# John Wesley a confused calvinist?



## Redness (Jul 5, 2011)

In my long and weary travels searching for a church, I have encountered many a Reformed leader exalting to the nines the wonderful Rev. John Wesley. They claim him to have erred on election and to be but a "confused" Calvinist. What think you?


----------



## Skyler (Jul 5, 2011)

All Christians are confused Calvinists.

---------- Post added at 11:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 AM ----------

Including me. =)


----------



## Redness (Jul 5, 2011)

Joseph Scibbe said:


> John Wesley has done much for the Church, not the least putting out lots of great Hymns.



You're a Baptist aren't you?


----------



## Redness (Jul 5, 2011)

Joseph Scibbe said:


> Redness said:
> 
> 
> > Joseph Scibbe said:
> ...



Oh, ...nothing. Do you follow the regulative principle?


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 5, 2011)

Redness said:


> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> > Redness said:
> ...



Stay on topic. We can discuss this in Private Messages.

---------- Post added at 11:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 AM ----------

I apologize. I misread the title to say Charles Wesley. I will take my posts down.


----------



## Redness (Jul 5, 2011)

Joseph Scibbe said:


> [
> 
> Oh, ...nothing. Do you follow the regulative principle?



Stay on topic. We can discuss this in Private Messages.

---------- Post added at 11:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 AM ----------

I apologize. I misread the title to say Charles Wesley. I will take my posts down.[/QUOTE]

My goodness! what makes you think I can't relate your observence of the regulative principle to the topic at hand?


----------



## FenderPriest (Jul 5, 2011)

Reading Dalimore's biography on George Whitefield would cure any sense that Wesley was a "confused Calvinist".


----------



## Redness (Jul 5, 2011)

FenderPriest said:


> Reading Dalimore's biography on George Whitefield would cure any sense that Wesley was a "confused Calvinist".



Good. I read John Wesley (particularly his sermon entitled "Free Grace") and know he's no confused Calvinist.

Here's a highlight:

25. Such blasphemy this, as one would think might make the ears of a Christian to tingle! But there is yet more behind; for just as it honours the Son, so doth this doctrine honour the Father. It destroys all his attributes at once: It overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. More false; because the devil, liar as he is, hath never said, "He willeth all men to be saved:" More unjust; because the devil cannot, if he would, be guilty of such injustice as you ascribe to God, when you say that God condemned millions of souls to everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, for continuing in sin, which, for want of that grace he will not give them, they cannot avoid: And more cruel; because that unhappy spirit "seeketh rest and findeth none;" so that his own restless misery is a kind of temptation to him to tempt others. But God resteth in his high and holy place; so that to suppose him, of his own mere motion, of his pure will and pleasure, happy as he is, to doom his creatures, whether they will or no, to endless misery, is to impute such cruelty to him as we cannot impute even to the great enemy of God and man. It is to represent the high God (he that hath ears to hear let him hear!) as more cruel, false, and unjust than the devil! 

26. This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree+ of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. But you say you will prove it by scripture. Hold! What will you prove by Scripture that God is worse than the devil I cannot be. Whatever that Scripture proves, it never an prove this; whatever its true meaning be. This cannot be its true meaning. Do you ask, "What is its true meaning then" If I say, " I know not," you have gained nothing; for there are many scriptures the true sense whereof neither you nor I shall know till death is swallowed up in victory. But this I know, better it were to say it had no sense, than to say it had such a sense as this. It cannot mean, whatever it mean besides, that the God of truth is a liar. Let it mean what it will it cannot mean that the Judge of all the world is unjust. No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works; that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove predestination. 

27. This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination, a doctrine, upon the supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a moment, (call it election, reprobation, or what you please, for all comes to the same thing,) one might say to our adversary, the devil, "Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that he doeth it much more effectually Thou, with all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that we may resist thee; but He can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decrees, to leave thousands of souls in death, compels them to continue in sin, till they drop into everlasting burnings. Thou temptest; He forceth us to be damned; for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool, why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men" Moloch caused only children to pass though the fire: and that fire was soon quenched; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end; but God, thou are told, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes, not only children of a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire of hell, the 'fire which never shall be quenched; and the body which is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, will be ever consuming and never consumed, but 'the smoke of their torment,' because it is God's good pleasure, 'ascendeth up for ever and ever.'" 

