John Wesley's theology

[DannyM]

Apparently, you believe millions upon millions of sincere, born-again Christians were saved through evangelism efforts that believed that ALL men COULD be saved if they would only obey God's initiating and have faith in what He has provided them (Himself, Jesus, the Gospel).

How do you know what millions upon millions of Christians believed?

And that these vast millions and the many martyrs and missionaries that believed God offer of salvation is to ALL receptive were just DELUDED?

How do you know they were deluded? How do you know what these vast millions of Christians, and the many martyrs and missionaries believed?

So many were faithful to death, but yet God let them believe a corrupted Gospel?

Where are you pulling this stuff from?

Oh, and He regenerated to belief all these vast millions/billions (over time) to salvation, but failed to make them understand that He had doomed much of the world, before any sins or even being born, to damnation, unspeakable miseries here, horrific, eternal punishment later.

Yet again… Are you claiming to have knowledge of what all these vast millions (or is it billions now?) believed?

God “doomed” those He passed over in light of the fall. You seem to be forgetting this. God's decree of reprobation is a decree to justice, and is not unjust at all. That He chooses to save some in no way necessities that He must then save all.

He saved them, but didn't make them understand the Five Points? Really? And amongst these vast millions of saved, not only don't they understand the supposed truths of Calvinism, but are tremendously grieved and repulsed by it. What, did God just forget to explain these supposed great "points" of theology? Come on!

This is now all over the place. What’s this obsession with the Five Points? And how do you know the vast millions did not understand the doctrine of God’s sovereign grace? What ‘knowledge’ are you claiming to be privy to here?

[B. W.]

Howdy there Puritan Lad

Welcome to the forum again!

Myself, I was staying off this thread but then saw you on it - so thought I'd say hello and see how you've been?
-
-
-

[puritan lad]

Does God only call SOME to repentance – or ALL? Does Scripture say he desires even SOME men to perish – or NOT ANY? Does God expect those He continuously warns to repent to do so, OR NOT? Does God command things one cannot do? Does God desire that SOME men remain in rebellion to Him – does He DESIRE their continuing sin? Man’s continuing sin brings horrific devastation to both Christians and non-believers – does God desire this? Pre-fall, WHO made Adam sin or Lucifer in Heaven rebel? IF God had designed some me so as to not be able to repent - that He never desired such men to come into relationship with Him or to abandon their rebelliousness - THEN WHY IS HE ANGRY AT THEM? WHY DOES HE REPEATEDLY WARN THEM TO DO WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY HAS NOT CREATED THEM ABLE TO DO? This makes no sense whatsoever!

Phillip,

I wonder if you know enough about Calvinism to argue against it. No Calvinist would suggest that God calls only SOME men to repentance. He calls all. I suggest that you study the difference between the general call and the effectual call. God calls all men (even Pharoah) to repent, but only enables those who he chose to do so. God is under no obligation to save anyone, and if he only chooses to save some, that is his perogative.

Let me ask you, was the crucifixion of Christ predestined, or did God simply react to man's sins and resort to plan B? Could those who did this chosen to do otherwise?

The Ultimate Sports Team

If you were planning the ultimate sports team (and, like God, knew the future motivations and hearts of potential recruits), and you had a PREDETERMINED criteria for all those whom you desired to be on this (future) team? Would you not recruit ONLY those whom would be willing to submit to your leadership, whom would best respond and obey your superior coaching and directives, whom would express regret and do their best to turn from and learn from their mistakes, who would remain forever loyal to you and practice their hardest? If you had the ability to FOREKNOW HOW EACH POTENTIAL RECRUIT WOULD RESPOND, would you not recruit those you foreknew would be willing to adhere to your predetermined criteria? Would you even bother to recruit or prepare for those who you foreknew would NEVER submit, reform, remain loyal, practice, obey, etc? Absolutely NOT, what would be the point? You would ONLY recruit those you foreknew would respond to your fore-ordained, predetermined criteria. And as you know that NO recruit can achieve what your future goals for them are without 1) YOU making their future success possible to begin with or 2) without THE RECRUITS’ WILLINGNESS TO SUBMIT TO YOUR LEADERSHIP, making it possible for you to then lead and mold them into what you want them to be? You see, this analogy is much like how God calls those He foreknew!

