it. I've shown from scripture where gifts are given that are not received in a willing manner (oh, yes God, I'll take that gift of teaching), yet possessed nonetheless. Then you all must have realized that I was right and equivocated by saying it's not a reception of a gift if it's not used.

So far, I've tried to stick with scripture. And I'm still waiting for some that says I'm wrong.

 

[stan1953]

I need a sarcasm font, I guess.

Not at all, just more genuousness.

 

[stan1953]

I was discussing what scripture teaches. You were disagreeing with me, for some reason.

Yes I was, because you didn't show scripture, just what you eisegete.

 

[stan1953]

It's not equivocating. He gave a definition that had nothing to do with the giver of the gift, as if it was irrelevant. The equivocation was on the other foot, so to speak.

The issue is the gift, NOT the giver. Both had to do with God but you continue to take the focus OFF God by using analogies or examples that have NOTHING to do with God. You made that clear when I tried to get you to commit to what gift you were referring to, that it was about gifts from God. Then it's gifts of any sort, then it's anything we receive with examples of being payed, and other ridiculous examples. I don't really think what you equivocate on is as important as why you do it continually?

 

[stan1953]

Well, you have assumed a definition of "gift" and what it means to receive it. I've shown from scripture where gifts are given that are not received in a willing manner (oh, yes God, I'll take that gift of teaching), yet possessed nonetheless. Then you all must have realized that I was right and equivocated by saying it's not a reception of a gift if it's not used.
So far, I've tried to stick with scripture. And I'm still waiting for some that says I'm wrong.

No, I have given examples IN scripture which you then equivocate on or about. I have given scripture that shows we use our free will to choose, not just gifts, but anything in our walk. The one problem with your POV is that it connects to ALL your doctrinal POV. You can't separate accepting a gift because then you have to acknowledge that we do indeed have free will which implies we CAN chose salvation and are not subject to Sovereign Election, which of course opens up all other areas of RT.
Quite frankly you won't change your style so there is no further purpose for me to continue posting in this thread. It is so convoluted now that there is not hope of accomplishing anything of a productive nature. I will move onto other threads and issues.

 

[Hammster]

I guess this won't get addressed now.

You mean US as in saved people, or US as in the world or people?

Both, I suppose.

 

[Hammster]

The issue is the gift, NOT the giver. Both had to do with God but you continue to take the focus OFF God by using analogies or examples that have NOTHING to do with God. You made that clear when I tried to get you to commit to what gift you were referring to, that it was about gifts from God. Then it's gifts of any sort, then it's anything we receive with examples of being payed, and other ridiculous examples. I don't really think what you equivocate on is as important as why you do it continually?

I think this issue is the Giver, ultimately. God is ultimate. The gifts He gives are secondary, by far. To look at Romans 6:23 and make the main issue the gift, and not the Giver, takes the focus off of God and puts it on man. I think it's our natural inclination as fallen man, but an inclination that must be fought.

What I've found most fascinating in this discussion is the disdain some folks have with the idea that God can regenerate whomever He chooses without any input from man. It's been likened to God forcing someone to believe against their will, while they are kicking and screaming that they don't want to be saved. What an awful God, is the impression I get from these types of arguments. What is completely overlooked is that it's an act of love, and the most loving thing that God could do. It makes the Cross actually accomplish something real, and not just potential.

What if Calvinism is right? What if it could be proven without a shadow of a doubt that it's true? Would you still worship God knowing He rebirthed you without your consent? I know you're done with this discussion and won't reply. But it's something to think about.

 

[cygnusx1]

“It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts.” JW

 

[OzSpen]

What I've found most fascinating in this discussion is the disdain some folks have with the idea that God can regenerate whomever He chooses without any input from man. It's been likened to God forcing someone to believe against their will, while they are kicking and screaming that they don't want to be saved. What an awful God, is the impression I get from these types of arguments. What is completely overlooked is that it's an act of love, and the most loving thing that God could do. It makes the Cross actually accomplish something real, and not just potential.

What if Calvinism is right? What if it could be proven without a shadow of a doubt that it's true? Would you still worship God knowing He rebirthed you without your consent? I know you're done with this discussion and won't reply. But it's something to think about.

What I find fascinating is Hammster's continuing resistance to the theology of Acts 16:30-31,

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" (ESV).

There will be no salvation without a human participatory answer to the question, 'What must I DO to be saved'? That's Bible.

As for 'What if Calvinism is right?' I will be bowing the knee to that teaching from God NOW. So far in almost 50 years as a Christian believer, I have not found Calvinism to be a consistent theology of soteriology in Scripture. If it were, I'd be a Calvinist today and not wait a moment longer. I agree with its doctrine of God (theology) and doctrine of man (anthropology) and hamartiology (doctrine of sin).

But I've seen you duck and weave on this forum over many years with your avoidance of this kind of question from Acts 16:30-31.

In Christ,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

“It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts.” JW

But which Jesus???

 

[Hammster]

What I find fascinating is Hammster's continuing resistance to the theology of Acts 16:30-31,

There will be no salvation without a human participatory answer to the question, 'What must I DO to be saved'? That's Bible.

As for 'What if Calvinism is right?' I will be bowing the knee to that teaching from God NOW. So far in almost 50 years as a Christian believer, I have not found Calvinism to be a consistent theology of soteriology in Scripture. If it were, I'd be a Calvinist today and not wait a moment longer. I agree with its doctrine of God (theology) and doctrine of man (anthropology) and hamartiology (doctrine of sin).

But I've seen you duck and weave on this forum over many years with your avoidance of this kind of question from Acts 16:30-31.

In Christ,
Oz

I have had whole discussions on Acts 16:31, one within the last few weeks. But please start a thread on it so that you can present your views and we can discuss them. I'll be waiting.