How can unregenerate people worship God?

[Hammster]

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

Ready, fire, aim.

 

[cygnusx1]

Ready, fire, aim.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

I have followed your "discussion" with him for quite some time, and I believe his accusations are correct as to your "gaming" anbd equivocations. You've done it with me in most of the threads we've "met".

Since you now admit that Oz has put his views up, your comment to him was quite dishonest. I think apologies are in order.

 

[Hammster]

I have followed your "discussion" with him for quite some time, and I believe his accusations are correct as to your "gaming" anbd equivocations. You've done it with me in most of the threads we've "met".

More unsubstantiated accusations.

Since you now admit that Oz has put his views up, your comment to him was quite dishonest. I think apologies are in order.

I never said that he hadn't put his views up. I said he was wrong.

www.christianforums.com/t7806024-71/#post65141589

 

[FreeGrace2]

How does Acts 16:30-31 contradict unconditional election?

Because man MUST DO something in order to be saved. He must believe.

Calvinists preach the necessity of faith.

Which contradicts the foundation of RT. But your claim is that God gives the faith, so it isn't something man MUST DO, even though the Bible actually DOES say that, and quite specifically. So its something that God MUST DO. So, why aren't there any verses to support that claim?

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.

No, being a condition does not equate to being a work. That is just a statement of error. Paul very clearly distinguished between faith and works. Faith saves, not works. And RT cannot prove its claim that man's act of believing comes from God. The Bible tells us that man believes from his heart, where, btw, a lot of nasty stuff also comes, as Jesus pointed out:

Matthew 15:18
“But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
Matthew 15:19
“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
Matthew 15:20
“These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”

 

[cygnusx1]

Because man MUST DO something in order to be saved. He must believe.


Which contradicts the foundation of RT. But your claim is that God gives the faith, so it isn't something man MUST DO, even though the Bible actually DOES say that, and quite specifically. So its something that God MUST DO. So, why aren't there any verses to support that claim?


No, being a condition does not equate to being a work. That is just a statement of error. Paul very clearly distinguished between faith and works. Faith saves, not works. And RT cannot prove its claim that man's act of believing comes from God. The Bible tells us that man believes from his heart, where, btw, a lot of nasty stuff also comes, as Jesus pointed out:

Matthew 15:18
“But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
Matthew 15:19
“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
Matthew 15:20
“These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man.”

You even deny faith and repentance are gifts of God ?

Even John Wesley for all his commitment to Arminian theology recognised faith and repentance are gifts of Grace .

Your permitting your "reason" to dictate over scripture = rationalism , not good.

 

[OzSpen]

Do you commit to responding if it's sourced?

I'm waiting for the documentation of the quote from John Wesley. When it comes and I read it in context, then I'll choose to respond. But until then, it's an isolated proof-texting event.

 

[cygnusx1]

I'm waiting for the documentation of the quote from John Wesley. When it comes and I read it in context, then I'll choose to respond. But until then, it's an isolated proof-texting event.

The wait is over , sited already post #718

http://www.christianforums.com/t7806024-72/#post65142431

 

[Hammster]

I'm waiting for the documentation of the quote from John Wesley. When it comes and I read it in context, then I'll choose to respond. But until then, it's an isolated proof-texting event.

The we await your response.

 

[OzSpen]

“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

The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A. M. - John Wesley - Google Books

My source ,

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

Thanks so much for providing the source.

It is interesting to observe what you leave out of the quote from John Wesley in the one-liner you gave. My search online locates this as what was stated in the paragraph in context, which was a letter 'To a Gentleman at Bristol. BRISTOL, January 6, 1758' :

It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers made any scruple of calling them so (emphasis added).
​

In this edition of 'The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A.M., Vol VI', this punctuation is provided:

It is true, repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself, nor any of our Reformers, made any scruple of calling them so (p. 98).
​

You were pleased to quote the one sentence by John Wesley but you didn't mention a thing about what followed immediately in Wesley's quote about 'Mr Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers' not having scruples about calling them conditions.

