How can unregenerate people worship God?

[cygnusx1]

But which Jesus???

What do you mean , the quote is clear enough

The same Jesus preached by the Reformers and Whitefield , Wesley , and Spurgeon

 

[OzSpen]

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.

You know my views as I've presented over and over on this forum. I will not be starting another thread so that Hamm can duck and weave over and over and continue to promote unconditional election and irresistible grace when Acts 16:30-31 presents evidence to the contrary.

I have more profitable things to do with my time than to repeat myself. You can try that on someone else.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

What do you mean , the quote is clear enough

It was you who stated: '“It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts.” JW'

I asked, 'Which Jesus?' You claim JWs are offering 'true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts'. Which Jesus is the 'true repentance' towards? In which Jesus do they have 'faith'? If 'true repentance and faith' are privileges and free gifts for JWs, which Jesus are they privileges and free gifts from?

Is this repentance and faith in the Trinitarian Lord God Almighty and Jesus is God Himself?

I ask you again:Which Jesus do the JWs serve?

Now you dare to claim: The same Jesus preached by the Reformers and Whitefield , Wesley , and Spurgeon.

You have got to be joking when you are trying to convince me that the Jesus of the JWs is the same Jesus of the Reformers, Whitefield, Wesley and Spurgeon.

Oz

 

[cygnusx1]

It was you who stated: '“It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts.” JW'

I asked, 'Which Jesus?' You claim JWs are offering 'true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts'. Which Jesus is the 'true repentance' towards? In which Jesus do they have 'faith'? If 'true repentance and faith' are privileges and free gifts for JWs, which Jesus are they privileges and free gifts from?

Is this repentance and faith in the Trinitarian Lord God Almighty and Jesus is God Himself?

I ask you again:Which Jesus do the JWs serve?

Now you dare to claim: The same Jesus preached by the Reformers and Whitefield , Wesley , and Spurgeon.

You have got to be joking when you are trying to convince me that the Jesus of the JWs is the same Jesus of the Reformers, Whitefield, Wesley and Spurgeon.

Oz

What are you on about oz?

The quote was from a leading Arminian , you may have heard of John Wesley

Nothing to do with The watchtower cult

Try not to jump the gun next time

JW is not JWs

 

[Hammster]

You know my views as I've presented over and over on this forum. I will not be starting another thread so that Hamm can duck and weave over and over and continue to promote unconditional election and irresistible grace when Acts 16:30-31 presents evidence to the contrary.

I have more profitable things to do with my time than to repeat myself. You can try that on someone else.

Oz

Yep, I know your views. I know they are wrong. And I know you won't put them up to scrutiny.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
It's really difficult to try to cut through all the equivocation and all.

Not really. If you don't start you have nothing to cut through. Biggest issue on any forum is how much equivocation comes up.

 

[OzSpen]

What are you on about oz?

The quote was from a leading Arminian , you may have heard of John Wesley

Nothing to do with The watchtower cult

Try not to jump the gun next time

JW is not JWs

In my part of the world JW = Jehovah's Witnesses. If you meant John Wesley, then I ask you to please specify that this is the one to whom you refer. Otherwise, I'll understand as JW = Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'm not jumping the gun. I'm telling you the meaning in my part of the world.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

In my part of the world JW = Jehovah's Witnesses. If you meant John Wesley, then I ask you to please specify that this is the one to whom you refer. Otherwise, I'll understand as JW = Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'm not jumping the gun. I'm telling you the meaning in my part of the world.

Oz

Do you agree with the quote from Wesley?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yep, I know your views. I know they are wrong. And I know you won't put them up to scrutiny.

This is quite the disingenuous claim. Oz has put his views up over and over for scrutiny.

If his views are wrong, HOW so? Where is your explanation of that? RT can't even defend its own views.

In Jn 8:24 we find Jesus warning a hostile crowd HOW to avoid dying in their sins. Said crowd fits the description of what RT would call the "non-elect", meaning those Christ didn't die for.

In Jn 5:33-43 we find Jesus telling a similarly hostile crowd why He mentioned John the baptizer, "so that you MAY BE SAVED". Again, said crowd fits the description of what RT would call the "non-elect", meaning those Christ didn't die for.

So, 2 passages where Jesus clearly indicated the possibility of hostile crowds could avoid dying in their sins and be saved.

Jesus instituted Communion and THEN noted that Judas was present in Luke 22:19-21.

A jailer asked Paul what he MUST DO to be saved, and Paul told him to believe and he would be saved.

And there are many more Scriptural passages that directly refute RT.

Truth cannot be refuted, only rejected and despised.

 

[OzSpen]

Yep, I know your views. I know they are wrong. And I know you won't put them up to scrutiny.

That is a false accusation. I've put my views up for examination on CF for 8 years. Please quit your false statement about me.

