John Wesley's theology

[PaulSacramento]

Danny, I am not trying to convince or convert you my friend, just trying to understand your view
My question stands, of only the elect are saved and they have been predestined since before the creation, why did Jesus die? why did He have to come at all?
He didn't save any of the elect, they were already predestined, correct?

[Canuckster1127]

Interesting choice of venue. So, anything not Calvinistic is Aberrant Christianity? Calvinism and Christianity are interchangable terms?

Did you even read it before saying this? Not to mention my own words have implied no such thing...

You posted it in the aberrant theology section. Whether you intend to or not, with that choice of venue you make a statement.

[DannyM]

Danny, I am not trying to convince or convert you my friend, just trying to understand your view
My question stands, of only the elect are saved and they have been predestined since before the creation, why did Jesus die? why did He have to come at all?
He didn't save any of the elect, they were already predestined, correct?

Of course He saved the elect, Paul. Christ came and gave His life for the elect. God chose His only Son before the foundation of the world to achieve just this:

1 Peter 1:20
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

And there's a fat chance of you converting me away from the gospel, my brother

[DannyM]

Interesting choice of venue. So, anything not Calvinistic is Aberrant Christianity? Calvinism and Christianity are interchangable terms?

Did you even read it before saying this? Not to mention my own words have implied no such thing...

You posted it in the aberrant theology section. Whether you intend to or not, with that choice of venue you make a statement.

Of course I chose aberrant theology. This is a forum which includes those areas which deviate from orthodoxy. Have you read the piece?

[DannyM]

It seems that the parable of the workers in the vineyard seems to go "agianst" predestination = greater rewards ( or any reward other than what God is giving to all):
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

1“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard.2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing.4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing.6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius.10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius.11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner.12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius?14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you.15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Paul, can you explain why this "goes against" predestination? How anyone can even say the words "seems to go against predestination" is beyond me. You are aware that predestination is thoroughly biblical, right?

[DannyM]

Guys, the main purpose of this thread is to show people what John Wesley actually preached. This is the hero of the Sally Army. Now, if you're interested, then please read the letter. If you want to discuss it afterwards then let's do it. Let's 'out' the theology of John Wesley, and maybe it will wake some of those up who call themselves "Wesleyan".

Now, a discussion on election is bound to follow, and that is fine and heartily welcomed. And if you do want to dispute this doctrine then I can only admire your bravery and wish you good luck in what will be a monumental task.

[RickD]

Guys, the main purpose of this thread is to show people what John Wesley actually preached. This is the hero of the Sally Army. Now, if you're interested, then please read the letter. If you want to discuss it afterwards then let's do it. Let's 'out' the theology of John Wesley, and maybe it will wake some of those up who call themselves "Wesleyan".

Danny, I'm not responding to the article yet, because I don't have time yet. I'm at work. But,I have two questions from your quote, above.

1) What is "the Sally Army"?
this next question isn't necessarily for you, Danny
2) Is there anyone on this site, that considers himself "Wesleyan"? because I'd like to hear his POV, about the article.

[DannyM]

Guys, the main purpose of this thread is to show people what John Wesley actually preached. This is the hero of the Sally Army. Now, if you're interested, then please read the letter. If you want to discuss it afterwards then let's do it. Let's 'out' the theology of John Wesley, and maybe it will wake some of those up who call themselves "Wesleyan".

Danny, I'm not responding to the article yet, because I don't have time yet. I'm at work. But,I have two questions from your quote, above.

1) What is "the Sally Army"?
this next question isn't necessarily for you, Danny
2) Is there anyone on this site, that considers himself "Wesleyan"? because I'd like to hear his POV, about the article.

Rick,

1. The Salvation Army.

2. I have an idea of a couple of people who have called themselves Wesleyan, and of course there could be more. But this isn't intended to demonise anybody; I only wish to 'out' Wesley's disturbing theology.

