The Value of Evangelism in Reformed Theology

[jasonc]

Yes! That is exactly what he should do. It's known as a non-denominational church, and there are many of them.
The pastor will teach what HE believes to be correct.

If this person wants to teach in, for instance, as Assembly of God denominational church - then he must teach what
that particular denomination states in their Statement of Faith.

most dont even post that ,to find what the Methodist believe ,I go outside and yes they teach what Wesley taught .


sinless perfection ,with your practice ,you can by faith be so santucifued that your love is flawless and also loose it .

the Wesleyan definiton is that you can become so loving that your spirit would plan on sinning and mature in love but you will still commit acts of sin by omission

the oldest church in America ,being the Presbyterian after the Anglican ,has splits on silly issues

just from the same Westminster confession .
there's the pca,pcua,eco,arp the oldest being the arp.

that's over baptism of children which the arp does,the full water or sprinkling argument and other issues that are hair splitting .

I grew up in a controlled and limited ,no,the elders don't actually have the ability to teach from,their own reading ,here's our doctrine from the hq,.rather then have as my church does in hymnals and quotes it .most churches as you say indeed dont.

in your case the church would teach its version of the Christian faith .while that can happen in my church the pastor believes in the 5 points ,he would rather you know the bible and why he is wrong or correct based your reading it!

 

[GodsGrace]

most dont even post that ,to find what the Methodist believe ,I go outside and yes they teach what Wesley taught .


sinless perfection ,with your practice ,you can by faith be so santucifued that your love is flawless and also loose it .

the Wesleyan definiton is that you can become so loving that your spirit would plan on sinning and mature in love but you will still commit acts of sin by omission

the oldest church in America ,being the Presbyterian after the Anglican ,has splits on silly issues

just from the same Westminster confession .
there's the pca,pcua,eco,arp the oldest being the arp.

that's over baptism of children which the arp does,the full water or sprinkling argument and other issues that are hair splitting .

I grew up in a controlled and limited ,no,the elders don't actually have the ability to teach from,their own reading ,here's our doctrine from the hq,.rather then have as my church does in hymnals and quotes it .most churches as you say indeed dont.

in your case the church would teach its version of the Christian faith .while that can happen in my church the pastor believes in the 5 points ,he would rather you know the bible and why he is wrong or correct based your reading it!

You have a nice pastor Jason.
But listening to him preach the 5 points all the time, it must surely have an effect on you, don't you think?

Be back later.

 

[jasonc]

I can post videos ,in fact i will .

the second half ,was next week of Romans one and two

 

[jasonc]

You have a nice pastor Jason.
But listening to him preach the 5 points all the time, it must surely have an effect on you, don't you think?

Be back later.

because i should Only attend a church that believes as I do ?

partial ,preterist,amil,though I lean yet way ,that stuff is simply too big to even for anyone to fumy know and the more I read listen the more I learn .my church is pre mil ,pre trib.
Arminist on most thimgs,trinitArian,charismatic open speaking in service ,
i have been under female pastors .

now i tend not to ,which church is gonna agree on everything

 

[jasonc]

my pastor is able to speak ,read In,,Hebrew and Spanish

 

[jasonc]

and no the reformed don't preach on the five ,he teaches,context .it will come out but really do Arminist preach that your soul isn't secure every day ?do they teach you are free willed every day and so on ?

 

[Hospes]

You're changing what I said a little bit .... I don't THINK I used the word ALWAYS, and don't really have much time to go back and make sure.

Wondering, this response makes me think you need to slow down your reading. I explicitly wrote I made an assumption in adding "always", yet your statement here sounds like you are pointing it out to me as if I was unaware.

Regardless, does God ever override a person's free will? If not, then using "always" is accurate. If He does at times override a person's free will, then we will need to explore your thinking further in that direction.

When we become born again, we are guided by the Holy Spirit.
Our conscience becomes conformed to the moral law that God has provided to mankind.
I do believe some learning also has to take place in regard to the conscience.

Would you agree all such guidance, conforming, and learning is subject to your free will? In other words, all such events happen only given that you autonomously provide the decisive moral willingness necessary for choosing them to be effective in your life.

