John Wesley's theology

[puritan lad]

WHERE does Christ say that no man can come to Him?

John 14:6:Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

No man can come to the Father, except through Christ. The efficacious work of Christ, is what enables men to come to the Father.

No argument here. And all that the Father gives to Christ will come. (John 6:37). God does not leave the decision to the whims of His own creation

That, PL, is the very definition of forced love. And, forced love, is not real love.

Scripture please???

Not all Arminians believe that, PL. Just like not all Calvinists, are hyper-Calvinists.

Rick, I'm not going to debate what the definition of an Arminian is. We have over 400 years of writing that tells us what Arminians believe. If you want to start redefining terms, you will cause more confusion that there already is.

Maybe for the same reason people still insist that God damns people to hell. Some People want to believe things to justify something that they don't want to deal with in their own lives. For example, Joe Blow chooses to believe in the God of Calvinism, who hates certain people, so that Joe Blow's hate of someone that hurt him terribly, can be justified.

Let's see: A Red Herring, a Non Sequitur, and an Argumentum ad misericordiam all in one breath. I'm glad you aren't on my debate team.

[August]

No-one is arguing that. Everyone needs faith. The argument in this thread is about how we come to faith, from within ourselves, or with the help of the Spirit. The sidetrack is the extent of propitiation.

Actually no. That isn't it at all. I don't know of anyone here who is advocating Pelangianism. If Christ is crucified before the foundations of the earth, then God has already moved. As Christ said, "when the son of man is lifted up, he WILL draw all men." John 12:32
The real question is, 'what is the help of the spirit, not whether it occurs or not.' And secondly, whether faith is a cooperative and volitional act. And that is an argument that has raged on long before any of us were born, by men who were far more qualified to argue it.

jlay, I wanted to respond some more here, as if we need it.

This is what concerns me, and maybe you can help clarify...Arminians believe in total depravity just as much as Calvinists. They also believe in grace, in the form of prevenient grace, which negates the effects of that depravity, and gets them started on the road to belief and is a "partial regeneration", which has to be actualized by faith, this can be either through universal prevenient grace, or prevenient grace at the time of the gospel call. However, this is where it gets sticky for me, if the prevenient grace can be rejected, how is that not semi-pelagainism? If it cannot be rejected, then obviously it is irresistible grace.

If there is no grace acting on man to make a decision, then it is a form of pelagianism. Do you see my concern here now, given the statements made on this thread?

**Edited to remove names, that may not be fair to those people. Sorry.

[Canuckster1127]

I'd suggest that people who might be sensitive about the term hyper-Calvinist might want to be careful with how they swing the word, Pelegianism around. I was taken to task for some allusions in that direction and once those terms are thrown around and you cease to allow people to define their beliefs and state them, then most conversations tend to go downhill from there.

[August]

I'd suggest that people who might be sensitive about the term hyper-Calvinist might want to be careful with how they swing the word, Pelegianism around. I was taken to task for some allusions in that direction and once those terms are thrown around and you cease to allow people to define their beliefs and state them, then most conversations tend to go downhill from there.

I was asking for clarification and offering up a concern based on what was written here. I obviously have my personal understanding about what pelagianism is, and it is concerning if some statements here seem to reflect that understanding. I may very well be missing something, or misunderstanding something, but since jlay brought it up, I thought it will be a good opportunity to voice those concerns and get a better understanding, especially as we are continuously being chided for misrepresenting Arminianism.

I ask for clarification in good faith, and obviously want people to define what they believe, or I would be making some absolute accusations.I apologize if it offends, and will remove it if needed. i will remove the names though.

[neo-x]

puritan lad on Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:14 am

neo-x wrote:
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.)

Hey guys, goodmorning to all

Now, back to the issues. PL, What I would really like to see is if you can string up the statement like 1 John 2:2, for example, "The "whole world" mourned the loss of Princess Diana." is not even close to what John is saying. However if you would say "Britain and the whole world mourned the loss of Diana" Then you are making a group distinction here, just like the construct of John's statement "our" and the "world" or else you would write "The British all over the world, mourned Diana."

The problem is not about every single person being counted; the implication is that there are non-English people mourning Diana - and that can include anyone when you say the world, not just English. In the context of John it would be the elect and the others, us and them. jesus paid the price not only for us but for them as well. It is not about scattered elect For they would be one group. John would have written "Us and others like us, all over the world" or simply "the elect all over the world".