[Canuckster1127]

I'm no longer participating in the calvinist/arminian/wesleyan threads. I find them of little profit and more prone to create argument and division between brothers and sisters. For the record, Wesleyanism is not aberrant or despicable. It is internally consistent and valid within the context of its presuppositions and assumptions.

[neo-x]

Brother Danny,

would you define election?

Cuz I found this and I was wondering if you have seen this? And how would you conclude it as aberrant?
I certainly am having a hard time concluding this as aberrant.

“With regard to…Unconditional Election, I believe, That God, before the foundation of the world, did unconditionally elect certain persons to do certain works, as Paul to preach the gospel: that He has unconditionally elected some nations to receive peculiar privileges, the Jewish nation in particular: that He has unconditionally elected some nations to hear the gospel…that He has unconditionally elected some persons to peculiar advantages, both with regard to temporal and spiritual things: And I do not deny (though I cannot prove that it is so), that He has unconditionally elected some persons [thence eminently styled ‘the Elect’] to eternal glory. But I cannot believe, That all those who are not thus elected to glory must perish everlastingly; or That there is one soul on earth who has not, [nor] ever had a possibility of escaping eternal damnation.”

From a 1743 exchange with George Whitefield, as quoted in John Wesley's Scriptural Christianity, by Thomas C. Oden

You see brother, what I see, is that the negation of the the highlighted part, renders John 3:16, null and void. And as far as I can see it doesn't hurt election one bit, only makes room for grace to be given to all of the world. What do you say?

By the way, you may have your reasons for it bro, but as a humble suggestion, I would say that we should change the title of the thread. A brother or sister, believing in Christ, saved by grace, could come in here and stumble because of it. Despicable or not, we should not be calling someone's faith as despicable when certainly, people belonging to the Wesleyan church are not condemned to hell just because they are Wesleyan. They are not a cult, nor there is any heresy, my own family has been a part of the methodist church for the last 100 years . Wouldn't someone feel bad, if a Wesleyan here started a thread against Calvinism with the same title? Hope you see my point, brother.

[B. W.]

Guys, the main purpose of this thread is to show people what John Wesley actually preached. This is the hero of the Sally Army. Now, if you're interested, then please read the letter. If you want to discuss it afterwards then let's do it. Let's 'out' the theology of John Wesley, and maybe it will wake some of those up who call themselves "Wesleyan".

Now, a discussion on election is bound to follow, and that is fine and heartily welcomed. And if you do want to dispute this doctrine then I can only admire your bravery and wish you good luck in what will be a monumental task.

No offense Danny - You need to be balanced here so for balance sake and not to submit blindly to one viewpoint why not read, for one’s own self what Wesley wrote in response to the same charges... See the following Link Below:

PREDESTINATION CALMLY CONSIDERED

Here is part quoted below. Let Wesley speak for himself...

29. I have spoken more largely than I designed, in order to show, that neither our Lord, in the above-mentioned parable, nor St. Paul, in these words, had any view to God’s sovereign power, as the ground of unconditional reprobation. And beware you go no further therein, than you are authorized by them. Take care, whenever you speak of these high things, to “speak as the oracles of God.” And if so, you will never speak of the sovereignty of God, but in conjunction with his other attributes. For the Scripture nowhere speaks of this single attribute, as separate from the rest. Much less does it anywhere speak of the sovereignty of God as singly disposing the eternal states of men. No, no; in this awful work, God proceeds according to the known rules of his justice and mercy; but never assigns his sovereignty as the cause why any man is punished with everlasting destruction.

30. Now then, are you not quite out of your way? You are not in the way which God hath revealed. You are putting eternal happiness and misery on an unscriptural and a very dreadful footing. Make the case your own: Here are you, a sinner, convinced that you deserve the damnation of hell. Sorrow, therefore, and fear have filled your heart. And how shall you be comforted? By the promises of God? But perhaps you have no part therein; for they belong only to the elect. By the consideration of his love and tender mercy? But what are these to you, if you are a reprobate? God does not love you at all; you, like Esau, he hath hated even from eternity. What ground then can you have for the least shadow of hope? Why, it is possible, (that is all,) that God’s sovereign will may be on your side. Possibly God may save you, because he will! O poor encouragement to despairing sinners! I fear “faith” rarely “cometh by hearing” this!

