# calvinism/ arminianism quotes.....



## Formerly At Enmity (Aug 12, 2005)

happy friday kids!!!!!!! 

i need your favorite quotes regarding Calvinism (definitions, things said in response to it, praise given to it etc.) for a brief powerpoint presentation tomorrow....also, i need some directions for finding scholarly thoughts/quotes regarding Arminianism....... i have been to Monergism and found a bunch of good stuff...CAN"T FIND ANYTHING GOOD W REGARD TO ARMINIANISM!!! WHERE ARE THEY HIDING??

p.s.- i need these by 230pm today..

for those who have time for this, i would appreciate the help!!1
thx, 
jason


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 12, 2005)

-- An extract from John Owen's -- The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ, Book I, Chapter III --
The following is from Vol X, p 173, THE WORKS OF JOHN OWEN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists --

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,

1. either all the sins of all men,
2. or all the sins of some men,
3. or some sins of all men.

If the LAST, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" [Ps. cxxx.2] We might all go to cast all that we have "to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty." [Isa. ii. 20, 21]

If the SECOND, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the FIRST, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe."

But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?

If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.

Let them choose which part they will.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 12, 2005)

"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect"
John Owen (III:433)

"To believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism."
J.H. Merle d'Aubigne (The Reformation in England, London, 1962, Vol. 1, p.98)

"No more soul-destroying doctrine could well be devised than the doctrine that sinners can regenerate themselves, and repent and believe just when they please"¦As it is a truth both of Scripture and of experience that the unrenewed man can do nothing of himself to secure his salvation, it is essential that he should be brought to a practical conviction of that truth. When thus convicted, and not before, he seeks help from the only source whence it can be obtained."
Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, 1970, Vol. 2, p. 277)

"Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free will: and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, 'If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.' It may seem a harsh sentiment: but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both: that he is 'Alpha and Omega' in the salvation of men"
C.H. Spurgeon (Sermon entitled "Free Will-A Slave")

"Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we can do for ourselves? Those who say the latter, that it ultimately depends on something we do for ourselves, thereby deny humanity's utter helplessness in sin and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder then that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being, in principle, both a return to Rome because, in effect, it turned faith into a meritorious work, and a betrayal of the Reformation because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the reformers' thought. Arminianism was indeed, in Reformed eyes, a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism. For to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle than to rely on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment."
J.I. Packer & O.R. Johnston (Introduction to The Bondage of the Will, p. 59)

"The greatest judgment which God Himself can, in this present life, inflict upon a man is, to leave him in the hand of his own boasted free-will."
Augustus Toplady (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/freewill.html)

"One church cannot wrap in her communion Austin and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius. I have here only given you a taste, whereby you may judge of the rest of their fruit,"”"œmors in olla, mors in olla;" their doctrine of the final apostasy of the elect, of true believers, of a wavering hesitancy concerning our present grace and future glory, with divers others, I have wholly omitted: those I have produced are enough to make their abettors incapable of our church-communion. The sacred bond of peace compasseth only the unity of that Spirit; which leadeth into all truth. We must not offer the right hand of fellowship, but rather proclaim iJero<n po>lemon, [4] "œa holy war," to such enemies of God´s providence, Christ´s merit, and the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters. [5] We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~,"”"œthe depths and crafts of Satan;" we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men. With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but yet, for the most part,"”like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all,"”give but the least admission, and the whole poison must be swallowed."
John Owen (The Epistle Dedicatory, A Display of Arminianism)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 12, 2005)

Here is the most scholarly Arminian treatment of Romans 9 that I am aware of:

http://johnnydz.truepath.com/romans9.htm
(There is a link on the page to this PDF file:
http://johnnydz.truepath.com/pdf/DZonR9.pdf)


(Of course, I neither support nor endorse the above links.)


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 12, 2005)

Also, you should be able to find a "wealth" of Arminian quotes here:

http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.htm


And here are a couple Wesley quotes I pulled off the web:



> Wesley preached a sermon on Free Grace, attacking predestination as blasphemous, representing *"God as worse than the devil,"* Whitefield asked him (1739) not to repeat or publish the discourse, not wanting a dispute. Wesley's sermon was published, and among the many replies to it was one by Whitefield. Separation followed in 1741. Wesley wrote that those who held universal redemption did not desire separation, but *"those who held particular redemption would not hear of any accommodation."*







[Edited on 8-12-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## edwardian289 (Aug 12, 2005)

Here are a few that I have (if you need sources let me know):

"If the case be such indeed, that all mankind are by nature in a state of total ruin...then, doubtless, the great salvation by Christ stands in direct relation to this ruin, as the remedy to the disease."
-Jonathan Edwards

"When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot make a movement towards goodness, far less steadily pursue it."
-John Calvin

I don't know if those types of quotes are what you're looking for, but hopefully they will be found useful. I have more, I just don't have any here at work besides those.

In Christ,
William


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 12, 2005)

CHARLES SPURGEON
QUOTES ON CALVINISM

It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are truly and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make my pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me . . . Taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren; I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God's own church. (Spurgeon's Sovereign Grace Sermons, Still Waters Revival Books, p. 170).

I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross. (Charles Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856).

You must first deny the authenticity and full inspiration of the Holy Scripture before you can legitimately and truly deny election. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 3, p.130).

When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul - when they were as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron; and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown all of a sudden from a babe into a man - that I had made progress in scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God ... I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, I ascribe my change wholly to God. (Charles Spurgeon, Autobiography: 1, The Early Years, Banner of Truth, pp. 164-165).

George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 124).

Calvinism did not spring from Calvin. We believe that it sprang from the great Founder of all truth. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 7, p. 298).

We declare on scriptural authority that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful, supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained toward Christ. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 4, p.139).

I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, "You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself." My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will.

I believe that Christ came into the world not to put men into a salvable state, but into a saved state. Not to put them where they could save themselves, but to do the work in them and for them, from first to last. If I did not believe that there was might going forth with the word of Jesus which makes men willing, and which turns them from the error of their ways by the mighty, overwhelming, constraining force of divine influence, I should cease to glory in the cross of Christ. (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 3, p. 34).

A man is not saved against his will, but he is made willing by the operation of the Holy Ghost. A mighty grace which he does not wish to resist enters into the man, disarms him, makes a new creature of him, and he is saved. (C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 10, p. 309).

I question whether we have preached the whole counsel of God, unless predestination with all its solemnity and sureness be continually declared. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 6, p. 26).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 12, 2005)

> Hence Dr. Leighton calls Arminianism "the Pope's Benjamin, the last and greatest monster of the man of sin; the elixir of Anti- Christianism; the mystery of the mystery of iniquity; the Pope's cabinet; the very quintessence of equivocation." Alike hereunto Mr. Rous (Master of Eton College) addeth, saying, "Arminianism is the spawn of Popery, which the warmth of favour may easily turn into frogs of the pit." And what are the new Arminians but the varnished offspring of the old Pelagians, that makes the grace of God to lackey it at the foot, or rather, the will of man? that makes the sheep to keep the shepherd? that puts God into the same extremity with Darius, who would gladly have saved Daniel but could not (Dan 6:14)?



-- Christopher Ness, _An Antidote Against Arminianism_


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 12, 2005)

Arminian Doctrine Exposed

by Ralph Erskine (1685-1752)

The following selections have been taken from The Beauties of Erskine, with additional supliments from the original source material as found in The Sermons and Practical Works of Ralph Erskine (vol. 10, 1778). The electronic edition of this article was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink. It may be freely copied and distributed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arminian doctrine, which aboundeth in our day, makes the efficacy of the gospel depend upon man's free will; but we have not so learned Chirst; he hath made surer work, and all the efficacy to depend upon his free grace. The Father's promise to the Son secures it; "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." 