Ouch!!! Where does this "potential to respond" come from? God, or man's virtue? What potential do dry bones or lumps of clay have (that's the analogy that the Bible uses)? Can you find any scriptural support for the idea that God predestines based on a "foreknowledge" of people's potential? God's "foreknowledge" in Scripture is equated with his Divine Favor. It always refers to people, never to their actions. (In fact, God "foreknows" the actions of the wicked as well, yet does not predestine them to salvation).

You see, there is NO contradiction between God’s sovereignty and our free will, He chooses those who will FREELY, yet undeservingly, accept His totally unearned gift of salvation. YES, God IS sovereign, but in His sovereignty He has given us a totally unmerited choice to accept or reject, which is born of His mercy, love and grace. And WITHOUT our free will, our sins would ultimately be due to how God has created us to be, that GOD would be the ultimate cause of those who remain in rebellion and sin.

This is, by definition, not predestination. This is radification, a divine "stamp of approval". "Contingent Predestination" is an oxymoron. It can no more exist than "cold heat" or "dry moisture". He chose us TO BE holy and blameless, not because he "foreknew" that we had to potential to be holy and blameless.

You are correct in saying that "there is NO contradiction between God’s sovereignty and our free will". However, when we speak of free will, you and I are talking apples and oranges. Man's will is free only in the sense that he chooses what he wants to choose. He is not free to change his own nature, nor is his will free from that nature. He is, as the Bible says, a slave to sin.

[puritan lad]

Howdy there Puritan Lad

Welcome to the forum again!

Myself, I was staying off this thread but then saw you on it - so thought I'd say hello and see how you've been?
-
-
-

Hello B.W.

Been a trying year but I'm getting through it. Glad to be active online again.

[B. W.]

Apparently, you believe millions upon millions of sincere, born-again Christians were saved through evangelism efforts that believed that ALL men COULD be saved if they would only obey God's initiating and have faith in what He has provided them (Himself, Jesus, the Gospel).

How do you know what millions upon millions of Christians believed?

And that these vast millions and the many martyrs and missionaries that believed God offer of salvation is to ALL receptive were just DELUDED?

How do you know they were deluded? How do you know what these vast millions of Christians, and the many martyrs and missionaries believed?

So many were faithful to death, but yet God let them believe a corrupted Gospel?

Where are you pulling this stuff from?

Oh, and He regenerated to belief all these vast millions/billions (over time) to salvation, but failed to make them understand that He had doomed much of the world, before any sins or even being born, to damnation, unspeakable miseries here, horrific, eternal punishment later.

Yet again… Are you claiming to have knowledge of what all these vast millions (or is it billions now?) believed?

God “doomed” those He passed over in light of the fall. You seem to be forgetting this. God's decree of reprobation is a decree to justice, and is not unjust at all. That He chooses to save some in no way necessities that He must then save all.

He saved them, but didn't make them understand the Five Points? Really? And amongst these vast millions of saved, not only don't they understand the supposed truths of Calvinism, but are tremendously grieved and repulsed by it. What, did God just forget to explain these supposed great "points" of theology? Come on!

This is now all over the place. What’s this obsession with the Five Points? And how do you know the vast millions did not understand the doctrine of God’s sovereign grace? What ‘knowledge’ are you claiming to be privy to here?

Hold on Danny, change the phrasing a bit and it mirrors back. For example,

Rev 7:9, "After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
Rev 7:10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"NKJV

...does imply millions... no one can number is a large number...

Again I am avoiding this thread but only wanted to welcome PL back and then read this post... and had to reply...
-
-
-

[B. W.]

Hello B.W.

Been a trying year but I'm getting through it. Glad to be active online again.

Yes nice to hear from you again. I think its been trying for many and may even get a bit more trying with the poor economy and the new political season coming...

