# A Conversation Between a Calvinist and an Arminian



## Ivan (Jul 22, 2007)

At _DesiringGod.com_ Piper writes an article on Charles Simeon. In that article is a converation between the young Simeon and the elderly Wesley. What do you think of this?



> 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.*
> 
> ...


----------



## turmeric (Jul 22, 2007)

That's been quoted a lot. This is why I have a hard time with people saying Arminians are not Christians. Some Armininans arent Christians, however. They are relying on their own efforts for salvation.


----------



## Ivan (Jul 22, 2007)

I believe there is a story told of Whitefield. He was asked if he thought he would see Wesley in heaven. Whitefield said, "No. John will be in the front and I'll be way in the back." Or something to that effect.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 23, 2007)

turmeric said:


> That's been quoted a lot. This is why I have a hard time with people saying Arminians are not Christians. Some Armininans arent Christians, however. They are relying on their own efforts for salvation.



Indeed... what i don't get concerning this dialog is why Wesley taught what he taught, then. If this is indeed a true expression of Wesley's beliefs, then why did he teach what he did? I'm not doubting that he really did believe these things - most Arminians are truly Calvinists when on their knees (in prayer and in particular when praying for their own or their loved ones' salvation). It's just mysterious that one could actually believe the things expressed in that dialog and yet teach the ineffectuality of grace, the ability to lose true salvation, and the universality of the atonement.


----------



## Blue Tick (Jul 23, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Indeed... what i don't get concerning this dialog is why Wesley taught what he taught, then. If this is indeed a true expression of Wesley's beliefs, then why did he teach what he did? I'm not doubting that he really did believe these things - most Arminians are truly Calvinists when on their knees (in prayer and in particular when praying for their own or their loved ones' salvation). It's just mysterious that one could actually believe the things expressed in that dialog and yet teach the ineffectuality of grace, the ability to lose true salvation, and the universality of the atonement.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Jul 23, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Indeed... what i don't get concerning this dialog is why Wesley taught what he taught, then. If this is indeed a true expression of Wesley's beliefs, then why did he teach what he did? I'm not doubting that he really did believe these things - most Arminians are truly Calvinists when on their knees (in prayer and in particular when praying for their own or their loved ones' salvation). It's just mysterious that one could actually believe the things expressed in that dialog and yet teach the ineffectuality of grace, the ability to lose true salvation, and the universality of the atonement.



Maybe because the "Yes" is not a "Yes" without exception? 
And of course we can all be inconsistant...


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 23, 2007)

As a former Wesleyan I'll try and elaborate if I can.

*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. _But there are those who know the truth, hear it within their spirits, yet reject it. I've seen people grip the back of their pew in a revival service to keep from going to the alter! They hear the truth, know it, yet reject it._

*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, _but the bible teaches us that we will show fruit! That we will not remain in our sin, that we will know one another by our actions and attitudes!_

*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._But sir, understand that others should be able to see that. Know that we are not "upheld by God" yet go on acting as if we are supported by the world!_

*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._ However, the word tells us that a dog may return to His vomit rejecting what he once believed._

There, does that help at all? That's how I would have answered just a few years ago.


----------



## tellville (Jul 23, 2007)

Ivan said:


> I believe there is a story told of Whitefield. He was asked if he thought he would see Wesley in heaven. Whitefield said, "No. John will be in the front and I'll be way in the back." Or something to that effect.



I was always under the impression that Wesley said that about Calvin. But I could be wrong.


----------



## thekingsknight (Jul 23, 2007)

tellville said:


> I was always under the impression that Wesley said that about Calvin. But I could be wrong.




"Do you think we shall see John Wesley in heaven?" an over-aggressive Calvinist had inquired of George Whitefield years earlier (Wesley outlived Whitefield). "I fear not," replied the fellow evangelist, musing about his long-time friend. "No!-he will be so near the throne, and we at such a distance, that we shall hardly get a sight of him."