There's more, you may read for yourself here: The Wesley Center Online: Sermon 128 - Free Grace.

However, whenever I pointed this out to these men they either ran from me, excused it or said the following nonsense: Well, Spurgeon and Whitefield thought well of him and so will I.


----------



## FenderPriest (Jul 5, 2011)

Redness said:


> However, whenever I pointed this out to these men they either ran from me, excused it or said the following nonsense: Well, Spurgeon and Whitefield thought well of him and so will I.


Well, one can think well of a fellow Christian without imputing Calvinism into their doctrine when it's clearly not there.


----------



## Redness (Jul 5, 2011)

FenderPriest said:


> Redness said:
> 
> 
> > However, whenever I pointed this out to these men they either ran from me, excused it or said the following nonsense: Well, Spurgeon and Whitefield thought well of him and so will I.
> ...



I don't get you. Please explain.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 5, 2011)

Redness said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > Redness said:
> ...



He is saying you can enjoy and read a Christian even if they are not a Calvinist.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 5, 2011)

John Wesley was a confused Arminianist whose proliferation of that error (yea even bringing into the mainstream) In my humble opinion outweighs any good he might have done.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 5, 2011)

If you know Packer's _Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God_ (I think it's there) he has an interesting account of a dialogue between Wesley and a Calvinist...I forget who and I haven't got the book here, so this post may not be all that helpful


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 5, 2011)

Redness said:


> My goodness! what makes you think I can't relate your observence of the regulative principle to the topic at hand?



Because the thread is about John Wesley and not a thread to rip into one's view of worship. John Wesley is on trial, not Joseph.


----------



## Puritan Scot (Jul 5, 2011)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/wesley-vs-toplady-26125/


----------



## Redness (Jul 6, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Redness said:
> 
> 
> > My goodness! what makes you think I can't relate your observence of the regulative principle to the topic at hand?
> ...



So, you then don't think I'm talented enough to link the two?

What if a reformed person believes in singing man-made hymns in the church for worship and believes it is indeed God-glorifying to sing a Wesley song in the church? Now John Wesley didn't write the hymns, but his brother did, however his brother did so for John's "ministry" and independently for his followers. Their ministry sought to destroy Calvinism. That means they labored to destroy the truth about salvation. I would ask, is singing such a man's song pleasing to God. Do we not therefore exalt the man (the whole problem with hymnody)? I would not call such people (the Wesley's) Christian and I marvel that others would.

Charles Wesley's Poem:

Oh Horrible Decree
Worthy of whence it came!
Forgive their hellish blasphemy
Who Charge it on the Lamb. 


The righteous God consigned
Them over to their doom,
And sent the Savior of mankind
To damn them from the womb;
To damn for falling short
Of what they could not do
For not believing the report
Of that which was not true.

Redness: Is it right, as God's people, to exalt such men and excuse their blasphemy by trying to say they were but confused? I pose the question not to condemn, but to understand the thinking of my brethern. Is it impious to ask or challenge one another? Why are you seeking to limit the conversation to such tight perameters, that questions may not be asked for clarification sake?

I've been accused of "baiting," if my questions are uncomfortable, why are you (the generic you) uncomfortable? Is not this a forum where we may discuss and challenge the opinions of others? If not, I've certainly come to the wrong place.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 6, 2011)

> So, you then don't think I'm talented enough to link the two?



You may think you are arrogant enough to do so, but proper thread etiquette is to stay on topic. 

We are not limiting the questions. You asked a very specific question and the thread is designed to answer that one. If you have questions on a different topic, then start a new thread.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Jul 6, 2011)

FenderPriest said:


> Reading Dalimore's biography on George Whitefield would cure any sense that Wesley was a "confused Calvinist".



I second this recommendation. I'm currently reading the book in question, and the first chapter has revealed that there's been a lot of misrepresentation concerning both Whitefield and Wesley (mostly to the advance of Wesley).


----------



## Kim G (Jul 6, 2011)

@ Redness,

Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of a forum. There are many debates on the PuritanBoard regarding the regulative principle of worship, hymn-versus-exclusive psalmody, etc. But in a forum, to be polite, we only deal with the direct question of the original poster. If additional questions or related topics come up, it's best to start a new thread for those who are interested in that debate. This thread is talking about John Wesley's calvinism or lack thereof. It is not a thread about Joseph Scibbe's views of worship. If you think the two are linked, it is best to start a new thread about it.

