John Wesley's theology

[puritan lad]

Rick and B.W.,

This is why we need to stick with word words actually mean. We cannot simply redefine words to mean whatever we want them to mean in order to satisfy our own theological boxes (and we all have them). What you have both described is, by definition, not predestination. It is ratification. It is a divine "stamp of approval" that is contingent upon the choice of the individual.

Glad we can agree on this and sorry I missed reading your definitions on page 9 – too many posting and post catching up on, so I missed it.

Like I said earlier, I will answer your responses on page 16 first before I go and respond to your opinions and responses here. It was up too late last night to go into anymore details and I was tired too. With Christmas coming, I’ll be out and in all day doing things so maybe a bit later on that I’ll respond to pages 16 post before this one.

We are both two 'old tough birds' to try the tactics of overwhelming another with a myriad of informational overload to respond too and we both know the value of going slow over these matters.

Be Blest Brother… and Have a Merry Christmas

PS -- Please send me a PM if you like regarding how your family is doing as I wonder how they are since I last prayed for your family years ago. Any praise reports or new news that needs prayer?
-
-
-

Thanks B.W.,

I will send you this. Alot has gone on in the past year, and I appreciate the prayers,

Scott

[B. W.]

Rick and B.W.,

This is why we need to stick with word words actually mean. We cannot simply redefine words to mean whatever we want them to mean in order to satisfy our own theological boxes (and we all have them). What you have both described is, by definition, not predestination. It is ratification. It is a divine "stamp of approval" that is contingent upon the choice of the individual.

Glad we can agree on this and sorry I missed reading your definitions on page 9 – too many posting and post catching up on, so I missed it.

Like I said earlier, I will answer your responses on page 16 first before I go and respond to your opinions and responses here. It was up too late last night to go into anymore details and I was tired too. With Christmas coming, I’ll be out and in all day doing things so maybe a bit later on that I’ll respond to pages 16 post before this one.

We are both two 'old tough birds' to try the tactics of overwhelming another with a myriad of informational overload to respond too and we both know the value of going slow over these matters.

Be Blest Brother… and Have a Merry Christmas

PS -- Please send me a PM if you like regarding how your family is doing as I wonder how they are since I last prayed for your family years ago. Any praise reports or new news that needs prayer?
-
-
-

Thanks B.W.,

I will send you this. Alot has gone on in the past year, and I appreciate the prayers,

Scott

Thanks Scott, I got to go for the day and be back later - Lord willing and the creek don't rise!
-
-
-

[zoegirl]

I do not see how it is unreasonable to conclude Calvinism....
-As savior, Christ died, was buried and rose again.
-Christ died for our sins accordings to the scriptures. (1 cor 15:3)
(No one is going to disagree at this point.)
-This gospel is NOT universal, but only effective for the elect.
-Christ did NOT die for the sins of the reprobate. Even if a reprobate accepts the truth of the gospel message, he is without hope. Because one's cooperative, volitional belief is not faith in the Calvin sense.
-Presenting the gospel universally is asking some if not most to believe a lie.

How exactly does one go about knowing who are the elect and who aren't without preaching the Gospel to all?

When are we supposed to KNOW who the elect are? We are to preach the Gospel...we are the means with which the elect are saved. We can't know, but we are told to be ready to give the answer for the hope that we have.

[zoegirl]

lol, much of this would be very clear had you read the entire response.

I read the whole thing, Zoe...without a direct reference to Phillips, the statement about emotionalism sounded more like a general sweep, about all of which was argued opposite to Calvinism, and my response was addressed towards that. Most people like to use emotionalism to quickly discredit any argument against Calvinism.

I'm saying that when we resort to emotions to judge God it's inappropriate, that's all.

Yes, one should be in-line with the scriptures.

It had been edited, I believe, by the time you read it. If it hadn't, then hopefully you would agree that it needed to be!

[Byblos]

I do not see how it is unreasonable to conclude Calvinism....
-As savior, Christ died, was buried and rose again.
-Christ died for our sins accordings to the scriptures. (1 cor 15:3)
(No one is going to disagree at this point.)
-This gospel is NOT universal, but only effective for the elect.
-Christ did NOT die for the sins of the reprobate. Even if a reprobate accepts the truth of the gospel message, he is without hope. Because one's cooperative, volitional belief is not faith in the Calvin sense.
-Presenting the gospel universally is asking some if not most to believe a lie.

