John Wesley a confused calvinist?
- Thread starter Redness
- Start date
- Status
You're a Baptist aren't you?
Oh, ...nothing. Do you follow the regulative principle?
Joseph Scibbe
Puritan Board Junior
Stay on topic. We can discuss this in Private Messages.
---------- Post added at 11:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 AM ----------
I apologize. I misread the title to say Charles Wesley. I will take my posts down.
Stay on topic. We can discuss this in Private Messages.
---------- Post added at 11:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 AM ----------
I apologize. I misread the title to say Charles Wesley. I will take my posts down.[/QUOTE]
My goodness! what makes you think I can't relate your observence of the regulative principle to the topic at hand?
FenderPriest
Puritan Board Junior
Reading Dalimore's biography on George Whitefield would cure any sense that Wesley was a "confused Calvinist".
Good. I read John Wesley (particularly his sermon entitled "Free Grace") and know he's no confused Calvinist.
Here's a highlight:
25. Such blasphemy this, as one would think might make the ears of a Christian to tingle! But there is yet more behind; for just as it honours the Son, so doth this doctrine honour the Father. It destroys all his attributes at once: It overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. More false; because the devil, liar as he is, hath never said, "He willeth all men to be saved:" More unjust; because the devil cannot, if he would, be guilty of such injustice as you ascribe to God, when you say that God condemned millions of souls to everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, for continuing in sin, which, for want of that grace he will not give them, they cannot avoid: And more cruel; because that unhappy spirit "seeketh rest and findeth none;" so that his own restless misery is a kind of temptation to him to tempt others. But God resteth in his high and holy place; so that to suppose him, of his own mere motion, of his pure will and pleasure, happy as he is, to doom his creatures, whether they will or no, to endless misery, is to impute such cruelty to him as we cannot impute even to the great enemy of God and man. It is to represent the high God (he that hath ears to hear let him hear!) as more cruel, false, and unjust than the devil!
26. This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree+ of predestination! And here I fix my foot. On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. But you say you will prove it by scripture. Hold! What will you prove by Scripture that God is worse than the devil I cannot be. Whatever that Scripture proves, it never an prove this; whatever its true meaning be. This cannot be its true meaning. Do you ask, "What is its true meaning then" If I say, " I know not," you have gained nothing; for there are many scriptures the true sense whereof neither you nor I shall know till death is swallowed up in victory. But this I know, better it were to say it had no sense, than to say it had such a sense as this. It cannot mean, whatever it mean besides, that the God of truth is a liar. Let it mean what it will it cannot mean that the Judge of all the world is unjust. No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works; that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove predestination.
27. This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination, a doctrine, upon the supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a moment, (call it election, reprobation, or what you please, for all comes to the same thing,) one might say to our adversary, the devil, "Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that he doeth it much more effectually Thou, with all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that we may resist thee; but He can irresistibly destroy both body and soul in hell! Thou canst only entice; but his unchangeable decrees, to leave thousands of souls in death, compels them to continue in sin, till they drop into everlasting burnings. Thou temptest; He forceth us to be damned; for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool, why goest thou about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion, the destroyer of souls, the murderer of men" Moloch caused only children to pass though the fire: and that fire was soon quenched; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end; but God, thou are told, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes, not only children of a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire of hell, the 'fire which never shall be quenched; and the body which is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, will be ever consuming and never consumed, but 'the smoke of their torment,' because it is God's good pleasure, 'ascendeth up for ever and ever.'"
There's more, you may read for yourself here: The Wesley Center Online: Sermon 128 - Free Grace.
However, whenever I pointed this out to these men they either ran from me, excused it or said the following nonsense: Well, Spurgeon and Whitefield thought well of him and so will I.
FenderPriest
Puritan Board Junior
Well, one can think well of a fellow Christian without imputing Calvinism into their doctrine when it's clearly not there.
I don't get you. Please explain.
Joseph Scibbe
Puritan Board Junior
He is saying you can enjoy and read a Christian even if they are not a Calvinist.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
John Wesley was a confused Arminianist whose proliferation of that error (yea even bringing into the mainstream) In my humble opinion outweighs any good he might have done.
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Because the thread is about John Wesley and not a thread to rip into one's view of worship. John Wesley is on trial, not Joseph.
Puritan Scot
Puritan Board Freshman
So, you then don't think I'm talented enough to link the two?