As to the role of God before being born again.....
God's grace falls on all of mankind...

By "falls on mankind", do you mean each and every individual has the free will to choose God's salvation in Christ?

God offers His helping hand to all that are in the pit

To what extent does God help? Beyond God obviously making the Gospel proclaimed, is any more of His help necessary for a person to use their free will to choose salvation? I guess I am trying to understand what part of God's help is necessary in the process of salvation before a person can exercise their free will to choose His salvation? (Please recall the definition of "necessary" we agreed to earlier.)

 

[TibiasDad]

sinless perfection ,with your practice ,you can by faith be so santucifued that your love is flawless and also loose it .

the Wesleyan definiton is that you can become so loving that your spirit would plan on sinning and mature in love but you will still commit acts of sin by omission

I am a life long Wesleyan, and you don't have a clue as to what we believe, because this is not it, and in fact, much of what you have written isn't even correct or coherent English.

1) Check your spelling
2) Re-read what your write before you post to avoid such absurdities as "you can become so loving that your spirit would plan on sinning and mature in love but you will still commit acts of sin by omission"!
3) Cite examples of Wesleyan sources that assert what you accuse us of saying.


Doug

 

[jasonc]

I am a life long Wesleyan, and you don't have a clue as to what we believe, because this is not it, and in fact, much of what you have written isn't even correct or coherent English.

1) Check your spelling
2) Re-read what your write before you post to avoid such absurdities as "you can become so loving that your spirit would plan on sinning and mature in love but you will still commit acts of sin by omission"!
3) Cite examples of Wesleyan sources that assert what you accuse us of saying.


Doug

Christian perfection - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

What did John Wesley mean by 'moving on to perfection?' | UMC.org

What did John Wesley mean by moving on to perfection. Ask The UMC is a service of United Methodist Communications.

www.umc.org

The Heresy of Perfectionism

An ancient heresy of the distinction between two types of Christians, carnal and Spirit-filled, is the heresy of perfectionism. Perfectionism teaches that there is a class of Christians who achieve moral perfection in this life.

www.ligonier.org

spurgeon on that Wesleyan view as I,pulled up .perfect love isn't possible either

Amphipolis

What does god say about: Amphipolis in the Bible

www.google.com

 

[jasonc]

Chapters Available - 1 John - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Choose from the available chapters in the '1 John' of the 'Clarke's Commentary' commentary FREELY provided by StudyLight.org to help as you prepare sermons, Bible studies, Sunday School lessons or personal devotions.

www.studylight.org

Adam Clarke whom it is written about in,one link a methodist(Wesleyan) at the time .

 

[jasonc]

John Wesley: Christian Perfection

John Wesley: Perfection is a moment in the process of sanctification whereby a Christian is made sinless: perfect love for God drives all sin from the soul.

www.theologian-theology.com

this backs up the umc statement .

 

[Fastfredy0]

"Libertarian Free Will" Definition

Libertarian Free Will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias.

Commentary
On the surface this is very appealing. There are no elements of coercion, either internal or external, to be found in it. Below the surface, however, lurk two serious problems: one moral and the other rational.

On the one hand, if we make our choices strictly from a neutral posture, with no prior inclination, then we make choices for no reason. If we have no reason for our choices, if our choices are utterly spontaneous, then our choices have no moral significance. If a choice just happens,--it just pops out, with no rhyme or reason for it—then it cannot be judged good or bad. When God evaluates our choices, he is concerned about our motives. (consider Genesis 50:20)

The second problem this popular view faces is not so much moral as it is rational. If there is no prior inclination, desire, or bent, no prior motivation or reason for a choice, how can a choice even be made? If the will is totally neutral, why would it choose the right or the left? If is something like the problem encountered by Alice in Wonderland when she came to a fork in the road. She did not know which way to turn. She saw the grinning Cheshire cat in the tree. She asked the cat, “Which way should I turn?” The cat replied, “Where are you going?” Alice , “I don’t know.”. “Then,” replied the Cheshire cat, “it doesn’t matter.”

