John Wesley's theology

[August]

The part that didn't answer my questions:
If the elect and only the elect are predestined to be saved and only they will be saved, why did God bother with the OT Law ??
I ask again and I apologise if I am not understanding you but, if God has ALREADY predestined the elect and ONLY the elect are saved, why did Christ Have to die? and on top of that, why are we justified by faith if the elect are already predestined BEFORE faith even became an issue?

But you are asking the same question again. The OT law was set up as the governance system for God over His people. That system, built on God being just, and demanding that sin be punished, was Gods decree for how He wanted to rule. In the same way He decreed that the death of Christ, and the faith in Him and His sacrifice, was how His people will be saved. Predestination has nothing to do with the "how", just the "who".

Gal 2:16, John 10:14-15, John 10:25-29

Are you going to answer my questions now? Was God just gambling with the life of His Son?

[August]

Choice is seldom easy.There are many reasons why some believe and others don't, just as there are many reasons why some are of one denomination and some of another. Free will to choose based on what we know and allow ourselves to know.

So if it is based on what we know, how is it free? Free from what? Is it intellectual assent then?

[PaulSacramento]

But you are asking the same question again. The OT law was set up as the governance system for God over His people. That system, built on God being just, and demanding that sin be punished, was Gods decree for how He wanted to rule. In the same way He decreed that the death of Christ, and the faith in Him and His sacrifice, was how His people will be saved. Predestination has nothing to do with the "how", just the "who".

The how seems to be that they were predestined, that's how, isn't that what it means to be predestined ?
That God has predestined some to be saved?
If they are predestined to be saved, that is hwo they are saved, via being predestined, yes?
That is my question.

Are you going to answer my questions now? Was God just gambling with the life of His Son?

Well, if those that are to be saved are already saved because they were predestined for salvation since before creation then God was doing worse than gambling with the life of His son, His Son's life was sacrificed for those that were already saved.

[August]

The how seems to be that they were predestined, that's how, isn't that what it means to be predestined ?
That God has predestined some to be saved?
If they are predestined to be saved, that is hwo they are saved, via being predestined, yes?
That is my question.

No, the "how" is most assuredly not through predestination, because the "how" is what I described to you,, through substitionary atonement, and is how Scripture defines it. You seem to want to make predestination into more than what it is. Why? maybe it would help if you laid out a syllogism.

Just like God knew He would destroy the Egyptian army, He still used the sea to do that. God uses various means to accomplish His will.

Well, if those that are to be saved are already saved because they were predestined for salvation since before creation then God was doing worse than gambling with the life of His son, His Son's life was sacrificed for those that were already saved.

You still did not answer the question, you only tried to revert it back to your objection.

I already answered your objection here, several times now, the law of God requires punishment for sin, and there are only two choices, either you get punished yourself, or someone gets punished on your behalf. God, through His grace, decided that His Son will bear the punishment on our behalf. The only way He could be sure that His Son did not die for nothing was to make sure that some will be saved. Honest question...What about that do you not understand? Why do you think Christ had to die?

[RickD]

August, All aren't saved, because some have not accepted the only means for salvation. The efficacious work of Christ. It's actually a pretty simple message. God loved people so much, that all one has to do, is believe on Christ, and then eternal life is guaranteed. I really don't understand why there is a problem with God enabling every person with the ability to choose or reject Christ. God wants a relationship, for eternity, with every person He created. He wants a relationship, built on love. If we don't have any part in the choice of loving Him, then it's not really love.

Why do some believe and others don't, if everyone has the ability to believe? Is it intellectual assent? Is it emotional agreement? What exactly in a person makes him believe, and another person does not?

I guess you would have to ask each individual that was presented with the gospel. I can tell you why I chose to believe, but, I can't speak for anyone else. I wouldn't say anything "makes" anyone believe. God gives everyone the ability, and means to make the decision, though. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? I'm certainly not the most intelligent person, and I can understand that. What happened in a person's life, that won't allow him to understand that God loves all people so much, that He sent Christ to die for everyone? But, only those who accept God's means to eternal life (Christ's work) will be in an eternal relationship with Him. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how someone with the indwelling of the HS, can think that God would hate anyone enough to elect them to eternal damnation. Isn't the indwelling Holy Spirit the third person of the trinity, and God Himself, inside us? The Holy Spirit should give us the ability to love all people. If God hates those whom He elects for damnation, then why is the HS moving me to love those whom I should hate, in my flesh? Why do I have compassion for those who hate God, and me? It certainly isn't any love, and compassion coming from me.