I find this to be disingenuous when you do not provide the exact statement in context where Wesley stated that Calvin and the Reformers didn't have any scruples about calling repentance and faith, 'conditions' (of salvation).

In the Works of John Wesley, there is much more to this discussion than the one-liner you gave. Wesley was answering an Anglican opponent (remember, Wesley was an Anglican) and the allegation this Anglican was a promoter of justification by works. In the larger context, this is how it unfolded:

These undoubtedly are the genuine principles of the Church of England. And they are confirmed, as by our Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, so by the whole tenor of Scripture. Therefore, till heaven and earth pass away, these truths will not pass away.

But I do not agree with the author of that tract in the spirit of the whole performance. It does not seem to breathe either that modesty or seriousness or charity which one would desire. One would not desire to hear any private person, of no great note in the Church or the world, speak as it were ex cathedra, with an air of infallibility, or at least of vast sell-sufficiency, on a point wherein men of eminence, both for piety, learning, and office, have been so greatly divided. Though my judgment is nothing altered, yet I often condemn myself for my past manner of speaking on this head. Again: I do not rejoice at observing anything light or ludicrous in an answer to so serious a paper; and much less in finding any man branded as a Papist because his doctrine in one particular instance resembles (for that is the utmost which can be proved) a doctrine of the Church of Rome. I can in no wise reconcile this to the grand rule of charity--doing to others as we would they should do to us.

Indeed, it is said, ‘Dr. T. openly defends the fundamental doctrine of Popery, justification by works’ (page 3); therefore ‘he must be a Papist’ (page 4). But here is a double mistake: for (1) whatever may be implied in some of his expressions, it is most certain Dr. T. does not openly defend justification by works; (2) this itself -- justification by works -- is not the fundamental doctrine of Popery, but the universality of the Romish Church and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. And to call any one a Papist who denies these is neither charity nor justice.
I do not agree with the author in what follows: Dr. T. ‘loses sight of the truth when he talks of Christ’s having obtained for us a covenant of better hopes, and that faith and repentance are the terms of this covenant. They are not. They are the free gifts of the covenant of grace, not the terms or conditions. To say “Privileges of the covenant are the terms or conditions of it” is downright Popery.’

This is downright calling names, and no better. But it falls on a greater than Dr. T. St. Paul affirms, Jesus Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant, established upon better promises; yea, and that better covenant He hath obtained for us by His own blood. And if any desire to receive the privileges which are freely given according to the tenor of this covenant, Jesus Christ Himself has marked out the way: ‘Repent, and believe the gospel.’

These, therefore, are the terms of the covenant, unless the author of it was mistaken. These are the conditions of it, unless a man can enter into the kingdom without either repenting or believing. For the word 'condition' means neither more nor less than something sine qua non, without which something else is not done. Now, this is the exact truth with regard to repenting and believing, without which God does not work in us ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.’

It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers made any scruple of calling them so.

‘But the gospel is a revelation of grace and mercy, not a proposal of a covenant of terms and conditions’ (page 5). It is both. It is a revelation of grace and mercy to all that ‘repent and believe.’ And this the author himself owns in the following page: ‘The free grace of God applies to sinners the benefits of Christ's atonement and righteousness by working in them repentance and faith’ (page 6). Then they are not applied without repentance and faith--that is, in plain terms, these are the conditions of that application.

I read in the next page: ‘In the gospel we have the free promises of eternal life, but not annexed to faith and repentance as works of man’ (true; they are the gift of God), ‘or the terms or conditions of the covenant.’ Yes, certainly; they are no less terms or conditions, although God works them in us.

‘But what is promised us as a free gift cannot be received upon the performance of any terms or conditions.’ Indeed it can. Our Lord said to the man born blind, ‘Go and wash in the pool of Siloam.’ Here was a plain condition to be performed, something without which he would not have received his sight. And yet his sight was a gift altogether as free as if the pool had never been mentioned.

‘But if repentance and faith are the free gifts of God, can they be the terms or conditions of our justification’ (Page 9.) Yes. Why not They are still something without which no man is or can be justified.