Let Arminians maintain at their peril their universal redemption, but we must maintain at our peril the universal offer. The Arminian doctrine is to be rejected as robbing Christ of the glory of his free grace, in electing from eternity, and effectually calling in time, ascribing so much to man's free will. 


No wonder Paul the legal spirit curse, 
Of fatal errors such a feeding nurse. 
He, in JEHOVAH's great tremendous name, 
Condemns perverters of the gospel-scheme. 
He damn'd the sophist rude, the babbling priest 
Would venture to corrupt it in the least; 
Yea, curst the heav'nly angel down to hell, 
That daring would another gospel tell. 
Which crime is charg'd on these that dare dispense 
The self-same gospel in another sense. 

Christ is not preach'd in truth, but in disguise, 
If his bright glory half absconded lies. 
When gospel-soldiers, that divide the word, 
Scarce brandish any but the legal sword. 
While Christ the author of the law they press, 
More than the end of it for righteousness; 
Christ as a seeker of our service trace, 
More than a giver of enabling grace. 
The king commanding holiness they show, 
More than the Prince exalted to bestow; 
Yea, more on Christ the sin-revenger dwell, 
Than Christ Redeemer both from sin and hell. 

With legal spade the gospel-field he delves, 
Who thus drives sinners in unto themselves; 
Halving the truth that should be all reveal'd, 
The sweetest part of Christ is oft conceal'd. 
We bid men turn from sin, but seldom say, 
Behold the Lamb that takes all sin away! 
Christ, by the gospel rightly understood, 
Not only treats a peace but makes it good. 
Those suitors therefore of the bride, who hope 
By force to drag her with the legal rope, 
Nor use the drawing cord of conqu'ring grace, 
Pursue with flaming zeal a fruitless chase; 
In vain lame doings urge, with solemn awe, 
To bribe the fury of the fiery law: 
With equal success to the fool that aims 
By paper walls to bound devouring flames. 
The law's but mock'd by their most graceful deed, 
That wed not first the law-fulfilling Head; 
It values neither how they wrought nor wept, 
That flight the ark wherein alone 'tis kept. 
Yet legalists, DO, DO, with ardour press, 
And with prepost'rous zeal and warm address, 
Would seem the greatest friends to holiness: 
But vainly (could such opposites accord) 
Respect the law, and yet reject the Lord. 
They shew not Jesus as the way to bliss, 
But Judas-like betray him with a kiss 
Of boasted works, or mere profession puft, 
Law-boasters proving but law-breakers oft. 

From A Legal Strain of Doctrine, found in Erskine's Gospel Sonnets 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more proud nature bears a legal sway, 
The more should preachers bend the gospel-way: 
Oft in the church arise destructive schisms 
From anti-evangelic aphorisms; 
A legal spirit may be justly nam'd 
The fertile womb of ev'ry error damn'd. 

Hence dare Arminians too, with brazen face, 
Give man's free-will the throne of God's free grace; 
Whose self-exalting tenets clearly shew 
Great ignorance of law and gospel too.

From: A Legal Spirit the Root of Damnable Errors, found in Erskine's Gospel Sonnets 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a specimen of the Arminian's Address to Sinners, and the Answer to it: 

The Arminian's Address
Arise, ye dead, Arminius cries, 
Arise, ye dead in sin; 
Unstop your ears, unclose your eyes, 
And a new life begin. 

Why will ye die, ye wretched souls? 
Ye dead, why will ye die? 
Quicken and make your spirits whole, 
To life eternal fly. 


The Answer 
Deluded seer! but man will lie 
Still senseless as a stone! 
And you yourself stand fooling by, 
Till both are quite undone: 

Unless Almighty power be moved 
By God's free will, not thine, 
To quicken both and make his love 
On both your hearts to shine.

From "The Beauties of Erskine" (1745).


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 12, 2005)

From The Great Christian Revolution by Otto Scott
(Actually, this is Michael Selbrede quoting Van Til. This is probably my favorite at the moment. I quoted this to an Arminian on a humanist message board and got him livid. That was pretty cool)



> To the extent that Calvinism has languished and Arminianism has waxed ascendant, to that extent have the issues of history been decided by the only means remaining TO DEAL WITH AXES THAT BOAST THEMSELVES against the One Who wields them. As Cornelius van Til observed so strikingly, there remains nothing between God and such man except a test of strength" (Selbrede, *The Great Christian Revolution*).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 12, 2005)

C. H. Spurgeon: 



> "An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, 'Lord, I thank Thee I am not like those poor Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody has done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Spirit given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not - that is the difference between me and them'. That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! When they are preaching and talking slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it." (Freewill-- A Slave)


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 12, 2005)

Here's a classic response to Wesley (Warfield's got some great ammunition as well)

George Whitefield to John Wesley: "œNo, dear Sir, you mistake."

A Letter
from
George Whitefield
to the
Rev. Mr. John Wesley

In Answer to Mr. Wesley´s Sermon Entitled
"œFree Grace"

"œBut when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Gal. 2:11).


PREFACE

I am very well aware what different effects publishing this letter against the dear Mr. Wesley´s Sermon will produce. Many of my friends who are strenuous advocates for universal redemption will immediately be offended. Many who are zealous on the other side will be much rejoiced. They who are lukewarm on both sides and are carried away with carnal reasoning will wish this matter had never been brought under debate.
The reasons I have given at the beginning of the letter, I think are sufficient to satisfy all of my conduct herein. I desire therefore that they who hold election would not triumph, or make a party on one hand (for I detest any such thing)"”and that they who are prejudiced against that doctrine be not too much concerned or offended on the other.
Known unto God are all his ways from the beginning of the world. The great day will discover why the Lord permits dear Mr. Wesley and me to be of a different way of thinking. At present, I shall make no enquiry into that matter, beyond the account which he has given of it himself in the following letter, which I lately received from his own dear hands:

London, August 9, 1740

My dear Brother,
I thank you for yours, May the 24th. The case is quite plain. There are bigots both for predestination and against it. God is sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it, unless from one who is of their own opinion. Therefore, for a time you are suffered to be of one opinion, and I of another. But when his time is come, God will do what man cannot, namely, make us both of one mind. Then persecution will flame out, and it will be seen whether we count our lives dear unto ourselves, so that we may finish our course with joy. I am, my dearest brother,
Ever yours,
J. WESLEY

Thus my honoured friend, I heartily pray God to hasten the time, for his being clearly enlightened into all the doctrines of divine revelation, that we may thus be closely united in principle and judgment as well as heart and affection. And then if the Lord should call us to it, I care not if I go with him to prison, or to death. For like Paul and Silas, I hope we shall sing praises to God, and count it our highest honour to suffer for Christ´s sake, and to lay down our lives for the brethren.