As a side note, as a sister-in-Christ to a brother-in-Christ, many of your posts come across as someone angry, proud, and ready to bash other brothers and sisters in Christ because they view things differently than you do. I trust that you are a humble and considerate person in real life, but it's so hard to read proper tones online that it behooves all of us to say what we believe with a tone of humility and brotherly love. We are all willing to listen and debate if we believe that at the end of the day, we are still friends in Christ.


----------



## FenderPriest (Jul 6, 2011)

JennyG said:


> If you know Packer's _Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God_ (I think it's there) he has an interesting account of a dialogue between Wesley and a Calvinist...I forget who and I haven't got the book here, so this post may not be all that helpful


You're thinking of a conversation between Charles Simeon and John Wesley. It can be found here. The thing to remember here is that John Wesley _did_ preach free grace and the Gospel, and in comparison to many general Arminians and Wesleyans, he had a firmer grasp of the doctrine of grace that would appear in today's eyes as being Calvinistic. This was, I think, simply due to his deep understanding of the Gospel truths and his love for Christ. He wasn't a Calvinist, but he was certainly clearer on the Gospel than many Arminian preachers today, and thus _looks_ like a Calvinist in a certain light, but that's just simply not the case.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 6, 2011)

Wesley was confused, and said many contradictory things. I think people sometimes hesitate to call him confused because he seems so clear and positive in his statements; but Coleridge quotes someone about how Wesley's vigorous mind always substituted its own conception for whatever was presented to him.
In forming an estimate of the man, therefore, it is not sufficient to look at one statement only. If you only read him saying that he agreed that all the elect would infallibly be saved, but wondering on what grounds it could be asserted that only the elect could be saved, you would get one impression: an impression possibly contradicted by his Arminian magazine. Personally, in my limited reading, I think you see Wesley at his best in his funeral sermon for George Whitefield.


----------



## Redness (Jul 6, 2011)

Kim G said:


> @ Redness,
> 
> Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of a forum. There are many debates on the PuritanBoard regarding the regulative principle of worship, hymn-versus-exclusive psalmody, etc. But in a forum, to be polite, we only deal with the direct question of the original poster. If additional questions or related topics come up, it's best to start a new thread for those who are interested in that debate. This thread is talking about John Wesley's calvinism or lack thereof. It is not a thread about Joseph Scibbe's views of worship. If you think the two are linked, it is best to start a new thread about it.
> 
> As a side note, as a sister-in-Christ to a brother-in-Christ, many of your posts come across as someone angry, proud, and ready to bash other brothers and sisters in Christ because they view things differently than you do. I trust that you are a humble and considerate person in real life, but it's so hard to read proper tones online that it behooves all of us to say what we believe with a tone of humility and brotherly love. We are all willing to listen and debate if we believe that at the end of the day, we are still friends in Christ.



I thank you for your tone, as one sister to another. Being direct, for some reason, is equated with being rude. It should be assumed that I'm not attacking but asking or stating. I also don't see opening a thousand threads to discuss something that may be a related aside. Is that a rule?

Btw, the "free" grace of John Wesley was free, prevenient grace not grace as a Calvinist would know it. Prevenient grace is an universal restorative act of the nature of man from totally depraved to freewill. It is a fiction popularized by Wesley. Wesley not only demanded that man must have free-will for God to be fair, good and loving, but that man must exercise that freewill to remain saved. 

Understanding prevenient grace the grace of John Wesley:Universal prevenient grace - Religion-wiki


----------



## FenderPriest (Jul 6, 2011)

Redness said:


> Btw, the "free" grace of John Wesley was free, prevenient grace not grace as a Calvinist would know it. Prevenient grace is an universal restorative act of the nature of man from totally depraved to freewill. It is a fiction popularized by Wesley. Wesley not only demanded that man must have free-will for God to be fair, good and loving, but that man must exercise that freewill to remain saved.


Wesley did indeed teach prevenient grace, but it's not accurate to say he didn't preach free grace. Iain Murray's work on Wesley (and Whitefield) in Evangelicalism Divided helpfully points out that Wesley wasn't a Calvinist, but he still preached the free grace of the Gospel clearly and faithfully.