[DannyM]

I see the OP has been left to grow old in the archives. No one has even touched the issues in the OP. I was surely a fool to expect more. So since the stock objections are once again coming thick and fast, we’ll move on and forget the intent of this thread.

Why do some believe and others don't, if everyone has the ability to believe? Is it intellectual assent? Is it emotional agreement? What exactly in a person makes him believe, and another person does not?

I guess you would have to ask each individual that was presented with the gospel. I can tell you why I chose to believe, but, I can't speak for anyone else.

That’s completely avoiding the question, Rick. If God’s saving grace abounds to all, why is one unregenerate sinner able to believe the gospel and another not? Is it just the luck of the draw, the way the wind blows, or what? Is it perhaps to do with one person’s intellectual superiority versus another’s intellectual bankruptcy? Where is God’s grace in all of this? And what if no one ‘chooses’ to come to God, Rick? Where’s your ‘election’ then? Is there an elected seat, a corporate seat just waiting to be filled? Did God just roll the dice? What happens with the elected seat if no one accepts? Does this empty seat just vanish out of existence and God packs his bags and trots off?

I wouldn't say anything "makes" anyone believe. God gives everyone the ability, and means to make the decision, though. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Then everyone is saved, since God loses none of those He draws.

But how does God give everyone the ability, Rick? Don’t just say “Christ’s death”, since on your scheme that clearly isn’t enough. So what does God do to give unregenerate man the ability to make this decision, Rick?

1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Paul is explicit here. Man alone, without the Spirit, cannot discern Spiritual things, Rick. But on your scheme “everyone” can come to God of their own “free” will. Paul clearly refutes you, brother.

So how does man without the Spirit come to God, Rick? How does man obtain for himself the Spirit? Do you have an answer for Paul?

John 8:47
He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

Note that the text does not say, “The reason you do not belong to God is that you do not hear." No, the text says, quite explicitly, “The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

One has to belong to God in order to hear, Rick. How do you answer this, Rick?

What happened in a person's life, that won't allow him to understand that God loves all people so much, that He sent Christ to die for everyone?

Not an argument, but pure emotion.

But, only those who accept God's means to eternal life (Christ's work) will be in an eternal relationship with Him. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how someone with the indwelling of the HS, can think that God would hate anyone enough to elect them to eternal damnation.

Rick, do you honestly understand sin and the condition of man? Nothing you are saying constitutes an argument, brother. This is pure emotion.

Isn't the indwelling Holy Spirit the third person of the trinity, and God Himself, inside us? The Holy Spirit should give us the ability to love all people. If God hates those whom He elects for damnation, then why is the HS moving me to love those whom I should hate, in my flesh? Why do I have compassion for those who hate God, and me? It certainly isn't any love, and compassion coming from me.

Because we are commanded to love. And pray tell, who is it that you should hate? God does indeed hate some. I mean, do you even want to dispute this? But God doesn’t hate the human race at all. Far from it. God generally wills that all humans repent, He generally wills that none commit murder. Man in his depravity possesses nothing short of a total inability to come to God and worship Him. But in eternity and by His grace God predestines some to share in His glory.

God permits murder, and indeed uses murder to bring about His purposes. In His decree God willed the murder of His Son. God used human beings in order to bring about His own Son’s persecution, prosecution, death and resurrection. Try to understand that it is about God, Rick, and not you.

[August]

I guess you would have to ask each individual that was presented with the gospel. I can tell you why I chose to believe, but, I can't speak for anyone else. I wouldn't say anything "makes" anyone believe.

So it is uncaused? Please explain the logic behind that. If there are two choices, and we are to pick one, how can that choice be uncaused?