WHITEFIELD´S LETTER TO WESLEY


Bethesda in Georgia,
Dec. 24, 1740

Reverend and very dear Brother,
God only knows what unspeakable sorrow of heart I have felt on your account since I left England last. Whether it be my infirmity or not, I frankly confess, that Jonah could not go with more reluctance against Nineveh, than I now take pen in hand to write against you. Was nature to speak, I had rather die than do it; and yet if I am faithful to God, and to my own and others´ souls, I must not stand neutral any longer. I am very apprehensive that our common adversaries will rejoice to see us differing among ourselves. But what can I say? The children of God are in danger of falling into error. Nay, numbers have been misled, whom God has been pleased to work upon by my ministry, and a greater number are still calling aloud upon me to show also my opinion. I must then show that I know no man after the flesh, and that I have no respect to persons, any further than is consistent with my duty to my Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.
This letter, no doubt, will lose me many friends: and for this cause perhaps God has laid this difficult task upon me, even to see whether I am willing to forsake all for him, or not. From such considerations as these, I think it my duty to bear an humble testimony, and earnestly to plead for the truths which, I am convinced, are clearly revealed in the Word of God. In the defence whereof I must use great plainness of speech, and treat my dearest friends upon earth with the greatest simplicity, faithfulness, and freedom, leaving the consequences of all to God.
For some time before, and especially since my last departure from England, both in public and private, by preaching and printing, you have been propagating the doctrine of universal redemption. And when I remember how Paul reproved Peter for his dissimulation, I fear I have been sinfully silent too long. O then be not angry with me, dear and honoured Sir, if now I deliver my soul, by telling you that I think in this you greatly err.
´Tis not my design to enter into a long debate on God´s decrees. I refer you to Dr. Edwards his Veritas Redux1, which, I think is unanswerable"”except in a certain point, concerning a middle sort between elect and reprobate, which he himself in effect afterwards condemns.
I shall only make a few remarks upon your sermon, entitled "œFree Grace." And before I enter upon the discourse itself, give me leave to take a little notice of what in your Preface you term an indispensable obligation to make it public to all the world. I must own, that I always thought you were quite mistaken upon that head.
The case (you know) stands thus: When you were at Bristol, I think you received a letter from a private hand, charging you with not preaching the gospel, because you did not preach up election. Upon this you drew a lot: the answer was "œpreach and print." I have often questioned, as I do now, whether in so doing, you did not tempt the Lord. A due exercise of religious prudence, without [the drawing of] a lot, would have directed you in that matter. Besides, I never heard that you enquired of God, whether or not election was a gospel doctrine.
But, I fear, taking it for granted [that election was not a biblical truth], you only enquired whether you should be silent or preach and print against it.
However this be, the lot came out "œpreach and print"; accordingly you preached and printed against election. At my desire, you suppressed the publishing of the sermon whilst I was in England; but you soon sent it into the world after my departure. O that you had kept it in! However, if that sermon was printed in answer to a lot, I am apt to think, one reason why God should so suffer you to be deceived, was, that hereby a special obligation might be laid upon me, faithfully to declare the Scripture doctrine of election, that thus the Lord might give me a fresh opportunity of seeing what was in my heart, and whether I would be true to his cause or not; as you could not but grant, he did once before, by giving you such another lot at Deal.
The morning I sailed from Deal for Gibraltar [2 February 1738], you arrived from Georgia. Instead of giving me an opportunity to converse with you, though the ship was not far off the shore, you drew a lot, and immediately set forward to London. You left a letter behind you, in which were words to this effect: "œWhen I saw [that] God, by the wind which was carrying you out, brought me in, I asked counsel of God. His answer you have enclosed." This was a piece of paper, in which were written these words, "œLet him return to London."
When I received this, I was somewhat surprised. Here was a good man telling me he had cast a lot, and that God would have me return to London. On the other hand, I knew my call was to Georgia, and that I had taken leave of London, and could not justly go from the soldiers, who were committed to my charge. I betook myself with a friend to prayer. That passage in 1 Kings 13 was powerfully impressed upon my soul, where we are told that the Prophet was slain by a lion when he was tempted to go back (contrary to God´s express order) upon another Prophet´s telling him God would have him do so. I wrote you word that I could not return to London. We sailed immediately.
Some months after, I received a letter from you at Georgia, wherein you wrote words to this effect: "œThough God never before gave me a wrong lot, yet, perhaps, he suffered me to have such a lot at that time, to try what was in your heart." I should never have published this private transaction to the world, did not the glory of God call me to it. It is plain you had a wrong lot given you here, and justly, because you tempted God in drawing one. And thus I believe it is in the present case. And if so, let not the children of God who are mine and your intimate friends, and also advocates for universal redemption, think that doctrine true"”because you preached it up in compliance with a lot given out from God.
This, I think, may serve as an answer to that part of the Preface to your printed sermon, wherein you say, "œNothing but the strongest conviction, not only that what is here advanced is the truth as it is in Jesus, but also that I am indispensably obliged to declare this truth to all the world." That you believe what you have written to be truth, and that you honestly aim at God´s glory in writing, I do not in the least doubt. But then, honoured Sir, I cannot but think you have been much mistaken in imagining that your tempting God, by casting a lot in the manner you did could lay you under an indispensable obligation to any action, much less to publish your sermon against the doctrine of predestination to life.
I must next observe, that as you have been unhappy in printing at all upon such an imaginary warrant, so you have been as unhappy in the choice of your text. Honoured Sir, how could it enter into your heart to choose a text to disprove the doctrine of election out of Romans 8, where this doctrine is so plainly asserted? Once I spoke with a Quaker upon this subject, and he had no other way of evading the force of the Apostle´s assertion than by saying, "œI believe Paul was in the wrong." And another friend lately, who was once highly prejudiced against election, ingenuously confessed that he used to think St. Paul himself was mistaken, or that he was not truly translated.
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 "œall" 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: "œHe 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). [He shall give us] grace, in particular, to enable us to persevere, and every thing else necessary to carry us home to our Father´s heavenly kingdom.
Had any one a mind to prove the doctrine of election, as well as of final perseverance, he could hardly wish for a text more fit for his purpose than that which you have chosen to disprove it! One who did not know you would suspect that you were aware of this, for after the first paragraph, I scarce know whether you have mentioned [the text] so much as once through your whole sermon.
But your discourse, in my opinion, is as little to the purpose as your text, and instead of warping, does but more and more confirm me in the belief of the doctrine of God´s eternal election.
I shall not mention how illogically you have proceeded. Had you written clearly, you should first, honoured Sir, have proved your proposition: "œGod´s grace is free to all." And then by way of inference [you might have] exclaimed against what you call the horrible decree. But you knew that people (because Arminianism, of late, has so much abounded among us) were generally prejudiced against the doctrine of reprobation, and therefore thought if you kept up their dislike of that, you could overthrow the doctrine of election entirely. For, without doubt, the doctrine of election and reprobation must stand or fall together.
But passing by this, as also your equivocal definition of the word grace, and your false definition of the word free, and that I may be as short as possible, I frankly acknowledge: 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.
But the most important objections you have urged against this doctrine as reasons why you reject it, being seriously considered, and faithfully tried by the Word of God, will appear to be of no force at all. Let the matter be humbly and calmly reviewed, as to the following heads:
First, you say that if this be so (i.e., if there be an election) then is all preaching vain: it is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, the end of preaching to save souls is void with regard to them. And it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved. They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise. So that in either case our preaching is vain, and your hearing also vain. Page 10, paragraph 9.
O dear Sir, what kind of reasoning"”or rather sophistry"”is this! Hath not God, who hath appointed salvation for a certain number, appointed also the preaching of the Word as a means to bring them to it? Does anyone hold election in any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are elected, when the gospel is designated by God himself to be the power of God unto their eternal salvation? And since we know not who are elect and who reprobate, we are to preach promiscuously to all. For the Word may be useful, even to the non-elect, in restraining them from much wickedness and sin. However, it is enough to excite to the utmost diligence in preaching and hearing, when we consider that by these means, some, even as many as the Lord hath ordained to eternal life, shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe. And who that attends, especially with reverence and care, can tell but he may be found of that happy number?
Second, you say that the doctrine of election and reprobation directly tends to destroy holiness, which is the end of all the ordinances of God. For (says the dear mistaken Mr. Wesley) "œit wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture. The hope of future reward, and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven, and the fear of hell, et cetera."