31. The sovereignty of God is then never to be brought to supersede his justice. And this is the present objection against unconditional reprobation; (the plain consequence of unconditional election;) it flatly contradicts, indeed utterly overthrows, the Scripture account of the justice of God. This has been proved in general already; let us now weigh a few particulars. And, (1.) The Scripture describes God as the Judge of the earth. But how shall God in justice judge the world? (O consider this, as in the presence of God, with reverence and godly fear!) How shall God in justice judge the world, if there be any decree of reprobation? On this supposition, what should those on the left hand be condemned for? For their having done evil? They could not help it. There never was a time when they could have helped it. God, you say, “of old ordained them to this condemnation.” And “who hath resisted his will?” He “sold” them, you say, “to work wickedness,” even from their mother’s womb. He “gave them up to a reprobate mind,” or ever they hung upon their mother’s breast. Shall he then condemn them for what they could not help? Shall the Just, the Holy One of Israel, adjudge millions of men to everlasting pain, because their blood moved in their veins? Nay, this they might have helped, by putting an end to their own lives. But could they even thus have escaped from sin? Not without that grace which you suppose God had absolutely determined ever to give them. And yet you suppose him to send them into eternal fire, for not escaping from sin! That is, in plain terms, for not having that grace which God had decreed they should never have! O strange justice! What a picture do you draw of the Judge of all the earth!

32. Are they not rather condemned for not doing good, according to those solemn words of the great Judge, “Depart, ye cursed; for I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; a stranger, and ye took me not in; I was naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they answer.” But how much better an answer do you put into their mouths! Upon your supposition, might they not say, (O consider it well, in meekness and fear!) “Lord, we might have done the outward work; but thou knowest it would have but increased our damnation. We might have fed the hungry, given drink to the thirsty, and covered the naked with a garment. But all these works, without thy special grace, which we never had, nor possibly could have, seeing thou hast eternally decreed to withhold it from us, would only have been splendid sins. They would only have heated the furnace of hell seven times hotter than before.” Upon your supposition, might they not say, “Righteous art thou, O Lord; yet let us plead with thee. O, why dost thou condemn us for not doing good? Was it possible for us to do anything well? Did we ever abuse the power of doing good? We never received it, and that thou knowest. Wilt thou, the Holy One, the Just, condemn us for not doing what we never had the power to do? Wilt thou condemn us for not casting down the stars from heaven? for not holding the winds in our fist? Why, it was as possible for us to do this, as to do any work acceptable in thy sight! O Lord, correct us, but with judgment! And, before thou plungest us into everlasting fire, let us know how it was ever possible for us to escape the damnation of hell.”

33. Or, how could they have escaped (suppose you assign that; as the cause of their condemnation) from inward sin, from evil desires, from unholy tempers and vile affections? Were they ever able to deliver their own souls, to rescue themselves from this inward hell? If so, their not doing it might justly be laid to their charge, and would leave them without excuse. But it was not so; they never were able to deliver their own sons; they never had the power to rescue themselves from the hands of these bosom enemies. This talent was never put into their hands. How then can they be condemned for hiding it in the earth, for non-improvement of what they never had? Who is able to purify a corrupt heart; to bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Is man, mere man, sufficient for this? No, certainly. God alone. To him only can the polluted of heart say, “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” But what, if he answer, “I will not, because I will not: Be thou unclean still?” Will God doom that man to the bottomless pit, because of that uncleanness which he could not save himself from, and which God could have saved him from, but would not? Verily, were an earthly King to execute such justice as this upon his helpless subjects, it might well be expected that the vengeance of the Lord would soon sweep him from the face of the earth.