God gives everyone the ability, and means to make the decision, though. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

It isn't. But we are parsing terms here...what do you mean by "means" and "ability"?

I'm certainly not the most intelligent person, and I can understand that. What happened in a person's life, that won't allow him to understand that God loves all people so much, that He sent Christ to die for everyone? But, only those who accept God's means to eternal life (Christ's work) will be in an eternal relationship with Him.

Ok...so then we have:
1. God died for all people, and all people are saved = Universalism
2. God died for all people, and some, who choose to accept that in and of themselves, are saved = Unlimited atonement with partial effectiveness of the death of Christ
3. God died for those whom He elected = Limited atonement with full effectiveness of the death of Christ

Rick, if Christ died for all people, everywhere, then we have 1 or 2.

If 1. then there is no-one that will be punished, and everyone will have eternal life.
If 2. then the death of Christ is not sufficient, since we need to add another cause to be saved, that which is needed to choose God. In addition, how does that somehow make God more loving? He still created people that he knows will not choose Him for some arbitrary reason, who will be lost.

I, for the life of me, cannot understand how someone with the indwelling of the HS, can think that God would hate anyone enough to elect them to eternal damnation.

You need to explain this to me. If God just stands by idly while people perish out of their own free will, He is somehow more loving? He doesn't judge them? How can He judge them if He created them knowing that they won't choose Him? Did God not create them in the time, place, circumstances and with the personal characteristics that makes them who they are? Or was that either uncaused or chance as well?

Isn't the indwelling Holy Spirit the third person of the trinity, and God Himself, inside us? The Holy Spirit should give us the ability to love all people. If God hates those whom He elects for damnation, then why is the HS moving me to love those whom I should hate, in my flesh? Why do I have compassion for those who hate God, and me? It certainly isn't any love, and compassion coming from me.

Did you love them before you became a Christian? I think we should be careful here not to confuse the roles of the Trinity. It is a whole other topic, but in essence we are not God. We cannot judge, and we are commanded to love our enemies. You get caught on the horns of a dilemma here, unless you want to be a universalist. The fact is that some people do end up in hell. How do they get there if God loves them?

[neo-x]

Brothers, this is almost the same things we have been arguing about in the last month. Predestination, salvation,etc etc. I seriously don't think going down the road again is gonna change anything...so lets get back to topic. The point I made in my post was, the Wesley didn't believe in the Calvinist definition of election. So how does it make it despicable? I don't believe in catholic sacraments, does that make them despicable?...it doesn't fit.

[August]

Brothers, this is almost the same things we have been arguing about in the last month. Predestination, salvation,etc etc. I seriously don't think going down the road again is gonna change anything...so lets get back to topic. The point I made in my post was, the Wesley didn't believe in the Calvinist definition of election. So how does it make it despicable? I don't believe in catholic sacraments, does that make them despicable?...it doesn't fit.

You are right neo, we discussed it and changed the title.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:I guess you would have to ask each individual that was presented with the gospel. I can tell you why I chose to believe, but, I can't speak for anyone else. I wouldn't say anything "makes" anyone believe.



So it is uncaused? Please explain the logic behind that. If there are two choices, and we are to pick one, how can that choice be uncaused?

Sorry, August. You lost me here. You asked:

Why do some believe and others don't, if everyone has the ability to believe?

I answered that I don't know specifically why each person chooses what he chooses.

God gives everyone the ability, and means to make the decision, though. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?



It isn't. But we are parsing terms here...what do you mean by "means" and "ability"?

What I wrote here explains it as best I can:

It's clear to me, that I believe that man, absent from God's help, cannot accept the gospel. I would assume Calvinism agrees with that statement. But, where Calvinism, and I disagree concerning this, is the extent of man's depravity. Especially, concerning the fact that all men, including unbelievers, have a conscience, and a spirit. The spirit that God has given all men, IMO, from conception, is what allows mankind, to understand God, and the afterlife. So, even though man is lost in his sins, he has a God given spirit, which gives man the ability to understand spiritual things. And ultimately, this God given spirit, enables man the ability to choose or deny the gospel of Christ. And, by hearing the word of God, we get the faith to believe. Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