I thought that one who carries perfection to such an exalted pitch as dear Mr. Wesley does, would know that a true lover of the Lord Jesus Christ would strive to be holy for the sake of being holy, and work for Christ out of love and gratitude, without any regard to the rewards of heaven, or fear of hell. You remember, dear Sir, what Scougal says, "œLove´s a more powerful motive that does them move." But passing by this, and granting that rewards and punishments (as they certainly are) may be motives from which a Christian may be honestly stirred up to act for God, how does the doctrine of election destroy these motives? Do not the elect know that the more good works they do, the greater will be their reward? And is not that encouragement enough to set them upon, and cause them to persevere in working for Jesus Christ? And how does the doctrine of election destroy holiness? Who ever preached any other election than what the Apostle preached, when he said, "œChosen . . . through sanctification of the Spirit?" (2 Thess. 2:13). Nay, is not holiness made a mark of our election by all that preach it? And how then can the doctrine of election destroy holiness?
The instance which you bring to illustrate your assertion, indeed, dear Sir, is quite impertinent. For you say, "œIf a sick man knows that he must unavoidably die or unavoidably recover, though he knows not which, it is not reasonable to take any physic at all." Dear Sir, what absurd reasoning is here? Were you ever sick in your life? If so, did not the bare probability or possibility of your recovering, though you knew it was unalterably fixed that you must live or die, encourage you to take physic? For how did you know but that very physic might be the means God intended to recover you by?
Just thus it is as to the doctrine of election. I know that it is unalterably fixed (one may say) that I must be damned or saved; but since I know not which for a certainty, why should I not strive, though at present in a state of nature, since I know not but this striving may be the means God has intended to bless, in order to bring me into a state of grace?
Dear Sir, consider these things. Make an impartial application, and then judge what little reason you had to conclude the 10th paragraph, page 12, with these words: "œSo directly does this doctrine tend to shut the very gate of holiness in general, to hinder unholy men from ever approaching thereto, or striving to enter in thereat."
"œAs directly," you say, "œdoes the doctrine tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness, such as meekness, love, et cetera." I shall say little, dear Sir, in answer to this paragraph. Dear Mr. Wesley perhaps has been disputing with some warm narrow-spirited men that held election, and then he infers that their warmth and narrowness of spirit was owing to their principles? But does not dear Mr. Wesley know many dear children of God, who are predestinarians, and yet are meek, lowly, pitiful, courteous, tender- hearted, kind, of a catholic spirit, and hope to see the most vile and profligate of men converted? And why? because they know God saved themselves by an act of his electing love, and they know not but he may have elected those who now seem to be the most abandoned.
But, dear Sir, we must not judge of the truth of principles in general, nor of this of election in particular, entirely from the practice of some that profess to hold them. If so, I am sure much might be said against your own. For I appeal to your own heart, whether or not you have not felt in yourself, or observed in others, a narrow-spiritedness, and some disunion of soul respecting those that hold universal redemption. If so, then according to your own rule, universal redemption is wrong, because it destroys several branches of holiness, such as meekness, love, et cetera. But not to insist upon this, I beg you would observe that your inference is entirely set aside by the force of the Apostle´s argument, and the language which he expressly uses in Colossians 3:12-13: "œPut on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye."
Here we see that the Apostle exhorts them to put on bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, et cetera, upon this consideration: namely, because they were elect of God. And all who have experientially felt this doctrine in their hearts feel that these graces are the genuine effects of their being elected of God.
But perhaps dear Mr. Wesley may be mistaken in this point, and call that passion which is only zeal for God´s truths. You know, dear Sir, the Apostle exhorts us to "œcontend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Therefore you must not condemn all that appear zealous for the doctrine of election as narrow-spirited, or persecutors, just because they think it their duty to oppose you. I am sure, I love you in the bowels of Jesus Christ, and think I could lay down my life for your sake; but yet, dear Sir, I cannot help strenuously opposing your errors upon this important subject, because I think you warmly, though not designedly, oppose the truth, as it is in Jesus. May the Lord remove the scales of prejudice from off the eyes of your mind and give you a zeal according to true Christian knowledge!
Third, says your sermon, "œThis doctrine tends to destroy the comforts of religion, the happiness of Christianity, et cetera."
But how does Mr. Wesley know this, who never believed election? I believe they who have experienced it will agree with our 17th article, that "œthe godly consideration of predestination, and election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing their minds to high and heavenly things, as well because it does greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation, to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God," et cetera.
This plainly shows that our godly reformers did not think election destroyed holiness or the comforts of religion. As for my own part, this doctrine is my daily support. I should utterly sink under a dread of my impending trials, were I not firmly persuaded that God has chosen me in Christ from before the foundation of the world, and that now being effectually called, he will allow no one to pluck me out of his almighty hand.
You proceed thus: "œThis is evident as to all those who believe themselves to be reprobate, or only suspect or fear it; all the great and precious promises are lost to them; they afford them no ray of comfort."
In answer to this, let me observe that none living, especially none who are desirous of salvation, can know that they are not of the number of God´s elect. None but the unconverted, can have any just reason so much as to fear it. And would dear Mr. Wesley give comfort, or dare you apply the precious promises of the gospel, being children´s bread, to men in a natural state, while they continue so? God forbid! What if the doctrine of election and reprobation does put some upon doubting? So does that of regeneration. But, is not this doubting a good means to put them upon searching and striving; and that striving, a good means to make their calling and their election sure?
This is one reason among many others why I admire the doctrine of election and am convinced that it should have a place in gospel ministrations and should be insisted on with faithfulness and care. It has a natural tendency to rouse the soul out of its carnal security. And therefore many carnal men cry out against it. Whereas universal redemption is a notion sadly adapted to keep the soul in its lethargic sleepy condition, and therefore so many natural men admire and applaud it.
Your 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs come next to be considered. "œThe witness of the Spirit," you say, "œexperience shows to be much obstructed by this doctrine."
But, dear Sir, whose experience? Not your own; for in your journal, from your embarking for Georgia, to your return to London, you seem to acknowledge that you have it not, and therefore you are no competent judge in this matter. You must mean then the experience of others. For you say in the same paragraph, "œEven in those who have tasted of that good gift, who yet have soon lost it again," (I suppose you mean lost the sense of it again) "œand fallen back into doubts and fears and darkness, even horrible darkness that might be felt, et cetera." Now, as to the darkness of desertion, was not this the case of Jesus Christ himself, after he had received an unmeasurable unction of the Holy Ghost? Was not his soul exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, in the garden? And was he not surrounded with an horrible darkness, even a darkness that might be felt, when on the cross he cried out, "œMy God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me?"
And that all his followers are liable to the same, is it not evident from Scripture? For, says the Apostle, "œHe was tempted in all things like as we are" (Heb 4:15) so that he himself might be able to succour those that are tempted (Heb. 2:18). And is not their liableness thereunto consistent with that conformity to him in suffering, which his members are to bear (Phil. 3:10)? Why then should persons falling into darkness, after they have received the witness of the Spirit, be any argument against the doctrine of election?
"œYet," you say, "œmany, very many of those that hold it not, in all parts of the earth, have enjoyed the uninterrupted witness of the Spirit, the continual light of God´s countenance, from the moment wherein they first believed, for many months or years, to this very day." But how does dear Mr. Wesley know this? Has he consulted the experience of many, very many in all parts of the earth? Or could he be sure of what he hath advanced without sufficient grounds, would it follow that their being kept in this light is owing to their not believing the doctrine of election? No, this [doctrine], according to the sentiments of our church, "œgreatly confirms and establishes a true Christian´s faith of eternal salvation through Christ," and is an anchor of hope, both sure and steadfast, when he walks in darkness and sees no light; as certainly he may, even after he hath received the witness of the Spirit, whatever you or others may unadvisedly assert to the contrary.
Then, to have respect to God´s everlasting covenant, and to throw himself upon the free distinguishing love of that God who changeth not, will make him lift up the hands that hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.
But without the belief of the doctrine of election, and the immutability of the free love of God, I cannot see how it is possible that any should have a comfortable assurance of eternal salvation. What could it signify to a man whose conscience is thoroughly awakened, and who is warned in good earnest to seek deliverance from the wrath to come, though he should be assured that all his past sins be forgiven, and that he is now a child of God; if notwithstanding this, he may hereafter become a child of the devil, and be cast into hell at last? Could such an assurance yield any solid, lasting comfort to a person convinced of the corruption and treachery of his own heart, and of the malice, subtlety, and power of Satan? No! That which alone deserves the name of a full assurance of faith is such an assurance as emboldens the believer, under the sense of his interest in distinguishing love, to give the challenge to all his adversaries, whether men or devils, and that with regard to all their future, as well as present, attempts to destroy"”saying with the Apostle,

Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God´s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord
(Rom. 8:33-39).

This, dear Sir, is the triumphant language of every soul that has attained a full assurance of faith. And this assurance can only arise from a belief of God´s electing everlasting love. That many have an assurance they are in Christ today, but take no thought for, or are not assured they shall be in him tomorrow"”nay to all eternity"”is rather their imperfection and unhappiness than their privilege. I pray God to bring all such to a sense of his eternal love, that they may no longer build upon their own faithfulness, but on the unchangeableness of that God whose gifts and callings are without repentance. For those whom God has once justified, he also will glorify.
I observed before, dear Sir, it is not always a safe rule to judge of the truth of principles from people´s practice. And therefore, supposing that all who hold universal redemption in your way of explaining it, after they received faith, enjoyed the continual uninterrupted sight of God´s countenance, it does not follow that this is a fruit of their principle. For that I am sure has a natural tendency to keep the soul in darkness for ever, because the creature thereby is taught that his being kept in a state of salvation is owing to his own free will. And what a sandy foundation is that for a poor creature to build his hopes of perseverance upon? Every relapse into sin, every surprise by temptation, must throw him "œinto doubts and fears, into horrible darkness, even darkness that may be felt."
Hence it is that the letters which have been lately sent me by those who hold universal redemption are dead and lifeless, dry and inconsistent, in comparison of those I receive from persons on the contrary side. Those who settle in the universal scheme, though they might begin in the Spirit, (whatever they may say to the contrary) are ending in the flesh, and building up a righteousness founded on their own free will: whilst the others triumph in hope of the glory of God, and build upon God´s never-failing promise and unchangeable love, even when his sensible presence is withdrawn from them.
But I would not judge of the truth of election by the experience of any particular persons: if I did (O bear with me in this foolishness of boasting) I think I myself might glory in election. For these five or six years I have received the witness of God´s Spirit; since that, blessed be God, I have not doubted a quarter of an hour of a saving interest in Jesus Christ: but with grief and humble shame I do acknowledge, I have fallen into sin often since that. Though I do not"”dare not"”allow of any one transgression, yet hitherto I have not been (nor do I expect that while I am in this present world I ever shall be) able to live one day perfectly free from all defects and sin. And since the Scriptures declare that there is not a just man upon earth (no, not among those of the highest attainments in grace) that doeth good and sinneth not (Eccl. 7:20), we are sure that this will be the case of all the children of God.
The universal experience and acknowledgement of this among the godly in every age is abundantly sufficient to confute the error of those who hold in an absolute sense that after a man is born again he cannot commit sin. Especially since the Holy Spirit condemns the persons who say they have no sin as deceiving themselves, as being destitute of the truth, and as making God a liar (1 John 1:8, 10). I have been also in heaviness through manifold temptations, and expect to be often so before I die. Thus were the Apostles and primitive Christians themselves. Thus was Luther, that man of God, who, as far as I can find, did not peremptorily, at least, hold election; and the great John Arndt was in the utmost perplexity, but a quarter of an hour before he died, and yet he was no predestinarian.
And if I must speak freely, I believe your fighting so strenuously against the doctrine of election and pleading so vehemently for a sinless perfection are among the reasons or culpable causes, why you are kept out of the liberties of the gospel, and from that full assurance of faith which they enjoy, who have experimentally tasted, and daily feed upon God´s electing, everlasting love.
But perhaps you may say, that Luther and Arndt were no Christians, at least very weak ones. I know you think meanly of Abraham, though he was eminently called the friend of God: and, I believe, also of David, the man after God´s own heart. No wonder, therefore, that in a letter you sent me not long since, you should tell me that no Baptist or Presbyterian writer whom you have read knew anything of the liberties of Christ. What? Neither Bunyan, Henry, Flavel, Halyburton, nor any of the New England and Scots divines? See, dear Sir, what narrow-spiritedness and want of charity arise from your principles, and then do not cry out against election any more on account of its being "œdestructive of meekness and love."
Fourth, I shall now proceed to another head. Says the dear Mr. Wesley, "œHow uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings?"
But who ever asserted, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings? Do not they who believe God´s dooming men to everlasting burnings, also believe, that God looked upon them as men fallen in Adam? And that the decree which ordained the punishment first regarded the crime by which it was deserved? How then are they doomed without any preceding fault? Surely Mr. Wesley will own God´s justice in imputing Adam´s sin to his posterity. And also, after Adam fell, and his posterity in him, God might justly have passed them all by, without sending his own Son to be a saviour for any one. Unless you heartily agree to both these points, you do not believe original sin aright. If you do own them, then you must acknowledge the doctrine of election and reprobation to be highly just and reasonable. For if God might justly impute Adam´s sin to all, and afterwards have passed by all, then he might justly pass by some. Turn on the right hand, or on the left; you are reduced to an inextricable dilemma. And, if you would be consistent, you must either give up the doctrine of the imputation of Adam´s sin, or receive the amiable doctrine of election, with a holy and righteous reprobation as its consequent. For whether you can believe it or not, the Word of God abides faithful: "œThe election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded" (Rom. 11:7).
Your 17th paragraph, page 16, I pass over. What has been said on the 9th and 10th paragraphs, with a little alteration, will answer it. I shall only say, it is the doctrine of election that most presses me to abound in good works. I am willing to suffer all things for the elect´s sake. This makes me to preach with comfort, because I know salvation does not depend on man´s free will, but the Lord makes willing in the day of his power, and can make use of me to bring some of his elect home, when and where he pleases.
But, Fifth, you say, "œThis doctrine has a direct manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian religion. For," say you, "œsupposing that eternal, unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must be saved, though the Christian revelation were not in being."
But, dear Sir, how does that follow? Since it is only by the Christian revelation that we are acquainted with God´s design of saving his church by the death of his Son. Yea, it is settled in the everlasting covenant that this salvation shall be applied to the elect through the knowledge and faith of him. As the prophet says in Isaiah 53:11, "œBy his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many." How then has the doctrine of election a direct tendency to overthrow the whole Christian revelation? Who ever thought that God´s declaration to Noah, that seed-time and harvest should never cease, could afford an argument for the neglect of plowing or sowing? Or that the unchangeable purpose of God, that harvest should not fail, rendered the heat of the sun, or the influence of the heavenly bodies unnecessary to produce it? No more does God´s absolute purpose of saving his chosen preclude the necessity of the gospel revelation, or the use of any of the means through which he has determined the decree shall take effect. Nor will the right understanding, or the reverent belief of God´s decree, ever allow or suffer a Christian in any case to separate the means from the end, or the end from the means.
And since we are taught by the revelation itself that this was intended and given by God as a means of bringing home his elect, we therefore receive it with joy, prize it highly, use it in faith, and endeavour to spread it through all the world, in the full assurance, that wherever God sends it, sooner or later, it shall be savingly useful to all the elect within its call.
How then, in holding this doctrine, do we join with modern unbelievers in making the Christian revelation unnecessary? No, dear Sir, you mistake. Infidels of all kinds are on your side of the question. Deists, Arians, and Socinians arraign God´s sovereignty and stand up for universal redemption. I pray God that dear Mr. Wesley´s sermon, as it has grieved the hearts of many of God´s children, may not also strengthen the hands of many of his most avowed enemies!