‘Can, then, God give that freely which He does not give but upon certain terms and conditions’ (Ibid.) Doubtless He can; as one may freely give you a sum of money on condition you stretch out your hand to receive it. It is therefore no ‘contradiction to say, We are justified freely by grace, and yet upon certain terms or conditions’ (page 10).

I cannot therefore agree that ‘we are accepted without any terms previously performed to qualify us for acceptance.’ For we are not accepted, nor are we qualified for or capable of acceptance, without repentance and faith.

‘But a man is not justified by works, but by the faith of Christ. This excludes all qualifications.’ (Page 13.) Surely it does not exclude the qualification of faith!

‘But St. Paul asserts, “To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.”’ True; ‘to him that worketh not.’ But does God justify him that ‘believeth not’ Otherwise this text proves just the contrary to what it is brought to prove (SOURCE, emphasis added).
​

Wesley stated that he joined with Calvin and the Reformers in affirming that repentance and faith are conditions for entering the Christian covenant of salvation.

I agree with them and Romans 4:4-8,

4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” (ESV)

Faith in the one who justifies is needed for salvation to be received. Against such a person, the Lord will not count his/her sin. She/he has been forgiven - through faith in the one and only Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Oz

 

[FreeGrace2]

You even deny faith and repentance are gifts of God ?

Even John Wesley for all his commitment to Arminian theology recognised faith and repentance are gifts of Grace .

Your permitting your "reason" to dictate over scripture = rationalism , not good.

What isn't good is your failure to understand what I've posted. Maybe there was just a lack of attention.

Believing is an act and comes from the heart of man. Faith is a noun, and includes all that God has written in His Word and is called the Christian faith. Yes, that comes from God.

The issue is about the act of believing. Show me anywhere in Scripture that teaches that man's believing comes from God.

 

[cygnusx1]

Thanks so much for providing the source.

It is interesting to observe what you leave out of the quote from John Wesley in the one-liner you gave. My search online locates this as what was stated in the paragraph in context, which was a letter 'To a Gentleman at Bristol. BRISTOL, January 6, 1758' :

It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers made any scruple of calling them so (emphasis added).
​

In this edition of 'The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A.M., Vol VI', this punctuation is provided:

It is true, repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself, nor any of our Reformers, made any scruple of calling them so (p. 98).
​

You were pleased to quote the one sentence by John Wesley but you didn't mention a thing about what followed immediately in Wesley's quote about 'Mr Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers' not having scruples about calling them conditions.

I find this to be disingenuous when you do not provide the exact statement in context where Wesley stated that Calvin and the Reformers didn't have any scruples about calling repentance and faith, 'conditions' (of salvation).

In the Works of John Wesley, there is much more to this discussion than the one-liner you gave. Wesley was answering an Anglican opponent (remember, Wesley was an Anglican) and the allegation this Anglican was a promoter of justification by works. In the larger context, this is how it unfolded:

These undoubtedly are the genuine principles of the Church of England. And they are confirmed, as by our Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, so by the whole tenor of Scripture. Therefore, till heaven and earth pass away, these truths will not pass away.

But I do not agree with the author of that tract in the spirit of the whole performance. It does not seem to breathe either that modesty or seriousness or charity which one would desire. One would not desire to hear any private person, of no great note in the Church or the world, speak as it were ex cathedra, with an air of infallibility, or at least of vast sell-sufficiency, on a point wherein men of eminence, both for piety, learning, and office, have been so greatly divided. Though my judgment is nothing altered, yet I often condemn myself for my past manner of speaking on this head. Again: I do not rejoice at observing anything light or ludicrous in an answer to so serious a paper; and much less in finding any man branded as a Papist because his doctrine in one particular instance resembles (for that is the utmost which can be proved) a doctrine of the Church of Rome. I can in no wise reconcile this to the grand rule of charity--doing to others as we would they should do to us.