Consider Alice’s dilemma. Actually she had four options from which to choose. She could have taken the left fork or the right fork. She also could have chosen to return the way she had come. Or she could have stood fixed at the spot of indecision until she died there. For her to take a step in any direction, she would need some motivation or inclination to do so. Without any motivation, any prior inclination, her only real option would be to stand there and perish.

Therefore, one must reject the neutral-will (free) theory because it is irrational.

The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause. It is something from nothing, which is irrational. The Bible makes it clear that we choose out of our desires. A wicked desire produces wicked choices and wicked actions. A godly desire produces godly deeds. Jesus spoke in terms of corrupt trees producing corrupt fruit. A fig tree does not yield apples and an apple tree produces no figs. So righteous choices and evil desires produce evil choices.

 

[GodsGrace]

"Libertarian Free Will" Definition

Libertarian Free Will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias.

Commentary
On the surface this is very appealing. There are no elements of coercion, either internal or external, to be found in it. Below the surface, however, lurk two serious problems: one moral and the other rational.

On the one hand, if we make our choices strictly from a neutral posture, with no prior inclination, then we make choices for no reason. If we have no reason for our choices, if our choices are utterly spontaneous, then our choices have no moral significance. If a choice just happens,--it just pops out, with no rhyme or reason for it—then it cannot be judged good or bad. When God evaluates our choices, he is concerned about our motives. (consider Genesis 50:20)

The second problem this popular view faces is not so much moral as it is rational. If there is no prior inclination, desire, or bent, no prior motivation or reason for a choice, how can a choice even be made? If the will is totally neutral, why would it choose the right or the left? If is something like the problem encountered by Alice in Wonderland when she came to a fork in the road. She did not know which way to turn. She saw the grinning Cheshire cat in the tree. She asked the cat, “Which way should I turn?” The cat replied, “Where are you going?” Alice , “I don’t know.”. “Then,” replied the Cheshire cat, “it doesn’t matter.”

Consider Alice’s dilemma. Actually she had four options from which to choose. She could have taken the left fork or the right fork. She also could have chosen to return the way she had come. Or she could have stood fixed at the spot of indecision until she died there. For her to take a step in any direction, she would need some motivation or inclination to do so. Without any motivation, any prior inclination, her only real option would be to stand there and perish.

Therefore, one must reject the neutral-will (free) theory because it is irrational.

The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause. It is something from nothing, which is irrational. The Bible makes it clear that we choose out of our desires. A wicked desire produces wicked choices and wicked actions. A godly desire produces godly deeds. Jesus spoke in terms of corrupt trees producing corrupt fruit. A fig tree does not yield apples and an apple tree produces no figs. So righteous choices and evil desires produce evil choices.

Is the above yours?

If not, you MUST supply the source.
By rules of this forum.

It would also help anyone wishing to reply.
NO DECISION is NEUTRAL. We are all affected by different experiences and ideas.
Libertarian free will means making a choice with no outside coercion or force.

 

[GodsGrace]

Wondering, this response makes me think you need to slow down your reading. I explicitly wrote I made an assumption in adding "always", yet your statement here sounds like you are pointing it out to me as if I was unaware.

Sorry Hospes.
Can't slow down my reading. I'm taking care of my sick husband and you'll have to be patient if I miss something.
Anyway, I answered to the ALWAYS.

Regardless, does God ever override a person's free will? If not, then using "always" is accurate. If He does at times override a person's free will, then we will need to explore your thinking further in that direction.

I stated that God can override our will at times. Limited times. And I even gave examples.
No time to post it again. Please go back and read what I wrote.

Would you agree all such guidance, conforming, and learning is subject to your free will? In other words, all such events happen only given that you autonomously provide the decisive moral willingness necessary for choosing them to be effective in your life.

Yes. My free will is necessary in applying all I learn about Christianity to my life.
When I'm faced with a decision to sin or not sin....my free will allows me to choose either to sin or not.
I feel like you're asking me the same question more than once.
I'm not sure why.

By "falls on mankind", do you mean each and every individual has the free will to choose God's salvation in Christ?

Yes. Every person on earth has the ability to choose God or reject God. Or to choose God's salvation in Christ, as you put it.