34. Perhaps you will say, They are not condemned for actual but for original sin. What do you mean by this term? The inward corruption of our nature? If so, it has been spoken of before. Or do you mean, the sin which Adam committed in paradise? That this is imputed to all men, I allow; yea, that by reason hereof “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” But that any will be damned for this alone, I allow not, till you show me where it I written. Bring me plain proof from Scripture, and I submit; but till then I utterly deny it.

35. Should you not rather say, that unbelief is the damning sin? and that those who are condemned in that day will be therefore condemned, “because they believed not on the name of the only-begotten Son of God?” But could they believe? Was not this faith both the gift and the work of God in the soul? And was it not a gift which he had eternally decreed never to give them? Was it not a work which he was of old unchangeably determined never to work in their souls? Shall these men be condemned, because God would not work; because they did not receive what God would not give? Could they “ungrasp the hold of his right hand, or force omnipotence?”

36. There is, over and above, a peculiar difficulty here. You say, Christ did not die for these men. But if so, there was an impossibility, in the very nature of the thing, that they should ever savingly believe. For what is saving faith, but “a confidence in God through Christ, that loved me, and gave himself for me?” Loved thee, thou reprobat! gave himself for thee! Away! thou hast neither part nor lot herein. Thou believe in Christ, thou accursed spirit! damned or ever thou wert born! There never was any object for thy faith; there never was any thing for thee to believe. God himself, (thus must you speak, to be consistent with yourself,) with all his omnipotence, could not make thee believe Christ atoned for thy sins,unless he had made thee believe a lie.

37. If then God be just, there cannot, on your scheme, be any judgment to come. We may add, nor any future state, either of reward or punishment. If there be such a state, God will therein “render to every man according to his works. To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to them that do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil.” But how is this reconcilable with your scheme? You say, The reprobates cannot but do evil; and that the elect, from the day of God’s power, cannot but continue in well-doing. You suppose all this is unchangeably decreed; in consequence whereof, God acts irresistibly on the one, and Satan on the other. Then it is impossible for either one or the other to help acting as they do; or rather, to help being acted upon, in the manner wherein they are. For if we speak properly, neither the one nor the other can be said to act at all. Can a stone be said to act, when it is thrown out of a sling? or a ball, when it is projected from a cannon? No more can a man be said to act, if he be only moved by a force he cannot resist. But if the case be thus, you leave no room either for reward or punishment. Shall the stone be rewarded for rising from the sling, or punished for falling down? Shall the cannon-ball be rewarded for flying towards the sun, or punished for receding from it? As incapable of either punishment or reward is the man who is supposed to be impelled by a force he cannot resist. Justice can have no place in rewarding or punishing mere machines, driven to and fro by an external force. So that your supposition of God’s ordaining from eternity whatsoever should be done to the end of the world; as well as that of God’s acting irresistibly in the elect, and Satan’s acting irresistibly in the reprobates; utterly overthrows the Scripture doctrine of rewards and punishments, as well as of a judgment to come.

38. Thus ill does that election which implies reprobation agree with the Scripture account of God’s justice. And does it agree any better with his truth? How will you reconcile it with those plain passages? — “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, saith the Lord God; and not that he should return from his ways and live? Cast away from you all your transgressions whereby ye have transgressed: For why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord: Wherefore, turn yourselves, and live ye.”(Ezekiel 18:23, etc.) “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways: For why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel
33:11.)

39. But perhaps you will say, “These ought to be limited and explained by other passages of Scripture; wherein this doctrine is as clearly affirmed, as it is denied in these.” I must answer very plain: If this were true, we must give up all the Scriptures together; nor would the Infidels allow the Bible so honorable a title as that of a “cunningly-devised fable.” But it is not true. It has no color of truth. It is absolutely, notoriously false. To tear up the very roots of reprobation, and of all doctrines that have a necessaryconnection therewith, God declares in his word these three things, and thaexplicitly, in so many terms:

(1.) “Christ died for all,” (2 Corinthians 5:14,) namely, all that were dead in sin, as the words immediately following, fix the sense: Hereis the fact affirmed.