----------



## Redness (Jul 6, 2011)

FenderPriest said:


> Redness said:
> 
> 
> > Btw, the "free" grace of John Wesley was free, prevenient grace not grace as a Calvinist would know it. Prevenient grace is an universal restorative act of the nature of man from totally depraved to freewill. It is a fiction popularized by Wesley. Wesley not only demanded that man must have free-will for God to be fair, good and loving, but that man must exercise that freewill to remain saved.
> ...



Respectfully, do you have a quote?


----------



## Zenas (Jul 6, 2011)

Redness said:


> I thank you for your tone, as one sister to another. Being direct, for some reason, is equated with being rude. It should be assumed that I'm not attacking but asking or stating. I also don't see opening a thousand threads to discuss something that may be a related aside. Is that a rule?



You're not merely direct, but you seem to include comments with your posts that strike me as backhanded. Case in point:



> I also don't see opening a thousand threads to discuss something that may be a related aside. Is that a rule?



Either you're intentionally being backhanded, or you're merely unfamiliar with etiquette and how things you say are perceived. I tend to think the former. You are perceived as rude by many folks. I know what arrogant looks like because I am arrogant. Your posts and your jabs are exactly something that I would say or do to get one over on someone else. 

That said, I'll say this:

Calm down. There's no reason to be defensive. There's no reason to constantly be on guard to the point that you feel the need to size everyone else up. Discuss to learn. Don't endlessly debate and create contention. Be direct, but be charitable and afford others more honor than you would ask for yourself. Anyone on here is your opponent only in a most limited and nuanced sense. In other words, you agree on the majority of things with everyone else on here. There's no reason to be so combative.


----------



## Redness (Jul 6, 2011)

Puritan Scot said:


> http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/wesley-vs-toplady-26125/



Fantastic!! I think I wanna know BlueRidge!

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------




Zenas said:


> Redness said:
> 
> 
> > I thank you for your tone, as one sister to another. Being direct, for some reason, is equated with being rude. It should be assumed that I'm not attacking but asking or stating. I also don't see opening a thousand threads to discuss something that may be a related aside. Is that a rule?
> ...




See, this is what I mean, how can THAT be perceived as other than calm? I'm asking a question. This is silly and I think there is something wrong with the site's ...culture. I'm through.


----------



## Zenas (Jul 6, 2011)

Why is it always everyone else's fault? You're not being rude, we're reading you wrong. You're behaving fine. The culture on this website is just wrong. 

Take some responsibility for yourself and your actions. Several people aren't crazy because they read you as arrogant. You come off so, even if you don't intend to be. That's a problem with you, not them.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 6, 2011)

Despite the Arminian stance he took when trying to make his beliefs systematic, Wesley was _functionally_ more of a Calvinist than are many professed Calvinists. He profoundly felt and depended on God's grace.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 6, 2011)

I think the problem with much of the Reformed community is that we lack grace to many non-Reformed Christians. John and Charles Wesley were both used of God, despite their faulty doctrine, to bring the Kingdom. For that we should be glad. Whether he was a "confused calvinist" could be argued about for ages. No doubt there is some "overlap" between his theology and calvinistic theology and sometimes he may be perceived as "confused". If he perhaps was then let us praise God for a gradual reformation of his thought to more solid theology. If not then let us praise God for the work he did for the Church.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jul 6, 2011)

RE: Grace extended to Arminians.

We could take a clue from a sold out Calvinist, Whitefield. When Wesley was openly and publicly running Whitefield in the ground, it was very ugly. Whitefield was asked if the thought he would see Wesley in heaven. Whitefield answered that he did not think so. He then went on to state that he thought that Wesley would be so close to Christ that he in the outer fringes of the host of heaven would not be able to see him for the glory of Christ.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jul 6, 2011)

JennyG said:


> If you know Packer's _Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God_ (I think it's there) he has an interesting account of a dialogue between Wesley and a Calvinist...I forget who and I haven't got the book here, so this post may not be all that helpful



For those interested, the Calvinist was Charles Simeon and the dialogue originally recorded in Wesley's Journal for Dec. 20 1784 is on pp. 13, 14 of Packer's book. Here is the dialogue, Wesley's answers are in orange: 

“Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?*Yes, I do indeed.*
And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?
*Yes, solely through Christ.*
But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?
*No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last*.
Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?
*No.
*
What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?
*Yes, altogether.
*
And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?
*Yes, I have no hope but in Him.*
Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.”