To what extent does God help? Beyond God obviously making the Gospel proclaimed, is any more of His help necessary for a person to use their free will to choose salvation? I guess I am trying to understand what part of God's help is necessary in the process of salvation before a person can exercise their free will to choose His salvation? (Please recall the definition of "necessary" we agreed to earlier.)

No.
God has done all He could do.
He had prophets in the O.T.
He sent His only Son to show Himself to us.
The N.T. has been written and proclaimed to almost the entire world.

If God offered more help,,,,He would be the God of calvinism: Helping some and not others.
We say that God opens the heart of those that believe but this is done only IF WE WANT our heart to be opened.
God does nothing to us that we do not WANT Him to do.

AFTER salvation and with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we then receive supernatural help in knowing sinning and we have a desire
not to grieve the Holy Spirit......however, it is our free will choice to sin or not to sin. (libertarian free will).

 

[Fastfredy0]

If not, you MUST supply the source.
By rules of this forum.

I don't know why the source is important. It was R.C. Sproul. I agree with the statements.

NO DECISION is NEUTRAL. We are all affected by different experiences and ideas.

If your decision is not NEUTRAL (not an effect of a cause) then your decision is not based on "libertanian free will" as defined by:
Libertarian Free Will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias. It determines its own volitions; so as not to be dependent, in its determinations, on any cause without itself, nor determined by anything prior to its own acts. Indifference and therefore amorality belongs to Liberty in their notion of it, or that the mind, previous to the act of volition, be in equilibrio (equilibrium in uncertainty).

To make choices spontaneously, that is that the choices we make are in no wise conditioned by or determined by any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. R.C. Sproul

Libertarian free will is basically the concept that, metaphysically and morally, man is an autonomous being, one who operates independently, not controlled by others or by outside forces. According to this view, a person who freely made a particular choice could have chosen differently, even if nothing about the past prior to the moment of choice had been different.” In the libertarian free will paradigm, the power of contrary choice reigns supreme. Without this ability to choose otherwise, libertarian free will proponents will claim that man cannot be held morally responsible for his actions.
The first thing to take into account regarding the biblical position of libertarian free will is what the Bible says about God. The Bible describes God as sovereign, and sovereignty designates control. But what exactly is the sphere of God’s sovereignty? Psalm 24:1 makes it plain: “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” What is the sphere of God’s sovereignty? Everything. God spoke the universe, and everything in it, into existence. As Creator, He has sovereignty over His creation. This is the image used in Romans 9 when Paul refers to the potter and his clay.
So we need to ask ourselves how does libertarian free will fit in with God’s sovereignty? Can a human being, a creature, be autonomous if God is sovereign? The obvious conclusion is that libertarian free will is incompatible with the sovereignty of God. Consider this passage from the book of Proverbs: “In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps” (Proverbs 16:9). This does not paint a picture of man as an autonomous being, but rather as man operating within the confines of a sovereign God. https://www.gotquestions.org/libertarian-free-will.html

Most events can be explained as the effects of prior events. When a tree falls, it does so because of the force of the wind, its own structural weakness, and so on. However, when a person performs a free act, agent causation theorists say that the action was not caused by any other events or states of affairs, but rather was caused by the agent. Agent causation is ontologically separate from event causation. The action was not uncaused, because the agent caused it. But the agent's causing it was not determined by the agent's character, desires, or past, since that would just be event causation.[25] As Chisholm explains it, humans have "a prerogative which some would attribute only to God: each of us, when we act, is a prime mover unmoved. In doing what we do, we cause certain events to happen, and nothing – or no one – causes us to cause those events to happen." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)
In other words, arminians don't believe in the Law of Cause and Effect in regards to salvific faith. Everything else in the universal obeys the Law of Cause and Effect with this one exception (I suppose). Philosophers posit the premise that only an eternal entity is NOT an effect (it did not have a cause). That accounts for God having Libertarians Free Will, but not Man. Exception: Mormons believe our souls are eternal and that would be consistent "free will" and the Law of Cause and Effect.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't know why the source is important. It was R.C. Sproul. I agree with the statements.

