On Free Grace

Wesley Center of Applied Theology | 1740 | John Wesley

[xzins]

Would it be fair for me to post something like this?

This is FR. You can post whatever you want so long as it isn't racist, abusive, etc. You know the rules.

As to correctness, there is certainly a problem with posting material and representing it as the opinions of others when it is not their opinion. They can simply deny its accuracy.

I, however, am not posting your opinions for you. I'm attempting to post accurate definitions of a historic theological acronym known as "tulip." It is certainly significant that you say you believe "tulip" to be the truth of the bible. I will accept any legitimate modifications to the definitions given by those who are part of the calvinist movement. Your web link to a site with "tulip" definitions was certainly helpful.

These are the definitions I will use for reference on all calvinist threads in the future, with a mind, of course, to refining them as legitimate input is given.

[Jerry_M]

When you say "Did the rules change again?" are your referring to my 417?

No, the rules didn't change, I was simply trying to demonstrate the futility of continuing unless we take these things point at a time.

[Jerry_M]

"These are the definitions I will use for reference on all calvinist threads in the future

Ahah, I was correct in my understanding of your motives. It is sooo much easier to dismiss us once you put us in our proper cubby-holes, isn't it?

Besides, we have already told you that we don't agree with your presentation of "U", "L", "I", and "P", so what good are your cubby-holes anyway? We choose not to tell you where your cubby-holes are deficient until such time as you tell us where our "T" is deficient.

[Jerry_M]

And, I will use my points in 417 as the cubby-hole in which I place non-Calvinists in all discussion on these threads in the future.

(I don't think we are going to have much "understanding" around here, but if that is the way you want it...)

[Ward Smythe]

Of course not, why do you think that I posted the website with the material we were using as the basis for this discussion?

When I went there, you were surprised at my reaction.

Now, xzins is trying to put it more simply. But for some reason you guys don't want us to see the picture as a whole.

Afraid that you might find out what we really believe. Now that's silly. Didn't you read the article or did you just jump on midstream? This whole thread is about what we believe. It's clearly stated in Wesley's sermon:

The grace or love of God, whence cometh our salvation, is FREE IN ALL, and FREE FOR ALL.

xzins started a discussion of TULIP. Or perhaps you started it when you posted the link.

And ever since he has been asking you to help him define what you really meant by it. You continue to try to sidetrack him.

[ShadowAce]

Children, children, children.....

God must be so proud of this debate. < /sarcasm >

[Jerry_M]

"When I went there, you were surprised at my reaction."

Oh, come on!

Where? How? When?

Why did you think I posted it? Because I didn't want you to see it?

[Ward Smythe]

It is sooo much easier to dismiss us once you put us in our proper cubby-holes, isn't it?

Oh come on Jerry. He's clearly asking you to offer your own definitions. Either you stand by them or you don't. No one's forcing you into a cubby-hole.

See, you even have that choice.

[RnMomof7]

I thought we were discussing the T. that is what I pinged people in to discuss..

[Ward Smythe]

Where? How? When?

Post #193
I don't intend this to sound cruel, but I can only wonder why you have posted some of the things you have if this is what you have been thinking all along.

[Jerry_M]

What you don't seem to recognize is the fact that we offered a one sentence, succinct, definition of "T". We thought that this would foster understanding discussion, and that is why we asked for either agreement, or a succinct disagreement.

All that we received was "I don't agree" PERIOD! No reasons as to why he disagrees, no discussion as to what he sees as the weakness of our position, no Biblical quoatations refuting our position. NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZERO.

Now, why bother with the remaining four points if this is all we are going to get? He can post whatever he thinks we believe, but we are not going forward until we deal with the basic issue of the condition of man. How can we have a discussion on the means of salvation if we can't agree from what man must be saved?

[Ward Smythe]

God must be so proud of this debate. < /sarcasm >

Sadly, I think you've nailed us all.

[CCWoody]

What are you afraid of Woody? If what you say is the truth, then it is the truth whether your detractors are Mormon, Hindu or Ferengi.

CCWoody:

In your present state, you are not qualified to discuss any issue of doctrine with us. You worship false gods. Until you repent of this, you will not be qualified to discuss doctrine with us.

Jesus:

Mark 1:15 ...and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel."

CCWoody:

You worship false gods. Until you repent...

Jesus:

Repent, and believe in the gospel.

