John Wesley's theology

[puritan lad]

B.W.,

Where are the contradictions? Where are the two opposing premises that claim to be true? For example:

You will have to show that the tax collector prayed his prayer apart from receiving the grace to do so. If you can establish this, than you have a contradiction with Canon 3. But until you do so, there is no contradiction. Same with God's absolute sovereignty and man's will. You will first have to explain what man's will is free from (it clearly isn't his sinful nature), and then you have to show a real contradiction (P=~P). It is not enough to say that there is a contradiction. You have to show the contradiction.

Was God partial in choosing Israel in the OT? How about choosing Jacob over Esau? We don't know the basis by which God chooses (other than so the purpose of God according to election might stand), but the fact that He chooses is undeniable in Scripture.

As for the last statement regarding salvation by the beliefs in Calvinism, I have answered that one at least 3 times. Here is the ordo salutis of Calvinism (and the Bible).

Election/Predestination (unconditional)
Regeneration
Faith
Justification
Sanctification
Glorification

I don't see any mention of belief in the 5 points.

[neo-x]

Why don't you show that, instead of just asserting?

The scriptures are clear, I'm not saying or asserting that, John the apostle is.

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?

Look how you are slipping in your context to use the verse "our sins", not just your sins, it says the sins of all the world. Kindly explain this verse to me August, as a matter of fact explain how these verses which clearly use the word "world", use it as such, why not use "elect". This is redefining the terms to suit your definition of Calvinism. And since it does use the word "world", then obviously it would mean the world, unless you bring your interpretation and replace "world" with elect. How can Jesus not save anyone. is it impossible for God to save someone, how naive. Jesus said, what is impossible with man is possible with God. So please, Don't limit God by placing boundaries on salvation. You can't prove it from scriptures and you would have to bring TULIP to argue this. There is no way around it unless you redefine the plain words. So please prove how the world is not the world and perhaps then we can proceed, brother.

[puritan lad]

neo-x,

I must first point out that 1 John 2:2 gives no place for Arminianism. Christ is either the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (without exception), or he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (without distinction). The former would result in Universalism, whereas the latter (the correct interpretation) is Calvinism. The Arminian version would have to limit the actual propitiation to a possible propitiation, contingent upon our accepting it. This simply does not appear in the passage.

John, in his gospel, was a little clearer in his belief concerning the atonement.

“He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” (John 11:51-52)

It is quite clear that John did not hold that Christ died for every single individual, but for “ours” (the nation – Israel), and not only for “ours” (this nation only), but for the “whole world”, (the children of God who are scattered abroad.) 1 John 2:2, when taken in context, is no threat to the Biblical doctrine of Particular Redemption, but instead is a powerful passage supporting Unconditional Election. Christ's death on the cross has secured eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12), and His work saves all that He intended to save.

[August]

Why don't you show that, instead of just asserting?

The scriptures are clear, I'm not saying or asserting that, John the apostle is.

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?

Look how you are slipping in your context to use the verse "our sins", not just your sins, it says the sins of all the world. Kindly explain this verse to me August, as a matter of fact explain how these verses which clearly use the word "world", use it as such, why not use "elect". This is redefining the terms to suit your definition of Calvinism. And since it does use the word "world", then obviously it would mean the world, unless you bring your interpretation and replace "world" with elect. How can Jesus not save anyone. is it impossible for God to save someone, how naive. Jesus said, what is impossible with man is possible with God. So please, Don't limit God by placing boundaries on salvation. You can't prove it from scriptures and you would have to bring TULIP to argue this. There is no way around it unless you redefine the plain words. So please prove how the world is not the world and perhaps then we can proceed, brother.

Neo, you did not answer, are you a universalist or not? Is everyone on earth saved?

[neo-x]

puritan lad on Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:39 pm

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.

The contradiction exists, regardless of the fact that can't see it. If God calls all, a general call, then that call is fake, since anyone who responds to that call is not saved. God only saves who he calls effectually. My question is simple, why does God do a general calling, unless he wants to play the mean kid on the ant hill, I don't see how he would do this.

Romans 9:14-15 says this
" I'll have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I'll have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy... So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.