Hi Fastfredy
I hate to be picky, but you asked so here goes:
This is from the terms of service found at the beginning of the Homepage.
1.12: We want to respect copyrighted material. Be sure at minimum to cite your source and keep all posts in compliance with Fair Use copyright law.
Information on proper source acknowledgement and fair use here:

Purdue OWL® - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University

owl.english.purdue.edu

The copyright rules could get complicated, so here's what I do:
I post the source and differentiate it somehow...either by using italics (like I think YOU do) or some other way and then at the bottom
I write SOURCE: and I copy and paste the page. (URL address).

Also, it helps to know YOU didn't write the words.
It could get confusing. I'd like to reply to you, not RC Sproul !

If your decision is not NEUTRAL (not an effect of a cause) then your decision is not based on "libertanian free will" as defined by:
Libertarian Free Will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias. It determines its own volitions; so as not to be dependent, in its determinations, on any cause without itself, nor determined by anything prior to its own acts. Indifference and therefore amorality belongs to Liberty in their notion of it, or that the mind, previous to the act of volition, be in equilibrio (equilibrium in uncertainty).

To make choices spontaneously, that is that the choices we make are in no wise conditioned by or determined by any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. R.C. Sproul

Libertarian free will is basically the concept that, metaphysically and morally, man is an autonomous being, one who operates independently, not controlled by others or by outside forces. According to this view, a person who freely made a particular choice could have chosen differently, even if nothing about the past prior to the moment of choice had been different.” In the libertarian free will paradigm, the power of contrary choice reigns supreme. Without this ability to choose otherwise, libertarian free will proponents will claim that man cannot be held morally responsible for his actions.
The first thing to take into account regarding the biblical position of libertarian free will is what the Bible says about God. The Bible describes God as sovereign, and sovereignty designates control. But what exactly is the sphere of God’s sovereignty? Psalm 24:1 makes it plain: “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” What is the sphere of God’s sovereignty? Everything. God spoke the universe, and everything in it, into existence. As Creator, He has sovereignty over His creation. This is the image used in Romans 9 when Paul refers to the potter and his clay.
So we need to ask ourselves how does libertarian free will fit in with God’s sovereignty? Can a human being, a creature, be autonomous if God is sovereign? The obvious conclusion is that libertarian free will is incompatible with the sovereignty of God. Consider this passage from the book of Proverbs: “In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps” (Proverbs 16:9). This does not paint a picture of man as an autonomous being, but rather as man operating within the confines of a sovereign God. https://www.gotquestions.org/libertarian-free-will.html

Most events can be explained as the effects of prior events. When a tree falls, it does so because of the force of the wind, its own structural weakness, and so on. However, when a person performs a free act, agent causation theorists say that the action was not caused by any other events or states of affairs, but rather was caused by the agent. Agent causation is ontologically separate from event causation. The action was not uncaused, because the agent caused it. But the agent's causing it was not determined by the agent's character, desires, or past, since that would just be event causation.[25] As Chisholm explains it, humans have "a prerogative which some would attribute only to God: each of us, when we act, is a prime mover unmoved. In doing what we do, we cause certain events to happen, and nothing – or no one – causes us to cause those events to happen." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)
In other words, arminians don't believe in the Law of Cause and Effect in regards to salvific faith. Everything else in the universal obeys the Law of Cause and Effect with this one exception (I suppose). Philosophers posit the premise that only an eternal entity is NOT an effect (it did not have a cause). That accounts for God having Libertarians Free Will, but not Man. Exception: Mormons believe our souls are eternal and that would be consistent "free will" and the Law of Cause and Effect.

You can try to explain libertarian free will to me, but I'm not reformed in theology so I know what libertarian free will is.

Here's an easy explanation:

Libertarian free will​

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

source: https://www.theopedia.com/libertarian-free-will

(you could now go to that source, if you wished, and read for yourself)

I underlined the important facts:

1. Our choice is free from any coercion or predetermination by God.
2. Libertarian free will makes us responsible for our choice (since WE made it and it was not imposed on us by God).
3. We may be born again and have a spiritual nature --- but we could still choose to sin.
4. Since WE make the choice, it is just that God hold us personally responsible for it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Fastfredy0

P.S. If you care to speak about God's sovereignty, I'm good with that.
It seems the reformed faith can't seem to reconcile God's sovereignty with free will.