CCWoody:

Repent

Jesus:

Repent

My recent exchange last week with WM:

Oh, I do believe that we have apostles and prophets today. But, as I have said to you previously, you would not know a real one if they were speaking to you.

The canon of Scripture is closed my friend. Special Revelation ended with John a long time ago. You have been suckered to embrace a lie. The gospel I preach calls what you believe false, a damnable heresy, utterly blasphemeous.

As I have show with my previous post [and this thread], believing the truth is a regenerative born of the Spirit kind of thing. You do not qualify to even discuss scripture with us, yet! Until you repent of all your mormon beliefs and embrace the TRUE gospel I preach, you haven't a snowballs chance....

---

Nothing like it. When I die, I will have my God, my Radiant Morning Star, to worship for inscribing me into His hands and for His visage being marred more than any other man; and I will have a saint to thank for showing me what was lacking in the afflictions of Christ in her suffering.

When I die, I will have the only thing I desire.

---

Sorry, but we are. We are also behaving as watchman who see the sword coming and are warning you that your neck is stretched out. You unfortunately have never met the Man we worship. You have replaced a man made religion with the joy of knowing the One TRUE God.

We are not impressed that you have had spiritual experiences. Lucifer has a beauty that deceives many. I have prayed that the Lord open your heart to behold His beauty. However, until you acknowledge the true reality of exactly what you are, you are utterly without hope.

661 posted on 2/24/02 7:43 PM Pacific by CCWoody

Apology....?

[Jerry_M]

How does that indicate surprise that you went to that site? My comments dealt with the fact that you haven't seemed to understand our position from the get-go. If you truly understood what was posted on that site, then it seems ludicrous that youwould have posted some of the crass mischaracterizations of our position that have been a part of your routine since you began your interaction with us. We can't see how those earlier comments show that you actually did, or do, have an understanding of what we believe.

[xzins]

your #428. I always said that I intended to use the definitions once I had them because we had constant accusations that we were not properly understanding calvinism's points. In fact, that's one of the very first criticisms of the basic post of this thread....Wesley doesn't truly understand us.

Why else would I want condensed definitions than to use them. Why else would I say it time and again?

Jerry, I can't tell if your "aha" is melodrama or true surprise. I suspect the former.

Now, I'm gonna use these and I'm going to use your link as a referral to demonstrate that the condensations are valid. I'm sure that in ongoing discussions you will get around to refining them.

Why not just do it now?

I'm going to have to leave until this evening. Have to go pick up some SS material at the mall about an hour from here. Later, and have fun.

[RnMomof7]

Apology....?

Do not even bother to ask..He accused me of being a shill here and calling you all to war or something..I sent him a duplicate of the email I sent to OP and asked for an apology..what I got was an order not to flag him or email him in the future..

Wesleyans pride themselves on LOVE..but it seems that Love is NEVER saying you are sorry!

[Ward Smythe]

Now, why bother with the remaining four points if this is all we are going to get?

Let me just say that xzins clearly told you he would explain his position but he wanted to clarify yours first.

Then for whatever reason, you guys don't want to do that.

This bickering is pointless, and I don't have time for it.

I am not ashamed of what I believe. I am, however, ashamed of how I've acted and reacted on this thread. I am equally ashamed of others, but I'm not responsible for anyone but Ward. Our arguments here do nothing to further the cause of Christ.

These are the things I know:

The Bible is inspired, infallible
There is one God who became incarnate
Christ's death is substitutional
Our future is linked to Christ's Resurrection
One day Christ will Return

It may be appalling to all of you that in my heart of hearts, I think this debate is meaningless. I still have my beliefs about how it works, but what matters is that people come to Christ, not who made the choice.

I can see nothing in our actions here on this thread, or countless other threads that will cause people to come to Him.

I'd be a fool to say that I'll never enter the debate again. But if I do, I hope I remember what I've said here.

[Jean Chauvin]

Theonomy has never been a big issue in the CRC, so I'm not terribly familiar with Mr. Nymeyer. I do know some people from South Holland, though. Does that count?

Jean

[CCWoody]

Hey, you have probably seen the discussion about Stalin. Is he today with God?

[xzins]

Let me just say that xzins clearly told you he would explain his position but he wanted to clarify yours first.

Ward, you are precisely correct. Woody understood that and asked me to go forward with that plan in #351. I will get around to beginning the posting of my criticisms of the tulip acronym this evening.

Then I will post the key points of wesley-arminianism. Then I'll post my criticisms of that (because I don't agree with all of it, either.)