Indeed, it is said, ‘Dr. T. openly defends the fundamental doctrine of Popery, justification by works’ (page 3); therefore ‘he must be a Papist’ (page 4). But here is a double mistake: for (1) whatever may be implied in some of his expressions, it is most certain Dr. T. does not openly defend justification by works; (2) this itself -- justification by works -- is not the fundamental doctrine of Popery, but the universality of the Romish Church and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. And to call any one a Papist who denies these is neither charity nor justice.
I do not agree with the author in what follows: Dr. T. ‘loses sight of the truth when he talks of Christ’s having obtained for us a covenant of better hopes, and that faith and repentance are the terms of this covenant. They are not. They are the free gifts of the covenant of grace, not the terms or conditions. To say “Privileges of the covenant are the terms or conditions of it” is downright Popery.’

This is downright calling names, and no better. But it falls on a greater than Dr. T. St. Paul affirms, Jesus Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant, established upon better promises; yea, and that better covenant He hath obtained for us by His own blood. And if any desire to receive the privileges which are freely given according to the tenor of this covenant, Jesus Christ Himself has marked out the way: ‘Repent, and believe the gospel.’

These, therefore, are the terms of the covenant, unless the author of it was mistaken. These are the conditions of it, unless a man can enter into the kingdom without either repenting or believing. For the word 'condition' means neither more nor less than something sine qua non, without which something else is not done. Now, this is the exact truth with regard to repenting and believing, without which God does not work in us ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.’

It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers made any scruple of calling them so.

‘But the gospel is a revelation of grace and mercy, not a proposal of a covenant of terms and conditions’ (page 5). It is both. It is a revelation of grace and mercy to all that ‘repent and believe.’ And this the author himself owns in the following page: ‘The free grace of God applies to sinners the benefits of Christ's atonement and righteousness by working in them repentance and faith’ (page 6). Then they are not applied without repentance and faith--that is, in plain terms, these are the conditions of that application.

I read in the next page: ‘In the gospel we have the free promises of eternal life, but not annexed to faith and repentance as works of man’ (true; they are the gift of God), ‘or the terms or conditions of the covenant.’ Yes, certainly; they are no less terms or conditions, although God works them in us.

‘But what is promised us as a free gift cannot be received upon the performance of any terms or conditions.’ Indeed it can. Our Lord said to the man born blind, ‘Go and wash in the pool of Siloam.’ Here was a plain condition to be performed, something without which he would not have received his sight. And yet his sight was a gift altogether as free as if the pool had never been mentioned.

‘But if repentance and faith are the free gifts of God, can they be the terms or conditions of our justification’ (Page 9.) Yes. Why not They are still something without which no man is or can be justified.

‘Can, then, God give that freely which He does not give but upon certain terms and conditions’ (Ibid.) Doubtless He can; as one may freely give you a sum of money on condition you stretch out your hand to receive it. It is therefore no ‘contradiction to say, We are justified freely by grace, and yet upon certain terms or conditions’ (page 10).

I cannot therefore agree that ‘we are accepted without any terms previously performed to qualify us for acceptance.’ For we are not accepted, nor are we qualified for or capable of acceptance, without repentance and faith.

‘But a man is not justified by works, but by the faith of Christ. This excludes all qualifications.’ (Page 13.) Surely it does not exclude the qualification of faith!

‘But St. Paul asserts, “To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness.”’ True; ‘to him that worketh not.’ But does God justify him that ‘believeth not’ Otherwise this text proves just the contrary to what it is brought to prove (SOURCE, emphasis added).
​

Wesley stated that he joined with Calvin and the Reformers in affirming that repentance and faith are conditions for entering the Christian covenant of salvation.

I agree with them and Romans 4:4-8,
Faith in the one who justifies is needed for salvation to be received. Against such a person, the Lord will not count his/her sin. She/he has been forgiven - through faith in the one and only Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Oz

I quoted the part that was applicable to the ongoing conversation about gifts .... Anyone can quote a whole page and still miss the elephant in the room .

I read your reply , and apart from the your obvious alignment with duty (condition) of Wesley and Calvin which is another debate , you still haven't said whether you agree with the quote I gave , that faith and repentance are gifts of God .

Well ?

odd that you would keep to one side and avoid the side at dispute ?


