John Wesley's theology

[Canuckster1127]

I'm not attempting to shut down discussion. I'm simply giving an explanation for why I will not be continuing in these discussions. These are important issues to look at and wrestle with and I've certainly gone through seasons in my life where dealing with these issues have been important. Like B.W., they led me to read a great deal of source material, including Calvin's Institutes, many of Wesley's source materials, biographies on Calvin and Arminius, several systematic theologies and I've in the past been involved in debates in other forums, not so much here, where passions for "the truth" ruled the day. More recently, I've been reading Ante-Nicene Patristic fathers and attempting in places to identify how these issues were understood and what priority they had in the early church. Suffice it to say, it's just given further evidence to me that these issues have come into the church and represent elements of thinking that find their sources outside of Scripture. That true to varying degrees in varying areas of both "camps."

I can say with confidence that I've not received a great return on the investment of time and effort I've placed in this direction in the past. It's a never-ending argument which is based in a framework that brings in many external concepts. My general understanding of it now is that there are terms in the New Testament that are similar to terms that are used in Greek philosophy, but the definitions of those terms are not the same. When context is ignored and "pet" passages are camped upon and appealed to repeatedly without taking the whole counsel of God from other passages that become problematic then inevitably over time, such discussion devolve into a debate which takes on personal overtones and it becomes about "truth" and being right rather than reflecting the love of God one to another.

It leads to anger, argument and historically it has at times led to violence and death. It's evidence to me that "truth" without love when it's tied to the human desire to be "right" needs to return to I Cor 13.

Anyway, that's the reason for my comments and my actions. I've generally held to that position most of my 6 years here on this board. Lately I've been allowing myself to be drawn into it and it's reminding me why I stopped it in the past. I'll monitor the threads and moderate as I see needed, but I'm no longer interested in being a participant. I have opinions on the issues, but they simply aren't that important to me anymore.

[RickD]

First I read Wesley's sermon, "Free Grace", then I read Whitefield's letter to Wesley. I certainly don't see Wesley's sermon disagreeing with biblical predestination, at all. Wesley's sermon, to me, reads like a refutation, or disagreement with Calvinism's view of election and predestination. While I've only read 2 things that Wesley has written, so I'm not anything close to an expert on Wesley. I don't see anything in Wesley's "Free Grace", that leads me to believe it is anywhere close to a "despicable theology". Actually, Wesley's "Free Grace", to me, is much more in line with how I see the nature of God.
So, Wesley denies Calvinism's election and predestination. No shocking news there. As we can see from the responses in this thread, many of us here, also disagree with Calvinism in that regard.

[neo-x]

RickD » Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:48 pm

First I read Wesley's sermon, "Free Grace", then I read Whitefield's letter to Wesley. I certainly don't see Wesley's sermon disagreeing with biblical predestination, at all. Wesley's sermon, to me, reads like a refutation, or disagreement with Calvinism's view of election and predestination. While I've only read 2 things that Wesley has written, so I'm not anything close to an expert on Wesley. I don't see anything in Wesley's "Free Grace", that leads me to believe it is anywhere close to a "despicable theology". Actually, Wesley's "Free Grace", to me, is much more in line with how I see the nature of God.
So, Wesley denies Calvinism's election and predestination. No shocking news there. As we can see from the responses in this thread, many of us here, also disagree with Calvinism in that regard.

Yes, its not predestination, but Calvinist view of predestination which is what Wesley objects to. I read the excerpts posted and I can not find it aberrant at all. If you read other sources, you will find the same thing. God's grace is open to all, available to all and that is what Christ died for. I don't know if someone can convincingly string John 3:16 and Calvinist predestination in the same knot. It is impossible. Either Christ died for all or he didn't. There is no way around it. Either God loved the world or he didn't. What I have come to understand is that Wesley thinks that Election doesn't restrict the saving power of God. It surely doesn't mean that only the Elect will be saved. To me that is Wesley's point of objection.