----------



## Ivan (Jul 23, 2007)

thekingsknight said:


> "Do you think we shall see John Wesley in heaven?" an over-aggressive Calvinist had inquired of George Whitefield years earlier (Wesley outlived Whitefield). "I fear not," replied the fellow evangelist, musing about his long-time friend. "No!-he will be so near the throne, and we at such a distance, that we shall hardly get a sight of him."



Ted, thank you for a more precise recollection of the illustration.

I'll be SO far back that I'll see neither gentlemen.


----------



## thekingsknight (Jul 23, 2007)

Ivan said:


> I'll be SO far back that I'll see neither gentlemen.


Side by side!


----------



## x.spasitel (Jul 25, 2007)

As a friend of mine used to say -- "Praise God for inconsistent Arminians!"


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 25, 2007)

x.spasitel said:


> As a friend of mine used to say -- "Praise God for inconsistent Arminians!"




Agreed! 

As my Pastor told me, Arminians are saved by their inconsistency.


----------



## Israelite (Aug 28, 2007)

*The heretic John Wesley's Hatred of Unconditional Election and Reprobation*

But if this be so, then is all preaching vain. It is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. … This, then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself. A Second is, that it directly tends to destroy holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God. … the doctrine itself, - that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, - has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it 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 fear of hell. … This doctrine tends to destroy the comfort of religion, the happiness of Christianity. … How 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! … This uncomfortable doctrine directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works. … this doctrine not only tends to destroy Christian holiness, happiness, and good works, but hath also a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation. … For supposing the eternal unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must be saved, though the Christian Revelation were not in being, and the other part of mankind must be damned, notwithstanding that Revelation. And what would an infidel desire more? … it is a doctrine full of blasphemy … this doctrine represents our blessed Lord, “Jesus Christ the righteous, “the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth,” as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied, that he everywhere speaks as if he was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say he was not willing that all men should be saved, is to represent him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler. It cannot be denied that the gracious words which came out of his mouth are full of invitations to all sinners. To say, then, he did not intend to save all sinners, is to represent him as a gross deceiver of the people. … You represent him as mocking his helpless creatures, by offering what he never intends to give. You describe him as saying one thing, and meaning another; as pretending a love which he had not. … 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. … 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. … This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination … Sing, O hell, and rejoice, ye that are under the earth! For God, even the mighty God, hath spoken, and devoted to death thousands of souls, from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof! Here, O death, is thy sting! They shall not, cannot escape; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Here, O grave, is thy victory! Nations yet unborn, or ever they have done good or evil, are doomed never to see the light of life, but thou shalt gnaw on them for ever and ever! (7:376-384)

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. (8:336)

The observing these melancholy examples day by day, this dreadful havoc which the devil makes of souls, especially of those who had begun to run well, by means of this anti-scriptural doctrine, constrains me to oppose it from the same principle whereon I labour to save souls from destruction. Nor is it sufficient to ask, Are there not also many who wrest the opposite doctrine to their own destruction? If there are, that is nothing to the point in question; for that is not the case here. Here is no wresting at all: The doctrine of absolute predestination naturally leads to the chambers of death. (10:257-258)

I apprehend, then, this is no fallacious objection, but a solid and weighty one; and defy any man living, who asserts the unconditional decree of reprobation or preterition, (just the same in effect,) to reconcile this with the scriptural doctrine of a future judgment. I say again, I defy any man on earth to show, how, on this scheme, God can “judge the world in righteousness.” (10:374)

I do not believe (what is only preterition or reprobation in other words) any such absolute election, as implies that all but the absolutely elect shall inevitably be damned. I do not believe the doctrine of irresistible grace, or of infallible perseverance; because both the one and the other implies that election which cannot stand without preterition or reprobation. I do not believe salvation by works. Yet if any man can prove (what I judge none ever did, or ever will) that there is no medium between this and absolute predestination; I will rather subscribe to this than to that, as far less absurd of the two. (10:379)