My Reformed Arminian views on soteriology are supported by Scripture. When you say, 'they are wrong', I think you should be stating it this way: My interpretations differ from yours. However, mine are supported by the Scriptures, the church fathers and many orthodox exegetes and theologians throughout church history. But that makes them 'wrong' and yours 'right' - in your opinion.

 

[OzSpen]

Do you agree with the quote from Wesley?

When I see the citation with context and accurate referencing of where the quote came from in Wesley's Works, then I'll be able to reply. But I will not reply to something that has no bibliographic reference to confirm that this is from John Wesley.

 

[Hammster]

This is quite the disingenuous claim. Oz has put his views up over and over for scrutiny.

If his views are wrong, HOW so? Where is your explanation of that? RT can't even defend its own views.

In Jn 8:24 we find Jesus warning a hostile crowd HOW to avoid dying in their sins. Said crowd fits the description of what RT would call the "non-elect", meaning those Christ didn't die for.

In Jn 5:33-43 we find Jesus telling a similarly hostile crowd why He mentioned John the baptizer, "so that you MAY BE SAVED". Again, said crowd fits the description of what RT would call the "non-elect", meaning those Christ didn't die for.

So, 2 passages where Jesus clearly indicated the possibility of hostile crowds could avoid dying in their sins and be saved.

Jesus instituted Communion and THEN noted that Judas was present in Luke 22:19-21.

A jailer asked Paul what he MUST DO to be saved, and Paul told him to believe and he would be saved.

And there are many more Scriptural passages that directly refute RT.

Truth cannot be refuted, only rejected and despised.

I'm sure he's put his views up. But my history with him is one where, when you question him about something, he claims it's a red herring or straw man. It's not a game I really want to get into with him. I can't have a reasonable discussion when he does that.

 

[Hammster]

That is a false accusation. I've put my views up for examination on CF for 8 years. Please quit your false statement about me.

My Reformed Arminian views on soteriology are supported by Scripture. When you say, 'they are wrong', I think you should be stating it this way: My interpretations differ from yours. However, mine are supported by the Scriptures, the church fathers and many orthodox exegetes and theologians throughout church history. But that makes them 'wrong' and yours 'right' - in your opinion.

I think I stated it exactly how it should be stated.

 

[Hammster]

When I see the citation with context and accurate referencing of where the quote came from in Wesley's Works, then I'll be able to reply. But I will not reply to something that has no bibliographic reference to confirm that this is from John Wesley.

Do you commit to responding if it's sourced?

 

[Hammster]

When I see the citation with context and accurate referencing of where the quote came from in Wesley's Works, then I'll be able to reply. But I will not reply to something that has no bibliographic reference to confirm that this is from John Wesley.

I know you'll be able to reply. You are able to reply right now. The question was will you commit to replying?

 

[Jack Terrence]

You know my views as I've presented over and over on this forum. I will not be starting another thread so that Hamm can duck and weave over and over and continue to promote unconditional election and irresistible grace when Acts 16:30-31 presents evidence to the contrary.

I have more profitable things to do with my time than to repeat myself. You can try that on someone else.

How does Acts 16:30-31 contradict unconditional election? Calvinists preach the necessity of faith. We differ only on the origin and nature of faith. Arminians say that faith is the condition of salvation. Calvinists say that faith is the instrument by which salvation is received. The former changes faith into a work.

 

[cygnusx1]

In my part of the world JW = Jehovah's Witnesses. If you meant John Wesley, then I ask you to please specify that this is the one to whom you refer. Otherwise, I'll understand as JW = Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'm not jumping the gun. I'm telling you the meaning in my part of the world.

Oz

Yes where I come from we just ask if we see a quote and we aren't sure who the initials are presenting , because it could be anyone .

We try not to assume

 

[cygnusx1]

When I see the citation with context and accurate referencing of where the quote came from in Wesley's Works, then I'll be able to reply. But I will not reply to something that has no bibliographic reference to confirm that this is from John Wesley.

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



[29] Wesley, John, Works VIII, (Appeals and Minutes Wesleyan- Methodist Book –Room),361


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...h are privileges and free gifts wesley&f=true

My source ,

http://dufreire.wordpress.com/2008/...;s-doctrine-of-evangelical-repentance/#_ftn29

 

[Hammster]

Yes where I come from we just ask if we see a quote and we aren't sure who the initials are presenting , because it could be anyone .

We try not to assume

What's interesting is that these folks who supposed know so much about Calvinism think that we would quote Jehovah's Witnesses, and that we equate regeneration with rape.

Well, either they really think that or are just taking cheap shots.

 

[cygnusx1]

What's interesting is that these folks who supposed know so much about Calvinism think that we would quote Jehovah's Witnesses, and that we equate regeneration with rape.

Well, either they really think that or are just taking cheap shots.

Don't even think it's cheap shots , more like loose , sloppy , trip over and shoot , type shots