[August]

RickD » Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:48 pm

First I read Wesley's sermon, "Free Grace", then I read Whitefield's letter to Wesley. I certainly don't see Wesley's sermon disagreeing with biblical predestination, at all. Wesley's sermon, to me, reads like a refutation, or disagreement with Calvinism's view of election and predestination. While I've only read 2 things that Wesley has written, so I'm not anything close to an expert on Wesley. I don't see anything in Wesley's "Free Grace", that leads me to believe it is anywhere close to a "despicable theology". Actually, Wesley's "Free Grace", to me, is much more in line with how I see the nature of God.
So, Wesley denies Calvinism's election and predestination. No shocking news there. As we can see from the responses in this thread, many of us here, also disagree with Calvinism in that regard.

Yes, its not predestination, but Calvinist view of predestination which is what Wesley objects to. I read the excerpts posted and I can not find it aberrant at all. If you read other sources, you will find the same thing. God's grace is open to all, available to all and that is what Christ died for. I don't know if someone can convincingly string John 3:16 and Calvinist predestination in the same knot. It is impossible. Either Christ died for all or he didn't. There is no way around it. Either God loved the world or he didn't. What I have come to understand is that Wesley thinks that Election doesn't restrict the saving power of God. It surely doesn't mean that only the Elect will be saved. To me that is Wesley's point of objection.

If Christ died for all, why are all not saved?

[neo-x]

August » Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:34 pm

neo-x wrote:
RickD » Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:48 pm

First I read Wesley's sermon, "Free Grace", then I read Whitefield's letter to Wesley. I certainly don't see Wesley's sermon disagreeing with biblical predestination, at all. Wesley's sermon, to me, reads like a refutation, or disagreement with Calvinism's view of election and predestination. While I've only read 2 things that Wesley has written, so I'm not anything close to an expert on Wesley. I don't see anything in Wesley's "Free Grace", that leads me to believe it is anywhere close to a "despicable theology". Actually, Wesley's "Free Grace", to me, is much more in line with how I see the nature of God.
So, Wesley denies Calvinism's election and predestination. No shocking news there. As we can see from the responses in this thread, many of us here, also disagree with Calvinism in that regard.


Yes, its not predestination, but Calvinist view of predestination which is what Wesley objects to. I read the excerpts posted and I can not find it aberrant at all. If you read other sources, you will find the same thing. God's grace is open to all, available to all and that is what Christ died for. I don't know if someone can convincingly string John 3:16 and Calvinist predestination in the same knot. It is impossible. Either Christ died for all or he didn't. There is no way around it. Either God loved the world or he didn't. What I have come to understand is that Wesley thinks that Election doesn't restrict the saving power of God. It surely doesn't mean that only the Elect will be saved. To me that is Wesley's point of objection.


If Christ died for all, why are all not saved?

John 3:16 says he loved the world and he gave his son for the world...anything you would like to negate?

But as for your question, it is because it is also up to them to decide whether they will choose God or not.
As I said earlier,I still have to see a convincing argument which satisfies John 3:16 with Calvinism. To me they are opposites, which you are, perhaps trying to prove, as well.

[PaulSacramento]

I really didn''t think this was such a big deal, I just wanted to get a grip on what Danny's views are and I have.
I don't agree with his interpretations but respect them nevertheless.
Agree to disagree my friend

[August]

John 3:16 says he loved the world and he gave his son for the world...anything you would like to negate?

But as for your question, it is because it is also up to them to decide whether they will choose God or not.
As I said earlier,I still have to see a convincing argument which satisfies John 3:16 with Calvinism. To me they are opposites, which you are, perhaps trying to prove, as well.

That is not what John 3:16 says, it says that those who believe are saved. So if God gave His Son for the world, and there are those in the world that don't believe, are they saved or not? Either the world here means "whoever believes in him", or every single person in the world shall be saved and not perish.

So then we get to the crux of it, the giving of the Son was not enough, it also requires someone to choose God. So now it is not Christ alone that saves, but Christ plus a person's consent. The God did not give His Son to the world so that some may not perish, He merely gave His Son to the world to make it possible that some, that God really hopes will choose Him for some unknown reason in and of themselves, can come to belief and then be saved. So God really send Christ hoping that some people will believe because they are really good people with something in their character or personality that makes them better than the guy next door who chooses not to believe.

John 3:16 says nothing about how people come to their belief, just that some believe.

How do you reconcile what you argue with John 3:19?

Joh 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.