How exactly does one go about knowing who are the elect and who aren't without preaching the Gospel to all?

When are we supposed to KNOW who the elect are? We are to preach the Gospel...we are the means with which the elect are saved. We can't know, but we are told to be ready to give the answer for the hope that we have.

Exactly.

[jlay]

How exactly does one go about knowing who are the elect and who aren't without preaching the Gospel to all?

I tend to think this leads towards begging the question.
This presumes that in the unsaved audience, there are those who are elect and reprobate in the Calvin determined view of predestination. I would have to admit to Calvinism to answer. Uhh, no can do.

Zoe,

I never said you would or could know. We can't. Only that we would be presenting the gospel as universal, when in fact it isn't. "Jesus died to save YOU from your sins.......maybe" But again, as I said above. This objection, presumes what it attempts to prove. It presumes that the doctrine of election and predestination, as Calvinism defines, is correct.

Let me reword. How exactly does one go about knowing who are the elect (as defined in the Calvin doctrine of election) and who aren't without preaching the Gospel to all?

[Byblos]

How exactly does one go about knowing who are the elect and who aren't without preaching the Gospel to all?

I tend to think this leads towards begging the question.
This presumes that in the unsaved audience, there are those who are elect and reprobate in the Calvin determined view of predestination. I would have to admit to Calvinism to answer. Uhh, no can do.

No J, it presumes nothing because no one knows who the elect are. We are to simply preach the Gospel to all, knowing full well some will receive it (the elect, whoever they are or will be) and some won't receive it (the reprobate, whoever they are or will be).

[zoegirl]

Right, I think we need to see this as a debate about how God operates. WE are debating God's knowledge and therefore we are debating who He has elected. But from our perspective, WE don't know, and thus, we are to invite ANYBODY and EVERYBODY. Practically speaking, when we present the Gospel, we are presenting them with the means to be saved and the methods....only God knows or elects or .......but the point is....

OUR job is the same and OUR knowledge, whether Armenian or Calvinist, is the same

For the Armenian- they don't know who will believe and thus witness to whoever they are led to witness to or can witness to...etc

For the Calvinist- we don't know who will believe and thus witness to whoever they are led to or can witness to....etc...

[August]

Only that we would be presenting the gospel as universal, when in fact it isn't. "Jesus died to save YOU from your sins.......maybe" But again, as I said above. This objection, presumes what it attempts to prove. It presumes that the doctrine of election and predestination, as Calvinism defines, is correct.

Let me reword. How exactly does one go about knowing who are the elect (as defined in the Calvin doctrine of election) and who aren't without preaching the Gospel to all?

But you are reading to much into this. For all we know, everyone is elect that we come into contact with, ever. We simply don't know. And for the record, everyone, when we as the reformed present the gospel, we don't go around telling people that we don't know whether they are elect either, since we are not there to save anyone, and it would be presumptuous to even go there...we are not. It simply doesn't come up, and it does not matter either, since that is God's area anyway.

Most or all of you here have done some missions work or evangelism. I don't know if your experience is the same as what we see. People don't worry about elect, TULIP or any of that at that point. We see it all the time here when atheists rock up. They are offended at being called sinners, that they will be judged, and that they need the love of God in the form of a Savior to act as mediator between the just anger of God against sinners. They can stomach hearing the questions, but not the answers.

But even presenting the gospel as universal does not solve the problem, it just kicks the can down the road. I want to answer Rick here too, been meaning to do it for a while, so I will do a separate post and we can take it from there.

[DannyM]

How exactly does one go about knowing who are the elect and who aren't without preaching the Gospel to all?

I tend to think this leads towards begging the question.
This presumes that in the unsaved audience, there are those who are elect and reprobate in the Calvin determined view of predestination. I would have to admit to Calvinism to answer. Uhh, no can do.

No J, it presumes nothing because no one knows who the elect are. We are to simply preach the Gospel to all, knowing full well some will receive it (the elect, whoever they are or will be) and some won't receive it (the reprobate, whoever they are or will be).

Tell it brother. You know, this is the point. The Gospel is preached 'promiscuously' to all. And no one knows who the elect are.