----------



## JM (Jul 6, 2011)

Maybe his brother.

Lyrics from, “And Can It Be” with my comments in italics:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay, _(original sin)_ 

Fast bound in sin and nature’s night; _(original sin) 
_
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray— I woke, _(given life by the Spirit)_ 

the dungeon flamed with light; _(with the new life comes spiritual eyes)_ 

My chains fell off, my heart was free, _(“If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” John 8 )_ 

I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
_
(Only after the “quickening ray” falls upon a sinner can that sinner follow Christ! Amen.)_


----------



## MW (Jul 6, 2011)

John Wesley was an evangelical Arminian -- that is all. The problem with these kinds of discussions relates to the fact that doctrine is organic and the whole system can be traced back from a branch of it. As Reformed people we believe Calvinism is the most consistent expression of evangelical commitments. The reality is, however, that other evangelicals do not think so. They branch evangelicalism off into another direction. We hold the root in common and the fruit might in fact be identified as basically the same in nature, but the branches are leaning in a different direction and the shadiness of the environment creates a different flavour and quality to the fruit.


----------



## discipulo (Jul 6, 2011)

JM said:


> Maybe his brother.
> 
> Lyrics from, “And Can It Be” with my comments in italics:
> 
> ...





Thank you for quoting this beautiful poem of Charles. Packer on Knowing God adds after the poem: where is your arminanism here?

I agree that John was a very confused theologian, loads of zeal, a lot of missunderstandings. Second Blessing, Perfectionism, Proto-Pentecostalism, Deformed Arminianism,
a good dose of Mysticism - Pietism. A terrible legacy that deformed evangelicalism in ways still felt today.

J C Ryle in his chapter on Wesley is still very charitable to the great christian leader - organizer and evangelist, that never the less, Wesley was too.


----------



## MW (Jul 6, 2011)

JM said:


> (Only after the “quickening ray” falls upon a sinner can that sinner follow Christ! Amen.)[/I]


 
The question is, Whether it be an irresistible quickening, or merely prevenient to its acceptance or rejection by the sinner? The former we affirm and the latter we deny against Arminianism.


----------



## FenderPriest (Jul 7, 2011)

Redness said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > Redness said:
> ...


I'm sorry to say I don't, but can simply point to the book. I remember his discussion, which seems a little extensive to simply quote, so I'll just point to his book and say, "It's in there!" He has a chapter comparing the revival movement of the 18th century and how Whitefield and Wesley's preaching compares to the 20th century Evangelical movement. I hope it's ok to reference a book and leave it at that, but I'm at work and haven't the time to look the pages and quotes up. 

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------




LawrenceU said:


> RE: Grace extended to Arminians.
> 
> We could take a clue from a sold out Calvinist, Whitefield. When Wesley was openly and publicly running Whitefield in the ground, it was very ugly. Whitefield was asked if the thought he would see Wesley in heaven. Whitefield answered that he did not think so. He then went on to state that he thought that Wesley would be so close to Christ that he in the outer fringes of the host of heaven would not be able to see him for the glory of Christ.


Indeed. Whitefield is one of the most instructive examples of how to love those who disagree with us, or are even against us unjustly.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 7, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> RE: Grace extended to Arminians.
> 
> We could take a clue from a sold out Calvinist, Whitefield. When Wesley was openly and publicly running Whitefield in the ground, it was very ugly. Whitefield was asked if the thought he would see Wesley in heaven. Whitefield answered that he did not think so. He then went on to state that he thought that Wesley would be so close to Christ that he in the outer fringes of the host of heaven would not be able to see him for the glory of Christ.



Amen and amen. I know plenty of non-Calvinists that love Christ with unmatched passion. Their zeal is intense, infectious, and is a great light for the Gospel.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 7, 2011)

Jack K said:


> Despite the Arminian stance he took when trying to make his beliefs systematic, Wesley was _functionally_ more of a Calvinist than are many professed Calvinists. He profoundly felt and depended on God's grace.


Agreed. To quote Wesley (via Iain Murray's book on Evangelicalism Divided): "The author of faith is God alone."
He went on to say that it is the Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of men. On that point, Wesley and Calvinism are in complete agreement. The disagreement comes with regard to what sort of grace accompanies this work of God: prevenient or effectual.