Are people here all people in the world, or just some? If the world means the whole world in 3:16, it has to mean the same thing here, including the people, because the people is really what it is all about in the world, right? The Greek cannot be any clearer, there is no article, so it is clearly all people. So to hold to your understanding, we have to ignore 3:19 and 3:20, which tell us that all people loved the darkness more than the light, in fact, they hate the light and do not come to it. So you are saying those that hate Jesus, and will not come to the light, will choose Him anyway. How do you get that from 3:16? John 3:16 only makes sense in the context of the whole chapter.

[PaulSacramento]

The quesiont I was trying to get answered was that IF God had predestined that only some would be saved and only those are saved and those are the elect, then WHY did Jesus have to die?
God had ALREADY predestined them to be saved so their salavation was a "done deal".
Now it has been argued that God also predestined Christ to die for them and them only and that is why they are the elect but that does beg the question of: If they were already predestined before the creation WHY predestine Christ to Die for those God had already predestined to be saved?
Seems a bit circular, no?

[August]

The quesiont I was trying to get answered was that IF God had predestined that only some would be saved and only those are saved and those are the elect, then WHY did Jesus have to die?
God had ALREADY predestined them to be saved so their salavation was a "done deal".
Now it has been argued that God also predestined Christ to die for them and them only and that is why they are the elect but that does beg the question of: If they were already predestined before the creation WHY predestine Christ to Die for those God had already predestined to be saved?
Seems a bit circular, no?

Because that was the means that God had decreed for His people to be saved. Under the covenant of works people are judged for what they do, and when they trespass, there is punishment. In the OT the punishment was a substitionary sacrifice of perhaps an animal that took the place of the guilty, and was then punished on behalf of that guilty person. That was the way the law was set up, delivered and implemented throughout the OT. Christ came to be that substitionary punishment for all of God's people so that while we stand under the law and be judged guilty, trespasses have already been atoned for.

If you are saying that those are saved were not predestined to be saved, how could God's decree then save them? Was He gambling on the chance that some may take Him up on His offer, with the risk that no-one will do so, and Jesus would die in vain?

[PaulSacramento]

Because that was the means that God had decreed for His people to be saved. Under the covenant of works people are judged for what they do, and when they trespass, there is punishment. In the OT the punishment was a substitionary sacrifice of perhaps an animal that took the place of the guilty, and was then punished on behalf of that guilty person. That was the way the law was set up, delivered and implemented throughout the OT. Christ came to be that substitionary punishment for all of God's people so that while we stand under the law and be judged guilty, trespasses have already been atoned for.

If you are saying that those are saved were not predestined to be saved, how could God's decree then save them? Was He gambling on the chance that some may take Him up on His offer, with the risk that no-one will do so, and Jesus would die in vain?

If the elect and only the elect are predestined to be saved and only they will be saved, why did God bother with the OT Law ??
I ask again and I apologise if I am not understanding you but, if God has ALREADY predestined the elect and ONLY the elect are saved, why did Christ Have to die? and on top of that, why are we justified by faith if the elect are already predestined BEFORE faith even became an issue?

[RickD]

RickD » Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:48 pm

First I read Wesley's sermon, "Free Grace", then I read Whitefield's letter to Wesley. I certainly don't see Wesley's sermon disagreeing with biblical predestination, at all. Wesley's sermon, to me, reads like a refutation, or disagreement with Calvinism's view of election and predestination. While I've only read 2 things that Wesley has written, so I'm not anything close to an expert on Wesley. I don't see anything in Wesley's "Free Grace", that leads me to believe it is anywhere close to a "despicable theology". Actually, Wesley's "Free Grace", to me, is much more in line with how I see the nature of God.
So, Wesley denies Calvinism's election and predestination. No shocking news there. As we can see from the responses in this thread, many of us here, also disagree with Calvinism in that regard.

Yes, its not predestination, but Calvinist view of predestination which is what Wesley objects to. I read the excerpts posted and I can not find it aberrant at all. If you read other sources, you will find the same thing. God's grace is open to all, available to all and that is what Christ died for. I don't know if someone can convincingly string John 3:16 and Calvinist predestination in the same knot. It is impossible. Either Christ died for all or he didn't. There is no way around it. Either God loved the world or he didn't. What I have come to understand is that Wesley thinks that Election doesn't restrict the saving power of God. It surely doesn't mean that only the Elect will be saved. To me that is Wesley's point of objection.

If Christ died for all, why are all not saved?