If the salvation of every man that ever was, is, or shall be, finally saved, depends wholly and solely upon an absolute, irresistible, unchangeable decree of God, without any regard either to faith or works foreseen, then it is not, in any sense, by works. (11: 494)

But if such a Minister should at any time deliberately, and of set purpose, endeavour to establish absolute predestination, or to confute scriptural perfection; then I advise all the Methodists in the congregation quietly to go away. (13:246)

Speaking Peace to Heretics and Other God-Haters

Men may differ from us in their opinions, as well as their expressions, and nevertheless be partakers with us of the same precious faith. It is possible they may not have a distinct apprehension of the very blessing which they enjoy: Their ideas may not be so clear, and yet their experience may be as sound, as ours. … But still, though their opinions, as well as expressions, may be confused and inaccurate, their hearts may cleave to God through the Son of his love, and be truly interested in his righteousness. … And who that knows it can expect, suppose, a member of the Church of Rome, either to think or speak clearly on this subject? And yet, if we heard even dying Bellarmine cry out, - when he was asked, “Unto which of the saints wilt thou turn?” - Fidere meritis Christi tutissimum; “It is safest to trust in the merits of Christ;” would we have affirmed that, notwithstanding his wrong opinions, he had no share in His righteousness? … With these we may rank even in the Reformed Churches, who are usually termed Mystics. One of the chief of these, in the present century, (at least in England,) was Mr. Law. It is well known that he absolutely and zealously denied the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as zealously as Robert Barclay, who scruples not to say, “Imputed righteousness! - imputed nonsense!” The body of the people known by the name of Quakers espouse the same sentiment. Nay, the generality of those who profess themselves members of the Church of England are either totally ignorant of the matter, and know nothing about imputed righteousness, or deny this and justification by faith together, as destructive of good works. To these we may add a considerable number of the people vulgarly styled Anabaptists, together with thousands of Presbyterians and Independents, lately enlightened by the writings of Dr. Taylor. … But will any one dare to affirm that all Mystics (such as Mr. Law in particular,) all Quakers, all Presbyterians or Independents, and all members of the Church of England who are not clear in their opinions and expressions, are void of all Christian experience? - that, consequently, they are all in a state of damnation, “without hope, without God in the world?” However confused their ideas may be, however improper their language, may there not be many of them whose heart is right toward God, and who effectually know “the Lord our righteousness?” (5:238-243)

“If you consider this, you cannot but see in what sense men may now also cast out devils. Yea, and every Minister of Christ does cast them out, if his Lord’s work prosper in his hand. By the power of God attending his word, he brings these sinners to repentance; an entire inward as well as outward change, from all evil to all good. .. But shall we not forbid one who thus “casteth out devils,” if “he followeth not us?” … Suppose, then, a man have no intercourse with us, suppose he be not of our part, suppose he separate from our Church, yea, and widely differ from us, both in judgment, practice, and affection; yet if we see even this man “casting out devils,” Jesus saith, “Forbid him not.” … “But what is a sufficient, reasonable proof, that a man does (in the sense above) cast out devils?” The answer is easy. Is there full proof, (1.) That a person before us was a gross, open sinner? (2.) That he is not so now? that he has broke off his sins, and lives a Christian life? And, (3.) That this change was wrought by his hearing this man preach? If these three points be plain and undeniable, then you have sufficient, reasonable proof, such as you cannot resist without wilful sin, that this man casts out devils. … What if I were to see a Papist, an Arian, a Socinian, casting out devils? If I did, I could not forbid even him, without convicting myself of bigotry. Yea, if it could be supposed that I should see a Jew, a Deist, or a Turk, doing the same, were I to forbid him either directly or indirectly, I should be no better than a bigot still. … In every instance of this kind, whatever the instrument be, acknowledge the finger of God. And not only acknowledge, but rejoice in his work, and praise his name with thanksgiving. Encourage whomsoever God is pleased to employ, to give himself wholly up thereto. Speak well of him wheresoever you are; defend his character and mission. (5:483-491)