And as far as Arminianism today, it's a whole lot closer in many respects to Finney's Pelagian abominations than it is to either Calvin or Wesley.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 7, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Despite the Arminian stance he took when trying to make his beliefs systematic, Wesley was _functionally_ more of a Calvinist than are many professed Calvinists. He profoundly felt and depended on God's grace.
> ...



This is a good point. I think part of the confusion with Wesley is that what passes as Arminianism today is really closer to semi-Pelagianism or full blown Pelagianism.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 7, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> This is a good point. I think part of the confusion with Wesley is that what passes as Arminianism today is really closer to semi-Pelagianism or full blown Pelagianism.


And that's one of the general problems with Arminianism with regard to its use. By nature, Arminianism focuses on works over doctrine, and often relegates theology to second class status. As a result, the preaching becomes "do more, try harder," and you end up with a congregation who is zealous for charity and good works, but shrug their shoulders when it comes to even an elementary doctrinal discussion. That's one of the reasons why I think Arminianism is more susceptible to false doctrine, and the Church of the Nazarene is the latest hotbed of controversy for this. Open theism, for example, seems to be becoming an option for Arminian theologians like Roger Olson. 

It's very sad to see.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 7, 2011)

timmopussycat said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> > If you know Packer's _Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God_ (I think it's there) he has an interesting account of a dialogue between Wesley and a Calvinist...I forget who and I haven't got the book here, so this post may not be all that helpful
> ...


That's it, and I think it's a great passage. Thanks for finding it for me!


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 7, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > This is a good point. I think part of the confusion with Wesley is that what passes as Arminianism today is really closer to semi-Pelagianism or full blown Pelagianism.
> ...



I think you are identifying a problem more with your "average Christian" and not "Arminianism" as a doctrinal system. There are many good Arminian Christians who love Scripture and doctrine.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 7, 2011)

Dean,

Can you point me to something about Roger Olson and open theism? That is really sad to hear.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 7, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Dean,
> 
> Can you point me to something about Roger Olson and open theism? That is really sad to hear.


Here's something straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak...

Why open theism doesn't even matter (very much) | Roger E. Olson

---------- Post added at 12:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------




Joseph Scibbe said:


> I think you are identifying a problem more with your "average Christian" and not "Arminianism" as a doctrinal system. There are many good Arminian Christians who love Scripture and doctrine.


You're absolutely right, there are. Being an ex-Arminian (or Recovering Arminian, whichever term you prefer), I can confirm this. 

Having said that, I also can say from experience that Arminianism is more susceptible to false doctrine than Calvinism due to its prioritizing in most cases of works and practical holiness over sound doctrine. Again, _not all Arminians fall for this,_ but the nature and setup of the system of Arminianism allows for doctrinal undermining to happen more easily.

If you want an example of this, check out this website from a member of the Church of the Nazarene (an Arminian denomination) with regard to what's happening with his denomination: Reformed Nazarene (contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. Jude 1:3)


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 7, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Dean,
> ...



Sad


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 7, 2011)

Joseph Scibbe said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...



There really aren't too many classic Arminians around, although I've come across some young bloggers who advocate the "Reformed Arminianism" of Arminius. (Reformed in that sense referring to the era (as opposed to Wesleyan Arminianism) and as I understand it not suggesting that he belongs in the Reformed camp with Calvin.) 

Modern revivalistic Semi-Pelagianism is too often slapped with the label Arminian. Semi-Pelagians often argue that man can exercise faith without any work of the Spirit whatsoever, that somehow the ability to do so resides in every man. No Arminian who knows his doctrine would ever say that. I can't find their prevenient grace in the Bible, but it's not the same as the Semi-Pelagian view. 

The first church I went to after my conversion was a congregation of the Wesleyan denomination. The pastor was more "Calvinistic" than most Baptists of his generation, preached verse by verse through books of the Bible and didn't even have an "altar call." He would admit that his practice was different than many in his denomination, but he appeared to be to be more of a classic Arminian in that he rejected the Wesleyan doctrines of entire sanctification, a second work of grace, etc.