Be Blest!
-
-
-

[DannyM]

Hold on Danny, change the phrasing a bit and it mirrors back. For example,

Rev 7:9, "After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
Rev 7:10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"NKJV

...does imply millions... no one can number is a large number...

That's fine, bro. But I want to know how Philip knows exactly what these millions and millions of Christians believed.

[zoegirl]

hiya PL!

welcome back

[Philip]

Danny wants to know how I know what the vast millions of Christians have believed? Well, Danny, we know what churches and traditions most Christians around the world have come out of. We know how few, compared to the vast majority of churches, worldwide, are preaching or have historically preached Reformed or Five Point theology. You do the math! First 1,500 years of the church - where do you see Five Point theology taught? Nowhere!

Puritan lad - I used the words "potential recruits," only as a reference to the number of all the possible recruits the coach had to choose from (or rather, all of the ones God had to choose from - to save - just as in my coach analogy) - was not speaking of their potential FAITH. There is no potential knowledge of God, all things are certain - He knows ALL, and has ALWAYS known ALL!

[neo-x]

He calls all. I suggest that you study the difference between the general call and the effectual call. God calls all men (even Pharoah) to repent, but only enables those who he chose to do so. God is under no obligation to save anyone, and if he only chooses to save some, that is his perogative.

Thats a severe contradiction PL. If he calls all he wants to save all and hence would enable all, as by your definition man can not decide to believe by himself. If he only enables a few ppl why would he call all and then only enable a few? its self contradicting in purpose. If not anything else, by this statement God is not fair and even a hypocrite, as he gives false hope to all but true hope to only some.

[B. W.]

He calls all. I suggest that you study the difference between the general call and the effectual call. God calls all men (even Pharoah) to repent, but only enables those who he chose to do so. God is under no obligation to save anyone, and if he only chooses to save some, that is his prerogative.

That’s a severe contradiction PL. If he calls all he wants to save all and hence would enable all, as by your definition man cannot decide to believe by himself. If he only enables a few ppl why would he call all and then only enable a few? its self contradicting in purpose unless. If not anything else, by this statement God is not fair and even a hypocrite, as he gives false hope to all but true hope to only some.

I think, after reading the post that we need to define terms here so we’ll understand each other and not presuppose we know.

So how do you define the following Four for starters:

1-Choice / choose

2-Free Will

3-Call

4-Depravity

For me, this how I define these four:

1-Choice / choose – ability to intelligently reason in order to decide between options.

2-Free Will – Free Moral Agency/ Moral Action

3-Call – to initiate dialog, or initiate a response, or notify

4-Depravity - moral twisting done in order to get away/ justify corruption, decadence, dissoluteness, wantonness, wickedness, vice, etc & etc…

How do you all define these terms, just definitions now because we need to understand what we mean by these simplest of terms so this discussion does not go astray. We can even try to blend our definitions so we can understand what we are talking about.

Why do we need to do this? Well, because for example, Free Will might mean one thing to one person and a totally different thing to another person. The answer we write each may not be what the thinks they mean. This causes frustration and temper to flare. By defining some basic terms, those who choose to write on this thread at lest can try start on same page of understanding

So how do you all define these 4 terms?
-
-
-

[neo-x]

I think, after reading the post that we need to define terms here so we’ll understand each other and not presuppose we know.

So how do you define the following Four for starters:

1-Choice / choose

2-Free Will

3-Call

4-Depravity

For me, this how I define these four:

1-Choice / choose – ability to intelligently reason in order to decide between options.

2-Free Will – Free Moral Agency/ Moral Action

3-Call – to initiate dialog, or initiate a response, or notify

4-Depravity - moral twisting done in order to get away/ justify corruption, decadence, dissoluteness, wantonness, wickedness, vice, etc & etc…

How do you all define these terms, just definitions now because we need to understand what we mean by these simplest of terms so this discussion does not go astray. We can even try to blend our definitions so we can understand what we are talking about.