(2.) “He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” (1 John 2:2,) even of all those for whom he died: Here is the consequence
of his dying for all. And,

(3.) “He died for all, that they should not live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them,” (2 Corinthians 5:15,) that they might be saved from their sins: Here is the design, the end of his
dying for them. Now, show me the scriptures wherein God declares in equally express terms,

(1.)“Christ” did not die “for all,” but for some only.

(2.)Christ is not “the propitiation for the sins of the whole world;”
and,

(3.)“He” did not die “for all,” at least, not with that intent, “that they should live unto him who died for them.” Show me, I say, the
scriptures that affirm these three things in equally express terms.

You know there are none. Nor is it possible to evade the force of those above recited, but by supplying in number what is wanting in weight; by heaping abundance of texts together, whereby (though none of them speak home to the point) the patrons of that opinion dazzle the eyes of the unwary, and quite overlay the understanding both of themselves and those that hear them.

40. To proceed: What an account does this doctrine give of the sincerity of God in a thousand declarations, such as these? — “O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!” (Deuteronomy 5:29.) “My people would not hear my voice, and Israel would not obey me. So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lusts, and let them follow their own imaginations. O that my people would have hearkened unto me! For if Israel had walked in my ways, I should soon have put down their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries.” (Psalm 81:11, etc.)

And all this time, you suppose God had unchangeably ordained, that there never should be “such an heart in them!” that it never should be possible for the people whom he thus seemed to lament over, to hearken unto him, or to walk in his ways! How clear and strong is the reasoning of Dr. Watts on this head! “It is very hard indeed, to vindicate the sincerity of the blessed God or his Son, in their universal offers of grace and salvation to men, and their sending Ministers with such messages and invitations to accept of mercy, if there be not at least a conditional pardon and salvation provided for them.

“His Ministers indeed, as they know not the event of things, may be sincere in offering salvation to all persons, according to their general commission, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.’

But how can God or Christ be sincere in sending them with this commission, to offer his grace to all men, if God has not provided such grace for all men, no, not so much as conditionally? “It is hard to suppose, that the great God, who is truth itself, and faithful in all his dealings, should call upon dying men to trust in a Savior for eternal life, when this Savior has not eternal life intrusted with him to give them if they do as he requires. It is hard to conceive how the great Governor of the world can be sincere in inviting sinners, who are on the brink of hell, to cast themselves upon an empty word of invitation, a mere shadow and appearance of support, if there be nothing real to bear them up from those deeds of destruction, nothing but mere words and empty invitations! Can we think, that the righteous and holy God would encourage his Ministers to call them to leave and rest the weight of their immortal concerns upon a gospel, a covenant of grace, a Mediator, and his merit and righteousness? all which are a mere nothing with regard to them, a heap of empty names, an unsupporting void which cannot uphold them?”


41. Our blessed Lord does indisputably command and invite “all men everywhere to repent.” He calleth all. He sends his ambassadors, in his name, to “preach the gospel to every creature.” He himself “preached deliverance to the captives,” without any hint of restriction or limitation....

[B. W.]

I'm no longer participating in the calvinist/arminian/wesleyan threads. I find them of little profit and more prone to create argument and division between brothers and sisters. For the record, Wesleyanism is not aberrant or despicable. It is internally consistent and valid within the context of its presuppositions and assumptions.

Agreed - same with me Bart…

I personally have read the voluminous works of Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, parts of Whitefield’s remaining sermons (and) letters, and a host of other Calvinist literature. Much of these types of debates are based solely on blind vitriol and not on looking at all of God’s attributes and nature recorded in the bible and forming a whole interrelated answer to predestination. Both sides have great truths and the Calvinist side unfortunately strays away from truth more than does the Wesleyan side does. Both, in my opinion, miss altogether the most important aspect of God’s initiative to call to all.