With regard to open theism, the more solid Arminian theologians aren't into it, but some of them aren't willing to drop the H-bomb (heresy) on open theists either. I remember seeing a blog post by Ben Witherington III on Rob Bell a few years ago in which he said Bell was a certain kind of Arminian and wasn't a heretic. I don't know if his opinion has changed now or not.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Jul 8, 2011)

Redness said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > Reading Dalimore's biography on George Whitefield would cure any sense that Wesley was a "confused Calvinist".
> ...



Yeah there's a reason I don't like Wesley and this is one of them. Looks like he condemns Calvinism as a heresy. Ouch.


----------



## NB3K (Jul 8, 2011)

Redness said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > Reading Dalimore's biography on George Whitefield would cure any sense that Wesley was a "confused Calvinist".
> ...




Has anyone read George Whitefield's refutation of that "Free Grace" sermon that Wesley wrote? I mean Whitefield destroys Wesley, but in a gentle manner. LOL.


----------



## dudley (Jul 8, 2011)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> John Wesley was a confused Arminianist whose proliferation of that error (yea even bringing into the mainstream) In my humble opinion outweighs any good he might have done.



After leaving Roman catholicism I explored all the major Protestant denominations. I studied and worshipped with the Methodidts for a few months before exploring the Presbyterians which I now am. John Wesley was a “messed up Calvinist” who believed that “there’s some residual good left in the sinner.” This can’t be farther from the truth. I did not have to look far to find Wesley’s thoughts on sin. Wesley held the classical/reformed Arminian view that man was totally depraved. 
I read one of Wesley’s most famous sermons entitled “Original Sin?” Here is an eye opening quote from the same:

“But was there not good mingled with the evil? Was there not light intermixed with the darkness? No; none at all: “God saw that the whole imagination of the heart of man was only evil.” It cannot indeed be denied, but many of them, perhaps all, had good motions put into their hearts; for the Spirit of God did then also “strive with man,” if haply he might repent, more especially during that gracious reprieve, the hundred and twenty years, while the ark was preparing. But still “in his flesh dwelt no good thing;” all his nature was purely evil: It was wholly consistent with itself, and unmixed with anything of an opposite nature.”

This sure dosen’t sound like someone who believes that man contains residual good. For more of the same from Wesley, read the entire sermon.


----------



## MarieP (Jul 9, 2011)

FenderPriest said:


> Redness said:
> 
> 
> > However, whenever I pointed this out to these men they either ran from me, excused it or said the following nonsense: Well, Spurgeon and Whitefield thought well of him and so will I.
> ...


----------



## Kassie_Blair (Jul 9, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Redness said:
> 
> 
> > FenderPriest said:
> ...



I have not read it, but I would like to. It is the Arminian's failure to use logic that ultimately works against them. Wesley and other Arminians fail to ask themselves why sinners go to hell. Sinners go to hell because all have sinned. Is it just for God to send a sinner to hell? Of course! Now is God any less just by electing some to be saved? No. Is it unjust that He didn't elect other sinners and they will burn in hell for all eternity? No. Why? Because they've sinned! Justice is just served in a different way for the elect, which is through Christ. (That's why the "L" in TULIP is so critical. TULIP just doesn't function if one part is missing. It is sheer ludicrous to believe in total depravity as most Arminians do and try to explain away the rest.) It is just for sinners to be in hell and God is no less just in his choice to have some pay for their sin and to have Christ be the propitiation for the elect. LOL I used to be an Arminian, but their failure to think critically kills me. Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel like predestination is that difficult of a concept to grasp. Granted I have God's grace of understanding on my side that keeps me from erring in the same way, but nonetheless it is a pretty simple concept.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 9, 2011)

Kassie_Blair said:


> I have not read it, but I would like to. It is the Arminian's failure to use logic that ultimately works against them. Wesley and other Arminians fail to ask themselves why sinners go to hell. Sinners go to hell because all have sinned. Is it just for God to send a sinner to hell? Of course! Now is God any less just by electing some to be saved? No. Is it unjust that He didn't elect other sinners and they will burn in hell for all eternity? No. Why? Because they've sinned! Justice is just served in a different way for the elect, which is through Christ. (That's why the "L" in TULIP is so critical. TULIP just doesn't function if one part is missing. It is sheer ludicrous to believe in total depravity as most Arminians do and try to explain away the rest.) It is just for sinners to be in hell and God is no less just in his choice to have some pay for their sin and to have Christ be the propitiation for the elect. LOL I used to be an Arminian, but their failure to think critically kills me. Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel like predestination is that difficult of a concept to grasp. Granted I have God's grace of understanding on my side that keeps me from erring in the same way, but nonetheless it is a pretty simple concept.