As I said earlier , nice try but no, that is misrepresenting the position and then knocking it down. As a matter of fact, John seems to be opposing almost the same idea as Calvinism which said that only "us" are saved. He actually wrote that we have to understand that not only "us" but Jesus paid the price for "all".

If you apply your meaning of the word "world" in Rom 12:2 it becomes absolutely pointless and ridiculous

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Is Paul saying do not be like the elect scattered all over the world. If TULIP is scriptural then it has to be consistent all the way.

apply it to 1 John 2:15

"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

what? is John saying do not love the elect scattered all over the world? If you love the world (meaning the elect as you said that he implied some verses earlier) you do not love the father????

Please do explain.

[neo-x]

puritan lad on Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:49 am

neo-x wrote:
August, will everyone be saved? Only if they believe. Can everyone be saved? yes they can if they come to Christ. Did God gave his son for all? yes he did.

Can antichrist be saved, or is he predestined to Hell?

If you had read my earlier posts in this thread you would see that I have no objection to predestination. Jesus was predestined to come, die, rise up to heaven. I believe that. If Jesus paid the price for the Antichrist, he could be saved, the question is did he?. Making a belief in predestination does not validate Calvinism's TULIP, as your statement implies. It would be the same to say, if God is loving and forgiving why shouldn't he forgive Satan? If there was a scripture that suggested the "anti-Christ" be saved, then we could imagine the possibility and since there is none, I cannot fathom the possibility as it would go against predestined prophecy. But the real question is, does the anti-Christ represents all sinners, does it equate all unbelievers? certainly No! Now contrary to the anti-Christ reference, there are verses suggesting that the "world" and "all men" are called to God, that God wants them to be saved, the part that you are denying. But I think there is pretty good case for it even if Calvinism disagrees. Unless of course you change the meanings of the plain text in these verses, you can't buy your way out of it.

[neo-x]

Brother August, I would like to clarify,

I was concerned, given his arguments, and the definitions from earlier, that neo-x was indeed advocating Pelagianism, and I still am to some extent.

**Edit: Just to be clear, I also include Finney and semi-Pelagianism as part of the same question.

Pelagianism says that salvation is by Man's effort alone and God's grace is only present through giving us an example to follow. I definitely never said that. I don't know how you understand Pelagianism, but that right here is something I didn't claim.

Semi-Pelagianism says grace is not necessary for the initial stage of salvation and will be imparted after the person has come to faith in Christ.
This again is something I didn't claim.

In fact I said the direct opposite, with God calling us first through his grace in Christ on the cross - he enables us to receive his grace, now those who believe are saved.
No one can come to me unless the father draws him. In Christ God draws all who respond to his message. The only difference here is that my definition of grace is not of what you call "effectual grace/irresistible grace". Grace has to be responded by faith. Faith comes by hearing the gospel, so in fact it is God who institutes faith in us when we are willing to come to God in response to his message which he started.

Now the term Semi-Pelagianism becomes often vague especially when you are accusing someone outside of Calvinism. My understanding is that most argue this position through "anything which imparts to man a role in salvation greater than Calvinism teaches" is bound to be a heretic. But does the Bibles say the same? The error arises only when you use the definition of effectual grace. Since it is irresistible it cannot be resisted hence everything starts with God, sure, but this moves within the boundary of monergism, and camps a case for absolute determinism. Further more it denies the part where the Bible CLEARLY teaches something else.

See Romans 10

8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”[d] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[e] 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[f]

There are clearly something that fall on man as a response to God's call, like having faith. Note, Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half - growing in faith - is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later. I am saying that it is grace that started the whole thing. So no Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism is being advocated here by me. If what I am saying is to be termed as Semi-Pelagianism or heretical because we are using a vague definition of Semi-Pelagianism as most Calvinists do, then it is wrong. If reversed, the same could be said for hardcore Calvinism (I write this only to illustrate the point, no offence intended). There are fine lines here and I do not think that we can be vague about scriptures and then call anything contradicting Calvinism as Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism and heresy. I agree man can not come to God on his own merit or effort unless God calls him first. But there are secondary causes which clearly do not contradict the bible, rather Calvinism. In such it is a case against Calvinism, not God or the scripture.