Persons may be quite right in their opinions, and yet have no religion at all; and, on the other hand, persons may be truly religious, who hold many wrong opinions. 
Can any one possibly doubt this, while there are Romanists in the world? 
For who can deny, not only that many of them formerly have been truly religious, as Thomas à Kempis, Gregory Lopez, and the Marquis de Renty; but that many of them, even at this day, are real inward Christians? (6:199)

I have often doubted, whether these were not the very persons whom the rich and honourable Christians, who will always have number as well as power on their side, did not stigmatize, from time to time, with the title of heretics. … Nay, I have doubted whether that arch-heretic, Montanus, was not one of the holiest men in the second century. Yea, I would not affirm, that the arch-heretic of the fifth century, (as plentifully as he has been bespattered for many ages,) was not one of the holiest men of that age, not excepting St. Augustine himself. … I verily believe, the real heresy of Pelagius was neither more or less than this: The holding that Christians may, by the grace of God (not without it; that I take to be a mere slander,) “go on to perfection;” or, in other words, “fulfil the law of Christ.” (6:328)

… nor do I conceive that any man living has a right to sentence all the heathen and Mahometan world to damnation. It is far better to leave them to Him that made them, and who is “the Father of the spirits of all flesh;” who is the God of the Heathens as well as the Christians, and who hateth nothing that he hath made. … I believe the merciful God regards the lives and tempers of men more than their ideas. I believe he respects the goodness of the heart, rather than the clearness of the head; and that if the heart of a man be filled (by the grace of God, and the power of his Spirit) with the humble, gentle, patient love of God and man, God will not cast him into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, because his ideas are not clear, or because his conceptions are confused. “Without holiness,” I own, “no man shall see the Lord;” but I dare not add, “or clear ideas.” (7:353-354)

Whether they embrace this religious opinion or that, is no more concern to me, than whether they embrace this or that system of astronomy. Are they brought to holy tempers and holy lives? This is mine, and should be your inquiry; since on this, both social and personal happiness depend, happiness temporal and eternal. (8:246)

[A letter to a Roman Catholic] I think you deserve the tenderest regard I can show, … were it only because the Son of God has bought you and me with his own blood. How much more if you are a person fearing God, (as without question many of you are,) and studying to have a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man? … I believe that he was … born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. … My dear friend, consider, I am not persuading you to leave or change your religion, but to follow after that fear and love of God without which all religion is vain. I say not a word to you about your opinions or outward manner of worship. … Be your form of worship what it will, but in everything give him thanks; else it is all but lost labour. Use whatever outward observances you please, but put your whole trust in him; but honor his holy name and his word, and serve him truly all the days of your life. Are we not thus far agreed? Let us thank God for this, and receive it as a fresh token of his love. … Let the points wherein we differ stand aside; here are enough wherein we agree, enough to be the ground of every Christian temper, and of every Christian action. O brethren, let us not still fall out by the way! I hope to see you in heaven. … O let you and I (whatever others do) press on to the prize of our high calling! that, being justified by faith, we may have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; that we may rejoice in God through Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the atonement; that the love of God may be shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given to us. (10:80-86)

As is obvious from the above quotes, John Wesley clearly put sweet for bitter and bitter for sweet; he clearly hated the truth and loved the lie. There was no subtle heresy with Wesley. He made no attempt to hide his wicked views. Truly, this wolf was not even clothed as a sheep. He was indeed a man with a consistent theology that was utterly Satanic. This is a very solemn matter, and it is made the more solemn when we realize that there were plenty of lost “Calvinists” right there with Wesley to make him feel comfortable in his Satanism. And there continue to be a host of lost “Calvinists” today who know what he believed and yet call him a Christian, showing that they do not believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned solely on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ.