Yeah, sure and we can take this single verse and throw everything out, right. You'd have to do better than that. See the highlighted part
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God." (Rom. 2:9,10)

And perhaps you skipped the parts where God has mercy on the world, the entire world, little verses like John 3:16 or John 1-17 or many many more, mercy and grace through Jesus Christ. Also God hardened Pharaoh's heart in the period of the law. In grace his will is that "all" men be saved. So It actually never applies in the context other then Israel and Gentiles or the old law, even if you take Esau or Pharaoh or whoever, it is irrelevant. In Jesus Christ all men can be saved. Romans 9:15 simply means that election is by God's will, not by man's effort or work. Where you are assuming, is, that this means God chose some to be saved and some he didn't. But in order for this to hold weight, it has to be consistent with the rest of it. And there are plenty of verses that says God wants to save the whole world, that he wants all men to repent. So if it is God's will that all men be saved, that all are given the chance.

Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Simple as that.

[neo-x]

It is quite clear that John did not hold that Christ died for every single individual, but for “ours” (the nation – Israel), and not only for “ours” (this nation only), but for the “whole world”, (the children of God who are scattered abroad.)

PL, I'm afraid, no. It doesn't make sense. the whole world is not few people scattered abroad. Doesn't connect. In any form, if you were to write to your fellow country men, would you refer to your country's people who are abroad as "the whole world"? Doesn't make an iota of sense. Also why would John's readers assume a distinction between them and their brothers abroad. By "our" would mean Christians everywhere. you don't have to add and the whole world, it is pointless.

[neo-x]

Neo, you did not answer, are you a universalist or not? Is everyone on earth saved?

I believe that anyone can be saved if they believe in Christ and follow him.

[puritan lad]

The contradiction exists, regardless of the fact that can't see it.

Sorry neo-x, that doesn't cut it. Do you know what a contradiction looks like? See my previous response to B.W. If you see a real contradiction, then you must show it.

There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God." (Rom. 2:9,10)

True, there is no partiality between Jew and Greek, but there is clearly a distinction between the elect and the reprobate, the saved and the damned, the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the tares, the children of the Father and the children of the devil, etc. Scripture makes this distinction over and over again.

Also God hardened Pharaoh's heart in the period of the law. In grace his will is that "all" men be saved.

Say what? So there was no grace in the OT? I guess Paul made a mistake in making such reference to Pharoah in the NT.

There is no "period of law" and "period of grace" (and those who promote this idea don't consistently believe it). Both have always been in operation, and will continue until heaven and earth pass away.

[neo-x]

neo-x wrote:
Also God hardened Pharaoh's heart in the period of the law. In grace his will is that "all" men be saved.

Say what? So there was no grace in the OT? I guess Paul made a mistake in making such reference to Pharoah in the NT.

There is no "period of law" and "period of grace" (and those who promote this idea don't consistently believe it). Both have always been in operation, and will continue until heaven and earth pass away.

According to you of course.

[August]

Neo, you did not answer, are you a universalist or not? Is everyone on earth saved?

I believe that anyone can be saved if they believe in Christ and follow him.

Can you answer the questions with a straight forward yes or no? Your argument here demands it.

[neo-x]

puritan lad on Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:01 pm

neo-x wrote:
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.


Even if that were true (and it's not), how does that help your position? Shall we ignore the passage because it is "cherry-picked"?

If you are to isolate a verse and derive the meaning leaving others aside then yes, cherry picking is wrong, so is proof texting.

[neo-x]

Can you answer the questions with a straight forward yes or no? Your argument here demands it.

I have given you a straight answer. You can categorize me anyway you like. I said what I said.

[puritan lad]

if you were to write to your fellow country men, would you refer to your country's people who are abroad as "the whole world"?

Yes. We do this all the time. The "whole world" mourned the loss of Princess Diana. (Does that mean that every single person mourned? I have to admit, as part of my sinful heart, that I hardly gave it a second thought.)

In 2 Corinthians 5:19, we see that "In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them...". If your interpretation of "the world" is correct, then we clearly have universalism here.

[puritan lad]

I have given you a straight answer.

No, you haven't. I'd like to see a direct answer myself.

[neo-x]

neo-x wrote:
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God." (Rom. 2:9,10)

True, there is no partiality between Jew and Greek, but there is clearly a distinction between the elect and the reprobate, the saved and the damned, the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the tares, the children of the Father and the children of the devil, etc. Scripture makes this distinction over and over again.

yes, but no where it says that God's grace is limited to the sheep and not to the Goat. Show me where the scripture says, God will only SAVE the ELECT and NO ONE ELSE.