Posted on 07/23/2002 7:40:31 AM PDT by xzins
To all lurkers, readers, posters: the above is what is known as a personal attack. Is there an appropriate way to respond to it?
Don't you know that Wesley was anti reformation and a puppet of Rome? So I would expect that the followers of Wesley just may have a problem with truth
Let me ask you a few questions:
1. Did Christ die for all sins of all people for all time?
2. Did He cover the sins of the elect both before and after their conversion?
3. Did He die for the sins of the non-elect for their entire lifetime?
4. Would you define not believing in Christ/rejection of Christ as a sin?
universal salvation means just exactly what I posted ..all every where saved..that is what xzins is saying .Talk to him if you do not agree
Why are you engaging in this kind of rudeness?
Your post also indicates you hate catholics....where does this bitterness come from?
Of course I do. And so do you, unless you're a universalist. I say the scope is limited. You say it's universal in scope, but of so little power that humans can foil it.
To limit atonement, excuses sin as being a creation of God in the "unelect"
Nonsense.
Show me where I have ever said that. I have always said that the offer is for all but that only believers are saved.
You have my opinion on record again. Are you going to continue to deal in a known falsehood? If you do, what does that make you?
John Wesley's Notes; But he that had the mark, namely, the name of the first beast, or the number of his name - The name of the beast is that which he bears through his whole duration; namely, that of Papa or Pope: the number of his name is the whole time during which he bears this name. Whosoever, therefore, receives the mark of the beast does as much as if he said expressly, "I acknowledge the present Papacy, as proceeding from God;" or, "I acknowledge that what St. Gregory VII. has done, according to his legend, (authorized by Benedict XIII.,) and what has been maintained in virtue thereof, by his successors to this day, is from God." By the former, a man hath the name of the beast as a mark; by the latter, the number of his name. In a word, to have the name of the beast is, to acknowledge His papal Holiness; to have the number of his name is, to acknowledge the papal succession. The second beast will enforce the receiving this mark under the severest penalties. (John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, Revelation 13:17)
Uh, what a surly "puppet" (sarcasm)
convincing point
I reject anti-catholicism. I say that at the same time as I acknowledge doctrinal differences.
The pope is no more the anti-christ than is Ken Griffey, Junior.
However, the quote does make it pretty clear that Wesley was no "puppet," doesn't it?
If you insist on putting words in my mouth, at least finish the sentence.
.........but of so little power that humans can foil it with the God given gift of Free Will.
So why do you ignore the existence of the resulting sin of denial ?
Securing salvation so that it can never be lost is no effect?
We have enough food for the hungry orphan, but get him out of here....he bothers us.
Hunger is not the orphan's fault. Sin is the sinner's fault.
God owes us nothing.
What sentiments would those be?
You say I ignore the sin of denial. How can Christ have made a perfect sacrifice if a sin inherent in all men can make it of no effect?
bigotry is bigotry
The pope is no more the anti-christ than is Ken Griffey, Junior.
nice visual LOL
However, the quote does make it pretty clear that Wesley was no "puppet," doesn't it?
yes, the tenor is typically "early" protestant though & contrary to what were told around here
Did he hate the pope...sure chis KING was kicked out of the Roman church..
His Chrurch of England was the RC in drag
"It is amazing that any true evangelical Calvinist would ever quote John Wesley with approval, either in speech or in writing," wrote the late Rev. J. P. MacQueen, London. "He bitterly hated and rejected Calvinism, while he taught a theory of justification practically identical with sanctification. His apologists have tried to persuade their readers that Wesley's Sacramentalism was 'merely an Oxford phase, and that it disappeared when he entered upon active evangelistic effort.' His treatise on Baptism, which he published in 1756, proves the contrary: ' By water, then, as a means—the water of baptism—we are regenerated or born again, whence it is also called by the Apostle the washing of regeneration. Herein a principle of grace is infused which will not be wholly taken away unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long-continued wickedness.' If the foregoing quotation does not embody the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, one does not know what does. Wesley commended the same so-called 'devotional literature' as the Oxford Tractarians, such as the works of Romanists like Thomas a Kempis, Francois de Sales, and Cardinal Bona. He even published the 'Introduction to a Devout Life' by Francois de Sales, the sworn foe of Calvinism, in 1750. He advocated prayers for the dead, justifying himself thus: 'Prayer for the dead, the faithful de, parted, in the advocacy of which I conceive myself clearly justified. (Works, ed. 1872, IX. 55). The blessed departed are beyond the need of the poor sin-stained prayers of the Church militant, for they are perfect in holiness.
I will post this as a thread so you may read it all
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.