I'd be interested in seeing where or when God took away our free will in either the O.T. or the N.T.

How little does God have to be to be afraid to give us free will?
The reformed do NOT make God sound very sovereign.

 

[jasonc]

Fastfredy0

P.S. If you care to speak about God's sovereignty, I'm good with that.
It seems the reformed faith can't seem to reconcile God's sovereignty with free will.

I'd be interested in seeing where or when God took away our free will in either the O.T. or the N.T.

How little does God have to be to be afraid to give us free will?
The reformed do NOT make God sound very sovereign.

you assume Godcoerces us to repent on,their pov.
you,assume That you on your oen free will,without any influence from God that you,would repent ,

no,one I know without calamity ,or hearing a testimony of great magnitude and even then their heart is worked on by God first repents


if man,could truly be free to make moral decisions without bias or having No inclination or benefit from,a choices exists .

if trump or biden didn't offer ,and i voted libertarian ,anything of benefit to the voter they wouldn't get in.that's his entire argument !

the limited ,not no free will ,is that our choices are limited by our nature ,satanic influence or Gods influence ,I wasn't inclined to want to be saved ,its was contra to me will.God in his timing decided to save me by revealing himself to me .he allowed me to self destruct but. choose to at the right time reveal himself ,you made it sound like I sought him out or any who get saved .

for it is appointed for all men to die tgen judgement ,who planned the deaths of men,they the persons just decided they will die ,and how ?or God allowing it and knowing the exact time?

he does harden hearts ,but only,as he revealed his plan of repentance first .if God doesn't raise and cause kings to rise and fall whom does ?

Daniel 2:21

 

[TibiasDad]

Christian perfection - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

What did John Wesley mean by 'moving on to perfection?' | UMC.org

What did John Wesley mean by moving on to perfection. Ask The UMC is a service of United Methodist Communications.

www.umc.org

The Heresy of Perfectionism

An ancient heresy of the distinction between two types of Christians, carnal and Spirit-filled, is the heresy of perfectionism. Perfectionism teaches that there is a class of Christians who achieve moral perfection in this life.

www.ligonier.org

spurgeon on that Wesleyan view as I,pulled up .perfect love isn't possible either

Amphipolis

What does god say about: Amphipolis in the Bible

www.google.com

Jason ,

You need not post websites with information about what I believe, or about what Calvinists think about Wesley's teachings. What I want is for you to reference the specific quote or quotes by specific persons. But more importantly, I want you to tell me what you think I believe and why it is wrong in your eyes.

Have you ever read Wesley? Have you read anything other than someone else's viewpoint of Wesleyan thought? It is one thing to read for yourself and disagree, and quite another to just take someone else's perspective. You do yourself no favor to do just the latter.


Doug

 

[jasonc]

Jason ,

You need not post websites with information about what I believe, or about what Calvinists think about Wesley's teachings. What I want is for you to reference the specific quote or quotes by specific persons. But more importantly, I want you to tell me what you think I believe and why it is wrong in your eyes.

Have you ever read Wesley? Have you read anything other than someone else's viewpoint of Wesleyan thought? It is one thing to read for yourself and disagree, and quite another to just take someone else's perspective. You do yourself no favor to do just the latter.


Doug

ironic I posted and read both sides from experts and quotes from the umc,twice and only one from the reformed quoting Wesley ,two sources pro Wesley

so you being a life long wesleyan just read a book on,the reformed just read it without bias?

I .can if i choose jump,sides.

I came here pre trib,post mil .I am no longer that way but know that can have merit .

I have jumped on the sides of eternal security ,

the two I have heard this from aren't on the forum one is ordained and is a five pointer and was. a Methodist ,the other visits churches to see and find a home church and is a three pointer .I,will not waste their time ,the first one won't debate ,the other might but is more into ministry then this .

what is more important ,this or the plan by my pastor to build if possible a homeless shelater ministry ?