Believe and you shall be saved. You gotta believe, if you want to be saved. You have free will (limited as it is), not irresistible grace, and it can respond to God's call, which has enabled you through Christ's work on the cross. If you say I am wrong then I am only contradicting TULIP, not the scriptures. Hope it helps.

[B. W.]

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.

Wow I was out for the day and this thread has added 5 more pages from my last post on Page 10 and PL’s response to it on page 11.

First PL please define what you mean by FREE WILL for us so people can be on the same page as I think you are applying a one size fits all definition to these two word whereas others are not…

Next, the bible plainly teaches that God is not partial and judges with equity. Therefore, for Calvinism interpretation of predestination to be true in order to support its view of Romans 9:13-15 then God will be guilty of showing partiality, there are no ands, ifs or buts about it.

Calvinism’s view states simply… that God appointed the eternal destiny of some to salvation by grace, while leaving the remainder to receive eternal damnation for all their sins … Look at the WCF quoted below…

Westminster Confession of Faith (1643) states:

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected . . . are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power. through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. III — Articles I, III, VI and VII)

For this to be true, then God must show partiality and guilty of it. There is no way out of it because it makes these verses of no effect Psalms 98:9 - 1 Peter 1:17 - Acts 10:34 – Romans 2:11 – Ephesians 6:9 - Deut 10:17 – 2 Chronicles 19:7 – and untrue.

Have you asked God, sought him about giving you a glimpse of ‘unsearchable counsel of His own will’ is? Or is this just a phrase designed to keep people from seeking to know God and declaring his name rightly as the bible teaches us to do? (see John 17:3 – Psalms 9:10- Jeremiah 9:23-24 - Jeremiah 31:34 – Hosea 6:3c)

For God not to be guilty of showing partiality then Romans 9:13-15 is saying something else that Calvinism is missing completely. It is that missing part, myself, and others are trying to show you.

Therefore, how can God not be guilty of going against one of his own declared and scripture verified character traits (in essence deny himself) if Calvinism’s interpretation of predestination be absolute?

How can God really be trustworthy if he denies himself by showing clear partiality as the WCF states – ( The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice… ) just so that Calvinism’s take on predestination be true?

How would God have mercy on whom he will have and not have, why did he hate Esau and loved Jacob – ever pondered that? Sought God on that or relied solely on Calvinism legalese on this matter?

Romans 9:13-15 must be saying something else quite different rather than Calvinism's legelese. If not, then it disproves God as trustworthy and incapable of performing what Psalms 98:9 says with perfect justice.

How can God maintain his glorious justice with equity – impartiality – to just pick this one saved and that one not?

PL, Calvinism needs a revision of its doctrine here by its own members. With the advent of more scripture coming to light since the 1600’s – it needs it.

One last thing – are only those that adhere to all 5 points or down to even one point Calvinist saved and the rest of humanity that disagrees with it – d-mned?
-
-
P.S.

Jeremiah 9:24, "If people want to boast, they should boast about this: They should boast that they understand and know me. They should boast that they know and understand that I, the Lord, act out of faithfulness, fairness, and justice in the earth and that I desire people to do these things,” says the Lord" NET-

God says clearly he acts out of faithfulness, fairness, and justice - how can that really square with the WCF statement... "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death...

...The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice"

[neo-x]

So on this Christ only prays for those who are His and, even though He wants to save the whole world, He does not bother to pray for them?

Brother Danny, Jesus prayed a lot... you don't know what else he was praying for.

[neo-x]

DannyM on Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:50 am

neo-x wrote:
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.

Scripture:

John 10:15
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father— and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 10:26
but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

Christ doesn't say. you are not my sheep because you do not believe, He says, you do not believe because you are not my sheep

Here Christ is effectively saying:

I die for my sheep
You are not of my sheep
Therefore, I am not dying for you

Brother Danny, the last part is an assumption based on incomplete knowledge. Isolating a text can easily produce problems.

Please reconcile this with Matthew 10:6
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

then with John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

then also see John 1:9
The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

then come to John 5:40 as well, please explain
yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Now why on earth did Jesus didn't simply say, "You cannot come to me."? I'll let you answer this

Look at Matt. 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . .how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" . Here again notice, He did not say, "How often would I have gathered you together, but you could not." No. He said, "Ye would not!" It was not a matter of whether they could; it was a matter of whether they would.