August, All aren't saved, because some have not accepted the only means for salvation. The efficacious work of Christ. It's actually a pretty simple message. God loved people so much, that all one has to do, is believe on Christ, and then eternal life is guaranteed. I really don't understand why there is a problem with God enabling every person with the ability to choose or reject Christ. God wants a relationship, for eternity, with every person He created. He wants a relationship, built on love. If we don't have any part in the choice of loving Him, then it's not really love.

[August]

Because that was the means that God had decreed for His people to be saved. Under the covenant of works people are judged for what they do, and when they trespass, there is punishment. In the OT the punishment was a substitionary sacrifice of perhaps an animal that took the place of the guilty, and was then punished on behalf of that guilty person. That was the way the law was set up, delivered and implemented throughout the OT. Christ came to be that substitionary punishment for all of God's people so that while we stand under the law and be judged guilty, trespasses have already been atoned for.

If you are saying that those are saved were not predestined to be saved, how could God's decree then save them? Was He gambling on the chance that some may take Him up on His offer, with the risk that no-one will do so, and Jesus would die in vain?

If the elect and only the elect are predestined to be saved and only they will be saved, why did God bother with the OT Law ??
I ask again and I apologise if I am not understanding you but, if God has ALREADY predestined the elect and ONLY the elect are saved, why did Christ Have to die? and on top of that, why are we justified by faith if the elect are already predestined BEFORE faith even became an issue?

I'm sorry, but what part of my explanation did you not understand?

[PaulSacramento]

Because that was the means that God had decreed for His people to be saved. Under the covenant of works people are judged for what they do, and when they trespass, there is punishment. In the OT the punishment was a substitionary sacrifice of perhaps an animal that took the place of the guilty, and was then punished on behalf of that guilty person. That was the way the law was set up, delivered and implemented throughout the OT. Christ came to be that substitionary punishment for all of God's people so that while we stand under the law and be judged guilty, trespasses have already been atoned for.

If you are saying that those are saved were not predestined to be saved, how could God's decree then save them? Was He gambling on the chance that some may take Him up on His offer, with the risk that no-one will do so, and Jesus would die in vain?

If the elect and only the elect are predestined to be saved and only they will be saved, why did God bother with the OT Law ??
I ask again and I apologise if I am not understanding you but, if God has ALREADY predestined the elect and ONLY the elect are saved, why did Christ Have to die? and on top of that, why are we justified by faith if the elect are already predestined BEFORE faith even became an issue?

I'm sorry, but what part of my explanation did you not understand?

The part that didn't answer my questions:
If the elect and only the elect are predestined to be saved and only they will be saved, why did God bother with the OT Law ??
I ask again and I apologise if I am not understanding you but, if God has ALREADY predestined the elect and ONLY the elect are saved, why did Christ Have to die? and on top of that, why are we justified by faith if the elect are already predestined BEFORE faith even became an issue?

[August]

August, All aren't saved, because some have not accepted the only means for salvation. The efficacious work of Christ. It's actually a pretty simple message. God loved people so much, that all one has to do, is believe on Christ, and then eternal life is guaranteed. I really don't understand why there is a problem with God enabling every person with the ability to choose or reject Christ. God wants a relationship, for eternity, with every person He created. He wants a relationship, built on love. If we don't have any part in the choice of loving Him, then it's not really love.

Why do some believe and others don't, if everyone has the ability to believe? Is it intellectual assent? Is it emotional agreement? What exactly in a person makes him believe, and another person does not?

[PaulSacramento]

August, All aren't saved, because some have not accepted the only means for salvation. The efficacious work of Christ. It's actually a pretty simple message. God loved people so much, that all one has to do, is believe on Christ, and then eternal life is guaranteed. I really don't understand why there is a problem with God enabling every person with the ability to choose or reject Christ. God wants a relationship, for eternity, with every person He created. He wants a relationship, built on love. If we don't have any part in the choice of loving Him, then it's not really love.

Why do some believe and others don't, if everyone has the ability to believe? Is it intellectual assent? Is it emotional agreement? What exactly in a person makes him believe, and another person does not?

Choice is seldom easy.
There are many reasons why some believe and others don't, just as there are many reasons why some are of one denomination and some of another.
Free will to choose based on what we know and allow ourselves to know.