Why do we need to do this? Well, because for example, Free Will might mean one thing to one person and a totally different thing to another person. The answer we write each may not be what the thinks they mean. This causes frustration and temper to flare. By defining some basic terms, those who choose to write on this thread at lest can try start on same page of understanding

So how do you all define these 4 terms?

Hi, B.W, I'm gonna add 2 more and make some concise points to make my point clear.

1- Choice / choose – ability to intelligently reason in order to decide between options....which also includes whether to follow God's call or reject it or else ITS NOT A CHOICE. For a choice to be a choice, it has to be a choice.

2. Free Will – having the ability to choose or decide without being forced into it. By forced I mean anything that does not depend upon you to react to a choice rather makes that choice for you regardless of your opinion or reason of it.

3. Call – to initiate dialog, or initiate a response, or notify ...agreed...however an effectual call does not mean it is backed up by efficacious grace, irresistible to reject since it clashes with choice and free will. No, Man can not come to God on his own merit, it is based on God's enabling him first. In Christ through the cross all men are enabled to come to God, salvation is open to all if they choose to accept God's grace.

4. Depravity - moral twisting done in order to get away/ justify corruption, decadence, dissoluteness, wantonness, wickedness, vice, etc & etc…yes but it does not make us unable to choose or unable to think rationally any more. Depravity does not make us unable to respond to God; with God initiating the call process, in Christ's death on the cross, he enabled us and now all we have to do is to choose to accept it.

5. Free will - does not mean that Man come to God with his works and demands, rather man is saved by grace through Jesus Christ. However the free will (although limited in aspects) that man has, given by God, allows him to come to God with his own understanding and acceptance of God's call (which has been done by Christ's work on the cross. The call is for all), which may also be rejected by of his own will.

6. Predestination - God set a certain thing or event in time which is concrete and can not be changed, since God pre-destined it, else it not predestination.

[neo-x]

John 10 is a very simple chapter outlining these doctrines for the unsophisticated ("I know my sheep"; "my sheep hear my voice, they follow me"; "I give them eternal life so that they will never perish, neither can anyone snatch them out of my hand"; "You do not believe, because you are not my sheep"; etc.)

yes and perhaps you would not like to proof text and cherry pick here. Israel is a unique example of what you are saying and the only one for whom you can actually show biblical support for, in terms of saving garce, and this is to be understood in context of Romans 11.

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved.

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.

11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

They are not his sheep because of their unbelief and if they did not persist in their choice, they would be branched back. But this is specifically for Israel and they will be saved. So those who were once called not his sheep will one day be called sons of God, as Paul explains. John 10 is seriously not that simple as it appears, PL. Jesus reference to Israel "not being his sheep" makes sense in the light of the above verses.

[neo-x]

Ezekiel 18:23 is simply the universal call of the gospel, showing that God is always inclined to accept the repentance of anyone. No calvinist would deny this. But this does not refute the doctrine of election in His most wise and determinate counsel.

I am not undermining election, neither did Wesley; only when the supposition is introduced that only the elect are saved and enabled, is when I have an objection.

[neo-x]

Belief is a choice? You are going to have to show that to be true. How does one "choose" to believe? Which voluntary muscle will I exercise in order to do this? Where does John 3:16 mention a choice? How does one change his heart to believe that which he currently doesn't believe? Why does the Bible tell us that faith is a gift of God? Why does Ezekiel tell us that God will put His Spirit in us and cause us to obey? Where is the "free will" in these passages? How would the common man understand them?

How does one choose to BELIEVE?
By responding to a message of hope, which is Christ. And anyone can do it. Ever fell of a tree or fell in a river without knowing how to swim. In that moment you know and would love a helping hand to come and rescue you. That is hope. No rocket science is needed to evaluate that hand in that moment. The same happens to a man who is enabled by God. Yet he does not choose to accept this offer, and yes there are rebellious people out there who wouldn't, then it is their choice.

John 3:16 mentions "whosoever" believes...that is enough to get the meaning. You will have to show why it says "the world"; if saving the elect is on the agenda it should have been "For God so loved the elect...". I have already said that through Christ, God has enabled all to come to him.