Here I could almost lie down and weep. "œTell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph" (2 Sam. 1:20).
Further, you say, "œThis doctrine makes revelation contradict itself." For instance, say you, "œThe assertors of this doctrine interpret that text of Scripture, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, as implying that God, in a literal sense, hated Esau and all the reprobates from eternity!" And, when considered as fallen in Adam, were they not objects of his hatred? And might not God, of his own good pleasure, love or show mercy to Jacob and the elect"”and yet at the same time do the reprobate no wrong? But you say, "œGod is love." And cannot God be love, unless he shows the same mercy to all?
Again, says dear Mr. Wesley, "œThey infer from that text, "˜I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,´ that God is merciful only to some men, viz the elect; and that he has mercy for those only, flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of the Scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, "˜The Lord is loving to every man, and his mercy is over all his works.´"
And so it is, but not his saving mercy. God is loving to every man: he sends his rain upon the evil and upon the good. But you say, "œGod is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). No! For every one, whether Jew or Gentile, that believeth on Jesus, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. "œBut he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). For God is no respecter of persons, upon the account of any outward condition or circumstance in life whatever; nor does the doctrine of election in the least suppose him to be so. But as the sovereign Lord of all, who is debtor to none, he has a right to do what he will with his own, and to dispense his favours to what objects he sees fit, merely at his pleasure. And his supreme right herein is clearly and strongly asserted in those passages of Scripture, where he says, "œMoses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Rom. 9:15, Exod. 33:19).
Further, from the text, "œthe children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her [Rebekah], The elder shall serve the younger" (Rom. 9:11-12)"”you represent us as inferring that our predestination to life in no way depends on the foreknowledge of God.
But who infers this, dear Sir? For if foreknowledge signifies approbation, as it does in several parts of Scripture, then we confess that predestination and election do depend on God´s foreknowledge. But if by God´s foreknowledge you understand God´s fore-seeing some good works done by his creatures as the foundation or reason of choosing them and therefore electing them, then we say that in this sense predestination does not any way depend on God´s foreknowledge.
But I referred you, at the beginning of this letter, to Dr. Edwards´s Veritas Redux, which I recommended to you also in a late letter, with Elisha Coles on God´s Sovereignty. Be pleased to read these, and also the excellent sermons of Mr. Cooper of Boston in New England (which I also sent you) and I doubt not but you will see all your objections answered. Though I would observe, that after all our reading on both sides the question, we shall never in this life be able to search out God´s decrees to perfection. No, we must humbly adore what we cannot comprehend, and with the great Apostle at the end of our enquiries cry out, "œO the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?" (Rom. 11:33-34)"”or with our Lord, when he was admiring God´s sovereignty, "œEven so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight" (Matt. 11:26).
However, it may not be amiss to take notice, that if those texts, "œThe Lord is . . . not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9) and "œI have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezek. 33:11)"”and such like"”be taken in their strictest sense, then no one will be damned.
But here´s the distinction. God taketh no pleasure in the death of sinners, so as to delight simply in their death; but he delights to magnify his justice, by inflicting the punishment which their iniquities have deserved. As a righteous judge who takes no pleasure in condemning a criminal, may yet justly command him to be executed, that law and justice may be satisfied, even though it be in his power to procure him a reprieve.
I would hint further, that you unjustly charge the doctrine of reprobation with blasphemy, whereas the doctrine of universal redemption, as you set it forth, is really the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the merit of his blood. Consider whether it be not rather blasphemy to say as you do, "œChrist not only died for those that are saved, but also for those that perish."
The text you have misapplied to gloss over this, see explained by Ridgely, Edwards, Henry; and I purposely omit answering your texts myself so that you may be brought to read such treatises, which, under God, would show you your error. You cannot make good the assertion that Christ died for them that perish without holding (as Peter Bohler, one of the Moravian brethren, in order to make out universal redemption, lately frankly confessed in a letter) that all the damned souls would hereafter be brought out of hell. I cannot think Mr. Wesley is thus minded. And yet unless this can be proved, universal redemption, taken in a literal sense, falls entirely to the ground. For how can all be universally redeemed, if all are not finally saved?
Dear Sir, for Jesus Christ´s sake, consider how you dishonour God by denying election. You plainly make salvation depend not on God´s free grace, but on man´s free-will. And if thus, it is more than probable, Jesus Christ would not have had the satisfaction of seeing the fruit of his death in the eternal salvation of one soul. Our preaching would then be vain, and all invitations for people to believe in him would also be in vain.
But, blessed be God, our Lord knew for whom he died. There was an eternal compact between the Father and the Son. A certain number was then given him as the purchase and reward of his obedience and death. For these he prayed (John 17:9), and not for the world. For these elect ones, and these only, he is now interceding, and with their salvation he will be fully satisfied.
I purposely omit making any further particular remarks on the several last pages of your sermon. Indeed had not your name, dear Sir, been prefixed to the sermon, I could not have been so uncharitable as to think you were the author of such sophistry. You beg the question, in saying that God has declared, (notwithstanding you own, I suppose, some will be damned) that he will save all"” i.e., every individual person. You take it for granted (for solid proof you have none) that God is unjust, if he passes by any, and then you exclaim against the "œhorrible decree": and yet, as I before hinted, in holding the doctrine of original sin, you profess to believe that he might justly have passed by all.
Dear, dear Sir, O be not offended! For Christ´s sake be not rash! Give yourself to reading. Study the covenant of grace. Down with your carnal reasoning. Be a little child; and then, instead of pawning your salvation, as you have done in a late hymn book, if the doctrine of universal redemption be not true; instead of talking of sinless perfection, as you have done in the preface to that hymn book, and making man´s salvation to depend on his own free will, as you have in this sermon; you will compose a hymn in praise of sovereign distinguishing love. You will caution believers against striving to work a perfection out of their own hearts, and print another sermon the reverse of this, and entitle it "œFree Grace Indeed." Free, not because free to all; but free, because God may withhold or give it to whom and when he pleases.
Till you do this, I must doubt whether or not you know yourself. In the meanwhile, I cannot but blame you for censuring the clergy of our church for not keeping to their articles, when you yourself by your principles, positively deny the 9th, 10th and 17th.
Dear Sir, these things ought not so to be. God knows my heart, as I told you before, so I declare again, nothing but a single regard to the honour of Christ has forced this letter from me. I love and honour you for his sake; and when I come to judgment, will thank you before men and angels, for what you have, under God, done for my soul.
There, I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election and everlasting love. And it often fills me with pleasure to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet of the Lamb, and as it were filled with a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner you have done.
But I hope the Lord will show you this before you go hence. O how do I long for that day! If the Lord should be pleased to make use of this letter for that purpose, it would abundantly rejoice the heart of, dear and honoured Sir,
Yours affectionate, though unworthy brother and servant in Christ,

GEORGE WHITEFIELD.