The pastor at the Nazarene church I attend prior to the current one was like this. He believed in total Depravity, but said that he departed from Calvinism after that.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 9, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> Kassie_Blair said:
> 
> 
> > I have not read it, but I would like to. It is the Arminian's failure to use logic that ultimately works against them. Wesley and other Arminians fail to ask themselves why sinners go to hell. Sinners go to hell because all have sinned. Is it just for God to send a sinner to hell? Of course! Now is God any less just by electing some to be saved? No. Is it unjust that He didn't elect other sinners and they will burn in hell for all eternity? No. Why? Because they've sinned! Justice is just served in a different way for the elect, which is through Christ. (That's why the "L" in TULIP is so critical. TULIP just doesn't function if one part is missing. It is sheer ludicrous to believe in total depravity as most Arminians do and try to explain away the rest.) It is just for sinners to be in hell and God is no less just in his choice to have some pay for their sin and to have Christ be the propitiation for the elect. LOL I used to be an Arminian, but their failure to think critically kills me. Maybe it's just me, but I don't feel like predestination is that difficult of a concept to grasp. Granted I have God's grace of understanding on my side that keeps me from erring in the same way, but nonetheless it is a pretty simple concept.
> ...



Interesting. That is one of the hardest parts of TULIP I find people to accept.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 9, 2011)

dudley said:


> John Wesley was a “messed up Calvinist” who believed that “there’s some residual good left in the sinner.” This can’t be farther from the truth.
> 
> This sure dosen’t sound like someone who believes that man contains residual good. For more of the same from Wesley, read the entire sermon.



I never said what you seem to attributing to me. I said, John Wesley was a confused Arminianist whose proliferation of that error (yea even bringing into the mainstream) In my humble opinion outweighs any good he might have done.

I stand by that statement.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (Jul 12, 2011)

Complete Works of John Wesley:

The Works of John Wesley (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI)

Q. 74. "What is the direct antidote to Methodism, the doctrine of heart-holiness? A. Calvinism: All the devices of Satan, for these fifty years, have done far less toward stopping this work of God, than that single doctrine. It strikes at the root of salvation from sin, previous to glory, putting the matter on quite another issue. ... Be diligent to prevent them, and to guard these tender minds against the predestinarian poison." (vol 8: pg 336)

So, no. But worse than that, he refuses imputed righteousness of Christ and even a proper basic understanding of justification. As well, he set his full forces against the Reformed of his day, like Toplady, to the point that he or some of his minions were spread lies and bizarre propaganda against these men. (See http://www.toplady.org.uk/a m toplady.html as a good basic resource on Wesley's mistreatment of Toplady.) Wesley really marked himself out as an enemy of Christ.


----------



## Gage Browning (Jul 12, 2011)

FenderPriest said:


> Reading Dalimore's biography on George Whitefield would cure any sense that Wesley was a "confused Calvinist".



Great Point! Also a great read! But Whitefield sure didn't think he was a "confused calvinist".


----------



## NB3K (Jul 16, 2011)

Romans 8:30 Them he - In due time. Called - By his gospel and his Spirit. And whom he called - When obedient to the heavenly calling, Act_26:19. He also justified - Forgave and accepted. And whom he justified - Provided they "continued in his goodness," Rom_11:22, he in the end glorified - St. Paul does not affirm, either here or in any other part of his writings. that precisely the same number of men are called, justified, and glorified. He does not deny that a believer may fall away and be cut off between his special calling and his glorification, Rom_11:22. Neither does he deny that many are called who never are justified. He only affirms that this is the method whereby God leads us step by step toward heaven. He glorified - He speaks as one looking back from the goal, upon the race of faith. Indeed grace, as it is glory begun, is both an earnest and a foretaste of eternal glory. [John Wesly Commentary]


I would say Wesley was far from a Calvinist. He was an Arminian! Never forget that!

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/n...ic-rebuke-john-wesleys-sermon-free-grace-658/ 

Above is the link to George Whitefield's Public Rebuke of John Wesley's Sermon Entitled Free Grace!


----------

