John Wesley's theology

General discussions about Christianity including salvation, heaven and hell, Christian history and so on.
User avatar
1over137
Technical Admin
Posts: 5329
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:05 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by 1over137 »

neo-x wrote: only when the supposition is introduced that only the elect are saved and enabled, is when I have an objection.
Matthew 1:21. “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.... This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” (Jn. 6:37, 39).

John 10:11, 14-16, 26-29. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.... I am the good shepherd, and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.... But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.”

Jesus saves His people. Jesus does not lay down His life for the goats, for those who on the day of judgment are cast into the lake of fire, but only for the sheep.
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6

#foreverinmyheart
DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by DannyM »

Philip wrote: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!
1. What have the churches and traditions of the world come out of?

2. Talking of mathematics, you do know that Reformed Protestantism has been on the scene for 500 years?

3. You’re not going to see “Five Point Theology” taught in many places prior to John Calvin, Philip. But let’s word things in a more realistic manner. Are you saying that the doctrines of sovereign grace were never taught, never preached, never heard of prior to Calvinism?
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by neo-x »

Jesus saves His people. Jesus does not lay down His life for the goats, for those who on the day of judgment are cast into the lake of fire, but only for the sheep.
Jesus laid down his life for all. what about

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

When someone believes, God saves them. It is really that simple, Hana.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by DannyM »

The doctrines of Calvinism are not new.

The Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD)

http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/ccorange.html

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:126); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.

CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works.

CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have we given thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).

CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, "Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us" (Ps. 79:8), and again, "My God in his steadfast love will meet me" (Ps. 59:10).

CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had come "to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia
DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by DannyM »

1 John 2:1-2
But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Brother Neo, "propitiation" is not merely a potential substitution; it is an actual substitution. If Christ was an actual propitiation for the sins of all men everywhere, then God's anger towards every sinner is totally appeased, and everyone is saved. Hence this verse, again, does not mean the whole world head for head, and means, "...and not for ours only but also for the sins of men of all nations (or kinds)." Christ's propitiation does not extend to unbelievers, but rather to other believers (or Gentile believers ).
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia
User avatar
1over137
Technical Admin
Posts: 5329
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:05 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Slovakia
Contact:

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by 1over137 »

neo-x wrote: what about

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

When someone believes, God saves them. It is really that simple, Hana.
But what about 1 John 2:2, “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for the whole world“? The apostle John was a Jew writing to Jewish believers.94 John is saying that Christ is the propitiation not only for the sins of the Jews, but also for the whole world—the Gentiles also. This interpretation is preferable for a number of reasons. First, note the striking similarity between this passage and John 11:51, 52, “Jesus would die for the nation [Israel], and not for that nation [Israel] only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad [i.e., the elect in every nation—the world].” Caiaphas, under divine inspiration, contrasts Israel and the world. It was common for Jews in ancient rabbinic literature to use the terms “world” and “Gentiles” as synonymous.“ (Brian Schwertley)
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6

#foreverinmyheart
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by neo-x »

1over137 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:00 pm

neo-x wrote:
only when the supposition is introduced that only the elect are saved and enabled, is when I have an objection.


Matthew 1:21. “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.... This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” (Jn. 6:37, 39).

John 10:11, 14-16, 26-29. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.... I am the good shepherd, and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.... But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.”

Jesus saves His people. Jesus does not lay down His life for the goats, for those who on the day of judgment are cast into the lake of fire, but only for the sheep.
Besides from 1 John 2:2. We are told in Acts 16:30-31 the Philippian jailer asked how to be saved and Paul explained that he should believe. Goat to sheep.

If God sends a man to hell, even though he is a sinner - is because GOD withholds His grace from the man, it means the man had no opportunity to be saved. Thus even if the man is a sinner as all men are, God is a party to the man's unbelief and it is God ultimately who unjustly sends a man to hell by refusing to offer the man His mercy and pardon.

John 3:17
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 1:29
The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”
I don't see how one can bypass this.