1 This refers to a work by Dr. John Edwards of Cambridge, not Jonathan Edwards, the famous American pastor-theologian.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Here is the most scholarly Arminian treatment of Romans 9 that I am aware of:
> 
> http://johnnydz.truepath.com/romans9.htm
> ...



Do you know johnnydz? A long time ago, I used to debate with him for hours in Yahoo "Christian" chat.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 12, 2005)

Duane Edward Spencer

"œThe Arminian view insists that it is man´s act of faith which merits his being elected according to the foreknowledge of God. If such be the case man is saved by works, and not by the grace of God, because he has done at least one thing pleasing to God, and all on his own!"

TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture, p. 37


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Aug 12, 2005)

boy....you guys have REALLY come through for me.... much was used and all was enjoyed ...God bless you all as you go into your weekend!!!
thx, 
jason


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...




No, I chatted with him online once, but that's about it.

Someday, I'd like to systematically go through his Romans 9 paper and refute it. He actually claims to out-exegete James White. He says that truly deep exegesis shows Romans 9 to be Arminian. Yikes.


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 12, 2005)

johnnydz seems to draw from an array of sources who are in theological disharmony with one another. A brief perusal of his book reviews at http://johnnydz.truepath.com/books_reviews.htm will bear this out.

For example, while endorsing Sproul's writings on Eschatology he rejects his Calvinism out right.

Here, johnnydz praises radical anti-Calvinist, Dan Corner:

_The Believer's Conditional Security : Eternal Security Refuted - Author: Dan Corner: I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in seeing both sides of the eternal security debate. The majority of the book is just a study of scripture, and reading this book was very uplifting and refreshing for me. I had not realized how much the OSAS doctrines have influenced Christianity today. If you question if the popular teachings of today are biblical, you will find this book very worthwhile._

I spent about an hour on Dan Corner's site a few weeks back. It is filled with plenty of scripture-twisting, sideways logic, Calvinist-bashing, and healthy doses of emotional diatribe.

I would not take johnnydz seriously. I don't believe he can even begin to cope with the wisdom, depth, intellect, and Bible scholarship of men like Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and Owen. He should not even consider himself an exegete at all in light of the weight of these men's writings.

[Edited on 8-12-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## just_grace (Aug 12, 2005)

*John...*

Said this...

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. *He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. * 

Interesting verse...


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 12, 2005)

Owen's Classic "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" gives in-depth treatment to the implications of 1 John 2:1-2 with respect to Particular Redemption (i.e. the "Limited Atonement" of the 5 Points). This monumental work is a free read at:

http://www.graciouscall.org/books/owen/death/preface.shtml


----------



## just_grace (Aug 13, 2005)

*Belief...*

I do not hold to the doctrine of universal redemption, thats not what I see in the above verse.
What I see is a possibility for 'anyone' to become a Christian and so benefit from what God has and is doing in Christ, I admit at the end of the day, the Elect will be in heaven singing and extolling our Great God.

Lord have mercy on unbelievers.


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> I do not hold to the doctrine of universal redemption, thats not what I see in the above verse.
> What I see is a possibility for 'anyone' to become a Christian and so benefit from what God has and is doing in Christ....
> 
> Lord have mercy on unbelievers.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Aug 14, 2005)

> Originally posted by just_grace
> 
> I do not hold to the doctrine of universal redemption, thats not what I see in the above verse.
> What I see is a possibility for 'anyone' to become a Christian and so benefit from what God has and is doing in Christ, I admit at the end of the day, the Elect will be in heaven singing and extolling our Great God.
> ...




I just want to clarify something.

What do you mean by "the possibility for anyone to become a Christian?" That saying always touches off the red flag of Prevenient Grace to me. Sorry if I am jumping to conclusions, but just something I hear ALOT in my area. 



[Edited on 8-14-2005 by JKLeoPCA]


----------



## just_grace (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JKLeoPCA_
> 
> 
> > Originally posted by just_grace
> ...



 I do not even know what Prevenient Grace is 

Edit...

1Th 1:9 For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, *and how you turned to God from idols* to serve the living and true God.

Yes, I believe that 'anyone' can become a Christian all they have to do is believe and that of course through God's Grace. Not everyone does though!

I guess what I am referring to is that part of John's statement that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

Some people say that He did not die for the sins of the whole world, well Scripture seems to say otherwise.

Without getting too deep and start arguing over words, that's what I believe.

I was once not a Christian, now I am, once I was not part of the people of God, now I am. There are people out there today who are not Christians but will become Christians.

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 
For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." 
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 
For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 
But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? *And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? *

[Edited on 8-14-2005 by just_grace]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> I would not take johnnydz seriously. I don't believe he can even begin to cope with the wisdom, depth, intellect, and Bible scholarship of men like Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and Owen. He should not even consider himself an exegete at all in light of the weight of these men's writings.



Of course I agree with you. In fact, we need to be careful about taking _any_ Arminian seriously.

Nevertheless, JohnnyDZ is one of the few Arminians I know who has made a serious attempt at doing an extensive, verse-by-verse exegesis of Romans 9, albeit from an Arminian perspective. To make things worse, he has published his detailed exegesis for all to read on the web. And who knows how many Arminians have been deceived into theological confidence because of that paper? If there are even 100, that's far too many. How many un-studied newbies to theology have been or will be led astray, away from Calvinism, because of "exegesis" such as this? 

A lot of Calvinists used to be Arminians, but switched, kicking and sreaming, because they realized that the Scriptures and logic are on the side of Calvinism. They just could not read Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John 6 & 10, etc., and remain Arminian. However, before switching over to the truth, a lot of Arminians SEEK logical/Scriptural support for their side. Thankfully, much of that type of seeking is futile. But since JohnnyDZ's paper on Romans 9 at least has the _appearance_ of exegesis and scholarship, my heart hurts for any Arminian who reads it, and then walks away strengthened and confident in his views. That would be sad indeed.

I don't know how many people are familiar with JohnnyDZ. I just pray my concerns are in vain, and that his theological hogwash amounts to nothing.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> I guess what I am referring to is that part of John's statement that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.



John used the word "world" in _several_ different ways in his books, and he _seldom_ was talking about "every person that lives on earth". The word "world" usually carries a different meaning. The verse you quoted from 1 John is no exception.



> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> Some people say that He did not die for the sins of the whole world, well Scripture seems to say otherwise.
> 
> Without getting too deep and start arguing over words, that's what I believe.



No, Scripture does not say otherwise. The Bible says Jesus died for His sheep, not for the goats.

Think carefully about this: 
If Jesus paid for every sin of every person on earth, then it would be unjust for God to send _anyone_ to hell. Why? Because if Jesus paid for their sins, and then they have to pay for their own sins in hell, then God has basically put them in "double-jeopardy", and is *unjustly* exacting *double payment* for the sins. - - - Once Jesus has paid for a sin, God has no right to exact eternal judgment for it from the one who committed it.

Also, think about John 17:9. Jesus explicitly said that He did *not* pray for the whole world. Jesus only prayed for the elect, for those given to Him by the Father. Consider that for a while.

Perhaps you would like to open up a new thread to discuss the definite atonement?