What if a reformed person believes in singing man-made hymns in the church for worship and believes it is indeed God-glorifying to sing a Wesley song in the church? Now John Wesley didn't write the hymns, but his brother did, however his brother did so for John's "ministry" and independently for his followers. Their ministry sought to destroy Calvinism. That means they labored to destroy the truth about salvation. I would ask, is singing such a man's song pleasing to God. Do we not therefore exalt the man (the whole problem with hymnody)? I would not call such people (the Wesley's) Christian and I marvel that others would.
Charles Wesley's Poem:
Oh Horrible Decree
Worthy of whence it came!
Forgive their hellish blasphemy
Who Charge it on the Lamb.
The righteous God consigned
Them over to their doom,
And sent the Savior of mankind
To damn them from the womb;
To damn for falling short
Of what they could not do
For not believing the report
Of that which was not true.
Redness: Is it right, as God's people, to exalt such men and excuse their blasphemy by trying to say they were but confused? I pose the question not to condemn, but to understand the thinking of my brethern. Is it impious to ask or challenge one another? Why are you seeking to limit the conversation to such tight perameters, that questions may not be asked for clarification sake?
I've been accused of "baiting," if my questions are uncomfortable, why are you (the generic you) uncomfortable? Is not this a forum where we may discuss and challenge the opinions of others? If not, I've certainly come to the wrong place.
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
You may think you are arrogant enough to do so, but proper thread etiquette is to stay on topic.
We are not limiting the questions. You asked a very specific question and the thread is designed to answer that one. If you have questions on a different topic, then start a new thread.
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
I second this recommendation. I'm currently reading the book in question, and the first chapter has revealed that there's been a lot of misrepresentation concerning both Whitefield and Wesley (mostly to the advance of Wesley).
Kim G
Puritan Board Junior
@ Redness,
Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of a forum. There are many debates on the PuritanBoard regarding the regulative principle of worship, hymn-versus-exclusive psalmody, etc. But in a forum, to be polite, we only deal with the direct question of the original poster. If additional questions or related topics come up, it's best to start a new thread for those who are interested in that debate. This thread is talking about John Wesley's calvinism or lack thereof. It is not a thread about Joseph Scibbe's views of worship. If you think the two are linked, it is best to start a new thread about it.
As a side note, as a sister-in-Christ to a brother-in-Christ, many of your posts come across as someone angry, proud, and ready to bash other brothers and sisters in Christ because they view things differently than you do. I trust that you are a humble and considerate person in real life, but it's so hard to read proper tones online that it behooves all of us to say what we believe with a tone of humility and brotherly love. We are all willing to listen and debate if we believe that at the end of the day, we are still friends in Christ.
Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of a forum. There are many debates on the PuritanBoard regarding the regulative principle of worship, hymn-versus-exclusive psalmody, etc. But in a forum, to be polite, we only deal with the direct question of the original poster. If additional questions or related topics come up, it's best to start a new thread for those who are interested in that debate. This thread is talking about John Wesley's calvinism or lack thereof. It is not a thread about Joseph Scibbe's views of worship. If you think the two are linked, it is best to start a new thread about it.
As a side note, as a sister-in-Christ to a brother-in-Christ, many of your posts come across as someone angry, proud, and ready to bash other brothers and sisters in Christ because they view things differently than you do. I trust that you are a humble and considerate person in real life, but it's so hard to read proper tones online that it behooves all of us to say what we believe with a tone of humility and brotherly love. We are all willing to listen and debate if we believe that at the end of the day, we are still friends in Christ.
FenderPriest
Puritan Board Junior
You're thinking of a conversation between Charles Simeon and John Wesley. It can be found here. The thing to remember here is that John Wesley did preach free grace and the Gospel, and in comparison to many general Arminians and Wesleyans, he had a firmer grasp of the doctrine of grace that would appear in today's eyes as being Calvinistic. This was, I think, simply due to his deep understanding of the Gospel truths and his love for Christ. He wasn't a Calvinist, but he was certainly clearer on the Gospel than many Arminian preachers today, and thus looks like a Calvinist in a certain light, but that's just simply not the case.If you know Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (I think it's there) he has an interesting account of a dialogue between Wesley and a Calvinist...I forget who and I haven't got the book here, so this post may not be all that helpful
Wesley was confused, and said many contradictory things. I think people sometimes hesitate to call him confused because he seems so clear and positive in his statements; but Coleridge quotes someone about how Wesley's vigorous mind always substituted its own conception for whatever was presented to him.