How about John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


The way you have applied the sheep and goat logic, I can quote Galatians 4:4-5
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons
Who was under the law, you?, me? Calvinists? Catholics? Protestants? NO!
The Jews were under the law. This way I can interpret it that Jesus only came to redeem the Jews and no one else. See the error? :ewink:
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
DannyM
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: A little corner of England

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by DannyM »

neo-x wrote:If God sends a man to hell, even though he is a sinner - is because GOD withholds His grace from the man, it means the man had no opportunity to be saved. Thus even if the man is a sinner as all men are, God is a party to the man's unbelief and it is God ultimately who unjustly sends a man to hell by refusing to offer the man His mercy and pardon.
Then you need to show how God is unjust. People are just throwing "unjust" out like there's no tomorrow, yet are completely failing to take into account that it is man in his sinful state who is God's mortal enemy. God granted you salvation, and yet you want to stand before Him and call Him unjust for saving you when he could've just damned you along with the others? Even before I was a Calvinist I knew that this was no argument at all.
neo-x wrote:The way you have applied the sheep and goat logic, I can quote Galatians 4:4-5
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons
Who was under the law, you?, me? Calvinists? Catholics? Protestants? NO!
The Jews were under the law. This way I can interpret it that Jesus only came to redeem the Jews and no one else. See the error? :ewink:
That's question begging, bro. To interpret it that way you're adding to the text.
credo ut intelligam

dei gratia
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by neo-x »

1over137 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:31 pm

neo-x wrote:
what about

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

When someone believes, God saves them. It is really that simple, Hana.

But what about 1 John 2:2, “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for the whole world“? The apostle John was a Jew writing to Jewish believers.94 John is saying that Christ is the propitiation not only for the sins of the Jews, but also for the whole world—the Gentiles also. This interpretation is preferable for a number of reasons. First, note the striking similarity between this passage and John 11:51, 52, “Jesus would die for the nation [Israel], and not for that nation [Israel] only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad [i.e., the elect in every nation—the world].” Caiaphas, under divine inspiration, contrasts Israel and the world. It was common for Jews in ancient rabbinic literature to use the terms “world” and “Gentiles” as synonymous.“ (Brian Schwertley)
Hana, this is a forced interpretation set in terms of the TULIP, it has to to redefine the terms to validate itself. The word "world" simply means "the world", not the elect scattered in different nations. In fact in the scriptures there is always a distinction made in the world and in believers. While I agree that Jesus died for all as 1 John 2:2 says, however I do not agree that this means that by the word "world" he means the elect in the world who will EXCLUSIVELY be saved.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by neo-x »

DannyM on Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:07 pm

1 John 2:1-2
But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.


Brother Neo, "propitiation" is not merely a potential substitution; it is an actual substitution. If Christ was an actual propitiation for the sins of all men everywhere, then God's anger towards every sinner is totally appeased, and everyone is saved. Hence this verse, again, does not mean the whole world head for head, and means, "...and not for ours only but also for the sins of men of all nations (or kinds)." Christ's propitiation does not extend to unbelievers, but rather to other believers (or Gentile believers ).
Brother Danny, always a delight to speak with you. :esmile:
If Christ was an actual propitiation for the sins of all men everywhere, then God's anger towards every sinner is totally appeased, and everyone is saved.
These are two steps, not one. Christ lifts the sins of the whole world, but that doesn't save them. That only settles the score from Sin, they have to accept this too and believe in God as well. In order for any person to experience the benefits of salvation that Christ purchased for him on the cross, he must repent and believe. Christ’s atonement becomes effectual for people only when they meet His conditions.

When I preach to non-Christians, I tell them that Christ died for them. You only have to come and receive this gift of salvation. If Christ did not die for them, what's the point of evangelism at all, brother.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by neo-x »

neo-x wrote:
The way you have applied the sheep and goat logic, I can quote Galatians 4:4-5
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons
Who was under the law, you?, me? Calvinists? Catholics? Protestants? NO!
The Jews were under the law. This way I can interpret it that Jesus only came to redeem the Jews and no one else. See the error?


That's question begging, bro. To interpret it that way you're adding to the text.
Exactly my point, brother Danny. I said this to illustrate the verses from John 10 which Hana quoted. John 10 never says, that Jesus died ONLY for the sheep. One can not just pick one verse out and build a case on it. This is no silver bullet, it has to go in line with the rest of the scripture which seem to deny the Calvinistic interpretation.

@Hana
If God said to you that he laid down his life for you, does that mean he died for YOU AND YOU ALONE. Wouldn't it be a stretch to think it so? He is saying that he died for you. He can die for someone else too. Hope you see the point. So when Jesus say I lay down my life for my sheep. This doesn't mean he is dying for the sheep only. I listed various verses that obviously point to the contrary.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by August »

neo-x wrote:
1over137 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:31 pm

neo-x wrote:
what about

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

When someone believes, God saves them. It is really that simple, Hana.