part of an article taken from http://testallthings.wordpress.com/2007/04/08/naked-unashamed-john-wesley-exposes-himself/ 

also see:

http://testallthings.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/john-wesley-on-john-wesley/ 

http://testallthings.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/john-wesley-the-false-apostle-of-free-will/


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 28, 2007)

This


> And there continue to be a host of lost “Calvinists” today who know what he believed and yet call him a Christian, showing that they do not believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned solely on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ.


from the end of the article, is pretty reprehensible. Perhaps Wesly has a lot to answer for at the bar of heaven. Perhaps he will be one of those God judges as one who "preach[ed] Christ from envy and rivalry." But, "to his own master he either standeth or falls." I didn't see Paul pulling out the heavy artillery against those men he assessed in Philippians 1. No, he simply rejoiced, and kept his distaste for what might have been soul-rotting error out of it. He couldn't read hearts, and if the Spirit-inspired apostle couldn't, then how much less we who are removed from JW by a space of 2.5 centuries?

Condemn the doctrine, condemn the errors, but please, the man had the admiration of the most emminent Christians and Calvinists of his day, for _piety_ and _devotion_. How ridiculous to think we better at judging the man than his contemporaries. I certainly don't recommend becoming Weslyan, or Methodist. "Stay away," I say, "you can do far better, and safer, for guides." Let his blindness be, and to all I say: watch out which measuring rod you are using.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 29, 2007)

According to J.I. Packer we must distinguish between rationalistic Arminianism (the Dutch variety) and evangelical Armininianism (the Wesleyan variety).

The famous Conference minutes certainly indicate that there was some instability in Wesley's/the Methodist position on this matter: at one point, though I don't have the reference with me, Wesley stated he had no problem with saying that all the elect would infallibly be saved; but he didn't see why he had to say that only the elect would be saved. As Packer says, under the surface clearness, there was quite a lot of muddle in his mind. But he did definitely move away from rationalistic Arminianism; and I think his funeral sermon for Whitefield would find wide approval from most evangelical Calvinists.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 29, 2007)

py3ak said:


> I think his funeral sermon for Whitefield would find wide approval from most evangelical Calvinists.



Link?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 29, 2007)

Try here. 

Although I must say, this seems shorter than I remember.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 29, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Try here.
> 
> Although I must say, this seems shorter than I remember.



Thank you, Ruben.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 29, 2007)

Even though they never came to terms over their theological differences, they eventually learned to respect each other. One of Whitfield’s followers (who obviously still held great animosity against Wesley) said to Whitfield, "We won’t see John Wesley in the heaven, will we?" Whitfield humbly replied "Yes, you’re right, we won’t see him in heaven. He will be so close to the Throne of God and we will be so far away, that we won’t be able to see him!”


----------



## Ivan (Aug 29, 2007)

puritancovenanter said:


> Even though they never came to terms over their theological differences, they eventually learned to respect each other. One of Whitfield’s followers (who obviously still held great animosity against Wesley) said to Whitfield, "We won’t see John Wesley in the heaven, will we?" Whitfield humbly replied "Yes, you’re right, we won’t see him in heaven. He will be so close to the Throne of God and we will be so far away, that we won’t be able to see him!”



I love that story.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 14, 2007)

Ivan said:


> thekingsknight said:
> 
> 
> > "Do you think we shall see John Wesley in heaven?" an over-aggressive Calvinist had inquired of George Whitefield years earlier (Wesley outlived Whitefield). "I fear not," replied the fellow evangelist, musing about his long-time friend. "No!-he will be so near the throne, and we at such a distance, that we shall hardly get a sight of him."
> ...



No matter what, you can be assured the Baptists will sit in the back.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 14, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > thekingsknight said:
> ...





Gotta love those "Backrow Baptists!"


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 14, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > thekingsknight said:
> ...



Yeah, I am a Backseat Baptist also.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 14, 2007)

When I was a boy I always sat in the back row. Now I'm the pastor and I *have* to sit in the front!


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 15, 2007)

My advice, read Toplady's dealing with Wesley....that "old fox"


----------