In forming an estimate of the man, therefore, it is not sufficient to look at one statement only. If you only read him saying that he agreed that all the elect would infallibly be saved, but wondering on what grounds it could be asserted that only the elect could be saved, you would get one impression: an impression possibly contradicted by his Arminian magazine. Personally, in my limited reading, I think you see Wesley at his best in his funeral sermon for George Whitefield.
In forming an estimate of the man, therefore, it is not sufficient to look at one statement only. If you only read him saying that he agreed that all the elect would infallibly be saved, but wondering on what grounds it could be asserted that only the elect could be saved, you would get one impression: an impression possibly contradicted by his Arminian magazine. Personally, in my limited reading, I think you see Wesley at his best in his funeral sermon for George Whitefield.
I thank you for your tone, as one sister to another. Being direct, for some reason, is equated with being rude. It should be assumed that I'm not attacking but asking or stating. I also don't see opening a thousand threads to discuss something that may be a related aside. Is that a rule?
Btw, the "free" grace of John Wesley was free, prevenient grace not grace as a Calvinist would know it. Prevenient grace is an universal restorative act of the nature of man from totally depraved to freewill. It is a fiction popularized by Wesley. Wesley not only demanded that man must have free-will for God to be fair, good and loving, but that man must exercise that freewill to remain saved.
Understanding prevenient grace the grace of John Wesley:Universal prevenient grace - Religion-wiki
FenderPriest
Puritan Board Junior
Wesley did indeed teach prevenient grace, but it's not accurate to say he didn't preach free grace. Iain Murray's work on Wesley (and Whitefield) in Evangelicalism Divided helpfully points out that Wesley wasn't a Calvinist, but he still preached the free grace of the Gospel clearly and faithfully.
Respectfully, do you have a quote?
Zenas
Snow Miser
You're not merely direct, but you seem to include comments with your posts that strike me as backhanded. Case in point:
Either you're intentionally being backhanded, or you're merely unfamiliar with etiquette and how things you say are perceived. I tend to think the former. You are perceived as rude by many folks. I know what arrogant looks like because I am arrogant. Your posts and your jabs are exactly something that I would say or do to get one over on someone else.
That said, I'll say this:
Calm down. There's no reason to be defensive. There's no reason to constantly be on guard to the point that you feel the need to size everyone else up. Discuss to learn. Don't endlessly debate and create contention. Be direct, but be charitable and afford others more honor than you would ask for yourself. Anyone on here is your opponent only in a most limited and nuanced sense. In other words, you agree on the majority of things with everyone else on here. There's no reason to be so combative.
Fantastic!! I think I wanna know BlueRidge!
---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------
See, this is what I mean, how can THAT be perceived as other than calm? I'm asking a question. This is silly and I think there is something wrong with the site's ...culture. I'm through.
Zenas
Snow Miser
Why is it always everyone else's fault? You're not being rude, we're reading you wrong. You're behaving fine. The culture on this website is just wrong.
Take some responsibility for yourself and your actions. Several people aren't crazy because they read you as arrogant. You come off so, even if you don't intend to be. That's a problem with you, not them.
Take some responsibility for yourself and your actions. Several people aren't crazy because they read you as arrogant. You come off so, even if you don't intend to be. That's a problem with you, not them.
Joseph Scibbe
Puritan Board Junior
I think the problem with much of the Reformed community is that we lack grace to many non-Reformed Christians. John and Charles Wesley were both used of God, despite their faulty doctrine, to bring the Kingdom. For that we should be glad. Whether he was a "confused calvinist" could be argued about for ages. No doubt there is some "overlap" between his theology and calvinistic theology and sometimes he may be perceived as "confused". If he perhaps was then let us praise God for a gradual reformation of his thought to more solid theology. If not then let us praise God for the work he did for the Church.
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
RE: Grace extended to Arminians.
We could take a clue from a sold out Calvinist, Whitefield. When Wesley was openly and publicly running Whitefield in the ground, it was very ugly. Whitefield was asked if the thought he would see Wesley in heaven. Whitefield answered that he did not think so. He then went on to state that he thought that Wesley would be so close to Christ that he in the outer fringes of the host of heaven would not be able to see him for the glory of Christ.
We could take a clue from a sold out Calvinist, Whitefield. When Wesley was openly and publicly running Whitefield in the ground, it was very ugly. Whitefield was asked if the thought he would see Wesley in heaven. Whitefield answered that he did not think so. He then went on to state that he thought that Wesley would be so close to Christ that he in the outer fringes of the host of heaven would not be able to see him for the glory of Christ.
- Status