But what about 1 John 2:2, “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for the whole world“? The apostle John was a Jew writing to Jewish believers.94 John is saying that Christ is the propitiation not only for the sins of the Jews, but also for the whole world—the Gentiles also. This interpretation is preferable for a number of reasons. First, note the striking similarity between this passage and John 11:51, 52, “Jesus would die for the nation [Israel], and not for that nation [Israel] only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad [i.e., the elect in every nation—the world].” Caiaphas, under divine inspiration, contrasts Israel and the world. It was common for Jews in ancient rabbinic literature to use the terms “world” and “Gentiles” as synonymous.“ (Brian Schwertley)
Hana, this is a forced interpretation set in terms of the TULIP, it has to to redefine the terms to validate itself. The word "world" simply means "the world", not the elect scattered in different nations. In fact in the scriptures there is always a distinction made in the world and in believers. While I agree that Jesus died for all as 1 John 2:2 says, however I do not agree that this means that by the word "world" he means the elect in the world who will EXCLUSIVELY be saved.
Why don't you show that, instead of just asserting?

You are promoting universalism here, unless you wish to argue that the propitiation of Jesus was ineffective and insufficient. This verse says nothing about belief, like you said earlier, you just want to slip that in there. It says nothing about an offer, it says nothing about having to believe before that propitiation is made effective or valid. It says that Jesus is the propitiation of our sins. Nothing more, nothing less. You are saying that more than the elect will be saved. How is that even possible?

So you have options:
1. You have to add to what is written here, and say that the atonement is not enough, and that for the atonement to be worth anything, it requires the consent of sinners. But why do sinners then not just consent to stop sinning, and the atonement is not necessary?
2. You can argue that if the atonement is enough, then all of the world, all men, everywhere, had their sins atoned for and are therefore saved. Your statement about the elect not being exclusively saved leads me to believe that this is what you want to propose, or your logic is inconsistent.

No-one, including Calvinists, deny that one has to believe in order to be saved. No-one denies that the gospel should be shared with everyone, all across the world, since we simply do not know who will be saved and who won't. We all agree that God has decreed that evangelism and the preaching the gospel to all is the way in which He will reach and save people. We also agree that people make free choices to reject or accept the graceful gift of redemption.

But to say that Jesus died for all the sins of all people is something that we disagree on. If He did, then there would be no-one in hell, since His atonement is the full payment for our sins. It is what appeases God, and it is what carries our punishment. We can add nothing to that, and in fact, that you see necessary to do so is concerning.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."

//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
User avatar
puritan lad
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
Contact:

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by puritan lad »

zoegirl wrote:hiya PL!

welcome back
Thanks...
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN

//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
User avatar
puritan lad
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
Contact:

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by puritan lad »

Philip wrote: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!
Phillip,

The "five-points" are biblical, and have been taught throughout church history. They may not have been labeled as "five-points" or "Calvinism", but they are the doctrines of sovereign grace and are as old as Scripture itself.
Philip wrote: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!
Not sure what you are getting at here. Thia is the statement you wrote earlier:
Philip wrote:If you had the ability to FOREKNOW HOW EACH POTENTIAL RECRUIT WOULD RESPOND
Please explain how this plays into the doctrine of election.
Last edited by puritan lad on Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN

//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
User avatar
puritan lad
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
Contact:

Re: John Wesley's theology

Post by puritan lad »

neo-x wrote:
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.
Where is the contradiction? Are the Scriptures contradictory? God calls all men everywhere to repent. That is what Scripture teaches. Yet without Him, we can do nothing, including repent. Does not Scripture teach that as well? It is not of him who wills or he who runs, but of God who shows mercy. He has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills he hardens. God sent Moses to Pharoah, and then hardened his heart so that he would not obey. I don't see the contradiction.

In order to show a contradiction, you have to show two opposite statements both claiming to be true (P=~P). This you have not done. As for election making God unfair, you are assuming that God owes us something. (Fairness, by definition, means that we get what we deserve). Thank God that he isn't only fair and just, but also merciful. Paul had a non-egnimatic response to the issue of God's fairness. See Romans 9:14-15 and Romans 9:19-23.
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN

//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/
Post Reply