Please explain Revelation 22:17
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely ."
This verse goes against Calvinism right upfront. Whatever it may be, it surely isn't Calvinistic.

They are not his sheep not because of their inability to come to Christ, but because they will not come to Christ and Believe. "You will not come to me, that you might have life". The only thing that stands between the sinner and salvation is the sinner's will. Men go to Hell, not because of their inability to come to Christ, but because they will not come to Christ, they refuse to.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 says
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

John 4:42 says,
"And said unto the woman, Now we believe , not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."

I can go on brothers, but Its impossible to bypass all of this with one text in John 10, which actually never says God will only save the sheep, it just says, you are not my sheep. And as I have repeatedly asked you to evaluate and explain, Romans 11 with this. those who were cut-down were cut-down by their unbelief and those who are grafted, stand on faith. That explains John 10. And Justifies the meaning and implication of John 5:40.

I think I have fairly responded to most (if not all, I hope to ), Now I would like, your response to this, brothers.

God bless.

[neo-x]

RickD wrote:
I'm sure you would, PL. Whatever your meaning of "freewill salvation" is.

Whatever it means, it clearly opposes Scripture. Over and over again, we are told that it is not the result of human will. I don't get why people still insist that it is.

The same way people insist that God only saves some people but condemns the others. Over and over again in scriptures, we are told that it is not the unconditional election but faith in Jesus Christ that saves.

[DannyM]

So on this Christ only prays for those who are His and, even though He wants to save the whole world, He does not bother to pray for them?

Brother Danny, Jesus prayed a lot... you don't know what else he was praying for.

Jesus Clearly said He was not praying for the world. How much clearer do you want it, brother? It's not about what He omitted to say; Jesus specifically said He is not praying for the world. Whatever else you think Jesus is praying for, you can now safely rule out the world.

[DannyM]

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.

John 10:15
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father— and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 10:26
but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

Christ doesn't say. you are not my sheep because you do not believe, He says, you do not believe because you are not my sheep

Here Christ is effectively saying:

I die for my sheep
You are not of my sheep
Therefore, I am not dying for you

Brother Danny, the last part is an assumption based on incomplete knowledge. Isolating a text can easily produce problems.

Brother Neo, you asked for the scripture. You were given the scripture. Now you don’t like the scripture because it is “isolated”? What’s going on here, bro? What’s the dealio?

[neo-x]

DannyM » Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:22 pm

neo-x wrote:
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.


DannyM wrote:
John 10:15
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father— and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 10:26
but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

Christ doesn't say. you are not my sheep because you do not believe, He says, you do not believe because you are not my sheep

Here Christ is effectively saying:

I die for my sheep
You are not of my sheep
Therefore, I am not dying for you


neo-x wrote:
Brother Danny, the last part is an assumption based on incomplete knowledge. Isolating a text can easily produce problems.


Brother Neo, you asked for the scripture. You were given the scripture. Now you don’t like the scripture because it is “isolated”? What’s going on here, bro? What’s the dealio?

It has nothing to do with my liking, bro. The scripture has to be consistent with the rest of itself or else the interpretation is in question, brother. You would have to show that what is written in John 10 be also true at other places. Else it is a matter of proof reading with an interpretation that clearly goes against the rest of scripture.

I would like to hear your opinion on the scriptures I quoted.

[DannyM]

It has nothing to do with my liking, bro. The scripture has to be consistent with the rest of itself or else the interpretation is in question, brother. You would have to show that what is written in John 10 be also true at other places. Else it is a matter of proof reading.

I would like to hear your opinion on the scriptures I quoted.

It has everything to do with your disliking, bro. You asked for the scripture, and I gave you the scripture. The scriptures are perfectly consistent. I'll get to your post in due course, bro, and I'd also like you to respond to things left, like Jesus being the propitiation for our sins, and the implications of how you are reading 1 John 2:2. You've walked past that one, brother. Also, the big arguments back in the thread from August and myself have been left untouched. It has been shown quite clearly that Jesus did not die for all men everywhere. So forgive me, my dear brother, if I don't rush to every new argument while the old arguments go untouched.