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## just_grace (Aug 14, 2005)

> [
> Perhaps you would like to open up a new thread to discuss the definite atonement?
> 
> Your brother in Christ,
> Joseph



No thanks, it gets too deep for me, I am not disputing what you say, I was just pointing to a verse of Scripture that says' that He died not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world' Why would John a man moved by the Holy Spirit say that? As I said, it's an interesting verse.


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> ...



Joesph, 

What you write here is very well thought out and aims for the "heart" of that matter - that is people who can be held captive by their own natural human thinking and then led even further astray by so-called "teachers" who have the same depraved premise. You are absolutely correct that many peoply simply fall for the "_appearance_ of exegesis and scholarship". In fact, johnnyDZ's real dilemma is not limited to Romans 9; because God's sovereign elective decree is found throughout Scripture - going all the way back to Genesis with the (non-elect) line of Cain V.S. the (elect) line of Seth.

Both "scholar" Adam Clark and "preacher" John Wesley exegeted Romans 9 (and many other portions of Scripture) in favor of the Arminian position. I believe their commentaries on Romans 9 are free reads on the Web. It would be interesting to compare what they said with johnnyDZ.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 14, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_Grace


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/AWPinkMeaningOfKosmos.htm


----------



## just_grace (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Also, think about John 17:9. Jesus explicitly said that He did *not* pray for the whole world. Jesus only prayed for the elect, for those given to Him by the Father. Consider that for a while.
> 
> Your brother in Christ,
> Joseph



"I do not ask for these only, but also for *those who will * believe in me through their word".

It's not finished yet, only God knows the elect, we do not.

BTW, I hold to TULIP 99.99999999%  I still not convinced as of yet that the parable of the unfaithful servant is not referring to a born again person. 

Just trying to get my head around this statement by John ' but also for the sins of the whole world' 

Any thoughts about the statement and why he should say it?

Go easy with me 

Ancora imparo...


----------



## just_grace (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by just_grace_
> ...



Thanks Scott


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> "I do not ask for these only, but also for *those who will * believe in me through their word".
> 
> It's not finished yet, only God knows the elect, we do not.



If you agree that God knows the elect ahead of time, then how can you logically believe that Jesus paid for the sins of the non-elect?



> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> BTW, I hold to TULIP 99.99999999%  I still not convinced as of yet that the parable of the unfaithful servant is not referring to a born again person.
> 
> ...



No problem, my brother. I had to wrestle with this one myself. 

Much of the argument over the word "world" (Greek: kosmos) has revolved not around 1 John 2:1-2, but around John 3:16. So, for starters, please take a look at this fairly brief article, which shows the many different meanings of "kosmos":

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/AWPinkMeaningOfKosmos.htm

(Scott linked to the same article above.)


I believe the word "kosmos" in 1 John 2:1-2 is referring to all the elect everywhere, i.e. the "world of the elect", or at least the "world of believers". John is just saying that Jesus didn't only die for us (Christians in this local area), but for Christians everywhere in the whole world. And this usage is consistent with a proper grammatical usage of the word "world" elsewhere in Scripture.


Of course, I also recommend John Owen's excellent treatment of 1 John 2:1-2. He explains it in great depth. The link for that is also above, already posted by someone else.


Please let me know your thoughts after reading the brief article above regarding the many meanings of "world" in the Bible. Hopefully, that alone will help you see that 1 John 2:1-2 is not talking about "everyone everywhere" like you were thinking.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## just_grace (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_Grace



Thanks, just read that, seems a very fine line indeed. My own experience of Grace was God riding forth in the chariot of the gospel etc...but I did not yield straight away but over the course of weeks I did eventually get down on my knees, confessed God and that I was a sinner and asked Jesus to come into my life.

What exactly does 'without the grace of God by Christ preventing us' mean? Preventing as stopping us? Or preparing us! The latter I think.

Ancora imparo...


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Literally, "pre - vent" means "to go before". So "preventing grace" is the grace of God that goes before us, preparing our way to salvation. Praise Him!!!


While you are thinking about preventing grace (a.k.a. prevenient grace), you might want to read this:

http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/prevenient.htm


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 14, 2005)

David,

I just want to write you a short note of encouragement to REALLY study the doctrine of Limited Atonement. It seems that you don't want to get "too deep", but I assure you that it is not that bad.

The implications of universal atonement are destructive to the Christian faith. Once one really gets a solid grasp on Limited Atonement, one realizes that it is much more than answering the question "For whom did Christ die?" More specifically, Limited Atonement answers "What did Christ's death ACCOMPLISH?" Did it merely provide an opportunity for salvation as the Arminian thought? Does it merely render the reprobate inexcusable as the Amyraldians (4-pt Calvinists)? I firmly believe that Christ's death accomplishes salvation only for his elect, and the benefits of his work on earth are only for them. That was his purpose.

I have a friend who had similar thoughts as to yours, and in a gentle rebuke, I asked him to read John Owen on the subject before he began to expound his views as true. Please do the same, and I believe that you will be greatly edified! 

This is meant to be some words of encouragement to you, because I have come from the "dark side" into the light, and want nothing more than to see you 100% convinced and solid. Please take my words as encouragement, and have a blessed Lord's day.


----------



## just_grace (Aug 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> David,
> 
> I just want to write you a short note of encouragement to REALLY study the doctrine of Limited Atonement. It seems that you don't want to get "too deep", but I assure you that it is not that bad.
> ...



Thanks, but I have already said that I do not hold to Universal Atonement, maybe I go deeper than what you think.

I appreciate your tolerance.

I am totally in agreement with what ever Paul and the rest of the Apostles taught. They worked very hard for us. ( for the sake of the Elect ) very interesting words from Paul.

They are the people I look to for my answers.

I believe that people go to the lake of fire... enough said, I also believe that no-one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws them.

I believe in the Elect.

I hope to post more, just in from work and have not eaten all day, I am hungry.

Back in a bit.

I am just learning.


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 14, 2005)

I think one way to summarize what is said above is this:

On PB we have many folks who are Theology Students at various levels of knowledge and depth. Many (if not most) of us came to our Reformed convictions after varying degrees of frustration with other forms of Christianity rooted in Pelagian/Arminian traditions. The more we examined the Scriptures, the clearer God's Sovereignty became for us. Also, many of us were perhaps involved in "decisional evangelism" using confrontational methods like door knocking and street witnessing where the goal was to see folks pray the "sinner's prayer" and then invite them to Bible Study/Church. Often these efforts were frustrating because we did not understand or acknowledge the role the Holy Spirit plays in regenerating someone *before* they can exercise repentance and faith. Thus the glories of the Reformed faith help us to relax in God's grace, knowing that He alone is the author of salvation and finisher of saving faith.

The bottom line is that Sovereign Grace Election is a pervasive theme in God's Word. However, we don't know who the Elect are; especially those who have not yet professed faith in Christ. In the post-resurrection era, we cannot make any assumptions about who God has elected unto salvation and who He nas not. Therefore, we obey Christ in evangelism, proclaiming the message of the Good News to all people and resting in the Holy Spirit to do the work of regeneration that changes hearts so the gifts of repentance and faith can be received and exercised in the Elect.

[Edited on 8-15-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Athanasius (Aug 24, 2005)

For some rabid Dispensationalist~~Arminian theology:
http://www.faithalone.org/ - holds some interesting articles.

David:
I'd heartily recommend that you John Murray and Ned Stonehouse's paper "The Free Offer of the Gospel". A Limited Atonement does not say that we cannot freely offer the gospel to all, absolutely unencumbered. I think reading this may help with some of the problems you are experiencing:

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Free_Offer.html


----------