In Fact look again at what principle Romans 5:12, 14, 15, 16 sets forth. We were in Adam and hence God called to Adam and Eve he called to all. He did not have too. What then if he had not? None of us could ever be saved without his own just initiative to demonstrate his own attributes of equity /impartiality, love, grace, mercy, justice, etc, through his own act to call.

He sent his word to us – Jesus Christ – Yeshua Messiah. The ancient Israelite were guilty of adding to the Sabbath rest rules that defined what work is. Likewise, some Calvinist make a similar mistake in ascribing what defines work regarding salvation so much so that even for any mortal human being to even answer the call of God is considered a work of pure human effort.

A call does not work like that. God called to Adam and Eve, where are you? I am sure God knew where they were. He let them respond to this call and dealt with it in a far better manner than a hyper (militant) Calvinist would.

God’s call was designed by him to solicit a response so the initiative is still solely resides with him. If so designed, then, it does its purpose well, letting the hearer morally respond on his or her own. Despite God’s foreknowing that response and still allowing that response speaks volumes of God’s justice as impartial, full of grace, showing mercy, on whom he will as well providing the basis for hardening whom he wills.

Doing so proves his sovereignty as omnipotent because God can truly work through all things in such manners that prove all his attributes of character and nature truly are intertwined together acting in concert and not individually. Both sides, more so the militant Calvinist side than the militant Armenian, simply do not consider the initiative of God to send forth his own call as creating the conditions for a choice. The purpose of His call was to create choice when before there was none and such choice is not work.

So with this said, like Bart, I’ll stay clear of such debates as Predestination…

Have fun…
-
-
-

[DannyM]

I appreciate your words, brothers, but I would be failing in my duty to follow my heart if I dumb this down. I'm sure you are sincere - then so am I. So If you want to defend Wesley, then do it - you won't get any objection from me. Likewise I'd expect you to respect my sincerity and allow me to follow my heart, unmolested by protestations. Any theology whose goal is to justify these contentions is a theology that deserves to be put under the spotlight:

I. It is free in all to whom it is given.

II. The doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God.

III. Predestination destroys the comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity.

IV. This uncomfortable doctrine also destroys our zeal for good works.

V. Furthermore, the doctrine of predestination has a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation.

VI. And at the same time, makes that Revelation contradict itself.

VII. Predestination is a doctrine full of blasphemy.

I’m saying here and now that this is contemptible. He wants to talk of blasphemy? He has caricatured the whole doctrine and insulted God and the apostle with it! Nothing will keep me from following this where it must lead. But I do it in love for the brothers and sisters and ultimately my love for God and His one and only Son, who came not for this complete and utter insult. Remember - play the ball and not the man. I’m trying to play the ball here. Could you possibly do the same?

It’s also quite bizarre that a couple of you would seek to participate in order to disassociate yourselves with I am not going to participate any longer. This is a most unworthy of hit-and-runs. I respect you two brothers completely, but please, you’re either in or out.

As long as I play the ball, then I fail to see how you can be offended. As a Christian I stand by my convictions and am zealous for the faith. I don’t think anyone here would be justified in trying to manipulate this debate.

I’ll be back later, when my son is peacefully asleep, or maybe tomorrow to respond properly. And remember, this thread is focused on Wesley’s theology and the response by Whitefield, so please don’t derail it.

God bless you, brothers

[1over137]

The issue is, for some, how does one reconcile a loving God with election? ( assuming that by election one means that only those elected will be saved).
The writer of the Gospel of John said that Christ died for the world John 3:16
The writer of Timothy said that Christ is the mediator between Man and God.
How can anyone as a parent look at their children and say that one will be saved and the other not "just because" ?