Ok...so then we have:
1. God died for all people, and all people are saved = Universalism
2. God died for all people, and some, who choose to accept that in and of themselves, are saved = Unlimited atonement with partial effectiveness of the death of Christ
3. God died for those whom He elected = Limited atonement with full effectiveness of the death of Christ

August, I believe you're missing something here. It would go as follows:
1. God died for all people, and all people are saved = Universalism
2. Jesus died for all the sins of all people. So that man now has the means to accept Christ, and by accepting Him, have accepted the only means by which God has given us eternal life. God desires all men to be saved. 1 Timothy 2:4. But God knows that all men won't accept God's means for eternal life. So, with Jesus efficacious work, God has given atonement to all. And Christ's work was completely effective. All one has to do is accept Christ's work.
3. God died for those whom He elected(Calvinism) = God really doesn't love all men whom He created, because He makes no way for those He damned, to come to salvation.=meaningless atonement, with partial effectiveness of the death of Christ

If 1. then there is no-one that will be punished, and everyone will have eternal life.
If 2. then the death of Christ is not sufficient, since we need to add another cause to be saved, that which is needed to choose God. In addition, how does that somehow make God more loving? He still created people that he knows will not choose Him for some arbitrary reason, who will be lost.

God loves all people so much, that he sent Christ to die for us, so that anyone who believes on Him, will have everlasting life. He loves us so much, that He has given us the ability to choose to love Him. And, in loving Him, and accepting His way to get eternal life, we will forever be with Him. Sounds pretty amazing to me!!!

You need to explain this to me. If God just stands by idly while people perish out of their own free will, He is somehow more loving?

Who says God "stands by idly"? He draws us to Him.
God drew me to Him, by how the indwelling Holy Spirit transformed my Mom. I noticed the difference in her. The difference was God. God is not idle.

How can He judge them if He created them knowing that they won't choose Him?

Just because God foreknew that they wouldn't choose Him, that doesn't mean that God made them choose how they did. God still gave them the same means to make that choice, as He did to those who chose Him. That is love, August.

Did God not create them in the time, place, circumstances and with the personal characteristics that makes them who they are?

Of course. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit cannot speak to people, because their "personal characteristics" may not allow them to be receptive? That would make the HS pretty weak, wouldn't it?

Isn't the indwelling Holy Spirit the third person of the trinity, and God Himself, inside us? The Holy Spirit should give us the ability to love all people. If God hates those whom He elects for damnation, then why is the HS moving me to love those whom I should hate, in my flesh? Why do I have compassion for those who hate God, and me? It certainly isn't any love, and compassion coming from me.



Did you love them before you became a Christian? I think we should be careful here not to confuse the roles of the Trinity. It is a whole other topic, but in essence we are not God. We cannot judge, and we are commanded to love our enemies. You get caught on the horns of a dilemma here, unless you want to be a universalist. The fact is that some people do end up in hell. How do they get there if God loves them?

August, if we have the indwelling HS, He will conform us to the image of Christ. He will become more, I will become less. As I am being transformed, I have more compassion for those whom my natural man says I should hate. If I become more loving of those who hate God, and me, don't you see that that is the image of Christ, and not me that is loving them? Why would God give me the desire to love those who hate Him, if God Himself hates them, as Calvinism teaches?

The fact is that some people do end up in hell. How do they get there if God loves them?

And now we are back to the crucial question. The question, when answered by Calvinist means, eliminates man's choice. God has provided the means for man to have eternal life with Him. People will be in hell, because they reject God's only provision for eternal life. They will be in hell, because they reject Christ. That is a choice, and Calvinism leaves no option for man's choice.

[1over137]

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil//wesley.htm:

Whitefield wrote:

"Indeed, honoured Sir, it is plain beyond all contradiction that St. Paul, through the whole of Romans 8, is speaking of the privileges of those only who are really in Christ. And let any unprejudiced person read what goes before and what follows your text, and he must confess the word "all" only signifies those that are in Christ. And the latter part of the text plainly proves, what, I find, dear Mr. Wesley will, by no means, grant. I mean the final perseverance of the children of God: "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, [i.e., all Saints] how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8:32)."
...
"I shall not mention how illogically you have proceeded. Had you written clearly, you should first, honoured Sir, have proved your proposition: "God's grace is free to all."
...
"I believe the doctrine of reprobation, in this view, that God intends to give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number, and that the rest of mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of God to continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal death which is its proper wages. This is the established doctrine of Scripture, and acknowledged as such in the 17th article of the Church of England, as Bishop Burnet himself confesses. Yet dear Mr. Wesley absolutely denies it."