[zoegirl]

yup

[jlay]

No J, it presumes nothing because no one knows who the elect are. We are to simply preach the Gospel to all, knowing full well some will receive it (the elect, whoever they are or will be) and some won't receive it (the reprobate, whoever they are or will be).

You just defined who the elect are, and so we do know. Those who will receive it are the elect. And I agree. What's the problem?
We may not be able to pull open the heart and look inside and see, "property of Jesus," but we do know in general terms who the elect are. As I will explain in a moment, this criticism misses my point.

Zoe,
I appreciate what you are saying, but I think you are missing what I am saying. But first let me point out for the umpteenth time. An argument against the Calvin's doctrine of election is NOT, NOT, NOT and argument for Arminianism.

Now, I am not arguing against this.

For the Armenian- they don't know who will believe and thus witness to whoever they are led to witness to or can witness to...etc

For the Calvinist- we don't know who will believe and thus witness to whoever they are led to or can witness to....etc...

That is true, and I am not arguing agaisnt it. I am speaking to the truth of the message. That Christ died for YOUR sins. If the 5 point Calvin is consistent, then he doesn't really believe that message. It is possible, but not likely, sense narrow is the gate and few will find it.

The person who rejects limited atonement believes that the gospel is true for EVERYONE who hears. That God has contained within this truth that anyone who would hear it, believe it, and receive it, can and will be saved. And that there is no preprogrammed mark on their spririt that precludes them or enduces them to believe it. Thus the gospel of grace is universal to all and effectual to any who would believe. Now maybe you don't see that as a significant difference, but I see it as HUGE.

But you are reading to much into this. For all we know, everyone is elect that we come into contact with, ever. We simply don't know. And for the record, everyone, when we as the reformed present the gospel, we don't go around telling people that we don't know whether they are elect either, since we are not there to save anyone, and it would be presumptuous to even go there...we are not. It simply doesn't come up, and it does not matter either, since that is God's area anyway.

Really? You really think that? I know you don't go around telling people that. But deep down you believe it. Or you are forced to come up with bizarre (pardon the emotionalism) explanations like everyone you come in contact with is elect. It may not be a problem for you, but I've yet to see it refuted. If you are a 5 point Calvin, then you believe that the Gospel isn't universal. You may think it should be presented universal, but you don't believe it is. It is limited, only for the elect. And the reprobate can't, and won't hear it. They are branded for condemnation, and in actuality we should commend them for rejecting it, because that is exactly how they were predestined to respond. And therefore presenting the gospel universally is asking the reprobate to do something they can not do, and thus believe a lie. The lie being that Christ died for them, when He didn't. Now, if you can look at someone and say, Christ died for your sins, when you know in your heart of hearts, you don't really believe it. You believe, He MIGHT have died for their sins, only if they meet the determined view of election within Calvinism.

[puritan lad]

I would also add that the beautiful thing about Calvinism preaching the gospel is that the pressure is off. We can't save anyone. We don't need to do personality and demographic surveys, study people's childhoods, or find out what appeals to our listeners, or make empty promises of a better life on earth, more money, better sex, more fulfillment, or whatever else passes for gospel preaching these days. We all begin in the same boat, and with the same need. It is God who does it all. He will save one person with a terrible gospel presentation, and will not save another who hears the most exquisite speaker. In the end, "Salvation is of the Lord".

[zoegirl]

Whether or not we believe it to be universal or not, the problem is moot....WE DON'T KNOW....

WE are commanded to present the Gospel. To all who hear His voice and believe, that is now HIS job to deal with their hearts, a mystery that we certainly cannot comprehend!! We are to plant the seed in some cases, water the seed in other cases, and harvest in others.

Sorry, Jlay, for lumping together or simply using the two doctrinal camps, just was a convenient way to present things.

[jlay]

PL,
I certainly hope you are not lumping all non-Calvins in with that mess.

How did Paul ever do it without TULIP? Bless his heart.

WE are commanded to present the Gospel. To all who hear His voice and believe, that is now HIS job to deal with their hearts, a mystery that we certainly cannot comprehend!! We are to plant the seed in some cases, water the seed in other cases, and harvest in others.

Zoe, so you beleive that Christ would have us present the gospel "Christ died for your sins" to people who are entirely encapable of believing it? That is to believe a lie.