Following is from http://evangelicalarminians.org/A-Conci ... estination

"God’s choice of those who believe in Christ is an important teaching of the apostle Paul (see Ro 8:29-33; 9:6-26; 11:5, 7, 28; Col 3:12; 1 Th 1:4; 2 Th 2:13; Tit 1:1). Election (Gk eklego) refers to God choosing in Christ a people whom he destines to be holy and blameless in his sight (cf. 2 Th 2:13).
...
Paul’s teaching about election involves the following truths:
...
(5) Election to salvation in Christ is offered to all (Jn 3:16-17; 1Ti 2:4-6; Tit 2:11; Heb 2:9)
...
note on 1 Peter 1:2:
the foreknowledge of God: We are “chosen” to be God’s people according to his foreknowledge, i.e., according to God’s own comprehensive knowledge of his plan of redemption in Christ for the church, even before creation and human history began (see Rom. 8:29 note). Foreknowledge is virtually a synonym of God’s sovereign and far-seeing purpose to redeem according to his eternal love. The “chosen” are the company of true believers, chosen in harmony with God’s determined plan to redeem the church by the blood of Jesus Christ through the Spirit’s sanctifying work (see article on Election and Predestination, p. 1845). All believers must participate in their election by their response of faith and by being eager to make their calling and election sure (see 2 Pe 1:5, 10, notes).
...
note on Romans 8:29 :
those God foreknew:“Foreknew” in this verse is equivalent to “foreloved” and is used in the sense of “to set loving regard on,” “to choose to bestow love on from eternity” (cf. Ex 2:25; Ps 1:6 Hos 13:5; Mt 7:23; 1 Cor 8:3; Gal 4:9; 1 Jn 3:1).
(1) Foreknowledge means that God purposed from eternity to love and redeem the human race through Christ (5:8; Jn 3:16). The recipient of God’s foreknowledge or forelove is stated in plural and refers to the church. That is, God’s forelove is primarily for the corporate body of Christ (Eph 1:4; 2:4; 1 Jn 4:19) and includes individuals only as they identify themselves with this corporate body through abiding faith in and union with Christ (Jn 15:1-6; see article on Election and Predestination, p. 1854) (2) The corporate body of Christ will attain to glorification (v. 30). Individual believers will fall short of glorification if they separate themselves from that foreloved body and fail to maintain their faith in Christ (vv. 12-14, 17; Col 1:21-23)."

[jlay]

Obviously, as Danny has pointed out this debate rages back a good bit. However, the great disservice done to Wesley is to equivocate the "doctrine of predestination" to the term, predestination, in the scriptures. Whitefield's criticism makes the same error. Obviously the Calvinist is convinced that their "doctrine of predestination" rightly defines the word as used in the scriptures. Wesley and many others would disagree. I would question Danny, if he had read the sermon by Wesley itself without the context of Whitefield's criticism.

Immediately in the 2nd paragraph of Wesley's "Free Grace" sermon, he spells out the Calvinist's 'doctrine of predestination.
Regarding grace, '....But it is free for ALL, as well as IN ALL. To this some have answered, "No: It is free only for those whom God hath ordained to life; and they are but a little flock. The greater part of God hath ordained to death; and it is not free for them. Them God hateth; and, therefore, before they were born, decreed they should die eternally. And this he absolutely decreed; because so was his good pleasure; because it was his sovereign will. Accordingly, they are born for this, -- to be destroyed body and soul in hell. And they grow up under the irrevocable curse of God, without any possibility of redemption; for what grace God gives, he gives only for this, to increase, not prevent, their damnation."

1. This is that decree of predestination. But methinks I hear one say, "This is not the predestination which I hold: I hold only the election of grace. What I believe is not more than this, -- that God,, before the foundation of the world, did elect a certain number of men to be justified, sanctified, and glorified. Now, all these will be saved, and none else; for the rest of mankind God leaves to themselves: So they follow the imaginations of their own hearts, which are only evil continually, and, waxing worse and worse, are at length justly punished with everlasting destruction."


So, it is nothing short of a lie to say that Wesley rejects predesitnation. He certainly rejects the Calvinists' "doctrine of predestination."