Bible says:
Romans 8:32 "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;"

Does everybody agree that Romans 8 establishes that the saving grace is given only to a certain number of people? How else could those verses be explained?

I found something interesting (http://evangelicalarminians.org/Klein-I ... l-Election):

"I, for one, never argue that God chose an abstract entity, any more than when God selected Israel to be his chosen people, Israel was a mere abstract entity. Israel as a nation was chosen, and every individual Israelite was an elect person. When God spoke those fateful words to Abram in Genesis 12:1-3, he was selecting a nation—in him. Correspondingly, the Church is God’s new chosen people,9 and every individual Christian is an elect person—in him, i.e., in Christ. That explains why numerous New Testament texts affirm that Christians are elect (e.g., Rom 8:33; Eph 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13). The key question remains, however: how does one become a part of the chosen people? Concerning Israel, being born of Jewish parents established one as part of the chosen people. In the Christian era being born again (or born of the Spirit) adds a person to the church, the elect body of Christ. To be born again requires faith. To trust in Christ puts one into the corporate Christ, his elect body."

[jlay]

John 8:47
"The one who belongs to God listens and responds to God’s words. You don’t listen and respond, because you don’t belong to God.”

There is certainly a whole lot more going on in the context of John 8. What causes someone to belong? When you read this out of context you are reading into it, Calvinist presupositions. Yes, they don't listen because they don't belong. But why don't they belong. Because they refused to believe. Although, as Pharisees, they had ample evidence, prophecy, they did not receive the Messiah.

(John 8:30,31,32) 30 As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

If?

[DannyM]

Brothers, this is almost the same things we have been arguing about in the last month. Predestination, salvation,etc etc. I seriously don't think going down the road again is gonna change anything...so lets get back to topic. The point I made in my post was, the Wesley didn't believe in the Calvinist definition of election. So how does it make it despicable? I don't believe in catholic sacraments, does that make them despicable?...it doesn't fit.

I apologise, Neo. I didn't mean to offend you, my brother, or anybody else. The moderators discussed this privately and we agreed to change the title of the thread, and move it to a more appropriate forum.

[neo-x]

DannyM on Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:36 am

neo-x wrote:
Brothers, this is almost the same things we have been arguing about in the last month. Predestination, salvation,etc etc. I seriously don't think going down the road again is gonna change anything...so lets get back to topic. The point I made in my post was, the Wesley didn't believe in the Calvinist definition of election. So how does it make it despicable? I don't believe in catholic sacraments, does that make them despicable?...it doesn't fit.


I apologise, Neo. I didn't mean to offend you, my brother, or anybody else. The moderators discussed this privately and we agreed to change the title of the thread, and move it to a more appropriate forum.

Not offended at all brother Danny, I love you too much. I only wanted that we all get along and so we may not unintentionally, perhaps in our own argument, be a stumble to someone; as I full well know it would never be your intention and purpose at all. I know you are sincere and zealous and I respect that very very much, as always...

[DannyM]

Not offended at all brother Danny, I love you too much. I only wanted that we all get along and so we may not unintentionally, perhaps in our own argument, be a stumble to someone; as I full well know it would never be your intention and purpose at all. I know you are sincere and zealous and I respect that very very much, as always...

Thanks bro. One realises that one sometimes tends to runaway with oneself, and one’s tongue on occasion seems to get sharper the more passionate one is. It is a fault which is recognised, but sometimes it is grabbed a hold of a little later than one would have liked. Love you bro. On Wesley, who of course is a brother, and I’m sorry if I gave a different impression, I’ll break down the points bullet-like, as the thread was a bit long, and give it another whirl in a bit. Like a true Saint I’ll persevere