"It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers made any scruple of calling them so." J Wesley

 

[OzSpen]

I quoted the part that was applicable to the ongoing conversation about gifts .... Anyone can quote a whole page and still miss the elephant in the room .

I read your reply , and apart from the your obvious alignment with duty (condition) of Wesley and Calvin which is another debate , you still haven't said whether you agree with the quote I gave , that faith and repentance are gifts of God .

Well ?

odd that you would keep to one side and avoid the side at dispute ?


"It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts. But this does not hinder their being conditions too. And neither Mr. Calvin himself nor any of our Reformers made any scruple of calling them so." J Wesley

I found you to be disingenuous in what you chose to leave out of that quote from Wesley that also included Calvin and the Reformers. Why don't you own up to what you did in censoring Calvin and the Reformers from Wesley's quote?

You did not quote the part that was applicable. You censored the quote to exclude Calvin and the Reformers to make it look like that the quote, 'It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts ', only belonged to Wesley. Wesley - in the entire quote - made his statement in agreement with Calvin and the Reformers. Why did you censor these others from your quote?

If you read my post carefully, you would know that my citation of Romans 4:4 demonstrates that I believe faith is a gift of God. Why are you evading what I wrote?

How dare you be so censorious with your statement:

Anyone can quote a whole page and still miss the elephant in the room .

I dared to give you the context of Wesley's statement, instead of the one-liner you gave. You did not give an understanding of Wesley's view in context, that was supported by Calvin and the Reformers.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

I found you to be disingenuous in what you chose to leave out of that quote from Wesley that also included Calvin and the Reformers. Why don't you own up to what you did in censoring Calvin and the Reformers from Wesley's quote?

You did not quote the part that was applicable. You censored the quote to exclude Calvin and the Reformers to make it look like that the quote, 'It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts ', only belonged to Wesley. Wesley - in the entire quote - made his statement in agreement with Calvin and the Reformers. Why did you censor these others from your quote?

If you read my post carefully, you would know that my citation of Romans 4:4 demonstrates that I believe faith is a gift of God. Why are you evading what I wrote?

How dare you be so censorious with your statement:

I dared to give you the context of Wesley's statement, instead of the one-liner you gave. You did not give an understanding of Wesley's view in context, that was supported by Calvin and the Reformers.

Oz

If faith is a gift of God, what must one do to receive the gift?

 

[OzSpen]

If faith is a gift of God, what must one do to receive the gift?

You know the answer to that and you don't need my assistance. Nice try though.

 

[Hammster]

You know the answer to that and you don't need my assistance. Nice try though.

I know the answer. I just don't know your answer. And I really didn't expect to get one.

Don't worry, though. I started a thread.

 

[OzSpen]

I know the answer. I just don't know your answer. And I really didn't expect to get one.

Don't worry, though. I started a thread.

Someone needs to accept the free gift!

 

[Hammster]

Someone needs to accept the free gift!

How do they know what it is?

 

[cygnusx1]

I found you to be disingenuous in what you chose to leave out of that quote from Wesley that also included Calvin and the Reformers. Why don't you own up to what you did in censoring Calvin and the Reformers from Wesley's quote?

You did not quote the part that was applicable. You censored the quote to exclude Calvin and the Reformers to make it look like that the quote, 'It is true repentance and faith are privileges and free gifts ', only belonged to Wesley. Wesley - in the entire quote - made his statement in agreement with Calvin and the Reformers. Why did you censor these others from your quote?

If you read my post carefully, you would know that my citation of Romans 4:4 demonstrates that I believe faith is a gift of God. Why are you evading what I wrote?

How dare you be so censorious with your statement:

I dared to give you the context of Wesley's statement, instead of the one-liner you gave. You did not give an understanding of Wesley's view in context, that was supported by Calvin and the Reformers.

Oz

So faith is a gift of God , thankyou , that is all , you may go now .

 

[cygnusx1]

If faith is a gift of God, what must one do to receive the gift?

one must have faith to receive the gift of faith of course !!

hammy how is it you don't understand it ?